I had to disable all extra cores on my computer to get it to stop crashing...what's the issue?

CSDragon

Honorable
May 13, 2014
18
0
10,510
I don't know what's wrong with my computer, but I've finally got it to stop crashing on boot by disabling literally EVERY core on the CPU that can be disabled.

But first, my original problem. A few weeks ago my computer would start crashing randomly, and eventually, it could no longer make it to Windows, the moment Windows started the machine would crash. Linux did the same thing. Linux from a CD did the same thing. I removed the graphics card and hard drive, put in all new ram and replaced the PSU...same thing.

And the crashes were the most peculiar thing. The screen would turn into this (http://i.stack.imgur.com/Op2se.jpg) and then reboot.

So it was down to the CPU and Mobo.

So I sent both of them in to be repaired. AMD gave me a brand new CPU. Asus repaired my existing motherboard.

When I plugged it all back in...the exact same thing happened.

However, I noticed I could run any boot-time program like Memtest 86+ and BIOS that only used ONE core. So I went into BIOS and tried disabling cores. The machine would only run properly if cores 1 and 2 (which are 1 physical core) were the only ones running. Once all excess cores were turned off and suddenly the computer ran just fine...or limped along just fine... 2 cores is so painfully slow.

So what's going on here?! Which piece is at fault?! I've replaced/repaired literally everything.

Parts:
CPU: AMD FX-8350 Black Edition 4.0GHz 8-Core Processor
Motherboard: Asus M5A78L-M/USB3 Micro ATX AM3+
Power Supply: Corsair 600W ATX12V
Memory: 2 Kingston HyperX Blu 8 GB cards (16 GB total)
Graphics Card: N/A

Though, I did use an alternate set of PSU and RAM tho, so those two are really not relevant.

OS: N/A (Ran multiple OSes, same results every time, even when booting from a CD)

Is the motherboard busted in that it can't run multicore?
Or are the extra cores on the CPU busted?
 

CSDragon

Honorable
May 13, 2014
18
0
10,510


No, It supports up to 32 GB. I was very careful about selecting this motherboard, and made sure to select one that could not only support the 16 gig I intended to have, but could support more, if I ever needed it.

That said. When I was doing testing, I did try it with each card individually, to see if it was the RAM, then a single 1 GB card, that I know works, to see if they were both broken. All tests produced the same failure. RAM isn't the issue.
 

norberto950

Honorable
Jun 7, 2012
83
0
10,660


Did you you even read his original post? He's already removed the GPU and the monitor works with Memtest so it's obviously not either of those.
 

CSDragon

Honorable
May 13, 2014
18
0
10,510


I run 2 monitors, a 720p VGA and a 1080p DVI/HDMI.

The graphics card was the first thing I removed. I used the VGA and DVI slots on my motherboard for the monitors.

All configurations of monitors exhibited the same behavior, both when used individually and when both plugged in at the same time.

Additionally, I used the same monitors in the weeks between then and now on my older computer. They worked just fine.
 

CSDragon

Honorable
May 13, 2014
18
0
10,510


I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by "low vrms 4+1 phase" can you elaborate? I'm a little tech savvy, but apparently not that level. :(

Although it may be a moot point, I know the mother board + processor work well together because the build worked for 6 months prior to the crash.
 

norberto950

Honorable
Jun 7, 2012
83
0
10,660


Do you just not read anything now?

"Additionally, I used the same monitors in the weeks between then and now on my older computer. They worked just fine."
 

CSDragon

Honorable
May 13, 2014
18
0
10,510


Faulty monitors wouldn't cause the computer to reset automatically when they crash. They also wouldn't be affected by the change I made that made the computer work again, disabling all cores except physical core 0.

And yes, I ran them for several weeks on my backup computer with no issue.
 

CSDragon

Honorable
May 13, 2014
18
0
10,510


Ehh, I edited that in a minute or so later. It may not have been there yet.
 

norberto950

Honorable
Jun 7, 2012
83
0
10,660
Ah fair enough. I apologize to K6-II if that is the case.

As far as I can tell, your mobo and CPU should be compatible. I'm not familiar with VRMs, so I'm not sure what Skitz is talking about. Hopefully he can explain, as I'm interested in that too.
 

K6-II

Honorable
Jul 29, 2014
417
1
10,965




No problem :)
 

Montblanchill

Reputable
Jul 28, 2014
140
0
4,760
This is a long shot, but from your initial post I noticed no mention of Vcore values or such.

Often when a bios is flashed, which may have happened to allow the bios update on that board, the default Vcore values have risen significantly. Not I do not think they would make much of a difference, but you may find that your Vcore is up near 1.45 or such, which is quite high for a stock part.

I would suggest checking this in the bios and perhaps lowering the value and see if this increases stability. If it is high, try lowering it in increments of 0.05 each time and see if you reach a stable value. Realistically the board should not set the Vcore too high, and also this should not create problems like that which you are seeing, but it may just be one of those things that happen. Hope this helps, give it a try and let us know.
 

CSDragon

Honorable
May 13, 2014
18
0
10,510


I have literally no clue what you just said.

throttle? vrms?

nothing's overheating. Overheating isn't the issue at all.

It's a 8350 not an an 8320 though it doesn't matter much.
 

CSDragon

Honorable
May 13, 2014
18
0
10,510


Dangit, I hit chose this solution instead of reply. How do I undo that?

Anyway, what are Vcore values?

Regardless, the system worked on the same default bios settings I'm trying it on now for over 6 months until the initial crash. I never touched the bios when I built the machine. The problem I'm having now is the same as before I did any resetting of the bios.