AMD Spider Platform 9950 Black CPU Review

For discussions related to the main web site or the forum itself are now combined into one to clean things up a bit..

AMD Spider Platform 9950 Black CPU Review

Postby ollE » Thu Aug 28, 2008 3:10 pm

ollE
Anti-Static Strap
Anti-Static Strap
 
Posts: 404
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2005 1:22 pm
Location: Deep Space

Re: AMD Spider Platform 9950 Black CPU Review

Postby Gener_AL » Sun Aug 31, 2008 1:07 pm

First of all its not a spider platform review

See the AMD documentation for what constitutes a spider platform on their website.

Second point is the page setup and overclocking lacks the "overclocking"

Third point is your tesing the CPU on a mobo with no Official support.

Fourth point SpecViewPerf10 results look skewed.

Fith point what raid controller used ? and what are these problems ?
Gener_AL
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:55 pm

Postby evasive » Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:48 am

3rd point:
all 790FX chipset boards MSI has on offer:
http://global.msi.com.tw/index.php?func ... 3_no=#menu
and
http://global.msi.com.tw/index.php?func ... 3_no=#menu

Agena 9950 (B3, 140W) 200 13 SINCE 1.4

so excuse me?
We hate rut, but we fear change.
********************************
System error, strike any user to continue...
evasive
Mobo-fu Master
Mobo-fu Master
 
Posts: 36857
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 12:01 am
Location: Netherlands

Postby evasive » Mon Sep 01, 2008 1:08 am

1st point
http://wheretobuy.amd.com/spider.html

CODENAME: SPIDER

It's everything you want, all at once.
It's an irresistible combination of performance and price. It's a more intense, more immersive computing experience. It's the first all-AMD platform - a combination of the new AMD Phenom™ processor, ATI Radeon™ HD 3000 series graphics, and any AMD 7-Series Chipset.


the spider has evolved so yes we used a HD4000 series card. Now if you have a link to the actual document you are quoting, please post it.
We hate rut, but we fear change.
********************************
System error, strike any user to continue...
evasive
Mobo-fu Master
Mobo-fu Master
 
Posts: 36857
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 12:01 am
Location: Netherlands

Postby evasive » Mon Sep 01, 2008 1:18 am

ah, in testing a problem was found so that's why the motherboard has been changed. With another board that has a 7-series chipset so still spider platform.

It says Promise onboard controller with RAID0 in the article so that seems to have been the culprit.

As for no official support, the 9950 is brand new so not all manufacturers have official bios support for this thing yet. To be expected. Be glad it is mentioned at all...

For a balanced comparison against the 9850 I tested that CPU on this new motherboard as well adding those scores to our AMD database.


SpecViewPerf10 results look skewed
that is odd given the fact the 9850 was used as drop-in replacement...
We hate rut, but we fear change.
********************************
System error, strike any user to continue...
evasive
Mobo-fu Master
Mobo-fu Master
 
Posts: 36857
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 12:01 am
Location: Netherlands

Postby ben2207 » Mon Sep 01, 2008 10:15 am

1. The only difference between the Spider platform and the system build is the HD 4870 graphics cards in CrossfireX
2. Valid point...
3. I made the point about the official support in the review. The processors had 0 issues throughout testing and in fact running fine now.
4. I've had issues with SpecViewPerf giving the same results on two different test runs
5. I've had problems with setting up WD Raptor drives in RAID 0 on EVERY AMD chipset motherboard I've tried in the last few years. The system would not get past the detecting HDDs phase in the BIOS. It's been an issue since at least SB600
ben2207
Green Belt
Green Belt
 
Posts: 170
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 1:04 pm

Postby Gener_AL » Mon Sep 01, 2008 12:05 pm

1. no a Nforce 750 IS_NOT A 7 seris chipset
2. Thannk you.
3. That is not the point. I buy a 9950 i put in unsupported mobo, the mobo breaks.. I get no refund ... now do you understand ?
4. Then obviously there is an issue so why puclish the result
5. USE DIFFERENT HARD DRIVES.
Gener_AL
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:55 pm

Postby evasive » Mon Sep 01, 2008 2:14 pm

1. Seems a valid remark.
http://www.amd.com/us-en/0,,3715_15337_15354,00.html
although the board is marketed under nForce 7series:
http://www.xfxforce.com/en-us/products/ ... s/750.aspx
the naming game but with a twist this time...

3.
Supports all Socket AM2+ CPU's up to 95W
yeah that is clearly a violation given the 9950 does 145W according to the specs...

4. I don't get this. Are these results consistent in several test runs, yes or no?

5. the reason to use raptors is to make sure the bottleneck is not the harddisk I guess.
We hate rut, but we fear change.
********************************
System error, strike any user to continue...
evasive
Mobo-fu Master
Mobo-fu Master
 
Posts: 36857
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 12:01 am
Location: Netherlands

Postby Gener_AL » Mon Sep 01, 2008 2:49 pm

While i agreee with your point about point 5 evasive, the point is to test a "spider system" you think if the raptors were causing an issue then why change the chipset ? Simply using samsung seagate/maxtor IBM for a solution if indeed the raptors are to blame. IF wanting to rid bottleneck use SSD if your after IO performance ?

I applaud the effort for the article but its just_wrong , choice of motherboard in test, overclocking ? and most importantly the title. It is NOT a spider platform.

I could nitpick further about the remarks about Intel comparing the qx9770 , why not use a q6600 and q6700 ? and then use a P45 chipset and call it a skulltrail comparison ;) (just kidding of course)
Because as it stands the article is a bit of a joke and misleading and quite liable (regarding using a motherboard , which i bet would fail with a 125w and 140W cpu esp if overclocked (perhaps this is why you veered clear of publishing or testing). No ?)

Regards

Al
Gener_AL
Pilgrim
Pilgrim
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:55 pm

Postby evasive » Tue Sep 02, 2008 9:58 am

Indeed, room for improvement. At least we now got the actual flaws named, let's see if something can be done about it.
We hate rut, but we fear change.
********************************
System error, strike any user to continue...
evasive
Mobo-fu Master
Mobo-fu Master
 
Posts: 36857
Joined: Sun May 06, 2001 12:01 am
Location: Netherlands

Next

Return to Motherboards.org Web Site

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests