P
Pief
If not, try a different CPU. A7N8X is still a champion,=|[ Mick's ]|= said:
http://www.asus.com.tw/products/mb/socketa/a7n8x/overview.htm
cheers,
http://www.asus.com.tw/products/mb/socketa/a7n8x/overview.htm
cheers,
M
Mick
Cheers Pief. I was afraid you were going to say processor. I'll get the
A7N8X and give it a blast.
A7N8X and give it a blast.
Pief said:
P
Pief
-Bit easier to try a different processor on the current board than a new=|[ Mick's ]|= said:
board under the current proccessor though ;p
M
Mick
Yep. I agree. But I doubt that the dealer would have a high enough spec
processor in stock to test this out properly and he may take a bit of
persuading that it is the processor because he didn't seem to think this
yesterday. This could be the last resort if the A7N8X fails. I'll suggest
this and see where I get. I think I'd prefer the A7N8X to the V600 in any
case on the basis that if I can get it working, I can step it up to three
sticks at 400 speed although I have what you said in mind about the three
sticks in the V600 at 333 which probably won't make much real world
difference in speed.
processor in stock to test this out properly and he may take a bit of
persuading that it is the processor because he didn't seem to think this
yesterday. This could be the last resort if the A7N8X fails. I'll suggest
this and see where I get. I think I'd prefer the A7N8X to the V600 in any
case on the basis that if I can get it working, I can step it up to three
sticks at 400 speed although I have what you said in mind about the three
sticks in the V600 at 333 which probably won't make much real world
difference in speed.
Pief said:
P
Pief
=|[ Mick's ]|= said:
Seems, many processes are limited by fsb/mem speed now, like really big
graphic work, so its probably worth it to give the a7n8x a shot. Some
review benchmarks suggest asus's implementation of the kt600 chipset used
in the a7v600 is uncharacteristically, a bit under par too.
M
Mick
Pief
Hard to type with crossed fingers but we swapped in an Athlon 2800 which was
the fastest processor the guy had in stock and I've given it some Photoshop
torture running the processor flat out for about two hours with a series of
file converting actions. So far so good. Yesterday it would have crashed 10
times with this treatment. It's running at 2.08 GHz with the memory at 400
MHz but the processor only supports FBS333. However, in my Photoshop speed
tests, it performs exactly the same as the 3000 at 400 MHz and the FSB at
400. Much cooler than the 3000 as well. Only got to 54C max.
I'm going to see how this goes and I'm really hoping you were right that it
was the processor that was causing the problems. It it stays stable, then
I'll keep this processor and I'll even get a rebate. Could put it towards an
extra stick of memory and run at 333 but then again the 1 gig is pretty
adequate for most of the files I work with. If it starts crashing again,
I'll change the board for the A7N8X.
Thanks once again for all of the help. Very much appreciated.
Hard to type with crossed fingers but we swapped in an Athlon 2800 which was
the fastest processor the guy had in stock and I've given it some Photoshop
torture running the processor flat out for about two hours with a series of
file converting actions. So far so good. Yesterday it would have crashed 10
times with this treatment. It's running at 2.08 GHz with the memory at 400
MHz but the processor only supports FBS333. However, in my Photoshop speed
tests, it performs exactly the same as the 3000 at 400 MHz and the FSB at
400. Much cooler than the 3000 as well. Only got to 54C max.
I'm going to see how this goes and I'm really hoping you were right that it
was the processor that was causing the problems. It it stays stable, then
I'll keep this processor and I'll even get a rebate. Could put it towards an
extra stick of memory and run at 333 but then again the 1 gig is pretty
adequate for most of the files I work with. If it starts crashing again,
I'll change the board for the A7N8X.
Thanks once again for all of the help. Very much appreciated.
Pief said:
P
Pief
=|[ Mick's ]|= said:
I just looked at AMD's Athlon processor sheet and discovered there are two
models for the 3000! -one for 333fsb and one for 400fsb - I guess the 400
ones have been checked to run at 400, and the 333's just might. (iirc
theyre both exactly the same design, just variance in manufacture quality)
A code printed on the 333's ends with KV4D and the 400's end with KV4E
-so you may well, have been lead a merry dance.
My AthlonXP 2000 only 'supports' 266fsb but is perfectly comfortable well
past 333, so theres room to experiment when you like. You got a model with
a bigger cache though - which is nice.
Thanks for keeping 'uz informed
M
Mick
I specifically asked for the 400 version. I assume it was the right one. In
the auto setting in the BIOS it would set itself at 400. It came from dabs
uk apparently as it was the only place the dealer could get it 6 weeks ago.
He is now going to send it back.
I might do a bit of tinkering with the settings when I feel sure that the
new processor has resolved all the problems. I'm amazed that it matches the
other processor in terms of speed in Photoshop. Right now I just want to be
able to work on a stable machine for a while. Like I said in my first post,
the machine ran perfectly for 9 days at the default settings and then
crashed completely out of the blue so it will be a while before I'll say
that it's definitely ok.
the auto setting in the BIOS it would set itself at 400. It came from dabs
uk apparently as it was the only place the dealer could get it 6 weeks ago.
He is now going to send it back.
I might do a bit of tinkering with the settings when I feel sure that the
new processor has resolved all the problems. I'm amazed that it matches the
other processor in terms of speed in Photoshop. Right now I just want to be
able to work on a stable machine for a while. Like I said in my first post,
the machine ran perfectly for 9 days at the default settings and then
crashed completely out of the blue so it will be a while before I'll say
that it's definitely ok.
Pief said:=|[ Mick's ]|= said:
I just looked at AMD's Athlon processor sheet and discovered there are two
models for the 3000! -one for 333fsb and one for 400fsb - I guess the 400
ones have been checked to run at 400, and the 333's just might. (iirc
theyre both exactly the same design, just variance in manufacture quality)
A code printed on the 333's ends with KV4D and the 400's end with KV4E
-so you may well, have been lead a merry dance.
My AthlonXP 2000 only 'supports' 266fsb but is perfectly comfortable well
past 333, so theres room to experiment when you like. You got a model with
a bigger cache though - which is nice.
Thanks for keeping 'uz informed
P
Pief
=|[ Mick's ]|= said:
Yeah, for me -these rigs are mind bogglingly quick even cool running at
80%. I used to need to tweak my old rig, buts it not that practicaly
rewarding just now.
AthlonXP Rocks Photoshop