whats the biggest difference between the 965 and 975 chipset?
Printable View
whats the biggest difference between the 965 and 975 chipset?
Google is your friend. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Grinch
I am one to accept that cpuid is not perfect to all motherboards.
Nice work, I may try that board now.
Great Post... :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Luck.exe
try it with something other than a 6x multi
bet ya dont get very far.
This makes me more believe that it`s a fake ...Quote:
stock cooler
what's your point? I think the goal here was to show the limits of the board..not the chipQuote:
Originally Posted by Lestat
Same question here, what vmch and cooling?Quote:
Originally Posted by TaPaKaH
I also have the same questionQuote:
Originally Posted by Eldonko
Quote:
Originally Posted by BottomsUp
it has nothing to do with the chip its all these boards.. both 975 and 965
none of them can go past a certain wall at a certain multi without heavy voltage mods.
one of these days one of these board makers is going to actually go past that wall, i just have yet to see a retail board do it without mods.
the chipsets themselves are quirky with certain multi's.
pretty much all the boards get goofy past 400 with a 9x multi. and ther eis no logical reason why.. its not the chips its the boards/chipsets
not to mention that my chip/board easily is bootable at 412mhz FSB, 3.7ghz but if i try and run 3.7ghz on any other mutli the board refuses to do it.
while others can run way high FSB on lower multi's just fine.
these 975/965 chipsets are very flakey.
Somehow i'm not impressed at all. Not with Colaler work, he a fine dude but with the performance of this MB @ 600FSB. Look at PI with cpu @3.6G:confused: 17+ sek. And Sisoft memory benchmark? it scores same as my p5b @ 1980FSB. The point i'm truing to make is not how high we can get the FSB but also the performance that should come with increase. I mean you can stretch those chipset memory timing to wazoo but whats the point:slapass:
would u tell me how did u know it's fakeQuote:
Originally Posted by TaPaKaH
and CPUZ fake too ?
http://www.iamxtreme.net/coolaler/co...00s6/965c2.gif
that's new chip 965C2
maybe everyone can fsb600 too,as issue
Coolaler...how about uploading the F4e beta bios to rapidshare?
R U sure that's "C2" version,cpz version different?
look at the first and sec pictures,1st cpuz shows "c2", 2st cpuz shows"C1"
http://img10.picsplace.to/15/600-pi.JPG
http://img4.picsplace.to/img4/25/600-pi_2.JPG
so no one wants to tell the truth huh ?
its time to come clean girls... who's the liar here and who's telling the truth.
and for the kid who claimed it was his... if you got the balls to say its real then i would suggest you take yourself and start posting a crap load more pics not the same pics that other poeple post
cpuz 1.35 unsupportQuote:
Originally Posted by hicookie
c2 fsb600 all :toast: :toast: :toast:
http://www.iamxtreme.net/andre/965C2-2.JPG
test from andre
Please run sisoft membench @ 600 with those timings:D Those c2 looks to be a killer chip
indeed;)Quote:
Originally Posted by railer
I suggest an apology to Coolaler for your poor conduct Lestat, you are definitly crapping the thread without definitive proof.
I say its possible despite the poor pi run. We dont know what the guy had running in the background.
We will look more into the revision very soon so please stop with the accusations until more boards have been pushed (this goes for everyone)
C2:toast:
:slapass:
coolaler - oldman and dog
You are an honorable man and great overclocker. Thank you for being a part of XS forums
LOL at the ones crying fake.
LOL CPUZ certified = owned!. All the naysayers
my cpu-Z show rev.c1.That means c1 sucks?Or what?c1 have lower OC possibility?:rolleyes:
If cpu-z info is wrong then how can i findout what rev.of chipset i have?