Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: sk8n mo bo




  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    1

    Default

    i put my 64 fx chip in my sk8n and it wont post what is the prob.:shrug

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    No where
    Posts
    445

    Default

    You wont get much of a response with that breif of a post. We are going to need more information about your computer. What type of RAM are you running. Video card? PSU? HDDS? etc. All the info you can give is would be great.

    Right now, the only advice I can give you is to make sure everything is plugged in right. Make sure the CPU is seated in the socket correctly, and your HSF is securely attached.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    184

    Default

    Error beeps? LEDs? Do the fans spin up? Things like that will help us diagnose it.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,790

    Default

    We need specs.

    And if you aren't using registered ECC memory then that would be your problem.

    FX5900 - 3DMark2001 [20,566] - 3DMark2003 [7,281] - Aquamark3 [56,694]
    Ti4400 - 3DMark2001 [16,028]

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    4,825

    Default

    One of the review sites recently wrote a piece regarding this so-called registered RAM requirement. What was discovered was that ECC modules are not required; but it will be the only memory that will be officially supported by the new Athlon FX chipsets. Boards have worked just fine with the non-registered DDR modules and have in fact turned in better benchmarking results due to the high memory latency associated with registered memory.

    Thought you might like to know. ;)
    Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill
    My Toys

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    4,825

    Default

    Did a quick search and found the article (beware of popups). Here is a blurb:

    AMD Opteron and Athlon64 FX dual memory channel CPUs require registered ECC DDR400 DIMMs. According to the latest JEDEC specs, those modules are supposed to be built using BGA components instead of the standard TSOP form factor, and consequently, as we were informed by AMD, modules built with the older TSOP components will not be qualified. Currently, the only DIMMs that are qualified are those sold by Kingston under the HyperX brand name, which, unfortunately are blessed with very high latencies, that is 3 cycles for each CAS delay, RAS-To-CAS Delay and Precharge delay.

    Other vendors are disregarding the lack of "qualification status" and offering low latency DDR modules based on conventional TSOP designs. In terms of functionality and reliability, there does not appear to be any advantage of the BGA design, on the contrary, the very rigid solder connections on a flexible PCB actually make for a much more fragile design than the mechanically more forgiving TSOP form factor. And what about performance? We have analyzed a handful of the new modules under various conditions and the results are surprising to say the least.
    Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill
    My Toys

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,790

    Default

    Well that's certainly good news for A64 buyers....but they still get raped on the processor.

    FX5900 - 3DMark2001 [20,566] - 3DMark2003 [7,281] - Aquamark3 [56,694]
    Ti4400 - 3DMark2001 [16,028]

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    New England Highlands, Australia
    Posts
    21,907

    Default

    Personally I'll wait till around May/June next year before thinkin' about buildin' myself an AMD64 based PC. Early Athlon FX's are 940pin Opterons with one pin removed and the mobo's that they use now will only be upgradable thru the Opteron line as early next year the Athlon FX will be out with an overhauled core with unbuffered memory support and possiblely removal the two useless Hyper Transport links that are only required for SMP which the current FX can't do anyway. The forth comin' true 939pin core is also rumoured to be retraced to make for better signal integratity and to produce better motherboard pathways. All basically to lower manufacturin' costs (lower cost to consumer) and extract a bit more performance.

    Who knows maybe even Windows XP 64 might be around by then. :shrug:

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Posts
    4,825

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Soulburner
    Well that's certainly good news for A64 buyers....but they still get raped on the processor.
    That is a matter of personal opinion. There are both advantages and disadvantages to either of the processor choices, so each to their own.
    Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill
    My Toys

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darthtanion
    That is a matter of personal opinion. There are both advantages and disadvantages to either of the processor choices, so each to their own.
    I meant price wise. There is no denying that $500-700 is too much to pay for a single processor.

    FX5900 - 3DMark2001 [20,566] - 3DMark2003 [7,281] - Aquamark3 [56,694]
    Ti4400 - 3DMark2001 [16,028]

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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
  •