Phenom II x3 710 run with 4 core!

[richierich1212]

I need to try this haha

 

[taltamir]

Originally posted by: Zstream

Originally posted by: MarcVenice
Idontcare, what makes you so sure the X3's fourth core is dysfunctional? Do you work for AMD? Did they tell you in a official statement the fourth core was gone bad, so they made it an x3, instead of an x4?

I'm not sure, maybe you're right, but this can't be compared to overclocking. There's thousands of ppl who overclock, and I've never heard any horror story's about corrupted files. That would mean that a orthos prime test is a bad way of measuring the core's stability or instability. Coz orthos prima, intels burn test etc seem to be working just fine in determining your overclocks stability.

He doesn't know. Just him making smoke as usual.

its called harvesting, it is a fact of the industry, and AMD is on record as performing it... as is every other company for that matter.

He doesn't say EVERY x3 has a defective core, some might be good... but there is no way to tell aside from EXTENSIVE testings if you have a defective core, or a good core that was disabled.
It is a substantial and severe risk that you shouldn't take.

 

[richierich1212]

Originally posted by: Lifixs
So is this only one certain individual chips sent to asia specifically?

No, it's been confirmed on another site as well (not Asian)

ocworkbench

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: richierich1212

Originally posted by: Lifixs
So is this only one certain individual chips sent to asia specifically?

No, it's been confirmed on another site as well (not Asian)

ocworkbench

Looks like there's going to be a run on Biostar and ASRock 790 boards and X3 7-series CPUs here rather shortly.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: richierich1212

Originally posted by: Lifixs
So is this only one certain individual chips sent to asia specifically?

No, it's been confirmed on another site as well (not Asian)

ocworkbench

Looks like there's going to be a run on Biostar and ASRock 790 boards and X3 7-series CPUs here rather shortly.

Funny, I already have a Biostar 790GX mobo, and my X3 710 should be here tomorrow.

 

[Markfw]

ok, for a $125 quad-core, I may have to try this one out !

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
ok, for a $125 quad-core, I may have to try this one out !

Oh, come on, you know that AMD is no good for folding...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
chairs!

Somewhere in my net-surfing early this morning - I was barely conscious - I thought I read something to the effect that the number 0849 needs to be printed on the chip. But who knows...

 

[richierich1212]

I thought it had to be 0904

 

[dmens]

I thought the reason Intel made such a big deal about their powergate xtors, and the reason why 65nm X3's don't show marked power reduction over their X4 brethren, is because you can't just "shutoff" power to those somewhat leaky transistors in the disabled core.

You can fuse off their being considered functional chips, but if the Vcc to the die is 1.4V then all four cores (including the disabled one) gets Vcc applied to those xtors and static leakage power consumption ensues.

This was Intel's argument for why the power-gate xtors combined with their PCU was the only effective means of shutting power off at the core-level for power-savings.

I haven't read the report you are referencing, I'll take your word on it that they did see some level of power-reduction, but can you shed some light here as to how/why the AMD X3 chips are able to do this? Did they implement some manner of powergate into their 45nm architecture and not make a big deal of it or some such?

dynamic power is probably zero on the disabled core but leakage is still going... otherwise the average 3-core should be 3/4 power of the average 4-core.

also, i agree that it is very risky enabling the last core since there is chance it failed test. makes me wonder why they didn't fuse it off properly. it's kinda like using a software method to disable a busted cache, makes no sense from where i'm standing.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: richierich1212
I thought it had to be 0904

OK. I don't really remember, so I'll go with what you say!

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: Markfw900
ok, for a $125 quad-core, I may have to try this one out !

Oh, come on, you know that AMD is no good for folding...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
chairs!

Somewhere in my net-surfing early this morning - I was barely conscious - I thought I read something to the effect that the number 0849 needs to be printed on the chip. But who knows...

For a $200 chip, my Q6600 is better, but for a $125 chip, all the rules change !

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: Markfw900
ok, for a $125 quad-core, I may have to try this one out !

Oh, come on, you know that AMD is no good for folding...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
chairs!

Somewhere in my net-surfing early this morning - I was barely conscious - I thought I read something to the effect that the number 0849 needs to be printed on the chip. But who knows...

For a $200 chip, my Q6600 is better, but for a $125 chip, all the rules change !

What about a $125 chip that is likely to provide inaccurate results at best, or simply crash at worst?

 

[taltamir]

yes, save 50$ and silently corrupt every single file on your harddrive... its really no big deal...

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: Markfw900
ok, for a $125 quad-core, I may have to try this one out !

Oh, come on, you know that AMD is no good for folding...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
chairs!

Somewhere in my net-surfing early this morning - I was barely conscious - I thought I read something to the effect that the number 0849 needs to be printed on the chip. But who knows...

For a $200 chip, my Q6600 is better, but for a $125 chip, all the rules change !

What about a $125 chip that is likely to provide inaccurate results at best, or simply crash at worst?

This would require much testing obviously. Thats part of the "changes all the rules" thing. First enable and test. Then decide what to do. Sounds like flipped Gazelle wil be trying this, lets stay tuned....

And for me at least, it would be $75.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

This would require much testing obviously. Thats part of the "changes all the rules" thing. First enable and test. Then decide what to do. Sounds like flipped Gazelle wil be trying this, lets stay tuned....

And for me at least, it would be $75.

So, if I "win the lottery", what tests would you like me to run?

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: Markfw900
For a $200 chip, my Q6600 is better, but for a $125 chip, all the rules change !

What about a $125 chip that is likely to provide inaccurate results at best, or simply crash at worst?

Ha ha, in Mark's case that wouldn't be his problem, it would be Pande group's problem if they were letting miscalculated WU's thru their filters.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: Markfw900

This would require much testing obviously. Thats part of the "changes all the rules" thing. First enable and test. Then decide what to do. Sounds like flipped Gazelle wil be trying this, lets stay tuned....

And for me at least, it would be $75.

So, if I "win the lottery", what tests would you like me to run?

I would guess that the same stability tests that overclockers do, would work in this case also, prime95, OCCT, linpack, etc....Let us know if you do it, and the results of testing.

 

[Denithor]

Couldn't be as bad as Probabilistic CPUs.

I can see those corrupting your data in a matter of minutes, not weeks/months.

Besides, if you unlock that fourth core and run linpack/occt/etc without errors - wouldn't that prove it's fully functional & stable?

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Denithor
Couldn't be as bad as Probabilistic CPUs.

I can see those corrupting your data in a matter of minutes, not weeks/months.

Besides, if you unlock that fourth core and run linpack/occt/etc without errors - wouldn't that prove it's fully functional & stable?

Exactly my point above.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: Markfw900
For a $200 chip, my Q6600 is better, but for a $125 chip, all the rules change !

What about a $125 chip that is likely to provide inaccurate results at best, or simply crash at worst?

Ha ha, in Mark's case that wouldn't be his problem, it would be Pande group's problem if they were letting miscalculated WU's thru their filters.

Yeah, I wonder if they operate on a quorum basis, or would one bad result lead to developent of a drug that was incorrect.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle

Originally posted by: Markfw900
ok, for a $125 quad-core, I may have to try this one out !

Oh, come on, you know that AMD is no good for folding...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
chairs!

Somewhere in my net-surfing early this morning - I was barely conscious - I thought I read something to the effect that the number 0849 needs to be printed on the chip. But who knows...

For a $200 chip, my Q6600 is better, but for a $125 chip, all the rules change !

I think you should start a youtube video series titled "Will it FOLD?"

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: Markfw900
For a $200 chip, my Q6600 is better, but for a $125 chip, all the rules change !

What about a $125 chip that is likely to provide inaccurate results at best, or simply crash at worst?

Ha ha, in Mark's case that wouldn't be his problem, it would be Pande group's problem if they were letting miscalculated WU's thru their filters.

Yeah, I wonder if they operate on a quorum basis, or would one bad result lead to developent of a drug that was incorrect.

Haha that would be something. But they have redundancy built in so it shouldn't matter.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: VirtualLarry

Originally posted by: Idontcare

Originally posted by: SunnyD

Originally posted by: Markfw900
For a $200 chip, my Q6600 is better, but for a $125 chip, all the rules change !

What about a $125 chip that is likely to provide inaccurate results at best, or simply crash at worst?

Ha ha, in Mark's case that wouldn't be his problem, it would be Pande group's problem if they were letting miscalculated WU's thru their filters.

Yeah, I wonder if they operate on a quorum basis, or would one bad result lead to developent of a drug that was incorrect.

Please see my reply above. All my systems are stable.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: Denithor
Couldn't be as bad as Probabilistic CPUs.

I can see those corrupting your data in a matter of minutes, not weeks/months.

Besides, if you unlock that fourth core and run linpack/occt/etc without errors - wouldn't that prove it's fully functional & stable?

No, because each of those only test subsets of instructions/ALU's/registers/cache, etc. For example, I was testing my 940BE... was prime stable. Started up F@H and my system instantly rebooted.

 

[richierich1212]

Video (no photoshop!)