Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Phenom Exposed! Shipping with flaky 3rd cores.

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 5, 2008 10:26:01 PM

I think THG should investigate this issue, it is popping up in forums everywhere.

There has been much speculation over why AMD has not released Phenom parts of speeds greater than 2.3ghz. The going perception was that the TLB errata was a big contributor, and possibly an immature manufacturing process. Unfortunately, the problem is actually much deeper than that. Thanks to the release of the Phenom 9600 Black Edition, the problems with Phenom have become painfully obvious. Plainly stated, AMD is selling a busted chip, and many people are getting ripped off, and I think places like THG and OCguide need to call them out on this. Look around the net... it is a huge problem... and one I wouldn't be suprised if AMD eventually got sued over. This problem will also explain the true reason as to why AMD is going to release a Tri-Core chip.

The problem may seem trite, as purchasing a 9600BE is a gamble. But the problem is not just with the Black Edition, but with all current B2 Phenoms. Most of them cannot be overclocked, yes, this is true and a well-known fact. However, there is also a growing number of Phenom buyers who cannot not run stable even at stock clockspeeds.

I recently took a chance on one of these chips and have had the same experience that many others on the internet are having. Here is my experience;

My configuration is:

AMD Phenom 9600 Black Edition cooled by a Zalman 9700
Gigabyte GA-MA790X-DS4 Socket AM2+ motherboard
4GB Gskill 5-5-5-15 DDR2-800 Memory (4x1GB Sticks)
3x74GB WD Raptors in RAID 0, Primary Drive
500GB Seagate PMR Hard Disk
eVGA 8800GTS 320MB
Vista Ultimate 64bit

My Phenom experience:

Upon installing the Phenom in my system, it booted up fine without a problem. I have not OC'd the chip at all at this point, simply running it at stock settings. Once it booted into Vista, I played around with it for a bit with no issues. I then decided to do the first real test, which was to see what the Vista rating on the processor was. I clicked on the "refresh my score" link... and the testing began. During the test I got my first BSOD. The details read...

"A clock interrupt was not received on a secondary processor within an allocated time. Error 0x101"

I rebooted the system and tried again. This time the rating completed without a hitch and showed a glowing 5.9 rating for the processor. About 20 minutes later, the same error happened again.

This happens at stock speed. Any attempts to overclock either results in the BSOD or Vista wont finish booting at all.

Over the next two days I fought with this problem to no avail. I tried bumping the Vcore, the NB voltage, tried setting the RAM down... everything I could think of. Nothing.

I then did some research online and found some interesting info on the subject...

http://forums.amd.com/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=319&t...

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=17...

...a simple search, just google "BSOD clock interrupt Phenom", there are no shortage of hits...

Upon researching this problem I found that many Phenom users are having this same problem. Many only when trying to overclock... but also... many when trying to just run their chip at stock speeds. The problem points to one thing... a partially or wholley defective third core. Apparently, many people have had to use AMD Overdrive to purposely *underclock* the 3rd processing core (Core2, no pun intended) by lowering the multiplier specifically for that core, in order for the chip to run stable. The rest have had to do so in order to get any sort of stable overclock beyond 2.4 ghz. Does this sound familiar?? It should, as it is the frequency above which all Phenoms were yanked by AMD. The truth appears to be coming out... AMD doesn't have Phenoms above 2.4ghz available because one of the cores is flawed and won't allow for a stable chip at or above 2.4ghz. The errata appears to be more spin than anything... let the masses feast on the errata as the underlying issue when the real issue that is the manufacturing process being quite flawed at this point.... tries to fly under the radar. If AMD didn't want this flaw to be exposed, as I'm sure they didn't, they should have never released the 9600BE.

I tested this for myself and came to the same results. Whenever I tried to raise the multiplier on cores 0,1 and 3 I could go past 13 with no problems at all on stock voltage. The very instant I tried playing with core 2, BSOD. So my problem was the same as all the others... a bad 3rd processing core. But mine won't even run reliably at stock speeds...

I then decided to lower multiplier to see at what frequency the 3rd core will actually run reliable at. I first lowered it to 10.5 from the stock 11.5 (a freq. of 2100) and all stability issues seemed to vanish. I played with the system for the better part of a day and had no issues whatsoever. I stressed it rather intently with some video encoding projects and not a problem to be found. I then decided to push a little bit farther and raised the multiplier for the 3rd core to 11 (freq. of 2200). Unfortunately at this speed the random BSODs made a re-appearance rather quickly and I promtly re-adjusted the multi back down to 10.5. The bottom line was that the 3rd core can only run stable at or below 2.1ghz while the rest of the chip was capable of 2.6+ on stock voltage.

So for the money I spent, I got a functional and overclockable tri core cpu with an additional crippled core. This leads me to believe that the tri-core cpus will be capable of 2.6-3.0 speeds quite easily. Considering this issue is becoming more well-known by the day, AMD is facing a ticking timebomb in terms of when the major sites like THG will have a field day with this.

Bar None... AMD should not have released Phenom, much less the 9600 Black Edition.

It seems this problem is known by newegg already, as they appear to be granting RMAs rather unconditionally with these chips. I am RMAing mine currently, and hoping that the next one I get won't have the problem so severely. The word needs to spread and people need to not get ripped off. Hopefully this will inspire THG to do some investigating...
February 5, 2008 10:38:13 PM

So I did what you said and googled "BSOD clock interrupt Phenom" and sure enough there's alot of pissed of people (even on AMD's website forum) with the same problem. Interesting...
February 5, 2008 10:48:12 PM

lol yeah I'm not spreading any FUD here... unfortunately... it is cold hard fact.
Related resources
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 5, 2008 10:58:16 PM

It hurts when a everyday person exposes something that any enthusiast site should have seen. Maybe BM stopped posting here b/c he knew about this?
February 5, 2008 10:59:17 PM

its possible... */ponders*
February 5, 2008 11:05:41 PM

i dont want to be rude but did you even research the problem. did you try disabling cool and quite as it doesnt work correctly with phenom. If this was was a problem on a specific core did you try to stress that core by setting a program such as prime95 affinity to that core. Its possible it can be a htt issue as well. It could also be possible that core is running alot hotter then say the others ones and isnt stable at those temps. Im not arguing that your wrong im just giving you more options to test.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 5, 2008 11:11:10 PM

xnamerxx said:
i dont want to be rude but did you even research the problem. did you try disabling cool and quite as it doesnt work correctly with phenom. If this was was a problem on a specific core did you try to stress that core by setting a program such as prime95 affinity to that core. Its possible it can be a htt issue as well. It could also be possible that core is running alot hotter then say the others ones and isnt stable at those temps. Im not arguing that your wrong im just giving you more options to test.


Read the second link he posted. The guy explains that without C'n'Q, it will not run at the rated 11 multi. He goes into detail that it is core 2(the third core) that is causing all of the stability problems, FSB limits and such. His could only get to 2.05GHz stable where as the OP got his to 2.1GHz stable and the rest higher.
February 5, 2008 11:11:28 PM

Is this the reason why AMD couldn't release an Opteron above 2.1Ghz?
February 5, 2008 11:36:30 PM

my phenom only goes to 2.4 i tried doing the same thing you did lowering core 2 then i put my others to 2.6 work for a little while then frooze :/  but my memory does go to 1066

and what psu do you have ragemonkey?
February 5, 2008 11:46:28 PM

Im not suprised at all.
In a rant awhile back i said AMD would eventually have to pay the price for NOT having its own production facilities.

Intel took a massive financial hit and built its own.
Now they are reaping the rewards.

Sorry AMD, i agree with everyone else. U guys fkd up.
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2008 12:25:04 AM

^Agreed.

@OP: I respect you man. Not many AMD owners (esp. fanbois like thunderman) would have come forward with this kind of information. I seriously didn't know about that until now.
February 6, 2008 12:28:22 AM

I thought AMD has Fabs in Germany.
February 6, 2008 12:54:17 AM

^^^
Not 100% sure TBO.
I remember hearing all their fabrication of cpu's was outsourced.
They may have their own facilities, but i doubt they produce commercial quantities from them.

I also believe AMD should be punished for spreading BS and misleading the public.
February 6, 2008 12:56:55 AM

mrmez said:
Im not suprised at all.
In a rant awhile back i said AMD would eventually have to pay the price for NOT having its own production facilities.

Intel took a massive financial hit and built its own.
Now they are reaping the rewards.



Hate to say this, but you are mistaken here.

AMD has two production fabs currently. (one of which offline for retool for 45nm).

It's the *development* fab which they don't have. Replace that word in your above criticism and I agree wholeheartedly.
February 6, 2008 1:03:22 AM

Well, all I can say is I had the same problem to begin with. Ended up having to reset the bios, since I had originally had an Athlon x2 4200+ installed. And I had to reinstall windows, before that AOD kept causing those errors, and ended up corrupting the boot files.

Unless your using v2.0.10 or 2.0.14 of AOD don't even bother using it, it will cause that every time you mess with a processor setting, and even with those versions its likely to happen. The ONLY way to stably oc is through the bios, if you have a board that can support the thing properly.

Other than finding OC limits, and a weak rail on my PSU I have had zero problems. And yes, part of the time I had instability was at stock settings.
February 6, 2008 1:49:38 AM

buzzlightbeer said:
my phenom only goes to 2.4 i tried doing the same thing you did lowering core 2 then i put my others to 2.6 work for a little while then frooze :/  but my memory does go to 1066

and what psu do you have ragemonkey?


I am running a Antec Neopower 550w
February 6, 2008 1:50:32 AM

Thanks for the analysis ragemonkey. I'm sorry to say that I'm not surprised. AMD's processor division is no longer running a legitimate business.
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2008 1:55:20 AM

Pretty good read. Very interesting. does explain the "tri" cpus coming out a bit better. That really make AMD look bad (like the OLD intel issue of the math-co error or the p4 3ghz overheat issue). But I have to give Intel credit, at least they owned up to those issues and replaced them.
February 6, 2008 2:36:05 AM

I don't read xsystems that often, but damn I think they have more tools over there (at least in the AMD section) than this place ever did.
February 6, 2008 2:51:18 AM

I read this forum more then I post but I figured that the virtualization issue was a cover up for a bigger issue; it really sucks because its going to hurt AMD more in the eyes of the public. On the plus side at least AMD knows which cores to zap; not that that's much of a good note. I really hope that AMD gets their act together and puts out a good 45nm product, the only thing that was really considered good at 65nm was the 5000+ BE.
February 6, 2008 3:10:15 AM

Have you guys considered what would happen to the market if AMD was taken out of the picture? Who would fill that spot? Mortorola? IBM? All well and good but not really suited for the mainstream market...

Any Idas?
February 6, 2008 3:11:05 AM

Zephyn said:
I read this forum more then I post but I figured that the virtualization issue was a cover up for a bigger issue; it really sucks because its going to hurt AMD more in the eyes of the public. On the plus side at least AMD knows which cores to zap; not that that's much of a good note. I really hope that AMD gets their act together and puts out a good 45nm product, the only thing that was really considered good at 65nm was the 5000+ BE.


^ I agree with you here. I was very suspicious when AMD kept making a big deal about the TLB errata because in all seriousness, there is nothing "big deal" about it at all... at least in a consumer setting. I always thought there was more to it than that. Sadly enough, AMD has been all about misdirection and misinformation over the past year plus. I am just very surprised that AMD allowed the BE to be launched... did they not think the enthusiast would figure out what is really going on?

What was even more suspicious was the recent pushback for B3. I am guessing at this point, B3 cures the errata but not the defect in the manufacturing process that is causing the Core 3 defects hence still no steady crop of Phenoms above 2.3 ghz.

February 6, 2008 3:15:46 AM

bombasschicken said:
Have you guys considered what would happen to the market if AMD was taken out of the picture? Who would fill that spot? Mortorola? IBM? All well and good but not really suited for the mainstream market...

Any Idas?


Via still makes processors, although they specialize in the Small Form Factor and ultra low power chips these days.

http://www.via.com.tw/en/products/processors/isaiah-arc...

As for IBM, AMD's current quest for 45nm is actually an ongoing joint venture with IBM. So the tech is definately accessible by them as well as AMD.

http://www.playfuls.com/news_05502_IBM_and_AMD_Offer_De...

February 6, 2008 3:20:56 AM

bombasschicken said:
Have you guys considered what would happen to the market if AMD was taken out of the picture? Who would fill that spot? Mortorola? IBM? All well and good but not really suited for the mainstream market...

Any Idas?


Yes, we know. Intel will go back to the P4 era of sitting on their a$$es because what they have out is "good enough". Not really the point of this thread though.

Anyone else with a 9600 that would like to add to this?
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
February 6, 2008 3:23:16 AM

bombasschicken said:
Have you guys considered what would happen to the market if AMD was taken out of the picture? Who would fill that spot? Mortorola? IBM? All well and good but not really suited for the mainstream market...

Any Idas?


There is no reason to want AMD to be put out of business. But with them covering this up with errata that doesn't effect anyone kinda makes you wounder if you can trust them. If anything I am sure a company will come. Motorola is out as their FAB out in the pacific(can't remember what country) was destroyed during a typhoon hence why Apple switched to Intel CPUS since IBM cut theirs off which were produced at that FAB and now IBM only makes their processors for their servers.

I don't want AMD out but either they fess up to a bad manufacturing process and replace all Phenoms currently sold and in the market since they can't tell which have this problem and which do not or be made a fool when this hits the fan. It is possible that it may not show in some Phenoms now but after time might which is why they should bite the loss and replace them with known good parts. We can also tell its not specific to any one type. I saw people posting with 9500's that had the problem so I guess we can say it is just quad core related hence the manufacturing process is fubared.

Boy it seems that AMD has dug themselves in deep. I just hope something doesn't happen for their tri-cores. If so it wont be that good.
February 6, 2008 3:34:36 AM

ragemonkey said:
Via still makes processors, although they specialize in the Small Form Factor and ultra low power chips these days.

http://www.via.com.tw/en/products/processors/isaiah-arc...



Wow.. VIA... I knew they did chipsets but I had no clue they still did processors.. I remember my old cyrix C3 800mhz chip.. That thing was a work horse..

Ok so I take it back. Perhaps there is someone out there that can fill the viod..

(Although I'm perty sure that IBM won't being that they focus mostly on business customers...)
February 6, 2008 3:48:13 AM

@jimmysmitty

It will definately be a confirmation of this issue should the Tri-Cores show Core #s of 0,1, and 3... with Core 2 (logical #3) turned off. Considering the mounting number of people having this issue, AMD will probably have a decent launch of the Tri-Cores... but by that time the actual reason why will probably have hit the masses.
February 6, 2008 3:49:21 AM

I can't resist anymore.... In a Phenom, Core2 is defective, is this AMDs idea of a sick joke??
February 6, 2008 4:15:13 AM

Mathos said:
Well, all I can say is I had the same problem to begin with. Ended up having to reset the bios, since I had originally had an Athlon x2 4200+ installed. And I had to reinstall windows, before that AOD kept causing those errors, and ended up corrupting the boot files.

Unless your using v2.0.10 or 2.0.14 of AOD don't even bother using it, it will cause that every time you mess with a processor setting, and even with those versions its likely to happen. The ONLY way to stably oc is through the bios, if you have a board that can support the thing properly.

Other than finding OC limits, and a weak rail on my PSU I have had zero problems. And yes, part of the time I had instability was at stock settings.

Good post, too bad the Intel Inside croud have selective reading skills.
To the OP. Do as Mathos suggested.
Reset the bios, then do a clean OS install.
You should also try changing your v-dimm.
February 6, 2008 4:25:02 AM

I would love to hear from thunderman about this issue, respecting a company that comes out with crap like this loses respect! :non: 
February 6, 2008 4:29:18 AM

The defective core is all part of Phenom's superior design! :p  lol
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2008 4:36:34 AM

I have a question. Why is it always core 2? There must really be something wrong if they managed to always stuff up the same core in every die.
February 6, 2008 4:57:18 AM

randomizer said:
I have a question. Why is it always core 2? There must really be something wrong if they managed to always stuff up the same core in every die.


Hmmm... must be a consistent problem in the manufacturing process. Either that or AMD is purposely sabotaging Core2 due to all of the financial problems Intel has caused...lol I think the better solution would be to number the cores 0...1...3...4 , just like a hotel skips the number 13! lmao... i couldn't resist!
February 6, 2008 5:10:06 AM

randomizer said:
I have a question. Why is it always core 2? There must really be something wrong if they managed to always stuff up the same core in every die.


Best guess, they have a flaw in either masks, or their litho process. I have yet to see any hard evidence that this is a 3rd core only, but anecdotally it appears to be so.

I'd wonder at AMD's motivation to release these chips to the general public if they knew about this glitch. And I'd also wonder about why the announcement of a tri-core so far ahead of phenom's release if they didn't know about this glitch.

But then again, I wonder about four undersea fiber cables failing in the Mideast in so few days....
February 6, 2008 5:11:06 AM

Its (obviously?) a manufacturing error, as opposed to a design error, i would think.
I believe its a result of AMD not having enough options and control of who and how their chips are made, and shooting their marketing mouths off and backing themselvs into a corner.

As someone whos been involved with manufacturing and quality control, u sometimes have a situation where u, like AMD have just produced tens of thousands of chips only to find a problem in ALL of them.

Option 1: Scrap them all. Throw them away or turn them into Tri cores, sacrifise some profits and in the process maintain a quality brand image.

Option 2: Release the chips to market knowing u will earn more for them, and the cost of replacing a few of them will leave u financially ahead of option 1... in theory. At the same time further destroy your already shoddy brand image.

Making a decent quad core cpu MAY be rocket science and i wont hate anyone for getting it wrong. I will hate amd for intentionally releasing faulty chips.

How can faulty chips get mass produced in this day and age?
A quick story...


The hubble space telescope. A massive engineering feat, even by todays standards. After sparing no expense to design, build and deploy the telescope, they turn it on and BAM, its all out of focus. ARRRGGG!
Long story short, when making/calibrating the massive mirror, a tech dropped a floor standing calibrating calibrator. The metal coating on the bottom of the leg chipped off. Not realising this and not being bothered with checking or recalibrating the device, the tech continued as usual.

The 10th of a mm that was chipped off turned a billion dollar project into garbage. Lucky they found a 'cheap' way of re-aligning the mirror in space.

If NASA can fk up so badly, imaging what AMD can do.
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2008 9:19:31 AM



Will the last engineer switch the light off when leaving AMD lab...


a b à CPUs
February 6, 2008 10:08:04 AM

It's a hot spot ... over the corner where the OMC feeds the core ... my prediciton.

Core #2 (3)

But we will never really know eh ??

I doubt AMD tried to cover anything up ... otherwise why would they release the AOD and allow individual core overclocking?

Might explain the tri-core offerings to follow.

I'd imagine they will likely release with higher speeds.

This reminds me of the Palomino days ... three steps till they managed to get the core speed up ... tried to do one or two fewer layers to speed / reduce the costs.

One of the threads has a few good points ... if you can't push the fsb past 215 (even with lowering the mult) take it back.
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2008 10:09:31 AM

The problem is they are not listening to the Engineers.

Someone listen to the Engineer and not the Marketing guy ???
February 6, 2008 10:31:37 AM

Well, I guess you have bought one of the first Taliban processors; quite an honor, isnt it?

Too bad it cost you quite some cash.
February 6, 2008 10:50:39 AM

ragemonkey said:
^ I agree with you here. I was very suspicious when AMD kept making a big deal about the TLB errata because in all seriousness, there is nothing "big deal" about it at all... at least in a consumer setting. I always thought there was more to it than that. Sadly enough, AMD has been all about misdirection and misinformation over the past year plus. I am just very surprised that AMD allowed the BE to be launched... did they not think the enthusiast would figure out what is really going on?

What was even more suspicious was the recent pushback for B3. I am guessing at this point, B3 cures the errata but not the defect in the manufacturing process that is causing the Core 3 defects hence still no steady crop of Phenoms above 2.3 ghz.


If the SAME core is problematic on all Phenoms, that surely points to a design fault; the coordination of that cores activity with the others. It could be a manufacturing fault, but if its the exact same core then something is up in the design/architecture not the process. No one should buy a B2 Phenom, you know it will just annoy you.
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2008 11:46:35 AM

Wow! Interesting reads. Thanks for the info.

That's a damned shame. It's one thing after another.

The B3 better be all-that-and-a-bag-of-potato-chips.

I'm on schedule for an upgrade the end of this year as I'm feeling the limits of my dual opty workstation. If AMD doesn't deliver B3 or 45nm it will be a Nehalem for me.
February 6, 2008 12:08:35 PM

Even tho my phenom does not overclock, im still happy with it i play every game on high settings and the cpu is still at about 25%

im not saying its a bad CPU i just thought a BE would actually over clock what else would you buy it for, and just looking at those new intel 8 core systems my mind has finaly turned ,i was stubbon about it but i do realise now that AMD is getting owned majorly

and i just wanted to add in this edit


i think the reason my BE wont overclock is the PSU im getting a new one . i tried many things , when i first got it with my old PSU i was running one 3870 it ran MUCH better, with this newish one and 2 video cards its a dog.
im gonna test and see if it works out ill let you guys know
February 6, 2008 2:28:19 PM

buzzlightbeer said:
Even tho my phenom does not overclock, im still happy with it i play every game on high settings and the cpu is still at about 25%

im not saying its a bad CPU i just thought a BE would actually over clock what else would you buy it for, and just looking at those new intel 8 core systems my mind has finaly turned ,i was stubbon about it but i do realise now that AMD is getting owned majorly

and i just wanted to add in this edit


i think the reason my BE wont overclock is the PSU im getting a new one . i tried many things , when i first got it with my old PSU i was running one 3870 it ran MUCH better, with this newish one and 2 video cards its a dog.
im gonna test and see if it works out ill let you guys know


Use this to calculate the aproximate PSU you will need. It helped me out a lot when I picked up my Neopower 550.

http://www.extreme.outervision.com/psucalculatorlite.js...
February 6, 2008 2:46:13 PM

Or you could just talk to someone who's familiar with OCing the processor, or getting it to run stable? A lot of the board manufacturers are having issues with getting bios's that will run stable with a phenom installed. 1.1b3 for the k9a2 plat seems to be the one for OCing, 1.2 for OCing but with TLB fix enabled and no way to turn it off.
February 6, 2008 4:54:30 PM

spoonboy said:
If the SAME core is problematic on all Phenoms, that surely points to a design fault; the coordination of that cores activity with the others. It could be a manufacturing fault, but if its the exact same core then something is up in the design/architecture not the process. No one should buy a B2 Phenom, you know it will just annoy you.


No, the SAME core points to a weird manufacturing flaw, since hte deisgn of all four cores are identical. Or at least they should be if they did it right. If the design indeed differs, I know of a root cause, and the fix isn't pretty.

That being said, it really does smack of a reticle defect, but this should be really easy to spot/fix. Unless it's deterministic, in which case all bets are off.

Actually, now that I think of it, I think I know now *where* the issue lies. Sadly, due to the nature of my current job, I can't comment any more.
a b à CPUs
February 6, 2008 9:47:25 PM

Considering tri-cores were announced so long ago, it looks like AMD knew about this for a very long time. Why would you release a tri-core which has one fully functioning core disabled if it would just add to loss of profits that could have been made by selling it as a quad? From the looks of it, they won't even need to test the cores, they need simply always disable core 2 in a batch of Phenoms that they know will be faulty and they have a fully functioning tri-core (well, they'll probably disable some other things too, but thats beside the point). Although as croc said, there isn't any hard evidence to suggest it is always core 2.

@ryman: Just cry "freedom of speech" or join a union or something :lol: 
February 6, 2008 10:59:25 PM

well i can comment that it isn't ALWAYS core2 because my core3 overclocks worse then my core 2 does. i have an asus m3a32mvp deluxe and in bios version 0801 you have downcore. if i downcore core 2 and 3 i can clock my 9500 as a dual core to 2.9 and everest registers it as a KUMA not an agena
February 7, 2008 12:36:44 AM

bmadd said:
if i downcore core 2 and 3 i can clock my 9500 as a dual core to 2.9 and everest registers it as a KUMA not an agena


Now that sounds like a pretty sweet chip with some decent OC headroom. I'd like to see it benched against a similar core2duo. Again, why the hell hasn't AMD released a Phenom dual core?
February 7, 2008 1:46:46 AM

well phenom isn't not an over clocking persons friend. I just fried my one trying to get my core2/3 to go further :pfff:  bad idea. i doesn't like 1.68V. dont know y. so its back to a 5000+ BE till they get there act together. just thought i would add this in
February 7, 2008 1:49:29 AM

Try for an RMA... Sorry.
    • 1 / 6
    • 2
    • 3
    • 4
    • 5
    • More pages
    • Next
    • Newest
!