• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Finally got my 940BE

R

Rhoxed

Golden Member
940BE
MSI K9A2 Platinum **
4GB G. SKill 1066

Stepping
CACVC AC 0851APCW
9101092L80015

I think i got an "OK" clocker (recieved today so haven't spent much time)

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=509881

** I also have a Foxconn A-79A-S that i will also try the chip in at some point

On a side note, i got the A-79A-S 3 days ago, stuck my "crappy" 9850BE in it that would only get to 2.8 STABLE on my MSI K9A2
This is the result:
http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=508174

So a good chance i will net a decent increase putting the 940 in the Foxconn
 
Dang, Skippy, that's sweet with the Phenom 9850 BE and the Foxconn 790FX .... but the sweetness is the Phenom 940 and the MSI. We need all the details!

Did you snag the Phenom II 940 / Foxconn 790FX combo ??
 
I can to 3.9 easy, but not under load. I installed windows @ 3.8, then went 3728 for a while, but got EUE's so had to go down to 3.6
 
so far i have been able to bench/idle for a few hours at 3.9

heyheybooboo,

Yes i did get the 940BE / Foxconn 790FX combo for 110$ off
The board came last friday and the chip came on monday, so i had 3 days to push the 9850BE untill i got to toy around with the 940BE
 
rock stable here @ 3.8, no crashes at all, same board as yours.

Congrats. It's a great improvement over my old 9850 too.
 
So the BE can really overclock on a SB600 mobo. It makes me dream at a quad now. But OP, is that rock solid or just CPU-Z stable? What voltage are you using?
 
Pretty impressive. Still useless to the working world, as EVERYBODY does nothing but FOLD 24/7 and these chips are XX% slower than Q6600's clock for clock at folding. Therefor, they are worthless.
 
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Pretty impressive. Still useless to the working world, as EVERYBODY does nothing but FOLD 24/7 and these chips are XX% slower than Q6600's clock for clock at folding. Therefor, they are worthless.
Click to expand...

Who's folding? I'm not.
 
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Pretty impressive. Still useless to the working world, as EVERYBODY does nothing but FOLD 24/7 and these chips are XX% slower than Q6600's clock for clock at folding. Therefor, they are worthless.
Click to expand...

:thumbsdown:
 
Originally posted by: Gikaseixas
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Pretty impressive. Still useless to the working world, as EVERYBODY does nothing but FOLD 24/7 and these chips are XX% slower than Q6600's clock for clock at folding. Therefor, they are worthless.
Click to expand...

:thumbsdown:
Click to expand...

lol that was funny. Sarcasm/meter fail ? 😀
 
Originally posted by: error8
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Pretty impressive. Still useless to the working world, as EVERYBODY does nothing but FOLD 24/7 and these chips are XX% slower than Q6600's clock for clock at folding. Therefor, they are worthless.
Click to expand...

Who's folding? I'm not.
Click to expand...

Markfw900, who else?
 
Originally posted by: error8
So the BE can really overclock on a SB600 mobo. It makes me dream at a quad now. But OP, is that rock solid or just CPU-Z stable? What voltage are you using?
Click to expand...

Rock solid as of 5PM yesterday till now, 6hrs prime and a ton of benches done.

Voltage is at 1.5 for 3.9

For 24/7 i will probably run 3.75ghz @ 1.45v

Going to try for 4.0+ for benches soon.

btw this is on a Xigmatek Dark Knight HSF with 2 silverstone 110CFM fans
 
Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
Think people should check if their sarcasm meter is working correctly 😉
Click to expand...

LOL my meter is working fine.

i actually enjoyed what he said, made me laugh and i wanted to make a point.

Markfw900 will lock this thread, watch:laugh:
 
Originally posted by: Gikaseixas
Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
Think people should check if their sarcasm meter is working correctly 😉
Click to expand...

LOL my meter is working fine.

i actually enjoyed what he said, made me laugh and i wanted to make a point.

Markfw900 will lock this thread, watch:laugh:
Click to expand...

Nope. I give up. Nobody believes me, fine. Their loss. But that's why I buy hardware, so I can talk from personal experience, not just reading some article on the web...
 
Sounds like me OP. Infact, almost identical. My 9850 would only hit 2.8 stable in my current board that uses a SB600. I could boot at 2.9GHz but benches would fail, at 3GHz Windows would lock up hard as I got to the desktop.

My PhII 940 seems to be happily churning along at 3.7GHz / 1.5v right now. I've gotten higher, but not stable and not at temps/voltages I like.

I gotta wonder how much this SB600 is holding me back with this PhII 940 now that I see what your 9850 will do in a better board. Who knows, maybe 4GHz would be possible in a better board... but, I can't see spending the money for a few hundred more MHz even though I really want to. 🙂 I guess I'll just have to live with ~3.7GHz.

Anybody testing these chips with the uncore clock speed changed? I would think with the uncore at 1.8GHz as the cores increase in speed there'd be a point where the uncore is holding performance back.
 
Originally posted by: Markfw900
Originally posted by: Gikaseixas
Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
Think people should check if their sarcasm meter is working correctly 😉
Click to expand...

LOL my meter is working fine.

i actually enjoyed what he said, made me laugh and i wanted to make a point.

Markfw900 will lock this thread, watch:laugh:
Click to expand...

Nope. I give up. Nobody believes me, fine. Their loss. But that's why I buy hardware, so I can talk from personal experience, not just reading some article on the web...
Click to expand...

Nobody argues that FAH performance is worse. Of course it would be worse, the P2 doesn't have SSE4. What they argue about is you writing a big paragraph saying it's slower than the q6600 clock for clock, and then later saying "In FAH". For other purposes it's just as fast/faster clock/clock.
 
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Originally posted by: Markfw900
Originally posted by: Gikaseixas
Originally posted by: Cookie Monster
Think people should check if their sarcasm meter is working correctly 😉
Click to expand...

LOL my meter is working fine.

i actually enjoyed what he said, made me laugh and i wanted to make a point.

Markfw900 will lock this thread, watch:laugh:
Click to expand...

Nope. I give up. Nobody believes me, fine. Their loss. But that's why I buy hardware, so I can talk from personal experience, not just reading some article on the web...
Click to expand...

Nobody argues that FAH performance is worse. Of course it would be worse, the P2 doesn't have SSE4. What they argue about is you writing a big paragraph saying it's slower than the q6600 clock for clock, and then later saying "In FAH". For other purposes it's just as fast/faster clock/clock.
Click to expand...

Reviews show the PhII as being a touch slower than C2Q clock for clock.

 
Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Nobody argues that FAH performance is worse. Of course it would be worse, the P2 doesn't have SSE4. What they argue about is you writing a big paragraph saying it's slower than the q6600 clock for clock, and then later saying "In FAH". For other purposes it's just as fast/faster clock/clock.
Click to expand...

Reviews show the PhII as being a touch slower than C2Q clock for clock.
Click to expand...

Are we talking Kentsfield C2Q's or Yorkfield C2Q's?

Surely Phenom II's IPC is > Kenstfield C2Q's IPC in a number of benchmarks (not F@H obviously, I will channel mark for a moment) which is what the Q6600 comparisons are being made here...but yeah I'd agree the Phenom II's IPC is < Yorkfield C2Q IPC when we are talking the Q9*50 variety with full 12MB cache, etc.

(/steps back so the "yeah but then price/performance goes out the window, rabble rabble rabble" discourse can ensue)
 
Originally posted by: Idontcare
Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Nobody argues that FAH performance is worse. Of course it would be worse, the P2 doesn't have SSE4. What they argue about is you writing a big paragraph saying it's slower than the q6600 clock for clock, and then later saying "In FAH". For other purposes it's just as fast/faster clock/clock.
Click to expand...

Reviews show the PhII as being a touch slower than C2Q clock for clock.
Click to expand...

Are we talking Kentsfield C2Q's or Yorkfield C2Q's?

Surely Phenom II's IPC is > Kenstfield C2Q's IPC in a number of benchmarks (not F@H obviously, I will channel mark for a moment) which is what the Q6600 comparisons are being made here...but yeah I'd agree the Phenom II's IPC is < Yorkfield C2Q IPC when we are talking the Q9*50 variety with full 12MB cache, etc.

(/steps back so the "yeah but then price/performance goes out the window, rabble rabble rabble" discourse can ensue)
Click to expand...

You're right, I was thinking PhII X4 9x0 vs Yorkie. It looks like if you compare the X4 810 with a Q6600, IPC is pretty equal.

 
Originally posted by: Idontcare
Originally posted by: Flipped Gazelle
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Nobody argues that FAH performance is worse. Of course it would be worse, the P2 doesn't have SSE4. What they argue about is you writing a big paragraph saying it's slower than the q6600 clock for clock, and then later saying "In FAH". For other purposes it's just as fast/faster clock/clock.
Click to expand...

Reviews show the PhII as being a touch slower than C2Q clock for clock.
Click to expand...

Are we talking Kentsfield C2Q's or Yorkfield C2Q's?

Surely Phenom II's IPC is > Kenstfield C2Q's IPC in a number of benchmarks (not F@H obviously, I will channel mark for a moment) which is what the Q6600 comparisons are being made here...but yeah I'd agree the Phenom II's IPC is < Yorkfield C2Q IPC when we are talking the Q9*50 variety with full 12MB cache, etc.

(/steps back so the "yeah but then price/performance goes out the window, rabble rabble rabble" discourse can ensue)
Click to expand...

I still firmly believe that F@H isn't utilizing the appropriate Phenom II SSE instruction set as opposed to what's available on Intel chips.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top