Prime95 failure on A7N8X-E Deluxe

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

Prime 95 fails on every test with my settup. I checked the memory for 24hours, cant remember the
prog name. PC is rock solid otherwise. Can anyone tell me what else I can check? According to the
author my system is unstable.

A7N8X-E Deluxe
AMD 2600+
1 gig PC2700 ram
Sony CDR
BFG TI4200 128m
440w PS
20gig boot drive
80gig secondary
Thermaltake copper heatsink and fan on CPU

Where should I begin?

TIA
17 answers Last reply
More about prime95 failure a7n8x deluxe
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    Are you overclocking?

    --
    Best regards,
    Kyle
    "LooseScrew" <@keyboard.com> wrote in message
    news:mhn380ppes67cugip52g57pvth4pk0rck3@4ax.com...
    | Prime 95 fails on every test with my settup. I checked the memory
    for 24hours, cant remember the
    | prog name. PC is rock solid otherwise. Can anyone tell me what else
    I can check? According to the
    | author my system is unstable.
    |
    | A7N8X-E Deluxe
    | AMD 2600+
    | 1 gig PC2700 ram
    | Sony CDR
    | BFG TI4200 128m
    | 440w PS
    | 20gig boot drive
    | 80gig secondary
    | Thermaltake copper heatsink and fan on CPU
    |
    | Where should I begin?
    |
    | TIA
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    What temperatures are being reported for the CPU while it's on full
    (Prime95) load? What voltages are being reported while on load? Failure
    could be caused by overheating (say >60C), or by low voltage on the CPU or
    on the 3.3V, 5V or 12V power rail..

    Some folk say you can ignore Prime95 failure is the system appears otherwise
    stable...I don't agree with them. A stable system should be able to run any
    (non buggy) software without failure. In my experience if it won't run Prime
    you will eventually run into problems with some other program.

    --
    *****Replace 'NOSPAM' with 'btinternet' in the reply address*****
    "LooseScrew" <@keyboard.com> wrote in message
    news:mhn380ppes67cugip52g57pvth4pk0rck3@4ax.com...
    > Prime 95 fails on every test with my settup. I checked the memory for
    24hours, cant remember the
    > prog name. PC is rock solid otherwise. Can anyone tell me what else I can
    check? According to the
    > author my system is unstable.
    >
    > A7N8X-E Deluxe
    > AMD 2600+
    > 1 gig PC2700 ram
    > Sony CDR
    > BFG TI4200 128m
    > 440w PS
    > 20gig boot drive
    > 80gig secondary
    > Thermaltake copper heatsink and fan on CPU
    >
    > Where should I begin?
    >
    > TIA
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    System is not overclocked.

    Temp for CPU is 48-49C

    MB is 24C

    3.3v is measuring 3.232

    5v is measuring 4.75 < is this significantly low?

    12v is measuring 12.288

    Vcore is at 1.632

    This is a 420w PS, not an expensive one though. It came included with my alienware style case.

    On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 08:24:03 +0100, "BigBadger" <big_badger@NOSPAM.com> wrote:

    >What temperatures are being reported for the CPU while it's on full
    >(Prime95) load? What voltages are being reported while on load? Failure
    >could be caused by overheating (say >60C), or by low voltage on the CPU or
    >on the 3.3V, 5V or 12V power rail..
    >
    >Some folk say you can ignore Prime95 failure is the system appears otherwise
    >stable...I don't agree with them. A stable system should be able to run any
    >(non buggy) software without failure. In my experience if it won't run Prime
    >you will eventually run into problems with some other program.
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    BTW My PC fails Prime95 torture test on the very first test EVERY time. At least its consistent in
    its failure.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    Your temps look fine (assuming they are taken under load). The 5V looks on
    the lower limit of what is acceptable (about +/- 5%), this could be part of
    the problem. Your Vcore is a little below what it should be, 1.65V is the
    core default voltage. As your temps are fine I would increase the voltage a
    little, try 1.675 or 1.7V and see how it performs in Prime, also keep an eye
    on the core temperature after the voltage increase.
    One other point: have you got the auxiliary ATX power connector (square 4
    pin connector) plugged into your board? (if the board has one you should
    have it connected)
    --
    *****Replace 'NOSPAM' with 'btinternet' in the reply address*****
    "LooseScrew" <@keyboard.com> wrote in message
    news:5lu880hrqn6d6d4tvpfkd6m9tfpqcu72fl@4ax.com...
    > System is not overclocked.
    >
    > Temp for CPU is 48-49C
    >
    > MB is 24C
    >
    > 3.3v is measuring 3.232
    >
    > 5v is measuring 4.75 < is this significantly low?
    >
    > 12v is measuring 12.288
    >
    > Vcore is at 1.632
    >
    > This is a 420w PS, not an expensive one though. It came included with my
    alienware style case.
    >
    > On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 08:24:03 +0100, "BigBadger" <big_badger@NOSPAM.com>
    wrote:
    >
    > >What temperatures are being reported for the CPU while it's on full
    > >(Prime95) load? What voltages are being reported while on load? Failure
    > >could be caused by overheating (say >60C), or by low voltage on the CPU
    or
    > >on the 3.3V, 5V or 12V power rail..
    > >
    > >Some folk say you can ignore Prime95 failure is the system appears
    otherwise
    > >stable...I don't agree with them. A stable system should be able to run
    any
    > >(non buggy) software without failure. In my experience if it won't run
    Prime
    > >you will eventually run into problems with some other program.
    >
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    I will give this a try. As far as I know this MB doesn't have an auxiliary power connection, I could
    be wrong but I didn't see one.

    On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 06:25:10 +0100, "BigBadger" <big_badger@NOSPAM.com> wrote:

    >Your temps look fine (assuming they are taken under load). The 5V looks on
    >the lower limit of what is acceptable (about +/- 5%), this could be part of
    >the problem. Your Vcore is a little below what it should be, 1.65V is the
    >core default voltage. As your temps are fine I would increase the voltage a
    >little, try 1.675 or 1.7V and see how it performs in Prime, also keep an eye
    >on the core temperature after the voltage increase.
    >One other point: have you got the auxiliary ATX power connector (square 4
    >pin connector) plugged into your board? (if the board has one you should
    >have it connected)
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    Mine seems to give an error on the first iteration every single time. Meanwhile a nearly identical
    PC next to it runs flawlessly. Only difference is slightly slower PC and Ram. I may start to pull
    parts from the error free once to try to isolate the problem if I dont find out something soon.

    On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 06:20:53 +0100, "BigBadger" <big_badger@NOSPAM.com> wrote:

    >Prime95 is has a pure stability testing application built in....and yes it's
    >possible to get it to run without error. It's far and away the best program
    >to test basic CPU/RAM system stability although it does not test graphics.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    In article <1jqc80psb3sfh7nelkka5dmov153nr2aa8@4ax.com>, LooseScrew
    <@keyboard.com> wrote:

    > Mine seems to give an error on the first iteration every single time.
    > Meanwhile a nearly identical PC next to it runs flawlessly. Only
    > difference is slightly slower PC and Ram. I may start to pull
    > parts from the error free once to try to isolate the problem if
    > I dont find out something soon.

    The other posters have suggested some reasons it may be failing.

    I would add to their suggestions, that you use MBM5 (Motherboard
    Monitor) or the Asus Probe program (one of those programs, not
    both programs at once), to monitor your supply voltages. Depending
    on how long you can convince Prime95 to run, you may be able to see
    MBM5 do an update of its readings, as the Prime95 program is
    running. It is possible your PS voltages dip more than they should,
    just when the Prime95 program starts to run.

    Another weak link, could be the Vcore circuit. When the Prime95
    program runs, the Vcore circuit is put to the test. If there
    is any weakness in the circuit, the voltage could droop too low
    for the processor to maintain error free operation.

    To keep the Prime95 program running a bit longer, you could
    try dropping the FSB frequency a bit. The test conditions won't
    be quite as severe, but it may make it possible to get some
    readings from MBM5 while Prime95 is running its test
    simultaneously.

    Finally, there is always the possibility the processor is
    defective. Sometimes, noise problems in the processor only
    show under the most strenous conditions. Normally, factory
    testing is very good at finding these (as random instruction
    sequences used at the factory are even better than Prime95,
    for finding bad chips), but the failure condition on the
    processor could be stress or aging related, rather than
    an "infant" fault.

    BTW: The comment about "random instruction sequences" refers
    to the difference between sequences of instructions emitted
    by compilers, versus those that a human can craft by hand.
    Compilers don't emit code that exercises even a fraction
    of the whole instruction set, and there will be plenty of
    branches and loads mixed into code sequences. A human,
    on the other hand, could put 20 floating point instructions,
    one after another, which would do a great job of heating up
    the FPU block etc.

    Paul

    >
    > On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 06:20:53 +0100, "BigBadger" <big_badger@NOSPAM.com> wrote:
    >
    > >Prime95 is has a pure stability testing application built in....and yes it's
    > >possible to get it to run without error. It's far and away the best program
    > >to test basic CPU/RAM system stability although it does not test graphics.
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    From the mersenne forum I found

    QUOTE

    FATAL ERROR: Rounding was 0.4997747507, expected less than 0.4 << The error I get.

    It means your computer is making errors while running Prime95.

    the most common problems are old or wrong drivers, especially sound card and video drivers.

    Update all drivers and Win2K. Make sure they are the correct drivers.

    If this fails, slow down your memory settings in the BIOS. Use "SPD" or "Auto".

    In an attempt to educate me what would sound or video drivers have to do with a rounding error?
    Thanks!

    If they use floating point instructions and change the rounding mode or other
    settings in the floating point unit and don't restore the settings when done.

    MMX also uses the same registers and can messup floating point registers
    and the fp status register if they aren't cleaned up after use.

    In that case wouldn't running Prime95 in "safe mode" be a better test of hardware stability?

    Yes, safe mode should be better for a hardware test of CPU and RAM.

    It wont stress the hard disk normally (unless windows starts swapping virtual memory to disk because
    too much RAM is allocated).
    Also wont stress the network card.

    It should also give the best performance for Prime95.exe for prime searching.
    There wont be as many processes requesting CPU time so Prime95 can get more.

    Prime95's priority could be increased to provide extra workload, this will make the system less
    responsive so it IS NOT recommended.
    Especially if the priority of both threads is raised.


    Going to try this in Safe Mode Next...
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    Tests I have now tried (one at a time) without any luck:

    >Underclocked RAM

    >Underclocked FSB

    >Upped Core Voltage to 1.65

    >XP in safe mode

    >One stick of SpekTek 512mb PC2700 instead of 2

    >One stick of Crucial 256mb PC2100

    I'm 100% sure its not the RAM now. When it comes to hardware I suppose the CPU is the next possible
    culprit but I loath swapping CPUs around. Still I WILL try it after I isolate possible software
    problems. I am not totally convinced that running in Safe Mode eliminates and software problems. I
    should have a extra drive laying around that I can set up win98 se2 pretty quickly on and try prime
    95 on that. Too bad there isn't a dos version.

    BTW the test fails immediately, before the cpu can even start to stress.
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    "Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message
    news:nospam-2104041825570001@192.168.1.177...
    <snip>|
    | BTW: The comment about "random instruction sequences" refers
    | to the difference between sequences of instructions emitted
    | by compilers, versus those that a human can craft by hand.
    | Compilers don't emit code that exercises even a fraction
    | of the whole instruction set, and there will be plenty of
    | branches and loads mixed into code sequences. A human,
    | on the other hand, could put 20 floating point instructions,
    | one after another, which would do a great job of heating up
    | the FPU block etc.
    |
    | Paul


    Although I think your comments are generally top notch Paul, I believe
    all compilers emit code that includes a fraction of the whole
    instruction set. :)
    --
    Best regards,
    Kyle
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    In article <c67r5h$8vg0r$1@ID-57815.news.uni-berlin.de>, "Kylesb"
    <me@privacy.net> wrote:

    > "Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message
    > news:nospam-2104041825570001@192.168.1.177...
    > <snip>|
    > | BTW: The comment about "random instruction sequences" refers
    > | to the difference between sequences of instructions emitted
    > | by compilers, versus those that a human can craft by hand.
    > | Compilers don't emit code that exercises even a fraction
    > | of the whole instruction set, and there will be plenty of
    > | branches and loads mixed into code sequences. A human,
    > | on the other hand, could put 20 floating point instructions,
    > | one after another, which would do a great job of heating up
    > | the FPU block etc.
    > |
    > | Paul
    >
    >
    > Although I think your comments are generally top notch Paul, I believe
    > all compilers emit code that includes a fraction of the whole
    > instruction set. :)

    Sorry for my English :-)

    My observation is based on a little "looking under the hood"
    I did years ago. I'm a hardware guy, so take the comments with
    a grain of salt.

    I think at the time I was writing a simulator, and had noticed
    a big difference between the code being produced by a commercial
    compiler and the code coming from GCC. I looked at the intermediate
    file that GCC produces, and it seemed to generate a "pseudo code"
    for the assembler that was very RISC-like, on a CISC platform.
    If I looked in the code, there weren't any complex table
    indexing instructions being used, there were discrete address
    calculations being done and so on. Maybe 1/3rd of the instruction
    set was being used in the code I looked at - hard to say for
    sure.

    I didn't do a frequency analysis, to see what instructions were
    being used what percentage of the time, but it seemed in that
    case, that the compiler wasn't using any strategy of finding
    the "best instruction for the job" while generating code.
    (Not that I expect a human could write such a compiler anyway.)

    My second piece of evidence, was an errata issued for a processor
    that was in production. In the lab, the designers of the processor
    discovered that if certain sequences of floating point instructions
    were used, noise in the FPU portion of the chip corrupted the
    computed results (that is, switching noise upsetting the Vcore
    local to the gates in that section of the chip). The manufacturer
    noted that "no compiler will generate this sequence" and as a
    result, no fix was created for the bug in later steppings of the
    processor. This again implies that manufacturers make certain
    simplifying assumptions about what the code that runs on the
    processor looks like, and don't necessarily guarantee every
    pathological instruction sequence - a fact I find scary, as all
    it would take is one "assembler kook" to break the thing.

    HTH,
    Paul

    "assembler kook" - a person who is convinced he can write
    better code than a compiler, and will produce a 6" thick
    undecipherable uncommented assembler program listing to
    prove it :-)
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    LooseScrew wrote:
    > Prime 95 fails on every test with my settup. I checked the memory for
    > 24hours, cant remember the prog name.

    Check it again, with MemTest x86

    > PC is rock solid otherwise.

    If it can't run Prime95, then there *IS* a problem :)

    > Can
    > anyone tell me what else I can check?

    You need run your memory at SYNC/100% speed. Set all other timings to
    Automatic.
    Raise the memory voltage a little (from 2.5v to 2.7v).
    What brand is your RAM ?
    Raise the CPU voltage a *little* (from 1.6v to 1.65v for example).

    Any luck ?
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    Thanks for the input. I have isolated the RAM as not being the problem. The PC main RAM is Spekteck
    PC2700 512mb (2 total). I put in a Crucial PC2100 256mb stick and was greeted with the same
    results. After some research I have found that not only hardware can be the culprit. Some software
    drivers can alter the "...floating point instructions and change the rounding mode or other
    settings in the floating point unit and don't restore the settings when done". So once I isolate
    software as the possible culprit I plan to do a swap with CPUs next. I will keep you all posted.
    From searching past usenet messages and forums I know other people have problems as well so I hope
    this ends up helping out someone else as well.


    >You need run your memory at SYNC/100% speed. Set all other timings to
    >Automatic.
    >Raise the memory voltage a little (from 2.5v to 2.7v).
    >What brand is your RAM ?
    >Raise the CPU voltage a *little* (from 1.6v to 1.65v for example).
    >
    >Any luck ?
    >
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    LooseNut wrote:
    > Thanks for the input. I have isolated the RAM as not being the
    > problem. The PC main RAM is Spekteck PC2700 512mb (2 total). I put
    > in a Crucial PC2100 256mb stick and was greeted with the same
    > results. After some research I have found that not only hardware can
    > be the culprit. Some software drivers can alter the "...floating
    > point instructions and change the rounding mode or other settings in
    > the floating point unit and don't restore the settings when done". So
    > once I isolate software as the possible culprit I plan to do a swap
    > with CPUs next. I will keep you all posted. From searching past
    > usenet messages and forums I know other people have problems as well
    > so I hope this ends up helping out someone else as well.

    It's very unlikely to be software related, and very unlikely to be hardware
    related.
    It's almost certainly your settings within the BIOS. Follow my previous
    instructions :)
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    I upped the

    On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:03:58 +0100, "Nom" <Nom@Somewhere.Somewhere> wrote:

    >LooseNut wrote:
    >> Thanks for the input. I have isolated the RAM as not being the
    >> problem. The PC main RAM is Spekteck PC2700 512mb (2 total). I put
    >> in a Crucial PC2100 256mb stick and was greeted with the same
    >> results. After some research I have found that not only hardware can
    >> be the culprit. Some software drivers can alter the "...floating
    >> point instructions and change the rounding mode or other settings in
    >> the floating point unit and don't restore the settings when done". So
    >> once I isolate software as the possible culprit I plan to do a swap
    >> with CPUs next. I will keep you all posted. From searching past
    >> usenet messages and forums I know other people have problems as well
    >> so I hope this ends up helping out someone else as well.
    >
    >It's very unlikely to be software related, and very unlikely to be hardware
    >related.
    >It's almost certainly your settings within the BIOS. Follow my previous
    >instructions :)
    >
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (More info?)

    I believe my memory is running at sync speed. CPU is at 166 and memory is at 166. there is no
    percentages in my bios for memory. only by SPD or auto. I upped core voltage from 1.6 to 1.65 and
    DDR voltage from 1.6 to 1.7.

    When I ran Prime95 I got the same error as listed before.

    Anymore ideas?

    Thanks for the help so far.


    You need run your memory at SYNC/100% speed. Set all other timings to
    Automatic.
    Raise the memory voltage a little (from 2.5v to 2.7v).
    What brand is your RAM ?
    Raise the CPU voltage a *little* (from 1.6v to 1.65v for example).

    On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 09:03:58 +0100, "Nom" <Nom@Somewhere.Somewhere> wrote:

    >LooseNut wrote:
    >> Thanks for the input. I have isolated the RAM as not being the
    >> problem. The PC main RAM is Spekteck PC2700 512mb (2 total). I put
    >> in a Crucial PC2100 256mb stick and was greeted with the same
    >> results. After some research I have found that not only hardware can
    >> be the culprit. Some software drivers can alter the "...floating
    >> point instructions and change the rounding mode or other settings in
    >> the floating point unit and don't restore the settings when done". So
    >> once I isolate software as the possible culprit I plan to do a swap
    >> with CPUs next. I will keep you all posted. From searching past
    >> usenet messages and forums I know other people have problems as well
    >> so I hope this ends up helping out someone else as well.
    >
    >It's very unlikely to be software related, and very unlikely to be hardware
    >related.
    >It's almost certainly your settings within the BIOS. Follow my previous
    >instructions :)
    >
Ask a new question

Read More

Asus Motherboards