WTF! Is my 7750 actually a phenom?

[dingleberrydorkbutt]

It was kuma packaging, but I've hit a snag. I changed the frequency to 3.1 and it reverted back to 2 cores. cpu-z and overdrive both identify it correctly now.

I am so upset. I had 4 cores running stable. Something triggered windows to see all 4 cores until I changed the frequency, and now I can't get it to go back. There has got to be a way, or it would have never happened the first time.

 

[richierich1212]

Originally posted by: dingleberrydorkbutt
It was kuma packaging, but I've hit a snag. I changed the frequency to 3.1 and it reverted back to 2 cores. cpu-z and overdrive both identify it correctly now.

I am so upset. I had 4 cores running stable. Something triggered windows to see all 4 cores until I changed the frequency, and now I can't get it to go back. There has got to be a way, or it would have never happened the first time.

you got too greedy, lmao!

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: dingleberrydorkbutt
It was kuma packaging, but I've hit a snag. I changed the frequency to 3.1 and it reverted back to 2 cores. cpu-z and overdrive both identify it correctly now.

I am so upset. I had 4 cores running stable. Something triggered windows to see all 4 cores until I changed the frequency, and now I can't get it to go back. There has got to be a way, or it would have never happened the first time.

Put it back to 2.9. I told you - you found the magic unlocking frequency.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: SickBeast

Originally posted by: dingleberrydorkbutt
It was kuma packaging, but I've hit a snag. I changed the frequency to 3.1 and it reverted back to 2 cores. cpu-z and overdrive both identify it correctly now.

I am so upset. I had 4 cores running stable. Something triggered windows to see all 4 cores until I changed the frequency, and now I can't get it to go back. There has got to be a way, or it would have never happened the first time.

Put it back to 2.9. I told you - you found the magic unlocking frequency.

Indeed... it may be a QVL sort of thing - where cores get disabled past a certain speed or something. I'd bet though the 4 cores might have some sort of stability issues, which is why some would be disabled. But to not have fuses disabling cores... that would be amusing to say the least.

Set it back to 2.9 and try again.

 

[djnsmith7]

It sounds like he can't get it to go back to 2.9...Beast, you just might be onto something...2.9 may be the magic spot w/ this CPU...One way to find out & that's to have someone else w/ this CPU OC it to 2.9 & see if the results are replicated...

 

[dingleberrydorkbutt]

I tried it at 2.9 and changed memory speed and all kind of stuff and it wouldn't go back to 4 cores.

Now I've got another problem. I've been running memtest and it's come up with 82 errors so far. I noticed that when I ran prime 95 with the test that included ram stress, it would always give an error, so i tried memtest. Looks like I'm gonna have to rma the ram back to newegg. Geez!

 

[SickBeast]

Originally posted by: dingleberrydorkbutt
I tried it at 2.9 and changed memory speed and all kind of stuff and it wouldn't go back to 4 cores.

Now I've got another problem. I've been running memtest and it's come up with 82 errors so far. I noticed that when I ran prime 95 with the test that included ram stress, it would always give an error, so i tried memtest. Looks like I'm gonna have to rma the ram back to newegg. Geez!

What you have described is nothing short of bizarre.

I'm sorry that your greed led to such poverty and dismay.

Maybe you should exchange it for a quad-core now that you've had the taste of it. It's hard to reduce one's lifestyle once they're used to a certain level of class.

:beer:

 

[TurtleCrusher]

LOL sickbeast.

Awesome thread. Full of hope and fail. I love it.

 

[LOUISSSSS]

when you did have it running with 4 cores SEEN, did it perform like a quad core? did it get the same benchmark scores as a comparable quad core chip? i hope you got a chance to run some benchmarks...

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
when you did have it running with 4 cores SEEN, did it perform like a quad core? did it get the same benchmark scores as a comparable quad core chip? i hope you got a chance to run some benchmarks...

Yes. Click the cinebench link. 3.82x single core.

 

[Denithor]

What were the drivers it loaded? Maybe that has something to do with it. Roll back your drivers to those?

 

[cusideabelincoln]

Try re-installing those "magic" drivers.

 

[eternalone]

Damn someone with Elite cpu skill should try messing around with these cpu's. Someones got to know a way to enable the unused cores, I mean its what forums like this are about. I know they are fused, but where there is a will there is a way. If I had more money to spend that would be one of my side projects. Too bad im not that elite and am on a budget poor me. LOL.

 

[dingleberrydorkbutt]

I tried updating the drivers and then rolling back and all kinds of stuff. Then on one reboot, it went back to 4 cores, and was running prime95 stably (but hot, it was overclocked 200 MHZ and running a stoick fan meant for a dual core), but changed afterwards.

There has got to be some sort of code or BIOS modification that someone could write to make windows see 4 cores all the time.

And on my memory, it stabilized when I clocked it down to 800 MHZ. I ran memtest for a while and it showed no errors, so I'm thinking that the newest BIOS might fix that, but might also ruin my 4-core chances. The BIOS was from Nov 11 and I thought it would be OK, but if the kuma is actually a 2 core phenom 2, then the newest BIOS might be required for it to run the memory stably at 1066. I know the newest BIOS is required for the actual Phenom 2.

I just hope someone with some cpu smarts can figure out how to hack this for continuous 4 core capability. It's there, because I had 4 cores running at least twice. The benchmarks showed it, staying right up there with phenoms and core2quads.

Somebody please write some code.
:brokenheart:

 

[Erif]

Originally posted by: dingleberrydorkbutt
but if the kuma is actually a 2 core phenom 2, then the newest BIOS might be required for it to run the memory stably at 1066. I know the newest BIOS is required for the actual Phenom 2.

I doubt its a Phenom II, because your cpuz screenshot showed it to be 65nm. Phenom IIs are 45nm

 

[dingleberrydorkbutt]

Originally posted by: Erif

Originally posted by: dingleberrydorkbutt
but if the kuma is actually a 2 core phenom 2, then the newest BIOS might be required for it to run the memory stably at 1066. I know the newest BIOS is required for the actual Phenom 2.

I doubt its a Phenom II, because your cpuz screenshot showed it to be 65nm. Phenom IIs are 45nm

Doh! I shoulda caught that.

That may mean that I have an actual memory problem, then, if it won't run stably at 1066. I'm going to update the BIOS tonight to see of it fixes the memory problem.

And, while I'm thinking about it. Memtest, version 2.1, I think, that came with my mobo, sees the proc as a Phenom X4.

 

[SunnyD]

2 or 4 dimms? If you're running 4 dimms, you're going to have issues at 1066 just from the memory controller.

 

[Denithor]

Originally posted by: dingleberrydorkbutt
The BIOS was from Nov 11 and I thought it would be OK, but if the kuma is actually a 2 core phenom 2, then the newest BIOS might be required for it to run the memory stably at 1066. I know the newest BIOS is required for the actual Phenom 2.

First off, Kuma is an X2 Phenom chip not an X2 Phenom II chip.
This review at XbitLabs had the following commentary on the new chips:

In other words, the microarchitecture that has been used in quad- and triple-core Phenom processors has finally arrived into dual-core CPUs. As a result, new Athlon X2 7000 will acquire L3 cache, HyperTransport bus with increased bandwidth and a bunch of other microarchitectural improvements. But on the other hand, Athlon X2 7000 series will inherit all the issues from the 65nm Phenom CPUs leading to low clock frequencies.

In short, they found the chips to be a bit above the older Brisbane X2 processors in performance but also higher in power consumption (30-40W higher in actual power draw versus X2-6000).

Originally posted by: eternalone
Damn someone with Elite cpu skill should try messing around with these cpu's. Someones got to know a way to enable the unused cores, I mean its what forums like this are about. I know they are fused, but where there is a will there is a way. If I had more money to spend that would be one of my side projects. Too bad im not that elite and am on a budget poor me. LOL.

You obviously don't understand the concept of "fused." What appears to have happened in this case is the OP received an ES somehow rather than the Kuma chip he ordered. Which actually makes sense based on the fact that the motherboard is having trouble correctly identifying the chip (BIOS isn't set to ID ES chips). He's probably lucky it boots at all.

 

[SunnyD]

Hey OP... if you get the chance and/or tear your system apart... clean off the CPU, take a pic and post the model and stepping numbers ON the CPU itself. I'd be willing to bet you might actually have an ES.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Denithor

Originally posted by: eternalone
Damn someone with Elite cpu skill should try messing around with these cpu's. Someones got to know a way to enable the unused cores, I mean its what forums like this are about. I know they are fused, but where there is a will there is a way. If I had more money to spend that would be one of my side projects. Too bad im not that elite and am on a budget poor me. LOL.

You obviously don't understand the concept of "fused." What appears to have happened in this case is the OP received an ES somehow rather than the Kuma chip he ordered. Which actually makes sense based on the fact that the motherboard is having trouble correctly identifying the chip (BIOS isn't set to ID ES chips). He's probably lucky it boots at all.

Yeah the chances of this ES chip representing the distribution of retail Kuma chips is pretty much zero. The OP got an ES chip that can be triggered to operate in 4-core mode.

No doubt this "backdoor" was left there by design of the AMD test/qualification group as it is an ES chip for a reason.

Not to look a gift horse in the mouth, the OP is no doubt going to have some fun with his ES Phenom 2-core/4-core thingy.

But getting folks' hopes up that this experience will transfer to the general Kuma retail chips is unwarranted until someone with a legitimate Kuma can duplicate these observations.

 

[dingleberrydorkbutt]

Originally posted by: SunnyD
Hey OP... if you get the chance and/or tear your system apart... clean off the CPU, take a pic and post the model and stepping numbers ON the CPU itself. I'd be willing to bet you might actually have an ES.

I have those wrote down somewhere, but I remember that it had 7750 in the number.

Originally posted by: SunnyD
2 or 4 dimms? If you're running 4 dimms, you're going to have issues at 1066 just from the memory controller.

2 Dimms, dual channel

I found this in the specs of an Asus board at newegg with the same chipset:
"Due to AMD CPU limitation, DDR2 1066 is supported by AM2+ / AM3 CPU for one DIMM per channel only"

So that may be the memory problem. I'll check it out this evening. If it's the case, would 800 MHZ in dual channel be better than 1066 in single?

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: dingleberrydorkbutt

Originally posted by: SunnyD
Hey OP... if you get the chance and/or tear your system apart... clean off the CPU, take a pic and post the model and stepping numbers ON the CPU itself. I'd be willing to bet you might actually have an ES.

I have those wrote down somewhere, but I remember that it had 7750 in the number.

Originally posted by: SunnyD
2 or 4 dimms? If you're running 4 dimms, you're going to have issues at 1066 just from the memory controller.

2 Dimms, dual channel

I found this in the specs of an Asus board at newegg with the same chipset:
"Due to AMD CPU limitation, DDR2 1066 is supported by AM2+ / AM3 CPU for one DIMM per channel only"

So that may be the memory problem. I'll check it out this evening. If it's the case, would 800 MHZ in dual channel be better than 1066 in single?

No, that's right. 1 DIMM per channel = 2 DIMMs total in dual-channel mode. Unless you have the RAM in the wrong sockets...

 

[dingleberrydorkbutt]

Originally posted by: SunnyD

No, that's right. 1 DIMM per channel = 2 DIMMs total in dual-channel mode. Unless you have the RAM in the wrong sockets...

I'll have to check it out, but I'm pretty sure that I installed them according to the manual as dual-channel (after all the 'puters I've built, I still read the mobo manual )

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: dingleberrydorkbutt

Originally posted by: SunnyD

No, that's right. 1 DIMM per channel = 2 DIMMs total in dual-channel mode. Unless you have the RAM in the wrong sockets...

I'll have to check it out, but I'm pretty sure that I installed them according to the manual as dual-channel (after all the 'puters I've built, I still read the mobo manual )

Only other thing I can think of is most DDR2-1066 needs higher voltage (there is no 1066 spec - 1066 really is factory overclocked 800), to the tune of 2.0-2.2v depending on the ram you have. Some RAM (notably OCZ which runs at 2.15-2.2v) actually won't boot properly in some motherboards as the motherboards default to 1.8v. You may need to go into the BIOS and manually set the voltage and timings to the RAM's manufacturer spec for the machine to run stable.

 

[dingleberrydorkbutt]

It's OCZ reaper with the funny-looking heatsinks and I had it set at 2.1 and 2.2 trying to get it stable.