Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: ASRock 4CoreDual-SATA2 R2.0 + Intel Core 2 Quad 9550 = big mistake? >_<




  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    29

    Default Re: ASRock 4CoreDual-SATA2 R2.0 + Intel Core 2 Quad 9550 = big mistake? >_<

    Yeah, the only problem with wanting to change motherbaords at this point is that I'm still somewhat tied to my Radeon X1950 Pro AGP card that I'm using, and I'd sort of prefer to wait until I can get a decent PCI-E video card rather than picking up a "disposable" card just to make a quick leap to another motherboard. Of course, I'm also nervous about shooting myself in the foot and there being absolutely *no* 775 boards left by the time I make the leap, so hopefully I'll be able to save up and pull the trigger around christmas or somesuch.

    Also, re: ebay - I'm in Canada, so those listings that ship only to the U.S. are out for me, and sometimes even if you *can* get something shipped to Canada, if the seller only ships by UPS, they add $25-45 in additional "brokerage" fees any time they cross the border. :( My dad once bought a "$50" motherboard that ended up costing him over a hundred bucks by the time it got here, after all the rediculous shipping charges... Had a decent experience with newegg.ca, though; the price displayed (with local taxes, etc. added automatically in the shopping cart) was the final price - item was delivered with no "SURPRISE! We need more money before we hand it over!" Tiger Direct also has some stores in our area which sometimes have decent stock, as well, and they tend to price match their website.
    Last edited by JWK; 09-10-2010 at 08:54 PM.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    13

    Default Re: ASRock 4CoreDual-SATA2 R2.0 + Intel Core 2 Quad 9550 = big mistake? >_<

    It sounds like you have another processor for this board though, and extra memory. I'd just get another graphics card cheap and build a new system and keep that old one the way it is, and put the quad in something decent. You can get msi gtx 260 refurbs cheap these days and those are really decent cards that will be at least twice as powerful as that agp. You could probably put together a whole new system for less than $150 or so at this point.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    29

    Default Re: ASRock 4CoreDual-SATA2 R2.0 + Intel Core 2 Quad 9550 = big mistake? >_<

    Quote Originally Posted by chimera15 View Post
    It sounds like you have another processor for this board though, and extra memory. I'd just get another graphics card cheap and build a new system and keep that old one the way it is, and put the quad in something decent.
    Extra memory, yes. An extra cpu, no; the suggestion of putting in a CPU that was content to run on a 1066 fsb when passing the board along would be contingent on actually being able to find one of said processors at the time, lol.

    And like I was saying about the video card, with the 9550 running at its full potential, any sub-$400 video card would probably still be the bottleneck for most games, so I figured there's no real sense in dropping $100 or so on a video card right now and another $150 later after the GTX 460's or whatever come down that far, when I could just be a little more patient and maybe pick one up (or even newer technology) for less total expense in a few months - and grabbing a corresponding motherboard at the time or shortly thereafter.

    Note also that quite a few older/cheaper 775 motherboards, such as the P5N-SLI may use older chipsets that do not support a 1333 MHz fsb (which may be one of the major differentiations between the nforce 500 and 700 series chipsets, for example), so I would be quite wary about buying anything off of ebay unless I could get decent information from the manufacturer, first - and quite a few manufacturers' pages have been culled of many older products. Just try searching for the P5N-SLI on ASUS' site, for example.

    I'm still hoping that Sean or another user with good ties to ASRock might reply here with an explanation of how the Q9550 is supposed to function with my existing motherboard as advertised on their website, to save the extra future hassles. :)

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    13

    Default Re: ASRock 4CoreDual-SATA2 R2.0 + Intel Core 2 Quad 9550 = big mistake? >_<

    You can double check by looking at geekbench. I'm 100% sure a p5n-e, or d will support your processor because there are examples of it. You can get refurbed gtx260's for like around $100, or even less..so they're not a bad card to upgrade to right now.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    29

    Default Re: ASRock 4CoreDual-SATA2 R2.0 + Intel Core 2 Quad 9550 = big mistake? >_<

    Quote Originally Posted by chimera15 View Post
    You can double check by looking at geekbench. I'm 100% sure a p5n-e, or d will support your processor because there are examples of it. You can get refurbed gtx260's for like around $100, or even less..so they're not a bad card to upgrade to right now.
    I took a look around to see what 200-series nvidia cards might be compatible with my motherboard since I don't have access to the resources to justify a GTX 460 atm, and it seems that all of the GTX 200 series have 10.5 inch PCB's (check the specifications at GeForce GTX 260, for example) in reference/standard format - which is a problem for the 4CoreDual-SATA2 boards. They are only 9.6" across, with the IDE connectors along the same horizontal plane as the PCI-E slot, so any cards with an overall length of >8.5" just plain will not fit with IDE cables present, and may still cause rubbing or interference issues on/with the sockets even using an all-SATA setup (I currently have all parallel ATA devices, no SATA).

    Basically, that means the only nvidia solutions in that price range would be the GT 240 and GTS 250, both of which received quite lackluster reviews (and justifiably so) for their performance vs. ATi counterparts in the same price range, or even other nvidia products' overall "bang for the buck." Now, I know these ASRock Dual boards constitute the very definition of a "niche market," but I find it extremely interesting that the GTX 460 just so happens to have an 8.25" overall length and is reported as being compatible with PCI-E 1.0/1.1 slots by Zotac, Palit, and probably other manufacturers, on their sites, making them seem almost custom-tailored to accomodate the motherboard's key "flaws" in graphics card support. Not to mention that (depending on whose benchmarks you believe) a GTX 460 rivals the GTX 285 in performance, which in turn compares with dual GTX 260's in SLI, while consuming less power and generating less heat and noise. Oh, and did I mention it also has DirectX 11 support?

    And thus the logic behind the GTX 460 being my object of future graphics card lust. The X1950 Pro I am using now is the first ATi card I have used, and through several OS reinstalls and multiple versions of Catalyst drivers, it has just never had the kind of stability and reliabilty my nvidia parts always seemed to bring to the table, and has me leery of going the ATi route again, when you still frequently see their cards being described as "a great piece of hardware for the money... But the drivers still suck."

    You would think living an hour away from ATi headquarters would make me an automatic fanboy, but all it does is make me wanna go over there and smack someone. :)
    Last edited by JWK; 09-13-2010 at 10:16 AM.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario
    Posts
    29

    Default Re: ASRock 4CoreDual-SATA2 R2.0 + Intel Core 2 Quad 9550 = big mistake? >_<

    To update this thread:

    I finally received a reply from ASRock CSD from the submitted web form. After a couple of emails back and forth with the CSD rep stating that the fsb should only be reduced by 5% as per the CPU compatibility page, this was the last message I ended up receiving:

    "There is no any special setting for 1333FSB processor, You simply just drop in and bios will automatically detect it. From all the hassle I see. I suggest you contact the vendor and get the different mainboard, that fully support your Q9550 processor. Sorry about the issue you are having."

    I replied back:

    "It sounds like you are saying that my CPU should be able to run at the proper speed, but that the auto-detection is not setting it up correctly in the BIOS. Could you please tell me the proper manual BIOS settings to enable the correct speeds for the Q9550 CPU? If it is simply a problem with the 2.20 BIOS auto-detection, manual settings should be much less dangerous to test than a BIOS flash down to version 2.10."

    Since that message, I haven't heard any reply for the past week. I am almost tempted to try to see if BIOS 2.10 would "magically" find proper settings to get my CPU up to speed, since the rep seems to believe that the 1333 MHz fsb support for the Q9550 is not an error in the listing on the website.

    I apologize for what might seem like thread necrosis, but based upon the "official" position that my CPU is not performing as expected by an official ASRock rep, I am hopeful that perhaps I may either receive another email at a future date, or hopefully receive some feedback from Sean C. here that might be useful both to myself and for anyone else looking to equip one of these motherboards with what could well be the top-performing CPU on the support list.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    109

    Default Re: ASRock 4CoreDual-SATA2 R2.0 + Intel Core 2 Quad 9550 = big mistake? >_<

    Hello just got ASRock 4CoreDual-SATA2 R2.0 + Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600 .

    The long story sort , I got the board before three days , originally I got an E7500 CPU,
    that turned bad , and I had to return for replacement on warranty hopefully.
    The point is that this could take lots of time , so I just got today another (used) CPU
    the Q6600.

    Every one who gets that Quad Q6600, the first thing that he reads on Google are how well it overclocks at the Toms hardware article.

    I am trying to let behind an truly great system, the P3.2 with ASUS P4C800-E DLX ,
    just because my needs about video editing does not get covered by it.

    I am very happy wit my ATI HD3850 AGP, that mostly for it, I had choose the 4CoreDual-SATA2.

    About the 4CoreDual-SATA2 -5% at quads , I was aware of it , and truly I do not care.
    Even the Quad Q6600 in comparison with the latest E7500 that is the most powerful core 2 duo that the board supports , looks to be killed from the Q6600 at every benchmark.

    I managed just to test this board with an Pentium D so to confirm that it works,
    just an 10 minutes test.

    Yes I am dying to learn if its possible to push this CPU just a bit more than the default.

    Currently I own OCZ platinum SDRAM 3200 2-2-2-5 and ordered and DDRII OCZ value pro PC-4200 ( 266) 4-4-4-12 so at 1:1 it will be good enough .
    The same DDRII gets out as DDR 667 (333) with 5-5-5-14 , and so I bet that my modules can run in both speeds by setting the proper parameters.

    I have all ready load the official Bios 2.20 , and I have also and the unofficial Bios ,
    released by an German site of people that tweak the 4CoreDual-SATA2 R20 ,
    and by the tweaked bios it can use even 4GB of ram.

    Unfortunately , I did not manage to find if this hacked bios offers more tweaking options than the standard.
    And at what extend .

    I vote too over stability, and I do not like to risk the motherboard too.

    And so I will follow only safe for the motherboard steps, the Q6600 has known potentials, and the 3G looks sweet , but I can live even with something in between the default and the 3G ..

    At the Bios looks that the motherboard can lock the PCI and AGP , and this is nice.
    My question are ... how much is the stablest FSB that this board can offer.

    If it can work at 333 1:1 , I will fly my hat ..
    That's an 9X333= 2997 - 5% = 2.847 GHz that works nice for me.
    Last edited by Kiriakos; 10-15-2010 at 05:56 AM.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    109

    Default Re: ASRock 4CoreDual-SATA2 R2.0 + Intel Core 2 Quad 9550 = big mistake? >_<

    Additional info about the stability issue that the board faces...

    At the most threads that I had read , the issue in all are the memory voltage.
    The latest OCZ value Gold that I got are 1.8V 100% compatible with this board that at the memory voltage setting ( Bios High ) it can only supply 2.03 volts Max .
    And so the most of the PC-800 DDRII runs out of specs !! They need 2,1 or 2,2V .

    The hacked bios offers at list more voltage at the memory , and funny enough , after loading the hacked , by setting the memory voltage to Low ( The hacked setting gives more voltage to the modules ) ...

    Here is an report of an user that uses the hacked Bios ...

    .................................................. .................................................. ................
    <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:ApplyBreakingRules/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id=ieooui></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0cm; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> ASROCK 4COREDUAL-SATA2 R2.0 BIOS: R2.20A
    CRUCIAL BALLISTIX 4GB 2X2GB DDR2-800 CL4-4-4-12
    INTEL E5500 DUAL CORE 2.8GHZ OC’D TO 3.1GHZ
    - I’ve had to reset the bios 10+ times (Overclocking).
    - No post with 2nd stick of ram without bios 2.20A
    - CPU-z showed that the board guessed wrong on ram timings
    - Manually set timings (see below)
    - Pretty sure it’s been driven to the limit now
    Bios Readings:
    BIOS L2.20 REV: a
    Total Memory: 4096MB
    Bios Ram Settings:
    DRAM Freq: 333 (ddrII667)
    Flexibility Option : Disabled
    DRAM CAS# : 4
    Trp: 4T
    Tras: 12T
    Trcd: 4T
    DRAM Voltage: Low
    DRAM BUS Selection: Dual Channel
    Bios CPU Settings:
    CPU Host Frequency: Manual
    Actual Frequency: 222
    Ratio Actual Value: 14 (222Χ14=3.1ghz)
    Bios Hard Drive Settings:
    PIO Mode: 4
    DMA Mode: UDMA6
    S.M.A.R.T.: Enabled
    32Bit Data Transfer: Enabled
    Boot-Up Readings:
    3.10 Ghz
    3328mb Ram
    CPU-Z (Version 1.55):
    ———————
    Core Speed: 3107 Mhz
    Bus Speed: 221.9 Mhz
    Rated FSB: 887.7 Mhz
    Memory Type: DDR2
    Memory Size: 4096 MB
    DRAM Frequency: 369.9 Mhz (x2=ddr2-739.8!!)
    CL:4 tRCD:4 tRP:4 tRAS:12
    Command Rate: 2T
    Passmark Performance Test:
    ————————–
    Memory Mark: 981.6(top score) 959(bottom score)
    Mem – Allocate Small Block: 4227.5 Mbytes/sec
    Mem – Read Cached: 2736.7 Mbytes/sec
    Mem – Read Uncached: 2432.5 Mbytes/sec
    Mem – Write: 1513.9 Mbytes/sec
    Mem – Large Ram: 1283.9 Operations/sec
    CPU Mark: 2603.4
    Disk Mark: 683.8
    Total Physical Memory: 3327 MB RAM
    Total Available Memory: 2740 MB RAM
    Bottom Line: If you want to overclock, grab ram that can handle it!
    -Am still playing with settings, if anyone has suggestions, post away, even though this is an old thread, figured someone may benefit from this somewhere sometime!

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •