• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

BD Support for Asus 890 Series boards

gareth170 said:
the nb 9 series chipset as some slight updates/coding

the sb 9 series chipset is just a rebadged 8 series but with SLI
Click to expand...
Isn't SLI handled by NB?

SB9 is just a rebrand of SB8, as as far as I'm aware, that's the same for the NB, except with SLI.

HeX said:
Then why the new socket and extra pin hole?

In fact why bother making AM3+ at all as the 9 series chipset is just a rebadged 8 series... :confused:

What you are saying is AM3+ 9XX boards are just AM3 8XX... with a bios update.
Click to expand...

Ask AMD, not him.
BD has 1 extra pin as far as I'm aware, however, Phenom II CPU's don't use all AM3 pins.
 
Last edited:
phenom II has 938 pins as far as i understand from what i have read , i may need a new mobo soon as i have ordered the fx8120 lol . well thats if asus don't get there finger out bios wise
 
Last edited:
HeX said:
Then why the new socket and extra pin hole?

In fact why bother making AM3+ at all as the 9 series chipset is just a rebadged 8 series... :confused:

What you are saying is AM3+ 9XX boards are just AM3 8XX... with a bios update.
Click to expand...

Been through this a gazillion times in the huuge bulldozer thread mate . It basically boils down to the fact some manufacturers didn't connect all the pins on the motherboard on their AM3 boards. So they introduced a new socket. Hence why you can purchase AM3+ boards with the 890 chipset.

AMD's stance was clear from the offset to avoid any problems - i.e. ONLY AM3+ is supported by them for BD. It was the likes of Asus and MSI that claimed they can simply provide an updated BIOS to enable SOME of their boards for BD compatibility. Now its time for them to deliver on their promises (one of the reasons why some people bought the AM3 Crosshair IV boards for example - As it was directly marketed as being compatible)

If you get to the stage that you need a new motherboard for a new processor - you might aswell go for the best you can get for your budget - at this rate - It will be a 2500k and Z68 motherboard just like I am contemplating if Asus doesn't pull their finger out soon.
 
Why anyone would want a faildozer is beyond me, I don't care if my crosshair 4 Extreme doesn't support Bulldozer, My 1075t smashes it, While using half the power...
 
It would have been worth it if I could have simply 'slotted' it in to replace my 1090T (better for VM's and BF3). But as I can't, I've gone intel now any. The dark side was too luring :(
 
HeX said:
If all you wanted was a processor for VM's and BF3 your X6 would have been better...

6 actual cores for VM's.

And BF3 seems to prefer AMD CPU's...

http://www.techspot.com/review/448-battlefield-3-beta-performance/page7.html

At least on the Beta anywho.
Click to expand...
I'd wish people stop quoting that poorly done techspot bench as representation and say AMD's superior in BF3, as it is clearing GPU bounded with that GTX580. Also, I have pointed out before that the performance of the motherboard which techspot used for their i5 2600 is only average (the Asus P8P67 Deluxe is slower than large number of other P67/Z68 out there...including its little brother Asus P8P67 Pro), which will easily deliver a couple lesser fps. Most people would know the only way to properly compare CPU performance is to remove GPU limitation first, such as lowering the res to 1280, and not with average frame rate alone but with minimum frame rate as well. For example like in this BFBC2 bench:
http://techreport.com/articles.x/20873/2

It's meaningless to try to compare CPU performance at 1920 res, unless the graphic card is at high-end setup like Tri-fire 6950 or SLI GTX580 and actually look to see if there's CPU bottleneck.

But yea...I do agree that it is pointless to upgrade from a Phenom II X6 overclocked to 4.0GHz to a Bulldozer for gaming, considering the Phenom II X6 is faster on gaming and at 4.2GHz, it matches the FX8150 at 4.8GHz, but at nearly 100W lower power consumption:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150-review/9
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/cpus/2011/10/12/amd-fx-8150-review/10
 
Last edited:
just got a reply from asus support which is below

Dear Valued Customer,

Thank you for contacting ASUS Customer Service.

My name is ****** and it's my pleasure to help you with your problem.

It can, if you use the BIOS here:
http://support.asus.com/Download.as...US-3017.zip#CrosshairIV-Formula-ASUS-3017.zip
Due to the nature of BIOS update, there is certain level of dangers involved. BIOS update must be performed with extreme caution . During BIOS update process, your system must be maintained without interference or power loss to prevent unexpected damage.
Please note, the BIOS cannot be downgraded after you update to this BIOS.

Welcome to refer Troubleshooting & FAQ for ASUS products in ASUS website:
Troubleshooting - http://support.asus.com/troubleshooting/troubleshooting.aspx?SLanguage=en-us
FAQ - http://support.asus.com/faq/faq.aspx?SLanguage=en-us

If you continue to experience issues in the future, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Best Regards,
Click to expand...

but if you read the asus forums this has not worked for some people
 
Martini1991 said:
GPU bottleneck
Click to expand...

Indeed. And that's the point. At the res most people are playing at 1080P with eye candy, why would you bother upgrading from an X6 to a 2500K, when in the majority of games you're going to be GPU limited waaaaay before you are CPU.

Just seems insane to go from a 4GHz X6 to a 2500k... if your main priorities are VM's and Gaming...

Unless you are running multi GPU's the extra grunt the Intel offers just isn't going to get used.

And for VM's the two extra cores on the X6 would be far more useful.
 
HeX said:
Indeed. And that's the point. At the res most people are playing at 1080P with eye candy, why would you bother upgrading from an X6 to a 2500K, when in the majority of games you're going to be GPU limited waaaaay before you are CPU.

Just seems insane to go from a 4GHz X6 to a 2500k... if your main priorities are VM's and Gaming...

Unless you are running multi GPU's the extra grunt the Intel offers just isn't going to get used.

And for VM's the two extra cores on the X6 would be far more useful.
Click to expand...
Multi GPU aside, I would say it's up to individuals to decide if upgrading from the Phenom II X6 at 4.0GHz to 2500K is worth it or not depending on their budget, the games they play and their expectation.

Unfortunately majority of the games ain't anywhere as heavily threaded as BF games and are mostly lazy console ports that uses only 2-3 cores. In these situations, it is quite possible for the Phenom II X4 or X6 to bottleneck even single GPU card like GTX580...or even 6950 2GB if it was a CPU demanding game. But I would agree that generally it's not worth upgrading from Phenom II X6 to i5 2500K for people that are only on a single GPU card...except may be for those people play lots of older games that are CPU demanding couple with thread limited, such as Crysis 1 and WOW etc.
 
anybody notice that Rage use's a lot of cores ? , noticed that it uses all 6 cores of my 1090T . i wonder if it will use all of the cores of the fx cpu's ?
 
chaotic_uk said:
anybody notice that Rage use's a lot of cores ? , noticed that it uses all 6 cores of my 1090T . i wonder if it will use all of the cores of the fx cpu's ?
Click to expand...
Don't get confused between will use 6-8 cores and will NEED 6-8 cores. Unless your 6 cores usage all all up to 100%, having more cores than that won't give you better performance in return. CPU architecture and cache is where the gaming performance lies, not the 2, or 4, or 6 extra cores when CPU is not bottlenecking.
 
Marine-RX179 said:
Don't get confused between will use 6-8 cores and will NEED 6-8 cores. Unless your 6 cores usage all all up to 100%, having more cores than that won't give you better performance in return. CPU architecture and cache is where the gaming performance lies, not the 2, or 4, or 6 extra cores when CPU is not bottlenecking.
Click to expand...

You only need to be hitting 75% average on 6 cores for it to be processing more, not 100%.

A program that is fully 6 core aware and not OS thread core bouncing that was even only using 50% or less can be potentially quicker because there is less thread task switching.
 
Last edited:
Final8y said:
You only need to be hitting 75% average on 6 cores for it to be processing more, not 100%.

A program that is fully 6 core aware and not OS thread core bouncing that was even only using 50% or less can be potentially quicker because there is less thread task switching.
Click to expand...
And that pretty much sums up my point of having more cores NOT equal faster or better performance, if the games, application or software is the limitation.
 
lol chill guys. I'm accepting that 1090T to a 2500k is a sideways step (unfortunately I was forced down this route as I prematurely sold my CPU before BD was released). BUT - It'll be a great upgrade option come next year as I can just slot in an i7 ivybridge cpu.

Anyways - We've debated enough about Intel v's AMD. Personally I've had enough waiting for Asus to pull their finger out and have jumped ship to Asrock. Lets keep this thread clean for the users trying to get Asus to give them what they promised - i.e. BD support for the 890 series of boards.

Oh and guys - no matter how much Asus insist - that 3017 bios is absolute rubbish - it won't even let a BD CPU boot in the CHIV's (suggest you read the linked threads first post at Xtremesystems for more information)
 
zoomee said:
lol chill guys. I'm accepting that 1090T to a 2500k is a sideways step (unfortunately I was forced down this route as I prematurely sold my CPU before BD was released). BUT - It'll be a great upgrade option come next year as I can just slot in an i7 ivybridge cpu.

Anyways - We've debated enough about Intel v's AMD. Personally I've had enough waiting for Asus to pull their finger out and have jumped ship to Asrock. Lets keep this thread clean for the users trying to get Asus to give them what they promised - i.e. BD support for the 890 series of boards.

Oh and guys - no matter how much Asus insist - that 3017 bios is absolute rubbish - it won't even let a BD CPU boot in the CHIV's (suggest you read the linked threads first post at Xtremesystems for more information)
Click to expand...

I would not say sideways, more a diagonal :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom