The All New, All New Spec and Bench Thread!!!

R3C · Post by **R3C** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 10:04 am

Looks good to me. I think the Opterons are a little better for OCing if he's interested in that. Otherwise it looks nice. Also the 1900XT is quite a bit faster than the 7900GT, (even the 7900GTX in some cases,) it has 512MB, and can be found for under $400. 7900GT is very nice, so I'm not recommending against it, just compare the price with the 1900XT before picking it up.

Post by **enderzero** » Tue Jul 25, 2006 11:46 pm

I guess it is about time I posted some damn benchmarks in the specs and bench thread.

New Specs:
AMD 3800 Venice
eVGA NF41 nForce4SLI MB
2 X 1GB Corsair XMS
eVGA 7600GT KO (580/1500)
Audigy 2
320GB 7200.10, 300GB 7200.9, 300GB 7200.8 (ext)
NEC ND3550 DVDRW, NEC DV5800 DVD
Enermax Noisetaker 485W PS

For comparison I bench'd the old system just prior. That system was:
Intel P4 3.2GHz Prescott, MSI 865 MB, Same 2GB Corsair XMS running auto, ATI X1300 256MB AGP, the 7200.9, etc.

All scores are with the CPU clocked to default and the RAM set to (2-3-3-6 1T).

Here are the 3DMark Results:

Code: Select all

 3D MARK 2006           OLD Intel System           New AMD System
==============         ==================         ================
Final Score               727 3DMarks               3088 3DMarks
SM2                     252 &#40;1.689/2.516&#41;       1361 &#40;11.079/11.612&#41;
HDR/SM3                 200 &#40;2.571/3.025&#41;       1246 &#40;11.066/13.850&#41;
CPU                      621 &#40;.199/.310&#41;           952 &#40;.299/.485&#41;

 3D MARK 2005              OLD X1300                 New 7600GT
==============         ==================         ================
Final Score               1657 3DMarks               5369 3DMarks
Games                    7.9 / 5.5 / 6.7         26.6 / 12.4 / 29.9
CPU                      3062 &#40;1.6/2.6&#41;             5494 &#40;2.6/5.1&#41;

I also ran a pretty extensive suite of real-world Windows and hypothetical benchmarks. Peruse if you like but this is partly for sake of saving the scores

Real World Apps (all lower times are better)

Code: Select all

Photoshop CS2           OLD Intel System           New AMD System
==============         ==================         ================
PS Mark v3nd                 2&#58;52                       3&#58;09

Premiere Pro 2.0        OLD Intel System           New AMD System
==============         ==================         ================
Open                          &#58;27                        &#58;13
Render                       1&#58;56                       2&#58;18
Fast Color                   3&#58;46                       3&#58;28
Page Curl                    4&#58;56                       4&#58;05

Notes: These benchmarks are based on tests I created using my own files. The Photoshop test opens a 250MB PSD file, runs some intensive smart blur and smart sharpen filters and then closes the file. The Premiere test works with a 500MB video file, renders a preview, applies fast color correction and applies the GPU Page Curl effect.
For obvious reasons these would not be able to be compared to similar tests on another computer without the actual test files used, but let me know if anyone is actually interested in more details or getting these files.

"Theoretical" Benchmarks:

Code: Select all

Everest v2.20           OLD Intel System           New AMD System
==============         ==================         ================
Memory Read                5314 MB/s                  5665 MB/s  
Memory Write               1893 MB/s                  2363 MB/s
Memory Latency              109.1 ns                   44.6 ns

PC Wizard 06
  -Global-              OLD Intel System           New AMD System
==============         ==================         ================ 
CPU                           6861                      6261
Cache                        21677                     15953
Memory                        4003                      4256
Video                          173                      1086
HDD                             78                        77


PC Wizard 06
   -CPU-                OLD Intel System           New AMD System
==============         ==================         ================             
FPU                           3669                      3716
SSE2                          6256                      4794
ALU                          10057                     10317
L1                          5 cycles                 3 cycles
L2                         26 cycles                14 cycles

PC Wizard 06
   -RAM-                OLD Intel System           New AMD System
==============         ==================         ================  
Latency                     115 ns                     44 ns 
Effic. Float                  83%                       77%
Effic. Int.                   77%                       85%


PC Wizard 06
 -D3D &#40;fps&#41;-            OLD Intel System           New AMD System
==============         ==================         ================
Texture                        562                      3993
FS Texture                      73                       351
Particles                       17                        19
Vertex                          27                        60
Billboard                       84                      1059


PC Wizard 06
  -Video-               OLD Intel System           New AMD System
==============         ==================         ================ 
Raster                          61                        85
Random px                        5                         6
Random ln                       30                        43
Random grc                      31                        43
Random rectangle                31                        53
Random test                     21                        42

PC Wizard 06
-Multi-thread-          OLD Intel System           New AMD System
==============         ==================         ================ 
1                            16.109                    14.031
2 par                        14.735                    14.046
4 par                        15.328                    14.063
2/1                         -8.529%                       -

PC Wizard 06
-MP3 - 46MB Lame-       OLD Intel System           New AMD System
==============         ==================         ================
Norm                        11.609                       8.5                     
Lo                           3.219                       2.593
Hi                          35.075                      31.657

Whoosh - that is a lot of info. Again, probably not terribly interesting, but I wanted to have it here so I can compare on the next upgrade and if anyone else wants to go the trouble.

Post by **enderzero** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:09 am

One last thing I was going to add. I ran all of the previous benchmarks with the RAM at auto SPD (3-3-3-8 2T ? - I think the MB might set Cas to 2.5...?).

Across the board the photoshop, premiere, and theoretical RAM tests were 5-15% better with the faster (2-3-3-6 1T) timings.

The results of 3D Mark were a bit more interesting:

Code: Select all

 3D MARK 2006          Default RAM Timings          &#40;2-3-3-6 1T&#41;
==============         ==================         ================
Final Score               3081 3DMarks               3088 3DMarks   &#40;+ 0.2%&#41;   
SM2                          1361                       1361        &#40;+ 0&#41; 
HDR/SM3                      1244                       1246        &#40;+ 0.1%&#41;
CPU                           944                        952        &#40;+ 0.8%&#41; 

 3D MARK 2005          Default RAM Timings          &#40;2-3-3-6 1T&#41;
==============         ==================         ================
Final Score               5421 3DMarks               5369 3DMarks   &#40;- 0.9%&#41;
Games                   26.3 / 13 / 29.9         26.6 / 12.4 / 29.9 &#40;- 0.4% Avg&#41;
CPU                           5010                      5494        &#40;+ 1%&#41;

These scores are so damn close.

Is this because the bottleneck here is the video card and memory really isn't coming into play?

R3C · Post by **R3C** » Wed Jul 26, 2006 9:22 am

That is most likely the case. Your shader performance will be somewhat limited on the newer 3DMarks, and the resolution they run at will have a significant impact when you're GPU limited. If you want to test processor and memory performance more, get an old copy of 3DMark01SE and run it at 640x480. With this you're limited purely by how much data your system can feed the card.

Post by **enderzero** » Thu Jul 27, 2006 8:15 am

oooh, good idea. I would love to see the orignal Nature demo kickin some ass. I'll try that.

R3C · Post by **R3C** » Thu May 17, 2007 2:25 pm

I've gone quad-core Intel with 4GB of RAM...

WWWWWWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!

McNevin · Post by **McNevin** » Fri May 18, 2007 9:20 am

When did this happen, was it the ram price drop?

Post by **enderzero** » Fri May 18, 2007 10:58 am

Quad Laser?

R3C · Post by **R3C** » Fri May 18, 2007 11:00 am

Yeah, that made it easy. Also Intel dropped the Quad price a while back to 535. They're about to drop it to 266, but I didn't know when. Spidmonx0rz computer still didn't work after the PSU swap as you know, so I decided to upgrade my PC, and then build him a new one based around my old parts.

R3C · Post by **R3C** » Fri May 18, 2007 11:01 am

Yes, the quad-laser. It is over now... Jumping... is useless...

R3C · Post by **R3C** » Fri Jun 22, 2007 11:28 am

It grows ever more ridiculous. It's one happy and monstrous computing juggernaut, complete with wheels (though it doesn't actually have wheels,) and buzzing noise. (which it also doesn't have.) I just wanted to liken it to the Archon II juggernaut.

Maybe I should add wheels, and then make the startup sound the juggernaut buzz.

Anyway, now I'm just waiting for games. I just grabbed Colin Mcrae Dirt last night, so I'll give that a whirl today.

McNevin · Post by **McNevin** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 11:58 am

Specs as of 8-2007:

Case: Coolermaster Centurion 5 (Black)
Mainboard: Asus P5N32-E SLI PLUS
Chipset: nVidia nForce 650i SLI SPP
Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo E6300 @ 1866 MHz
Memory: CORSAIR XMS2 - 2048 MB (2 x 1024 DDR2@5-5-5-12-2T 1.9V)
Video Card: Nvidia GeForce 7900 GT (Driver ver. 163.44)
Hard Disk: Seagate 7200.9 ST330063 (300 GB)
Hard Disk: Seagate 7200.10 ST332062 (320 GB)
Hard Disk: Seagate 7200.10 ST332062 (320 GB)
DVD-Rom Drive: LITE-ON DVD SOHD-16P9S ATA Device
DVD-Rom Drive: Optiarc DVD RW AD-7170A ATA Device
Monitor Type: Dell Computer DELL 2005FPW - 20 inch (1680x1050)
Network Card: Linksys WMP54G
Power Supply: Antec Smartpower 2.0 - 500w
Sound Card: Sound Blaster X-Fi
Operating System: Windows (TM) Vista Ultimate Professional 64-Bit (6.00.6000)
DirectX: Version 10.00
Vista Score: Windows Performance Index 5.0
_________________
Edit: Removed broken links.

R3C · Post by **R3C** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:16 pm

Very strange. That was all new stuff. I wonder if we should try swapping out the motherboard. I may have another.

Post by **enderzero** » Sat Sep 01, 2007 11:25 am

Here are the SLI results that got lost in the hosting fire.

Code: Select all

 3D MARK 2006          7600GT KO &#40;Single&#41;          Dual 7600GT SLI
==============         ==================         ================
Final Score &#40;3DMs&#41;           3091                       4824        &#40;+ 56.1%&#41;   
SM2                          1363                       2495        &#40;+ 83.1%&#41; 
HDR/SM3                      1251                       2236        &#40;+ 78.7%&#41;

R3C · Post by **R3C** » Sun Sep 02, 2007 8:41 pm

Nice. I just SLIed my bedroom computer. It now has a pair of 8600 GTSes, and plays Bioshock nearly as well as my main PC does. The only difference being that my main PC runs Vista and DX10. There are some noticeable enhancements, but nothing that makes the game any less fun. I was really impressed by how they perform being the budget cards of this generation. I think a pair of them can be less than one 8800 GTS if I'm not mistaken. (though prices are dropping on those too now) They have passive heat-pipe coolers too, so they're the system is very quiet. The case is well cooled with 2 120mm fans, so no problems there.

McNevin · Post by **McNevin** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 1:06 am

Bioshock doesnt work either...

I did get to play it about 5 minutes before it crashed once...

But there are alot of other people having this issue:

http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?show ... 407&st=240

R3C · Post by **R3C** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 8:41 am

I've been playing it on three different systems with no problems. Perhaps it's an issue with a certain type of release.

We really should swap out your board though. I'll grab one for you.

Post by **enderzero** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 10:53 am

I had a ton of trouble getting Bioshock to work without crashing every few mins. Beta drivers and DX tweaks had no effect. Eventually I solved the problem by clocking my RAM back down to default. Weird because everything has worked perfect-ish until now.

McNevin · Post by **McNevin** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 1:53 pm

Well I have a legitimate copy so thats not it

It's not just Bioshock, I'm having trouble playing any game. I actually clocked down my ram to 667 MHz, and the game is not crashing now. Seems to be RAM related. I had the CAS timings and voltage set to the Corsair recommendations, and also at SPD, neither work. For some reason 667 is working. I have still seen a few graphical glitches, but it has yet to crash. However at 667 I'm seeing the graphical errors with the desktop still. Corruption / White lines.

Running the newest motherboard BIOS ( 0805 ), with the newest nForce drivers ( 15.08 ) and the beta Forceware drivers ( 163.44 )

R3C · Post by **R3C** » Tue Sep 04, 2007 6:58 pm

I'm still thinking it could be the motherboard. Not the particular model, but for some reason I think something could be wrong. My 680i works perfectly no matter what I do to the RAM. I've clocked it up a bit since I got Bioshock, and it had no ill effects. However, I'm using OCZ SLI-Memory, all four modules matched. I noticed almost no performance increase in the game though (probably because it uses all for cores,) so I clocked it back down a bit for heat purposes. I picked up a Lian-Li case a bit ago, and it has great airflow, but it moves the air from back to front, and out through the panel (because the power supply is in the front on the bottom in this case.) It blows warm air on me, which I'm not fond of in an already warm room, so I clocked it down to solve that.

It's also running great on a Core 2 Duo in my room, with mixed 667 modules, and a pair of 8600s. So these two system are fairly different. I could try it on my AMD system to see how it goes there.

Post by **enderzero** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 9:51 am

I am really not too excited about the prospects of installing Vista64 anymore.

R3C · Post by **R3C** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 10:50 am

Why is that? I've had it on a few systems now with absolutely zero problems. It's fast, there is more driver support for it than anything else now. Let me qualify that by saying new driver releases, not general support. It seems that the major hardware manufacturers are placing emphasis on development for it now. Because everything else (Vista X86 included,) is officially legacy now. All processors on the market are 64 bit. Many people are jumping up into the 4GB of RAM range. DirectX 10 is now standard practice for developers of new games. DX9 support is added purely to gain extra sales. Running anything less on a new system is just crippling it. Also, there have been a few performance related patches to Vista X64, which pretty much nullify any discrepancy that existed.

The Admiral's problems do not stem from Vista. I can very nearly guarantee that. The only thing I would not recommend using Vist X64 for would be professional audio. This is because pro audio hardware manufacturers are notoriously behind the curve on updated support, new platforms, etc. Many of them have started working on updated drivers, but the majority are still slacking considerably. Every enthusiast, gaming, or general productivity company seems to have nice drivers available now.

I've always been an early adopter, and have had to live with this or that bug, deficiency, whichever, but Vista X64 has been the absolute easiest and bug-free early adoption experience I've ever had. For people like ourselves that pretty much stick with the major brands for our main PCs, Nvidia, ATI, AMD, Intel, ASUS, etc. there is zero reason to worry. It's the people that don't know what they're doing, and the people that have old hardware kicking about, buy off-brands to save money, etc. or even people that do know what they're doing but have some need for specialized hardware (like my pro-audio example,) that are most likely having the problems.

I'd be willing to bet that the Admiral would have the same issues if he installed XP.

R3C · Post by **R3C** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 10:53 am

That said, I'm not installing it at work any time soon.

There needs to be at least one service pack before I'd install a new OS in a production environment no matter how stable the initial release is. Even if just to cover myself if some obscure problem ever popped up.

McNevin · Post by **McNevin** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:55 am

Not even Microsoft is fully implementing 64 bit. Office 2007 doesn't even take advantage of it. Adobe Creative suite 3, despite being 32 bit, now doesn't work for downloading pics off my camera on x64 (Worked fine on vista 32) Nothing really takes advantage of a 64 bit OS yet, as far as released software.

Another thing that really annoys me is the requiring signed drivers thing. Peerguardian uses an unsigned driver, and to use it in vista x64, you have to disable requiring signed drivers. That was easy enough, but twice since then MS has released 2 updates that fix other things, and they slip a little piece of code at the end that removes the ability to disable this. Its like politicians slipping things into bills under the radar. So when i download 8 updates, its a pain to have to go thru all 8 and figure out what one is the culprit. So far they have done this twice...
Thats kind of low considering MS charges 500 a year for driver signing, kind of discourages freeware, don't you think. So a service pack is a collection of fixes; will I have to not install SP1, for fear of them including the ones that remove the ability to turn of req drivier signing? People on the forums are saying that the SP1 beta fixes the graphical issues i have been seeing, so i have to choose between peerguardian, or working windows?

Like jerk says, the hardware companies are way behind, nearly a year after the release of vista, i still am not able to download a x64 driver for a linksys wmp54g wireless adapter. Thats a pretty common adapter. I had to find the chipset driver and re-decorate it, now thats a 2nd un-signed driver. Do i have to buy a new wireless card if i want to install sp1?

Granted there are some benefits, like being able to address more than 3 gigs of ram. Probably some more, but i cant think of any right now.

Vista is great, don't get me wrong, i wouldn't be running anything else right now. But if i could do it all over again, i would definitely not go 64. Maybe after sp1, and once they start releasing 64 bit software then yes, but its not quite ripe yet IMO.

/rant

P.S. Vista SP1 is pushed back to Q1 2008.

R3C · Post by **R3C** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 12:48 pm

Forgot about the network driver thing. Well, only wireless ones really. I don't run Peer Guardian on my Vista box, because I only run torrent clients on one system which is XP64. I do run PG on all of my XP systems (32 or 64) though. I was too lazy to turn off the driver signing thing. You know, for Phoenix Labs, they could just take some donations and get their damned driver signed. Yeah, it's a pain, but it would save several steps for thousands of their users. I even offered to make a huge donation just because I was going to run PG on all the machines at work. They never got back to me. I do completely agree that it does hurt the freeware guys, but how much freeware really requires a driver? Only things like Daemon tools, PG, etc. Daemon tools doesn't seem to have a problem. Then again they probably get some money kicked back to them through their stupid toolbar and other ad-related shite. It seems to me that MS probably wouldn't even sign a driver for Phoenix Labs just because of what many people use it for, even though it has tons of legitimate uses. Just the fact that P2P people use it would probably cause them to dismiss it somehow. Who knows though.

As far as hardware manufacturers being behind, that's their fault not MS or Vista's. Fucking idiots they are. They've been able to get a hold of pre-release versions for how long? 3 years or more I'd think, and they couldn't write a feckin' driver in that time? Even Nvidia was a bit late, (not what I'd call a full featured, working driver until 1-2 months after release?) That said, with my particular sets of hardware I haven't seen a problem. I had to switch wireless adapters when my Vista PC was upstairs, but that wasn't too bad since I had one that worked laying around. For average Joe consumer this could be problematic I suppose. Not exactly a challenge for we though.

I really wish they'd cut the signed driver business, but logo/signing fees aside, what they're trying to do is cut down on support. Support costs them more money than anything else. That is the number one driving factor over at MS. How much is this going to cut back on PSS? Is PSS going to have a fit over this? Etc. They want to cut back on people using screwy drivers that mess with their systems, cut back on product support calls, which costs them less money. This would also cut back on people giving them bad PR and saying Windows sucks because it's unstable. Well, fix the drivers, or at least ban the untested ones, and you solve part of that. They just happen to be jerks about it, and charge fees for the signature to gouge companies along the way. However, if there is even a rudimentary testing phase that goes on with the driver pre-signing, then they have to pay those testers. $500 is not that much for a driver that could be used thousands or even millions of times. I'm not saying I agree completely with their approach, but the underlying logic is fairly sound.

As far as Office apps using 64 bit binaries, I just don't see the need. However, audio apps, video apps, design apps, etc. that all need a ton of memory get along quite well I've found. Spidmox0rZ would disagree stating that his Photoshop performance decreased with XP64 over XP Pro, but we also haven't added another 2GB of memory, and he being the impatient type, probably won't go through any tweaking or optimizing. At the same time we switched his OS, we also went from an X2 3800+ to a C2D E6600, so I have my doubts that XP64 is the cause of the performance decrease. Even if it was slower, it couldn't be enough slower that you'd notice with that huge of a processor speed increase. Something else is likely the problem.

Also, having worked for Adobe, knowing their bug-punting policy, knowing how they don't care in the slightest what their customers might think as long as they don't have to fix more bugs than they want or push back a release date to optimize, Photoshop is not a good example of a well coded, optimized application that should be considered when evaluating the benefits of a new OS. I'd say take a look at a well coded, optimized game that is written to take advantage of new hardware and OS features. Bioshock for instance? You seem to be having issues, but I'm not at all. I've run it on fairly equivalent hardware in XP Pro (X86) DX9 and Vista X64 DX10, and it is vastly superior in Vista X64. It's because they've had time to work on it after Vista's release, it's optimized, and not quickly ported or coded tripe.

About the issues you're seeing, I'm quite curious to know what is actually the cause, why SP1 would supposedly fix it, etc. Strangeness. Point me to were you've been reading about it, because I'd like to know what the deal is. I'm always up for a good problem solving thread or three.

I'm having a weird problem. When I first installed BioShock, it worked full screen in 1680x1050. Then I saw some little patch or DX install or something happen a few days later. Now all my other games work great, but BioShock runs with a small black border around it, the monitor says it's in 1920x1080, but the game is only using 1680x1050 (which is the selected mode,) hence the border. It's not specifically a DX problem as all other games work. It's not a Vista problem as the desktop is fine. I don't think it's a BioShock specific problem because it worked fine before, and I've deleted it and reinstalled it. So some combination thereof is causing it. I don't see anyone else with this problem. My monitor uses HDMI, and 1920x1080 is an HDTV mode, so I'm wondering if there is some confusion with possible HDTV modes when widescreen modes are selected. This doesn't have anything to do with all the FOV discussion going on, so searching for "black border bioshock widescreen" or related searches turns up nothing. I'm about to try a different monitor. All of the 4x3 modes fill up the entire screen. The widescreen modes have the border. Only recently too. Bleh... It is that silly 22" HannsG monitor. 1680x1050 is its native res, but somehow it supports 1920x1080i for HDTV use. Normally I'd think that it was completely scaled, but then why would it have a border when a 1680x1050 image was displayed in the 1080i mode. It's quite perplexing. I'm about to grab Powerstrip, and remove the 1080i modes from everywhere possible.

McNevin · Post by **McNevin** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:51 pm

So you put it into 1680x1050 (which is the native mode) and it comes out in 1920x1080? Weird! What is your "Flat Panel Scaling" set to in the nVidia control panel? Under Display>Change Flat Panel Scaling

Also since it has HDMI, you might also look at Video and Television>Change the HD signal format.

Today I noticed in PC Wizard that my GPU fan never went above 18%. Even when running a windowed 3D stress tool. The video temp will get to about 82c/180f and the video will be very corrupted, then the tool crashes, all the while the GPU fan never increases. I installed nTune to manually set the speed, and i noticed that installing nTune increased the fan to 40% when on auto. It still has the same symptoms, and never increases past 40%. I set the GPU fan manually to 100% but i still see TDRs. Since I have a factory overclocked 7900GT, i even tried down-clocking the card to reference speeds. With the fan at 100%, and the card to reference speeds, I'm not seeing any corruption, but still the damn TDRs.

NVIDIA Timeout Detection and Recovery errors:
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?show ... 407&st=240

Bioshock Black Squares:
http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10129

R3C · Post by **R3C** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 6:18 pm

Thanks for the links, I'll check them out tonight. I solved the problem by opening up that new 2007FPW panel that I had sitting around.

However, I then realized what would have fixed it in the first place. I still had to delete all of my .inis. I tried just changing the .ini files, but that didn't do it. I thought, hmm, I wonder if I just delete them, and let it repopulate them, but then thought nah, I didn't see any settings that looked like they'd help. So I lived with the problem for a couple days. Then I got pissed and opened the other monitor. Then it was acting funny, but in a different way. So, I was like "fuck it man!" and deleted the .inis. Fixed it. Son of fucking bitch I say! Didn't need to open the damned monitor at all. Well the plus side is I don't have dither patterns anymore on my gaming system (2007FPW are 24 bit) and my audio computer now has a 22" HannsG.

Now I have a 4:3 16x12 20.1" monitor sitting around doing not much.

3nd3r: Sorry about using the monitor I was talking about selling you. However, I'll sell you the 4:3 even cheaper since it's been used a bit. (If you're interested.)

McNevin · Post by **McNevin** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 8:34 pm

Yeah the dithering is only noticeable when you are moving in a game though. What non-dithering monitor is this that is 1600x1200?

So i have gotten bioshock to work with my ram at 800mhz, by upping the voltage to 2.0 volts. Still seeing black squares though.

McNevin · Post by **McNevin** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:33 am

Just had a TDR at very low temps, so that proves its not heat related.

CPU: 89
Core1: 92
Core2: 92
GPU: 122

Post by **enderzero** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:48 am

Its probably your cables. I would replace all of them.

teh Forum

teh Forum

The All New, All New Spec and Bench Thread!!!