1. Amd Phenom 2 X4 955
2. Amd 955 Cpu

Long-time reader, first time poster. I'm building an ultra-inexpensive storage server and chose the Biostar A320MH Pro (on sale $30 @ newegg) and the AMD X4 950 CPU. I verified that the CPU and motherboard were compatible at the Biostar website: But I'm getting 8 error beeps during POST which implies 'display memory error'. I reseated EVERYTHING, tried different RAM, reset the CMOS, but it won't post. I'm trying to figure out what direction to take: 1) Replace the motherboard assuming it's defective. 2) Return the CPU assuming it's not actually compatible and the Biostar website is wrong.

3) Return both and switch to an Intel/i3 solution for an extra $200.Scott Rosewill RSV-L4500 case Thermaltake Toughpower TPD-0750M Biostar A320MH Pro motherboard AMD X4 950 CPU Crucial 4GB 288-Pin DDR4 SDRAM DDR4 2133 (PC4 17000). That's an error referring to a system video adapter. You don't have either integrated graphics or a discrete GPU so the BIOS couldn't write anything to the frame buffer memory, which is what holds a video image that's displayed on the screen. You'll need to either buy a GPU or returns the CPU and get an AM4-compatible APU which has integrated graphics. Not sure what I did wrong the first time but I tried my old, old video card again and now I'm getting a successful POST.

So I'm going to replace the CPU. Thanks so much for your attention.

Overclocking AMD's Phenom II X4 955 Following the same method used for overclocking the Phenom II X2 550, AMD's quad-core Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition was first set to 1.50 volts for the CPU core, 1.65 volts memory, and 1.45 volts for the memory controller. As soon as we began increasing its CPU core multiplier (“Adjust CPU Ratio” below) however, we found that the CPU cooler simply couldn’t keep up with four cores at full load and our selected voltage.

Stability tests with four threads of 64-bit revealed that our system would crash at a CPU core temperature of 59° Celsius, as monitored. We knew that 1.50 volts would be almost ideal for our tests, if only the CPU cooler could keep up. So, rather than start from stock voltage and work our way up, we began with 1.50 volts and worked our way down, until the core no longer reached the offending temperature. At 1.48 volts the CPU would reach 59° Celsius at a multiplier of 18x, resulting in a Prime95 program error (worker stopped for one core, or program thread). Choosing 1.46 volts allowed a 19x CPU multiplier before the same error occurred at the same temperature.

Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition CPU motherboard list that fit the Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition mobo socket Socket AM3. Motherboard list for Phenom II X4 955 Black Edition cpu. Biostar A780L3G.

At 1.45 volts (and a 19x CPU multiplier) the program would crash before reaching 59°, indicating more voltage would be required to operate at this speed. But those voltage levels were achieved using the “CPU VDD Voltage” setting in BIOS, where the “not enough voltage” crash occurred due to voltage fluctuation under full load. Increasing the “CPU Voltage” in MSI's BIOS to 1.480 volts allowed the system to actually run at 1.456 volts under full load with a maximum CPU temperature of around 55°. Stable at 19 x 200, CPU frequency could still be increased slightly via HT clock, labeled “Adjust CPU FSB Frequency” in the first BIOS screen shot above. Adjusting in increments of 2 MHz, the system was found stable at 202 MHz HT clock, but crashed after around 40 minutes at 204 MHz.

203 MHz allowed it to run without error at full load for several hours, yielding a final overclock of 3.85 GHz. Peak temperature increased to 56.5° Celsius, barely shy of the 59° limit where heat would cause it to crash. It’s important to note that temperature has far less effect on stability at lower clock speeds, so that systems unable to obtain this relatively mild temperature will be limited in overclocking capability. At DDR3-1624, our memory supported the same minimum latencies as previously found in the X2 550’s DDR3-1616 DRAM data rate. SnakeeaterzaSurely people on a budget (like me) would prefer their e5200 to last longer than a 'few months or hopefully a yr to 3?' I know i will upgrade prob in a year or so, so a yr would be fine, but a few months?

My proc vid is 1.225 and for 3.33ghz i need a vcore of 1.385 in bios which at idle is 1.36ish. So although im nowhere near 4 at least i wont suffer from electromigration and have to fork out for a new cpu! Just my 2 cents It's all a game of averages. Tom's Hardware hasn't accidently killed a processor by overclocking it in a while, though I'm sure a couple editors have intentionally done so to find the voltage limit. The problem is, once again, you can only look at averages.

Amd Phenom 2 X4 955

3 months continuous use at 1.45 volts caused an E8500 to lose its OC stability. It had to be clocked down to become stable again, and lost much of its voltage tolerance. It wasn't destroyed however. 1.40 volts should be significantly safer than 1.45 volts, but until a few people report on how long their cores lasted at 1.40 volts its impossible to tell 'how much safer', that is, how much longer it will last. All that's known is that it should last 'significantly' longer, but whether that's 4 months (33% longer) or 30 months (10x longer) is the unanswerable question. I definitely have to agree with the comments about the poor choice of the 8200.

I am one the shoppers this article is referring to and I did not even consider that chip. The Q9550 is $220 right now, so it really is the chip I am looking to purchase.

Amd 955 Cpu

I completely disagree with Awesome12345 though. As an inexperienced OCer, if I am going to go AMD, I am going to get a BE because it offers an easier solution. I also would have like to see a comparison at the end of the 4 chips performance side by side. Not a bad article though minus the worthless test of the Q8200. Q8200 is cheaper, I give you that, but lack of cache, lack of VT, lack of deeper power states. The Q9550 (now only E0 should be on the market) is a far better choice, and it overclocks very well (3.4GHz without any effort at all, 1600 FSB + 800+ DDR2). Even so, you must have a dud, since Q8200 should overclock much more then what was achieved for the purpose of the article.

E5200 is indeed the 'new Celeron'. A very good cheap chip, if you get it to at least 3.33GHz (1066 FSB + 1066 DDR2). I totally agree with this choice. But why did you go with DDR3? It's double the price of DDR2. In real life, if I have to choose between screaming-fast DDR3, or double the amount of that in DDR2.

My personal preference is more RAM, even if slower RAM. So Q9550 + DDR2 could make the list, at least price-wise. With a little OC, it would be the king of this. Let's call it roundup. Some may argue that the 955BE is, but I have my favorites.