Phenom Exposed! Shipping with flaky 3rd cores.

Page 10 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar


There has only been a stop ship on the Barcelona based Opterons that were supposed to go to retailers and channel partners. Other things such as super computer builders have been getting 10s of thousands of Barcelona and Agena base quad cores, regardless of the TLB errata.

The phenoms seem to sell halfway decently on sites like Newegg, and other etailers, regardless of what some intel fanatics may lead you to believe, not to mention whatever Phenoms some OEM companies are using.
 
Its nice to see that this forum post was quoted in the latest THG article. I have yet to see any actual denials posted by AMD... if there are any could anyone please post a link or two??
 


I have yet to see AMD state anything about this. Nothing, zip, nada, ziltch.

Funny thing about this endyen guy is that I think that your first chip wouldn't run at the stock 2.3GHz stable.

Upon installing the Phenom in my system, it booted up fine without a problem. I have not OC'd the chip at all at this point, simply running it at stock settings. Once it booted into Vista, I played around with it for a bit with no issues. I then decided to do the first real test, which was to see what the Vista rating on the processor was. I clicked on the "refresh my score" link... and the testing began. During the test I got my first BSOD. The details read...

"A clock interrupt was not received on a secondary processor within an allocated time. Error 0x101"

I rebooted the system and tried again. This time the rating completed without a hitch and showed a glowing 5.9 rating for the processor. About 20 minutes later, the same error happened again.

This happens at stock speed. Any attempts to overclock either results in the BSOD or Vista wont finish booting at all.
Click to expand...

So it is that some chips are defective. Even if it was a QA problem they were labled as quad cores that were certified by AMD to work at 2.3GHz all 4 cores, not just three. But for some strange reason their QA missed it.

What does this all mean for enthusiasts? Well first off the Phenom has no OC guarantee. Neither does the C2Q6600 but most can be OC'ed to 3GHz on air easily. So for enthusiasts it means Phenom, for now, is not the best choice. For those who got one that gives them the bad core2 it means they paid quad prices for a tri core. Thus got ripped off and should either RMA them once B3 is out(if able to) or AMD should bite the bullet and replace them.
 


I never said all Phenom's have the bad logical core 2, only that some with bad cores got past QA. I really can't see AMD disabling a good core just for a market that didn't exist until they announced the triple cores. As far as it goes, I'm enthusiastic enough after reading Tom's preview to get a triple core B3 when retail arrives for the 690G board my wife's using and get one for a new 780G board to replace the budget Athlon X2 and 690V in my signature.

I can't see getting Shanghai in the fall if AM3 is less than 6 months later. Tom's preview of Toliman's scaling looks good to me. As for the bad core 2, Tom's has this to say:

A lot of discussion has been going on in popular forums regarding a possible bug in core 2 (the third) of the Phenom processor, causing Windows blue screens even at stock speeds. The topic can be found in our forums as well as other such as Xtreme Systems, and even on AMD's forum on the company website. There are more resources on the web, including AMD statements denying knowledge of a possible malfunction.

We've used three different Phenom processors in our labs, and none of them have been really good overclockers. We've had motherboard compatibility issues, but we weren't able to trace the described issues back directly to an individual core. And to me it doesn't really matter much anymore. It's really important for AMD to get its homework done right this time, and to present the highly anticipated B3 stepping, which is expected to fix the bugs and also introduce faster clock speeds. Nothing else will help to rebuild the trust that has been lost.
Click to expand...
http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/02/28/a_first_look_at_amd_triple_core_phenom/page2.html

So, I think the "bad core" is such a rare issue that it may not exist anymore than the "bad sensor" on the Wolfies. Much fanboy FUD can be disseminated on boards over one or two overclockers running into issues.



Jimmy, what would you do without Intel's spin on SOI? I've been reading up on what's going on with that and IBM's SOI for 45nm is supposedly different than the one that Intel ditched for HK/MG.

At any rate, AMD will have IBM HK tech for their later Shanghai's and we'll see what that leads to. My secret knowledge is that it will be so radical that it will blow away all the FUD disseminated by meatbags on message boards. Nehalem will "only" have HK/MG, but AMD has found a secret design from a galaxy a long time ago and far away. Here's the source of AMD's upcoming HK tech meatbag, so eat your heart out. :kaola:

HK-47.jpg


Just how will Intel compete against the HK-47? They'd need to get a T2 or something, but can they risk Skynet?
 


Yeah, I'm thinking that if the 3rd core is flawed, it's probably a run of B2s that had this problem during the lithography process, and they didn't catch that early enough, had them available as a quad core. Then they may have figured out the problem, and then disable it and turn it into a Phenom 8000 series.

Before I turn up the fanboyism, I would say that if they do knowingly sell bad quad cores, shame on them, and they should recall them if they want to salvage their reputation. It is a rather deceptive practice.

However, I don't think they're hiding behind the TLB bug. The TLB and "core 2 flaw" _is_ independent, and the BIOS fix (turning off the TLB) would not fix the core 2. People who can't run their Phenom 9000 series should RMA the chip. Whether they would cop to a problem... I don't know. IIRC Intel didn't really cop to the FDIV problem until publicly disclosed anyways, so if they don't cop to it until proven, well they would be doing no worse than Intel.

Now, I think that even the core 2 problem, requiring a downclock, isn't exactly a show breaker. I can hear the Intel fanboy sharpening knives now, but hear me out. With the latest Tom's article on what the Phenom 8000 series could be, there are plenty of benchmarks where the 3 core and 4 core scores are indistinguishable, or at least statistically insignificant. Majority of games aren't optimized beyond 2 cores anyways. This will only manifest as a problem when you use a properly multi-threaded app, and it's pegging all 4 cores.

Secondly, the core is downclocked, not knocked out. This means that the cores are performing differently, and there are ongoing research on heterogeneous systems, where the cores perform differently (mind you "real" heterogeneous systems tend to perform differently due to different functional unit, etc etc). So, a scheduler could use the performance counters of the CPU, find out whichever process that's memory bound and stick that process on the slow core. These processes will not suffer significantly because they tend to wait on memory anyway.

I know, cause I'm doing the graduate course on this type of research, and using a Phenom 9600 BE for simulating heterogeneous systems. When I'm done with it though, I'll probably tinker around with AOD to see whether this is the case.
 
yipsl, I am not just basing my thoughts of SOI @ 45nm on Intels spin, although if they were once going for it but saw there was no way for it to work better than HK/MG, I also have taken many tech classes based on semiconductor plus what turpit has posted is good info.

Hell I could ask the head of my local colleges tech dept. He could answer it easily considering he holds the patent on vacuum tube technology. Hes smart,but not a good teacher.

As far as I can tell SOI @ 45nm using the same setup as 65nm will be to thin and have more leakage causing more heat/power usage. They can thicken the areas but if they do that they will also decrease the ability to clock higher.

This is yet to be seen bit if SOI was as great as AMD stated they wouldn't be working with IBM to get a HK/MG process.
 


You're the expert in this field. I know quite a bit about PC's but I'm a hobbyist who works with mainframes in a data center. I know that IBM thought well of SOI a couple of years ago. It's one thing for AMD to go HK/MG at 32nm, but if they're going SOI at 45nm then turning around and redoing a second generation as HK/MG, then that makes me wonder about the first Shanghais.

So far, all we have are rumors. I'll wait and see. I've read somewhere that the SOI implemented by IBM and AMD for Shanghai will differ from the version Intel ditched, so that could very well involve thickening the areas to avoid linkage. plus increasing pipelines for higher clocks. What didn't work on Prescott might work on Phenom. I won't say it's the best route, but it might make Shanghai viable until it's all HK/MG.
 
Yips, Intel never ditched SOI. They looked at it for using it in their processors but passed on it. They maybe manufactured some test wafers but no actual product ever was produced for profit.
 


You cannot compare different cpu voltage requirements for different designed CPUs being made with different processes

 
well when I rma'ed my Phenom and got a replacement I could finnaly hit 3GHz but crashed. I'm currently running at 2.8GHz at 1.2875v. @ 2.9GHz I can run the Phenom at that voltage but core 2 AKA core 3 failed prime95 within the first minute while cores 0,1,&3 where able to go on. I think all Phenoms have a bad third core some are better than others though as with mine. Though my first Phenom core 2 was not the problem it was core 0 and core 2. So I do think even if you can hit 3GHz core 2 aka core 3 has a defect in it.

Oh by the way the evga is my post regaurding this topic.
 
Hi,
I haven't read all the posts here but I do remember having a discussion on this forum about 3 weeks ago regarding the bad cores and the tri-core phenoms that everyone in the industry has been scratching their heads about since they were announced. Now we know why..

I recall TC "technology coordinator" I believe referred to them as "triple cripple" too funny.

So to those who are skeptical of this information, it is a well known issue and this is not rumors or innuendo, I have seen posts from phenom users on the amd forum as early as January with many users reporting the same problems.

Also a previous poster mentioned the phenom difficulty with cool and quiet, which is also well documented. Check out the AMD forums and you will find workarounds for overclocking your phenom B2's, although it is my understanding that it is a major pain in the tuckus and even then not guaranteed to work with every proc.

You're just kidding yourself if u think AMD is putting out triple cripples just because its a cool idea.
 



I might have said that...... 😀

I think selling the processors with the bad cores shut down is good for AMD. However, I agree with others that this product isn't innovative or earth shattering, it's just going to be a cheaper Phenom with a core disabled.

If they clock higher, they'll do better in single threaded apps, that's the only hope I have for the tripple cripple, I mean core.
 


Why do people think the only reason for a triple core is because 1 particular core is probelmatic/shot and this is a way of getting rid of it? surely the first explanantion that would come to mind is that the triples are just a way to make use of chips that don't get through the tests, but it could be any core at random playing up, not always the same one.

"You're just kidding yourself if u think AMD is putting out triple cripples just because its a cool idea." excuse me, but may I ask how do you KNOW that they arn't. Oh wait, it's heresay I forgot.
 
Gosh this thread still chugging along.. hehe..

AMD will come back in approx 2 years time and will be on par with Intel I believe..

 


No, only the lawyers who approved the OEM rebate program. :kaola:

I can forgive MBA's who did. Whenever anything like that is floated in a corporation, the suits go to the lawyers for insight into whether it violates any laws. Intel's lawyers dropped the ball on this one. I bet their memos are a hoot to read.
 
My Phenom runs fine at stock voltage and clocks or how it is now at 2.5GHz (200 X 12.5) at +.05V core. Prime 95 X 4 stable. I have never gotten a BSOD either. I am also running the GIGABYTE GA-MA770-DS3, but I am looking into getting a 790FX for better overclocking my limit on this board has been 2.54 stable.
 
^Dude this is old. Very old. And the original problem did not affect everyone just a few people. It was that the OP got a 9600 and one core would not allow for stable operation at stock clock speeds so he had to down clock it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom