Nicole James said:They aren't exactly specific symptoms, but given how things are right now, I'd probably at least take a quick test before heading out into public.
That is precisely my point; it’s nothing more than the usual seasonal hysteria we see every year, yet this modern panic makes you feel as though you're failing your civic duty if you don't rush to a doctor just because you've gone through an extra box of tissues.
I’ve been scrolling through this thread before bed, and it’s frankly absurd to see people acting all upbeat while dealing with a runny nose. It makes me wonder if I should actually bother calling my doctor; I've been caught in the rain since yesterday and now I'm dealing with a persistent nasal drip and some light congestion this morning. My temperature is normal, and I haven't felt any fatigue or other symptoms yet...
wiredotter14 said:Try running Furmark; if it stays stable during that test, you can be certain the power supply isn't the culprit. Also, keep an eye on your CPU and GPU temperatures.
In terms of timing, how much duration actually matters when letting Furmark "cook" the system?
edit; just to clarify—about 😁 3 minutes 🙂 is all it takes before the PC reboots on me, which suggests the power supply is undeniably insufficient.
Is it plausible that an EVGA 500 W Bronze is simply insufficient to handle an ASUS R9 380? I have been running this specific setup for over a year without a single hiccup, but after picking up Battlefield 1 the other day, I can barely manage a few minutes of gameplay before the entire system undergoes a hard reset. It isn't even a matter of crashing back to the Windows 10 OS or freezing up; the machine just shuts down entirely, which leads me to suspect my power supply might be buckling under the pressure, especially since I know this game is an absolute beast when it comes to hardware demands.
I have already tested three different driver versions, but the results remain stubbornly identical across the board.
Adam Moore3 said:Look, there’s no logic in buying a card from the exact same tier just because it has more VRAM. If you're looking to actually upgrade, getting a Radeon RX 480 or something in that class would be a sensible move, but you aren't going to find those sitting around cheap on the used market. Maybe a GeForce GTX 970 if you stumble upon a decent deal on eBay, though even then, it isn't exactly a massive leap forward. What exactly is driving this obsession with VRAM capacity? While modern titles are certainly hungry for more memory, the jump isn't typically so extreme that it necessitates an entire GPU overhaul. Are you planning to push beyond 1080p, or are you simply dissatisfied with your current frame rates?
I can't say for certain; I just know the requirements are ballooning constantly. Whether I truly need the extra headroom is something I likely won't know until I see how the next Battlefield handles my setup. 😁
About a year ago, I built a new rig featuring an i5 4460, 16GB of RAM, an SSD, and a Radeon R9 380 Strix—though I had to settle for the 2GB model because my budget hit a wall. Now, I'm looking to phase out the Radeon R9 380 in favor of something with at least 4GB or 6GB of VRAM. Since I'm planning on shopping the used market, I'm open to any solid suggestions you might have.
Two months ago, I underwent my first round of general anesthesia to reset a dislocated shoulder, and just yesterday, I had to go under again for a manual manipulation of the joint. The common thread in both instances is this grueling, full-body muscle inflammation that settles in afterward. It hits everything—the groin, the abdomen, the neck, the back, the biceps, the triceps; pretty much every muscle group except for the calves. Last time, the sensation passed within forty-eight hours, but that doesn't make it any more pleasant to endure, especially when the resulting stiffness leaves you practically immobilized.
Has anyone else experienced this kind of reaction to anesthesia?
Does anyone know how to load DVD content directly from a hard drive into Windows Media Player? I can't wrap my head around why everything worked perfectly back when I was running Windows XP, yet here I am facing a wall...
The voltage probably needs an increase, though that really depends on how high you push the FSB... I’d suggest testing your limits using the default voltage first; once you hit the wall and things start glitching, that's when you give it a little extra kick. You should also be tweaking those latencies within that memory sub-menu you access by hitting Ctrl+F1...
Anthony Scott93 said:Since I have never actually delved into the world of overclocking—nor do I consider myself an expert in the field—I am reaching out to ask for some guidance. I am currently running an ASUS B450 motherboard, Corsair 2 x1 GB DDR2 PC-6400 memory, and an Intel Core i-series processor (it isn't much, but I plan to upgrade to a new Intel system soon). I am trying to determine what memory frequencies (400, 533, 667, or 800) would yield the lowest latencies, and what CPU multiplier and clock speed (starting from a default 200 bus speed) should I aim for to ensure everything remains stable, and whether increasing the voltage is necessary. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.
Try dropping the memory down to 667 or 533, set the HT link to 600 or 800MHz, and then push the FSB as far as it will go without crashing. By the way, if you need to find specific RAM or HT link settings within the BIOS, just hit Ctrl+F1...
I suspect that even with a basic stock cooler, you could probably push that 8500 up to 4GHz without having to jump through too many hoops or deal with excessive hassle...
If everything is running stably, then there isn't much left for you to tinker with 🙂 However, I would suggest pushing the processor even further; I suspect you can squeeze quite a bit more out of it at that voltage... those Sempron chips are practically built for overclocking
Edward Peterson70 said:When I was digging through the reviews, the consensus seemed to be that every single unit they tested pushed past the 400 mark, making the board an absolute steal.
I followed that same logic when I was running my own stress tests back in the day, but looking at these screenshots now, it’s a different story entirely. I'll need to dedicate some time to run my own benchmarks to see what's actually happening under the hood.
That's true; I didn't encounter any major red flags either, unless my memory serves me right regarding those issues with the F5 BIOS version...
So, what kind of CPU and RAM combo were you running when you hit that 252 ceiling?
Edward Peterson70 said:your motherboard is the culprit. I'm running the exact same board and hitting the exact same wall. It just won't stay stable once you push past 252.😠
I might have to retire this thing for the summer.
uh 😉
I lowered the HT link to 600... I'm an idiot and forgot to do that earlier... but even with that multiplier, he's still stuck at a max frequency of 2.65. If I try to hit 300 FSB, the system won't even boot into Windows. I ran Orthus for about 20 minutes before I lost patience, but it seems stable enough for now.
I have my doubts... this motherboard should be an absolute beast for overclocking, and a 270 model ought to be pushing its limits... I’m betting there's some kind of old AMD Athlon X2 4000+ tucked inside that could hit 2.8 GHz without breaking a sweat...
But honestly, you can definitely feel the difference compared to running everything at stock settings...
8, 9, 10... I’ve cycled through all of them. It holds steady up to a 250 FSB, but anything beyond that results in a complete system freeze. My next move was a CMOS clear... Honestly, I think he's hit the ceiling. I ran into a couple of guys over at PC Gamer who were dealing with the exact same processor; their limit was 2.55 GHz just like mine at the stock 1.35V. If you bump it up to 1.40V, you can squeeze out about 2.66 GHz...
