Nekroze

I will be taking it to the repair center of the place i bought it from they said they can fix/replace it there on monday (australia.) I dont really have a phone for a (probably lengthy) call to intel, sorry. but i will report back once they look at it.

Second that, i really dont think i have. The only thing i have changed is moved my memory to the proper frequency, even if i have overlooked some setting i nudged (which would have been reverted to default when i updated the bios anyway so i cannot be that) i don't know of any setting that would cause this effect without manually changing the active cores setting.

Alright, this seems to be the consensus so far, i will do so tomorrow. Thanks gents.

Yes i have it set to all the entire time, just as default.

Happened before and after the bios update. Happens with and without turbo turned on, the differences in the core clocks are that one was taken as my computer was turning on the other was a bit afterwards.

I recently got myself a i7 3930k and an Asus Rampage IV Extreme mobo, i have discovered that if i have hyper threading enabled it will only enable 3 physical cores and thus have 6 threads. However if i disable hyper threading it will enable 6 physical cores and have 6 threads, all of this is supported by evidence form windows task manager, CPUZ and OCCT. I have left all other cpu setting default, this has been happening since i got it and the only thing that seems to change it is the hyper threading switch. If i cannot have hyper threading that's fair enough i am not going to go ape over it but it says i can have hyper threading so i want the choice. I just dont understand why this would happen, any help would be greatly appreciated guys. NOTE: i will attach two screenshots from CPUZ, one with HT turned on and thus 3 physical cores and 6 threads, and one with HT turned off and thus with 6 physical cores and 6 threads.

sorry for tripple post. however the problem persists however is delayed in a manor. Disabling hardware acceleration seems to have fixed it at first however it just made it so I could change page (initialy it worked fine on the homepage but the moment i changed the leak started) but now i can change pages like 5-10 times before it starts to leak and it seems to leak slower know i am not sure if this is due to the actual hardware acceleration being turned off or the more clean re-install but it is painfully annoying. Back to the drivers problems then? what driver could possibly cause this kind of thing to happen?

so far so good it seems to be working thanks so much guys, for the record it seems disabling hardware acceleration in FF4 seemed to fix it. I would love to hear from anyone why knows why and how I can fix it so I may re-enable this option please. if the problem persists i will update, but thank you all for very swift responses.

I've done reg cleans and such while reinstalling but I didn't go into appdata and clear that. Ima give that and nitem4re's idea. thanks guys.

the reformat was cause I hadn't done one in awhile and it was a bit of a mess for awhile and I do believe all the drivers are in and working but what driver in particular would cause this error cause I could try find an alternate version or an older one?

ok so I recently upgraded my gpu and formatted my pc etc. etc. So I have a clean computer and all that. As usual one of the first few things to be installed was my cpu/mem/hdd moniters and firefox however upon installing the new firefox 4 (which I was using fine before the format but it may have been a different build, the installers all say 4 on it) the browser leaks like all hell. FF4 starts at about 90-100 mb's then after about 10-30 seconds it starts to lock up until it completely freezes all this time ramping up in ram size, culminating in the entire usage of my free memory, usually about 2.4 gb/s. So what the hell is going on here and how do I fix it, I have re-downloaded it many a times and checked em so its not that either. nothing else has changed on my system and yes I have checked around the net and the closest thing I have found is a guy saying his ff ram usage goes up about 1mb ever 7 seconds but I believe he was using a ff3 version. Thanks so much in advance I miss my firefox extensions, chrome just doesn't cut it as a dev.

yeah i know it favours it but other people who run the kmark normal for instance with the same card as i got can get 8k-10k points and i am hard pressed to get 4k sometimes for some reason the fps wont go higher then 30 and i get 2k and i know that that isnt right.

I was looking at this new benchmark software awhile back and noticed it was built off of furmark mostly (well as far as I can tell) and that could explain part of my new problem. I just got myself a GTX 580 for my i7 920 system (currently running stock clocks) and I noticed that i am getting REALLY low scores on this thing. I am using the very latest kombustor and drivers and I get a score of about 4k which is insane, sometimes I get less. my partners rig that I just built her has a 6850 and it destroys mine but that is besides the point. on any test with kombustor (GL2-3 or any DX) I get really low fps of about 30-70 and very low scores. Now the part where furmark may explain it is I was having a similar problem with furmark a few years back and it turns out that one particular setting in the nvidia control panel killed furmarks performance and I just had to essentially flip a switch. So does anyone else have this issue or have a solution? EDIT: I know that this is not just the way the benchmark is meant to work (on low numbers i mean) as i have looked at many submitted results and i am getting WAY below par. Much appreciated, Nekroze

Thank you very much Paulktreg, that's pretty much exactly what i was looking for. I guess this case is closed then now. Thanks all and have a good one! Nekroze

Ok so I'm settled on the Enermax at the moment, but from that lack of comments on its lower amps per rail am i to assume that the amps mean little anyway or that everyone is just thinking about the watts and doesn't care so much or know about the amps usage in this case. I know everything would run perfect and well above with that wattage and that's cool and not really what i am asking about though its the amperage that is in question. So from the advice here i am to assume that the amperage counts don't really matter? or is it that i shouldn't care about them for some reason that no one seems to be able to voice. I'm sorry that I've gotten myself so confused with this there just doesn't seem to be an answer around. Thanks.