The New AMD Building Thread

I would guess either the memory controller in the CPU is not up to it, or the memory isn't good enough. Have you tested the second set on its own at 1066?

 

I have a feeling it would run 2 without fault. I will not assume however. Tonight, I will run that test. Unfortunately, something has come up, and I wont be able to play til then

 

Anandtech's Review and test of the new Phenom II 3.2GHz 955, in an socket AM3 platform. 3.8GHz stable, with stock voltage. Anandtech had it's frustrations with overclocking the pre-production 955s supplied because they were unable to hit 4.0GHz , stable. They are awaiting full retail examples to expand the tests with. Lots of interesting reading, not the least is AMD's Overdrive being able to create program profiles, which tie various games and apps to their pre-set profiles, just by running the game or program executable file. Closing the game or app restores the profile back automatically!

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3551

Enjoy,
Russ

OH! My UD4H Mb was either shipped today or will ship tomorrow, so my rig should be up and working by weeks end! YAAAAY!

JRS

 

So they can run 3.8Ghz at stock voltage, but can't make 4Ghz with any voltage? I don't really understand that. Sure it wasn't Auto voltage? That encompasses a wide range, in my experience up to 125mV beyond stock.

 

Positive! the voltage was there in CPUZ and all the others! These were pre-production chips, and others have gone past 4.0 with the production 955's already! I already know that I want a Phenom II, so I'll have to wait and see what shakes out as to what I'll want, while I save some money! LOL!!

Best Regards,
Russ

 

Is the stock voltage higher with the 955 then? I'm having difficulty understanding why CPUs supposedly unlimited by FSB and Memory controller limitations are exhibiting exactly the same symptoms as those that do (Intel) - the faster chip overclocks barely any further, but with less voltage. Sound familiar?

 

sam the chip will hit 4.3 easily at little below maxs volts depends on the platform...i heard people are getting confused and sticking the chip into am2 boards and not realizing it for a am3 board saying there not getting good results alot of mistakes are bein made with this new chip and results

 

That makes a bit more sense. I wonder how hot the chips would get with an air tower cooler.

 

Sam,
No, the voltage is the same, 1.35 to 1.50v. I know what you are getting at, sounds like Intel all over again. The biggest difference is Intel had no way to improve the overclocking abilities, as they had gone as far as their CPU technology would allow, while we are still waiting for the next generation Phenom II, due out mid year. May is my best educated guess! With the addition of metal gate transistors, it should scale and overclock even better, and run cooler doing it! Lower wattage too! I suspect that it will be a 105w chip, maybe even a 95 watt one, although I doubt it!

Best Regards,
Russ

 

I hope so. Right now, AMD have the performance and performance/price sussed, but fall down everywhere else, power consumption, heat and overclocking ability. The Phenom II X4 955 is very nearly a Q9550 at stock, but uses more 20W more power than one (115W vs 95W), and only overclocks as well as a Q8400/Q9300.

 

Exactly why I'm happy with my 940 ATM. You really don't get many benefits from the 955. And AFAIK DDR3 will HURT AMD performance. Because of the integrated memory controller, lower latencies, will be better than faster speeds. EDIT: Though the idea is to stay as close to stock RAM speed as possible. So just use low latency RAM to begin with. Low latency DDR2-1066 is awesome.

As far as overall performance... eh, good enough for me. I haven't seen anything that even makes me think about upgrading my CPU. Same with my Q6600. I doubt I'll be upgrading either chip for a while.

 

yup! Unless a software, game, etc is released, that requires more processing strength than I have...I dont see the need to upgrade for quite some time. Im as happy as a fly on sh*t LOL!

 

Sam,
I've been meaning to ask. Why do you get all fussed over 20w. It can't be "save the planet"! Besides, the difference in power consumption between the 955 and the Q9550 is only 1.5w at idle and 7w at full load! The current 940 shows the same 1.5w difference at idle, but drops to only 6w more under load! I haven't seen any complaints about heat at all, except from the idiot faction. I know I wouldn't plan to run one at 4.3GHz (fairly common, at less than max volts), with a Freezer 64-Pro or the stock cooler! LOL!!

BTW! My MB is here!!! Got to get busy putting it back together.

Best Regards,
Russ

 

i will agree with russ here

also the new 7850 BE ir raping the E5300 at gaming

 

20W, which is what I've read from the sites I trust, is a significant amount of extra heat to dissipate, and a significant extra cost if your PC is at load as often as mine is.

 

Mr.Russ

Whats your thoughts here on this Mb below? it looks like this joker is loaded...lol
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128377

 

10 Sata ports, Dual Lan, AM3, higher memory speed, IM JEALOUS LOL! But im also content with what I have so

 

Sam,
Anandtech ran these tests, literally justa few days ago! This is what they show for Power consumption!

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3551&p=15

Best Regards,
Russ

 

PCMark Vantage?
I'll take this test over that one thanks

http://www.silentpcreview.com/article938-page4.html

Notable statistics:
Peformance
NOD32: 955BE: 100%, Q9550: 84.5%, Q9650: 102.8%
WinRAR: 955BE: 100%, Q9550: 106.3%, Q9650: 108.2%
iTunes: 955BE: 100%, Q9550: 129.2%, Q9650: 137.0%
TMPEGEnc: 955BE: 100%, Q9550: 87.8%, Q9650: 92.0%

Energy usage for task
NOD32: Q9650: 100%, Q9550: 121.7%, 955BE: 149.5% (137.8% undervolted)
WinRAR: Q9650: 100%, Q9550: 101.8%, 955BE: 141.3% (128.1% undervolted)
iTunes: Q9650: 100%, Q9550: 104.8%, 955BE: 204.0% (183.2% undervolted)
TMPEGEnc: Q9650: 100%, Q9550: 103.0%, 955BE: 130.2% (116.1% undervolted)

The 955BE is astonishingly fast at TMPEGEnc, but due to the astonishingly high power consumption at c. 130W, it's still 25% less efficient, 12% if undervolted to 1.225V.
In NOD32, 25% and 12% is also about right, and the 955BE handily beats the Q9550, but not quite the Q9650 (Though running a Q9550 at 3Ghz is not at all difficult)
In WinRAR, the efficiency figures are closer to 40% / 25% which is rather poor. iTUnes shows the worst efficiency though, the Phenom II using twice as much energy to perform the same task.

 

Hey Will,
I was looking at that one for the future myself. First I have to save for the Phenom II. Which one, will be determined at the time of purchase. I want to wait for the next release before I come close to making up my mind.

Russ