AmieM
February 16th, 2000, 02:19 PM
Friends bought an AMD-475 computer 8 months ago. Still under warranty. 4 months ago had problems; random errors, sys lockups etc. They dealt w/ tech support over several days and finally discovered the CPU fan wasn't working. Was sent a replacement and walked through installation of fan - no problem. Last week the modem stopped working (AOL 5.0 ;-) I offered to bring the system to my house and fix it. Was told at the time about the fan, and also how system "speed" had decreased dramatically since they had dealt w/ tech support.
Before I did anything, I benchmarked the system using several different utilities, out of curiousity. Reformatted system and reinstalled Win98 and system drivers. Reconfigured CMOS to optimum performance. (Several things had been disabled per tech support.) Benchmarked again after all this. Saw remarkable improvement with video, memory and disk performance. The CPU however, is still performing at around 60% of "average", and Norton Sys Info rates performance UNDER a P-233.
It occured to me possibly the CPU sustained damage running while hot 4 months ago. Tech support is no help to me. They are assuring me that the benchmarks don't mean anything. Isn't that what benchmarks do? Rate the systems (hardware) performance?? I have also been told that as long as there aren't any problems, I shouldn't be worried about how "fast" it's running. (Meaning they paid $1500 for an $800 machine!) I have been told a CPU will work or not (by tech support) - no in between, but sources I trust have said that's not true.
I get paid for working on PC's. But I also know in this industry it is impossible to know everything. I learn something new everyday! But my instinct is telling me this CPU is bad. Tech support is making me "second guess" myself.
So guys - does this all make sense to you? Should I stay on these people until they send us another CPU to replace this one with? The ONLY option I have been offered is for US to pay to ship it to the company for "virus and hardware checking". That isn't right. Expecially with an on-site support agreement.
Thanks for reading (and even more if you reply!)
amie
Before I did anything, I benchmarked the system using several different utilities, out of curiousity. Reformatted system and reinstalled Win98 and system drivers. Reconfigured CMOS to optimum performance. (Several things had been disabled per tech support.) Benchmarked again after all this. Saw remarkable improvement with video, memory and disk performance. The CPU however, is still performing at around 60% of "average", and Norton Sys Info rates performance UNDER a P-233.
It occured to me possibly the CPU sustained damage running while hot 4 months ago. Tech support is no help to me. They are assuring me that the benchmarks don't mean anything. Isn't that what benchmarks do? Rate the systems (hardware) performance?? I have also been told that as long as there aren't any problems, I shouldn't be worried about how "fast" it's running. (Meaning they paid $1500 for an $800 machine!) I have been told a CPU will work or not (by tech support) - no in between, but sources I trust have said that's not true.
I get paid for working on PC's. But I also know in this industry it is impossible to know everything. I learn something new everyday! But my instinct is telling me this CPU is bad. Tech support is making me "second guess" myself.
So guys - does this all make sense to you? Should I stay on these people until they send us another CPU to replace this one with? The ONLY option I have been offered is for US to pay to ship it to the company for "virus and hardware checking". That isn't right. Expecially with an on-site support agreement.
Thanks for reading (and even more if you reply!)
amie