Last message on previous page:
xX12amanXx - Good post!

^Agreed.

Glad i could help...Good Luck!

Thanks xx12,

I got amd overdrive to work. Checked the new bios updates for my Jetway HA04 extreme, and they already put A04 out for it. It is geared for crashes because of the 9850. Updating the bios was a pain in the A$$. Had to do it with a floppy and the jetway didn't come with vista 64bit drivers fort the Awdflash bios program so I had to install those before I could even get the new bios to take. All is well now and I am running on 2.5ghz stock. I tried to over clock all cores up to 209 with the 12.5 X multi and blue screen, with the 2nd processor error. I am working on clocking each core seperate now, and see if it is a bad core.

I wouldn't compare a Multi-Chip Module (Q6600) with a Native Quad Core (Phenom) if I were you.

The Phenom's architecture is far superior to anything Intel has out now.

Intel is good at two things; making more expensive chips and regurgitating the 8086 architecture.

I can't wait to see how expensive their 45nm chip is going to be.

http://img.tomshardware.com/forum/ [...] 1cable.gif


Some people overclocked the Barcelona to 4.7Ghz under liquid cooled environment.
Barcelona like Phenom is Native Quad Core.

I hope you are joking because this post is like playing with matches at a gas station. You can expect to get flamed by the Intel fanboys shortly.

I have a couple of comments myself. You are correct that Intel is good at making expensive chips and reusing the x86 architecture. However, the chips Intel has been making lately are very good even if they are more expensive. Everyone, including AMD, still uses the x86 architecture for desktop CPU's.

In my opinion the native quad core design is superior to the multi-chip module that Intel currently uses. The problem is that while AMD's concept for the design was great, their execution was disappointing. Intel will be using the same conceptual design in their next processor generation and it remains to be seen if they will fare any better.

The AMD K10 μarchitecture is on par with Intel's Core μarch. The execution cores have many of the same features and, surprise surprise, they perform pretty similarly clock-for-clock, give or take a few percent depending on the particular code you're running and the amount of cache bolted to the core.

First of all, the new ISA standard is not Intel's but AMD's x86_64. Intel had wanted to go from x86 → Itanium IA64 but AMD captured the market with their x86_64 ISA. I'm not going to argue with your second point as Intel does on average charge more for their chips than AMD does and usually has since they started making CPUs. But you did forget the thing Intel is actually REALLY REALLY GOOD at- IC photolithography process engineering. Intel is world-class in their fab and process technology. Maybe IBM can go toe-to-toe with them, but Intel beats IBM in execution of the latest fab technology to make hundreds of millions of ICs.

Probably about as expensive as equivalently-clocked Phenom X3s/X4s and Opteron x3xx CPUs, maybe a tad less.

And people got a Skulltrail with dual QX9775s to 6 GHz under a liquid-cooled environment (that liquid was nitrogen, but it's a liquid, right? ) It really makes little difference to anybody who actually uses their computer how high somebody can get a CPU to go in a suicide shot using a grand worth of LN2 and a Vcore approaching two volts. Really the only thing that matters would be how high somebody can clock the chip on a sane Vcore using sane cooling methods, which usually means a large air-cooled heatsink or maybe water.

AMD will tell you themselves that MCMs are not bad as they are readying a 45 nm 12-core Opteron made of two 6-core dies in an MCM. The IMC might make some performance difference and the Opteron's HT bus setup vs. the Xeon's FSB setup does as well, but you can implement either using a native multi-core die or MCMs. There are advantages to a multi-core monolithic die, don't get me wrong, but they are not the end-all be-all in chip design. The implementation of buses, core-to-core communication, caches, core μarch, and other features of the chip make more of a difference than if there are two dies or one under the heat spreader.

Almost everybody is using x86_64, which is a derivative of x86 but has considerable differences.

Also, x86 is an instruction set, not an architecture. An 80386DX has a *wildly* different architecture than a Core Duo but both are x86 processors. The instructions were separated from the hardware a long time ago when decoders were introduced in the first P6 chip, the 1995-era Pentium Pro. Today's "x86" cores are really much more like RISC cores rather than CISC ones like the x86 instruction set would lead you to believe.

[quote]In my opinion the native quad core design is superior to the multi-chip module that Intel currently uses. The problem is that while AMD's concept for the design was great, their execution was disappointing. Intel will be using the same conceptual design in their next processor generation and it remains to be seen if they will fare any better.[/quotems]

It will be interesting to see the Nehalem launch. It's a big change for Intel as far as a macro-architectural and platform standpoint and there are supposed to be μarch tweaks as well.

Looks like we're just dealing with semantics here, but thanks for the correction all the same.

I too will be interested to see how Intel's first try with Nehalem goes. Part of me wants to see Nehalem be a complete failure if for no reason other than to get the Intel fanboys to stop littering the forum with threads about the impending doom of AMD. I doubt that will happen though. I think there will definitely be some glitches since it does represent a huge change in process for Intel but I don't think they will be anything too drastic.

MJ I don't see on the Jetway site where they have a 790fx chipset. I only see a 780g. Which model mb did you get? I see what Jetway claims. I just don't know if you are going to have success without the 790fx.

Topper,

I have also noticed that on some of there links, sites they don't show the new HA04-extreme. It is the 790FX and I could not find what power phase it has but it seems like a quality board. I got it from the egg for $160.00 It does support the phenom 9850, they have already released a new bios for it to clear up a few issues. The bios was a pain in the A$$ to update however. It seem that I have atleast one core that will not run stable at or anything past 2.5Ghz the others vary from 2.6-2.8 stable. at 2.5Ghz I still am getting blue screens just not as often. I have talked to two others that have got there 9850s at 3.0GHz stable on air, with no bios updates for the new HA04-extreme. I almost went with Asus with the M3A but wanted to try something different. I miss the asus probe 11. I am Rma the 9850 one more time. I hope this takes care of my problems. Hopefully I will get a 9850 that can atleast run stable at 2.5Ghz and maybe I will get lucky and get one that hits 3.0ghz stable.

Hello Guys,

Guess what, Just got the new 9850 today and dropped her into the new Jetway board, and bingo! No problems, no blue screens, she is running at Idle at 34C at 2.5Ghz. I have not tried to overclock her yet but this is awsome. It is much more responsive at 2.5 the the 6400+be at 3.2Ghz. They must have sent me one that was just put out cuz the date on this chip is the 11th week of 2008, which more then several people have had good luck with this batch date. The stock cooler is also new because it doesn't look like like the old ones shipped with the old 2 9850's that sucked A$$! Needless to say I am happy it is about damn time!! Thanks for everyone that has tried to help me work thru this problem, but I guess it doesn't matter what help you get when you have the crappy luck of getting to crap 9850's shipped to you. In retro spec my M2N32-sli deluxe is on the offical support list for the 9850 on the AMD site. Not that it matters since I upgraded my board to the new Jetway HA04 extreme, all because of two bad 9850's. I started to question my ram, I almost ordered 4 more gb of 1066 and windows XP 64 bit. I will still get the Ram, but not the XP. Thanks everone that tried to help with this.

Just brought her up to 2.6ghz no blue screen, bumped the multi up to 13x and 200 FSB

Sweet!....Now hit 3.0 and let us know!