The glaring problem with Yorkfield and today's boards.

Well the dust has settled and Yorkfield benchmarks are coming out all over the place. So let's recap. The average OC on air seems to be ~4.5Ghz with these early ES chips.

But there's one very obvious problem. These OCs are from an unlocked multiplier.

Intel intentionally released their highest end first to bolster an image of what their future chips could be. But before we get swept away with all the good press, we have to remember something; what board could possibly get a locked Yorkfield to 4.0Ghz+? The Q9550 runs at 2.83Ghz with a 333Mhz FSB (and also sells at a steep $510 on release). That makes a multiplier of 8.5. Now to get to 4Ghz, you would need an FSB speed of 470Mhz.

Seems easy enough? Well it's not. Dual cores are much different than quad cores when it comes to max FSB. The max FSB of a dual core is MUCH higher than that of a quad. Quad cores use much more bandwidth because of the extra cores. This leads to a much greater load on the NB.

So if you're waiting for Penryn, I would suggest waiting for the board as well. The P35 or any other board out today probably won't get the OC you were hoping for.

It's still quite early to tell, but from the information that is available now, it looks like I will be getting one with a multiplier of 8.5, overclock it to 400 FSB, and be content with 3.4GHz. Might have to wait an entire year for the price to drop though.

Exactly, and the performance difference between that and a Q6600 won't be that large at that clock speed.

I was thinking the same thing. It's pretty ridiculous that we're suddenly "requiring" new boards considering P35's been out for well under a year, and X38 only being available for a matter of days so far. Is there even any news of new chipsets coming out for LGA775? I kinda just assumed after X38 that they'd start working on whatever platform they'll use for Nahelem instead.

CoW]8(0);1031570813 said:

Well the dust has settled and Yorkfield benchmarks are coming out all over the place. So let's recap. The average OC on air seems to be ~4.5Ghz with these early ES chips.

But there's one very obvious problem. These OCs are from an unlocked multiplier.

Intel intentionally released their highest end first to bolster an image of what their future chips could be. But before we get swept away with all the good press, we have to remember something; what board could possibly get a locked Yorkfield to 4.0Ghz+? The Q9550 runs at 2.83Ghz with a 333Mhz FSB (and also sells at a steep $510 on release). That makes a multiplier of 8.5. Now to get to 4Ghz, you would need an FSB speed of 470Mhz.

Seems easy enough? Well it's not. Dual cores are much different than quad cores when it comes to max FSB. The max FSB of a dual core is MUCH higher than that of a quad. Quad cores use much more bandwidth because of the extra cores. This leads to a much greater load on the NB.

So if you're waiting for Penryn, I would suggest waiting for the board as well. The P35 or any other board out today probably won't get the OC you were hoping for.

Click to expand...

Links ??

Well you own a Q6600 yourself. See the highest FSB you can reach on it.

CoW]8(0);1031570813 said:

Well the dust has settled and Yorkfield benchmarks are coming out all over the place. So let's recap. The average OC on air seems to be ~4.5Ghz with these early ES chips.

But there's one very obvious problem. These OCs are from an unlocked multiplier.

Intel intentionally released their highest end first to bolster an image of what their future chips could be. But before we get swept away with all the good press, we have to remember something; what board could possibly get a locked Yorkfield to 4.0Ghz+? The Q9550 runs at 2.83Ghz with a 333Mhz FSB (and also sells at a steep $510 on release). That makes a multiplier of 8.5. Now to get to 4Ghz, you would need an FSB speed of 470Mhz.

Seems easy enough? Well it's not. Dual cores are much different than quad cores when it comes to max FSB. The max FSB of a dual core is MUCH higher than that of a quad. Quad cores use much more bandwidth because of the extra cores. This leads to a much greater load on the NB.

So if you're waiting for Penryn, I would suggest waiting for the board as well. The P35 or any other board out today probably won't get the OC you were hoping for.

Click to expand...

Well...I can run at least 441 FSB with a quad core CPU using an ASUS Maximus Formula SE motherboard, a QX6700 to be exact, everything perfectly stable. Exact setting is 441 * 7. And Yorkfield is the 45nm quad core, so I'd presume I could do at least 440 FSB or so with it. I didn't try a higher FSB yet on my board, but I've seen plenty of tests where they get it up to 470 or higher with the current generation quad cores. And yes, this is air cooling, including the northbridge, even though it has the fusion block waterblock on it. (Plan on watercooling soon, but still debating what I want to get). I'm not even overvolting anything other then my memory, and the memory voltage is at 2.2v..I'm running DDR2-1066 at 1160 or so, I'd have to look to see where it's at exactly again.


So...I'd think with X38's and P35 chipset boards, one could do that high of a FSB, or at least get to 440 or so.

As an aside..okay, this guy used an unlocked chip apparently, since he upped his multiplier to 10, but well...he's at 449 FSB on an ASUS Blitz Extreme, a P35 board:

http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-3611-view-Yorkfield-at-4.5-ghz.html

So...my board, a X38 using DDR2 memory, and a P35 using DDR3 can hit 440 to 450 or so safely with quad core CPU's. Not quite 470, but IMO doesn't make it sound like 470 is all that impossible.

Yes, but what does 470Mhz FSB get you? On the $310 quad core Penryn (with an 8x multiplier) it only gets you up to 3.76Ghz which is a significant reduction in what the CPU should be capable of.

It's clear that Penryn will be significantly limited by the motherboards currently out today. And at the prices these boards are coming in at, I would certainly have hoped to expect more. Your own board, ASUS MAXIMUS FORMULA, costs $280 at newegg. The X38 was meant to be the ideal Penryn chipset to OC from. Is this the best they could do?

So you'll just have to pony up for the Extremely Expensive edition if you want a super overlock.

I think I could be happy with an 8x450 quad core @ 3.6Ghz with 12Mb of L2.

Though the 4Ghz # sounds so much better :/

CoW]8(0);1031577803 said:

Yes, but what does 470Mhz FSB get you? On the $310 quad core Penryn (with an 8x multiplier) it only gets you up to 3.76Ghz which is a significant reduction in what the CPU should be capable of.

It's clear that Penryn will be significantly limited by the motherboards currently out today. And at the prices these boards are coming in at, I would certainly have hoped to expect more. Your own board, ASUS MAXIMUS FORMULA, costs $280 at newegg. The X38 was meant to be the ideal Penryn chipset to OC from. Is this the best they could do?

Click to expand...

Yes..but now you're changing the multiplier. You OP you mention a CPU with a 8.5 multiplier. Now you're mentioning one with a 8.0. 8.5 * 470 = 3995, just a hair short of 4 gig. Anyway, my point was that you seemed to indicate that 470 was some impossible FSB, when it isn't. You also mention my board and chipset, yet also fail to notice that the link I quoted, the fellow used a P35 board, albeit one that's as expensive or more so then mine. One can get P35 boards, new for 70 to 80 dollars, including an Abit that I know is noted for overclocking, although I haven't looked for reviews on it using a quad core.

Anyway, IMO it's a bit soon to be forcasting "doom and gloom". At least let the CPU's come out IMO. And really, is 3.76 out of a $310.00 CPU exactly horrid? I'm only getting 3.09 or so out of a QX6700, that's an EE edition chip.

I mentioned the CPU with the 8.5 multiplier because I was showing that dropping $510 on a processor would only get you about a 4Ghz OC. I used the 8.0 multiplier because that was that was the chip that most people would be willing to buy since it's a bit more reasonable at $316.

And a 3.76Ghz overclock isn't great when you compare it to the already released Q6600 which does 3.6Ghz easily.

And I never said 470Mhz FSB was impossible, but not all boards will be reaching that FSB. But I am willing to say most P35 boards won't be able to run a quad at 470Mhz in a 24/7 stable situation (if at all).

CoW]8(0);1031578566 said:

I mentioned the CPU with the 8.5 multiplier because I was showing that dropping $510 on a processor would only get you about a 4Ghz OC. I used the 8.0 multiplier because that was that was the chip that most people would be willing to buy since it's a bit more reasonable at $316.

And a 3.76Ghz overclock isn't great when you compare it to the already released Q6600 which does 3.6Ghz easily.

And I never said 470Mhz FSB was impossible, but not all boards will be reaching that FSB. But I am willing to say most P35 boards won't be able to run a quad at 470Mhz in a 24/7 stable situation (if at all).

Click to expand...

Ummm Q6600, don't do 3.6Ghz easily, not even with G0 steppings? At least not from what I've seen. They usually need very good cooling and a bump in voltage, etc.. Some people don't even get 3Ghz with them.

Hopefully, 3.6+Ghz will be the new minimum OC with the 45nm quads! Thats not bad.

although 3.6ghz with 12mb cache quad is good, it doesn't excite me. I think for a lot of people with e6600s or q6600s like me, the idea of buying a whole new processor and possibly motherboard just for more cache isn't worth the money. If the new chips had higher multies, I think there would be a lot of overclockers tempted to try for 10x 450 = 4.5ghz or whatever

CoW]8(0);1031578566 said:

I mentioned the CPU with the 8.5 multiplier because I was showing that dropping $510 on a processor would only get you about a 4Ghz OC. I used the 8.0 multiplier because that was that was the chip that most people would be willing to buy since it's a bit more reasonable at $316.

And a 3.76Ghz overclock isn't great when you compare it to the already released Q6600 which does 3.6Ghz easily.

And I never said 470Mhz FSB was impossible, but not all boards will be reaching that FSB. But I am willing to say most P35 boards won't be able to run a quad at 470Mhz in a 24/7 stable situation (if at all).

Click to expand...

3.5 is more reasonable to expect for a fairly standard high-end C2Q G0 OC...

But I'm not all that sure I agree with you. 315$ is only about 55$ more than the current price of the quads, and with the IPC improvements and extra L2 cache, well... I could see you getting an extra 20% performance in some situations (which is right on-par with the price difference).

Unless the prices of the G0 Q6600s drop dramatically, I don't see this being too bad of a deal actually.

this is just a money making move by intel.. with core 2 duo most of the chips maxed out in the area of 3.5 GHZ on average, which could be done with the most expensive chip, as well as the cheapest one.. there was no reason to spend more.

Now we have a situation where intel is trying to give you a reason to spend more, by making the chips limited by the motherboard/multiplier along with making them highly overclockable so as to force you to buy the more expensive one if you really want those high clocks.

Arvig said:

Yes..but now you're changing the multiplier. You OP you mention a CPU with a 8.5 multiplier. Now you're mentioning one with a 8.0. 8.5 * 470 = 3995, just a hair short of 4 gig. Anyway, my point was that you seemed to indicate that 470 was some impossible FSB, when it isn't. You also mention my board and chipset, yet also fail to notice that the link I quoted, the fellow used a P35 board, albeit one that's as expensive or more so then mine. One can get P35 boards, new for 70 to 80 dollars, including an Abit that I know is noted for overclocking, although I haven't looked for reviews on it using a quad core.

Anyway, IMO it's a bit soon to be forcasting "doom and gloom". At least let the CPU's come out IMO. And really, is 3.76 out of a $310.00 CPU exactly horrid? I'm only getting 3.09 or so out of a QX6700, that's an EE edition chip.

Click to expand...

True,most here would be more then happy with that kind of performance

Arcygenical said:

3.5 is more reasonable to expect for a fairly standard high-end C2Q G0 OC...

But I'm not all that sure I agree with you. 315$ is only about 55$ more than the current price of the quads, and with the IPC improvements and extra L2 cache, well... I could see you getting an extra 20% performance in some situations (which is right on-par with the price difference).

Unless the prices of the G0 Q6600s drop dramatically, I don't see this being too bad of a deal actually.

Click to expand...

Not to mention the fact that the 45's,will run a lot cooler stock or oc'd !!

Well, some Q9550 and below results are coming out over at XS.

And I can't help but say.....I told you so.....

CoW]8(0);1031629032 said:

Well, some Q9550 and below results are coming out over at XS.

And I can't help but say.....I told you so.....

Click to expand...

Who are you talking to, lol, you didn't tell anyone anything new. Overclocking has always been an option to whatever chip you get. Period. Doesn't matter if the QX or whatever has an unlocked multi, you don't buy a CPU for pure overclocking, you buy it for performance out of the box, if it overclocks good afterwards, woopty doodle.

Well that's more of an opinion. Some find C2D only worthwhile when they're overclocked. And with C2D's, the amount of performance gain has been rather substantial (much more than what we've been seeing in the past).

And the point is, Yorkfield isn't much an increase in what we have now. It's not going to be what everyone is expecting it to be with the boards we have now.

There's so much hype from the QX9650 that seems to be carrying over to the locked editions.

you don't buy a CPU for pure overclocking, you buy it for performance out of the box

Click to expand...

Huh ? Jeez they let just anyone join the formus these days. Perhaps, but don't include me in that generalization. Why would I (at the time) buy Gigabytes most expensive top of the line motherboard and put the least expensive, slowest C2D in it? To overclock the living shit out of it and achieve better performance than the $999 CPU ("out of the box") with a CPU that cost less than $200. Amateurs pah!

And that same MB and CPU which is just over a year old is not going to be replaced by anything recent with marginal performance increases (hell there is nothing I want to run I can not anyway) just to have it made completely obsolete by Nethlam in a year. Might bite on that as at least I can get 2 years out if it. Tic Tock.

CoW]8(0);1031629180 said:

Well that's more of an opinion. Some find C2D only worthwhile when they're overclocked. And with C2D's, the amount of performance gain has been rather substantial (much more than what we've been seeing in the past).

Click to expand...

That statement is objective, I find the C2D to be a good contender to AMD's offering even if it is not overclocked! I should know, I've had my E6550 for several months now, the early months it stayed untouched, along with my memory and video card. Now that I have chosen to overclock it and obtained the signatured results, I can get more for what I paid for. I did not buy my 2.33Ghz C2D in hopes it overclocks to 3.4Ghz (which I have it at now).

CoW]8(0);1031629180 said:

And the point is, Yorkfield isn't much an increase in what we have now. It's not going to be what everyone is expecting it to be with the boards we have now.

Click to expand...

What we have now is what we can use with the boards we have available, that's just how it works, your point is flawed and has no foundation, it's a process that Intel and AMD take to provide more features, more CPU's, more chipsets, to further the progress they are seeking for, is Yorkfield a big improvement? Probably not, but it has potential, and hasn't been released, so how can you judge the performance/price/overclocking ratio on something not released and being tested on boards based on the original C2D and Q6600?

CoW]8(0);1031629180 said:

There's so much hype from the QX9650 that seems to be carrying over to the locked editions.

Click to expand...

That is your assumption, informative people (which are the people who matter anyways), are quite aware of the unlocked multi from the Extreme editions, that Intel provides to the market, same thing goes with AMD's Black Edition. Some hit 3Ghz no sweat with the black edition's multi adjustment, how many think they'll get that with a locked multi, a few. I've seen some pretty insane overclocks from good watercooling setups and good maintained water loops, chipsets being cooled, NB/SB being cooled, chips being cooled, all this is part of the enthusiast market.

As said before, your ideas and assumptions have NO foundation!

BillParrish said:

Huh ? Jeez they let just anyone join the formus these days. Perhaps, but don't include me in that generalization. Why would I (at the time) buy Gigabytes most expensive top of the line motherboard and put the least expensive, slowest C2D in it? To overclock the living shit out of it and achieve better performance than the $999 CPU ("out of the box") with a CPU that cost less than $200. Amateurs pah!

Click to expand...

Good argument, I can only imagine what you would have done if your CPU didn't overclock worth shit, then where would you be?? So you got a CPU that would still performance decently if not overclocked, but your added bonus was the overclocking capabilities?

Also, you bought an expensive gigabyte board because you wanted it, that doesn't make your CPU overclock any bit higher. I paid $80 for my Abit IP35-E from Mwave.com, and look at where my CPU stands, 3.4Ghz with a small voltage bump, fully stable. Would I have been pissed if it didn't get that far, nope, considering the E6550 felt faster than anything else I previously used. Again, my added bonus was the overclock.

I never said Yorkfield didn't have potential. I said Yorkfield wouldn't do very well with the chipsets available now and at official release.

And if I recall, the X38/X48/P35 ARE the Yorkfield boards.

I don't have to judge the performance/price/overclocking ratio (at least not anymore). This information is available as any 'informative person' would know.

But just for kicks:

And more kicks:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=163032

And giggles:

saaya said:

thats really an awfull clocking chip, shamino and vince almost cant believe its clocking that bad, neither can i.
are you sure there wasnt something limiting you?
what volts did you try?

Click to expand...

That's a quote from an admin over at XS in the thread I just linked. Whether or not you consider him an 'informative person', he does represent one that should be. (As well as shamino and vince) They are after all the individuals that write reviews and get the ES chips.

But I'm not all pessimist when it comes to Yorkfield, there is a silver lining. People going for Yorkfield can probably stick with a stock cooler and still have the same OC as those with $60+ heatsinks.

Good argument, I can only imagine what you would have done if your CPU didn't overclock worth shit, then where would you be?? So you got a CPU that would still performance decently if not overclocked, but your added bonus was the overclocking capabilities?

Also, you bought an expensive gigabyte board because you wanted it, that doesn't make your CPU overclock any bit higher. I paid $80 for my Abit IP35-E from Mwave.com, and look at where my CPU stands, 3.4Ghz with a small voltage bump, fully stable. Would I have been pissed if it didn't get that far, nope, considering the E6550 felt faster than anything else I previously used. Again, my added bonus was the overclock.

Click to expand...

Short version: I dont make noob mistakes like that. The DQ6 was selected because of its engineering, not its features (or cost).

Long version:
The buying decision was made with careful care in regards to the engineering and demonstrated performance of both components with much research effort employed. The entire system, video card included was designed for maximum performance for minimum price with a 99.9% certainty of achieving that goal. It was extremely unlikely any results than those obtained would have occurred unless something was defective. I knew precisely what I was doing and what the outcome most likely would be long before the power supply was first turned on and both of these components were purchased in the first week of their availability. I was not disappointed. I seldom buy anything expensive because I want it. If I need it, thats a different story, case in point is the VRM of the DQ6 was superior to anything out there at the time and is still one of, if not the, best cpu voltage supplies/regulation designs available. It also featured all solid capacitors, only Gigabyte offered that design feature at the time. Same story with my NF7-s and Barton Mobile still providing good service after 5+ years of 24 x7 duty. As an old school "overclocking enthusiast" there is no fun in throwing money, and I can afford to if I want to, at a computer, my goal is to design inexpensive systems that perform as well as anything money can buy with absolute stability and uncompromised reliability. It is a shame that goal is not as prevalent as it used to be, but not everyone is cut out to be [H]ard.

To insert a little on topic discorse.
The Penryn's look good but I too am inclined to think Intel is "on to us" a bit, if the mulitpliers are as mentioned above care will be needed in selecting one. My next upgrade is Nehalem as I do not bother with incremental 5-10% increases in board and cpu performance as I front end load my performance needs.

Since a different subject sorta new post.

Quad cores use much more bandwidth because of the extra cores. This leads to a much greater load on the NB.

Click to expand...

The bandwidth is the bandwidth, it would be a lot more correct to say that the quad cores would perform better if more bandwith was available. If the buss is saturated with data buss arbitration takes place and the processor just has to wait. There is no inherent increase in "load" on the northbridge. It is possible to saturate (fill) the buss with one, two, or 4 processors and it is much more likely with 4 than it is with 2, than it is with 1 but if filled, it is filled, the MCH does not know or care how many processors are actually present other than to make sure the data is sent to the correct device on the buss.

The sad thing with the X38's is that I can find no improvements documented by intel in the X38 MCH to host interface over the P35 or even P965 per the data sheet. So unless something was done on the quiet, an X38 will do little or nothing (more nothing I am thinking) for the FSB bottleneck. This is the one place with native quad core and multiple hypertransport links, AMD leads.

I correct myself, this is on the memory side of the MCH but at least it is an improvement.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3120&p=2

BillParrish said:

Long version:
The buying decision was made with careful care in regards to the engineering and demonstrated performance of both components with much research effort employed.

Click to expand...

In short terms...A review Explains this http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1228295 where you complain and gripe about your beloved motherboard

BillParrish said:

Short version: I dont make noob mistakes like that. The DQ6 was selected because of its engineering, not its features (or cost).

Click to expand...

Interesting, I chose the ABit IP35-E because, well, I know how to pick my components Has not failed me yet


You throw the word noob around alot, your long version argument didn't even glance my eyes, when I quoted the above quote, all you pretty much wrote were pure long sentence fud. You failed to make a valid point. We got this offtopic unfortunately, back on topic now.

I plan on waiting for Nehalem as well, seems like a very promising chip, as for now, my 3400Mhz w/ 1900Mhz FSB will do just fine on my little Abit IP35-E

You just want to fight dont ya, sorry I got better things to do and people to help. BTW that Abit is a sweet board. Had it been available at the time it certainly would have been considered. Read my post again I called noone nothing.

I was disapointed it would not run 4 x 1 GB it you were not such a NOOB , happy now. you would know a lot of people were susprised by that, and if you dig around you will find my incessant plea that reviews incluse 4 x 1GB testing. At the time it was never done. Of course I use reviews when evaluating hardware buying decisions, do you buy and then return if it does not happen to suit you ? I do not.

You know what, you are jerk, I can waste my time better ways than with you. May you lead an exciting life.

BillParrish said:

You just want to fight dont ya, sorry I got better things to do and people to help. BTW that Abit is a sweet board. Had it been available at the time it certainly would have been considered. Read my post again I called noone nothing.

I was disapointed it would not run 4 x 1 GB it you were not such a NOOB , happy now. you would know a lot of people were susprised by that, and if you dig around you will find my incessant plea that reviews incluse 4 x 1GB testing. At the time it was never done. Of course I use reviews when evaluating hardware buying decisions, do you buy and then return if it does not happen to suit you ? I do not.

You know what, you are jerk, I can waste my time better ways than with you. May you lead an exciting life.

Click to expand...

Wow, that was a bit harsh there.

At any rate, not to go off topic, but about the issue with the 4x1GB memory problems, I found this out the hard way. Great to see that the [H] was one of the only sites to put it in their review, which led to my purchasing the P5K Deluxe. Running happily now at 410FSB w/4GB of RAM.

BillParrish said:

Since a different subject sorta new post.



The bandwidth is the bandwidth, it would be a lot more correct to say that the quad cores would perform better if more bandwith was available. If the buss is saturated with data buss arbitration takes place and the processor just has to wait. There is no inherent increase in "load" on the northbridge. It is possible to saturate (fill) the buss with one, two, or 4 processors and it is much more likely with 4 than it is with 2, than it is with 1 but if filled, it is filled, the MCH does not know or care how many processors are actually present other than to make sure the data is sent to the correct device on the buss.

The sad thing with the X38's is that I can find no improvements documented by intel in the X38 MCH to host interface over the P35 or even P965 per the data sheet. So unless something was done on the quiet, an X38 will do little or nothing (more nothing I am thinking) for the FSB bottleneck. This is the one place with native quad core and multiple hypertransport links, AMD leads.

I correct myself, this is on the memory side of the MCH but at least it is an improvement.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3120&p=2

Click to expand...

But peak demands of a 4 core would still be higher than a dual core would it not?

I remember reading several reviews mentioning how Core 2 Duo was not FSB limited. For me this implies that the Core 2 Duo is not saturating the bus. Based on this assumption (and indeed it is an assumption), a quad core would still have room to fetch larger amounts of data than a dual core.

ajm786 said:

Wow, that was a bit harsh there.

At any rate, not to go off topic, but about the issue with the 4x1GB memory problems, I found this out the hard way. Great to see that the [H] was one of the only sites to put it in their review, which led to my purchasing the P5K Deluxe. Running happily now at 410FSB w/4GB of RAM.

Click to expand...

I actually chose to include that part in the review for two reasons. One is that I had experienced the problems using 4x1GB on my eVGA 680i SLI and Striker Extreme boards. Even to my surprise my P5W-DH has issues doing it with certain modules. So I put that in there because I thought people would want to know if it could be done on the P5K since the P35 chipset was touted as having an improved memory controller over the earlier P965 Express chipset. The second reason is because Kyle happened to have given me three pairs of matching high end DDR2 modules to use for testing. He had some issues with some modules on the P5K and a new BIOS had been released about the time he was turning it over to me for my testing. So he dumped a bunch of modules on me for testing purposes.

BillParrish said:

I was disapointed it would not run 4 x 1 GB it you were not such a NOOB , happy now. you would know a lot of people were susprised by that, and if you dig around you will find my incessant plea that reviews incluse 4 x 1GB testing. At the time it was never done. Of course I use reviews when evaluating hardware buying decisions, do you buy and then return if it does not happen to suit you ? I do not.

Click to expand...

You were upset about the 4x1GB DIMM issue and rightly so. If they stick four slots on a motherboard damnit all four should be usable. In my mind there is no excuse for this. Especially since boards from 10 years ago can do this without issue and I've also been able to install 4x1GB modules in cheap off the shelf computer systems without issue. Funny how only the high performance memory modules and boards seem to have issues with this isn't it?

In any case many of the board reviews we are doing that are DDR 2 at least are being tested in a 4x1GB configuration. This hasn't been uniformly done in the past, but Kyle had mentioned to me that for his testing this would be the standard whenever possible. It hasn't been mentioned specifically by myself or Morry in any of the reviews I've read but in some of our more recent articles you can see the 4x1GB configuration in the test system specification comparison table usually located on the Subsystem Testing page of each review.

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTQxMiw0LCxoZW50aHVzaWFzdA==

The P5E3 review linked above shows a 4x1GB test configuration for each of the systems. There are two more upcoming review articles where this was also done that you'll see fairly soon.

hmm I really intended to say " ... use reputible high quality honest, not paid for, [H]ocp reviews..."

See, I screw up all the time.