The Official PC building thread -3rd Edition

I also found turning off the high precision event timer(HPET) support on my board helped clear up a lot of little quirks like that. Something about it being a function meant only for Vista or Windows 7??? This was on an AMD 780G board with a Phenom chip though using XP Pro 32-bit

Locking up at OS loading might also be dodgy memory like theonejrs says. Maybe try lowering the OC on your memory, loosen the timings a smidge, or bump the voltage up a notch. If in doubt run MemTest on each individual stick at stock settings to check for errors. And again after you apply your OC.

 

Russ: Hey, no offense taken, just clearing that up a bit
mrk: I'd try a basic BIOS reset (you shouldn't need to clear CMOS, just boot the system with only one stick of RAM, then shut down and put it back) then try your overclock again - if it comes back, try using a single stick of RAM, but bear in mind you can't really overclock with only one stick installed.

 

or my fav suggestion, upgrae bios and reset cmos

 

Mmmm, hassle.
What was it creaky said a few months back? "I've got a toothache, better reset the CMOS!"

 

I just finished memtest86+, passed with no errors. The thing is that I can't just take out one of the memory sticks to test it because it has to be off for a while. Only then does it lock up after I first turn it on. So if I wanted to clear CMOS, I'd have to wait til after its been off for a few hours or more.

I'm on Windows 7 RTM and my BIOS is already upgraded to the latest version. And I've been running on stock settings for the past few days, so it's no longer OCed, yet it's still locking up after being off for a while. I just think it's weird because it works perfectly fine after I turn it off again for a few seconds after it locks up.

quick question about memtest: To test each stick individually, would I need to take one stick out? or is it no longer necessary if I ran and passed it with both sticks in?

 

have you tried i differnt CPU/ram/mobo/GPU? swapped eaqch componeent out, or tested each one in another system?

 

mrk44,
It's my understanding that you only test them one at a time, for the most conclusive results.

I know this may sound a little strange, but try warming the computer up a little with a hair dryer and see if it boots. There could be a low temperature problem with a component on the MB. I had a cold cycle re-boot problem one time, and if I warmed things up first with my hair dryer, the problem went away. If it was a warm day, same thing! It fired right up! It only happened when it was cold! Either way, it would eventually boot, which I think that happened because whatever the component was causing the problem, would warm up enough after a few failed boots, to finally start!

Best Regards,
Russ

 

hmmm if that's the case then it might be my motherboard. A few weeks back I was replacing the backplate for a new cooler and I took the old one off with the hair dryer method. It came off, but under the backplate on the motherboard, it looked like there's some exposed copper. Could that be it? I mean, I want to narrow it down to whether it's my CPU or something else. I don't have another CPU to test, so I can't really figure it out that way.

EDIT: Also, I'm a little puzzled at something else. If it's locking up because a component is cold, wouldn't it work if I just restarted after it initially locks up? I mean it should get warm enough by then, right? The reason I say that is because it doesn't work unless I turn the comp completely OFF for a few seconds. Restarting just takes me to the "welcome" screen and then locks up again.

 

mrk44,
It would take me about 6 to 8 reboots before my computer would boot up! I just stayed about a foot away and fired the hair dryer into the open side of the computer, with the side removed. You'll have to guage for yourself as to how far away to be from the works. I have a professional 1400w dryer, so I didn't want to be too close! LOL!!

Best Regards,
Russ

 

Seems there will be a Phenom II X2 550 BE in my LAN box soon. Just got a cheap offer for one from a friend. I think he picked it up open box just to play with it and it works fine. Orthos stable at 18 hours with stock settings. The guy selling it to me also has a 940BE at 3.6GHz so I think he was just bored. He's got the money to play with so it doesn't hurt him to sell his stuff cheap. Works out for me

 

Estuansis,
i haven't heard a lot about the Calista chips yet. Good luck with it. Hope it works out for you!

Russ

 

Well AFAIK they are the exact same thing as my fully featured 940 but with 2 cores. Correspondingly less L1 nd L2 cache but full 6MB of L3. They are supposed to be particularly good OCers and a great budget match to Intel dual cores. Stock 3.1GHz it keeps right up with an E8400 and stomps it in a few games even. It should be a decent chip as it has a lower TDP than my quad or a tri.

 

Hey Folks,
I have a friend who built a computer a while back. I recently gave this friend a 250GB Sata 3.0 drive. He wiped the drive clean and then formated it. The problem is it won't let him set up Dual Boot. He can boot from either drive by itself, but if he installs the Sata, and the IDE drive he has now is hooked up, it will boot from the Sata, but if he tries to make the IDE the boot drive, it will just sit there loading forever! He can boot from the Sata and access the IDE, but not the other way around. Even the boot manager won't help! Ant ideas?

Thanks in advance,
Russ

 

Mrk: I've used the hairdryer method to remove a backplate (primarily due to the fact that the HAF932's main design flaw means you need three hands to install a cooler backplate - so I just used the adhesive instead), but it didn't cause the board any damage when it was removed, not that I could see. As for cold solder joints, the required temperature may be 25ºC or so, but it could be 75ºC in which case the component would never work again and you'd RMA it saying it's dead. Depends on the size of the problem.
Jeff: The 550BEs are about the fastest dual core chips AMD have offered, and while not rivals to the E8000 series, for the price they're one of the best value dual core chips out there, for non-enthusiasts. Obviously when you consider overclocking like all high end AMD CPUs they're rather useless, but still good enough for midrange gaming PCs.
Russ: Faulty I/O controller perhaps? Has he tried using different S-ATA ports? Could also potentially try using a PCI IDE or PCI S-ATA card to isolate them and see if that helps...

 

Sam,
I'm not sure where you are getting your information, but according to a number of reviews I read the xII 550 does a pretty good job competing with the E8400! Here's one review!
http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/pii550/
Of the 12 games tested, it was faster at 3, and quite even at 5 more. It was also better at Win.rar and PC mark Vantage and is very close at Cinebench! It also overclocks very well, so I'm puzzled why you say that they are rather useless at overclocking! Neoseekers had no difficulty getting it to 3.857GHz with air cooling. Voltages and temperatures were no issue, and it runs quite cool!

The motherboard on Adam's computer is a new replacement he found in a socket 939, to replace his old MB that went south! The Sata ports are 3.0, and the jumper is was removed. I've never used anything but on board Sata, so I don't own a Sata card and I ain't about to buy one! LOL!! I'll get over there in a day or two and see what I can do. I'm familiar with that particular BioStar MB, as I used the same MB for the first AMD I built for Russell. Thanks though, I do appreciate the feedback.

Best Regards,
Russ

 

Comparing from an objective standpoint, rather than a pro-AMD standpoint, and ignoring meaningless artificial tests - it sits behind in both Handbrake and POV-Ray, marginally behind in Cinebench.
The only area the X2 550 really does well in is WinRAR, which most of the time is disk-limited anyway.
Most of the games tests are GPU-limited, or the fps is too high anyway to matter, World in conflict is one such example. Lost planet is another example, the 550 fares better here, but is behind where it matters (minimum frame rates, not average),
The E8400 squeezes ahead in Crysis Warhead. The 550 wins Bioshock by a small amount (5%), but at such high FPS that it's an irrelevant test. The E8400 performs noticeably better at COD:WAW, and the X2 550 is marginally ahead in Far Cry 2 and Left 4 Dead - the latter of which is again at too high a frame rate to be worthwhile.
Therefore, in all the tests that matter, the 550 only wins at WinRAR and Far Cry 2, and that's it. Given all the other tests, I'd say the 550 is not on a par with the E8400.
Also, overclocks well. Once again, from an objevtive standpoint - the E8400 will clock to 4.2Ghz in most systems, 40%. The 550 will make 3.87 you say, 25% at the most. The E8400 is in a different league, which is why it costs so much more. The X2 550 vs E7500 is a much fairer fight, hence the similar costs.

 

Sam,
Let's face it, you just don't like AMD! You sit there and say "from an objective standpoint", while you claim that my viewpoint is Pro AMD. You say the 550 doesn't compete with the 8000 series, but it does. It does a nice job against a superior and more expensive E8400, so it must do even better against an E8200. No one is going to run an E8400 at 4.2GHz on a daily basis, so why even mention it? And who gives a rat's behind about the frame rates being too high? They all had the same video card, so what's the difference. A win is still a win!

I know how much you love Anandtech, so I'll spare you the whole article and skip to the conclusions!

Let's face it, You just don't want to give credit where credit is due! Anandtech and others say it's the way to go if you are a gamer. If the E8400 is in a different league, then how come the 550 is rated so high when it comes to gaming? Is the E8400s margin in extra performance worth the $65 price difference? Not if you are a gamer!

Best Regards,
Russ

 

It's not that I don't like AMD, it's more that I see their new processors for what they are. Everyone else seems so spellbound with the comeback that AMD have made that they tend not to consider the facts too seriously. The fact is, for standard end users that want a good value CPU, the new AMDs are hard to beat simply because they are so aggressively priced. However, the long and short of it is that the AMDs from a technological standpoint are still behind the current Intels. They simp;y stand up in the market because they are well priced, which is to AMD's credit. For performance enthusiasts though, even on not too large a budget, the innate performance advantage through overclocking an Intel is hard to ignore, as is in some cases the difference is in efficiency, and thus suitability for low power or low heat or low noise platforms. I can turn every case fan in my work PC off entirely, the CPU cooler is already fanless, and it will still run cool enough that I can overclock it by maybe as much as 40-45% and OCCT it 24 hours a day without it overheating. That's something you simply can't do with an AMD CPU, and better yet, I paid about £55 for that CPU.
The E8200 CPU is pretty much a dead concept, and you should know it by now, as it was introduced long before the better value E7 series which has since replaced them.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You are so focused on making sure everyone knows that AMD are the new best thing that you are zoned in on every little test that comes out in AMD's favour, whether or not it's remotely relevant. Not being a gamer this may not occur to you, but if the only game the AMD CPU is better at is one where it gets 140fps versus Intel's 120, what's the point? Surely you realise that nobody will ever be able to tell the difference between them? They may as well be identical. Any properly setup CPU test uses the maximum detail but minimal resolution to make sure the CPU is stressed as much as it will ever be, but to minimise load on the graphics card - this looks to be how the test you posted was run, the CPU will never be any more limiting than those figures there. Thus, any game posting figures like that is irrelevant for this purpose. It can give a roughly objevtive comparison between it and lesser CPUs from the same series that perhaps would be limiting, but that is it. This is partly why the minimum frame rate should be posted.

As you may have noticed, I never recommend the E8400 CPU to anyone, because I think it's overpriced. I will either choose E5 or E7 series CPUs, or quad cores, or, if people already have an AMD architecture, will sell them the X2 550.
I would give credit to AMD here if it was due, but it is not due to AMD any more than it would be to Intel, neither is it worth giving Intel more than it is AMD, this is after all, unlike yours, an objective standpoint.

 

Hear, hear!

(What were we saying about short posts :L)