For my motherboard, it only required changing one setting in the BIOS. Luckily, all four cores of mine are fully stable, but it all depends on the processor and motherboard if the unlock will be stable or not.Nic wrote:
Was it difficult to unlock the other 2 cores? and are they more unstable than the first 2?alexb wrote:
I fucking love the Phenom II X2 CPU I bought... runs at 55C with 1.425VCore at 3.8Ghz and unlocked to an X4 (Quad Core). This thing is seriously the best $90 I've ever spent in my life.
http://static.bf2s.com/files/user/32377/Untitled.png
kekekeke telephone lines and modems.
for a fatty you're a serious intellectual lightweight.
i dont get it is an i5 really that much more expensivealexb wrote:
For my motherboard, it only required changing one setting in the BIOS. Luckily, all four cores of mine are fully stable, but it all depends on the processor and motherboard if the unlock will be stable or not.Nic wrote:
Was it difficult to unlock the other 2 cores? and are they more unstable than the first 2?alexb wrote:
I fucking love the Phenom II X2 CPU I bought... runs at 55C with 1.425VCore at 3.8Ghz and unlocked to an X4 (Quad Core). This thing is seriously the best $90 I've ever spent in my life.
http://static.bf2s.com/files/user/32377/Untitled.png
AMD processors seem like a pile of shit to me... haven't wanted one since the Athlon/XP 3800+ era
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
BAHAHAHAHAHA
for a fatty you're a serious intellectual lightweight.
Unlocked it's almost as good as the i5, and overclocked I'd imagine it gets damn close, if not over. Even if it doesn't, it's a solid $100 USD less for the Phenom II here.Uzique wrote:
i dont get it is an i5 really that much more expensivealexb wrote:
For my motherboard, it only required changing one setting in the BIOS. Luckily, all four cores of mine are fully stable, but it all depends on the processor and motherboard if the unlock will be stable or not.Nic wrote:
Was it difficult to unlock the other 2 cores? and are they more unstable than the first 2?
AMD processors seem like a pile of shit to me... haven't wanted one since the Athlon/XP 3800+ era
Last edited by alexb (2010-11-03 11:42:16)
so a $100 AMD core is as good as my i5 760 @ 4.0Ghz?
AMD are still shit, in my opinion. they haven't appeared in my radar once since the quad-core era begun.
AMD are still shit, in my opinion. they haven't appeared in my radar once since the quad-core era begun.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
no, that i5 clocked at 4.0ghz is a helluva lot better.Uzique wrote:
so a $100 AMD core is as good as my i5 760 @ 4.0Ghz?
AMD are still shit, in my opinion. they haven't appeared in my radar once since the quad-core era begun.
for a fatty you're a serious intellectual lightweight.
I meant the AMD one is about $100 cheaper than the i5. Also, the overclocked and unlocked AMD gets damn close to the stock i5 760, if I'm not mistaken.Uzique wrote:
so a $100 AMD core is as good as my i5 760 @ 4.0Ghz?
AMD are still shit, in my opinion. they haven't appeared in my radar once since the quad-core era begun.
I'm going to try to hit 4.0GHz tonight... currently at 3.8Ghz.
Last edited by alexb (2010-11-03 11:46:20)
Apples to oranges. You can't compare them unless they are similar price point. The 1090T hexacore at $220'ish is still cheaper than the i5 760 (Microcenter exempted:P). Find me an Intel 6-core for $220.
someone wanna explain to me why the fuck my cursor looks like this?
for a fatty you're a serious intellectual lightweight.
try changing it
Mouse Properties, Pointer Options, Display pointer trails.
im not that dumb. oh. it's changed backIlocano wrote:
Mouse Properties, Pointer Options, Display pointer trails.
for a fatty you're a serious intellectual lightweight.
posting from Windows 2000.
for a fatty you're a serious intellectual lightweight.
who cares man, jesus fucking christ
i had 2 PC's before i started using windows 2000 ME
i had 2 PC's before i started using windows 2000 ME
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
oh shush.Uzique wrote:
who cares man, jesus fucking christ
i had 2 PC's before i started using windows 2000 ME
for those who don't frequent EE Chats:
for a fatty you're a serious intellectual lightweight.
i can't believe you're acting like 10 years ago is so much time
at least use win98
at least use win98
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
pffffffffft. I should go and do it with Win95. I can't remember what that even looked like.Uzique wrote:
i can't believe you're acting like 10 years ago is so much time
at least use win98
for a fatty you're a serious intellectual lightweight.
brb, getting my old 386 out of the garage.
brb, getting my commodore 64 with dual cassette drives. You heard it right, dual cassette drives. Used to be damn sweet.
3930K | H100i | RIVF | 16GB DDR3 | GTX 480 | AX750 | 800D | 512GB SSD | 3TB HDD | Xonar DX | W8
I only had one cassette drive for my Atari 1200XL. Fun times loading the Blue Max game and listening to the William Tell Overture while it was loading.
I get that every once in a while, but only when the mouse is over Firefox. No idea why, it hasn't bothered me enough to worry about fixing, but you're not the only one.Camm wrote:
someone wanna explain to me why the fuck my cursor looks like this?
http://static.bf2s.com/files/user/53672 … 3-1857.jpg
regarding the cursor- there is a setting in control panel>mouse settings that enables (not sure how you say it in English) tracer? It basically multiplies your cursor when you move it. Kinda looks like on those older win XP PCs when your hardware was too basic to display properly and you dragged a window it would multiply.
Yes, the setting is for "pointer trails." That would create a similar effect, but if the bug Camm has is anything like mine, then the effect is not quite the same as pointer trails. The bug looks like 6-7 cursors are layered underneath the actual cursor, each offset by a few pixels vertically. Sometimes the whole cursor is cloned and layered, and other times it's only a couple lines of the cursor cloned and layered..Sup wrote:
regarding the cursor- there is a setting in control panel>mouse settings that enables (not sure how you say it in English) tracer? It basically multiplies your cursor when you move it. Kinda looks like on those older win XP PCs when your hardware was too basic to display properly and you dragged a window it would multiply.
then it must be that thing I was saying about the PC that this happens on must be too basic. Not enough ram I would assume or possibly something else.Defiance wrote:
Yes, the setting is for "pointer trails." That would create a similar effect, but if the bug Camm has is anything like mine, then the effect is not quite the same as pointer trails. The bug looks like 6-7 cursors are layered underneath the actual cursor, each offset by a few pixels vertically. Sometimes the whole cursor is cloned and layered, and other times it's only a couple lines of the cursor cloned and layered..Sup wrote:
regarding the cursor- there is a setting in control panel>mouse settings that enables (not sure how you say it in English) tracer? It basically multiplies your cursor when you move it. Kinda looks like on those older win XP PCs when your hardware was too basic to display properly and you dragged a window it would multiply.