Sidney

All weekend, I struggled with a particular E6850 processor trying to retest four different motherboards (a variety of P35 boards). Each and every board simply refused to budge past a 415FSB, regardless of the multiplier chosen, from x6 to x9. That means it would run perfectly fine at 415x9 and 415 x6, but would reboot continuously at 416x6. That sucks major ***.

http://hardwarelogic.com/news/128/AR...007-08-21.html

__________________
lazyman

Opteron 165 (2) @2.85 1.42 vcore AMD Stock HSF + Chill Vent II

Sidney

I penciled in something like that in my next review and this email showed up.

You always hear the good and never the bad, because they don't want you to know. Try hunting for 3 or 4, keep the good and sell off the bad ones.

__________________
lazyman

Opteron 165 (2) @2.85 1.42 vcore AMD Stock HSF + Chill Vent II

Rutar

Is it more common then that these CPU of the G0 steping lock up at a certain frequency?

jmke

I could have answered that too

if the part you order runs stable at stock speed, you have no valid reason to complain in my humble opinion. If it overclocks, good for you, if it doesn't, too bad but nothing you can do about it.

__________________

Rutar

but it is still suspicios that a CPU has such a FSB wall

thorgal

I don't think it is suspicious, but I do think it is strange. I never heard from a Core 2 duo having such a low fsb wall, on P35 anyway. If it were a different chipset, it would not be as strange...

__________________

Capper

Hey guys, my name is Capper, and I'm the guy who wrote the article in question.

First let me say that I put 40 solid hours into tinkering with the CPU over the weekend, working with people all over the world, and with several different board makers.

I'll be the first to agree that there is no guarantee when it comes to overclocking, but is that a satisfactory response to this particular issue? Tell me, with a straight face, that if Kyle, Anand, or Fugger received this processor....would they have received the treatment and response I got? Then, lets look at the strange fact that evidently the INTEL rep experienced the exact same 415FSB issue that I did, with an exceptional overclocking board (I myself used an eVGA 680i, two Gigabyte P35s,a Biostar P35, and an ECS P35.... all with basically the same result +/- 5FSB).

Then lets look at the fact the processor wouldn't budge, even with the multi set to 6.......which equals 2.5GHz, well below the rated speed......granted, again, this isn't something there is much grounds to complain about.....but if thats the case.....why should you buy an enthusiast board? why should you buy enthusiast memory? Why not just buy an OEM?

My point, and my rant, is that you never see stuff like this published......you only see the exemplary results published by most sites....then visit their forums and see several members asking whats wrong with their products, and why they can't come close to the results in the review.......my rant also has something to do with the attitude i encountered from the get go, something I can't completely share.........

I hope that John chimes in on this, although I can't blame him if he skips this thread.

thorgal

I'm sure John won't skip this

And I do get your point, but it doesn't invalidate the points made earlier, that overclocking is not guaranteed. You were probably unlucky in the cpu you got, and there will be other people jsut as unlucky as you are, but that doesn't mean Intel (or AMD for that matter) can be held liable. It simply proves that you can never be sure of an overclock, and in that respect I'm glad you ranted so convincingly over this

__________________

jmke

I already chipped in

OC is always a risk, your article is golden for sure, showing the other side of the mirror. not all stories are of success
as it currently stands, C2D doesn't really need higher FSB or higher speed memory to perform, the return in investment is too low to warrant the extra cost

anyway, welcome to the forums Rich

__________________

Capper

Who said anything about liable? (please don't think I'm saying this with any attitude....I'm not, and agree with you 100%)

I thought I clearly stated that I agree that there is no guarantee when it comes to overclocking, but find the results both irritating and strange.....and as i said, was just a little put off at how I was treated.

I'd also point out that you see people RMA'ing processors for far less on some forums.....and I've gotten several emails from people who've read the article suggesting ways to get the processor RMA'd.........which isn't the point of my article at all. CPU's are luck of the draw, my problem is in the attitude displayed by INTEL, and the results of my testing.....as well as the tidbit where they say there is a circuitry issue, but its not related to the core-logic.

I'm sorry if I wasn't completely clear, I think you missed my point......but I'll chalk that up to me not explaining myself much better.

Thanks for the welcome John, love your site, never post here.....but wanted to make sure i clarified some of what I wrote, as some extremely valid points were made by your staff and members....and I was tired and seriously irritated when i vented.