Antinomy

This. If you read Revision Guide for AMD Athlon 64 and AMD Opteron Processors, you'll figure out that the FX model number if calculated as follows (row number 3): If you read the note at the top, you'll know that if NN=0 then the BIOS should program "AMD ES" which it apparently didn't. Then ZZ= 24 + NN (=0) we get FX-24. This is simply an unrated ES AMD FX CPU and given by it's stock frequency is an FX-57 ES. I will delete the category in the future. Right now I've discovered a huge bunch of interesting and supposedly, unknown info about s754/940/939. Stay tuned.

Attach a txt report here from CPU-Z.

This is not quite true and both can be wrong.

Excellent result! Did you bin it and how well do they go on air?

I believe s940 and s939 share the same silicon, just with features disabled (if any). What is interesting is that I've seen an even bigger core than shown and it would be nice to know which dual-cores had bigger cores and which ones had smaller.

If you see some changes in the categories, especially old and/or obscure, you know I'm most likely the one to blame. You can simply ask.

https://community.hwbot.org/topic/236959-database-stories-3700-and-4000-toledo-clarification/

Excellent work! Nailed it.

This question has been raised several times so I need to clarify this issue. Upon a HWBot member request I've done some research and decided to divide 3700+/4000+ E6 categories from E4 ones concluding the have different cores. You can grab a coffee and have a in-depth read. This is my letter to Franck Delattre, the author of CPU-Z who agreed with my arguments and updated CPU-Z to tell them apart. ================ Hello, Franck! There are two CPUs that aren't documented anywhere and CPU-Z identifies them wrong. ADA4000DKA5CF and ADA3700DKA5CF, identified as San Diego DH-E6. Take a look at the table. First, the part number, it's different. Meaning AMD sold it as a different part (they sometimes sold CPUs with different cores under one part number). Second, the CPUID, it's different but this is because the revision is different. And now the (al)most interesting - extended model. For E4 it's 27 and for E6 it's 37. But this is not the case for Venice - both E3 and E6 have same 2F model. Meaning it's the same core, but different revisions. And for our 3700/4000+ there are different ext. models. And the most important - stepping. The stepping code is like a silicon batch. So here are the stepping codes for several CPUs: A64 X2 4800+ Toledo: ACBWE CCB2E CCBWE LCB9E LCBIE A64 4000+ E6: CCBWE LCB9E LCBBE LCBIE A64 4000+ E4: AABHE CABGE CABHE KAB1E KAB2E KAB3E KABYE KACAE Summing this up - AMD produced a CPU with a different p/n, different ext. model number and with steppings same a Toledo CPUs. Meaning this indeed is a Toledo core. Moreover, according to AMD revision guide (where we don't see our CPUs unfortunately): but if they were, they'd be in the last line (same core as Toledo) but with their own CPUID (F72) meaning their stepping is JH-E6. JH stands for dual-core die. I attach you a txt report of such a CPU (single core Toledo). Please, fix displayed core name and stepping name (JH-E6) for them. Thank you in advance! Alex ============================== Here's a photo of such a CPU. You can clearly see that it's much bigger than a regular single-core San Diego. Courtesy of @ultra_code I would like to remind that there are already two other CPUs of such nature: https://hwbot.org/hardware/processors?key=amd-architecture-k8-athlon_64-athlon_64_3200_(manchester) https://hwbot.org/hardware/processors?key=amd-architecture-k8-athlon_64-athlon_64_3500_(manchester) Both aren't present on AMD revision guide. But if you think it was a simple choice, you're wrong. I've won the battle but definitely didn't win the war. AMD has mixed models and cores in all sorts of ways. We don't have internal info about CPU core names or crystals used so it's almost always an educated guess. In this case we have several clear signs that divide 3700+/4000+ E4 CPUs from E6. But here's another one: Venice CA1BE (courtesy of @R-998). It has a much bigger core size than a Venice should have concluding it is a San Diego. But there were no E6 San Diegos. Nevertheless, in every way it is identified as a Venice E6. So even if we would've thought about splitting them, we wouldn't be able to detect them correctly. So not only we need a reason to separate categories one from another, we need a way to detect them correctly which in this case is impossible. I've done a number of such investigations of obscure cases so let me know if you liked it and would want to read more. Also let me know if you have something valuable to add on this case or other s939 CPUs. Please, refrain from offtopic.

Just saw your message. Versions 1.0 and 1.1 for sure should be completely compatible with CT-479. I did a small change in 1.2 to make P4-M work but it shouldn't affect CT-479 either. Didn't test it though so feel free to give some feedback. As for BIOS flash you need ES-version of AFUDOS that allows you to flash anything anywhere. Gotta check Bigtoe's mod to see how he did it.

There isn't a short answer for this but I've seen this question before so I'll give some explanations in a separate topic. I've made a research and decided to split them apart. I've also contacted CPU-Z author so he updated CPU-Z to identify it as Toledo. If you have a San Diego E6 core that is not a Toledo with a disabled core, shoot me the info, I'll be glad to be wrong.

https://hwbot.org/hardware/motherboard/v400adbl/ Added!

Global warming isn't a joke - even TaPaKaH got defrosted! Nice to see you back.

Congratulations, great score!

Added: https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/h100_pcie/ https://hwbot.org/hardware/videocard/h100_nvl/