Tuning your AMD CPU for Gaming

[Frakk]

@ I.M.O.G, i would like nothing more than to ditch this thread completely and start a new one.

 

[BeepBeep2]

Were you going to change the wording on the part about the IMC in the first post? That is the second sentence of the first post, it is written as though its a fact, and its inaccurate.

Taking things to PM doesn't make this a more informative, accurate thread. We can always do a Tuning your AMD CPU for Gaming Revision 2.0, where there is less disagreement, if everyone's input is taken under consideration... Otherwise if its an opinion piece you are sharing, its going to be subject to public peer review. Thats what forums are all about - the benefit of community knowledge.

Well he did.

It did say:

Before i go on i should say that Phenom and Athlon CPU are designed to run 1333Mhz, you should never run Phenom or Athlon CPU's with a memory clock much higher than that, if anything, as that could damage the CPU IMC which is inherently fragile on those CPU's.

Some may disagree but i have looked into this extensively and there are enough stories out there of people burning out there Phenom / Athlon CPU IMC while trying to run 1600Mhz RAM speed for extended periods, i run mine at around 1400Mhz and no more, my advice is don't, However just for the interests of this post i will make an exception.

Bulldozer and Piledriver FX CPU's support 1866Mhz RAM.

Now it says:

Before i go on i should say that AMD list there Phenom and Athlon CPU as designed to run 1333Mhz, if you run Phenom or Athlon CPU's with a memory clock much higher than that, if anything, it may damage the CPU's IMC which may then not be covered by AMD under warranty.

I have looked into this extensively and there are enough stories out there of people burning out there Phenom / Athlon CPU IMC while trying to run 1600Mhz RAM speed for extended periods, i run mine at around 1400Mhz and no more, my advice is don't, However just for the interests of this post i will make an exception.

Bulldozer and Piledriver FX CPU's support 1866Mhz RAM.

Then he added a Hyperlink to the CPU specifications page.
Remember that this applies to intel CPUs too, and Athlon 64, which were only supposed to run DDR2-800, the intel SB only should run 1333 too, and C2 Phenoms only 1066.

*yawn*...

 

[Bubba-Hotepp]

Well he did.

It did say:


Now it says:

Then he added a Hyperlink to the CPU specifications page.
Remember that this applies to intel CPUs too, and Athlon 64, which were only supposed to run DDR2-800, the intel SB only should run 1333 too, and C2 Phenoms only 1066.

*yawn*...

That was uncalled for and you know it. Changing his name to "wrongliness" and "just some different wrong stuff" in the quotes was nothing more than a cheap jab and is part of the reason he keeps arguing even if he is wrong on some points. Because you're taking cheap shots and making him feel like he needs to respond to save face. I think the time has come that you end the argument and back off.

There's a difference between helping someone learn what information is correct or incorrect and treating someone like their beneath you. You would do well to learn that difference and your discussions on the forum would probably be more fruitful and less argumentative.

 

[BeepBeep2]

That was uncalled for and you know it. Changing his name to "wrongliness" and "just some different wrong stuff" in the quotes was nothing more than a cheap jab and is part of the reason he keeps arguing even if he is wrong on some points. Because you're taking cheap shots and making him feel like he needs to respond to save face. I think the time has come that you end the argument and back off.

Are you serious?
All I've been asking is for some proof, and he asked me if I was drunk.

He attacked me some more calling proof "silly"...he states his opinions as factual...but they are not cross-checked with others, and apparently that is discouraged here...

EDIT:
Also, the header of the quote was in reference to the information posted. Is that a huge cheap shot at his name? If it is, sorry. Here, I'll make it blank again as it was using the quote BB code.

 

[Frakk]

I will be taking whats good from the first post in this thread and making a new one with it, after that this one is ditched.

 

[Bubba-Hotepp]

Are you serious?
All I've been asking is for some proof, and he asked me if I was drunk.

He attacked me some more calling proof "silly"...he states his opinions as factual...but they are not cross-checked with others, and apparently that is discouraged here...

And that makes it right? I haven't said anything about him because at this point he's trying to end the argument and you keep it going by making cheap shots. But yes, asking if you're drunk was uncalled for as well.

 

[BeepBeep2]

And that makes it right? I haven't said anything about him because at this point he's trying to end the argument and you keep it going by making cheap shots. But yes, asking if you're drunk was uncalled for as well.

Look, he stands by his claims but refuses to back them up.

He wants to end the argument but won't prove his side (a simple Hyperlink to these "burned up IMC" stories would be fine, two screenshots showing difference in stability with HT Link change would be fine,) or otherwise modify it to read something that is even close to factually accurate.

Who wins here? Everyone reading it still gets misled...

 

[Bobnova]

Everyone reading it still gets misled...

That, right there, is my problem with it.

The first post still says:

I have looked into this extensively and there are enough stories out there of people burning out there Phenom / Athlon CPU IMC while trying to run 1600Mhz RAM speed for extended periods

But no links. Never any links. Not even a link to an unsubstantiated story.
Nevermind my dad's computer that has been running at 1600 for... two years now?
Nevermind my FX which has been running at 2000MHz since a week or so after release day.
Nevermind the dozens and dozens (hundreds?) of PhII users on this very forum that have been using 1600 for an awfully long time indeed.

 

[BeepBeep2]

Yes, the only Phenom or Athlon II CPUs, I promise you that can not run 1600+ are C2 stepping CPUs due to just weaker IMCs that can't run high clocks while retaining stability, and even then most of those can still pull 1600 6-6-6-18 with Elpida Hypers.
On 790 boards and early 890 gigabyte boards, there is a loss of stability at 1780-1800 and a hard wall at 1840. On ASUS 890 boards, I could probably show you close to 1900 stable with a Phenom II X4...
The only way you could damage the IMC would be to run something crazy like 1.5v+ CPU-NB and 2.2v + DRAM 24/7...in which case it could degrade over time. (Or kill your ram, if you weren't using Micron D9 GTX/GTS/JNL chips)

Maybe I am taking cheap shots, am I?

It's wrong!...more people stumble upon these threads than you think, too...google points to this stuff, you know...

 

[Bubba-Hotepp]

That, right there, is my problem with it.

The first post still says:

But no links. Never any links. Not even a link to an unsubstantiated story.
Nevermind my dad's computer that has been running at 1600 for... two years now?
Nevermind my FX which has been running at 2000MHz since a week or so after release day.
Nevermind the dozens and dozens (hundreds?) of PhII users on this very forum that have been using 1600 for an awfully long time indeed.

Yes, the only Phenom or Athlon II CPUs, I promise you that can not run 1600+ are C2 stepping CPUs due to just weaker IMCs that can't run high clocks while retaining stability, and even then most of those can still pull 1600 6-6-6-18 with Elpida Hypers.
On 790 boards and early 890 gigabyte boards, there is a loss of stability at 1780-1800 and a hard wall at 1840. On ASUS 890 boards, I could probably show you close to 1900 stable with a Phenom II X4...
The only way you could damage the IMC would be to run something crazy like 1.5v+ CPU-NB and 2.2v + DRAM 24/7...in which case it could degrade over time. (Or kill your ram, if you weren't using Micron D9 GTX/GTS/JNL chips)

Maybe I am taking cheap shots, am I?

It's wrong!...more people stumble upon these threads than you think, too...google points to this stuff, you know...

Good lord!! You've both made the point evidently clear. It's turned into nothing more than arguing with cheap shots. As I said, it's time to end it.

 

[BeepBeep2]

Okay, so he will fix his post now or provide a small amount of proof, right?
That's all I asked for, but it made him really pissy

I guess Bobnova, IMOG and I will prance off to the bench activity section now, since we are sucker punching everyone.

 

[Bubba-Hotepp]

Okay, so he will fix his post now or provide a small amount of proof, right?
That's all I asked for, but it made him really pissy

I guess Bobnova, IMOG and I will prance off to the bench activity section now, since we are sucker punching everyone.

You don't get it do you? He doesn't HAVE to fix his post. He made a statement, you refuted that statement. End of story.

 

[I.M.O.G.]

Right, no one has to fix anything. It's just if inaccurate things are stated as fact, the thread is going to end up like this one where people insist on correcting the inaccuracies. It is easiest if the corrections are just made, otherwise it keeps going on.

The things under debate in this thread, like imc frequency and htlink speed aren't really debatable. The phII architecture isn't new, and it is known how they behave.

We have a right to insist on trying to be accurate. The site gets a lot of traffic, and these things reflect on us.

 

[Frakk]

Right, no one has to fix anything. It's just if inaccurate things are stated as fact, the thread is going to end up like this one where people insist on correcting the inaccuracies. It is easiest if the corrections are just made, otherwise it keeps going on.

The things under debate in this thread, like imc frequency and htlink speed aren't really debatable. The phII architecture isn't new, and it is known how they behave.

We have a right to insist on trying to be accurate. The site gets a lot of traffic, and these things reflect on us.

Unbeleavable..... is this on the front page? am i a staff member? do i represent this forum as someone of expertise?

Its one thing for me to say something that is not correct and then for someone to come along and say i'm wrong, disagree and leave it at that

Its quite another for that someone to get pissy, demand i prove my reasoning to him, demand my respect for him and demand i do as he say. there are words for people who think them selves so highly and behave as such.

Its that which reflects very badly on this forum, not inaccuracies, wrong things said by a member, its another member being allowed to behave like a megalomaniac.

 

[I.M.O.G.]

I talked to beepbeep in PM about how he approached the topic, it seemed too pushy and demanding... That is a separate issue.

If you say things that are incorrect however, you should be ready to accept that people are going to be eager to correct you. We aren't here to spread misinformation, and that is what your first post is doing. Maybe you got bad information from someone else here, its not necessarily your fault - but ultimately anyone posting to make corrections is trying to help.

If you would have just taken input and made adjustments, this wouldn't be a difficult situation. It has become a difficult situation though. Moreso than necessary for everyone involved I think.

 

[Frakk]

I talked to beepbeep in PM about how he approached the topic, it seemed too pushy and demanding... That is a separate issue.

If you say things that are incorrect however, you should be ready to accept that people are going to be eager to correct you. We aren't here to spread misinformation, and that is what your first post is doing. Maybe you got bad information from someone else here, its not necessarily your fault - but ultimately anyone posting to make corrections is trying to help.

If you would have just taken input and made adjustments, this wouldn't be a difficult situation. It has become a difficult situation though. Moreso than necessary for everyone involved I think.

Thank you.

I am perfectly capable of amending anything i say, but not if i'm treated with disdain.

This thread will now be replaced anyway, the new one will not have anything to do with the memory or IMC. its does not need it.

 

[keny]

BeepBeep2 seems to be getting a bit of a bad rep around the AMD forum, which is brought on by the way he replies to topics, there is no doubt that he knows a thing or two but really ! Beep man, take a look at what you are posting and read it back and see if you would like to be replied to in this manner and i would guarantee that you would not. i am not just referring to this particular thread but i have been reading other threads also where this seems to be the case and i think that a bit more of a less aggressive approach when answering topics will gain a lot more respect than just information alone.

Not slating no one here, just a observation i have made over the last few weeks since Beep starting posting over here.

 

[Tyerker]

So, anyone want to post CPU-NB OC + RAM 1866 benchmarks with a Bulldozer?

 

[Bubba-Hotepp]

Deleted on advice of counsel (E.D. )

So, anyone want to post CPU-NB OC + RAM 1866 benchmarks with a Bulldozer?

When I get my rig back up and running I'll post 2133 benchmarks.

 

[Frakk]

When I get my rig back up and running I'll post 2133 benchmarks.

Thanks