Turning Zosma Into Thuban
Preliminary information on Zosma is still scarce, and since we didn’t get this processor from AMD, pricing data isn’t available. What we do know is that the Phenom II X4 960T runs at a stock 3 GHz clock rate and supports Turbo CORE technology. It also sports a 95W TDP, down from the 125W of AMD’s Phenom II X6 1090T flagship (naturally, that changes when you start turning on cores, overclocking, and upping voltages).
Now, you might have thought that core unlocking as a feature was dead, since AMD pulled ACC out of its SB850 southbridge. And for a while there, it was looking like the most visible motherboard vendors wouldn’t pursue core unlocking in the 8-series chipsets. Asus was the first to break rank, though, and others have since followed suit, enabling unlocking via a number of mechanisms.
On ASRock’s 890FX Deluxe3, you can either turn on core overclocking through a BIOS switch called ASRock UCC or by simply hitting the ‘x’ key during POST (subsequently pressing ‘d’ during POST turns off UCC). Naturally, our Phenom II X4 960T was chosen for its ability to unlock reliably. Temper your enthusiasm, though. Our sources at ASRock tell us that, out of 16 samples the company has tested, six are able to unlock to six cores. That's a 37% chance in a fairly small sample size.
Do Unlocked Cores Hurt Overclocking?
If we assume that at least a percentage of locked cores are marginal compared to the four cores AMD leaves enabled, then turning those two disabled cores on risks system stability, increases power consumption, and very likely hurts your chances to hit as aggressive of an overclock.
We tested this out a bit using our Phenom II X4 960T sample and found that hitting 3.9 GHz was not a problem for this 3 GHz chip using a 1.425V BIOS setting. Turning on the two locked cores forced us down to 3.6 GHz to avoid crashing as Windows loaded up, and the extra heat forced a voltage reduction to 1.4V.
The moral of the story is (and this should be no surprise) turning on disabled cores will likely cap your maximum overclock on conventional air cooling, even if those cores are determined to be “good.” Weighing the pluses and minuses of pursuing parallelism or frequency will likely be a matter of evaluating the software you’re running. An extra 900 MHz from a 3 GHz quad-core chip on air is impressive. Those are the numbers we’d expect from an Intel Core i5 or i7 CPU, so it’s good to see AMD’s improved 45 nm process yielding additional scalability.
Latest CPU News
Latest CPU reviews
- 24/05 – Overclocking Core i7-3770K: Learning To Live With Compromise
- 22/05 – Core i5-3570K, -3550, -3550S, And -3570T: Ivy Bridge Efficiency
- 15/05 – AMD A10-4600M Review: Mobile Trinity Gets Tested
- 14/05 – Core i7-3720QM: Ivy Bridge Makes Its Mark On Mobility
- 23/04 – Intel Core i7-3770K Review: A Small Step Up From Sandy Bridge
How core unlocking works:
http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/m [...] ng-works/1
And what im sure hundreds if not thousands are wondering is if these Zosma chips will work in AM2+ boards or not ?
what i really want to know is how does the X4 960T match up against the 955/965 OC-ed. It runs at 95W TDP compared to 125 TPD but at a lower stock speed.
However how does it look when Turbo CORE is active?
the 965 is just a 955 with a higher clock speed but the X4 960T is a different chip all together. so if price is nearly the same how do these stack up to eachother?
the onluck can be just an extra bonus imo
Nice very early scoop on getting your hands on the sample and doing the early testing. This is why I love Tom's Hardware.
Even if you can't unlock cores, it's not bad at all in my opinion. In the article you have the quad running at 3.9GHz on 1.432v..on air! That to me would more than make up for any failures in unlocking the extra two core's.
I just wonder what would be the case if AMD did go 32nm, because their refinements at 45nm are very impressive. Serious processing power for a very good price.
Legit reviews reported that AMD said these quads will be OEM only and not a retail part http://www.legitreviews.com/news/8025/
Mactronix
AMD have been treated unfairly as far as core unlocking is concerned. The main reason they removed official support for it is that OEMs were unlocking the cores for pre-built PCs, and complaining/suing AMD when the cores proved unstable (surprise surprise!). Cores are disabled for a reason (problem with Fab/process), and if you unlock them don't be disappointed if it renders your sytem unstable
Guess it depends on the particular core and it's stepping. I unlocked an Athlon II x4 'Deneb' 620 to a Phenom II x4, and have had no stability issues.
I'd like to know who these OEMs are, and why they would think they can take a company to court over non-existent feature sets. It's like buying a tyre that can - on paper - be inflated to 50 psi and then complaining because it blew up after you took it to 85.
I wonder if that 2D barcode on the CPU contains the information hidden behind the black splodge...
Copyright 2009 on the chip, yet not being launched until Q3 2010.
While AMD’s 1090T jumps ahead of Intel’s $1,000 Core i7-975 Extreme, the six-core 960T falls one step behind -975.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Best sentence in the article.
no way buying an Intel no way high price for a slight performance no sence those money aren't justified in terms of performance,no way Intel.I realy don't understand Intel fan boys this's ridiculous.
I have a 1055T, but the only reason i didn't go Intel was price, their cpu architecture is a generation ahead of AMD, ideally I would of like to purchase the I7 980x however I just couldn't justify the price. I am quite lucky as i have been able to get a stable 4Ghz with the 1055T with 1.475v and this saved me money from buying a 1090T, howvever I envy the guy who has an AM2 + board and a 960T which unlocks and he can get it up to 4Ghz. I really hope bulldozer is better than Intel's equivalent and Nvidia get their act together so I can purchase a HD 5870 at MSRP.