Astrotoy7 Posted August 27, 2008 Share Posted August 27, 2008 I must admit, high end GPU usually walks hand in hand with high end chipset MB. This is why Im old and cautious and stick with my "designed for.." barebones >> might explain why Ive never had a nightmare like the above listed posts. *touches wood* I have used an Asus MB once(A8N-SLI deluxe), for my 7950GX2...its usually the ones with SLI in the title that hint that they should play nice with high end kit and PSUs etc!(They quite often support up to 16/32GB RAM as well) Yep, if 790 is a no go, 780 is youre best bet. The one youve linkied to looks great HH at G3D also seemed quite fond of this XFX 780i board... http://www.guru3d.com/article/nvidia-nforce-780i-sli-review--xfx/ btw - I have the 177.92 up and running on my own x64 with the 8800GTS 640. All purring along nicely. CUDA junk built in. good luck! mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChAiNz.2da Posted August 30, 2008 Author Share Posted August 30, 2008 Beast is up and running nicely. This new motherboard has soooo many options it's not even funny. Definitely learned my lesson on cheapo motherboards, this thing is a dream Running 177.92, can run WEI like it's not even funny.. completes every single time, and running optimal custom voltages with fan control. Stress testing for a day and a half and it's still going strong. F@H all nite long with no problems either.. w00t! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted August 30, 2008 Share Posted August 30, 2008 Beast is up and running nicely. This new motherboard has soooo many options it's not even funny. Definitely learned my lesson on cheapo motherboards, this thing is a dream Running 177.92, can run WEI like it's not even funny.. completes every single time, and running optimal custom voltages with fan control. Stress testing for a day and a half and it's still going strong. F@H all nite long with no problems either.. w00t! very good! case closed it seems Moral of the story for those considering an upgrade: Want to run a high end card? Think about about a high end mainboard(and PSU). Failure to do so will result in pain and fist waving mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChAiNz.2da Posted August 31, 2008 Author Share Posted August 31, 2008 very good! case closed it seems Moral of the story for those considering an upgrade: Want to run a high end card? Think about about a high end mainboard(and PSU). Failure to do so will result in pain and fist waving mtfbwya Yup, case closed.. running 3 days straight stress testing. Highest temperature clocked 76c (and on the GPU no less).. everything else was mid-upper 40c's as far as peak active (non idle) temperatures. Air Cooled Only. Nice thing about the board is that not only does the North Bridge have this massive heat radiator and pipes.. it comes with an attachable fan that clicks onto the main heat sink. I'll get some pics here soon (with a good camera ). Does a decent job too.. however it can also be replaced by higher end fans because of the standard mount size. Something I may look in to. If I was to ever get watercooling.. this beast would easily reach 3.8-4.0mhz quad.. and possibly a higher fsb for RAM (currently 1066), however since I need guaranteed stability, I've clocked down to stock(ish). 3.0mhz 1333 mhz quad core cpu / 8gb 1066mhz RAM. PSU 135mm Fan / 125mm Rear mount case fan / 125mm side mount case fan / 60mm NB chipset fan / GTX280 fan & exhaust* *- important to notice, the first OLD initial 'release pics' of the GTX280's showed as 2 DVI ports stacked. That's not the case. The design is 2 DVI side-by-side with a heat exhaust. See pic above. So the monster card has both fan & exhaust cooling. Bonus. F@H been running straight (other than reboots for prog/driver installs).. with no hang ups, though I'd still disable it if I were to be running a processing hungry apps/game I definitely have learned alot during this fiasco, so I won't complain about the past week... that much... hehehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arátoeldar Posted September 2, 2008 Share Posted September 2, 2008 Sorry about your problems Chainz. However with a little research you could have found out that the low end P5K motherboards were having overclocking problems even with XP. This has been known since the end of last year. I have always used intel based chipset motherboards from Asus & Abit. The only time I have had a problem was when a friend accidentally cut a trace while trying to unclip a HSF from a 815e motherboard. The other problem I have had was needing to replace northbridge fan on an IC7-G Max II. Hell I am still running an ASUS TUSL-C (815e) as my web surfer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted September 3, 2008 Share Posted September 3, 2008 this beast would easily reach 3.8-4.0mhz quad. dude! you did it again !! You must subconsciously enjoy undervaluing your CPU mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChAiNz.2da Posted September 5, 2008 Author Share Posted September 5, 2008 dude! you did it again !! You must subconsciously enjoy undervaluing your CPU mtfbwya Gah! I'm beginning to think you're right... hehehe EDIT: Hey guys, quick question... I have installed DirectX 9.24 BUT, would it hurt (or is it possible) to install DirectX 9.0c as well... or is it unnecessary? Vista doesn't seem to like (as much) older DirectX apps.. however I'm not sure if installing 9.0c would even fix anything. Just wondering if it's something that might help out to prevent any shortcomings in the future. Vista 64 seems to handle DirectX 9 apps rather wonky to say the least. They work, but I doubt the stability as the response/performance doesn't seem up to par as it was in XP Pro (32bit). checkback: hmm..nevermind methinks. Looks as if Vista's DX10 is the 'one-up' version of DX9 (even though the code is different) Vista's DX10 sure has crappy DX9 'emulation' *sigh* RE-EDIT: Hmmm...this looks interesting however, it being so old, I can't help to think (or hope) this hotfix would've been included in the tons of downloads through Windows Update.. though I can't seem to find said update in any of my installed updates or history list? Anyone with any experience on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted September 6, 2008 Share Posted September 6, 2008 DirectX is a cumulative package. Whatever is in 9.0c is in there From your 'rut ro' thread I was under the impression that you were going to save yourself some of the inevitable compatibility hassles from older apps(especially in x64) by dual booting into XP. Vista is big install as it is, building endless legacy layers into would suck. eg. If someone wants to run a test based RPG from win98, you shouldnt even have thought about Vista.... virtualise or mutli boot.. Leave x64 for the stuff that was written for it, is proven to work on it... aka .. new stuff good luck mang mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChAiNz.2da Posted September 6, 2008 Author Share Posted September 6, 2008 From your 'rut ro' thread I was under the impression that you were going to save yourself some of the inevitable compatibility hassles from older apps(especially in x64) by dual booting into XP. Vista is big install as it is, building endless legacy layers into would suck. eg. If someone wants to run a test based RPG from win98, you shouldnt even have thought about Vista.... virtualise or mutli boot.. Leave x64 for the stuff that was written for it, is proven to work on it... aka .. new stuff Yeah, I must admit in my haste to get this damnable machine running.. I had bypassed the initial XP / Vista dual-boot. That's going to be fixed this weekend I'll probably wind up just loading XP on it's own drive and configure a boot loader on a flash drive. Set my BIOS to boot from flash drive first, then cd then harddrive. So.. whenever I want XP, I pop in the flash drive, re-boot.. voila. I don't like partitioning a drive unless it's one huge one. In case of meltdown, at least it'll be isolated to one drive rather than me having to worry about accidentally formatting both OS's rather than just the single partition I had intended to (something I'm sure I would do) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted September 6, 2008 Share Posted September 6, 2008 I know peeps who run xp off a SD/CF card, some do it from usb, others from one of those sata converters. Funkee, cheapass SSD mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChAiNz.2da Posted September 9, 2008 Author Share Posted September 9, 2008 I know peeps who run xp off a SD/CF card, some do it from usb, others from one of those sata converters. Funkee, cheapass SSD mtfbwya Oh wow.. yeah, i don't think I'd be that ballsy. I think I'll just run a boot loader from flash (aka a "faux dongle"), but have XP Pro sitting nicely on it's own internal hard drive. I'll probably reconfigure my drives so that Vista lives on 1TB, XP lives on another 1TB and use the 500gb for misc. scratch disk, storage, etc. I can do all of my backups and important disk images/restores to my external raid System will be down off and on for the weekend so keep those F@H WU pumping man... hehehe. I'll finish up this current unit then probably shut down whilst the installs are going on. I'll rejoin the fray once I can get to a happy medium (shouldn't take too long). EDIT: System is back up now with dual boot goodness I decided against both the flash boot loader and installing Vista on a 1TB drive. The 500gb is fine and I always have access to more space should I need it. XP however did get it's own 1TB drive since I have loads of stuff that works better in a true 32bit environment rather than Vista's 64bit 'attempt'. Setting up a dual-boot "with Vista installed first" turned out to be much less painful than I had anticipated (granted, as long as you have the Vista install disc..hehehe). After installing XP, it of course overwrites the boot loader, so while XP boots fine.. Vista won't boot. XP apparently overwrites the MBR with it's old fashioned boot.ini file. Luckily, if you boot from the Vista install disc and choose System Recovery, there's a nice little utility which re-enables Vista's boot loader (very first option). This in turn makes Vista boot, BUT kills the XP boot.. but worry not. Here's where EasyBCD comes to the rescue! (thank you Astro for listing that lovely tool) Boot in to Vista, install and start this beautiful little utility and it will allow you to append XP in to your boot sequence. Since it uses Vista's very own built-in multi-boot loader, every time you reboot.. you'll get the nice little screen prompt asking you which OS to load. Worked on the first try.. and if *I* can get it to work.. anyone can So fear not if you want to install multiple OS's with Vista installed first. Just make sure you have both the Vista install disc and EasyBCD and you're home free. NOTE: This method was 'Vista on one drive, XP on a separate'... so it did not involve 'one disk with partitioning'. Since I don't like partitions, I'm not sure if setting up the multi-boot on other configurations would be as easy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 future scholars will marvel at the user friendly brilliance of my multiboot guide I hate those how to's that get murky or too technical from the second line... ugh mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tk102 Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 What's this thread about again? It's more about the F@H, but since it also affects Vista Ah ok. Isn't it odd that Microsoft doesn't provide a simple dual-booting exe akin to EasyBCD? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Astrotoy7 Posted September 9, 2008 Share Posted September 9, 2008 What's this thread about again? Ah ok. Isn't it odd that Microsoft doesn't provide a simple dual-booting exe akin to EasyBCD? vistas bootloader is pretty good at taking legacy installs under its wing. you can do a xp>vista install and never even need easy bcd. system properties will allow you to easily set default os etc. i'd prefer to let a third party do this because a ms utility isnt going to bother with linux or mac compatibility, is it?! mtfbwya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChAiNz.2da Posted September 10, 2008 Author Share Posted September 10, 2008 What's this thread about again? My random mumblings.. aka "Cz's Microsoft Vista Adventures" Figured I'd keep it contained rather than spamming the forum However, 'slightly' on(off)topic of F@H. Ran a test run with F@H on XP compared to Vista 64... I gotta say, I'll be sticking with Vista as far as folding goes. F@H, maybe because of the delimited RAM (?), in XP seriously slowed down the executions of things. I couldn't even dream of browsing the web with the stuttering I was getting.. and it was completely tasking one of the cores (up to 100%). In Vista, F@H at most tasked a single core at 25%. This was all happening with the GPU client Core temps were also higher by about 5C. Not world-ending.. but enough for me to not like the XP / F@H route.. hehehe Anywho.. as long as I have XP I'm not too worried. It'll mostly be used for gaming now since Vista allows me to use more RAM for productive programs (Adobe, etc.) more efficiently. After Effects and Photoshop are a whole new world in Vista compared to XP (or 32 compared to 64 bit perhaps). Closer to what my mac can do.. and that's always a good thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.