AMD Bulldozer Finally!

Plus1 · 19 Oct 2011 at 18:08

Martini1991 said:
And the FX4's and FX6's are failed 8FX parts.
What's wrong about that?

So, Is that a fact? You sure that the FX4 and FX^ are FAILED PARTS? Why the speculation. Where did you get this info?

Jokester · 19 Oct 2011 at 18:10

Plus1 said:
So, Is that a fact? You sure that the FX4 and FX^ are FAILED PARTS? Why the speculation. Where did you get this info?

Until we see pics of the 4xxx and 6xxx die to show the 8MB cache being a different design to that in the 8xxx it's a fairly safe assumption to be honest.

Martini1991 · 19 Oct 2011 at 18:10

Plus1 said:
So, Is that a fact? You sure that the FX4 and FX^ are FAILED PARTS? Why the speculation. Where did you get this info?

It's a common occurrence?
Some chips aren't failed parts, and are simply locked down to meet quota's.

Take Zosma, they were locked/failed 6 parts (Thuban), Callisto was locked/failed 4 parts, same as the Phenom II X3 (I forget the name)

The FX4 is an FX8, but it's locked down, and that's because it's failed as an FX8.

In the Phenom II era, you could unlock.
Hell, some Athlon II X3's, were locked down (Or failed) fully fledged Deneb X4 parts.

In BD, it's widely reported as being locked down.

Wiry · 19 Oct 2011 at 18:16

I can see them being terrible like most amd cpu's ... As if an AMD Cpu can be worse than an Intel i3 .. even the 6 core ones are pretty shoddy.. lol

Martini1991 · 19 Oct 2011 at 18:16

Plus 1 ; For a guy so uptight, it's funny your sig is breaking the rules.

gareth170 · 19 Oct 2011 at 18:16

Martini1991 said:
But it never happened in the past, that doesn't mean it can't happen this time, however it decreases the likelihood.

i really don't get you guys sometimes .

as it is now BD as a TLB bug if amd didn't fix it by a patch bios, people would have the right to rma it because it doesn't run stable, so amd have to replace with a stable one which would be B3

Martini1991 · 19 Oct 2011 at 18:18

gareth170 said:
i really don't get you guys sometimes .

as it is now BD as a TLB bug if amd didn't fix it by a patch bios, people would have the right to rma it because it doesn't run stable, so amd have to replace with a stable one which would be B3

Where's confirmation of the TLB bug?
I understand there IS a problem with stability as per the article I linked to.

But, there was a problem with the original Phenoms which required a performance crippling software fix, did AMD replace those with new Phenoms?

If not, then how is it not a fair assumption to think the same will happen this time?

I'm not saying AMD won't replace them, but AMD sure as hell aren't stopping them being sold now are they?

EDIT : I've been through the B2/B3 problem with Intels 1155, they handled it very well, so I know replacements at a company's expense DOES happen, however I'm not saying AMD won't, I'm just saying did they with Phenom's?

Plus1 · 19 Oct 2011 at 18:22

Martini1991 said:
Plus 1 ; For a guy so uptight, it's funny your sig is breaking the rules.

have nothing better to say than to educate me on forum rules. Enjoy my friend.

Martini1991 · 19 Oct 2011 at 18:23

Plus1 said:
have nothing better to say than to educate me on forum rules. Enjoy my friend.

I did ;
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=20348530&postcount=7803

gareth170 · 19 Oct 2011 at 18:24

Martini1991 said:
Where's confirmation of the TLB bug?
I understand there IS a problem with stability as per the article I linked to.

But, there was a problem with the original Phenoms which required a performance crippling software fix, did AMD replace those with new Phenoms?

If not, then how is it not a fair assumption to think the same will happen this time?

I'm not saying AMD won't replace them, but AMD sure as hell aren't stopping them being sold now are they?

read what i said

as it is now if BD as a TLB bug if amd didn't fix it by a patch bios, people would have the right to rma it because it doesn't run stable, so amd have to replace with a stable one which would be B3

and im meaning if BD as a TLB bug

i missed out if

Martini1991 · 19 Oct 2011 at 18:27

If there is a problem that isn't fixed via software, then I agree they're due a replacement.
I wasn't ever disputing that.

But if a fix did cripple performance, as far as I'm aware even then they're entitled to something.

gareth170 · 19 Oct 2011 at 18:32

Martini1991 said:
If there is a problem that isn't fixed via software, then I agree they're due a replacement.
I wasn't ever disputing that.

But if a fix did cripple performance, as far as I'm aware even then they're entitled to something.

the way i see it is yeah.

i don't think anyone had tryed rmaing a bugging phenom before for that reason. if people don't try nobody would know

Martini1991 · 19 Oct 2011 at 18:34

gareth170 said:
the way i see it is yeah.

i don't think anyone had tryed rmaing a bugging phenom before for that reason.

Lol, they might have done, I wouldn't make that sort of claim.

CAT-THE-FIFTH · 19 Oct 2011 at 18:36

gareth170 said:
http://www.theffwiki.com/amd-bulldozer-b3-revision-is-in-the-works/

I posted this a few pages back:

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=20336760&postcount=7702

It pretty much confirms the B3 revision.

gareth170 · 19 Oct 2011 at 18:39

Martini1991 said:
Lol, they might have done, I wouldn't make that sort of claim.

i would...

i rmaed a phenom due to a poor chip. i got a replacement + a free cpu

Martini1991 · 19 Oct 2011 at 18:41

Haven't you just contradicted yourself :confused:

? Or are you on about RMA'ing it for a different reason to the software crippling fix.

gareth170 said:
the way i see it is yeah.

i don't think anyone had tryed rmaing a bugging phenom before for that reason. if people don't try nobody would know

gareth170 said:
i would...

i rmaed a phenom due to a poor chip. i got a replacement + a free cpu

gareth170 · 19 Oct 2011 at 18:42

Martini1991 said:
Haven't you just contradicted yourself ?

why?

Martini1991 · 19 Oct 2011 at 18:43

Look at edit ^^.

gareth170 · 19 Oct 2011 at 18:46

Martini1991 said:
Look at edit ^^.

i didn't rma it for that reason (TLB)

poor meaning ocing and other issues

Martini1991 · 19 Oct 2011 at 18:48

Agh

Now I get you.