He wasn't asking about 8xxx issues. He was asking about the warning about a BIOS update.
He is fine - the motherboard does not need to be replaced. Please do not spread rumor.
You should be fine. The 8320 and 8350 are both on the supported CPU list for that motherboard.
It is not guaranteed to cause damage. MSI lists the 8320 and 8350 as supported on their specification page.
Please stop spreading false rumors. The warning is for Vishera CPUs, which also include some 6 and 4 series CPUs. The "problem" is also a warning that the BIOS may need to be upgraded for the motherboard to recognize a Vishera CPU.
The 6350 and 8350 are both on the supported CPU list for the motherboard. Please do not spread rumors implying he will destroy components by choosing components the manufacturer says they support.
ravagex, ravagexx, and ravagexxx: the commenting guidelines mention to be polite and constructive. If you can't obey those rules, you are not welcome posting here. In the past you were warned to keep it polite, but did not do so. That is why your comments have been hidden - they are consistently negative, they do not add to the discussion, and in many cases cause discord in the community. If you'd like to participate in our community, keep your comments polite and constructive.
Please keep it polite.
They look to be the same - both share the same manufacturer part number: BX80646I34130. That part number (BX_) indicates it's a boxed version of the CPU - i.e. it comes with the stock cooler.
Your current build is tied to your browser session, so in effect it is tied to your cookies. When you clear your cookies, we lose your session info and thus what your current part list is.
The easiest way to retain your part lists if you want to persist them across clearing cookies is to use the saved part list feature. While viewing a part list, you can click the "Save" button to save it to your account. Later if you clear cookies, you'll be able to load it from your saved part lists. However, any edits you make to the part list are kept with your session, so you'll want to make sure you resave them before clearing cookies.
It looks like the reason that's showing up as not compatible is that the motherboard is an SSI CEB form factor, but the manufacturer of the case makes no mention of that form factor being supported by the case. They list Micro ATX, ATX, and Extended ATX.
However, the SSI CEB mounting points are the same as ATX so you should be good there. The SSI CEB size is also smaller than Extended ATX (though larger than ATX), so you should be ok there as well. I'm confident you should be ok.
I'll see if I can update the compatibility verification to automatically include SSI CEB compatibility if EATX support is available (given that SSI CEB is a smaller form factor, and has matching mount points).
Thanks for letting me know! It should be fixed now. (Pricing will take an hour or so to update though.)
Thanks for letting me know! Should be fixed now.
Definite bug. Should be fixed once the compat update finishes running in < 5 minutes. My apologies for that.
Appears to be a bug in our compatibility filter. I'll get that fixed ASAP.
EDIT: ok, should be fixed in about 5 minutes once the compat update finishes. Sorry about that!
Based on the marks on that second picture, it looks like you tried to latch it down with the CPU rotated 90 degrees from the proper orientation.
Do you have pictures of the CPU socket, retention plate, and CPU? (Oh, and if possible, also a picture of the CPU in the socket (though of course without retention plate fully closed if it won't.)
Check the front page of the site - we just ran a benchmark on the build with full temp info and even a thermal camera recording it.
Wow, that's terrible. I'm sorry for what you're going through.
It's very difficult for us to stay on top of all possible issues, particularly what looks to be firmware related issues (that I'm shocked the manufacturer won't be fixing... but then again they are in bankruptcy). However, I'll see what I can do to add a flag of some sort for that combination. It is a bit of a unique case - we don't currently do any checks of a SSD vs a given CPU architecture, because this is the first I've ever heard of anything like it. But hopefully it's something I can get in to save other people from the same trouble you've seen.
We don't collect payments or offer any way to pay off items over time. You'd have to check with the individual retailers to find out what their offerings are for something like that.
My ambitions definitely got the better of me, and my estimates were off by a good bit. It's on the top of our todo list - I'll make sure to let you know when it is ready.
You won't get voltage warnings on AMD - as far as In know AMD CPUs will support 1.65V RAM. Some Intel CPUs will generate a warning at that voltage because it is out of spec, regardless of XMP. However, can you expand on not accounting for XMP settings? (I implemented the compatibility for CPU/RAM, so I'm curious what you're expecting that the site isn't delivering.)
You can always load up the parts into a part list to verify compatibility. The easiest way if you already have newegg links is to use the search box and search for the Newegg Item # (i.e. N82E16813131872, etc.)
Here's the part list:
(No incompatibilities detected.)
We do have an option where you can set per-retailer tax rates and have it automatically calculated into your price totals. To do so, visit your user preferences, under Account Preferences. You'll be able to set which merchants you want, as well as the tax rate for each. Right now we don't have a setting for tax rates for in-store only, as for most cases if you're within range to do in-store deals, you're likely paying tax on online orders for them as well.
We'd automatically populate that value, but it's particularly challenging to know the precise tax rate for a given retailer - turns out tax rates can vary not just by zip code, but also by regions even within a zip code. So the current solution for right now is just to allow manually setting it.
Should be fixed now. Thanks for letting us know!
Thanks for letting us know! It looks like it was incorrectly entered to have 8 eSATA instead of 8 SATA. I have corrected the spec listing, and the compatibility update should finish up in about five minutes from now.
It looks like that case was incorrectly flagged regarding PSU compatibility. I've updated the specs, so the compatibility should reflect that change (and the selection of power supplies) in about 5 minutes or so.
They are definitely coming soon. Hope to have them added in within the next week or two.
When we turn everything on, absolutely.
please keep your comments polite - comments like that aren't welcome here.
I should have some technical content featuring this build going live (hopefully) within a week. I've recorded some benchmark footage, and am putting together all the bits and pieces.
That definitely looks like a bug - I've updated the case to reflect it having a 5.25" slim slot, so once the compatibility update finishes on it you shouldn't see that slimline error any more. I'll look into the SFX PSU issue as well.
I'd say that's highly unusual if it's a component in your system making that kind of noise. If a capacitor popped, you'd almost certainly know - if not by the system failing in some spectacular way, then by smell. I've been around for all sorts of things exploding - capacitors, transistors, ICs... you can almost always smell it when it happens, and it almost always takes the system down.
If it isn't furniture, the only other culprit I could think of would be audio pops/cracks coming from the speakers. I've had cracking noises from faulty cables before. I've also had cracking/popping noises when running an external DAC on a system that changed sampling rates before/after playing sounds. Those weren't severe and were pretty easy to recognize as coming from the speakers, but it was still a strange noise produced by the system.
It is fine to argue technical points, but do not insult others.
I'd love to be able to include that option, but at the moment it isn't feasible. None of the data sources we have available from the different retailers include APO shipping costs. It's a struggle to even get standard shipping rates sometimes.
If that should ever change though - if we're able to get hold of APO rates - I'll be sure to add that as an option.
I'd love to, but we're not quite at that point yet (and we will only be there a couple days). It'll be our first time at CES, so we're treating it more of an exploratory trip and a chance to meet with some manufacturers and some of out retail partners. Next year we'll have a better idea of things - perhaps doing some reporting along the way.
We will certainly consider it. Badges add credibility at the expense of time/labor involved in identifying badge candidates. Manirelli, BoyScout, and myself are all headed to CES in a few days, so it's something we can spend some good time debating while cramped in tiny plane seats. :)
We're actively looking into ways of improving the reputation system. Everything from removing down votes while under a certain threshold (ala Hacker News style comments) to badges. We are very open to suggestions. Ideally it's solutions that require very little manual intervention (for obvious reasons - assessing valid up voting and down voting is a very subjective matter, and is also very labor intensive).
So some things we've brainstormed are:
All have various tradeoff, and I don't think there is a clear winner (or even combo of those that would be a winner).
At the root of it, in my opinion, is a difference in opinion on what the upvote/downvote means. Some think it is for factual correctness, others based on agree/disagree, and then some just for trolling or vote collusion. To come up with a solution, I think it's important to address that issue first. But policy there that is only in spirit (and say, not enforced by UI or algorithm) is still destined to be ignored or abused.
It's certainly a tough yet interesting problem. And it's something I'm set on improving, one way or another. I definitely welcome any input or suggestions on it.
I'll look into IE11, but that seems fairly strange - we haven't had any other reports of behavior like this.
Hey, don't feel bad at all. It happens a lot! The first time I put on the larger stock heatsink from the same CPU I ran into the same issue and was afraid I was going to break something.
Ah, ok. Even with the rotating clasp positioned for maximum reach, you'll still need to apply pressure to get the hook part onto the clasp - that's normal. (If the rotating clasp is rotated the wrong way, you'd have to put a LOT of pressure to get the clasp to fit. If it's the right way, I'd say only a medium amount of pressure is necessary.)
One side will have a clasp that rotates - make sure it is rotated such that the clip is furthest down. Also make sure that the rotating latch doesn't stick - sometimes the clip that attaches to it can get stuck in a position when you try to rotate it that makes it difficult/impossible to reach the motherboard hook. Trust me - it'll fit.
If it is the stock heatsink, it should fit just fine - can you be more specific on the issue you're running into?
Thanks for asking! We do not accept donations, but we really appreciate you wanting to. :)
Here is a bit more about how we earn money and what we'd prefer in lieu of donations.
Given that neither show up in search results that I could find, I would wager that those are adware/malware.
Please keep it polite. Comments like that won't be tolerated here.
Certainly. We previously had NCIX Canada support, but had to remove them for the time being. I'm working on getting it restored. (Technical issues.)
Any LGA1155 cooler will be compatible with LGA1150 - they are the same physical dimensions.