Probably because the BIOS is not mature. They did X2 testing but there is no way it was a great deal of testing. Even now with Retail/OEM shipping its probably not even .005% of the users.Quote:
Originally Posted by xgman
Eric
Printable View
Probably because the BIOS is not mature. They did X2 testing but there is no way it was a great deal of testing. Even now with Retail/OEM shipping its probably not even .005% of the users.Quote:
Originally Posted by xgman
Eric
Its probably messed up. Version 1.3 was to fix grammer failing in another AMD cpu.Quote:
Originally Posted by s7e9h3n
ERic
Yup, it fixed in the fx53 iircQuote:
Originally Posted by ewitte
Guess this is the best it's gonna do........... :(
My first PCMark score was only 949.
My raptors are not set up in a raid array.
pcdoc how are your temps with the Koolance? I think that case is uber sexy.
My X2 seems to be doing very well as far as clocking is concerned. But, for some reason i get like 50sec PI times, complete crap 3D results. I have it running at 2.8GHz so i know this is not normal. Done a full format/reinstall, installed the AMD driver, 1T, latest NF4 drivers, everything i can think of. WTF is going on here. Some benches seem fairly normal, while 3D, PI and sandra memory bandwidth are WAAAAAY low. Any help would be nice.
What version of the DFI BIOS are you running?Quote:
Originally Posted by Sucka
If it's 6xx series, there is a performance fix for the X2 in a later version.
35 idle, 43 under load…… That’s with 120mm radiator fans turned down to the point of being inaudible…….Quote:
Originally Posted by ShoNuff
6026
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm05=9997
Install the AMD drivers using the .EXE not the .ZIP.
Eric
good find!
here is the link:
http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/cont...ies/amdcpu.exe
We think the only difference is it modifies the boot.ini file with the /usepmtimer switch.Quote:
Originally Posted by xgman
Check if you're running "ACPI MULTI-PROCESSOR" or "ACPI UNI-PROCESSOR"Quote:
Originally Posted by Sucka
Just flashed to 6/23, fixed the problem. That is to weird..
Well my DFI NF4 SLI DR up and died before I could get any real stability testing in.
Here's what I did before the board stopped booting. I'm really thinking the power draw at 3Ghz may have killed it. It was running i turned it off to attach another fan blowing over the DIMM area and it just never posted again. It's a shame because I was really ramping up. Burn in helped me with this I did burn in at 2.4 for a cpl hours then 2.6. By the time I was done with 2.6 I could do both of them at default volts. Next came 2.8 at near default volts but anything after that was really sketchy. I didn't really stability test I'd call 2.8Ghz benchmark stable though no problem. I ran 3DMark 01, 03, and 05 w/out a reboot. I ran every Sandra CPU and Mem test twice as well. I didn't notice higher than normal evap temps until I gave this more than 1.475v then it really wan't a linear increase in heat output. Honestly I think that's a bit too much voltage for the processor considering the current draw at that voltage and stpeed. This processor feels FAST in windows. I've never booted that fast in my life. I've just ordered a new DFI and had it overnighted so hopefully I can get this system back up and running tomorrow for weekend benches.
What clocks are everyone getting when using phase, don't seem to be many poeple posting results?
http://premium1.uploadit.org/jokester//toledo.JPG
I was eventually able to get both cores 8MB Superpi stable at just over 3GHz. Not sure what speed Prime stable is as I haven't been able to test it for prolonged periods yet.
Jokester
I reinstalled those suggested AMD CPU drivers...
fixed PCMark 05
My score went to 6421 from 1750
Ran two instances of Prime Blend for 24 hours and passed both
Ran two instances of Stress Prime 2004 Blend for another 24 hours and passed both
Ran two instances of small FFT for an hour and passed both----but that one DOES heat things up!
Highest CPU temp was 62
Highest PWM Temp was 59
Am using 1.350 Vcore With a special Vid of 110% ----I wind up with a vcore of 1.48 in Smart Guardian
I'm on air and at 2.8 megahertz----seems totally stable and my Mushkins are at 2,3,3,6
Will test some more----but so far----I'm liking my 4800+ X2 experience
Seems snappy with a lot of apps open......
Just the way I like it.......
I'm slowly pushing mine up, been Folding 24/7 for about 48hrs error free at this speed. :woot:
Just got mine and already in the hall of fame ;)
2.8GHz @ 1.55v. Seems that burnin had a huge impact since at start it was only stable at 2700Mhz with 1.73v.
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm04=3013048
Burn In seems good for me too, i could not get this speed even with 1.55 volts to start with either.
Day by day i get a little faster as long as F@H work units are error free. :)
However - I thought folding didn't check your results unlike Prime?Quote:
Originally Posted by daffy67
No not nearly as good indication. There are 2 school of people... if it feels stable than it is group and tard like me who insist everything must be prime 95 stable :P (and everything else of course). It usually takes me a while to get there too.
If the work units are erroring out then there's a problem, just check the log file. I run Prime 95 first for a few hours, then switch to Folding where CPU cycles are going to something useful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by daffy67
However surely only exceptions on the flow of instructions will be picked up but not mathematic inaccuracies that it won't detect and report in the folding log.
Submitting a incorrect result isn't good, if they check multiple run results of the same work unit against each other your threatening the validity of a 3 run check. If they're comparing 5 runs you're just using up their bandwidth, drive space fo nothing.
As i said, i run Prime 95 for a few hours first, then switch over. I check the WU regularly for problems. :)
I noticed this as well, in nearly every review the X2 gets a slightly lower BW than an equally clocked Venice.Quote:
Originally Posted by xgman
I'm guessing they only allow each core to use 95% (or something) of the total bandwidth, so there's always some room for the other core to communicate with the ram at low latencies so things stay snappy at all times.