Never said the opposite.
The "Core Unlocker" function is present on the 890FX boards from AsRock, Asus, MSI & Gigabyte I've seen, but ACC isn't "officially" or at all supported.
I might be wrong, but I doubt it :p ( since ACC isn't supported by the 890FX chipset ).
If they can make it right again, that will be nice because some chips can have a bad core while the other one is fine, you get my point ;)
AFAIK:
Asus, Asrock, Gigabyte, MSI have already done that ( unlocking the cores ).
And also, AFAIK again, there's no option to unlock 1 core, unlock = unlocks all cores.
It doesn't apply with most of the DIMMs out there.
Asus had some ridiculous memory compatibility issues with their BIOSes up until now ( concerning the P6T series [ P6T, P6T v2, P6T Deluxe, workstation, etc ] and the Rampage II Extreme & Rampage II Gene, and the P6T6 WS Revolution as well ), not...
That sticker was a warning against using RAM voltages over 1.65V
It was what Intel advised the motherboard manufacturers to say, mainly due to the deaths of the first Nehalem E.S. revisions that were quite a bit fragile when running high RAM voltages or high Vtt voltages.
You can post just...
Actually, you are wrong.
Older DDR3 memory sticks ( DIMMs ) work just fine on most X58 and P55 motherboards, booting up just fine ( by the way the motherboards after a clear CMOS, what we can call a "Cold boot" start with 1.5V being applied to the RAM, and some motherboards start up with 1.6V...
High memory frequencies with low FSBs are often bottlenecked by the FSB.
You should max out your FSB and clock the mems as high as possible at that FSB and use the lower multipliers of your processor to keep the CPU's overclock close to what it is now.
400MHz FSB should be doable on your config...
Yes, for 24/7 stable operation at 4.1GHz I had to raise the CPU Voltage ( Vcore ).
I don't remember the exact value, but I can find it from my notes.
Of course the voltage required for stable operation at a specific frequency varies ( from a bit to wildly ) from processor to processor, some...
I was pretty sure that you'd try to dodge this, but unfortunately for you I don't like dodgeball.
Lower resolutions with low/medium graphics settings move most of the stress to the CPU since the GPU tasks are pretty easy for a modern GPU to process, thus you'll see the...
Uhm... real-life gaming tests with various CPUs/frequency ( click here )
Before you say those are just 4 games, I have other measurements from the past and also some more for a forthcoming review.
@dguy6789
My educated guess is ( we'll see if I'm right or wrong soon ;) ) that a Core i7 920 for example at 3.5GHz will be at least as fast if not faster than a 1055T @ 3.5GHz in single & multi-threaded applications.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.