So... Do I stay with AMD or make the move to INTEL???

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar

Do I Stick with AMD or finallu jump ship to INTEL?

  • AMD

    Votes: 23 33.8%

  • INTEL

    Votes: 45 66.2%
  • Total voters
    68


Maybe it booted or maybe it's Photoshop.
When a poster refuses to provide something as simple as CPU-Z validation, you have to wonder.

I've seen quite convincing posts that are clearly fake and the poster admits to it, just to show how convincing they look.

The main reason I suspect fake is that the reviews I've read have required higher voltages to reach much lower speeds on the B3. While cooling can help, it's not likely to help maintain a voltage that low.

Tech-Report was the highest OC I saw and that was 3.0 at 1.6v. (Boot, Not Testing Stable.)
Others were about 1.5v for 2.8 Testing Stable.

Call me skeptical, but I don't believe a 2.8->3.6 OC w/o a volt increase even with good cooling.

Also, AMD itself admits that it did not make significant changes to the CPU in this stepping beyond bug fixes.
Certainly nothing major such as different metals of the such which would prevent leakage for such a high OC w such a relatively low voltage.

 


If it was fake... wouldn't the poster claim a higher voltage just to sound more legitimate?

If it's not fake than I doubt that anything could be done other than booting. (And personally I don't think it's fake.)
 
I like AMD and even i think thats fake...3.5 when no-one else has reported above 2.9 stable? I do wish people wouldn't spread crap on the net, its one of the worst forms of keyboard warriorism. Why lie? its not as powerful but its cheaper....i'd love a nissan GT-R but i'll settle for a mondeo diesel since work pays me by the mile 😉

Carod
 
I know for me, that every year or so after countless hours of "fixs" and tinkering with my machine, windows just craps out.

You may just need a clean install to get rid of that not so fresh feeling your PC is having.

 
If you have a dud machine then upgrade. The problem for you though is that from a 6000+ regardless of the "Benchmarks" you are going to see little real world improvement.

I upgraded from an early 3800 X2 this week ...... to an E3110 running at 4 Ghz. Before the upgrade I ran some real time benchmarks on applications that I use which are not Video Encoding. The new machine overall does things in about 40 % of the time - something that took previously 9 Mins 7 Seconds dropped to 3 mins 30 seconds for example. Your current machine already probably does the same thing ~ 5 1/2 to 6 minutes or better already.

As for things like MS Word and so on, they were already "Instant Load" on the 3800 so faster "Instant" makes no difference and that was only a 512 x 2 cache processor and the earliest stepping.

Since running the tests I have dropped the E3110 down a notch to 3780 Ghz to be able to reduce the voltage to VCore 1.248 Volts and turn the fan down to very quiet. If I were upgrading again then I would do the same again. A P5K-E motherboard or similar, 9700 or similar cooler, good case and E3110. About as fast as you can get for single treaded applications which is mostly what I use with the ability to drop in a higher spec Q9XXX chip in a year when they are faster and cheaper and I have a need.
 


Check out this photoshop: (I wonder how he fooled them?)

http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=339861

But apparently he is benchmarking and testing at 3.2 at the moment.

EDIT: Actually it sounds like he's running at 3.2 because "that's easy" and it's 2:30am his time. He feels confident he'll get 3.5 when he has time to tweak it. (So who knows.)


I like AMD and even i think thats fake...3.5 when no-one else has reported above 2.9 stable? I do wish people wouldn't spread crap on the net, its one of the worst forms of keyboard warriorism. Why lie? its not as powerful but its cheaper....i'd love a nissan GT-R but i'll settle for a mondeo diesel since work pays me by the mile 😉

Carod
Click to expand...

Yepper. Of course for some people having it turn out to not be fake would be worse.
 



That adds some credentials and makes it slightly more believable.
But it does not guarentee he hit those speeds at the voltages shown.
He clearly has the cooling hardware to get it to run at those speeds if he cranks the voltage high enough.

In general, Until results are reproducable by multiple trustworthy resources it does not mean too much.
 


I did specify some good cooling would be needed, xbit (i think) got to 2.8ghz, but then I believe they were using something resembling a stock heatsink. Something like a zalman 9700 or better, or much better a water block, and a voltage bump should make it to 3ghz stable.
 


Ye - pretty much exactly whats going on at the moment. Im just tired of tearing my hair out really.
The thing about fixing this issue is ( and i have admittedly fixed some pretty crazy things even since the days of the old 286s and XTs ) is that it is just not a consistently replicable fault. So its hard to determine where the real issue is, or if its a combination of issues such as wierd hardware conflicts. If that is the case then its probably never going to get solved.

And trust me - I HATE GETTING BEATEN BY THESE KINDS OF PROBLEMS!!! Its the kind of thing that keeps me up all night tinkering and stays just on the edge of my mind all day. Knowing, deep down that this PC has come out on top and is laughing at me everytime it crashes on me. Whew - crazy rant there...

So yes - would be great if you offered some constructive critisism when you post, instead of teaming up with my PC 😉

I have Vista 64 Ulti/XP Pro dual boot and it happens in both OS's. Which is why im not trying a reinstall, again.

Still trying to work out why it is locking just before it does the visual ram count. Has to be the ram in that case right?

I have an antec spotcooling fan aimed at my gpu and ram slots which is really kicking down at high but still nothing. I fail to see how it can be heat when im running so decently cold in my case.

I ordered some OCZ Reaper 6400 to test if its actually my 8500 OCZ ram is giving the Crosshair issues. Last night i took out 2 dimms and completely dropped my ram to 667 as apposed to the previous 1066 and 800 ive been trying before. Ive probably tried a couple hundred combinations and suggestions in terms of voltages and adjustments in the bios in order to resolve this. Besides - i didnt by expensive OCZ 1066 ram to run it at 533. Asus said that the Crosshair would support 1066 and was OCZ compatible so i bought it based on this - only to find that i needed to wait 6 months for a NON-stable beta bios ( 0905 ) to be able to using it at native. I have tried every bios release since 0702 when i got my board. Some of the "Approved" bios released straight from the Asus website were so faulty and broken that you would think they had little computer illiterate mongals coding as apposed to actual verfied core programmers. Its things like that and Asus's complete lack of proper support for their products and terrible customer service that makes me want to pull away from Asus products - and ive been using them for ages so its not an unreasonable conclusion.

I have posted on a couple sites for some insight into this issue - ASusTek, Overclockers, OCZ, Toms and a couple others that i cant remember cause the users are crap and just start flaming each other etc, or going off topic on rants.

Anyway ran fine all of last night while jamming Sins of a Solar Empire for several hours. I booted up this morning and was in the middle of converting a movie for my ipod and it just rebooted. After that it wouldnt post. So i switched it off and left for work - once again a beaten, irate PC enthusiast :lol:

Damn these amazingly great PCs!!
 


What's his board? If it's an AM2+ that has a bios for Phenom (like ASUS') then a 9850 BE might be viable. 2.8 without changing the voltage isn't that bad for a quad core. Still, I'd stick with what he has instead of going Intel right now, especially a Q6600.

Fact, Nehalem will need a new board. What's the value of a build that will last 9 months? Q6600 is a dead end. So is a Penryn for all that it matters, and throw in a Wolfie too. By staying with what he has, or upgrading to a 9850 BE if his motherboard has a bios for it, he can then decide between Nehalem or Deneb when they both arrive. Either way, he'll need a new motherboard and RAM down the line. So why spend the money now?



That's strange, my wife's ASUS 690G has been going strong since September 2007 and I just upgraded my son's old P4/ASUS X200 board with an ASUS 780G. I was thinking of going ASUS 780G for Phenom, but I might just wait for Deneb. I've had more problems with MSI boards, even though they're good about replacing them.

I had an Nvidia 405 board die a month after the February 2007 build, then I moved the CPU to a spare MSI 405 board from a Fry's bundle and got the dead one replaced. I gave that one away and upgraded to the MSI 690V to have no conflicts with the 3870x2, so the Nvidia 405's in the closet.

Most people say ECS is worst, MSI a bit better and then Gigabyte and ASUS are the best, but I guess it depends upon experience. My experience is that if it's bundled with a CPU at Fry's, then it's not the best board around. I've seen mostly ECS but some MSI and (once) with a Phenom 9600, an ASUS 690G but that's probably because that board was one of the few with a bios at the time that could support Phenom.



I have my doubts about Nvidia chipsets. The best ones for Phenom seem to be AMD's own ATI derived 780G, 770 and 790. The only thing high end Nvidia chipsets are good for is SLI.

dannyboy27, what's with the beta in your board name? I'm not familiar with that model. I guess you got some bad luck if it's the third one you tried. Has anyone mentioned power supply? Rebooting sometimes happens with those issues, though BSOD are usually OS related.

What I'd do is full diagnostics, memtest, surface scan on all drives, repair on the OS, rollback drivers if need be. I hate issues like that too, but haven't encountered anything that bad since I was given a free K5 and motherboard that did fine for a guy under Linux but wouldn't boot Windows 98 at all. Maybe you do need a new motherboard that's not simply a warranty replacement for the one you've got.
 


Nice find. Checking that thread out, theres a few people saying they made it to 3ghz.

"i currently tested now one B3 - and a few other guys here also, all of them are able to do 3Ghz stable with a small voltage bump (except my one under Vista64bit with SP1 there my one need higher voltages to be stable)

from what i read and heared, i think they all are able to do 3Ghz."

I dont know if the op on this thread edited his first post or something, but there are screenies of cpu-z and everest up there, so it looks ok.
 
@ yipsl

The mobo is an Asus Crosshair - revision 2 i believe. The current bios i am using is 0905 which is the latest one and is a beta. Asus are just crap at bios updates and havent released another one for a few months now so im stuck with it. Im getting the feeling that Asus know that the Crosshair is an overhyped and faulty board with MASSIVE holes in it. Make no mistake, the bios options are literally limitless and it was built for overclocking.

Its an expensive board and was top of the line for ages. Judging by the cold shoulder im getting from Asus customer support Im being led to believe that they are washing their hands of the Crosshair and moving on. If you browse around on the web for problems with posting and ram conflicts etc about the board you will be unindated with similar issues.

Just a shoddy make of board. My good mate has returned his 4 times as well as buying 2 more from seperate quality outlets - he really likes the board; but that cant be a coincidence. But in all fairness my flatmate whose PC i built worked first time and hasnt given any problems. He has a Crosshair board to and the only difference with his system is the ram is OCZ 6400 as apposed to my OCZ 8500.

Maybe you are right and i need to get like an M2N32 which appears quite stable. I just feel like im throwing cash away. I have a spare Gigabyte 790 board sitting at home but i really want to test other aspects before i completely go through the mission of swopping out all of my components to another board...
 
to tell you the truth if you want AMD and you find your problem I would wait for the 45nm Phenom's to hit the market in Jul-Aug. B3 still dose not overclock well. I'm sticking with mine till 45nm is out.
 
yipsl, are you saying that no matter what that a Q6600 is a dead end? Some people, like myself, do a completely new build every 2-3 years. I went 5 cuz I didn't have the money. And a Q6600 is not a dead end really as a quad core has yet to be fully utilized at all.



Not bad. But still who is to say that everyone will get it. I will reserve judgement until they hit our shelves. I was also woundering why some of the tech sites could ounly hit 2.7GHz, others 2.8GHz and some 3GHz but all with a much higher voltage than I could ever do.
 
@ Caamsa

Did you not get enough sugar this morning - or was it the lack of attention you recieved as a child?

Its basically like you posting a question to decent users on a forum and me replying with "blah blah blah random 'witty' flame blah blah your mom". Just not valuable or helpful at all.

So, if you have nothing of value to say, not even to comment on the off topic about the 3.5ghz phenom, then please for the love of god post elsewhere.
 



He's just upset because you're having a problem with a system based on his favorite company, so he wants to blame you.

If it was an Intel system he'd be blaming Intel for making crappy parts and then go on about how Intel execs eat aborted fetuses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom