BleepingComputer.com: New Amd 990

Does any one know when these are coming out? here is an interesting article saying they might already be here
http://www.pro-clockers.com/industryreviews/1895-upcoming-amd-apu-crossfire-a-990fx-info-hidden-in-plain-sight.html

Are 990FX boards already in our midst?

Word around the campfire is that the 990FX is not going to be anything more than the 890FX rebadged. I'm crossing my fingers for more, but considering AMD already has done something similar to this in the past (890GX is almost a 785G, and 870 seems to be an 880G with the IGP turned off), I'm not going to my breath for anything ground breaking. Some tweaks sure would be nice though, to justify the new name and shelling out for the motherboard. Still, I will just be happy to see Bulldozer finally arrive, and if rebadge gets it here that much sooner then sobeit! Something known about all this is that both will utilize the AM3+ Socket (or AM3b, AM3 black socket), something that is again a socket relatively unchanged since the dawning of 939 Desktop and 940 Server Athlon 64 models. Over the years the visual differences were the alignment gaps, or the four raised areas on the grid, which kept the next generation from being crammed in the previous; AM2 into 939, or 939 into 940. The main change between AM3 and AM3+ is that now all motherboards will be utilizing every pin trace, since the upcoming chips will now need them to get as much possible from the 8-cores the desktop Bulldozers will come with, where as only a select few AM3 boards were built that way (Crosshair III Formula I believe was said to be one).

The 990FX motherboards are going to be a little different. Unlike the current batch of 890FX motherboards that can use AM3+, the 9xx motherboards will probably be better as they were designed from the ground up for AM3+, assuming they may use faster RAM with their Zambezi CPU's. Also, the 990FX will include SLI support, on top of Crossfire. Think of the 990FX as a souped up version of the 890FX.

DJB you are right on the SLI, but the writer of the article is suggesting it is very possible a bios flash could turn the current Asrock 890fx into a 990 fx based on his finddings read the rest of the article if you didn't

there should definetly be some boosts. there were even some boosts between the 78x boards and the 89x boards. I have a 890GX chipset, and I have used 785 and 790 chipset boards in the past for customer builds, and there are similarities, but the 8xx series are definetly nice and do outperform them in many areas.

the_patriot11, on 04 May 2011 - 09:12 PM, said:

I'm sure there will be a boost, but it'll be cool if a bios flash could transform the 890fx to a 990fx, kinda like the 6950 2gb -->6970 2gb, I'm actually looking @ getting that 890 for my next build since its AM3+ compatible
BTW your sig is hilarious, it must've been windows ME installed on the enterprises computers hence, the double facepalm

lol that would be cool, then I could turn my 890 GX into a 990 GX. lol that being said though, its going to be awhile before I can afford a am3+ CPU, so it would really be a waste, and Im quite happy with how my computer is running right now. And thanks, I like my sig to, though a double facepalm works with any version of windows on the enterprise, some days more then others. Just with ME, the days that deserved a doube facepalm were far more frequent. . .

I wonder if they will have the UEFI on it rather then the plain old BIOS.

The 890 FX is an AM3+ mobo. I think its the only one of two available right now, and yes it does have the UEFI interface

This post has been edited by diggi: 05 May 2011 - 10:57 AM

I found this ASRock AM3+ with the UEFI.

killerx525, on 05 May 2011 - 06:37 PM, said:

Thats the one I was talking about, its next on my hit list
plus this Corsair memory and PSU

CORSAIR XMS 4GB 240-Pin DDR3 1600(latency 7) CMX4GX3M1A1600C7 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820145327
CORSAIR Enthusiast Series TX750 V2 750W http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817139021

Case
1st Choice Silverstone RV03B-W http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811163180&cm_re=silverstone_case-_-11-163-180-_-Product
2nd choice Zalman Z9 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16811235027&cm_re=zalman_z9_case-_-11-235-027-_-Product

GPU
1st MSI 6950 2gb http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814127555&cm_re=6950_2gb-_-14-127-555-_-Product
2nd Sapphire 5850 xtreme dx11 http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814102932&Tpk=5850%20sapphire

HDD
4 0r 6 Samsung spinpoint F4 in raid0
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822152244&cm_re=samsung_f4-_-22-152-244-_-Product
Backup
2TB Samsung F4 or 1.5TB
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822152245&cm_re=samsung_f4-_-22-152-245-_-Product

Read Here http://www.hardware-revolution.com/best-ssd-hdd-april-2011/

Best Hard Drive for ~$170:
Four SAMSUNG Spinpoint F4 HD322GJ/U 320GB 3.0Gb/s in RAID 0. Capacity: 1280GB

"How does 1.28TB of capacity and up to 640MB/s read transfer rates for $172 sounds to you? That’s what you’ll get with four SAMSUNG Spinpoint F4 HD322GJ/U 320GB 7200RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s in RAID 0. Nothing short of amazing!"

I Already have a Phnm II 565 BE processor waiting to mate with the mobo

For the case i would choose the Zalman and the 6950 GPU.

This post has been edited by killerx525: 06 May 2011 - 12:10 AM

killerx525, on 06 May 2011 - 12:10 AM, said:

I think I will go with the Zalman too the price makes it more attractive than the thermaltake.
Actually I'll get Z9 which is a cheaper, better looking version of the Z9+. I doesn't have the side window among other things but is only listed @ $50 which is $20 less than the Z9+

Now I'm kinda on the fence with the processor I have, question, should I return it and get the 955 BE or 965 BE instead?
Someone help me out, with some hard figures if possible, I tried looking every where but no luck yet

diggi, on 05 May 2011 - 10:10 PM, said:

Am I missing or misunderstanding something?

If you set the 4 drives in RAID 0 you will have 320Gb of storage. = 1 drive. Not 320 x 4.

In a RAID 0 all drives are read as only one. Also, as the article stated the more drives, the higher the risk of failure and the lose of all data because of the way it is written to the drives. No redundancy.

Fast? Yes. Inexpensive? Yes. Worth the risk vs. the speed. Only the builder can make that decision in the end.

This post has been edited by ThunderZ: 13 May 2011 - 12:01 PM

ThunderZ, on 13 May 2011 - 11:57 AM, said:

I think you are confusing Raid 0 with raid 1.
Formula for Raid 0 capacity is (n x GB of HDD) where n is number of HDD in array.
In our case n=4 and drive is 320 so you end up using all the space on the drives (4 x320)= 1.28 TB

Regarding Raid 1
The 2nd drive mirrors drive 1 your capacity is effectively 1/2 that of the total eg (320gb x 2)/2= 320GB

Yes there is no redundancy in Raid 0 and that is why it's numbered 0 cos its not truly a raid setup, but to counter that just get an external HDD.
You can connect it only when you need to back up, to extend its life, also wait 30 secs to move it after you turn it off.
A 1.5 TB HDD would work nicley in or case, just set your machine to backup regularly, problem solved.
The added plus is your read and write times should be quicker than using raid 0+1.

This post has been edited by diggi: 13 May 2011 - 01:39 PM

Back to my reading up on RAID. In particular, 0.