X58 in 2014 - I was thinking about upgrading to X79 or Haswell - L5639 Comparison & Review - Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community

Forum Jump: 

X58 in 2014 - I was thinking about upgrading to X79 or Haswell - L5639 Comparison & Review

Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 142 (permalink) Old 11-13-2013, 10:23 PM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
Kana-Maru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,961
Rep: 198 (Unique: 128)
UPDATED BENCHMARKS

[Dec. 6th 2013]
Added Metro: Last Light Real Time [in-game] benchmark below. I can definitely say that this CPU DOES benefit gamers. I'm able to play my games are higher resolutions smoother than ever now. Read below for the Metro:LL @ 100% 1080p, Crysis 100% @ 1080p and Tomb Raider @ 1600p with the Ultimate settings.


[Dec. 5th 2013]
Got around to playing Crysis 3 [1080p] and Tomb Raider [1600p] 100% maxed. Coming from the i7-960 with the GTX 670 2-way SLI, I must admit I didn't expect much. Now with the Xeon L5639 I was wrong and enjoyed both games with little to no issues with good frame rate. I've benched Tomb Raider @ 1080p\1440p\1600p below in the "GPU Benchmarks and Comparisons" section. Benchmarking tools are fine, but I always like to see the "real time" benchmarks as well. I've benched both games and explained more below in the "Real Time Benchmarks"


[Dec.4th 2013]
Ok so I've finally had a chance to run some gaming benchmarks and upload picutres. One important thing I must mention is that Nvidia drivers killed my OC. Or atleast I believe it did. I could run both of my GPUs at 1280Mhz for a very long time. Nearly a year. That is, until I upgraded my drivers late this year. I can only run one of my GPUs OC to 1280-1306Mhz easy. I can't even lock-in 1254Mhz now on the other GPU. I can't get my other GPU past 1241Mhz at the moment so I'm sticking with that. 314.22 drivers were the last good drivers. There's no going back now, so now I'm using the 320.49. I used 320.49 while benchmarking the results below. When I attempted to upgrade to the latest and greatest drivers from Nvidia [331.82]. Well my GPUs wouldn't run 1241Mhz [??]. I re-installed 320.49. So I'm sticking with 1241Mhz [stable] for now.

Ok enough with the driver and OC issues I've hit this year. I lost all of my benchmarks baselines while running my i7-960. So I can't compare both CPUs with pictures. However, I can tell you that I am seeing improvments in nearly ALL of my benchmarks so far. I still have some of my scores from a older post, but no pictures There appears to be no bottlenecking from monitoring. For example, I could never get over the 9700-9800 score in 3Dmark Fire Strike. Now I'm closer to 11000 score. My physics score is also higher. I'll post more results as I continue to benchmark. However, I can tell you that I have seen some nice -fps- gains with the CPU upgrade. Now scroll down to the GPU benchmark section for proof.

All Benchmarks were tested under 1080p or higher. As I said above I lost all of my i7-960 /w GTX 670 2-Way SLI. So I'll try to post what I can remember.

[Nov. 20th 2013]
Alright I have actually got my Sabertooth X58 to boot with 228 BCLK. Everything is working fine so far. I've been benchmarking with 4.1Ghz on all of the cores. I've gotten some pretty damn good results with this chip and the X58 platform. I'm trying to push this chip to the limits without blowing up my rig, Scroll down to the benchmark area for my latest bench tests.

_________________________________________________________________________________
Original Post
I'm NOT thinking about upgrading anymore. I'm probably going to get another 2+ years out of my X58 due to a minor CPU upgrade. it has revitalized my build for sure. I've upgraded from a i7-960 @ 4.1Ghz to a Xeon L5639 @ 4.4Ghz, but I run it @ 4Ghz for the lower Vcore setting.. Night and day. Overall my build was always solid, but now it's even better. I've compared it with my i7-960.

I've stopped using SSD's altogether now. To unreliable or maybe I just have bad luck. After the last crash I'm sticking with HDDs. SSD load speeds were pretty much 5-7 seconds. My HDD boots anywhere from 10-13 seconds and shuts down in 3-4 seconds. Not a big difference. Went back to HDD's for good now. I can get over 200 MB/s with my good old traditional Hard Drive, which is more than enough. My other HDD's can get anywhere from 150-170 Read and Write.

Click Here for CPU Benchmarks and Comparisons Click Here for CPU Overclocks and Benchmarks (Click to show)
Quick Crystal DiskMark 3_0_3 run on my main HDD - [Apparently WEI says it's only worth a 5.9 biggrin.gif]

---
4.4Ghz
http://i42.tinypic.com/2hec7iw.jpg
---
Intel Burn Test v2.54 -4.4Ghz Stable [Note: I usually run it at around 4Ghz for safer lower Vcore]
http://i39.tinypic.com/2wd3jo4.jpg

Comparisons & Benchmarks:
I would have compared more test, but I was too impatient and couldn't wait to install the new CPU. I ran thes benchmarks before I hit 4.4Ghgz. I'll have to do some more bench's later.

Performance Test 7.0


i7-960 @ 4Ghz = CPU Mark - 8237.4

OLD Xeon L5639 Benchmark
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Xeon L5639 @ 3.974Ghz [4Ghz] = CPU Mark - 12345.9


NEW
Xeon L5639 @ 4.1Ghz = CPU Mark - 12,611.8


---

Cinebench R11.5

i7-960 @ 3.87Ghz = 6.64
i7-960 @ 4.1Ghz = 7.03

OLD Xeon L5639 Benchmark
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Xeon L5639 @ 4010.3Mhz = 10.36 pts


NEW
Xeon L5639 @ 4.1Ghz = 10.62 pts


----

WinRar 4.20

i7-960 @ 3.9Ghz = 8,519 KB/s

OLD Xeon L5639 Benchmark
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Xeon L5639 @ 3.974Ghz = 12,148 KB/s




NEW
Xeon L5639 @ 4.1Ghz = 12,441 KB/s




---

Cinebench R15 =

[no i7-960 to compare]

OLD Xeon L5639 Benchmark Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Xeon L5639 @ 4010.3Mhz = 938 cb

NEW
Xeon L5639 @ 4.1Ghz = 965 cb


_______________________________________________________________________________

GTX 670 2-way SLI @ 1241Mhz [except 3DMark Cloud Gate which was ran @ 1228Mhz]

Click Here for GPU Benchmarks and Comparisons Click Here for GPU Benchmarks and Comparisons (Click to show)

GPU Benchmarks and Comparisons:


3DMark Fire Stike

i7-960 @ 4Ghz = 9787
Xeon L5639 @ 4Ghz = P10900

Finally broke the 10K mark with this CPU.


_________________________________________________________________________________
3DMark Fire Stike Extreme

i7-960 @ 4Ghz around X5100
Xeon L5639 @ 4Ghz = X5549


_________________________________________________________________________________
3DMark Fire Stike Demo Benchmark



I ran the demo and benchmarked this myself. Caught the frametimes as well.

No I7-960 benchmark to compare

Xeon L5639 @ 4Ghz
Avg: 30.32fps
Max:130fps
Min: 15fps




Fire Strike Demo Frame times
Now my frame times weren't the best or the worst. This is due to the fact that this Demo is very stressful on my graphic cards. Anyone familiar with the X58 platforms knows that the GPUs sit very close to each other. The bottom card obviously runs cooler. The GPU at the top doesn't have a lot of room for cool air flow. Obviously the heat from the bottom GPU is going to affect temps on the top GPU. So my top GPU actually hit 81c, while the bottom card hit 70-74c. The problem with this is that the heat \ high temps causes the GPU to downclock itself. Which obviously fluctuates the performance and outcome. 33.3ms was the overall average. Which is much better than my i7-960 from what I remember. 16.7ms and 21.7ms were roughly the average early in the Demo. Once the battle began the graphics cards started to sweat. I'm running on air so it's no surprise. It's fairly warm today so I guess I'll run this test again and report back if I can do better.

Average Frame time: 33.3ms


_________________________________________________________________________________
3DMark Ice Storm

i7-960 @ 4Ghz = 157635
Xeon L5639 @ 4Ghz = P173914


_________________________________________________________________________________

3DMark Cloud Gate

i7-960 @ 4Ghz = 24103
Xeon L5639 @ 4Ghz [1228Mhz] = 30556

Note: Ran benchmark @ 1228Mhz due to instability after upgrading the driver then downgrading.


_________________________________________________________________________________

3DMark 11

i7-960 @ 4Ghz around P12000-P13000
Xeon L5639 @ 4Ghz = P15692



_________________________________________________________________________________

Valley Benchmark 1.0 Extreme HD

i7-960 @ 4Ghz around 71fps-76fps [can't remember the score]

Xeon L5639 @ 4Ghz: Score: 3420
Avg: 81.8fps

Max: 153.2fps
Min: 33.4fps



_________________________________________________________________________________

Tomb Raider Max @ 2560x1440p Benchmark

i7-960 @ 4Ghz around 35.00-40.00

Xeon L5639 @ 4Ghz: 1440p
Avg: 57.3fps

Max: 77.7fps
Min: 41.4fps



_________________________________________________________________________________

Tomb Raider Max @ 2560x1600p Benchmark

i7-960 @ 4Ghz around 29.00-35.00

Xeon L5639 @ 4Ghz: 1600p
Avg: 52.9fps

Max: 71.8fps
Min: 38.5fps



_________________________________________________________________________________

Metro 2033 Max Benchmark

Can't remember i7-960 benchmark

Xeon L5639 @ 4Ghz: 1080p
Avg: 58.20fps
Max: 305.81fps
Min: 10.50fps



_________________________________________________________________________________

Metro: Last Light [SSAA Disabled] Benchmark

Can't remember i7-960 benchmark

Xeon L5639 @ 4Ghz: 1080p
Avg: 58.82fps
Max: 153.28fps
Min: 6.36fps



_________________________________________________________________________________

Metro: Last Light Max Benchmark:

Can't remember i7-960 benchmark

Xeon L5639 @ 4Ghz: 1080p
Avg: 43.92fps
Max: 142.84fps
Min: 8.30fps



_________________________________________________________________________________

Bioshock Infinite Max Benchmark

No I7-960 benchmark to compare

Xeon L5639 @ 4Ghz: 1080p
Avg: 151.60fps
Max: 423.32fps
Min: 25.69fps


No Screenshot available for the Bioshock benchmark. There is only a file provided by 2K's benchmarking tool.

_________________________________________________________________________________

FF XIV:ARR CC Official Benchmark

i7-960 @ 4Ghz around 12000-14000
Xeon L5639 @ 4Ghz = 16169


_________________________________________________________________________________


I will post more once I finish running the benchmarks for other games. I'm also going to post "realtime" fps instead of built in benchmarks as I did with the Fire Strike Demo.

Real Time Benchmarks

Crysis 3 - Real Time Benchmark:

If the game isn't worth anything to some users, it's at least worth a benchmark tool. The game is GPU and CPU dependent. I never knew how much the CPU meant while playing Crysis 3, until now. My old i7-960 @ 4.1Ghz couldn't handle this beast. Even with two GTX 670's. My i7-960 @ 4Ghz had crazy micro stutter issues when running Crysis 3 maxed [100% maxed @ 1080p\Very High]. Definitely some bottlenecking going on. Now the Xeon L5639 @ 4Ghz definitely evens up the odds a bit. I'm averaging a lot of more frames and getting smoother gameplay. If you don't know by now, I'm running the GTX 670 2-way SLI on air. So temperatures are a problem for some games. Especially graphically intense games like Crysis 3. I had to use a lower GPU overclock to keep the temps in check. GPU 1 had the highest temps; obviously due to it being at the top with minor airflow. The Core Clock was all over the place on GPU #1 due to the heat. I'm running my GPUs on air. Everything still performed well above my expectations.

I played "Welcome to the Jungle". That level has plenty of vegetation, tessellation explosions, particles, dynamic lighting and more than enough tech for a good benchmark. Played the level for about a good 30 minutes. I was causing as much chaos as I could.

GTX 670 2-Way SLI @ 1228Mhz

Welcome to the Jungle - 1920x1080p

CPU Max Temps:
GPU 1: 86c
GPU 2: 75c

Those temps were pretty much steady throughout the benchmark and gameplay.



FPS:
Avg: 50.27
Max: 128
Min: 15

The game was very playable. The frame rate usally stayed around 50 - 65fps and usually never dropped below 30fps. Everything was much better with my new CPU. I had little to no issues with the FPS while playing. At one point I had to literally check and see if I was playing this game @ 1080p 100% maxed out. Yes, that's how bad the i7-960 was when it came to Crysis 3 @ 1080p maxed. Very CPU dependent. Sadly I don't have my old benchmarks for my i7-960 due to a SSD crash. However, I clearly remember Crysis 3 100% maxed out running poorly. Framerate was around 25-35fps and not steady. With the L5639 I'm having no issues while playing now. The game suddenly drops frames as it quickly loads the next area. It's minor and didn't effect the benchmark that much.



Average Frame time: 20.5ms

After playing roughly 30 minutes of "Welcome to the Jungle" maxed out I can easily tell you that I had a pleasant experience. Little to no micro stuttering. I'm playing with no V-sync. There was no screen tearing. I can actually enjoy that gorgeous level now. I noticed no input lag while playing. X58+GTX 670 2GB still has a lot of life left in it. There were minor slowdowns while other parts of the map was loading or if I was setting off several explosions while throwing grenades. Overall the experience much better. Gorgeous game. Next I'll have to test Crysis 1 and Crysis 2 maxed out. Whenever I get time I'll report back here.
----

I played the first level "Safeties Off" as well. As usual I ran around causing as much chaos as I could. I benchmarked about 22 minutes of the first level. My frames and frame time was roughly the same as above. 100% maxed out. Here is a quick overview of my benchmark.

Safeties Off - 1920x1080p

FPS:
Avg: 50
[49.67]
Max: 160
Min: 19

Average Frame time: 20.1ms

I would love to bench Crysis 3 @ 2560x1600p, but I can't get the game to change the resolution correctly. I usually ONLY have this problem with EA games. Other games work fine. My Screen resolution supports 1600p. Maybe someone could help me.
___________________________________________________________________________

Metro :Last Light @ 1080p SSAA: x4 & x2

1080p 100% maxed = SSAA x4

I tested Metro: LL running at 100% in-game @ 1080p. Kicked the Supersampling Anti-Aliasing to the highest setting = [SSAA x4]. I'm sure everyone knows how SSAA works by now. I played the first mission and here are my results.



FPS:
Avg: 37
Max: 50

Min: 17

Decent frames for SSAA x4. The frame rate usually stay above 22fps most of the time. Although the frame rate is good there is more to the benchmark. The game is playable, but it plays like crap with SSAA x4 enabled with my 2GB 2- way SLI cards. There was some screen tearing as well, but not a lot. The NPC movements are rather choppy. Graphically everything looks fine, but the animations are not smooth at all. The only thing I could do is drop SSAA x4 to SSAA x2.

1080p 100% maxed = SSAA x4 Frame Time



Average Frame Time: 26.8ms

The frame times are good overall. GTX 670 2-way SLI has been doing a great job in all of my test so far. I'm having little to no problems rendering frames in a ton of games. The sluggish gameplay is simply a performance issue. The GTX 670 SLI @ 1241Mhz just isn't enough. Maybe a GTX 670 2GB 3-way SLI could bring better results. Then again it could simply be the fact that I'm using 2GB instead of the 4GB version. SSAA x4 just isn't a pleasant experience at all with these two cards.

1080p 100% maxed = SSAA x2

1080p - SSAA x2



FPS:
Avg: 69
Max: 90

Min: 20

After dropping the SSAA setting to x2 [SSAA x2], the game is performing much better. Actually that is a understatement. I gained 32 frames per second compared to SSAA x4. The game still looks very good regardless. My old i7-960 struggled with SSAA x2 with my graphic cards. This is no longer the case with my L5639. No sluggish gameplay and choppy animations.

1080p = SSAA x2 Frame Time



Average Frame Time: 14.5ms

The frame time is obviously much better with less stress on the GPUs. The game was very smooth. SSAAx2 is the ideal settings GTX 670 SLI users will want. No screen tearing and silky smooth gameplay. No animation issues as well.
___________________________________________________________________________


Tomb Raider

So I got around to benchmarking the first 16 minutes of Tomb Raider as well while running @ 2560x1600 on Ultimate settings. As much as I would love to benchmark other levels\areas in the game I cannot. I had a HDD crash recently and lost all of my saved data. I must say I'm very impressed from what I've found. Obviously the game gets more intense; but I just wanted to see how good or bad my GPUs [GTX 670 2GB 2-way SLI] would perform in real-time. Rather than using the TR benchmark tool for a final conclusion, I've completed my own benchmarks. Obviously I'm going to have to play more than 16 minutes for better results; I just wanted to see how well these cards perform with this game.

16 Minutes of Gameplay - 2560x1600p

CPU Max Temps:
GPU 1: 86c
GPU 2: 76c



FPS:
Avg: 68.32fps

Max: 161fps
Min: 22fps

At 2560x1600p I had a good feeling since I scored 52.9fps in the Tomb Raider Benchmark. The game performed much better while playing. I had little to no Micro stutter. The only micro stutter I came across was the Tressfx hair. Whenever Lara hair takes up a large portion of the screen I would get a minor micro stutter. Sudden drop of frame rate wasn't that bad. This only happened twice during the same scene during the first 16 minutes of the game so it's no big deal.



Average Frame time: 14.6

Overall what I played was smooth. Excluding a few micro stutter issues with Lara's hair [TresFX], I had no problems. I didn't notice any input lag either. With my old i7-960 I noticed a tad bit of input lag that sent Lara to early graves at 1600p. This time around everything was on point. It definitely appears that I will be sticking with the X58 for awhile longer. I'm not sure how well 2GB cards will do next gen, but we will find out sooner or later. As usual V-sync was disabled. There was no screen tearing. So far so good. My CPU has definitely contributed to better and smoother gameplay @ high resolutions.


----
Now I'm running GTX 670 2-Way SLI. I'm thinking doing a Quad setup sometime next year with the 7990 or something. I don't know yet.

Basic Specs:
Asus Sabertooth X58
Xeon L5639 OC'd @ 4.4Ghz and 4Ghz
Antec Kuhler 620
12GB [6x2GB] 1333Mhz RAM Triple Channel
Dual Monitor
x1 SSD [DEAD!]
x2 x3 HDD 7,200rpm High Performance Drives
GTX 670 2-way SLI

Any thoughts or opinions on my old build that's still alive and kicking?
Kana-Maru is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 142 (permalink) Old 11-13-2013, 10:36 PM
New to Overclock.net
 
Uliena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 41
Rep: 0
Very nice upgrade to you rig, Congrats!
Uliena is offline  
post #3 of 142 (permalink) Old 11-15-2013, 09:03 AM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
Kana-Maru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,961
Rep: 198 (Unique: 128)
Thanks man. I'll post more benchmarks when I can. After that HDD crash I need to re-install most my benchmarking programs.

I did notice that I gained 10fps in my Tomb Raider Benchmark. I'll have to test Metro:LL as well.
Kana-Maru is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 142 (permalink) Old 11-15-2013, 10:36 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
UnAimed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Spain (I'm originally from the Netherlands)
Posts: 3,080
Rep: 98 (Unique: 90)
Very nice dude, I still have my X58 system and I hope to be able to upgrade it soon too

I think people need to forget about logos and evaluate products based on how it meets their personal needs. If you do that - you can't go wrong.

UnAimed is offline  
post #5 of 142 (permalink) Old 11-15-2013, 10:47 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
Napoleon85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 148
Rep: 2 (Unique: 2)
SSD reliability is dependant upon two things; the quality of the flash chips and the flash controller. If you have a Sandforce controller, you're going to have a bad time - especially if you never updated the firmware. There are some other controllers our there that suck, but Sandforce takes the gold on this. I usually look for Samsung or Illindix controllers since they are regarded as some of the best out there.

Just out of curiosity, what SSDs have you had bad luck with? How long did they live between failures, and what were you using them for?

Nice build BTW. I'm looking forward to more real-world gaming results.

Napoleon85 is offline  
post #6 of 142 (permalink) Old 11-15-2013, 03:44 PM
Keyboard Warrior
 
Overkill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Mt Rainier
Posts: 455
Rep: 34 (Unique: 29)
those xeon chips are absolute beasts on that platform

Overkill is offline  
post #7 of 142 (permalink) Old 11-15-2013, 08:38 PM - Thread Starter
New to Overclock.net
 
Kana-Maru's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,961
Rep: 198 (Unique: 128)
Quote:
Originally Posted by UnAimed View Post

Very nice dude, I still have my X58 system and I hope to be able to upgrade it soon too

Sounds good man. If you can find something that you need that is affordable go for it. X58 still offers 32 PCI-E lanes. X79 offers 40 lanes. Not that big of a difference. PCI-E 2.0 still offers plenty of bandwidth. I'm guessing I'm going to have this build for at least another 2 years or so. Waiting for Intel to give us X58 users real upgrade instead of a side grade.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Napoleon85 View Post

SSD reliability is dependant upon two things; the quality of the flash chips and the flash controller. If you have a Sandforce controller, you're going to have a bad time - especially if you never updated the firmware. There are some other controllers our there that suck, but Sandforce takes the gold on this. I usually look for Samsung or Illindix controllers since they are regarded as some of the best out there.

Just out of curiosity, what SSDs have you had bad luck with? How long did they live between failures, and what were you using them for?

Nice build BTW. I'm looking forward to more real-world gaming results.

Thanks for the build compliment. I should probably post some pictures of it someday. Samsung and Mushkin left a bad taste in my mouth. I have no plans to go back to SSD's for awhile. Unless it's a gaming-only drive or used for benchmarking. Also I know about the flash chips and the controller. I was reading about this sometime ago. How manufactures were using cheap methods that caused crashing and other problems. 8 months is about the average. Only really used them for a OS drive and that's it. Well OS drive and benchmarking JPEG screenshots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overkill View Post

those xeon chips are absolute beasts on that platform

Yes they are. Love them. I see why Intel wants to give us i7's and crap. They know people won't even need to upgrade once they got the cream of the crop.
Kana-Maru is offline  
post #8 of 142 (permalink) Old 11-16-2013, 03:55 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
2slick4u's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 963
Rep: 24 (Unique: 21)
I'm running an older w3520 xeon which i got for my personal work. It's still pretty powerful for its age tongue.gif

2slick4u is offline  
post #9 of 142 (permalink) Old 11-16-2013, 04:26 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
kishagi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,103
Rep: 31 (Unique: 28)
im starting to think that 1366 is the best overall socket Intel has released

A Member Of The OCN Anime/Manga Club

Phone: OnePlus One 16GB
Headphones: Sony MDR-ZX100 | Sennheiser HD 558
Camera: Canon Powershot S3 IS 6MP
kishagi is offline  
post #10 of 142 (permalink) Old 11-16-2013, 05:06 AM
New to Overclock.net
 
2slick4u's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 963
Rep: 24 (Unique: 21)
Yeah unfortunately x79 seem to be only a side grade compared to when the x58 when it first came out tongue.gif

2slick4u is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off