| 1 |
Peter Humphrey writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Tuesday 28 August 2012 21:57:43 Alex Schuster wrote: |
| 4 |
>> I wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> Well, all I can do now is to get a new board and see if things will |
| 6 |
>>> be okay then. |
| 7 |
>> [...] |
| 8 |
>> So I had to wait. And when it became available, I wondered if it |
| 9 |
>> might be the processor instead that has the problem, so I let the PC |
| 10 |
>> shop diagnose CPU and board. This took until today, and they |
| 11 |
>> confirmed it was the board indeed, not the CPU. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Let me get this straight. The shop ran tests and concluded that the |
| 14 |
> motherboard was faulty, not the CPU? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Yes. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
>> Fine, I bought the board |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> ...it having been tested and found faulty! |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Well, obviously not the defective board I already owned, but a new one |
| 23 |
of the same type. Yes. Defects happen, and because one specific board |
| 24 |
suddenly has a problem after working fine for half a year, I do not |
| 25 |
assume that all of these boards will likely fail. And it seems to be the |
| 26 |
only board having the features I want, at least in the price range of |
| 27 |
about 100€. Most have two memory banks only, so I would either have to |
| 28 |
use only 8GB out of 16 GB, or buy new RAM. And I want on-board graphics, |
| 29 |
I do not want to buy an extra graphics adapter that needs power or has a |
| 30 |
noisy fan. There were NVidia boards I think, but I prefer Radeon, that |
| 31 |
finally seems to work just fine, after having lots of trouble in the |
| 32 |
past with both NVidia and an older Radeon system. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Wonko |
Archives