Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > CPUs and Overclocking

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2014
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-11-2012, 05:52 PM   #51
SPBHM
Platinum Member
 
SPBHM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 2,483
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AtenRa View Post
FX4300 and FX6300 vs Core i3 3220 (GTX670)
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum...00-review.html


Not only FX6300 performing on par or better in gaming but it is much faster in Multithreding than Core i3 at the same price point. Its also unlocked and can be OCed to give it even greater performance to price ratio.
this graphics show the i3 winning in my opinion, the game with the lower framerate shows the i3 with 55 and the 6300 at 50 (and look at the i5 2400!)

in most of the other games is a tie, with the 6300 winning in SF4, but it's 180 vs 212...

"FX6300 faster even than 3570K" on Dirt 3 is laughable, that's a tie and probably GPU bound, many CPUs are within just a margin of error...


but at the end of the day the 6300 and the i3s are in the same level for gaming it seems, so you should decide based on cost, power usage and if you need a faster CPU for MT, want to overclock, and perhaps the FX 6300 will last longer being a decent CPU (because of the higher MT performance),
for around the same price I would go with the FX 6300...

as for 6100, it's harder to recommend, but if you plan on overclocking it might be a good choice, but then, you could also probably get a cheap 1155 MB and one of the lower I5 models like the 2400, depeding where you live you can find some good deals for these lower i5s, and save money on the MB/cooling since OC is less appealing for these non K i5s,

but then again with a 7750 any of these CPUs should do fine,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rvenger View Post
A8-5600K - I am actually running this with an HD 6850 (Went with the lowest price 4 core because I am not using IGP) Undervolted and rock stable at 4ghz. Picked this CPU up for $100 shipped. This is on my ITX setup and I am using a $17 Hyper TX3 Heatsink.

this one is the cheapest quad core trinity
http://www.scan.co.uk/products/amd-a...che-65w-retail
SPBHM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2012, 05:59 PM   #52
Rvenger
VC&G Moderator
 
Rvenger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 5,149
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SPBHM View Post
this graphics show the i3 winning in my opinion, the game with the lower framerate shows the i3 with 55 and the 6300 at 50 (and look at the i5 2400!)

in most of the other games is a tie, with the 6300 winning in SF4, but it's 180 vs 212...

"FX6300 faster even than 3570K" on Dirt 3 is laughable, that's a tie and probably GPU bound, many CPUs are within just a margin of error...


but at the end of the day the 6300 and the i3s are in the same level for gaming it seems, so you should decide based on cost, power usage and if you need a faster CPU for MT, want to overclock, and perhaps the FX 6300 will last longer being a decent CPU (because of the higher MT performance),
for around the same price I would go with the FX 6300...

as for 6100, it's harder to recommend, but if you plan on overclocking it might be a good choice, but then, you could also probably get a cheap 1155 MB and one of the lower I5 models like the 2400, depeding where you live you can find some good deals for these lower i5s, and save money on the MB/cooling since OC is less appealing for these non K i5s,

but then again with a 7750 any of these CPUs should do fine,




this one is the cheapest quad core trinity
http://www.scan.co.uk/products/amd-a...che-65w-retail

I don't think its available in the US yet so I wouldn't know. I guess I meant the cheapest unlocked CPU.
__________________
i7-5820k @ 4ghz 1.12v - MSI X99S SLI Plus - Corsair H100i - 16gb Crucial 2133mhz DDR4 - Zotac GTX 980 AMP - 256gb Adata SP900 - 3TB Seagate 7200.14 - Asus Xonar DGX - NZXT Hale82 850w PSU - CM Storm Stryker

i7-2700k - Asrock H61MV-ITX - CM Hyper T2 - 8gb Corsair XMS3 1600mhz DDR3 - Powercolor PCS+ HD 7950 - 80gb X25M Intel SSD - 1TB Seagate SSHD - EVGA 500w PSU - Bitfenix Prodigy Red

Last edited by Rvenger; 11-11-2012 at 06:02 PM.
Rvenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2012, 06:06 PM   #53
bononos
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,559
Default

The i3 isn't just a dual core, its got hyperthreading, it not 4 whole cores but it works well in gaming apps.

Because of the 'stuttering' issue, the i3 is still viable for gaming. The stuttering problem in gaming are individual frames which take abnormally long to render which are masked by avg fps. http://techreport.com/review/23246/i...h-today-cpus/4
And the situation hasn't changed completely for the PD. http://techreport.com/review/23750/a...sor-reviewed/6
bononos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2012, 06:08 PM   #54
Rvenger
VC&G Moderator
 
Rvenger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 5,149
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bononos View Post
The i3 isn't just a dual core, its got hyperthreading, it not 4 whole cores but it works well in gaming apps. Because of the 'stuttering' issue, the i3 is still viable for gaming. The stuttering problem in gaming are individual frames which take abnormally long to render which are masked by avg fps. http://techreport.com/review/23246/i...h-today-cpus/4 And the situation hasn't changed completely for the PD. http://techreport.com/review/23750/a...sor-reviewed/6

A dual core is a dual core. Sure HT helps but it also can hurt performance in other games and applications. When most games take advantage of quad cores the i3 will be feeling the weight above it sooner or later.
__________________
i7-5820k @ 4ghz 1.12v - MSI X99S SLI Plus - Corsair H100i - 16gb Crucial 2133mhz DDR4 - Zotac GTX 980 AMP - 256gb Adata SP900 - 3TB Seagate 7200.14 - Asus Xonar DGX - NZXT Hale82 850w PSU - CM Storm Stryker

i7-2700k - Asrock H61MV-ITX - CM Hyper T2 - 8gb Corsair XMS3 1600mhz DDR3 - Powercolor PCS+ HD 7950 - 80gb X25M Intel SSD - 1TB Seagate SSHD - EVGA 500w PSU - Bitfenix Prodigy Red
Rvenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2012, 07:09 PM   #55
AnonymouseUser
Diamond Member
 
AnonymouseUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Dallas TX
Posts: 8,398
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bononos View Post
The i3 isn't just a dual core, its got hyperthreading, it not 4 whole cores but it works well in gaming apps.

Because of the 'stuttering' issue, the i3 is still viable for gaming. The stuttering problem in gaming are individual frames which take abnormally long to render which are masked by avg fps. http://techreport.com/review/23246/i...h-today-cpus/4
And the situation hasn't changed completely for the PD. http://techreport.com/review/23750/a...sor-reviewed/6
Why do people fall for this garbage? The only way these tests could tell anything is if the FPS were identical across all CPUs, thus the only test that even remotely comes close to showing true stutter is the BF3 test, and looking at those charts the 8350 shows less stutter than the Core i5 and i7.

Now, what is the worst CPU from that test? The dual-core Pentium G2120, and that can be easily replicated. So the i3 has hyperthreading while the Pentium doesn't, which helps, but not always. So what do you do when hyperthreading fails you?
__________________
NSA Homeland Security PRISM Denial of service Malware Trojan Keylogger Cyber Command
2600 Backpack Phishing Rootkit Agro Eco ISIL Conventional weapon
Target Weapons grade Dirty bomb Enriched Nuclear Chemical Biological weapon Black out
Pressure Cooker Grid Power Smart Body scanner Electric ISIS Ammonium nitrate Brown Out
Bridge Organized crime National security State Liberation Security Breach Threat Standoff
SWAT Screening Virus Environmental Terrorist Dock
AnonymouseUser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2012, 07:19 PM   #56
inf64
Platinum Member
 
inf64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,058
Default

Funny thing that no AMD CPU user notices this mythical stuttering. Usually there is a contra argument,they report another thing: "a smoother" framerates on their AMD based machines.
__________________
ShintaiDK:"There will be no APU in PS4 and Xbox720."
ShintaiDK:"No quadchannel either.[in Kaveri]"
CHADBOGA:"Because he[OBR] is a great man."
inf64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2012, 07:30 PM   #57
bononos
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,559
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnonymouseUser View Post
Why do people fall for this garbage? The only way these tests could tell anything is if the FPS were identical across all CPUs, thus the only test that even remotely comes close to showing true stutter is the BF3 test, and looking at those charts the 8350 shows less stutter than the Core i5 and i7.

Now, what is the worst CPU from that test? The dual-core Pentium G2120, and that can be easily replicated. So the i3 has hyperthreading while the Pentium doesn't, which helps, but not always. So what do you do when hyperthreading fails you?
Its not garbage, the BF3 bench in THIS article is probably a special case like Skyrim (which AMD flops badly). BF3 might not be benched in multiplayer and does not show big latency spikes for ANY cpu save for the G2120 nor does the framerate show a big range in performance/latency - 81 to 88fps/80ms to 177ms(excluding the G2120) from the slowest cpu to the fastest (which seems to me that mp is not tested).

Take a look at the other games like Batman Arkham or the other link I provided for instance and the 8350/8150 has much more latency spikes compared to the i3. The i3 does not have the stuttering issue that AMD cpus have.
bononos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-11-2012, 07:39 PM   #58
bononos
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 2,559
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by inf64 View Post
Funny thing that no AMD CPU user notices this mythical stuttering. Usually there is a contra argument,they report another thing: "a smoother" framerates on their AMD based machines.
Which is probably a good thing since theres empirical data that shows AMD bulldozer cpus falling short in measurements of single framerate latencies.
bononos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2012, 05:24 AM   #59
Born.9inety4our
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 32
Default

thanks guys, can you recommend me some cheap h77 or b75 motherboards? because as you said i should not get the h61m one
Born.9inety4our is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2012, 06:11 AM   #60
Born.9inety4our
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 32
Default

CPU: CORE i3-3220 3.30Ghz 3MB LGA1155

GPU: SAPPHIRE HD 7750 1GB GDDR5 128BIT

Monitor: LG 16” WIDESCREEN LED

Chassis: M59 STEEL MID TOWER

HD WESTERN DIGITAL 500GB SATA3

Motherboard: GIGABYTE GA-B75M-D3V LGA-1155

PSU: ANTEC VP550 550W 80% EFFICIENCY

RAM: TEAM ELITE 4GB DDR3 w/ Heat Sink



so guys here is my final specs, im on a budget, and should there be a problem with this combination, bottlenecks, fit problems, etc., just tell me, so i can change some of it..

ps. i will not change my cpu and gpu anymore, just for some reasons))
Born.9inety4our is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2012, 06:53 AM   #61
Insert_Nickname
Golden Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,899
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Born.9inety4our View Post
CPU: CORE i3-3220 3.30Ghz 3MB LGA1155

GPU: SAPPHIRE HD 7750 1GB GDDR5 128BIT

Monitor: LG 16 WIDESCREEN LED

Chassis: M59 STEEL MID TOWER

HD WESTERN DIGITAL 500GB SATA3

Motherboard: GIGABYTE GA-B75M-D3V LGA-1155

PSU: ANTEC VP550 550W 80% EFFICIENCY

RAM: TEAM ELITE 4GB DDR3 w/ Heat Sink



so guys here is my final specs, im on a budget, and should there be a problem with this combination, bottlenecks, fit problems, etc., just tell me, so i can change some of it..

ps. i will not change my cpu and gpu anymore, just for some reasons))
Looks very nice... I have no further recommendations...
Insert_Nickname is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2012, 07:23 AM   #62
Born.9inety4our
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 32
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insert_Nickname View Post
Looks very nice... I have no further recommendations...
cool, thanks. what about the motherboard? because it lacks the SLI/Crossfire feature
Born.9inety4our is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2012, 07:35 AM   #63
Vesku
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 3,166
Default

If you think you might upgrade this computer in the future an entry level Z77 motherboard would be a good idea if the price difference is reasonable. On Newegg US there's about a $20-30 difference. But if you don't think you'll ever be tempted to pop in a K series and do some simple OCing then your current motherboard choice is fine.
Vesku is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2012, 08:04 AM   #64
infoiltrator
Senior Member
 
infoiltrator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Waterbury, CT
Posts: 684
Default

Asrock B75
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813157335

Asrock Z75 ATX
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813157304

Do not know local availability or prices
__________________
Damn the cost, full build ahead! I wish.
infoiltrator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2012, 08:19 AM   #65
Insert_Nickname
Golden Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,899
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vesku View Post
If you think you might upgrade this computer in the future an entry level Z77 motherboard would be a good idea if the price difference is reasonable. On Newegg US there's about a $20-30 difference. But if you don't think you'll ever be tempted to pop in a K series and do some simple OCing then your current motherboard choice is fine.
^^This...
Insert_Nickname is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2012, 11:13 AM   #66
Stingercjc
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 44
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by minitron View Post
The FX-6300 is ~10% slower than the i3 when it's clocked at 4.1 Ghz with Turbo. I doubt you're getting it much higher than 4.1 Ghz with stock cooling/volts. In fact, I would like to see any evidence you can sufficiently overclock on the stock cooler and volts.
I can vouch for overclocking on stock cooler and stock volts on my FX-6300. It was 24 hour stress test stable at 4.2Ghz. Once I upgraded the cooler to a Hyper 212 (what's with AMD shipping these with such crappy coolers anyway?) and messed with the voltage I hit 4.8 with no problems. I bet it could do 5 easily, however it's my media center PC that gets some lite gaming use so I see no reason to use the extra juice.

Good to know the extra performance is there if I ever need it.

Last edited by Stingercjc; 11-12-2012 at 11:17 AM.
Stingercjc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2012, 11:22 AM   #67
Stingercjc
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 44
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Born.9inety4our View Post
CPU: CORE i3-3220 3.30Ghz 3MB LGA1155

GPU: SAPPHIRE HD 7750 1GB GDDR5 128BIT

Monitor: LG 16” WIDESCREEN LED

Chassis: M59 STEEL MID TOWER

HD WESTERN DIGITAL 500GB SATA3

Motherboard: GIGABYTE GA-B75M-D3V LGA-1155

PSU: ANTEC VP550 550W 80% EFFICIENCY

RAM: TEAM ELITE 4GB DDR3 w/ Heat Sink



so guys here is my final specs, im on a budget, and should there be a problem with this combination, bottlenecks, fit problems, etc., just tell me, so i can change some of it..

ps. i will not change my cpu and gpu anymore, just for some reasons))

I'd only recommend you do 8GB or RAM instead of 4. The price difference between 4GB and 8GB is pretty negligible.

Last edited by Stingercjc; 11-12-2012 at 11:26 AM.
Stingercjc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2012, 12:05 PM   #68
minitron
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 124
Default

I would get a bigger monitor; something with 1600x900+ resolution.

You don't need that big of a PSU; 400W from a quality PSU should be plenty even if you decide to upgrade your video card and CPU.

8GB of RAM is also recommended if the price difference is similar to the US.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stingercjc View Post
I can vouch for overclocking on stock cooler and stock volts on my FX-6300. It was 24 hour stress test stable at 4.2Ghz. Once I upgraded the cooler to a Hyper 212 (what's with AMD shipping these with such crappy coolers anyway?) and messed with the voltage I hit 4.8 with no problems. I bet it could do 5 easily, however it's my media center PC that gets some lite gaming use so I see no reason to use the extra juice.

Good to know the extra performance is there if I ever need it.
So you went from 4.1 Ghz to 4.2 Ghz, bravo.
minitron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2012, 12:37 PM   #69
Stingercjc
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 44
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by minitron View Post
So you went from 4.1 Ghz to 4.2 Ghz, bravo.
3.5Ghz is the stock speed when all six cores are active. It can hit 4.1Ghz max turbo however it does so based on the usage of cores, temps, etc. Thus at 4.1Ghz it's more than likely not using all cores. It also constantly adjusts the clock speed - so while 4.1 is the max, you are rarely at that speed for a sustained period of time. You can read how this all works on many different web sites.

I had it overclocked to 4.2Ghz on all six cores and it runs at that speed at all times with the stock cooler and no voltage adjustments. It does make quite a difference in performance overall.

Bravo indeed smartass.

Last edited by Stingercjc; 11-12-2012 at 12:44 PM.
Stingercjc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2012, 01:51 PM   #70
inf64
Platinum Member
 
inf64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,058
Default

Never mind minitroll, he can't help but troll on AMD users. Best advice is to ignore him.

And remember,usually FX6x00 cannot even run games,it crashes with BSODs. If it manages to run them you get 10fps and unplayable system. /sarcasm
__________________
ShintaiDK:"There will be no APU in PS4 and Xbox720."
ShintaiDK:"No quadchannel either.[in Kaveri]"
CHADBOGA:"Because he[OBR] is a great man."
inf64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2012, 01:58 PM   #71
Rvenger
VC&G Moderator
 
Rvenger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 5,149
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by inf64 View Post
Never mind minitroll, he can't help but troll on AMD users. Best advice is to ignore him.

And remember,usually FX6x00 cannot even run games,it crashes with BSODs. If it manages to run them you get 10fps and unplayable system. /sarcasm

If AT had the only CPU forum in the world, AMD would have been out of business 10 years ago. In my 8.5 years here as a member its best to ignore the AMD haters.

And just to clear the air.. I am well aware that AMD CPUs are slower and hog more power. I just don't go to the extent that they are the worst CPUs ever because they are still competitive in their price points.
__________________
i7-5820k @ 4ghz 1.12v - MSI X99S SLI Plus - Corsair H100i - 16gb Crucial 2133mhz DDR4 - Zotac GTX 980 AMP - 256gb Adata SP900 - 3TB Seagate 7200.14 - Asus Xonar DGX - NZXT Hale82 850w PSU - CM Storm Stryker

i7-2700k - Asrock H61MV-ITX - CM Hyper T2 - 8gb Corsair XMS3 1600mhz DDR3 - Powercolor PCS+ HD 7950 - 80gb X25M Intel SSD - 1TB Seagate SSHD - EVGA 500w PSU - Bitfenix Prodigy Red

Last edited by Rvenger; 11-12-2012 at 02:09 PM.
Rvenger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2012, 02:33 PM   #72
spaceman
Lifer
 
spaceman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: The Berkshires
Posts: 17,225
Default

u might find better advice from the geek squad
spaceman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2012, 02:44 PM   #73
frozentundra123456
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,437
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by inf64 View Post
Never mind minitroll, he can't help but troll on AMD users. Best advice is to ignore him.

And remember,usually FX6x00 cannot even run games,it crashes with BSODs. If it manages to run them you get 10fps and unplayable system. /sarcasm
Talk about "the pot calling the kettle black".
frozentundra123456 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2012, 02:52 PM   #74
inf64
Platinum Member
 
inf64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,058
Default

I was being sarcastic if you haven't noticed the /sarcasm. He was being serious though(and you are too). That's a massive difference.

And yes,I'm aware that intel core chips provide higher fps in games,that's not the point. The point is that AMD chips run games just fine ,it's not Cyrix situation all over again when it was great in one stuff(integer) and sucked at other (games which were FP/MMX intensive;it really was bad in games).
__________________
ShintaiDK:"There will be no APU in PS4 and Xbox720."
ShintaiDK:"No quadchannel either.[in Kaveri]"
CHADBOGA:"Because he[OBR] is a great man."
inf64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2012, 04:20 PM   #75
minitron
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 124
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stingercjc View Post
3.5Ghz is the stock speed when all six cores are active. It can hit 4.1Ghz max turbo however it does so based on the usage of cores, temps, etc. Thus at 4.1Ghz it's more than likely not using all cores. It also constantly adjusts the clock speed - so while 4.1 is the max, you are rarely at that speed for a sustained period of time. You can read how this all works on many different web sites.

I had it overclocked to 4.2Ghz on all six cores and it runs at that speed at all times with the stock cooler and no voltage adjustments. It does make quite a difference in performance overall.

Bravo indeed smartass.
So it is very possible that it is running at 4.1 Ghz in games, especially lightly threaded ones where only two threads are needed?!?

Like I said, 4.1 Ghz to 4.2 Ghz, bravo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inf64 View Post
I was being sarcastic if you haven't noticed the /sarcasm. He was being serious though(and you are too). That's a massive difference.

And yes,I'm aware that intel core chips provide higher fps in games,that's not the point. The point is that AMD chips run games just fine ,it's not Cyrix situation all over again when it was great in one stuff(integer) and sucked at other (games which were FP/MMX intensive;it really was bad in games).
Yes, I'm completely serious that the i3 offers distinct advantages over it's AMD counterparts such as lower power consumption, superior single-threaded performance and a superior upgrade path.

This coming from the person who claims that an i3 will be bogged down by light multitasking which somehow C2D's and Athlon X2's still handle fine.

AMD fanboys get uptight when you use factual data.

Last edited by minitron; 11-12-2012 at 04:22 PM.
minitron is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.