You can rma all the cpu's you want, the message is the same as I posted for
you on the previous post. If you want faster timings you have to buy a CPU
that has a core speed higher than your 3500+. There is also a small amount
of extra overhead but that shouldn't affect your tests. The 3800+ is about
10% slower core speed.
>You should remember that each core runs slower and if you are only running
> one activity it will be run on one core and will run slower. Your test is
> running at about 2GHz vs. 2.2GHz previously. Dual core helps with
> multiprocessing.
>
<> wrote in message
news: ups.com...
> On Apr 8, 5:15 pm, "cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)"
> <cquirken...@nospam.mvps.org> wrote:
>> On Sun, 08 Apr 2007 10:12:50 -0500, Adam Albright <A...@ABC.net> wrote:
>> >On 8 Apr 2007 07:46:37 -0700, "spencertay...@gmail.com"
>> >>I am having a problem w/ Vista locking up
>> >>It happens after about 7 - 10 minutes of being on - even at the
>> >>Welcome screen.
>> >>The monitor goes black and it's like the system is dead.
>> >>I have an nForce 3 mobo - MSI 7025, 3800 X2 939 chip, XFX 6800 Ultra
>>
>> First step is to check the hardware. Unplug the mains and disconnect
>> the hard drive, so the installation and file system don't get screwed
>> up any more than they have already...
>>
>> >>I ran the memory test from the Vista disc, no problems
>>
>> I'd use MemTest86, rather than Vista's RAM check, so that I do NOT
>> have to put the HD contents at risk (as the Vista check forces you to
>> do) and so that I have cumulative rather than last-pass results on
>> screen. I'd leave it running for 24 hours with a different boot CDR
>> in drive, so that if the system reboots during testing, I'll know.
>>
>> >>I have an identical motherboard from MSI, because I thought the board
>> >>was bad - I rma'ed it.
>> >>The same thing happens in both boards.
>> >>I think the video card is ok - I have a 6800 Ultra
>>
>> That would also imply re-contruction, and thus different mileage on
>> what both Adam and I reckon is your most likely issue ;-)
>>
>> We'll get to that later, but otherwise I'd want to know about the
>> power chain, i.e.:
>> - house mains and wiring
>> - PSU rating
>> - all internal power points connected, esp. graphics card
>> - all fans connected, including graphics card
>> - all components well seated
>>
>> >>I have been having problems with this new CPU. I had a 3500 single
>> >>core and had no problems until I upgraded.
>> >>I am going to rma the 3800 X2 to NewEgg.
>>
>> Make sure the new CPU is supported by the motherboard in every
>> respect, i.e. BIOS, base speed, power rating, mech clearance etc.
>>
>> >Sounds like you build this system. If yes, and the computer dies
>> >within 7-10 minutes EVERYTIME you turn it on or nearly every time,
>> >that suggests it could be a overheating issue.
>>
>> A CPU with no heatsink will usually overheat in seconds, possibly
>> destructively. A poorly-seated heat sink will usually overheat in
>> minutes, as you describe. A well-seated heat sink with an unpowered
>> fan will take more minutes to overheat; maybe as you describe.
>>
>> Make sure some dumb-ass supplier hasn't stuck a paper serial number
>> sticker on the heat sink surface of the processor. Yep, we still see
>> such dumbo practice even into the era of P4 laptops.
>>
>> Make sure the heat sink snaps down properly, and that the retention
>> lugs are not broken. Even if you build systems for a living as I do,
>> make a point of reading the instructionbs whenever a new physical
>> package comes out, as sometimes best-practice changes. For example,
>> new mounting mechanics can warp and damage a motherboard that isn't
>> already mounted to a chassis plate before applying the CPU and sink.
>>
>> >f you installed the CPU chip yourself, did you make sure it is FIRMLY
>> >attached to the heatsink, that you used the PROPER amount of
>> >compound between the chip and the heatsink and that the CPU
>> >fan is both big enough and running fast enough?
>>
>> He's rebuilt the PC to swap mobos, but if the heat sink's mounting
>> surfaces are bad, then the problem could persist - as could a
>> persistent method failure. Other possibilities are a
>> poorly-ventillated case or underpowered PSU, or he's using a processor
>> that isn't supported by the mobo, or there are jumpers to be set on
>> the mobo (should be rare, in 2007).
>>
>> The modern equivalent to jumpers is NVRAM; maybe he needs to clear
>> this if swapping CPUs on the same motrherboard?
>>
>> <rest of Adam's good advice snipped>
>>
>> >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
>>
>> On the 'net, *everyone* can hear you scream
>>
>> >---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
>
> Thank you for all the advice. I am certain that the CPU is installed
> properly, and that the HSF is installed right as well. I left the PC
> running in the BIOS for a while and the temp never ran above 85 F.
> 110 F was wrong, it's never been above 95K, I was thinking of the 3500
> I had installed.
>
> According to MSI, the motherboard supports my CPU 100%. I RMA'ed the
> board and the other board behaves exactly like the original.
>
> I tried another video card, and the PC was stable, but the 3800 was
> still running 30% lower points in 3DMark 03, which is the same that I
> observed with the 6800 Ultra, this one is a 5900 XT that I had given
> to a friend, and I have my old scores and was able to make a
> comparison.
>
> I am now installing XP on a separate drive. I am going to install SP2
> and then run 3DMark 03 and 06. If the results are the same, then the
> CPU is either partially incompatible or just busted. I will send it
> back to NewEgg.
>
> I appreciate all the help guys!
>