# Kuma Manifests into Athlon X2 7550, 7750



## btarunr (Oct 16, 2008)

Industry sources reveal that AMD would be branding its Kuma dual-core processor as Athlon X2 7000 series. These processors are aimed to compete with Intel's Core 2 Duo E7000 series processors. Kuma continues to use the 65nm SOI fabrication process. The core sports 512 KB L2 cache per core, and a shared 2 MB L3 cache. Surprisingly, despite having sub-3.00 GHz clock speeds, the processors have rated TDP of 95W. 

These processors use a broader 3600 MT/s HyperTransport interface, and feature DDR2 memory controllers that support the PC2-8500 (1066 MHz) standard. As for the models, the Athlon X2 7550 has a clock speed of 2.50 GHz, and an FSB multiplier of 12.5x. The Athlon X2 7750 comes with the clock speed of 2.70 GHz, and a FSB multiplier of 13.5x. Both processors are expected to be out by Q1 2009.



As for its 45nm successor, there are early indications that it would be succeeded by the Phenom X2 10000 series processors. Depending on the clock speeds, they would be branded as 10x00, with "x" deciding the model number. These would support PC3-10600 (DDR3-1333) memory and have lower TDP of 65W.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## mdm-adph (Oct 16, 2008)

How does a dual-core Phenom have the same TDP as a quad-core?


----------



## mamisano (Oct 16, 2008)

I hope the TDP numbers are wrong.

The 2.9 Ghz X2-5600 has a 65w TDP on the same 65nm process. Does the addition of L3 cache really increase TDP that much?

The 2.4 GHz Phenom X3-8750 has the same 95w TDP as the 2.5 Ghz X2-7550. That just doesn't add up unless these new X2s are binned processors that did not make the cut for X4 and X3 requirements.


----------



## KBD (Oct 16, 2008)

wow, wow, i was cwaiting for babies. I'm hoping the 7000 series Athlons will come in highrer clock varities than 2.7. Afterall the Denebs for AM2+ will be clocled at 2.8 and 3.0. I assume a dual cre could be clocked even highrer.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 16, 2008)

mdm-adph said:


> How does a dual-core Phenom have the same TDP as a quad-core?



A little unrelated, but the BIOS for Phenom supportive boards, come with a "processor downcore" option. If you downcore a Phenom X4 to X2, the chip would still use the same power draw, except that the disabled cores would not be shown to the OS, so zero load on them, but the TDP remains the same as X4, since OC'ing the processor (such as increasing vCore) would do so for all existing cores. In other words, I personally suspect these are X4s with two cores disabled.


----------



## Icewind31 (Oct 16, 2008)

It's a quad-core with 2 bad cores :shadedshu


----------



## KBD (Oct 16, 2008)

Icewind31 said:


> It's a quad-core with 2 bad cores :shadedshu



if thats the case, then AMD messed up again. i always thought that the Tri-Cores were a joke now they are doing the same thing with dual cores. Why not release a true dual core?


----------



## btarunr (Oct 16, 2008)

Icewind31 said:


> It's a quad-core with 2 bad cores :shadedshu



...which are disabled, and shouldn't affect normal operation in any way.


----------



## Icewind31 (Oct 16, 2008)

If they are actually binning out the Quads w/ 2 bad cores then they're actually losing less money since they don't throw out the bad cores (at least until they regear their AthlonX2 fabs to pump out the Kuma's)... who knows what's next... the single core Semprons are quads w/ 3 disabled/bad cores


----------



## mdm-adph (Oct 16, 2008)

btarunr said:


> ...which are disabled, and shouldn't affect normal operation in any way.



Aside from the power draw?

Even that aside, if these are ridiculously cheap (55-60 USD) I still might get one, just for the fun of it.


----------



## Silverel (Oct 16, 2008)

Always funny to hear the gripes about disabled cores. From a user standpoint, it won't make a difference how many cores are disabled, that's part of the design they were going for. They had the foresight that bad cores happen, and by producing quads, they would very likely get handfuls of cores that are bad.

You lose no performance having disabled cores.

However, if AMD were to just toss them out because all 4 cores didn't work, they would lose a ton of money. Money they don't have to lose.

Just be happy. These chips are gonna be cheap, have faster memory, an added L3 cache, and a 3600MT/s HyperTransport. Is it really worth complaining over cores that you'll never see?


----------



## laszlo (Oct 16, 2008)

KBD said:


> if thats the case, then AMD messed up again. i always thought that the Tri-Cores were a joke now they are doing the same thing with dual cores. Why not release a true dual core?




they have problems so all chips must be sold...they still have time to use 1 good core from a quad and voala a new single core ...or why not a half core cpu with 95 W


----------



## WarEagleAU (Oct 16, 2008)

95tdp is still a bit high for heat output. However, this sounds like it will be an awesome chip. Now if they can release a BE edition


----------



## mullered07 (Oct 16, 2008)

im sorry i dont know how these are meant to compete with the E7** series, it wont be on raw power thats for certain, at price? then i think so. however at 2.5 and 2.7ghz respectivley to call them an x2 7550/x2 7750 is laughable, i cant see the logic in amds naming structure lately, surely a 6000+/6400+ would wipe the floor with these chips even with the addition of the l3 cache, the phenom in my book was a fail in the performance and power consumption and didnt deliver.

i really do hope amd sort this out and start to compete with intel again. saying that, reports intels new nehalem might be all its cracked up to be either, so only time will tell.


----------



## Solaris17 (Oct 16, 2008)

lol compete with the e7000 series? like are they serious? someone should get one then i will match them clock for clock. i might even give them a head start.


----------



## suraswami (Oct 16, 2008)

Solaris17 said:


> lol compete with the e7000 series? like are they serious? someone should get one then i will match them clock for clock. i might even give them a head start.



shhh... they have 7 series number in their cpu model number so its competing


----------



## Solaris17 (Oct 16, 2008)

suraswami said:


> shhh... they have 7 series number in their cpu model number so its competing



oooooooooo ok got ya


----------



## suraswami (Oct 16, 2008)

suraswami said:


> shhh... they have 7 series number in their cpu model number so its competing



If I not wrong Intel only has E7200 and 7300.  AMD has higher number than that.  so it really more powerful than Es.


----------



## ShadowFold (Oct 16, 2008)

Even if they are a tad faster.. I bet they don't do 4ghz easily on air


----------



## Solaris17 (Oct 16, 2008)

suraswami said:


> If I not wrong Intel only has E7200 and 7300.  AMD has higher number than that.  so it really more powerful than Es.



omfg i never thought of that! im wicked scared now that 7750 is like 550 points (?) higher than mine!


----------



## mullered07 (Oct 16, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> Even if they are a tad faster.. I bet they don't do 4ghz easily on air



why are you downgrading to phenom 

a tad faster than what ? the e7** series? at stock i think not, amd needs to pull somthing out of the bag cause my confidence in them is dwindling by the day, and i dont think deneb is going to be there saving grace either :shadedshu

i did used to love amd, from my first thunderbird 800 and palamino 1900+ through to my 2500+, my x64 3200+ which i drove 180 miles to pick up onto my x2 3800+ and then suddenly from nowheer came this strange unknown creature named Core 2, and well the rest is history


----------



## btarunr (Oct 16, 2008)

suraswami said:


> If I not wrong Intel only has E7200 and 7300.  AMD has higher number than that.  so it really more powerful than Es.



Intel will have E7400 out by then. (10.5 x 266). As for Kuma OC'ing, engg. samples have been tested stable at ~3.60 GHz. Expect a Black Edition.


----------



## suraswami (Oct 16, 2008)

btarunr said:


> Intel will have E7400 out by then. (10.5 x 266). As for Kuma OC'ing, engg. samples have been tested stable at ~3.60 GHz. Expect a Black Edition.



You know I am hardcore AMD fan, but lately I am really thinking of jumping ships.  I think the machine that I built for my Wife might be the last AMD one.  If AMD pull out of their ass something really equivalent, more of an Intel killer, that crushes all these Intel bas..ds bal.s, put their mouth full AMD bal.s, then I will stay here.  I am just tired of being underdog.


----------



## DrPepper (Oct 16, 2008)

Just curious but what phenom would be equal to a q6600 at stock.


----------



## suraswami (Oct 16, 2008)

DrPepper said:


> Just curious but what phenom would be equal to a q6600 at stock.



X4 9850 ?


----------



## DrPepper (Oct 16, 2008)

suraswami said:


> X4 9850 ?



Intel was still cheaper for me since I could Oc the crap out this chip and get a better mobo.


----------



## Viscarious (Oct 17, 2008)

btarunr said:


> A little unrelated, but the BIOS for Phenom supportive boards, come with a "processor downcore" option. If you downcore a Phenom X4 to X2, the chip would still use the same power draw, except that the disabled cores would not be shown to the OS, so zero load on them, but the TDP remains the same as X4, since OC'ing the processor (such as increasing vCore) would do so for all existing cores. In other words, I personally suspect these are X4s with two cores disabled.



Are you sure? I've seen load meters show significantly lower power consumptions when quad is downcored to dualcore.


----------



## aj28 (Oct 17, 2008)

95W sounds about right actually... True, the 8750 is also rated at 95W, but it's also a fair bit slower (300Mhz), and from the tests I've seen anyway, downcoring Phenom chips doesn't exactly deliver spectacular energy efficiency. Now personally, I would think AMD could have come up with a way to make such processes scale better, but then again if they're just dumping old chips, I wouldn't count on it. Seems they just want to purge Phenom while they still can and put their engineering hours where they've still got potential (i.e. 45nm generation and Deneb). Expect these to be a big OEM product and nothing more...

I would like to point out, however, that most of the reports I've seen on the Phenom X2 (successor to these chips?) note a 45W TDP, versus the 65W mentioned in this article. Sources anyone?


----------



## Melvis (Oct 17, 2008)

Icewind31 said:


> It's a quad-core with 2 bad cores :shadedshu



No its not, and im pretty sure it never has been, it is and always has been a "true" Dual core, even the triple core is a "true" triple core, if you look at the architecture of the triple to a Quad, its totaly different. eg, 1.2.3 cores side by side, and we all know how a quad core works, 2x2. And y in  the world would AMD throw away a complete dual core production line? when dual cores are used 10X more then quads are? it doesnt make sense to do this.

Im 99% positive that all the CPU's that come out are ether true dual , triple or quads.

It would be a complete waste of resources to make a quad core and sell it as a dual core?


----------



## suraswami (Oct 17, 2008)

Melvis said:


> No its not, and im pretty sure it never has been, it is and always has been a "true" Dual core, even the triple core is a "true" triple core, if you look at the architecture of the triple to a Quad, its totaly different. eg, 1.2.3 cores side by side, and we all know how a quad core works, 2x2. And y in  the world would AMD throw away a complete dual core production line? when dual cores are used 10X more then quads are? it doesnt make sense to do this.
> 
> Im 99% positive that all the CPU's that come out are ether true dual , triple or quads.
> 
> It would be a complete waste of resources to make a quad core and sell it as a dual core?



Where have you been?  Went to the dark age and just came back?  How big is your beard?  About 2 miles long?

Hello that 2x2 sticky thing is Intel.  4 individual cores with shared L3 cache is AMD.  Tri is one core disabled and same with dual, 2 cores disabled.  I don't think they would have spent anymore time in coming up with a true dual-core design based on a broken design.  Its just they try to make max use of broken ones while their engineers hopefully breaking their head to come out with a smash hit design.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 17, 2008)

Melvis said:


> It would be a complete waste of resources to make a quad core and sell it as a dual core?



No, it's more economical. From a batch of quads, if cores are found poor-performing, it could be down-cored and locked at that (using diodes on the chip's package (under the IHS)). For them to chalk out new batches of dual/triple core dice, it would step up operational costs. Again, I'm only suspecting it's a downcore quad. No way would a 65nm 2.50 GHz dual-core AMD chip which is essentially a Brisbane with L3 cache + higher CPU-NB interface would get a rating of 95W. It doesn't make sense. However, if you look at the ratings of X3 chips (Toliman), they all got 95W ratings for clock-speeds speeds X4 chips run on.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 17, 2008)

btarunr said:


> No, it's more economical. From a batch of quads, if cores are found poor-performing, it could be down-cored and locked at that (using diodes on the chip's package (under the IHS)). For them to chalk out new batches of dual/triple core dice, it would step up operational costs. Again, I'm only suspecting it's a downcore quad. No way would a 65nm 2.50 GHz dual-core AMD chip which is essentially a Brisbane with L3 cache + higher CPU-NB interface would get a rating of 95W. It doesn't make sense. However, if you look at the ratings of X3 chips (Toliman), they all got 95W ratings for clock-speeds speeds X4 chips run on.



well what about the 6300???

The first batches were Conroes, and then they were Allendales.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 17, 2008)

eidairaman1 said:


> well what about the 6300???
> 
> The first batches were Conroes, and then they were Allendales.



They come with 65W ratings, both of them. Conroe-2M has the same exact transistor count as Conroe-4M...they're just Conroe chips with half the cache disabled.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 17, 2008)

KBD said:


> wow, wow, i was cwaiting for babies. I'm hoping the 7000 series Athlons will come in highrer clock varities than 2.7. Afterall the Denebs for AM2+ will be clocled at 2.8 and 3.0. I assume a dual cre could be clocked even highrer.



I believe Kuma are 65mm process being Brisbane/1st Gen Phenom, where Denebs are 45nm and probably reworked.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 17, 2008)

btarunr said:


> They come with 65W ratings, both of them. Conroe-2M has the same exact transistor count as Conroe-4M...they're just Conroe chips with half the cache disabled.



Well Allendale are exactly the same except they are manufactured that way, and they costed about the same as the Disabled Conroe Parts, Except you got a Chip that was Fully functioning, and greater yields.


----------



## btarunr (Oct 17, 2008)

eidairaman1 said:


> Well Allendale are exactly the same except they are manufactured that way, and they costed about the same as the Disabled Conroe Parts, Except you got a Chip that was Fully functioning, and greater yields.



I'm not sure about the yields part, but yes, Allendale used an FSB of 200 MHz, so it was stable at its frequency.


----------



## Melvis (Oct 17, 2008)

suraswami said:


> Where have you been?  Went to the dark age and just came back?  How big is your beard?  About 2 miles long?
> 
> Hello that 2x2 sticky thing is Intel.  4 individual cores with shared L3 cache is AMD.  Tri is one core disabled and same with dual, 2 cores disabled.  I don't think they would have spent anymore time in coming up with a true dual-core design based on a broken design.  Its just they try to make max use of broken ones while their engineers hopefully breaking their head to come out with a smash hit design.



Where have you been?  Went to the dark age and just came back?  How big is your beard?  About 2 miles long,  back at ya buddy

*rolls eyes* omg ill have to explain to you what i mean, since you did not get it the first time, when i mean 2x2 i mean it has 2cores above, and also 2 cores below, regardless if its AMD or Intel, i know very well how a Intel quad works and a AMD one, its a shame you have not read what i have said properly, please read again with some common sense and post again please?

Ummm i think you are lost wen you say > I don't think they would have spent anymore time in coming up with a true dual-core design based on a broken design, considering that  ALL the dual cores from the past including intel are all "true" dual cores, how is it wasting time? if its all ready there? And if this is some how true? and its not, then why in the world isn't intel doing the same thing? it makes even more sense for them to do it since there design of a quad core is alot different and not on one die, it would be alot easier for them to do it compared to AMD, and then after all these so called stuffed quads are noticed, they then gotta go through all of them again, disable the cores, and re pack and whatever else, thats goin to cost a F load to redo all that? Its NOT cost effective end of story.

Sorry m8 but you need to get your facts straight and realize that its just complete stupidity to pump out quad cores that cost ALOT more to make, and engineer and then sell them as a really cheap dual core with all the quad core components in them?


----------



## suraswami (Oct 17, 2008)

Melvis said:


> Where have you been?  Went to the dark age and just came back?  How big is your beard?  About 2 miles long,  back at ya buddy
> 
> *rolls eyes* omg ill have to explain to you what i mean, since you did not get it the first time, when i mean 2x2 i mean it has 2cores above, and also 2 cores below, regardless if its AMD or Intel, i know very well how a Intel quad works and a AMD one, its a shame you have not read what i have said properly, please read again with some common sense and post again please?
> 
> ...



Hey don't get flamed.  In a way both of us are correct.  But the fact is A or I makes a CPU for a purpose, say a Quad, then they test it to find out it cannot be released for what it was made for, say cache problem, one core lazy, etc etc.  So then they disable whatever is broken and try to maximize whatever that is left.  In AMD's case they make native Quads and if one or 2 cores is broken they have to repack it to 3 or 2 core chips.  That is what I trying to say.  As far as AMD there is no ground up new design for Dual and Triple core separately and they can't afford for one right now.  If they really come out then it will be great, but they don't have it, its applicable for new K10 architecture.


----------



## Silverel (Oct 17, 2008)

AMD doesn't _*need_ a ground up new design for X2's and X3's (in theory), because their Quad production already yields X2's and X3s'.

This was an intentional part of the design process when they came out with their "Native Quad Core" campaign. Because of how the cores access and communicate with each other, it doesn't matter how many cores are left over, they just work. They could make an 8-core processor based off the Phenom, and have X7, X6, and X5's to release as well. It's a simple architectural design that was implemented to save money, not waste it on binning. All companies do binning and testing, AMD just has an extra step. Think that's less cost effective than scrapping 1-2-3 GOOD cores?

Want to know why Intel can't do the same thing? They use dual core packages, two of em go on a die. If one package fails, they have a Core2. Nothing in-between. Intel doesn't have to worry about making things like their architecture cost effective. They just made it blazing fast, and ate up whatever losses in the record breaking sales they've had over the past year or so.

It wasn't really a mistake on AMD's part to go with the architecture that saves chips, they just didn't invest enough speed to compete with Intel at the high end. Whoops. Let's just hope Deneb kicks it up a notch so we all don't have to watch Intel stomp on the throat of their only competitor, kay?


*lolz, amd totally needs a new architecture so they can get some speed in there. The concept is good though


----------



## ValiumMm (Oct 18, 2008)

Icewind31 said:


> If they are actually binning out the Quads w/ 2 bad cores then they're actually losing less money since they don't throw out the bad cores (at least until they regear their AthlonX2 fabs to pump out the Kuma's)... who knows what's next... the single core Semprons are quads w/ 3 disabled/bad cores



lmao


----------



## Zubasa (Oct 19, 2008)

ValiumMm said:


> lmao


I don't find that funny at all to lmao


----------



## boise49ers (Oct 22, 2008)

*I have an Athlon X2 2.8    5600*

Is this an AM 2 processor and just a swap with my current processor ?
Has a price been quoted yet ?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Oct 22, 2008)

yes you can swap CPUs but check for compatibility with your motherboard at the manufacturers website.


----------



## mdm-adph (Oct 22, 2008)

eidairaman1 said:


> yes you can swap CPUs but check for compatibility with your motherboard at the manufacturers website.



Funny you should mention that -- I remember checking MSI's website for my board (K9A2 CF-F) for BIOS updates, and remember seeing two entries for the Kuma in the CPU compatibility chart months and months ago.  (They were called something different, though.)  They've since  been taken down, though.


----------



## Silverel (Oct 22, 2008)

Heh, I have that board. The only difference between the V1 and the V2 of that board, is support for higher wattage processors, and a heatsink over the MOSFETs. Ergo, in my Mystique mod, I added some copper heatsinks to the FET's and now have a V2.5 of the board


----------



## mdm-adph (Oct 22, 2008)

Silverel said:


> Heh, I have that board. The only difference between the V1 and the V2 of that board, is support for higher wattage processors, and a heatsink over the MOSFETs. Ergo, in my Mystique mod, I added some copper heatsinks to the FET's and now have a V2.5 of the board



You've got version 2?  Lucky!    I'm seriously scared to do much more overclocking (I'm already 600MHz over) because there's quite a few tales of people burning these v1 boards out once you get up around 3.0GHz.

MSI's done something sneaky on their site, too -- they used to have seperate CPU compatibility listings for v1 and v2, so that you could know what chips to not use on v1 boards (like mine).  That page is now gone, however, so I'm just stabbing around in the dark. I pretty much know to stay away from anything over 95W TDP, though.

That's why I was hoping the Kuma's would be some sort of super-efficient 45W chips or something, but nope.


----------



## ocre (Oct 30, 2008)

*well*

If the Kuma was just phenoms with 2 disabled cores they would've already been out along time ago.  Dont you think?  There has been alot of time spent on it and time is money.  they already quit making the 6000+ and 6400+ so there is nothing to offer in the higher x2 range so it just wouldnt make any since to have it all along and not sell it.  Besides you cannot disable any phenom to just 2 cores then overclock it to 3.6ghz on air like the sample 6500 that was tested.  and i expect there have been improvements even from that chip as it ran at 2.3ghz claiming to be 6500+.  The real kuma clocked at 2.5ghz is supposed to be a 7550+ and i really hope they just didnt make that number up.  All of amds x2s scaled very well in there numerical rated name.  Amd has claimed that the kuma would have a new design.  It most likely is heavily based on the phenoms but i expect it is a good improvement over current phenoms.  They memory controller is new.  could they have taken a broken phenom apart and then attached all 4 cores to a new memory controller then disable 2 cores and call it a kuma?  Why bother?  i dont think the current phenom is powerful enough to benefit from a higher bandwidth memory controller much less one with 2 disabled cores. But for real lets hope there will be something new and fun and fresh to come out.  I sure am ready...i am bored of building intels


----------



## Melvis (Oct 30, 2008)

ocre said:


> If the Kuma was just phenoms with 2 disabled cores they would've already been out along time ago.  Dont you think?  There has been alot of time spent on it and time is money.  they already quit making the 6000+ and 6400+ so there is nothing to offer in the higher x2 range so it just wouldnt make any since to have it all along and not sell it.  Besides you cannot disable any phenom to just 2 cores then overclock it to 3.6ghz on air like the sample 6500 that was tested.  and i expect there have been improvements even from that chip as it ran at 2.3ghz claiming to be 6500+.  The real kuma clocked at 2.5ghz is supposed to be a 7550+ and i really hope they just didnt make that number up.  All of amds x2s scaled very well in there numerical rated name.  Amd has claimed that the kuma would have a new design.  It most likely is heavily based on the phenoms but i expect it is a good improvement over current phenoms.  They memory controller is new.  could they have taken a broken phenom apart and then attached all 4 cores to a new memory controller then disable 2 cores and call it a kuma?  Why bother?  i dont think the current phenom is powerful enough to benefit from a higher bandwidth memory controller much less one with 2 disabled cores. But for real lets hope there will be something new and fun and fresh to come out.  I sure am ready...i am bored of building intels



I agree 

And welcome to TPU


----------



## christof139 (Nov 14, 2008)

Silverel said:


> Heh, I have that board. The only difference between the V1 and the V2 of that board, is support for higher wattage processors, and a heatsink over the MOSFETs. Ergo, in my Mystique mod, I added some copper heatsinks to the FET's and now have a V2.5 of the board



Hi, Newbie/'cruit here. Was reading this thread with great interest and am happy to have found two people with the mobo that I have, the MSI K9A2-CF-F (v1.0 in my case).

It would be interesting/nice if these new 65nm Kumas will work on this SB600 mobo. The following 45nm Jumas should also work with this mobo. Just missed a used X3 8750 BE on Ebay for ~$82 + $minor shipping. I was going to get that to replace my excellent 5400+ BE @ 3.2GHz @ stock volts with stock AMD copper pipe X2 6000+ to 95W or 125W X2 and X4 CPU's HSF, and 4GB's (3 used) of DDR2 @400/800MHz. It runs very cool and is fast (for me)and it scored 11,737 in 3DMark06 with Win XP SP3, and with two XFired Saphire HD 4670 @ 770MHz core x 1140MHz Memory (about maximum OC for this Saphire model that is stock at 750x1000). I just have the free demo-test version of 3DMark06. Previously I had a 5000+ BE with two Xfired Saphire 2600XT's and was only scoring in the mid to high 8,000's.

If I may continue with some more slightly OT meanderings for a moment, may I ask if this MSI mobo that you put the copper heatsinks on the MOSFETS, do you think aluminim will be OK and do you think one long piece of aluminun covering all the chips would be OK?? I would hope so and then believe that this mobo would be able to handle at least 95W CPU's and possibly 125W CPU's, but I am not sure and need advice. I have the mobo BIOS flashed to its latest version. Any advice would be appreciated.

These new first model 65nm Kumas, might they not be made from both rejects from the X4 chips and also be purposefulf built 2x cores??  For instance, maybe the lower speed 7550 might be made from the rejected X4's and the faster 7750 be made from purposeful produced X2 silicon?? Maybe, something like that??

I heard AMD will start using metal (maybe also hafnium or similar) in their silicon in 2010, and also start using the ferrite/iron compound chokes or whatever. I am not an electrical engineer nor even an electrician and definitely not into semiconductor work, nor much other work at the present time at that level of brain cell strain/expenditure . Previous decades past inebriation episodes casued enough expenditure of that matter anyway, or many ways, whatever, it's a gray/grey area/matter. 

Thanx for any advice concerning the MSI K9A2-CF-F v1.0 mobo and input on the Kumas and future AMD and Intel CPU's. Have an old P4 571 3.8MHz Intel in a micor-BTX setup and it is OK, and never put in my unused PD 940 3.2GHz, and still have an E4700 2.6GHz rig to put together, and also have a P4 3.2GHz Extreme Edition (bought used BTW earlier this year, or was it last year, I don't remember, maybe Alzheimer's or whatever ) for older games etc. and to fiddle with.

Thanx again, Chris


----------



## mdm-adph (Nov 14, 2008)

christof139 said:


> If I may continue with some more slightly OT meanderings for a moment, may I ask if this MSI mobo that you put the copper heatsinks on the MOSFETS, do you think aluminim will be OK and do you think one long piece of aluminun covering all the chips would be OK?? I would hope so and then believe that this mobo would be able to handle at least 95W CPU's and possibly 125W CPU's, but I am not sure and need advice. I have the mobo BIOS flashed to its latest version. Any advice would be appreciated.



Feel free to put heatsinks on your MOSFETs if you'd like (they can't hurt), but if you've got version 1 of the MSI K9A2 CF, you're *not* going to be able to use 125W CPU's, no matter what.  MSI used to have information about it on their site, but they've since taken it down.

From what I gathered from information I found on the internet, it wasn't a lack of cooling that the MOSFETs had, but a weakness in the power circuits that MSI built into the board -- draw too much power, and the board fries.  

Now, if you could buy one of the 89W X2 6000's (like this one), you'll be fine, but any of the 125W Phenom products are very, very risky on this board.

The Kuma's should work just fine, but I was personally going to skip them, since I was looking to overclock the heck out of one of them for my next chip;  but if they're already rated at 95W, that's not going to be a possibility with this board.


----------



## Castiel (Nov 14, 2008)

With the i7 up and coming I see that AMD proc.'s suck big time. I was a AMD fanboy, but it just doesn't make it. I think that AMD needs to come out with some killer new hardware not only to put themselves with Intel but also give there company some money and get them out of the whole.


----------



## mdm-adph (Nov 14, 2008)

I think it's a bit strong to say that AMD's products "suck" -- that's a very subjective term.  Their products were great when Intel was forcing space-heater Pentium D's onto the market. 

They're just a bit behind in R&D right now, but that happens to every company from time to time.


----------



## Silverel (Nov 14, 2008)

http://forum.msi.com.tw/index.php?topic=120437.0

Moderator in that thread pretty much says the MOSFETs under the heatsink are entirely different, and the cooling solution is non-functional. lol

Ah well, I run my X2 5000BE at 3.36GHz all the time, and nothing has caught on fire yet. Ye can try it at your own risk I suppose.


----------



## mdm-adph (Nov 14, 2008)

Silverel said:


> http://forum.msi.com.tw/index.php?topic=120437.0
> 
> Moderator in that thread pretty much says the MOSFETs under the heatsink are entirely different, and the cooling solution is non-functional. lol
> 
> Ah well, I run my X2 5000BE at 3.36GHz all the time, and nothing has caught on fire yet. Ye can try it at your own risk I suppose.



Aye, but which version do you have?  If you've got version 1, I hope I have your luck.


----------



## Silverel (Nov 14, 2008)

mdm-adph said:


> Aye, but which version do you have?  If you've got version 1, I hope I have your luck.



v1 for me. 

There's been plenty of reports of people using the 125w procs and not having any problems when overclocking as well. It's just outside MSI's reasonable limit for warranty coverage. It's not guaranteed to catch on fire, but probably a good 10-15% chance of it.


----------



## mdm-adph (Nov 14, 2008)

Silverel said:


> v1 for me.
> 
> There's been plenty of reports of people using the 125w procs and not having any problems when overclocking as well. It's just outside MSI's reasonable limit for warranty coverage. It's not guaranteed to catch on fire, but probably a good 10-15% chance of it.



Aye -- I heard some people using the 125w X2 6000's fine, but they weren't doing any overclocking -- either way, even if there's only a 10-15% chance of fire, I'm likely to get burned!  

I wonder if your X2 5000 BE, even at 3.3GHz, uses as much as 125w or over...


----------



## christof139 (Nov 15, 2008)

OK, and thanx for the advice.  Yeah, I saw that info. at MSI where they had originally rated the mobo as 125W capable and then removed that info. Bummer.

The long hunk of aluminum I have is a heat sink from an old 478-pin Acer board and it fits over the staggered Mosfets on the MIS K9 mobo but doesn't cover all the MOSFETS completely because they are staggered in arrangement, but that's OK I guess. I probably could also cut the aluminum HS up with a Dremel etc. into individual pieces.

Yeah, I am familiar with the new 89W 6000+ but it also only has 2x512kb of L2, so I will stick with my 5400+ BE as it is fast enough at 3.2GHz. I picked it up new off Ebay for $66 including shipping. being cheap is OK, fun, and just plain cheap. %-) Following that train of thought I should fire-up my old 571 Prescott space heater or even put the PD 940 in since Winter id about here and extra heat from these CPU's is OK now and dual purpose cheap.

I'm thinking of getting one of these Jetway mobos as they seem to be very good and will take 125W and I believe 140W CPU's:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813153113

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813153116

Don't know though, as this 5400+ BE and K9 v1.0 mobo are OK. Once a person starts fiddling with compooters like this it is somewhat addicting.

Those two early 65nm Kumas might be able to OC on the K9 v1.0 mobo to 3.2GHz or so with decent cooling, as I bet they will run cool and not much above 95W OC'd. Have to wait and see and read reviews on them.

An x3 8750 is also OK, and I saw that a x3 8850 BE was released in late October but have not seen it yet at any retail outlets worldwide. Phrrrt.

I usally don't change CPU voltages when OC'ing so I limit myself, but the K9 v1.0 mobo I have now doesn't allow this, but the Jetway mobos do.

I enjoy your description of Windows: Win•dows: n. A thirty-two bit extension and graphical shell to a sixteen-bit patch to an eight-bit operating system originally coded for a four-bit microprocessor which was written by a two-bit company that can't stand one bit of competition.

Thanx for the good advice and info., Chris

PS: I also have read of people running 125W CPU's on the K9 v1.0 without problems, and other people not being able to do so and having the MOSFETS pop and even catch fire. With my luck they would pop and blaze, so I will stick with 95W and below CPU's for this mobo, until I get one of those Jetways. Maybe, if they still remain cheap that is.


----------



## christof139 (Nov 15, 2008)

mdm-adph said:


> I think it's a bit strong to say that AMD's products "suck" -- that's a very subjective term.  Their products were great when Intel was forcing space-heater Pentium D's onto the market.
> 
> They're just a bit behind in R&D right now, but that happens to every company from time to time.



Yeah, it is a silly remark. The AMD Phenoms are now doing OK and people report good performance and they do beat Intel CPU's at some tasks, so overall they are OK for the price. Many people are pleased with them. The TLB Bug was a joke in the earlier B2's, nonexistant IOTW except under extreme 3D rendering conditions or wahatever it was, and the bug did not show-up in the RW (real world), and even those B2's are performing better on the SB700 and SB750 chipsets, ans still do OK on the SB600. Not everyone OC's.

The Intel Prescotts and PD's were hot and performed less than the AMD X2's. Lucky for Intel that they started using hafnium metal gateways and the ferrite chokes (or whatever) in the Conroe core, otherwise AMD would still be faster now due to Intel's use of inferior macro architecture including no onboard memory controller. Intel used an onboard memory controller many years ago but it didn't work good for them and they dropped it, but AMD took the idea and made it work.

The competition between Intel and AMD is good, and also leads to price cuts/drops for those of us - and we are many, we are legion  - that enjoy cheap prices. 

Finding ultracheap stuff that works OK to good is even better. Most women apparently don't have this same view on things.

Chris

PS: @mdm-adph, the 2 HD 4670's I have in XFire at 770MHz x 1140MHz only give a 0.2GPixel rise to 6.2 GPixel Fillrate, a 0.4GTexel rise for 15.4GTexel Texture Fillrate, and a 4.5GB/sec rise in Bandwidth to 36.5GB/sec, but help give that 11,737 or so 3DMark06 score, which isn't bad or cheap for a cheap system.


----------

