Tom's Hardware Forums » Overclocking » AMD » Did I ruin my CPU? Different Core Speed in BIOS vs. CPU-Z
 

Did I ruin my CPU? Different Core Speed in BIOS vs. CPU-Z




Word :   Username :  
 
Bottom
Author
 Thread : Did I ruin my CPU? Different Core Speed in BIOS vs. CPU-Z
 
Profile: stranger
More Information

Hello,

This is my first post, and I am hoping that someone out there can help me with this frustrating problem. My system:

Foxconn C51XEM2AA mobo
AMD Athlon X2 4200+
Corsair 6400C4 (4-4-4-12) DDR2 800 4gbs
WD 74gb Raptor
7900 GS Vid Card

I had the system overclocked to 2.5ghz for a while when I had 2gb RAM in there, I added another 2 gigs of the exact same stuff, and started having posting errors occassionally, and the system would clock itself down. So today I tried to adjust the clocks and accidentally set something wrong - the cpu voltage to be specific. It froze during post VERY badly, with lots of '%' signs everywhere, etc. After powering it off for 10 minutes I started it up again and was able to get in bios - and set everything back to mobo defaults.

BIOS said it was running at 2.2ghz, and CPU-Z (most current version .. 1.44) said it was 1.8ghz. So I overclocked it - using a guide I found online, and being very careful/conservative, and got the system up to 2.7 ghz, easily. BIOS says 2.7ghz, CPU Z and Windows System tab both say 2ghz (each core). I clocked the CPU down to 1.7ghz, and CPU-Z read it as 1.2ghz.

Why is my BIOS reporting the desired speed, in this case 2.7ghz, and windows (CPU-Z) is reporting 2ghz?? I do not have nTune installed. AMD Cool'n'Quiet is disabled.


Please anyone? Any ideas? Did I fry my CPU and its unable to go above 2ghz now? Will buying a new chip be the answer? (which is fine if so.)

Thank you!
mC

EDIT: cpu-z reports the cpu voltage at 1.33V even though I've manually set it to 1.45V in BIOS. Does this sound like the CPU is broken or the Motherboard?


Message edited by monduconstruct on 03-10-2008 at 02:15:01 AM
Related Product

Register or log in to remove.

Master-de-bater
Profile: Eternal Poster
More Information

This is most likely due to AMD's cool 'n quiet feature where it automatically lowers the multiplier to save energy when the cpu is not in use.


---------------
"Nvidia, the Way It's Meant to be PAID Played! - Corrado
*Lesbian Lover Club* - founder Assman
Profile: stranger
More Information

As stated in my question, Cool'n'Quiet is disabled - I've double checked. Any more thoughts?

Master-de-bater
Profile: Eternal Poster
More Information

My bad, I missed that statement.

List all of your settings please, particularly cpu multiplier and fsb.


---------------
"Nvidia, the Way It's Meant to be PAID Played! - Corrado
*Lesbian Lover Club* - founder Assman
Profile: stranger
More Information

OC BIOS Settings:

Ref Clock (HTT), MHz = 260
CPU Multiplier = X11
HT Multiplier = 4
CPU Voltage = 1.45V
Memory Voltage = 2.2V
Memory Timings = 4-4-4-12

Everything else is set to auto, except SATA Spectrum Spread is off (though I've tried it on and it seems to have no effect).

With these settings BIOS says my core speed should be 2870 MHz.

CPU-Z Reads:

Core speed: 2033.9 MHz
Multiplier: 11X
Bus Speed: 184.8 MHz
HT Link: 739.2 MHz
Core Voltage: 1.32V
DRAM Freq: 338.8 MHz






If I set EVERYTHING in BIOS to be factory default, my 4200+ chip reads in CPU-Z as:

Core Speed: 1568.4 MHz
Multiplier: 11X
Bus Speed: 142.6 MHz
HT Link: 713 MHz
Core Voltage: 1.192V
DRAM Freq: 261.4 MHz
Timings: 5-5-5-18

Profile: stranger
More Information

I've been writing back and forth with a guy who did some OC testing with this board for a website.

I think its the bus speed that is the issue. If I manually set it to 260 MHz in BIOS, it shows up at 184MHz in CPU-Z. What could cause this difference? could I have damaged the board's bus?

Master-de-bater
Profile: Eternal Poster
More Information

I'm not sure about the motherboard being damaged, although it's quite possible. Try clearing your bios completely by removing the CMOS battery and letting the mobo sit there for a minute.

Have you updated to the latest bios version?


---------------
"Nvidia, the Way It's Meant to be PAID Played! - Corrado
*Lesbian Lover Club* - founder Assman
Profile: stranger
More Information

Evilonigiri - Your suggestion worked. It turns out that setting the board to factory defaults in BIOS isn't the same as a CMOS clear with the jumper.

The RAM won't come up at 4-4-4-12 but at least we're back in business at 2.2ghz. I really appreciate the help.

Master-de-bater
Profile: Eternal Poster
More Information

Glad I could help. :)

Sometimes things goes wrong and the first thing to do is to reset everything.


---------------
"Nvidia, the Way It's Meant to be PAID Played! - Corrado
*Lesbian Lover Club* - founder Assman

Go to:
 
  Tom's Hardware Forums » Overclocking » AMD » Did I ruin my CPU? Different Core Speed in BIOS vs. CPU-Z

Google Ads
Ad
News

Intel quad-core Kentsfield to be named Core 2 Quadro

Published on September 19, 2006

Intel is expected by the end of this month to officially name its Kentsfield quad-core desktop processor as the "Core 2 Quadro," with the first model to be an Extreme version, the Core 2 Extreme QX6700, which will be available starting in mid-November, according to sources at leading Taiwan motherboard makers. Read more

Kentsfield quad-core processors to sell for less than $1200

Published on November 10, 2006

While Intel reportedly is gearing for a launch of its quad-core processors on Monday next week, a wide range of etailers has begun pre-selling or even selling the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 processor. Read more

Xilinx increases soft processor clock speed

Published on June 16, 2005

Xilinx announced the availability of a performance-optimized 4.00 version of its MicroBlaze soft processor. Read more

AMD Athlon 64 X2 3600+ to be priced in range of $139-160

Published on June 29, 2006

In an attempt to compete against Intel's plan to offer dual-core processors at competitive prices, AMD will add the Socket-AM2 Athlon 64 X2 3600+, a 2 GHz Athlon 64 X2 CPU that contains 512 kB level-two (L2) cache, in the fourth quarter of 2006, with the new part to be priced in the $139-160 range, according to sources at Taiwan motherboard makers. Read more

Latest Reviews & Articles

Four GeForce 9600 GT Cards Compared

Published on September 26, 2008

Manufacturers really love the first Geforce 9. The graphic chip is fast, the cards are inexpensive, and some retailers offer more than ten variations. Read more

Maxtor's Shared Storage Does NAS At Home

Published on September 25, 2008

What do you do with all the data you collect at home? Network attached storage is the solution. We test Maxtor's Shared Storage II and find that it is also suitable for use in small businesses. Read more

SLI & Centrino 2: Gaming Laptops Battle

Published on September 24, 2008

Take four gaming laptops. Arm two of them with SLI and make the others Centrino 2-compatible. You're looking at a high-end collection of the latest mobile technology battling it out for benchmark supremacy and your hard-earned dollars. Read more

1,000 GB: Three Samsung TB Drives

Published on September 23, 2008

Storage vendors split the desktop hard drive market into performance, mainstream, and energy-efficient products. We looked at Samsung’s Spinpoint F, the RAID version and the EcoGreen F to discover how a 1,000 GB drive differs from another. Read more