n00bzor

I am so mad at AMD for the piss-poor performance of the Phenom, that I am actually thinking of moving to the Dark Side. I waited patiently for over a year for AMD to release their quad-core sweetness. And what did they come up with? They laid a 2.3ghz turd on us, and called it the Phenom, that's what. Oh, and they gave us a half-assed, sort of update of a socket: the craptastic AM2+. WTF is up with that noise? I am definitely not trying to hear that. So what am I really trying to say here? What I really want to say to AMD is: n00bzor: I love you AMD, so why have you forsaken me? AMD: Uh, well you see, I just wanted to be friends... n00bzor: I feel betrayed and abandoned. AMD: Is this going to take long? 'Cause I gotta go do some, uh, stuff, and, uh, things.. n00bzor: What did you do with all of the profits that you made off me and other fanboys and fangirls like me? AMD: Uh, well you know we had expenses, and taxes, and you know it's complicated... n00bzor: Did you invest in new R&D? AMD: Uhm, no not exactly. But we bought a second rate graphics card company that was just about on the skids! n00bzor: ATI? You freaking bought ATI? What were you thinking? AMD: Well, I was out with ATI, and she took me out drinking, and you know, it all sounded so good when she was saying it, and you know how I get when I drink all "Mr. Big Bucks" and all, and I had all those billions of dollars in cash just sitting in my pocket, and before I knew it I was signing a 1200 page contract, and there were lawyers and bankers there, and I couldn't back out at that point, 'cause you know I would have looked like a chicken or a dork or something in front of ATI, and you know we were in this really fancy office with champagne and crumpets or crudites or caviar or something, and even though I didn't really understand everything, before I knew it I just said "Okay, everything looks good, so let's get 'er done. Yee haw!" (Looking back, I think the "yee haw" was the booze talking actually, but maybe not.) n00bzor: You fool! You wasted your money on ATI, you could have built new 45nm fabrication plants, or expanded your R&D, or hired every genius in India and China with an IQ over 160. But instead you married the ugliest girl in town, and she is going to spend all of your cash and diminish your reputation for years to come. AMD: Gosh, look, there is no reason this break-up can't be amicable, is there? Besides, you don't seem to understand that AMD and ATI are going to build the "Spider Platform" that will have AMD quad cpu's and quad gpu's working together for performance that will be so viscerally fast that it will literally liquify the feces in your colon, and churn it with such force that it will shoot out your bum in a giant brown fountain of joy. n00bzor: Um, okay, sure, whatever. Goodbye. So like any lover scorned, I will now turn my affections to AMD's rival, even though I am a little skeeved by it. I guess I am ready to move to the dark side. So - I need your advice and counsel, oh wise ones of the DIY-Street, what do you think of converting my rig as listed in my sig, with the following: CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 Kentsfield 2.4GHz (I plan to OC like crazy) RAM: 2 x 1GB CORSAIR Dominator 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 1066 (PC2 8500) MOBO: EVGA (122-CK-NF68-A1) LGA 775 NVIDIA nForce 680i SLI CPU cooler: ZALMAN CNPS 9700 NT I looked at the DFI LP UT P35 mobo, but it does not support SLI, which I may want to get in the future. I also looked at the Corsair DDR2 1250 RAM, but it costs $474.00 on newegg.com, which may not be worth it, as this is meant to be a temporary jump in performance until I see if AMD really comes through with its Spider concept. (I am willing to wear a diaper if Spider is really that fast.)

Thanks for the Responses! First off - I do not work at Walmart or live in a trailer park, but I am not rich either. Basically I have some disposable income to indulge my "hobby", as my wife calls it, but I do not have unlimited funds. Second - I want more cores, and I want them to be fast as freakin' h3ll. I don't want fair to middling performance, I want the best. Third - I guess in the ever-present up-grade cycle of computers, and when you are on a budget like me, you are always guessing is this a high enough performance/$ ratio for me right now, or should I wait a little longer, when the performance/$ will be even higher. Given that quandary, I was just wondering if you guys think it is better to go with the known performance of the Intel quad-core right now, or wait for the promise of super quad core performance this fall from AMD? Right now, I can't decide. Extra Credit Question - does anybody believe the hype that AMD is putting out that the new Barcelona chips will be at least 40% faster than anything Intel has now? Extra Anxiety Detail - 8-cores are due to come out in 2008!

Is anybody else out there waiting to buy a new Phenom (FX?) quad-core chip from AMD, instead of the Intel QX6700 (which is not a true quad-core, but is really just a dual dual-core)? Am I fool to wait? I could be enjoying (quasi) quad-core goodness right now, at this very moment, from Intel, with delicious DDR2 RAM, and all things spicy and juicy, and super high frame rates and a sky-high 3dMark06 score, and all the while knowing that I got Intel on the inside (which is sweet, no?). Or will my self-denial be rewarded with true AMD @ss-whooping performance, the likes of which my simple self has never conceived of, even with 100% of my brain? Or should I wait even longer, and not slake my hunger for power on the first scrappy little chips that AMD fobs off on us desperate nerds, until possibly until December, '07 , when AMD will possibly unveil the fabulous Barcelona chip, which is supposed to be AMD's new server-grade quad-core CPU, which I guess will be the successor to the Opteron line, and the promise of sweet sweet quad-core overclocking reminiscent of the Opterons? I have never built a computer with an intel chip, should I go over to the dark side? Help me, you Obi-wan Kenobi's of DIY Stret, you are my only hope.

Well something has died inside your computer - that much is obvious. Now you need to find out what has failed. First thing you need to do is to check all wire connections - make sure nothing is loose, inside or outside the computer, Yes that means check the wall plug, and check all internal wire connections - SATA, IDE, Power, etc. If all connections are good, then you have either a hard drive failure, or more likely you have a failed motherboard. However, you could also have a bad RAM DIMM, or a failed CPU (unlikely unless you took your heatsink off, or you had a major power surge like from lighting or something, or if you dropped your computer, or got it wet); or you could have a bad PSU, but since that OCZ GamerXtreme is realtively new, that is unlikely as well. Diagnosing your problem is difficult because you cannot even get the computer to POST (the beep or beeps that you normally hear at startup are the POST signals telling you that your computer is ready to start booting). So what do you do now? (1) Buy a new mobo (costs money - but is quickest & safest choice); (2) Try to RMA your current mobo through DFI - which means you have to contact Donna via email or phone, somebody here must have posted her contact info - and which means you will have no computer until new mobo arrives in the mail; (3) Try different RAM DIMM's (if you have any extra.) (4) Try booting from floppy or from CD/DVD - you will need a windows install disk; (5) Try to swap out your current mobo, with an old one if you have one. (6) Try to swap out Hard drives, try to change to Sata connections, to change boot order; (7) Try to swap out the PSU with an older one, if you have one on hand. This is all I can say at this point, so good luck.

I had the same problem. I think it was driver conflict or corrupted driver. Here is what I did to fix problem: (1) Check for spyware & viruses using Spybot, Ad-Aware, A-Squared Free and AntiVir. (2) Download freeware registry cleaners "CCleaner" and "Easy Cleaner". (3) Download latest video driver for your card, but don't install yet. (3) Defrag hard drive using Disk Keeper. (4) Delete all video drivers in add/remove programs (in Control Panel). (5) Reboot into safe mode, and delete all video cards in device manager. Run CCleaner and Easy Cleaner to clear out registry. (6) Reboot into normal mode and wait for Windows to detect "new Hardware", and then you can install a clean version of video driver. Your problem should be fixed, mine was. If not, you may have a conflict with sound driver or monitor driver, so do the same things for them. Or you may have a corrupted Windows situation. Which means you have to reformat and reinstall Windows (this is a major pain in the @ss, I know, so don't do it if you don't have to.) If problem persists, then could be bad PCI-ex slot on mobo, or could be bad video card. Next step is to RMA each one at a time to find out, if you have warranty time available. If not, then buy new mobo, as it is cheaper than new video card.

(1) Use Orange Slots for RAM. (2) Use cpu-z to find out your SPD values for your RAM. Then set those values in BIOS. Your RAM should work at 1T for those ratings. Cpu-z should tell you the manufacturer's recommended Tcl-Trcd-Trp-Tras, i.e., look for 3-3-2-8 or or something like that. Also set your DRAM voltage to 2.8v, but don't go over yet, b/c you want to find stable 1T settings first. (3) Also - turn off OC on CPU, so that you can find stable RAM timings first. (4) Set all settings to Auto that have Auto option. (5) You may have to experiment with Trc-Trfc-Trrd-Twr-Twtr-Trwt to find stable settings, or you could try 15-22-3-3-3-3, and see what happens, or try my settings listed in my sig, except use 1:1 divider.

Okay - before you guys accuse me of taking advantage of poor little eVGA Inc., you should realize the following: (1) the original bottom card stopped working and was defective, and would not work in either slot, and (2) the replacement card would not work in either slot, and (3) the third card will not work in either slot now as well. I now think the problem is the mobo. I think this mobo is blowing out the video cards. Or I got 2 bad video cards in a row from eVGA, which is possible, I guess. After I received this second replacement video card, I installed it into bottom slot. It worked for about 10 minutes, then stopped. Windows said that SLI had been disconnected, but it was not disconnected. I tried both cards in the top (i.e. working slot) and only the old (good) one works. So the new second replacement video card that I got is now dead, as it does not work in either slot. It worked for 10 minutes in the bottom slot, but then suddenly stopped working. I also tried both 12Volt rails (i.e., PCI-e power connectors) in the working video card, and they both work, so I do not think it is the fault of the PSU. (But I ordered a new PSU from PC Power & Cooling anyway.) So I think that the mobo is causing the video cards to fail. Or is it possible that I received 2 bad replacement video cards from eVGA?

Ok - gonna try different cards in bottom slot. Hopefully will have some time tomorrow, otherwise will be weekend project. I will let you know the results.

Please see my sig for all specs. I am running 2x eVGA 7800gtx (256MB) cards in SLI. I have DFI LanParty nf4 SLI-DR Expert mobo. I have 600watt OCZ Powerstream SLI psu. Here is my problem - My bottom (second or farthest from cpu) video card stopped working. My wife was playing a marathon session of Oblivion when she heard a "pop" and "smelled smoke, like from wires burning". I wasn't home to witness said olfactory evidence, but my wife insists it happened. So - I checked the video cards and found second (bottom) card was not visible in device manager, and was not visible in nVidia control panel. So I RMA'd the video card with eVGA, thinking video card had died. Then I installed the second eVGA video card, and it also did not work. So I RMA'd that card too. I received a third card from eVGA, but now that card will not work in second PCI-E slot either. So - My question is this - Do you guys think I have a bad PSU or possibly a bad 12V rail (i.e., bad PCI-e power connector), or do you think motherboard has gone bad, or somehow the second (i.e., bottom) PCI-e slot has gone bad? Secondary Problem - My rig takes approx. 10 seconds to POST now (i.e., from time I power up computer until first "BEEP" is approx. 10 seconds now). This seems like a long time to POST, and it seems like it is longer than it used to be. Is this a symptom of imminent motherboard failure, or psu failure, or something else, or nothing?

DDR700 is very impressive! I can't even get to DDR600. Can you post your BIOS settings for us lesser human beings?

I received an email from another member back in July, and I have been thinking about what he asked me for several months, and I think I might have an answer. I hope you guys can shed some light on this, and can tell me if I am right, or if I am all wrong in my thinking. Here is the issue: How long does a complete "cycle" of RAM take? Answer: Essentially a complete "cycle" of RAM takes tRFC. Which means that, as long as tRRD <= tWR, then: tRFC = tRAS + tRP + tWR + tWRT + [X] where X = 0-4, depending on how stable you want the RAM to be. [Higher X for more stability, Lower X for better performance.] Discussion: Although we know how long it takes to address the row (tRC) and then the column (tCL), because we set these figures, we do not know how long the burst cycle is, and we cannot control this time. However, we do know how long the tRAS and tRP take because we set these figures as well. Furthermore we know that: tRC + tCL + burst length = tRAS + tRP This is basic stuff, obviously, but it is not the end of a "RAM" cycle. We still have to wait for the next active bank to be precharged (i.e., tWR), and we have to wait the next valid read command to the same internal bank of the DDR device (i.e., tWTR), this is essentially the end of a RAM "cycle", but most people add 1 or 2 more clocks to this for added stability (i.e, the X-factor listed above). This rationale has led me to my "master formula" of: tRFC = tRAS + tRP + tWR + tWRT + [X] again where X=0-4, and tRRD <= tWR; Which in turn means that tRFC = the entire Ram "cycle". DISCLAIMER: Please note that my "master formula" is not a real mathematical formula, but is rather meant to be a rule of thumb, or a guideline, or a heuristic. But I think it is accurate. Please give me your comments.

I have the same mainboard. Personally, I like to have the latest BIOS update, because it seems that the manufacturer probably has addressed most if not all of the known problems/ issues with the previous BIOS editions. So I am using the 406 BIOS. However, if you want to overclock to the extreme, then maybe Tony's modded 406 BIOS might be better in that regard, from what I can tell from this forum. Put those RAM sticks in the ORANGE slots. You should not have a problem with heat sink/ fan, unless you are doing something wrong, or are using some Heatsink that is not designed for Socket 939. If so, go get a Socket 939 heatsink/fan. As for overclocking that OCZ ram, if it is the same as mine, I am having a hard time getting it to go faster than 260 mhz. I think 261 or 262 mhz might be the ultimate limit.

CharmedLover84: Well you inspired me to try again for 3.0ghz on this FX-60. I will let you know if I make any progress. I am going to concentrate my efforts on skew control and drive strength, to counter higher frequencies, so I will try out my ideas on my rig, and see what happens. However, every prior failed attempt at 3.0ghz has nearly convinced me that the FX-60 is generally limited to 2.9xx ghz as a top speed, except for the rare exceptional chip that can go to nearly 3.1ghz (which I apparently do not have). Glad to see your fierce loyalty to AMD, such brand loyalty is all but extinct. As for me, I am ready to go Conroe in '07. I am looking forward to a 1.0 ghz overclock on an E6800, which sure beats the heck out of the paltry maximum 300 mhz I got on this FX-60. Anyway, I'll post again with my results for the quest for 3.0.

To Praz: Yeah, I am running this PC4000 at only 216mhz right now, b/c I was trying to find out how tight I could get the timings, and trying to find out if there were any benefits to underclocking your RAM, but then I ran out of time, and then I got distracted by my life, and I haven't changed the settings, thinking I will get back to my project, but I haven't yet.

I have a very similar rig as yours. I also cannot get my FX-60 up to 3.0ghz. My FX-60 maxes out right around 2.91ghz, same as yours. This seems to be a common barrier, if you look at this and other forums. I too have tried just about every possible combination of HTT x Multiplier (i.e., 300x10, 273x11, 250x12, 231x13, 215x14, and 200x15), and at almost every voltage option from 1.325V up to 1.65V, and nothing I do makes it Prime95 stable. This has been of course very frustrating. I actually gave up going for 3.0ghz on air, and I was waiting to install a water cooling kit, before trying again. Then the Intel Conroe came out, and I started thinking about building a conroe machine, but I now think I will wait until Windows Vista comes out in 2007. Anyway, I finally settled to the idea that my FX-60 would never do 3.0ghz. So I set about finding the best performance settings for my rig, given that the max of my cpu is around 2.9ghz. I have been using benchmarks and adjusting RAM settings to find the optimal performance of my computer. I think this is what you should do as well. Maxing out gpu speed is not going to yield the best possible performance of your computer. You can probably improve performance by lowering your cpu speed, and tightening the timings of your ram to get to a "sweet spot" of performance. This sweet spot will depend on what you want to do with your computer of course, but it is there. I have not found my exact perfect settings, but I am getting close. Also -I too am very loyal to AMD. You are probably like me , in that you have always bought AMD, and never bought an Intel chip. This is because in the last 10 years AMD figured out that performance is more important than clock speed, and that computer enthusiasts will realize that performance beats clock speed, which is exactly what happened, as AMD surpassed Intel as the gamers' and overclockers' cpu of choice. However, the sleeping giant (Intel) finally woke up and now they are producing the Conroe chips that stress performance over clock speed, and they are kicking butt. Those Conroe chips are hard to resist, and I am definitely going to switch to Intel for my next computer. So in conclusion I would say three things: (1) I think AMD sold these FX-60 chips operating very near their peak. It seems the Opterons were sold with plenty of headroom in terms of the operating speed of the chip, but that the FX-60's were pretty close to the top coming out of the factory. Stock FX-60 speed is 2.6ghz, and it looks like top speed is 2.9ghz, unless you get lucky and get one of the rare few that will do about 3.1ghz. (2) Please remember that performance is more important than clock speed, and that since it looks like your (our) max clock speed is approx. 2.9ghz, then you should look for settings that will maximize benchmarks like Everest, Sandra, PCWizard, Super PI, Aquamark3, 3dMark03/05/06, PCMark05, and maximize FPS in FEAR and DOOM3. (3) You have an awesome computer right now! Your benchmarks are pretty impressive now, and you should just sit back and enjoy what you have, and not worry about what artificially high psychological barrier you can't break. Instead of frustrating yourself, simpy accept that you found the peak of your current rig, and start saving up for, and planning your next Conroe machine, which will allow you to possibly hit 4.0 ghz! P.S. If you are really obsessed with hitting 3.0ghz on your FX-60, I think you might want to increase skew, max async latency, and data drive stregth. I think this might be the only avenue that you have not pursued. I think you may be hitting skew induced delays caused by higher frequncies, so experiment with these settings, if you haven't already.