Hah, well, that system was due for retirement anyway. It was just a fileserver for backups. I replaced it with some spare hardware--an upgrade to a single-core Athlon 64 3000+.
They did quite well, though, to run at a >50% overclock for a full decade. I actually suspect that the chips are still fine, but the motherboard was fried. Funny that I'm now running a 50% overclock again...my 2.4GHz quad-core Q6600 at 3.6GHz. This machine has been so stable and is still so quick that I've held off replacing it with a new i7 for some time already. Greg > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:hardware- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of DSinc > Sent: Saturday, February 20, 2010 7:45 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [H] New Phenom II X2 555 C3 revision > > Greg, > Would you like a pair of replacements? Have a pair of matched 300a's > and > one spare, never opened, retail 300a. LOL! > > Odd, way back then it was 450 mega-hertz. > Now, we all talk about 2.3 giga-hertz-plus........ :) > How times have changed! > Best, > Duncan > > > On 02/20/2010 01:05, Greg Sevart wrote: > > Oh, absolutely, but it doesn't always work out that way. Similar deal > to the > > old 300MHz Pentium II's with the SL2W8 s-spec. Most did 450MHz just > fine, > > but mine was always a little buggy. Then the Celeron 300A was the big > thing, > > and I got two, both did 464MHz all day long for a full 10 years > before they > > were finally knocked out of service by a PSU that went bad. Luck of > the draw > > on either side, I suppose. > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: [email protected] [mailto:hardware- > >> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Stan Zaske > >> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 10:04 PM > >> To: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: [H] New Phenom II X2 555 C3 revision > >> > >> Yeah, I have to agree but if you read as many hardware reviews as I > do > >> they practically say most will unlock and tout the bang for buck. I > >> have > >> a 0904 X3 720 BE that will unlock the 4th core stably and I bought > it > >> the same day NewEgg began to sell them. That was before anybody knew > >> about ACC and unlocking cores/cache. I don't feel comfortable > RMA'ing > >> it > >> as you say it works as advertised. Still, would have been nice to > have > >> a > >> $104 quad core... > >> > >> > >> On 2/19/2010 3:04 PM, Greg Sevart wrote: > >>> Unethical. If it runs at its designed and advertised > specifications, > >>> returning it for not exceeding them is just wrong. So is returning > it > >> for > >>> any reason or invoking the warranty now that you have overclocked > and > >>> overvolted it, IMO. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: [email protected] [mailto:hardware- > >>>> [email protected]] On Behalf Of Stan Zaske > >>>> Sent: Friday, February 19, 2010 2:35 PM > >>>> To: [email protected] > >>>> Subject: [H] New Phenom II X2 555 C3 revision > >>>> > >>>> Well my new CPU came yesterday and it overclocks to 4 GHz stably > >> with > >>>> 1.4v which I don't consider excessive. However, it won't unlock > the > >>>> other 2 cores so I expect there is a defect in 1 or more of the > >> unused > >>>> cores. What is the collectives opinion on sending it back for a > >>>> replacement? Ethical or not? What would you do if you wanted a > cheap > >>>> dually that you wanted to run as a quad? Thanks! > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > > > > > >
