Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Sloooooow Conroe build

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Build
Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 18, 2006 3:52:49 AM

I'm pulling my hair out over this stupid build! Bought an E6300, and Asrock 775DUAL-VSTA board with WD 160JS SATA hard drive. Combined this with 512MB DDR-400 and 9800Pro 128. This machine is very slow, I set the jumper to lock the HD at 150 SATA I, clean install of XP SP2, all updated drivers for video and MOBO. Machine takes 10-15 swipes of the XP bar at startup, and once loaded, will NOT multitask at all, even opening two different windows at the same time makes the machine bog down with a long pause and then burst of HD activity. Swapped out Hard drive and did another clean install, same deal, swapped out memory, same deal. Not overclocking at all, though I did and it was no change!!

I've looked all over the web for anyone having the same problem, but cannot find anything. Everyone only has good things to say. I'm thinking this whole Conroe deal is HYPE, its not nearly as fast as my 3 year old
Athlon XP 2500. All my components check out on other systems, only thing I can't test is the MOBO. The chip is Retail, with retail fan. Checked mounting surface for good contact, cooler is installed correctly. I've been building machines for 10 years, this build has been very dissapointing. Should I RMA the board, its wierd that it can work, but still be deffective? No popped capacitors anywhere, all looks good. Can't afford to upgrade to a new board because I'd have to buy new memory and vid card as well. Trying to stretch this awhile. Any ideas? Got a few more days to get an RMA from NewEgg, but what to send back?? Is anyone else running similiar setup on this board and thinking its fast? The PIII laptop i'm typing this on is faster windows wise than my conroe system!! Sorry for the long post, but I need all the help I can get!
Thanks !!

More about : sloooooow conroe build

September 18, 2006 4:05:01 AM

Quote:
I'm pulling my hair out over this stupid build! Bought an E6300, and Asrock 775DUAL-VSTA board with WD 160JS SATA hard drive. Combined this with 512MB DDR-400 and 9800Pro 128. This machine is very slow, I set the jumper to lock the HD at 150 SATA I, clean install of XP SP2, all updated drivers for video and MOBO. Machine takes 10-15 swipes of the XP bar at startup, and once loaded, will NOT multitask at all, even opening two different windows at the same time makes the machine bog down with a long pause and then burst of HD activity. Swapped out Hard drive and did another clean install, same deal, swapped out memory, same deal. Not overclocking at all, though I did and it was no change!!

I've looked all over the web for anyone having the same problem, but cannot find anything. Everyone only has good things to say. I'm thinking this whole Conroe deal is HYPE, its not nearly as fast as my 3 year old
Athlon XP 2500. All my components check out on other systems, only thing I can't test is the MOBO. The chip is Retail, with retail fan. Checked mounting surface for good contact, cooler is installed correctly. I've been building machines for 10 years, this build has been very dissapointing. Should I RMA the board, its wierd that it can work, but still be deffective? No popped capacitors anywhere, all looks good. Can't afford to upgrade to a new board because I'd have to buy new memory and vid card as well. Trying to stretch this awhile. Any ideas? Got a few more days to get an RMA from NewEgg, but what to send back?? Is anyone else running similiar setup on this board and thinking its fast? The PIII laptop i'm typing this on is faster windows wise than my conroe system!! Sorry for the long post, but I need all the help I can get!
Thanks !!
The first thing i usually suggest checking, is that DMA is enabled in Device Manager.
September 18, 2006 4:14:06 AM

Quote:
'm thinking this whole Conroe deal is HYPE, its not nearly as fast as my 3 year old
Athlon XP 2500.


If you honestly think its "HYPE" then stick with what you have. Windows performance wont change much... Do some application tests...
Related resources
September 18, 2006 4:16:15 AM

I think I should point out that your system is a very non-standard configuration for Conroe. For instance, that motherboard uses a VIA chipset which don't run as well as an Intel chipset. 512MB of RAM isn't a lot nowadays especially if you are multitasking. 1GB is recommended. Also DDR2 400, even in dual channel mode, can not fill up a 1067MHz FSB. I also don't trust those dual AGP, PCIe chipsets, and it's quite possible that the 9800Pro, which is still a pretty decent card, isn't reaching it's full potential either. Generally, I get the feeling that the bottlenecks may be at places other than the CPU.

Now I'm not trying to judge, since it looks like you were trying to upgrade on a budget and no one can fault that. Since you mentioned the Athlon XP, when you say your system is slow, does it run slower than the Athlon XP? Or does it just not outperform it as much as you thought it would. If it is slower than the Athlon XP then there definitely is a problem. If it's still faster, then the speed may be just what it is.
September 18, 2006 4:21:27 AM

It does sound like a sata problem. To confirm, try using a pata hdd.
Then again, if you are using a single sata drive, make sure raid is disabled in bios.
September 18, 2006 4:50:40 AM

Perhaps you have a problem with software. If you press control alt delete does your computer show 100% activity on both cores?
September 18, 2006 5:41:20 AM

It's not hype... the problem isn't with the CPU, it is definetly elsewhere... hardware or software like the others mentioned...
September 18, 2006 6:13:06 AM

Hi,

the board is OK, it's almost on par with Intel chipsets, the only real drawback of this board is that the 16x PCI Express slot only runs @ 4x speed which results into a performance loss of about 10% in games (only with higher end graphic cards which can utilize the additional bandwidth of 16x PCIe), but since you use a AGP video card that's a nonissue in your current situation.

The installation order of a system with VIA chipset is important.
Install order:
WinXP + SP2 (slipstreamed SATA driver with "nLite"?!)
!!! You should install the "Via 4in1 driver" first after Windows install. !!!
Then video driver and everything else.

It's definitly not a hardware issue.
Depending on the applications you use 512MB RAM is not enough.
When their's not enough physical RAM installed windows will swap portions of memory into the swap file on the harddisk, this will slow down the system much since even current harddrives are turtle slow in comparison to RAM.

Christian
September 18, 2006 12:25:54 PM

hi, i'm using c2d e6300 and asrock 775dual-vsta too. 2gb ddr400, x1600pro agp, 120gb sata.

it runs quiet fast in some applications and the rest is the same with my old p4 2.4ghz.

if i set the ide controller on BIOS into a non-raid one, it slowed down my system a bit (i still feel my old system was faster than the newer one in exploring windows). but if you set the ide controller on BIOS to a raid, then when install windows you press the f6 to install via raid/scsi driver, it boost my hdd performance up to 12% then the non-raid option in BIOS). but first you have to create the floppy diskette driver by booting from the manual cd and create a driver onto the floppy diskette.

the only problem i have is with the vga card which is not compatible with my 17" crt monitor. so i have to switch to lcd monitor and now runs so far so good. i tried to use radeon 9200se agp but the motherboard produced 10 beeps sound when booting.

i think this motherboard is a good budget pc for some hardware which are compatible with the board, perhaps it's not really compatible with your current hardware. sorry to hear that.

btw, have you updated your BIOS? it really helps much in performance, specially when dealing with conroe (the core 2 duo) processor. :) 

good luck!

for comparison purpose:
pcmark05 cpu score - 4792
pcmark05 hdd score - 5265
September 18, 2006 12:58:47 PM

well actually i've tried to use 1gb of 512mb ddr2 533 ocz value, it only gain 0.6% from ddr400 on several benchmark such as pcmark05 system suite.
September 18, 2006 1:19:47 PM

"...even opening two different windows at the same time makes the machine bog down with a long pause and then burst of HD activity"

512mb is not much when running WindowsXP. What you see is that the system is using swap. I would at least recommend 1gb.
September 18, 2006 1:27:20 PM

Sounds to me like a driver issue. Have you checked windows device manager? Having a part, any part, with a bad driver can cause some issues like what you are experiencing. Like someone else said, install the via drivers first, then the AGP driver, then everything else. ATI drivers definitely after the AGP drivers (I know, it says it on the software, but it can't be iterated enough).

Also, you may want to go through the bios and disable anything you don't use, like onboard sound if you have a sound card, etc.
September 18, 2006 1:46:51 PM

don't forget to check what bios version you are using. most asrock 775dual-version in retail still using the first BIOS version which is P1.00. The BIOS version which supports Conroe processor is P1.50, the current up to date BIOS version is P1.80.

http://www.asrock.com/support/download.asp?Model=775Dual-VSTA#bios

becareful when updating BIOS. read the read me or manual first on the above link before trying to update. updating BIOS unproperly mau cause damage to your motherboard. it is wise to have UPS in order to avoid sudden electricity down.
September 18, 2006 1:51:59 PM

This poor guy is probably so confused now :?: :?:
September 18, 2006 2:32:03 PM

You've got an awesome processor in a sub-par system.
September 18, 2006 2:33:48 PM

yeah.. :( 

it's not really stable though perhaps the incompatibility with the hardware and an out of date bios from retail store.

i was surprised too to the slower response with this motherboard when i open my computer icon compared to my past system. but then i reconfigure the way the sata mode and it boosts 12% and everything is back to normal again.

perhaps GreenMachine should go to BIOS and load the optimal default setting and change the IDE Configuration and set it to non-Raid option and see what will going on. The DMA access is enabled by default.
September 18, 2006 3:52:54 PM

Quote:
Your lack of memory is why your system is slow.
Also what do you expect running a e6300 on DDR-400?

i run windows xp on an amd 500mhz with 156MB of ram, why 512 of DDR-400 would not be enough?
September 18, 2006 4:42:13 PM

Its not that it isn't enough, its more of not having enough physical memory to run everything without using swap file. Especially when windows is automatically adjusting its swap file size.

I think typically XP will take up 300MB of Ram. Opening a web browser like FireFox will push it close to 380MB. So your system would be doing allot more file swapping from HD to Memory which will reduce performance.
September 18, 2006 4:56:01 PM

Quote:
Its not that it isn't enough, its more of not having enough physical memory to run everything without using swap file. Especially when windows is automatically adjusting its swap file size.

I think typically XP will take up 300MB of Ram. Opening a web browser like FireFox will push it close to 380MB. So your system would be doing allot more file swapping from HD to Memory which will reduce performance.

sure, i understand that. What i meant is that 512MB would not take the computer to a crawl like the OP said.
personally, i think it's a driver issue for this case
September 18, 2006 5:16:08 PM

VIA = Bad, junk, crap

I cannot imagine the low quality of the driver support you are getting from a VIA chipset trying to put DDR-400, AGP, and Core 2 together.

I think CHEAP has a new definition and it is this Motherboard.
September 18, 2006 5:26:29 PM

BIOS is v1.8, drivers installed in reccomended order. My Athlon was much snapper in windows, and it also only had 512MB of RAM. I tried clean install on my Maxtor 160GB 8mb cache drive, and same performance issue. My device manager shows EVERYTHING installed and working correctly, I've disabled everything in the BIOS that I don't use, even tried overclocking the machine to 2.1Ghz with no difference. Ran BootVis, it claims my boot time is 28 seconds from the windows screen, which I'm ok with, its just lousy once windows loads. The BIOS is set to non-raid mode. I can set it to RAID now that windows is installed, but it makes no difference. I downloaded the RAID disk from Asrock, but XP could not find any drivers on the disk during XP install. My Asrock disk, though bootable, is unable to create floppy disks, it reports device not ready and "unable to copy from '" ". I tried different floppy, even USB floppy, same thing.
I really cant afford to buy new DDRII memory at this time or new video card, but I don't think these are the sources of performance issues as I have now tried replacing both with others and its made no difference. Maybe if I can reload windows (sigh, again, number 6 is the charm maybe?) and recognize SATA drivers from floppy I will see this 12% gain? What does your device manager show as IDE devices if you load SATA RAID drivers during windows installation?
Thanks for all the good suggestions!
September 18, 2006 5:45:36 PM

Perhaps now is the time to ask yourself wether windows is actually what you want for your main OS. I know, of course windows is necessary for some things, but for the vast majority of daily tasks, there are much more powerful *and free* OS out there. From the looks of your system, it doesn't look like you do much gaming, just a little here and there. That is the exact boat I'm in. My primary OS has shifted in the past months to openSuse 10.1, with a dual boot configuration with windows. I use Suse on a daily basis, then when I want to play a game, I just load windows. Or, if there is a lot less intensive task that must be done in windows (DRM, anyone?) I just load up a virtual machine to do the task.

Now, I know this doesn't solve your problem, but many of said problems can be sidestepped by not using windows.

A side note: Have you tried running some benchmarks for this system? Could be a plethora of differences causing this percieved performance hit. Maybe the loss of "snappiness" could just be caused by the differences in the INTEL/AMD architectures. Now, I'm not implying that the Athlon XP is a better proc than Conroe, but I have noticed slight differences in how they do things. I'm also not saying that this is the entirety of the problem, but it may be the root of it which is then amplified by using non-standard parts for the proc. If you feel that there must be something wrong with the hardware, I'd RMA the board first, then the proc if the situation doesn't improve.

@thefatguy: Please describe why you think VIA is crap. I have had nothing but good experiences with their chipsets. Sure, they have their quirks, but in general I have seen them to be solid, reliable, and inexpensive boards. Of course, that's just my experience. Could be that I just got the best one of the batch, but I doubt it.
September 18, 2006 5:54:36 PM

Not sure if this will help, though I thought most X2 AMD processors would need this patch:

MS Hotfix

Quote:
Computers that are running Windows XP Service Pack 2 and that are equipped with multiple processors that support processor power management features may experience decreased performance


Also try using CPU-Z and post up so we could see if anything looks wrong from what it reports.
September 18, 2006 6:19:56 PM

Quote:
Perhaps now is the time to ask yourself wether windows is actually what you want for your main OS. I know, of course windows is necessary for some things, but for the vast majority of daily tasks, there are much more powerful *and free* OS out there. From the looks of your system, it doesn't look like you do much gaming, just a little here and there. That is the exact boat I'm in. My primary OS has shifted in the past months to openSuse 10.1, with a dual boot configuration with windows. I use Suse on a daily basis, then when I want to play a game, I just load windows. Or, if there is a lot less intensive task that must be done in windows (DRM, anyone?) I just load up a virtual machine to do the task.

Now, I know this doesn't solve your problem, but many of said problems can be sidestepped by not using windows.

A side note: Have you tried running some benchmarks for this system? Could be a plethora of differences causing this percieved performance hit. Maybe the loss of "snappiness" could just be caused by the differences in the INTEL/AMD architectures. Now, I'm not implying that the Athlon XP is a better proc than Conroe, but I have noticed slight differences in how they do things. I'm also not saying that this is the entirety of the problem, but it may be the root of it which is then amplified by using non-standard parts for the proc. If you feel that there must be something wrong with the hardware, I'd RMA the board first, then the proc if the situation doesn't improve.

@thefatguy: Please describe why you think VIA is crap. I have had nothing but good experiences with their chipsets. Sure, they have their quirks, but in general I have seen them to be solid, reliable, and inexpensive boards. Of course, that's just my experience. Could be that I just got the best one of the batch, but I doubt it.



ROFL. Worst post of the day.

"I have hardware problems"

"Change your OS"

Genius. :roll:

It could be a lot of things, but there's a LOT of good advice here so far. Your first problem, I would think, is that you're running DDR-400 when you need to be running DDR-533. That alone could be the problem. Then again, if it's running, maybe the RAM is just taking the heat.

The first thing you need to do is update all of your drivers. Don't bother with RAID just yet. Secondly, check the message boards on the support forums for your motherboard: you may not be alone. Drivers tend to make windows boot REALLY slow, but if you're experiencing problems within windows, then there's a good possibility its a bottleneck. Load a program, close it, then load it again. If it loads slow the first time but fast the second, it's probably HD or I/O (Drivers, etc). If it loads slow all the time, there's something misconfigured or you have a bad component (MB, CPU).

Also check your vid card to make sure it's compatable with the AGP slot. I know the hybrid boards have some funky AGP settings. Also, remove everything unnecessary, especially from the PCI bus.

Good luck.
a c 83 à CPUs
September 18, 2006 6:35:48 PM

Quote:
Your lack of memory is why your system is slow.
Also what do you expect running a e6300 on DDR-400?


I'm running one with 2Gb of DDR400 in dual channel, seems fine to me.

The tests done by anandtech show very little difference with differing RAM speeds. Not enough to notice.

I'm using it as a stepping stone to PCI-E, DDR2 and SATA.
September 18, 2006 7:02:58 PM

Quote:
VIA = Bad, junk, crap

I cannot imagine the low quality of the driver support you are getting from a VIA chipset trying to put DDR-400, AGP, and Core 2 together.

I think CHEAP has a new definition and it is this Motherboard.

why?
Anandtech has a 3 article review of this motherboard, and the results are very good. The board indeed is cheap, around $55. You should open your mind and go outside the nvidia/ati/intel chipset circle. Sis, via, uli have pretty good chipsets too.

btw, i've never had problems on a via chipset like i'm having with a nvidia one...

on the other side, i agree with you that agp+ddr+core 2 is a pretty unusual combination, but i think a driver installation might solve the issue.
September 18, 2006 9:05:22 PM

From what you suggested, it is obvious you didn't read the thread. You might want to do that sometime.
September 18, 2006 9:31:22 PM

Quote:
It could be a lot of things, but there's a LOT of good advice here so far. Your first problem, I would think, is that you're running DDR-400 when you need to be running DDR-533. That alone could be the problem. Then again, if it's running, maybe the RAM is just taking the heat.


Just extra info to look at as far as memory performance to compare.

Here's an article on this MB:

ASRock 775Dual-VSTA: Does DDR2 matter?

Quote:
Quick Take

It became obvious to us during testing that a user's choice of memory on this particular platform is not going to make a huge difference in the performance of the system. The age old rule about utilizing the highest speed memory at the lowest possible latencies still holds true. This rule was especially evident in our synthetic benchmark testing, but results in our application and game testing told us another story.

This story told us the choice of components like the CPU, motherboard, or graphics card is far more important to the overall performance of the system than our memory selection on this platform. While this is not surprising and certainly not unexpected, it just reinforces the fact that at this price point you can certainly extend the life of your existing DDR memory.

In the future you can worry about major improvements such as an upgraded video card or motherboard and then add higher performing DDR2 memory that will take advantage of these additions. If you have a very limited budget and want to move to the Intel Core 2 Duo processor now, then rest assured that your DDR-400 memory is more than capable for a system like the one tested today.
September 19, 2006 1:04:15 AM

Quote:
Your lack of memory is why your system is slow.
Also what do you expect running a e6300 on DDR-400?

i run windows xp on an amd 500mhz with 156MB of ram, why 512 of DDR-400 would not be enough?

Dude. My daughter's computer runs windows XP w/sp2 on a intel celeron 400 Mhz w/256 of ram. Yeah sure it is enough for internet surfing listening to music, that's if you dont mind waiting 5-8 minutes for it to start up and shut down.
September 19, 2006 1:29:52 AM

Quote:
Your lack of memory is why your system is slow.
Also what do you expect running a e6300 on DDR-400?

i run windows xp on an amd 500mhz with 156MB of ram, why 512 of DDR-400 would not be enough?

Dude. My daughter's computer runs windows XP w/sp2 on a intel celeron 400 Mhz w/256 of ram. Yeah sure it is enough for internet surfing listening to music, that's if you dont mind waiting 5-8 minutes for it to start up and shut down.
well, like someone pointed out that winxp requires ~300MB to boot, that's why i said 512MB is plenty enough for at least a quick boot, and opening a couple of windows. That's why i disagree that 512MB is the cause of the slowlyness of this computer.
September 19, 2006 3:28:43 AM

Quote:
Your lack of memory is why your system is slow.
Also what do you expect running a e6300 on DDR-400?

i run windows xp on an amd 500mhz with 156MB of ram, why 512 of DDR-400 would not be enough?

Dude. My daughter's computer runs windows XP w/sp2 on a intel celeron 400 Mhz w/256 of ram. Yeah sure it is enough for internet surfing listening to music, that's if you dont mind waiting 5-8 minutes for it to start up and shut down.
well, like someone pointed out that winxp requires ~300MB to boot, that's why i said 512MB is plenty enough for at least a quick boot, and opening a couple of windows. That's why i disagree that 512MB is the cause of the slowlyness of this computer.I agree. My wife's machine has a P4 2.4C@2916/512MB RAM, WD-60GB (8MB) and XP Home. It boots up fully, in 35-40 seconds. It runs great, no lag, or slowdowns, etc. I have the O/S tweaked...~125MB/19 services running at idle(desktop), and my machine idles with ~100-105MB/16 services running. Cut some of the crap/bloat down, and get some real performance. :wink:
September 19, 2006 6:15:56 AM

That's totally right 1Tanker. Norton Symantec is a total memory hog. I got rid of some of the other rubbish running too. It's a really Really slow processor.

I just upgraded my daughter to a 1.1 Ghz Celeron w/256 and it boot's in about 1/2 the time i used to. So i asked her, "How's the computer? Is it better or the same?"

She says, "It's the same."

:roll: LOL. Well she is only 4....
September 19, 2006 3:10:45 PM

Quote:
From what you suggested, it is obvious you didn't read the thread. You might want to do that sometime.



Quote:
This machine is very slow, I set the jumper to lock the HD at 150 SATA I, clean install of XP SP2, all updated drivers for video and MOBO. Machine takes 10-15 swipes of the XP bar at startup, and once loaded, will NOT multitask at all, even opening two different windows at the same time makes the machine bog down with a long pause and then burst of HD activity



Quote:
Perhaps now is the time to ask yourself wether windows is actually what you want for your main OS.



:roll:
a c 102 à CPUs
September 19, 2006 3:22:23 PM

Actually, it's not so funny. If there is a driver issue, using a different OS with different drivers may help- if no more than to prove that the hardware works and the drivers are an issue. I have done this to troubleshoot computer problems that I suspected were driver issues but the unit's owner thought were hardware issues.

Booting the machine with Knoppiz or another Linux live CD won't hurt the system and if it works well, it may shed some light on your problem.
September 19, 2006 5:11:46 PM

Having a single problem is hardly a reason to change OS's, though I agree with the point you're making MU_Engineer that installing a different OS is a good way to diagnose the problem (That would tell you if it's hardware or software).

I don't mean to be so cynical, and I wouldn't have been so brash about elpresidente2075's post, except for the following quote:

Quote:
Now, I know this doesn't solve your problem, but many of said problems can be sidestepped by not using windows.


That's just not a true statement. He's having a single problem, and even if it was a driver issue, I don't believe changing OS's is a plausible solution.

It is a good excuse to try another OS, as long as the facts are not misconstrued.
September 19, 2006 6:03:08 PM

I've had similar problems with via boards - there are bios settings for the optical/hard drives that if set incorrectly slow the machine down to a literal crawl. Can't remember which setting exactly and my Via machine is at home, but try some different settings in the bios (one at a time, so you know which one it is) and I'm sure you'll find it. Good luck.
September 19, 2006 6:15:42 PM

if you enable the Raid in BIOS, and press F6 and insert the floppy disk and install the raid driver prior to windows installation, on the device manager after the os and drivers installation, there should be a "SCSI and RAID Controllers" pops up beneath Processors with its own submenu will be "VIA VT8237A SATA RAID Controller".

- IDE ATA/ATAPI Controllers
* Primary IDE Channel
* Secondary IDE Channel
* VIA BUS Master IDE Controller
.
.
.
+ Processor
- SCSI and RAID Controllers
* VT8237A SATA RAID Controller
September 19, 2006 6:49:05 PM

I did not misconstrue any facts. A lot of the driver issues you face with windows are completely avoided with linux. Of course, other problems arise, but a dual-boot situation solves that problem.

The problem that we are trying to solve could be related to a plethora of other software problems, and I was just taking into account other possible situations. However, in a very large amount of cases, the problems are totally avoided by not being forced to use windows drivers. I have witnessed this situation myself with my own machines and with other more diverse machines as well, so this is definitly truth. In fact, the only driver issue I was unable to resolve with linux is the tablet driver for an obscure compaq tablet from years ago.

I'll be the first to admit that I am a whole-hearted proponent of linux. I suggest at least trying it at any point for anyone. However, in this case, from the usage model that this machine [i[seems[/i] to be built around, linux seems like a great candidate for a primary OS. I merely stated that fact, and gave some suggestions to get started.

By the way, while changing your software to better suit your broken hardware may not solve your problem, it can at least make it transparent enough that you can use your computer without being frustrated with it performing much slower than anticipated. And so, the sidestep.
September 19, 2006 7:26:23 PM

My only problem with that statement is that I've had more driver problems with Linux than Windows, basically because there's a much smaller Linux user-base for mainstream components, so hardware manufacturers generally get Windows Driver problems licked quickly, especially serious ones (Though there are exceptions).

Changing OS's can introduce more problems than it could solve, especially for a Linux novice. Then getting into dual-boot, virtualization, etc. is more than most can handle.

Generally you want to make as few changes to a broken environment as possible so you don't introduce new problems that may obscure the original problem.

Overall, driver support for windows is excellent, primarily because that's the #1 priority for manufaturers. Saying that you can solve windows driver issues by switching to linux is a shot-in-the-dark, and a bad suggestion overall.

I can understand your compulsion to suggest an alternate OS, but I don't think this would (at all) solve this person's problem. In fact, I think it would be counter-productive. This may be as simple as a BIOS change, driver update, etc.
September 19, 2006 9:29:35 PM

Quote:
Actually, it's not so funny. If there is a driver issue, using a different OS with different drivers may help- if no more than to prove that the hardware works and the drivers are an issue. I have done this to troubleshoot computer problems that I suspected were driver issues but the unit's owner thought were hardware issues.

Booting the machine with Knoppiz or another Linux live CD won't hurt the system and if it works well, it may shed some light on your problem.
I agree 100%. I always take a Knoppix disk with me, and usually throw it in first, to decide if it's a hardware or software problem. Knoppix, and many other Linux live cd's are great at detecting, and supporting a lot of hardware.
September 19, 2006 10:37:21 PM

Quote:
This may be as simple as a BIOS change, driver update, etc.


Like I said, you obviously didn't read the whole thread. All three have been suggested and failed.

@MU_Engineeer and 1Tanker:
You guys are exactly right. I only suggested SUSE and didn't even think about Knoppix. Definitely a better solution for a linux noob than a full install, but it is definitely a stepping stone for people who would like to not be linux noobs. One might also look at the liveCD of Ubuntu as well, I've had good experiences with that too.
September 19, 2006 11:38:04 PM

Quote:
This may be as simple as a BIOS change, driver update, etc.


Like I said, you obviously didn't read the whole thread. All three have been suggested and failed.


Wow you're difficult.

Sometimes it's just a matter of getting the BIOS settings set in the right ORDER, or properly uninstalling drivers, etc. That's besides the point. The point was that its probably something simple (Hence the etc). Simpler than learning Linux and setting up a dual-boot, I'm sure.

I don't think you're going to convince anyone here, especially the OP, that installing Linux is the best way to solve the problem.
September 20, 2006 12:35:01 AM

I apologise for helping to pull this thread off topic. I will not, however, apologise for suggesting linux. If YOU don't like linux, go somewhere else. Don't complain about it here. Even if it doesn't solve the problem, at least its a new suggestion, much unlike some other poster here.

But enough squabbling over linux. I am interested in how the OP is doing. What's the status on the machine, GreenMachine?
September 20, 2006 6:42:56 PM

Quote:
I apologise for helping to pull this thread off topic. I will not, however, apologise for suggesting linux. If YOU don't like linux, go somewhere else. Don't complain about it here. Even if it doesn't solve the problem, at least its a new suggestion, much unlike some other poster here.

But enough squabbling over linux. I am interested in how the OP is doing. What's the status on the machine, GreenMachine?


Thanks, but I never said I didn't like Linux.

I said that this person's problem is not a valid reason to suggest Linux, especially if he's never used it before, so don't be so insulted.

I like Linux. Your suggestion sucked. All I did originally was just roll my eyes and make a comment. You turned this into a Linux debate.
September 25, 2006 6:22:36 PM

have you seen this?

http://www.asrock.com/support/faq.asp?Model=775Dual-VST...

Quote:
Question: I'm using the Core 2 Duo E6XXX CPU and DDRII 533/667 RAM on 775Dual-VSTA motherboard. But the system is very unstable. Sometimes it gets blue screen or fail when installing the Windows XP or some applications. How do I fix this problem?(9/19/2006)
Answer:p lease refer to following steps to fix this problem.

1. Please set the "DRAM Frequency" as "[333MHz (DDRII 667)]" in BIOS setup if you use DDRII 667 RAM. (BIOS/ Advanced/ Chipset Configuration/ DRAM Frequency)

2. Please enable the "Flexibility Option" in BIOS setup if you use DDRII 533 RAM. (BIOS/ Advanced/ Chipset Configuration/ Flexibility Option)

3. If the problem still remains, please update the BIOS to P1.80 or later version.
http://www.asrock.com/support/download.a...el=775Dual-V...


i think it could be your case, as the memory (ddr400) is running at 200mhz, while the fsb is running at 266. I'd try step 2
September 25, 2006 7:26:23 PM

I've used a few linux distros, but generally, I have to agree.

Using linux is much less user-friendly than using windows. There's simply no argument there. There's an uphill battle to be fought when configuring a new system to work with linux.

Linux + VIA then? Geez!!! God Forbid!

I've recently configured an A8V-MX with an A64 X2 4400+ and I've had a few problems. First, the VT8251 southbridge isn't supported in 99.9% of linux distros, so my SATA drive was never, ever, detected correctly. Then, I found that the latest release of Ubuntu was the only linux distro that came pre-compiled supporting the VT8251 Southbridge, so I installed it. And if you look around, lots of other people have had problems with linux drivers for VIA.

I then changed monitors from an ages-old 15" CRT to a 17" LCD. It took me a while to figure out that I should have used a command for automatic reconfiguration of the file "xorg.conf" in order to gain access to higher resolutions.

As sad as it is - because linux is quite good for many purposes and I use it a lot - it's just too much trouble for a regular user who is uninterested in micromanaging the computer and tweaking it to work correctly.
a c 83 à CPUs
September 25, 2006 7:54:14 PM

Quote:
have you seen this?

http://www.asrock.com/support/faq.asp?Model=775Dual-VST...

Question: I'm using the Core 2 Duo E6XXX CPU and DDRII 533/667 RAM on 775Dual-VSTA motherboard. But the system is very unstable. Sometimes it gets blue screen or fail when installing the Windows XP or some applications. How do I fix this problem?(9/19/2006)
Answer:p lease refer to following steps to fix this problem.

1. Please set the "DRAM Frequency" as "[333MHz (DDRII 667)]" in BIOS setup if you use DDRII 667 RAM. (BIOS/ Advanced/ Chipset Configuration/ DRAM Frequency)

2. Please enable the "Flexibility Option" in BIOS setup if you use DDRII 533 RAM. (BIOS/ Advanced/ Chipset Configuration/ Flexibility Option)

3. If the problem still remains, please update the BIOS to P1.80 or later version.
http://www.asrock.com/support/download.a...el=775Dual-V...


i think it could be your case, as the memory (ddr400) is running at 200mhz, while the fsb is running at 266. I'd try step 2

I'm using DDR400 with that mobo on an E6600, and it matches all benchmarks similar +/-2% to an E6600 on DDR2 memory. Thats not to say its not causing the problem, just that its not inherently slow because of it.
September 26, 2006 1:23:40 AM

I hear a few people now posting prioblems with C2D systems, mybe there is a problem with the processor :lol: 
September 26, 2006 4:27:24 AM

Only cause its new and a whole heap of people (read noobs) are buying them.
October 4, 2006 5:04:17 PM

I have the EXACT same problem!

I have an Asrock 775Dual-VSTA, e6300, generic 3200 RAM (DDR400) and obtained poor CPU benchmarks!

I have run Sisoft Sandra 2007 CPU benchmark, as well as other CPU benchmarks to confirm, and I get less than a third of the expected performance (about the same thing of an Athlon 2800).

Using Windows XP SP2 with all updates (including optionals!), latest VIA 4in1 drivers and latest BIOS (i.e. version 1.90).

I have tried every possible BIOS setting without any success.

Silmara
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest
!