Go Back   Hardware Canucks > NEWS & REVIEWS > Reviews & Articles from the Web

    
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old April 29, 2008, 09:58 AM
Allstar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 550
Default AMD has problems with Phenom X4s and 780G

According to this report coming out of CNet.com, AMD has admitted to problems with their 780G chipset motherboards and "high end" Phenom X4 processors. The problem seems to arise from 780G board makers not properly building in support for 125W TDP processors; what is more upsetting about this issue is AMD's response: "What people have done, m...

More...
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old May 10, 2008, 07:00 AM
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 9
Default

that problem have been talk be4, manifacturer like Gigabyte told their board was build for 125W TDP, but other like ECS build thier board for 90W TDP .....
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old May 10, 2008, 06:00 PM
b1lk1's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lindsay, Ontario
Posts: 2,488

My System Specs

Default

My ASUS board is on the list of bad boards for the 125W CPU's. I am treading very lightly with my board since I can't afford to replace it right away. Honestly, I bought my setup without alot of research on this topic since I expected the boards to safely take the processor. I find all the excuses being used from both AMD and board manufacturers to be pathetic and there is no reason this should be happening other than greed. If they stuck to the reference design and charged a few more dollars, we'd not be hearing about this. Once again putting my faith in building a worthwhile AMD system has been proven misguided. Utter BS.........
__________________
MY HEATWARE
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old May 10, 2008, 07:36 PM
SKYMTL's Avatar
HardwareCanuck Review Editor
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Montreal
Posts: 11,611
Default

IMO, this is ANOTHER case of AMD not communicating their intentions nor processor specs properly to manufacturers who support them. If AMD WANTED the 780G chipset to support the higher-end processors maybe they should have listed it as a required item when sending out reference specs to everyone.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old May 10, 2008, 08:03 PM
Eagle Eye's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Kleinburg, ON
Posts: 2,069

My System Specs

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SKYMTL View Post
IMO, this is ANOTHER case of AMD not communicating their intentions nor processor specs properly to manufacturers who support them. If AMD WANTED the 780G chipset to support the higher-end processors maybe they should have listed it as a required item when sending out reference specs to everyone.
I agree with you that AMD should be clear about their intentions, but the 9850BE or any other CPU with a TDP 125watts is not a cpu classed for the 780G chipset. I really don't see why anyone would want to pair such a highend cpu on a M-ATX form factor if their intentions for the cpu was a HTPC. Like AMD said in their statement regarding this the 9850E was never intended to be used the 780G chipset it belongs on their 790FX series.

For those that do have 780G motherboards incorporating some mosfet cooling as most of these boards were built without them and CPU cooling that offers additional cooling around the other components of the motherboard. As I have read there is no guarantee and your board could die in a matter of minutes or within a couple of hours or days I guess which ever comes first for you.

According to Asus CPU support website the M3A78-EMH HDMI does not support the 9850BE, a 9550 is the highest it will support not suprising it has a TDP of 95w.

EE

Last edited by Eagle Eye; May 10, 2008 at 08:38 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old May 11, 2008, 07:17 AM
b1lk1's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lindsay, Ontario
Posts: 2,488

My System Specs

Default

I'm sorry, but I could not disagree with you any stronger. There is no reason that these boards should NOT support high end CPU's considering it doesn't take much effort to do so. Look at the number of Intel MATX boards supporting Quads. This is down to the fact that AMD didn't require it and motherboard companies saving a few bucks. I know lots of people that spend all the money on a CPU and get a cheap board as either a stop gap or as a compromise to save a few bucks.

Besides that, plop a 9550 in this board and overclock it. Guess what? You just raised the TDP. Now even the supported CPU is going to draw too much power. They gave these boards fantastic overclocking abilities and they even promote those abilities. Why wouldn't someone want to take one and OC the daylights out of it???

If I was buying a Dell/NP/Compaq/etc then I would not expect to see a high end CPU in such a PC. I foolishly bought the board without researching it thinking it would make a great little powerhouse that could hold me over until I could afford something better. I already had a HD3450 sitting around so it seemed like the perfect excuse to play with one. I do not buy that garbage argument that it was never intended for it. Enthusiasts do things to PC components that they were NEVER intended to do all the time.

Piss poor communucations and craptastic motherboard designs are responsible for this. It's no wonder AMD is getting pushed down further and further. Once again, I fully regret giving AMD my money when I could have just bought an Intel system for the same that would have easily handled overclocking a Quad. Too bad the 780G has afar superior IGP but a weak motherboard platform. I know pretty much every board made with Intel's 3100/3500 will support a Quad.

Intel wins yet another round even with inferior performance. How sad is that........

EDIT: Also, explain to me how a $250 CPU is considered high end. That concept is lost on me. The QX6850 I use in my test bench machine is high end, but I fail to see the Phenom being called high end.
__________________
MY HEATWARE

Last edited by b1lk1; May 11, 2008 at 07:44 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old May 11, 2008, 10:34 AM
BALISTX's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 2,005
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by b1lk1 View Post
EDIT: Also, explain to me how a $250 CPU is considered high end. That concept is lost on me. The QX6850 I use in my test bench machine is high end, but I fail to see the Phenom being called high end.
When you are talking CPU's in general it is not "high end" compared to the Intel CPU's but it is AMD's "high end" processor.
__________________
"Though I walk through the shadow of the Valley of Death I shall fear no evil as my C8 Carbine is locked and loaded."

Next Build: E5200 @ 3.6GHz (333x11) | Xigmatek HDT-RS1283 HSF | Biostar TP43D2-A7 | Mushkin Redlines DDR2-1000 @ DDR2-999 5-5-5-12
EVGA 9600 GT 512MB - 650MHz - 1800MHz - 1626MHz | Seagate 'Cuda 250GB 7200rpm SATA2 | Corsair VX550 | CM690 - Custom Atomic Orange Pearl


[Heatware]
[eBay]
[Rosetta]
BALISTX.com
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old May 11, 2008, 03:28 PM
b1lk1's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Lindsay, Ontario
Posts: 2,488

My System Specs

Default

Anyway you look at this, it is still a major failure on AMD's part for letting this happen. They have found a new area to fail when it comes to competing with Intel.
__________________
MY HEATWARE
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old May 11, 2008, 05:48 PM
Eagle Eye's Avatar
Hall Of Fame
F@H
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Kleinburg, ON
Posts: 2,069

My System Specs

Default

I find it hard to believe at this point and time that AMD is still in competition with Intel they are certainly not doing it with performance because its clear even with AMD highest offering that the performance gap just keeps widening with every release from Intel. If you really look at the current market that AMD is targeted at its not on the extreme end in comparison to what Intel has to offer. AMD has become a cheaper alternative to Intel systems appealing to a person's wallet rather then some benchmark tool or how many FPS you'll get in Crysis or any other games. AMD has released great products in recent years and their current products offer a very capable computer when building a new system, although not as fast as Intel it still performs and satisfys the many that purchased their products. I for one have been with AMD for years and regardless of what any benchmark reports the simple fact is that all my games and software have always worked as well as on any Intel system would and I couldn't be any more satisfied with that.

Last edited by Eagle Eye; May 11, 2008 at 08:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old May 11, 2008, 09:01 PM
MpG's Avatar
MpG MpG is offline
Hall Of Fame
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Kitchener, ON
Posts: 3,143
Default

Failing marks all around on this one, I'd say, but I think I blame the manufacturers most.

Even basic P35 chipsets have constantly been powering Quad-cores past the 200W consumption mark, ever since they first came out. It's not exactly top-secret that any CPU in the 90-125W TDP envelope sees its power consumption skyrocket under overclocking conditions. The manufacturers KNOW this.

And now that AMD is offering processors threatening to hit the same power levels, what do these manufacturers offer to handle things on their overclocking-equipped motherboards? Little strips of tin-foil for cooling? Insufficient power handling to boot a 125W TDP processor at stock speeds? No warnings on their websites regarding processor compatibility?

Meh. Big fail for the manufacturers in my book.
__________________
i7 2600K | ASUS Maximus IV GENE-Z | 580GTX | Corsair DDR3-2133
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes