# Phenom 9850 Black Edition for sale



## cdawall (Mar 13, 2008)

http://www.compsource.com/ttechnote.asp?part_no=HD985ZXAGHBOX&vid=34&src=F

and sold out 2hrs after this was posted on XS

oh and they are B3s


----------



## SirKeldon (Mar 13, 2008)

The race has been started


----------



## btarunr (Mar 13, 2008)

Implies, in a week or two we could see a whole lot of them in other stores.


----------



## erocker (Mar 13, 2008)

Mine is coming!


----------



## happita (Mar 13, 2008)

Uh oh. The new wave of phenoms are on their way!! Make way for the podium Intel


----------



## ShadowFold (Mar 13, 2008)

Im getting a DFI 790FX board and one of these bad boys when I get the money


----------



## btarunr (Mar 13, 2008)

erocker said:


> Mine is coming!



You ordered this? I thought you were going for the Q9450?


----------



## erocker (Mar 13, 2008)

btarunr said:


> You ordered this? I thought you were going for the Q9450?



I didn't have to pay for anything.  Though I'm probablly not going to see it for two weeks.  Let's say I got lucky with AMD.  Of course, a new Intel quad will be happening in the future as well.


----------



## btarunr (Mar 13, 2008)

So PhX4 BE9850 is 2.50 GHz stock?


----------



## Silverel (Mar 13, 2008)

btarunr said:


> So PhX4 BE9850 is 2.50 GHz stock?



From what I've seen...

Hopefully it can OC higher than 3ghz.


----------



## btarunr (Mar 13, 2008)

It will be an epic success if it clocks as easily as the X2 BE 5000+ and comes with that ~$300 tag.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 13, 2008)

its 2.5ghz


----------



## happita (Mar 13, 2008)

Hmmm. ATM, AMD's 9850 is the highest clocked phenom? Then whats next after this officially ships? I want to start seeing some 2.8+ stock phenoms!


----------



## ShadowFold (Mar 13, 2008)

Tri-Cores are comeing too. I hear there gonna be around 100$.


----------



## hat (Mar 13, 2008)

AROUND $100? YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111111111111111111!!!!!!1111one!11!1eleven

I will get one for Christmas. Hell maybe a Quad if they are cheap enough. I will fold faster than ever before!!


----------



## panchoman (Mar 13, 2008)

im interested in seeing how these perform.


----------



## DanishDevil (Mar 13, 2008)

erocker said:


> Mine is coming!



If you end up not wanting it once the new Intel quads come out... 

Can't wait to see if these fly or flop.


----------



## SirKeldon (Mar 13, 2008)

I'll wait to see the first results of the people trying to clock these new editions, as AMD said, the bug on the TLB corrected wouldn't improve overclock in any way, but maybe were false rumours and besides the bug, they fixed something more to fight again with Intel. 

Though it all, people was able to clock the 9600 (with TLB errata) till 3Ghz, which is a 30% overclock, at the same level as the 3.4-3.5 on a 5000+ BE, that's a good point to start. Mixing it with a RD790FX chipset MoBo i think it will be as expected, maybe not good as the intel quads, but fair enough. People owning a RD790FX been able to boot my 6400+ (90nm) at more than 500Mhz of FSB and i was able to do 325x11 on my WHITE 6400+, so imagine the platform with a quad-65nm CPU, i think they'll surprise us, at least, i hope so.


----------



## MilkyWay (Mar 14, 2008)

its a good upgrade for those who own an am2 board
it is cheaper than intel
you save money and this can go towards other stuff like graphics
tbh if you have the money to get the best only its a waste coz stuff will get outdated and you need to replace it
save some money and give the rest to charity


----------



## InfDamarvel (Mar 14, 2008)

My question is, does it o/c more than the previous stepping.


----------



## DanishDevil (Mar 14, 2008)

I'm sure the people who got it will let us know!  Keep an eye out for reviews, too.  They should hopefully be pouring in here within the next week or so.


----------



## yogurt_21 (Mar 14, 2008)

happita said:


> Hmmm. ATM, AMD's 9850 is the highest clocked phenom? Then whats next after this officially ships? I want to start seeing some 2.8+ stock phenoms!



supposedly amd is holding back a 3GHZ phenom for any number of reasons, it's supposed to be quite the chip.


----------



## DanishDevil (Mar 14, 2008)

yogurt_21 said:


> supposedly amd is holding back a 3GHZ phenom for any number of reasons, it's supposed to be quite the chip.



Where'd you hear that?


----------



## WarEagleAU (Mar 14, 2008)

ID love to see that chip. I cant believe these are finally shipping. I was hoping they would also give the b3 steppings to the original phenoms and replace the current stock. Of course, a tricore for $100.00 US could peak me enough to hold off of Quad cores


----------



## tofu (Mar 14, 2008)

impressive, a 2.5GHz AMD B3 part for > $300.

If this baby can clock to 3GHz+, it'll be quite the hit.

~$100 tri-cores sound awesome as well.


----------



## erocker (Mar 14, 2008)

There were engineering samples out there that did 3ghz easy before any talk of B3 stepping.  I believe if you check out the AMD wiki, under overclocking, there is a Phenom that does just that.


----------



## PrudentPrincess (Mar 14, 2008)

ShadowFold said:


> Tri-Cores are comeing too. I hear there gonna be around 100$.



Source?


----------



## gOJDO (Mar 14, 2008)

tofu said:


> impressive, a 2.5GHz AMD B3 part for > $300.


Not impressive at all. In the past year there were Q6600's everywhere for less than $300. Expect the Q9300 this month for around $260. Both Q6600 and Q9300 are faster than the Phenom 9850.



> If this baby can clock to 3GHz+, it'll be quite the hit.


Over 3GHz stable on stock cooler is going to be good, but not impressive until it can reach over 3.5GHz stable(again using stock cooler). I wonder when decent OC sAM2+ mainboards will come.



> ~$100 tri-cores sound awesome as well.


Yeah, a 2.3GHz X3 for $100 is a very good deal. I'd like their multiplier to be fully unlocked. Since mine Asus M2N sux for OC-ing, the unlocked X3 is going to be a good replacement for my Brisbane 4200+.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 14, 2008)

gOJDO said:


> Not impressive at all. In the past year there were Q6600's everywhere for less than $300. Expect the Q9300 this month for around $260. Both Q6600 and Q9300 are faster than the Phenom 9850.
> 
> Over 3GHz stable on stock cooler is going to be good, but not impressive until it can reach over 3.5GHz stable(again using stock cooler). I wonder when decent OC sAM2+ mainboards will come.
> 
> Yeah, a 2.3GHz X3 for $100 is a very good deal. I'd like their multiplier to be fully unlocked. Since mine Asus M2N sux for OC-ing, the unlocked X3 is going to be a good replacement for my Brisbane 4200+.




ummm your not going to hit 3.5ghz on stock air maybe a good air cooler but not stock air...intel chips cant even do that


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 14, 2008)

erocker said:


> I didn't have to pay for anything.  Though I'm probablly not going to see it for two weeks.  Let's say I got lucky with AMD.  Of course, a new Intel quad will be happening in the future as well.



Are they actually any good?  If they are then I might get one, I am bored and need a change but I need something that can compete.


----------



## gOJDO (Mar 15, 2008)

cdawall said:


> ummm your not going to hit 3.5ghz on stock air maybe a good air cooler but not stock air...intel chips cant even do that


What about Yorkfields ?


----------



## cdawall (Mar 15, 2008)

gOJDO said:


> What about Yorkfields ?



shhhh there is no such thing


----------



## SirKeldon (Mar 15, 2008)

gOJDO said:


> What about Yorkfields ?



45nm != 65nm


----------



## trt740 (Mar 15, 2008)

I wish AMD woulds have just slapped 4 X6400+ cores together like intels chips on one waffer and threw 12mb of on chip memory on the cores, then srunk the die to 45mm and they would be back in the game. They would atleast have a quad at 3.2ghz and with a small waffer they might hit 3.8ghz oced. I realize it wouldn't be a true quad core and it would be a dated cpu design but it still would have rocked.


----------



## a111087 (Mar 15, 2008)

trt740 said:


> I wish AMD woulds have just slapped 4 X6400+ cores together like intels chips on one waffer and threw 12mb of on chip memory on the cores, then srunk the die to 45mm and they would be back in the game. They would atleast have a quad at 3.2ghz and with a small waffer they might hit 3.8ghz oced. I realize it wouldn't be a true quad core and it would be a dated cpu design but it still would have rocked.



+1


----------



## cdawall (Mar 15, 2008)

trt740 said:


> I wish AMD woulds have just slapped 4 X6400+ cores together like intels chips on one waffer and threw 12mb of on chip memory on the cores, then srunk the die to 45mm and they would be back in the game. They would atleast have a quad at 3.2ghz and with a small waffer they might hit 3.8ghz oced. I realize it wouldn't be a true quad core and it would be a dated cpu design but it still would have rocked.



and with HT instead of a FSB you wouldn't even have to worry about that clogging up and reducing performance


----------



## trt740 (Mar 15, 2008)

cdawall said:


> and with HT instead of a FSB you wouldn't even have to worry about that clogging up and reducing performance



I wonder why they didn't do it. I also wonder why they haven't taken the current Amd design to 45nm. A dual core 6400+ at 45nm with added on chip memory, even 4 mb, would overclock like crazy, shoot current chips  hit 3.6ghz at 65nm why not do it ? It sure would be cheaper than a new design. Maybe just update the memory controller. I know if I thought of it they most likely already have made prototypes but never went to production with them. I really want amd to succeed but they do some dumb ass thing. With just a little tweaking the current design could match up well with the core 2 duo, all they needed to do was increase integer performance and the current AMD chips would win most bench marks with a smaller die and a tweaked memory controller so the chip could handle more on die memory. If they didn't win they would come very close.


----------



## trog100 (Mar 15, 2008)

trt740 said:


> I wish AMD woulds have just slapped 4 X6400+ cores together like intels chips on one waffer and threw 12mb of on chip memory on the cores, then srunk the die to 45mm and they would be back in the game. They would atleast have a quad at 3.2ghz and with a small waffer they might hit 3.8ghz oced. I realize it wouldn't be a true quad core and it would be a dated cpu design but it still would have rocked.



i think amd would have wished that as well.. the idea was that by now the phenom would be at 3 gig.. in short its a failure.. it never lived up to expectations.. 

but chip developement takes years.. u cant just change track so now amd are stuck with it.. 

trog


----------



## cdawall (Mar 15, 2008)

bah hopefully these B3 chips are exactly what we wanted to start with


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 15, 2008)

whatever AMD does, Intel will just move the goal posts a bit... AMD comes out with 3GHz Phenom, Intel will release something like a 4GHz penryn... If AMD doesn't release a 3GHz Phenom, Intel releases a 3.3 GHz penryn.  

I heard that they have a 3GHz Agena as well, i actually saw a screenshot of it somewhere a while ago.


----------



## trt740 (Mar 15, 2008)

trog100 said:


> i think amd would have wished that as well.. the idea was that by now the phenom would be at 3 gig.. in short its a failure.. it never lived up to expectations..
> 
> but chip developement takes years.. u cant just change track so now amd are stuck with it..
> 
> trog



Just like the 2900 xt series they always miss what the market demands. The 2900xt was a great design all they had to do was update the shader processors and unlock them to be overclocked and even with 5 Mghz more each shader x 300 imagine the speed increase . They could have kept the 512bit bus and shrunk that die aswell giving it a bunch more speed and overclocking potential. Instead they kinda went cheap with the 3870 all it is , is a 2900 xt with half the bus speed and a shrunk die  with updated memory controller. Don't get me wrong the 3870 is a good card but imagine it with the 2900xt's full potential unleashed in it. Did you know the 2900xt was designed for DDR 5. I'm way off topic but man they are killing me.


----------



## a111087 (Mar 15, 2008)

i also think that are some technical problems which we might not hear about that prevents AMD from doing all that good tweaking.  We are kind of kinds in this field and AMD wouldn't bankrupt itself on purpose


----------



## trt740 (Mar 15, 2008)

a111087 said:


> i also think that are some technical problems which we might not hear about that prevents AMD from doing all that good tweaking.  We are kind of kinds in this field and AMD wouldn't bankrupt itself on purpose



of course your right.


----------



## trog100 (Mar 15, 2008)

intel didnt pull a new design out of thin air either.. they simply took the modified P3 they had been useing in their latest centrino laptops.. ditched netburst and bunged it in a desktop.. alla conroe.. a trip back in time to the pre netbust concept..

two years and a bit has them going faster and die shrunk.. where the performance market is concerned amd are f-cked..  no rabbits left in the hat..

trog


----------



## gOJDO (Mar 15, 2008)

cdawall said:


> shhhh there is no such thing


Yes there are, for months already The 2.5GHz Q9300's are filling in the shelves, but there isn't a single 2.5GHz Phenom to join them.



SirKeldon said:


> 45nm != 65nm


Well, it's AMD's fault being too late with everything. Also smaller transistors doesn't mean faster. For example the 90nm SOI-2 are faste than the 65nm SOI-3. AMD's 45nm, like their 65nm, is not designed to perform fast, but it's designed to offer higher energy efficiency.


----------



## blkhogan (Mar 15, 2008)

I'm a little leary of giving my trust back to AMD. They have alot to prove to their consumers. I being a AMD person (not a fan boy) <-- god I hate that term  we are so tired of being 2 steps behind Intel all the time. It's time for AMD to stop f-kin around and just do it already. Instead of letting Intel forcast the future of cpu tech, how about growing some nuts and charging into the forefront where they used to be (off and on). They need to become atleast competitive again before I head into new cpu tech with them.

I wish them all the luck in the world with the new releases coming. I will be watching the forums for info and numbers. Hopefully they are on the rebound now that they got their collective asses handed to them over the last few years.

-Hogan


----------



## SirKeldon (Mar 15, 2008)

gOJDO said:


> Well, it's AMD's fault being too late with everything. Also smaller transistors doesn't mean faster. For example the 90nm SOI-2 are faste than the 65nm SOI-3. AMD's 45nm, like their 65nm, is not designed to perform fast, but it's designed to offer higher energy efficiency.



Later with everything? Gotta tell you how late came the "real" Intel 64bits processors for everyday use? Itaniums were a total fail on 2001 ... AMD started releasing their 64bits in 2003 but till July of 2006 (first release of Core2Duo with a still-in-doubt EM64 instructions) 64 bits for intel were a fantasy more than a reality for everyone  AMD has been focused to business and corporations more than for normal costumers these last two years, nobody talks about it but it's true, the "usual" market has been focused more to ATI than to AMD (see the 3870x2 and the future 4870x2) as i see the things.

Intel's now winning the battle in the home-costumers as AMD did 3-4-5 years ago, their prices are in the same range as AMD (they weren't in the past) and performs better on stock settings and when talking about OC, intel levels for AMD are still the "Twilight Zone". Maybe they were not able to do it as well as Intel or maybe they were not needing it yet, i don't know cause i don't have seen the AMD's budgets and neither their engineers at work and i'm not being a fanboy, just talking about facts.

And of course, you're right, the size of the light wavelenght doesn't means faster, just means more transistors in the same space ... so they're able to bring more potence (intel) or more power efficiency (amd) as the light has to "walk" less to do the same job; if you merge that thing with the actual architecture of Intel doing their processors, then you can understand how the hell a 2,4Ghz machine is able to clock till 4Ghz or more and still being stable with a tiny increase on the voltage.

Hopefully, i wish AMD can do it the same way or better, why? Cause competitivity means more and better products for all of us, the customers, and also the freedom to choose any brand without losing the performance pursuit we all want. If Intel continues owning the market, they'll have the reason to stop developing that fast for the home-costumers but if AMD touches the bell in 1-2 years and revolutionizes the market showing their teeth again ... Intel will be forced to do the same or better products and again ... the most favoured will be ourselves.


----------



## gOJDO (Mar 15, 2008)

SirKeldon said:


> Later with everything?


When I said "late with everything" I was thinking on everything after Core(Yonah). They didn't learned the lesson when Yonah came and offered better energy efficiency and same performance per clock, compared to the K8. There is no chance that AMD were unaware about what was Intel preparing with Core2, so I consider AMD being too late with starting to make something new and competitive. They were simply asleep with the success of the K8 and placed all their bets in marketing, like Intel did with the Netburst.



> Gotta tell you how late came the "real" Intel 64bits processors for everyday use? Itaniums were a total fail on 2001 ... AMD started releasing their 64bits in 2003 but till July of 2006 (first release of Core2Duo with a still-in-doubt EM64 instructions) 64 bits for intel were a fantasy more than a reality for everyone


Itanium has nothing to do with x86, so let it alone. We must give a credit to AMD for extending the ISA while keeping the compatibility with the older instruction sets. IMO the x86-64 was simply pointless and useless at that point. Many years are needed before we can fully enjoy the benefits of the 64bit CPUs. Anyway, the first Intel CPU that had the EM64T (x86-64) was Prescott in 2004.



> AMD has been focused to business and corporations more than for normal costumers these last two years, nobody talks about it but it's true, the "usual" market has been focused more to ATI than to AMD (see the 3870x2 and the future 4870x2) as i see the things.


In the last two years AMD has been focused on lying. They are talking too much and are doing too little. Their business is going down, they lost big portion of the market share on both the CPU and the GPU front, they are in huge debts and they are still bleeding.



> And of course, you're right, the size of the light wavelenght doesn't means faster, just means more transistors in the same space ... so they're able to bring more potence (intel) or more power efficiency (amd) as the light has to "walk" less to do the same job; if you merge that thing with the actual architecture of Intel doing their processors, then you can understand how the hell a 2,4Ghz machine is able to clock till 4Ghz or more and still being stable with a tiny increase on the voltage.


45nm or 65nm is not the size of the light wave length, it is the distance between two neighboring transistors. In reality that distance is usually bigger, depending of the process and the type of the transistor. The Intel 65nm bulk production process has faster transistors than the IBM/AMD 65nm SOI3. It's transistors are needing less energy for switching, thus wasting less energy when operating (switching). But the Intel 65nm transistors have higher leakage and that's why they are wasting more energy than the AMD 65nm when idling.
The OC-ing doesn't depend only of the the process, but it depends of the CPU architecture and circuit design also.




> Hopefully, i wish AMD can do it the same way or better, why? Cause competitivity means more and better products for all of us, the customers, and also the freedom to choose any brand without losing the performance pursuit we all want. If Intel continues owning the market, they'll have the reason to stop developing that fast for the home-costumers but if AMD touches the bell in 1-2 years and revolutionizes the market showing their teeth again ... Intel will be forced to do the same or better products and again ... the most favoured will be ourselves.


I absolutely agree with you. For the sake of competition, we need AMD strong and healthy.


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 16, 2008)

gOJDO;703153IMO the x86-64 was simply pointless and useless at that point. [/QUOTE said:
			
		

> Wow, great post man, agree with everything you said there.  I think what happened with the 64-bit was that it really wasnt meant for desktop PC's and AMD knew that.  They were just using it as a VERY effective marketing trick - pretty much what intel was doing with Netburst and the high MHz tags.  But for x86-capable servers/workstations/HPC's 64bit was a huge must.
> 
> The K8 was designed as a server/workstation chip - the opteron, the athlon was just a rebranded opteron.  There are/were some huge, amazing benefits to those opterons in workstations.
> 
> At this point, I still don't think AMD is as concerned with the desktop market. IMO Their primary woes come from the fact that the kenstfield, and especially Yorkfield Xeons are kicking the living sh*t out of k8 and Barcelona, which is why theyre playin the "perfomance per watt" up as much as possible (still true since Xeons need power-hungry FB Dimms, one of the biggest reasons XEON systems use more power at idle).  Theyre not as much of a "one-trick pony" after acquiring ATI, though.  I just wonder what will happen if they can effectively incorporate stream computing with the FUSION in an x86 form,... Will it be like the FOLDING GPU client vs Gromacs core client?  Instead of an SSE they will have a "translate CISC to vector and crunch it!" instruction set?


----------



## SirKeldon (Mar 16, 2008)

gOJDO said:


> When I said "late with everything" I was thinking on everything after Core(Yonah). They didn't learned the lesson when Yonah came and offered better energy efficiency and same performance per clock, compared to the K8. There is no chance that AMD were unaware about what was Intel preparing with Core2, so I consider AMD being too late with starting to make something new and competitive. They were simply asleep with the success of the K8 and placed all their bets in marketing, like Intel did with the Netburst.



That's true in most of the words, users should have slapped more to AMD to wake up from their lethargy, specially with dual 64 cores, they wasted and lost all the race, let's hope things will change with 45nm quads.



gOJDO said:


> Itanium has nothing to do with x86, so let it alone. We must give a credit to AMD for extending the ISA while keeping the compatibility with the older instruction sets. IMO the x86-64 was simply pointless and useless at that point. Many years are needed before we can fully enjoy the benefits of the 64bit CPUs. Anyway, the first Intel CPU that had the EM64T (x86-64) was Prescott in 2004.



I was talking about the Itanium 64 that Intel planned in 2001 with the IA-64, also the EM64T instructions were in big part adapted from the AMD64 ones as you say, so the arch is still branded with that name ... but well, it's the same AMD did it on their days with Intel x86 ones, so who cares at all? The purpose are the good instructions and good compatibility as you say  And yes, 64bits CPUs are still babys so we need a lot of years to reach the top as we need 30 years (or maybe more) for the x86 ones so there's still a loooot of time yet with "Intel vs AMD"



gOJDO said:


> 45nm or 65nm is not the size of the light wave length, it is the distance between two neighboring transistors. In reality that distance is usually bigger, depending of the process and the type of the transistor. The Intel 65nm bulk production process has faster transistors than the IBM/AMD 65nm SOI3. It's transistors are needing less energy for switching, thus wasting less energy when operating (switching). But the Intel 65nm transistors have higher leakage and that's why they are wasting more energy than the AMD 65nm when idling.
> The OC-ing doesn't depend only of the the process, but it depends of the CPU architecture and circuit design also.



As i understand the Nanometer and the process of building processors (as far as the engineering can tell me) and as it's said on Wikipedia "_It is also the most common unit used to describe the manufacturing technology used in the semiconductor industry. It is the most common unit to describe the wavelength of light_" but as we say in my country "you'll never go bed without knowing one more thing" so thank you for the extra information dude, i'll read about it  And yes, i know that the CPU OC'ing just doesn't depends on that, but it's the bigger help, that's for sure.



gOJDO said:


> I absolutely agree with you. For the sake of competition, we need AMD strong and healthy.



The power of the Jedis is coming  just let's wait they won't lie again as you say


----------



## cdawall (Mar 16, 2008)

this thread turned into fanboy bullshit please get back on topic


----------



## SirKeldon (Mar 16, 2008)

I wasn't acting as a fanboy as i said, so i apologize if i did it for your eyes, truly  i respect AMD and i respect Intel, i used and still using both brands and they made and will make good products ... and sure they'll keep doing for suring us the entertainment, actually with a new processor bringing out into the market it's impossible not to compare it with another ones they're actually in, that are the changes that makes this industry keep moving, what the people say about the real performance of the stuff, what is the arch living inside, what makes possible this and another ... from my part, i was just healthy discussing, that's the way everyone learns more about how these things works.

After all, the new Phenom's are a new-day for AMD and i really hope they'll kick ass as they did on the past, again i bet for AMD cause i trust them yet, i like their philosophy of how they do the things and probably how they will do it in the future ... but at the same time i don't forget the Intel's actual force which is damn good, it's as history, you can't understand present if you don't know the past, so i think it was not a fanboy discussing at all, just talking about facts, at least as i said, from my part.

Again my apologizes to you cdawall 

edit: and my apologizes too if i disturbed someone with the other posts as well


----------



## 3870x2 (Mar 16, 2008)

You know what is worse than a fanboy? blaming someone of being a fanboy... that annoys me more.  Any person is allowed to be a fan and argue their product...


----------



## WarEagleAU (Mar 16, 2008)

> Though it all, people was able to clock the 9600 (with TLB errata) till 3Ghz, which is a 30% overclock



Where did you see that? Id be interested in finding out how that was done. From most reviews and owner reviews that Ive read, youd be hard pressed to get even the 9600 BE 200 - 400mhz above stock clocks without a bunch of errors. In fact, Maximum PC even had trouble with their engineering sample and later public samples.


----------



## SirKeldon (Mar 16, 2008)

3870x2 said:


> You know what is worse than a fanboy? blaming someone of being a fanboy... that annoys me more.  Any person is allowed to be a fan and argue their product...



We should all be fans of the technology and i think we actually are 



WarEagleAU said:


> Where did you see that? Id be interested in finding out how that was done. From most reviews and owner reviews that Ive read, youd be hard pressed to get even the 9600 BE 200 - 400mhz above stock clocks without a bunch of errors. In fact, Maximum PC even had trouble with their engineering sample and later public samples.



I read about a couple storys of people reaching the 3Ghz mark but not stable at all, just in the 2,8-2,9 barrier were stable, i think it was on AMD Official forums. But on this article you can see how they got the 3Ghz stable.


----------



## gOJDO (Mar 16, 2008)

cdawall said:


> this thread turned into fanboy bullshit please get back on topic


Why the hell do you think that our conversation is a fanboy BS? We were only discussing, and mentioning two rivals doesn't mean we are fanboys which are going to rip off each other! I must agree that we were OT, but our input in this thread is more worth than your "fanboy BS" comment. 

On topic, there is nothing to be discussed. There aren't anywhere 9850 to buy, nor there were on the e-shop linked on the first post of this thread. Don't expect Phenom B3's this month.


----------



## erocker (Mar 16, 2008)

Yeah, please stay on topic.  This fanboy crap has been running rampant again lately, and it gets very tiresome. 

STAY ON TOPIC!!


----------



## phanbuey (Mar 16, 2008)

what topic? that some e-tailer started taking preorders of a chip theyre not gonna ship for the better part of a month? whoop-de-doo


----------



## a111087 (Mar 16, 2008)

WarEagleAU said:


> Where did you see that? Id be interested in finding out how that was done. From most reviews and owner reviews that Ive read, youd be hard pressed to get even the 9600 BE 200 - 400mhz above stock clocks without a bunch of errors. In fact, Maximum PC even had trouble with their engineering sample and later public samples.



from all the reviews i've seen, about 30% got to 3ghz, but obviously most of them did not


----------



## btarunr (Mar 16, 2008)

phanbuey said:


> what topic? that some e-tailer started taking preorders of a chip theyre not gonna ship for the better part of a month? whoop-de-doo



^ 

Speaking closely to the topic, when the Phenom 9500 first hit e-tailers and  bumped into it, I almost screamed "hurray! Finally!!" then hopped onto Google, searched for reviews, got into one. 
   My expressions changed from  to  to  to  to  to  in a matter of 10 minutes. Actually it should have taken less time.


----------



## ShadowFold (Mar 16, 2008)

btarunr said:


> ^
> 
> Speaking closely to the topic, when the Phenom 9500 first hit e-tailers and  bumped into it, I almost screamed "hurray! Finally!!" then hopped onto Google, searched for reviews, got into one.
> My expressions changed from  to  to  to  to  to  in a matter of 10 minutes. Actually it should have taken less time.



Yea when I saw reviews I was like.. what the hell. How does a AMD dual core beat it! then started raging.


----------



## 3870x2 (Mar 17, 2008)

yeah, there was a lot of positive hype for the 9xxx phenom series, and....fail.  ATI is currently on the upside though!


----------



## InfDamarvel (Mar 17, 2008)

Is there any reviews on this new stepping yet or is this just a bunch of talk about nothing.


----------



## gOJDO (Mar 17, 2008)

InfDamarvel said:


> this is just a bunch of talk about nothing.


that's right. According to my sources, don't expect B3's until April and don't expect them in big quantities.


----------



## 3870x2 (Mar 17, 2008)

Think they will make any difference?


----------



## gOJDO (Mar 17, 2008)

3870x2 said:


> Think they will make any difference?


lower power consumption and higher clocks (& OC) for sure and of course the TLB bug fixed.
The architecture will remain same since it is the same revision (read same circuit design), but only a new stepping. In other words, the performance at same frequency will remain the same as the performance of B2's without the TLB bug patch.

I only wonder about the NB & L3 speeds. If they can push it above 2GHz, then we'll start seeing some of the benefits of the so called "native" quadcore.


----------



## cisco kidd (Mar 17, 2008)

is a 9500 B2 oem worth it for $155 shipped, I do not care about the tlb issue, i need a quad now and if I can get 2.5 out of the 9500 I think that is good enough, it would still be better than a tri core and finding a b3 right now is a bit hard

so my question is for the price of 155 and 170 shipped for a 9600 is it worth it even if they are b2's


----------



## trt740 (Mar 17, 2008)

cisco kidd said:


> is a 9500 B2 oem worth it for $155 shipped, I do not care about the tlb issue, i need a quad now and if I can get 2.5 out of the 9500 I think that is good enough, it would still be better than a tri core and finding a b3 right now is a bit hard
> 
> so my question is for the price of 155 and 170 shipped for a 9600 is it worth it even if they are b2's



yes i would say it is you cannot buy a 6400+ for that.


----------



## jbunch07 (Mar 17, 2008)

i hope this cpu does well, im either going to by this or the other 4xphenom BE...this would be more easy on my wallet though!


----------



## cisco kidd (Mar 17, 2008)

trt740 said:


> yes i would say it is you cannot buy a 6400+ for that.



Kind of what I am thinking I currently have a 5000 BE running 3.3 using a freezone cpu tec cooler. having sold my past intel xeon x3210 and 680i sli to save some cash I downgraded to the 5000

I am not comparing the 2 systems but the xeon at 3.4 flat out rocked, I do not expect the phenom to be the same just looking for better ability to address the multitasking I do with a quad over the dual 5000 I have found the video editing to be slower especially when other programs are running in the background as well. guess I can sell my BE5000 for 75 covering half the cost.......


----------



## jbunch07 (Mar 17, 2008)

i wonder why they released the quads before the tri, or is the tri just a quad with one of the cores disabled? im not saying this i read that on another thread.

Edit: i dont think AMD would just disable one of the cores but i am curious why this didn't come out before the quad cores


----------



## 3870x2 (Mar 17, 2008)

i doubt it is with a core disabled, it is probably a gamer chip for high performance without having to waste you money on a useless four-core.


----------



## gOJDO (Mar 17, 2008)

jbunch07 said:


> i wonder why they released the quads before the tri, or is the tri just a quad with one of the cores disabled? im not saying this i read that on another thread.


The three core is just a quad with 1(defective) core disabled. AMD needed enough quads with defective core before they could release the three cores. 



> Edit: i dont think AMD would just disable one of the cores but i am curious why this didn't come out before the quad cores


They have an option to sell the quads with 1 defective core as three cores and earn something or to throw them away and earn nothing.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 17, 2008)

the way i see it is this is exactly the same as the original K8 chips clawhammers C0 chips were hot, sucked at oc'ing, and had a terrible memory controller. this looks alot like K10 B2 chips hopefully B3 will be just like the CG chips that kicked ass and made K8 so nice


----------



## SirKeldon (Mar 17, 2008)

cdawall said:


> the way i see it is this is exactly the same as the original K8 chips clawhammers C0 chips were hot, sucked at oc'ing, and had a terrible memory controller. this looks alot like K10 B2 chips hopefully B3 will be just like the CG chips that kicked ass and made K8 so nice



Let's hope so! I want to "burn" my board with these new Phenoms and probably with the 45nm ones too, it will be logical, when tons of things had gone that bad for them in the last 2 years ... i think it's time to do it just good and better, there's no other chance for them cause their excuses are farting the whole market ... and i'm sure they're gonna kick ass again, they have to do it


----------



## trog100 (Mar 17, 2008)

jbunch07 said:


> i wonder why they released the quads before the tri, or is the tri just a quad with one of the cores disabled? im not saying this i read that on another thread.
> 
> Edit: i dont think AMD would just disable one of the cores but i am curious why this didn't come out before the quad cores



it enables them to cover all market slots and use all chips.. and yes if the tri core (or dual) demand is there they will deliberately disable working cores.. its how the market is controled.. one product covers all needs and prices.. perfection..

sadly cos the things dont go fast enough they cant cover the higher end.. just the low to middle.. 

trog


----------



## jbunch07 (Mar 17, 2008)

trog100 said:


> it enables them to cover all market slots and use all chips.. and yes if the tri core (or dual) demand is there they will deliberately disable working cores.. its how the market is controled.. one product covers all needs and prices.. perfection..
> 
> sadly cos the things dont go fast enough they cant cover the higher end.. just the low to middle..
> 
> trog



well hopefully having 3 good cores will work better than 4 flaky cores, i think they might have rushed the development of the quad core witch is why it doesn't perform as well as it should...but this is typical of AMD/ATI, but dont get me wrong i like AMD i just wish they had more time for rd

but i really hope that 3xphenoms perform better!


----------



## JC316 (Mar 17, 2008)

I just hope that these damn things can compete with Intel. Maybe they pulled their head out of their ass and fixed all of the problems this time. COME ON AMD, I am still pulling for you!!!


----------



## ShadowFold (Mar 17, 2008)

I hope the Tri's around 100$ cause I really want one


----------



## jbunch07 (Mar 17, 2008)

JC316 said:


> I just hope that these damn things can compete with Intel. Maybe they pulled their head out of their ass and fixed all of the problems this time. COME ON AMD, I am still pulling for you!!!



i agree i would love to see AMD come out with something that beats Intel!


----------



## trog100 (Mar 18, 2008)

jbunch07 said:


> i agree i would love to see AMD come out with something that beats Intel!



so would lots of folks.. but short of divine intervention it aint gonna happy for at least a couple of years.. after that who knows..

a more realistic hope now would be that they survive until better times.. it aint guaranteed.. 

trog


----------



## jbunch07 (Mar 18, 2008)

as much as i hate to say it, your probably right trog...


----------



## JC316 (Mar 18, 2008)

trog100 said:


> so would lots of folks.. but short of divine intervention it aint gonna happy for at least a couple of years.. after that who knows..
> 
> a more realistic hope now would be that they survive until better times.. it aint guaranteed..
> 
> trog



Well, AMD still has some of the cheapest processors, so I think that they will hang around.


----------



## WarEagleAU (Mar 18, 2008)

IF they can compete in the main sector, then they are doing fantastic. Currently they are keeping up pretty damn good in that sector, which is where the low and mid chips are. Even the phenoms are getting pushed in all the electronic outlets. Countless folks around here go to best buy and circuit city looking to get these computers with the phenom in it. They may have been rushed or the TLB error not noticed until after the fact, but they are awesome. And as Ive said before, Im not looking for them to beat intel. They are competitive and that is enough for me.


----------



## jpierce55 (Mar 24, 2008)

These are likely to be cheaper look at some of the other pre-order prices, not so bad:
http://www.pcsforeveryone.com/Product/AMD/HD985ZXAGHBOX
http://www.compsource.com/ttechnote.asp?part_no=HD985ZXAGHBOX&vid=34&src=F
and this

At $259 I might buy a Phenom again, if someone else proves they can hit 2.9ghz. The Phenom I tried before was not so great, but enough that 2.7 could have overpowered the x2 I have. It will not beat Intel though, that I have no dream of.


----------



## cisco kidd (Mar 24, 2008)

jpierce55 said:


> These are likely to be cheaper look at some of the other pre-order prices, not so bad:
> http://www.pcsforeveryone.com/Product/AMD/HD985ZXAGHBOX
> http://www.compsource.com/ttechnote.asp?part_no=HD985ZXAGHBOX&vid=34&src=F
> and this
> ...



wow, $259, I find that to be too expensive, for that coin I would look at Intel personally. All i can say is the past xeon 3210 quad I had which ran 3.4 flat out rocked. I since moved to AMD camp bought a 5000BE which did 3.3, sold it and lucked out finding a retail sealed B2 9500 for $150ca. I currently have it at 2.6 and I have figured out phenom setting , hoping for 2.7 since all is good at with temps and prime is stable. I had a beotch of a time (no patience) fiddling in bios and playing with the different phenom settings and voltages in my Ta770 bios. But even if I get stuck at 2.6 for the price paid imho it is very fair for the performance. I use the tlb exe patch to disable the fix and rebel havens 228 beta bios is working well so no complaints, can not really beat the combo for $235 ca


----------



## cdawall (Mar 24, 2008)

i want to see the newegg price on these


----------



## jpierce55 (Mar 24, 2008)

cdawall said:


> i want to see the newegg price on these


absolutely, and after they have been out about 3 months.


----------



## cdawall (Mar 24, 2008)

jpierce55 said:


> absolutely, and after they have been out about 3 months.



yep 3 months will be when newegg gets them so woot for that!


----------



## jbunch07 (Mar 25, 2008)

damn thats to far away...wanted one sooner than that!


----------

