Eurocom says there is no warm boot issue with D901C & Q9650 cpu when properly configured

I emailed Eurocom to see why they offer the Q9650 option, when the vendors in USA are held up delivering that configuration because of warm boot issue. Here is the response:

=================================
We do not experience similar issues with EUROCOM D9C PHANTOM-X while running Q9650 processors. We ran extensive stress tests over last few days including high temperature tests and system runs stable. We are going to complete our formal tests and verification process for Q9650 by Monday next week - including Red Hat, Server 2008 and Vista 64 to ensure proper operation and long term system stability.

PS
Q9650 is same thermal spec as Q9550 but uses different stepping and therefore require proper implementation to ensure proper operations.


Mark Bialic | Eurocom Corporation | 1.877.EUROCOM | 1.613.224.6122 x231 | http://www.eurocom.com/

==================================

Did I miss a post from Sager, and the issue is now resolved?

 

"proper implementation" Wow! Talk about vague!

On the K|N forum they talk about the E0 stepping and indicate that the new release of Q9550 will also be affected by update to this stepping also. Vendors on this site have also indicated issues with the new E0 step processors; E8600, Q9550 and Q9650.

Odd that only one Vendor claims to have a silver bullet....

 

@sfxocean:

With all due respect, if that was the entire response from Eurocom, then they never answered the question you specifically asked, namely, whether or not there are warm-boot issues; all they said was that the system runs stable under "extensive stress tests," but nothing about what happened when they tried a warm boot.

 

Not admitting the problem by offering a red herring...eh?

 

My question to Eurocom was explicit - detailing the warm boot issue. So either they are not experiencing the same issue, or Eurocom's response to me was intentionally deceptive.

I followed up with a confirmation email to Eurocom and will post response...


============

I just saw the post from Xotic indicating a new bios was released in the past week. I have no interest in when or who did what, only that the cpu is supported and can be ordered...

But for grins, I will see if Eurocom acknowledges using the .0S bios update when they respond to my clarification question

 

.....and they would be right. I haven't been on the forum for a few days so apologies if I have missed something but the warm reboot issue was resolved 3-4 days ago.

 

Solved by Eurocom?

 

No. It was solved in a joint effort between Clevo and Sager. Sager was actually who discovered the issue originally, and they worked with Clevo to expedite a resolution.

 

That's more or less what I thought - despite the fact that the email the OP posted from Eurocom makes it sound as if they were the only ones with the Q9650 mojo.

 

Well no, technically solved by a Clevo BIOs update. My point was that if a company says it supports a product then it supports it, what they do or do not tell you about a BIOS update shouldn't really matter.

"We ran extensive stress tests over last few days" - I had a BIOS which fixed the warm reboot issue a couple of days ago as I'm sure Sager and Eurocom did so there's no lying going on, it just took a couple of days testing before full support was "officially" announced.

 

It's not a question of lying, it's a question of emphasis and inference; if I'm going to piggy-back off of your work, then my statements regarding the results should carry a little less emphasis and inference that it was my work that solved the problems.

I'm really not looking for an argument one way or the other on this, and for justification I will merely rely on Eurocom's track record, and I am perfectly happy to concede that any eminently reasonable, rational person, acting in good faith - such as yourself - could interpret the quoted email statement differently than I have.