Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

BIG TROUBLE IN LITTLE CHINA: GA-EP45-UD35

Last response: in Motherboards
Share
July 17, 2009 7:48:26 PM

Ok, so maybe I shouldn’t have attempted this after having been out of it for so long, but I’m committed (or MAY be if I can’t fix it).

First, the system:

Gigabyte GA-EP45-UD35
Thermaltake Pure power 500W ATX 2.0 power supply
EVGA GeForce 9500 1GB video
Intel Core 2 Duo E7400 Wolfdale 2.8Ghz
Seagate 7200.10 ST3250310AS 250GB SATA hard drive
Plextor DVD SATA burner PX-850SA
OCZ Platinum 4GB (2X2GB) DDR2 1066 (PC 8500) (OCZ2P10664GK)
MS Windows XP HOME SP3 for System Builders-OEM

The problem is that I cannot load Windows. Initially it went about ¾ through setup, then froze.

Repeated attempts to fix it only offered “cannot copy file” (dozens of them).

Tried with one stick of RAM, no difference. Tried putting the HD on the purple connector and it seemed to go further, but still failed.

Each time I set boot from CD and ‘load fail-safe defaults’ in the bios.

I’ve tried this maybe a dozen, or more times, no difference.

At this point, I have completely formatted the hard drive and need some help. I somehow feel the problem is RAM related as setup stops at different files and locks at different, random places. Haven’t fooled with RAM volts, don’t feel too comfortable doing that without astute direction. :whistle: 

Anyone, anyone? Bueller? Bueller? :ange: 
a b V Motherboard
July 17, 2009 8:17:00 PM

You may be rigft about the memory. That OCZ memory is not on the mobo compatible memory list, probably because it is designed for 2.2v while mobo is set at 1.8v.

I suggest you look up the memory at the vendors site and see if it has alternate settings that let it run at other voltages, although this might not be likely since it appears mobo may not have found another setting to run.

What you can do is go into bios and change memory voltage to 2.2v (or +0.4v depending how the setting works) and hopefully this will work.

If you do get it working you might also try backing it off to 2.1 or 2.0 volts

I have a Gigabyte P35 board which also defaults at 1.8v. I purchased Crucial memory off the compatible list which I later learned was 2.2v. So I adjusted bios +0.4v to compensate. A Gigabyte tech later suggested I tune it back to 2.1v which I did and it has been running fine. It loaded Windows Ok but failed repeatedly on memtest. I had to make some other bios adjustments to get it to pass an overnight run of memtest.

July 17, 2009 10:06:10 PM

Thanks so much Rockyjohn and zipzoomfly for the quick reply and the consensus.

I made some previous notes and see VCORE-1.268 and DDR18V-2.208. Suspect these are for the CPU and not the dram. I'll look through the manual.

Everything is brand new and can't believe it's the optical reader of the MB or a bad copy of windows, got to be the RAM.

I'll give it a try and report back. THANKS!
Related resources
a c 177 V Motherboard
July 17, 2009 10:07:12 PM

Your MOBO number is unknown; 'one wrong character' substitution shows three possibilities - this should work for any of them...

Get a copy a copy of MemTest86+:
http://home.att.net/~chip.programm [...] 1a.iso.zip
Unzip it to an .iso, and burn it to a CD - makes a bootable RAM tester...

Take out all the RAM, and unplug any USB devices other than keyboard; place one stick of RAM in slot 'DDRII1" (closest to the CPU)...
Power up, hit <DEL> to enter the BIOS, select "Load Optimized Defaults":


Reboot, hit <DEL> to enter the BIOS, select "Advanced BIOS Features" page;
Set "CPU Enhanced Halt (C1E)" and "CPU EIST Function" to "Disabled";
select "First Boot Device" and set to "CDROM";
exit back to the main BIOS page, select "Integrated Peripherals" page;
set "Legacy USB storage detect" to "Disabled"
load the CD we made above into the drive;
do an <F10> BIOS "Save & Exit";
on the reboot, MemTest will run and check your stick of memory...

Let it run at least one complete pass;
if it fails - you've found your problem;
if it passes, power down, remove the stick of RAM and replace it with the other one;
power up and run MemTest as above...

If they both test OK:
power up, again hit <DEL> to enter the BIOS again, select "MB Intelligent Tweaker(M.I.T.)" page;
set "Robust Graphics Booster to "Auto"
set "Performance Enhance" to "Standard"
set "System Voltage Control" to "Manual"
set "DR2 OverVoltage Control" to "+0.4"
set "(G)MCH OverVoltage Control" to "+0.1"
do an <F10> BIOS "Save & Exit";
power down;
re-install all your RAM;
power up;
(hopefully) should work at this point...
July 17, 2009 10:57:54 PM

Thanks, Bill! That will be my project tonight!

July 18, 2009 2:42:52 AM

I'm workin' on it, Bill.....

But have a question. Finished one pass with one stick of ram but show 848 errors (!) Is this normal?




UPDATE: the second stick only had 26 errors in a full pass compared to 848 errors on stick #1.

What is acceptable? None??

Should I have raised the voltage to 2.2V?
a c 177 V Motherboard
July 18, 2009 3:59:49 AM

Should be able, essentially, to run for days without an error - once we get 'er tuned properly; first thing I'd try is backing the voltage down a tenth at a time with the worst stick in (848 errors on stick #1 - eeek!), and see what it does. Meantime, first thing in the AM, I'll do some broad-spectrum research and see what I can come up with; I know the board and the chipset are up to it - we just have to figure out 'what it wants'! One thing that might help is a copy of CPU-Z:
http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php
I sometimes use it to read the EPP (Enhanced Performance Profile) stored on most 'fast' RAM, which contains quite a few more parameters than the usual 5-5-5-18 we're handed - sometimes will point out a mis-match in an odd spot... OCZ has great support, and lots of info accessible - don't fret - we will get it working!

Talk atcha tomorrow - I just ate six ibuprofen and an oxycodone - gots to get to sleep while I'm temporarily feeling no pain - have an ungodly toothache...

Bill
a c 177 V Motherboard
July 18, 2009 11:33:55 AM

Rockyjohn said:
Quote:
I have a Gigabyte P35 board which also defaults at 1.8v. I purchased Crucial memory off the compatible list which I later learned was 2.2v. So I adjusted bios +0.4v to compensate. A Gigabyte tech later suggested I tune it back to 2.1v which I did and it has been running fine. It loaded Windows Ok but failed repeatedly on memtest. I had to make some other bios adjustments to get it to pass an overnight run of memtest.

So I thought, in the temporary (toothache) absence of my ability to help with anything else (further research) it couldn't hurt to try...

I, too, am running 8Gb (4x2) 1066 G.Skill F2-8500CL5D @ 1080 at a tenth under spec (2.0 vs 2.1 specified) - runs demonstrably faster at 2.0 than at 2.1
July 18, 2009 4:34:51 PM

Bill, hope the tooth is better today....there is nothing worse.....wiskey seems to help me a lot... :D 

Not much time as family is visiting, but I raised the ram voltage to 1.84V and both sticks together are stable!!! :o 

Windows loaded and I'm doing the drivers now...so far, so good.

I'll keep you posted, my friend.
a c 177 V Motherboard
July 18, 2009 6:59:01 PM

Thank you for inquiring - it's better, but not fixed - I've got it a bit loose, and may try the yankeroo later - but my favorite anesthesia is 151 rum; I actually started (back in the days when I was drinking) on the stuff 'cause I went to a dental school or an emergency room to get something done about an impacted wisdom tooth that flared up (as Murphy's law would have it) on a Friday evening of a three day weekend, figured I'd die of it if I had to wait until my dentist appeared on Tuesday; the guy told me he wasn't allowed to prescribe anything for pain, but that I might try swishing some "151"around in my mouth... Took me a second to get it, and I asked "you mean, like, 151 rum??" He said yeah - it'd deaden things up good. Somehow, I forgot the instructions to 'rinse and spit', swallowed a couple times, and found - yup, I was getting pretty 'numb' - and a new bad habit was born! I remember getting so 'comfortably numb' a couple times that I laid on a pool table motionless for a couple hours...

Ah well, I digress! I have learned boat-loads about your RAM; one interesting thing is that especially with the P/Q4x northbridges, not only does it react differently with each board implementation, but sometimes on 'supposedly' identical boards - eeek! Voltages, and response to the MCH voltage variations, seem to have radically different behavior from board to board. One thing that seemed consistent, though, is that the RAM seems to 'like' having its tRFC (Refresh to ACT delay - in the lower RAM timing adjustments) somewhere between 60 and 72 - they actually have an SPD 'patcher' that fixes the SPD, so that boards whose normal tRFC adjustments don't go that high, can work by reading the modified SPD, and 'forcing the issue'...

When you have the time, here's some of the stuff I found:
Quote:
Memory Voltage.....what do i set?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The question of memory voltage comes up a great deal, i will try to explain the best way to find the optimum voltage you need and explain why you will see 2.1V DDR2 or 1.8V DDR3 when in some cases we will advise you to test and run lower than this.

OCZ qualify memory on many boards, for the sake of this guide i will talk about 8000 Reaper X 4GB, take this though as all our memory with the references to voltage etc covering all our product.
8000 Reaper X http://www.ocztechnology.com/product...pc_4gb_edition has specifications that say 2.1V operating voltage. The reason for this is as follows.

OCZ test and qualify the memory on many different boards, not all boards need 2.1V for the memory to work well, but some do. Because of this we have to state the highest needed voltage that was needed for the modules to work as advertised, often though this is NOT needed. So board A needed 1.85V but board X needed 2.1V, to make sure A and X work with everything in between we state the voltage for board X.

Now this also covers OCZ a little as yield at any given voltage can go up and down. This means over the life of the part the quality of the IC's may get better and require less voltage to run at 1000MHZ or may get worse and require a little more voltage to run 1000MHZ.

So why do OCZ forum staff ask you set ONLY the voltage the memory needs and not just set this max voltage as stated on the website?

We do this knowing in many cases there may be no need to run the voltage that high. Many boards (high end) have awesome memory overclocking and usually operate at much higher frequencies at lower voltages...hence we advise you test and ONLY set the voltage that is needed to be stable.

So why do some boards work better than others?

Many of the top enthusiast boards overclock memory very well, the reasons for this are the PCB's and components used on the motherboard have been tuned to keep memory signaling as clean as it can be, this in turn means it is able to run at higher frequencies. This is why top flight enthusiast boards are more expensive than mid range channel boards ( which usually focus on feature set over overclockability)
These enthusiast boards also feature settings which allow much finer tuning of the memory voltages, timings and clock signals. This makes it possible to fine tune memory at higher clocks using less voltage.

I thought just adding more voltage helped memory overclock?

It does, but there are 2 ways to get the memory doing what you want.

1 Fine tune the clocks and timings using the options in bios.

2 Force more voltage to the clocks and memory and use brute force to make it work.

Now obviously option 1 is what we want end users to adopt, the reasons for this are mainly it helps to ensure a long a productive life for the memory, and it produces less heat which can actually mean it runs better.


Overall you can either just follow the specs that came on the packet or off the website and set that voltage; or you can fine tune using that voltage as a base to start and set the voltage the memory actually needs to run and no more. Be aware though many boards actually overvolt by default, if you set 2.1V in bios you may be actually supplying 2.2V or higher to the memory. Also the AUTO setting does not usually set 1.8V DDR2 or 1.5V DDR3, it normally set quite a bit higher than this. On some boards I have seen as high as 2.0V for DDR2 and 1.78V for DDR3 all hidden behind the AUTO setting.





If you are running ANY type of Intel or 680/780i chipset DDR2 motherboard with 2x2GB for 4GB or 4x2GB for 8GB of ram, tRFC will have a major impact on how your system will run.

you may see option for tRFC called "Refresh to activate delay" so please don't be fooled. If your bios only goes as high at 42 you are going to have issues with speeds much over 900MHZ, in some cases some boards even have issues at 800MHZ.

We have changed SPD on many of our 2GB modules to set tRFC to 54 leaving the bios option at Auto, you do NOT need this SPD if your motherboard has this option in bios and it sets higher than 42, only ask for this update if you have a board that sets 42 or lower AND you can supply the SPD file to us off the modules you have showing a tRFC values of lower than 54 clocks.(we will supply the tool that allows you to send SPD to us)

tRFC has a massive impact on stability with 4 and 8GB kits due mainly to the massive increase in density and the way the memory has to be refreshed, most boards were originally setup for 1GB modules, this is the reason why some set tRFC to low for 2GB modules to work well.

Please if you have bought a 4GB kit and you are having issues look for tRFC in bios and set to at least 54 Clocks, in many cases you will see that you can lower voltage to the memory quite dramatically....





I've been experiencing similar difficulties with 4x2gb of OCZ2RPR10664GK modules.

Things I've learned (so far):

1. The relationship between DRAM Voltage, MCH Core, and tRD is very touchy. You just need to play with combinations of values @ stock frequencies; and eventually you'll get there. Once you establish a solid baseline, you can try to overclock your system from there.

2. You'll probably need to set your DRAM voltage near the upper limit of the rated voltage for your modules to run 4x2gb. My max rated v is 2.30, and I've determined my "Sweet Spot" is at 2.24v-2.26v.

3. Add to MCH core slowly. I've found that immediately jumping MCH up to 1.2v is not a good idea. Try 1.6 and then 1.8 first. From trial-and-error experience, I've learned that too much MCH is just as bad as too little.

4. Try "loosening" your DRAM timings a bit. My rated timings are 5-5-5-15, but I'm not stable (so far...) unless I set them to 5-5-5-18.

5. Use MemTest86+ as your first stress-test evaluation of a settings scenario. If it passes that, move on to Intel Burn (set @ maximum to make sure most of your 8gb is utilized...) If that passes, only then move on to prime95 testing. The concept here is to gain confidence that your DRAM is stable before committing to a 12hr. p95 test.

July 18, 2009 10:48:53 PM

Wow, Bill...151 proof! We have that on Barbados, but they tell me that you cannot bring it home on a plane due to fire restrictions (!). I usually just stick with the normal Mt Gay rum and it seems fine. I remember my father going out in the garage and pulling his own teeth, but that's not me. :o 

Thanks for all the research while you're under the weather! WOW! I've got the family here so will have to put that on my 2am agenda, but it seems unbelievable, yes? All is now solid at 1.84, so, we'll see.

I'll keep you posted and we'll improve on my setup when you get fixed.

Take care and thanks, my friend.
a b V Motherboard
July 19, 2009 3:30:37 AM

bilbat said:
Your MOBO number is unknown; 'one wrong character' substitution shows three possibilities -

Unless I missed it, I still don't see OldAnal (sorry just had to say it) report the correct number for his mobo. I assumed, based on just on what was close - that UD35 had to be UD3R - easiest to mistake an "R" for a "5". I did not specifically check but I think all the EP45-UD3X boards must have the same voltage. Still it would be nice to know specifically.

Old - are you sure you are running at 1.84v? I did not think board allowed that fine of adjustment. Are you sure you are not running at 1.8 + 0.4 = 2.2?

Whatever its at it is good its running. Now the goal is to get that overnight test with no errors. If you get errors, and your voltage really is only 1.84, I would jump it right up to 2.2v and test that. The process I recommend is to get it running stable at the manufacturers suggest voltage, then after everything is rock solid, try reducing the voltage to 2.1 and maybe 2.0 and see if it still is stable.

If you cannot get it stable at 2.2, I recommend leaving it there - letting us know - and perhaps we can suggest some other bios changes to make it so. Then when stable, try moving the voltage down.

Are we in sync on this bilbat?

Also Old - while bilbat is very knowledgeable about these things - there is another resource you consider - especially if bilbat is wounded and MIA - tweaktown.com is actually has a official Gigabyte forum monitored and supported by Gigabyte techs to help with problems like this. I got excellent help from Lsdmeasap and strongly recommend him. I posted my problem on Thanksgiving day no less and had a response from him within an hour. He walked me through making several bios changes and tests over that weekend - and I always received prompt responses from him. You might want to give it a try. If you do - please keep us posted as well.

http://forums.tweaktown.com/f69/
July 19, 2009 3:57:11 AM

John!

It's a EP45-UD3R, revision 1.1, bios F5.

Voltage is truely 1.84VDC. Selection starts at 1.8 and goes up to 1.82, 1.84, 1.86 all the way to 2.3 if I remember correctly.

It's solid. Runs 3Dmark6 at 7500, going to try prime 95 soon and see if I should go higher. The blurb that Bill send indicates that OCZ ram may be happy anywhere, depending on the board/chipset.

I'm sure learn a lot from you guys and I greatly appreciate it.
a b V Motherboard
July 19, 2009 4:08:40 AM

Glad to here its stable. How long did you run it on memtest? You should run it over night. When I was working through my problems I sometimes had memtest run through 7 or 10 times correctly, then start making occasional errors on later tests. Need to run overnight - or about 50 cycles - to really prove it is stable. If you have not, I suggest doing this before moving on to running prime95.

I suggest you still go to the tweaktown site just to become familiar with it. Also near the top of the forum pages is a stickie about memory timings with suggested timings including for the P45 boards. It might be more info than you want right now if everything is stable - but it might also give you some ideas about things you might want to tweak later. You can find a lot of information about overclocking too from the techs and other forum users with similar boards - just search on P45 and you should find a lot of interesting and useful info.
a c 177 V Motherboard
July 19, 2009 2:10:00 PM

Quote:
So why do OCZ forum staff ask you set ONLY the voltage the memory needs and not just set this max voltage as stated on the website?

We do this knowing in many cases there may be no need to run the voltage that high. Many boards (high end) have awesome memory overclocking and usually operate at much higher frequencies at lower voltages...hence we advise you test and ONLY set the voltage that is needed to be stable.

So why do some boards work better than others?

Many of the top enthusiast boards overclock memory very well, the reasons for this are the PCB's and components used on the motherboard have been tuned to keep memory signaling as clean as it can be, this in turn means it is able to run at higher frequencies. This is why top flight enthusiast boards are more expensive than mid range channel boards ( which usually focus on feature set over overclockability)
These enthusiast boards also feature settings which allow much finer tuning of the memory voltages, timings and clock signals. This makes it possible to fine tune memory at higher clocks using less voltage.

I thought just adding more voltage helped memory overclock?

It does, but there are 2 ways to get the memory doing what you want.

1 Fine tune the clocks and timings using the options in bios.

2 Force more voltage to the clocks and memory and use brute force to make it work.

Now obviously option 1 is what we want end users to adopt, the reasons for this are mainly it helps to ensure a long a productive life for the memory, and it produces less heat which can actually mean it runs better.
a c 177 V Motherboard
July 19, 2009 2:11:33 PM

I'm running 2.1 1066 at 2.0 1080 - 3 of the 4 sticks will do 1150 at this voltage...
July 19, 2009 4:24:56 PM

rockyjohn said:
You may be rigft about the memory. That OCZ memory is not on the mobo compatible memory list, probably because it is designed for 2.2v while mobo is set at 1.8v.

I suggest you look up the memory at the vendors site and see if it has alternate settings that let it run at other voltages, although this might not be likely since it appears mobo may not have found another setting to run.

What you can do is go into bios and change memory voltage to 2.2v (or +0.4v depending how the setting works) and hopefully this will work.

If you do get it working you might also try backing it off to 2.1 or 2.0 volts

I have a Gigabyte P35 board which also defaults at 1.8v. I purchased Crucial memory off the compatible list which I later learned was 2.2v. So I adjusted bios +0.4v to compensate. A Gigabyte tech later suggested I tune it back to 2.1v which I did and it has been running fine. It loaded Windows Ok but failed repeatedly on memtest. I had to make some other bios adjustments to get it to pass an overnight run of memtest.


i have the ep45-ud3lr motherboard and have ocz 2x2gig ram pc1066 2.2v @ 533mhz 1.8v @266/333/400mhz
mine runs fine
goto the bios and select auto on the ram voltage and it will run fine
mine is set at 450mhz and it uses 2.18v
my e8500 = 9.5 multiplier x 450mhz ram = 4275mhz runs stable no issues at all
a b V Motherboard
July 19, 2009 5:26:10 PM

m4rmite said:
i have the ep45-ud3lr motherboard and have ocz 2x2gig ram pc1066 2.2v @ 533mhz 1.8v @266/333/400mhz
mine runs fine


So OldGuy - it you are running your memory at 1.84v, what speed is it? Are you running at the full 1066MHz or is it throttled down?

What timings are avail for the RAM and what are they currently operating at? I know on my setup (P35 described in earlier post) on reason I went to the higher voltage was to enable the faster timings.

Obviously the most important thing is to run stable - but I don't think you have tried the higher voltages so you don't know if they would be stable. Please correct me if I am wrong.
July 19, 2009 8:19:54 PM

what i stated was the ram runs @ 1.8 at speeds of 400mhz or less
and 2.2 @ 533mhz

also the last line i posted says mines running at 450mhz @ 2.18v
i use the 2.00 ram multiplier so it runs @1800mhz as its quad pumped
this is the cpu @ 4500mhz with the ram @ 500mhz /2000mhz fsb
and you can see the super pi 1M result as well
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb37/m4rmite/295.gif

this is the normal setting i run
http://i204.photobucket.com/albums/bb37/m4rmite/427.gif

this rig runs folding 24/7 ( i give it a rest ocassionally) and has no issues at all
a b V Motherboard
July 19, 2009 11:25:19 PM

Yes - you said that before. I was asking what OldGuy's - the thread originator - was running at after showing that the reason I was asking is your comment about the options. He might be running it at a substantially slower - less than optimal - speed without knowing it.
July 19, 2009 11:58:56 PM

Help me out here, guys.....I'm just a novice at this.

Had a few minutes so took a couple of pix of the complete 1st bios page.

Let me know how screwed-up I am so far...LOL



a b V Motherboard
July 20, 2009 12:22:58 AM

Your last report prior to the one immediately above stated that you were running stable. Are you still getting errors? Am I reading the DRAM voltage correctly as 1.84v? If yes to both I can only repeat what I said two days ago - the very first thing you need to do is increase it to 2.2v.

And if still not stable after that, the next thing I recommend doing is what I suggested last night (see above) - use the forum at tweaktown. It has been two days since you first posted and it appears you are little further along than when you started - this should not be that difficult to fix - take some trial and error testing - but I think youi would really benefit from the official Gigabyte techs that specialize in this mobo.
a c 177 V Motherboard
July 20, 2009 3:56:23 AM

Your specs look great - if she's passing MemTest... If you'd like, we can go through a 'two post' mild overclock that will be easy on your hardware, and speed up your system by, say, 20% - maybe 25%
Take a peek here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/260710-30-ep45-ud3p-b...
for a sample session - that one took a bit longer, as we had some troubles to deal with first...
July 20, 2009 5:58:43 AM

rockyjohn said:
Yes - you said that before. I was asking what OldGuy's - the thread originator - was running at after showing that the reason I was asking is your comment about the options. He might be running it at a substantially slower - less than optimal - speed without knowing it.



lol whoops just thought u aws calling me an old guy after i saw the quote :sol: 
July 20, 2009 1:37:36 PM

Good morning Bill!

Hope your tooth is better today, or you’re going to see the dentist.

Was able to read most of the thread you posted. I have CPU-Z and Prime95 and, of course, memtest86+.

System had been running fine at 1.84VDC and passing many passes of Memtest, however I would get a lock-up here and there, so I raised the voltage to 2.0 and it has been solid since last night.

One thing that bothers me, though……

According to 3DMARK6 this new system is a slug. 4463 for the new rig and 13,209 for my old rig which is a Q6700 (2.66Ghz) and a 8800GT video card. I know that’s quad Vs dual, but could it be that much different in performance? The old one one is 50-60 FPS while this new one is 15-25!

I’ll be in and out today, but ready to get started. My shooting buddy’s birthday is this Thursday and I’d like to give it to him then. But only if it’s stable, yes?

Thanks again for all your help, Bill.
a b V Motherboard
July 20, 2009 2:37:26 PM

OldAnalogGuy said:
Good morning Bill!
Thanks again for all your help, Bill.


I will ignore the slight - given even though I am the one that correctly diagnosed the memory issue at the start and have been trying to persuade you to increase it while bilbat has been misdirecting you down side alleys - and continue trying to help you.

First, have you run memtest for a solid 8 hours in a row without getting a single error?

Second, after resetting your bios to "optimize load defaults", did you go back in and make the manual adjustments?

Third, What Bios are you using? Should be F9. However if F9 does not improve performance, then try F8.

Fourth, If the Bios change does not fix the problem, I would increase the memory to 2.1v.

Please report the results. If this does not work it is time to look at some other Bios settings.
a c 177 V Motherboard
July 20, 2009 3:01:32 PM

I'll root around - there are a couple gaps in my knowledge; I don't know anything about 3DMark6, specifically whether it is multi-threaded, and uses the available cores; nor do I have a good ideal of the nVidia 'board hierarchy' - I don't do nVidia, as nVidia mortally offended me years back, first denying, and then releasing, a known driver bug that cost me (and my client) two weeks on-site, with an intermittent sub-system... I don't really do much benchmarking; I rely on the 'seat-of-the-pants' subjective experience of running the machine; I find it helps keep me from endless, obsessive 'tweaking' for improvements that can't actually be 'seen'; a good example is here:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/memory-scaling-i7,2...
Intel only officially supports one memory speed for the i7 - 1066 - and a lot of people trying to run faster stuff (well, actually, even people only trying to get their 1066 working, too...) are having horrid problems with it, but the article makes it clear that running the RAM any faster has completely negligible 'real-world' observable effects...

Anyways - I'll dig and get back in a bit

Oh! The tooth gets yanked tomorrow - thanks for asking!

Bill
a c 177 V Motherboard
July 20, 2009 5:25:54 PM

I came across this:

http://www.madshrimps.be/?action=getarticle&number=3&ar...

and it made me wonder if, perhaps by accident, you're looking at the #DMark CPU score instead of the main one; if you'll look at the second graphic, you'll see that the CPU scores are in that 'general neighborhood - 2482-3786, while the main scores are closer to your experience range - 12194-15382. Just a thought...

I haven't yet rooted into the 3DMark multi-threading issue; I thought I'd post this, then, while you try it, I can research further.

Before we start ramping things up, I want to teach you a new skill involving the BIOS: Do the <DEL> at the boot to enter the BIOS;
notice, at the bottom, the <F11> "Save CMOS to BIOS" - hit this, and you should get a menu that will show a number (the count varies by BIOS) of empty 'slots', each of which will store an entire set of BIOS parameters, to be re-loaded from the corresponding <F12> "Load CMOS from BIOS"; this is a wonderful overclocker's feature. What I do with it, is to save my 'baseline' working parameters, so if I change something that 'irritates' the board, and forces a reset of all the parameters to defaults, or, even worse, get so screwed up I need to do a 'clear CMOS', I can get back to my starting point with no effort, and without having to remember 85 separate settings! Another thing it prevents is two hours' troubleshooting, having forgotten a change to a crucial parameter - like, "wait a minute - didn't I have the Trd at seven?!" It's pretty self-explanatory, and I alway urge people to start right away by taking the time to give the 'slots' names that mean something: in two hours, "Try2" and "Try3" will not be very helpful, but "450@+10MCH" and "450@+15MCH" will! Another use is for 'green' settings; overclocks, as a rule, do not 'play well' with green features, such as 'down-clocking' and 'down-volting'; with the storage slots, you can set up one profile, say "Green", with all the settings at 'stock' values, and all the 'green' features enabled; another, say "Balls2Wall" with a full overclock, and all the 'green' stuff turned off... Another neat feature of this 'slot' system is, for most BIOS, the mechanism itself will keep track of which ones have booted successfully, and how many times (up to, I believe, a max of five)!

On to the BIOS! I don't believe we have talked yet about cooling - this pre-supposes that you've got some. Doesn't really matter what cooling - any damned thing you can lay your hands on will be oodles better than the stock Intel POS! As this will be a really 'tame' overclock, it may even work fine with the Intel, but you will then want to stress test, watching your temperatures. There is a common (erroneous) assumption that if you're disposing of the heat, everything else will be fine. Here's a quote from elsewhwere:

Quote:
+++I have an e7300 that maxes out at 4GHz. I can hit that with a 400FSB @ 10x multi at 1.52v or 450FSB @ 9x multi at 1.55v. I was surprised how many volts it took to get it Prime stable, but its <sic> no issue since the chips <sic> under water.

Excess heat is, of course, undesirable; but excess voltage kills chips before heat ever has a chance!


On the "Advanced BIOS Features" page:

"CPU Enhanced Halt (C1E)" to "Disabled"
"C2/C2E State Support" to "Disabled"
"C4/C4E State Support" to "Disabled"
"CPU Thermal Monitor 2 (TM2)" to "Enabled"
"CPU EIST Function" to "Disabled"
"Virtualization Technology" to "Enabled" - this allows use of Win7's fantastic VirtualXp feature...
"Full Screen LOGO Show" to "Disabled"
"Dual BIOS Recovery Source" manual doesn't show the alternative, and my BIOS don't have this feature - my guess is it's "Backup" - anyway, we want whatever else it gives other than "HPA", 'cause we haven't created an HPA yet... (whatever an HPA is?)

On the "Integrated Peripherals" page:

Your manual shows "Legacy USB storage detect", but later BIOS say "USB Storage Function" - either way, set to "Disabled"

On the "Power Management Setup" page:

"ACPI Suspend Type" to "S1(POS)" (for now...)
"HPET Support" to "Enabled"
"HPET Mode" to whichever OS type you're running - "32-bit" if an x86 version, "64-bit" if an x64 version...

On the "MB Intelligent Tweaker(M.I.T.)" page:

"Robust Graphics Booster" to "Auto" (I've always loved the name of this one - just sounds cool to me...)
"CPU Clock Ratio" to "10"
"Fine CPU Clock Ratio" to "0"
"CPU Frequency" - this one can't be set, it's calculated, and will change when we set the next few items...

******** Clock Chip Control ********
>>>>> Standard Clock Control

"CPU Host Clock Control" to "Enabled"
"CPU Host Frequency (Mhz)" to "334"
"PCI Express Frequency (Mhz)" to "100" (not auto...)
"C.I.A.2" to "Disabled" (we did this already - just a check...)

******** DRAM Performance Control ********
"Performance Enhance" to "Standard" (we did this already - just a check...)
"Extreme Memory Profile (X.M.P.)" to "Disabled" (ditto...)
"(G)MCH Frequency Latch" to "333"
"System Memory Multiplier (SPD)" to "3.2" (may have a 'B' or '#' after it...)

I think your separate "(G)MCH Frequency Latch" which we mostly refer to as a 'strap', and "Memory Multiplier" may relieve you of having to keep track of these by a cryptic letter or symbol in the multiplier table; with yours, you just tell it 'this one'! The strap is the reason we used a 334 clock instead of a nice even 333: the 'straps' are sets of northbridge timings - much like memory latencies, the faster you go, the 'looser' the timings have to be... There are four straps, corresponding to the Intel FSB ratings: 200 (800FSB), 266 (1066FSB), 333 (1333FSB), and 400 (1600FSB - Intel actually does make a 1600 FSB CPU - the QX9775 - but, I think, it's over $1500 a pop!); each strap has it's own set of available memory multipliers (ratios). The 3.2 we used (which is actually a 8:5 bus to bus ratio) is available only on the 333 strap. Anyway, the strap latencies, for some northbridges, don't 'kick in' until one over the selected strap; so, in other words, setting the clock to 334 guarantees that we're getting the 333 latencies/timings...

"Memory Frequency (Mhz)" - again, can't be set, it's calculated...
"DRAM Timing Selectable (SPD)" to "Manual"
You can leave the rest of the memory settings alone; we haven't changed its actual speed, so it should keep working: We simply took it from a system clock of 266 (1066FSB) times a four multiplier (266 x 4 = 1066), to a system clock of 333 (1333FSB) times a three point two multiplier (333 x 3.2 = 1066)

"Load-Line Calibration" to "Disabled" (this works differently on different boards - on mine, it's worse "enabled" than "disabled" - the function is supposed to cure a phenomenon called Vdroop - the CPU voltage regulation circuit causes the CPU core voltage to sag, or 'droop' under high loadings; hopefullt, we're going to be at a low enough voltage to just ignore this...)
"CPU Vcore" to "1.3500V"

And that should do it!

I should point out that getting two reboots in a row here is perfectly normal behavior; it seems that, when you change certain settings (and we don't exactly know which ones - the only sure one I know is Trd - if you change it, I think you get the 'twin' reboot) it boots once to 'see where it's at', recalculates its remaining 'auto' settings, saves them, and then boots again. Three reboots in a row, however, usually indicates that the board was 'given indigestion' by your settings, and is going back to defaults. This sometimes goes astray, and it doesn't get back into proper operation - for example, at this point, mine will sometimes 'lock' itself into 111MHz x a six multiplier - and take a week to do a whole boot - that's time to do a CMOS reset, and use your 'stored' <F12> profile to get back to where you were...

Good luck!

Bill
July 21, 2009 12:46:41 AM

rockyjohn, please accept my apologies if you perceived me as an ingrate. Not so. I appreciate your help, I have just been trying to run two businesses and host a week long family gathering while attempting to get this computer ready for my buddy’s birthday this Thursday. Too much for me and I apologize for not taking the time to acknowledge your helpful info. I did take your advise and bumped-up the RAM voltage AND flashed to F9 BIOS today. Thank you for the suggestions.

Bill, printed out your detailed, great advise and attempted to use it. I have no ‘virtualization technology’ or ‘Dual BIOS recovery source’ however, unless it is buried deeper than I can see.

Otherwise changed all to your suggestions (3.5V CPU Vcore? Seems high as it was 2.6v?, but I did change it).

Upon 1st boot I got beep-beep-beep-beep…. Continuos, then it re-booted with another string of continuos beeps then it reverted to a good, known BIOS.

What do you think happened?
a b V Motherboard
July 21, 2009 1:16:22 AM

Is memory stable before making the other changes? I ask again - have you run memtest stable for 8 hours?
After increasing the memory voltage and upgrading the bios, what was the status?

Are you making other changes one at a time (in some cases certain similar changes can be grouped) and checking to see affect? I am not sure which specific question to ask because I don't know what your symptons are now or what was the result of each of the changes you made. You have no way of knowing which are helping, hurting, or have no affect.

And I see no reason to be changing CPU voltage at this point. It seems to me that you are making a lot of changes afffecting a lot of different things when you have not confirmed a stable memtest for 8 hours first and when you have the performance issues you identified earlier. Also you are changing a lot of things at once without testing the affect of each one or selected groups of things.
a c 177 V Motherboard
July 21, 2009 7:02:11 PM

-dave-

Misunderstanding, and would definitely cause the overclock to fail w/beeps:
Quote:
"CPU Vcore" to "1.3500V"

not 3.5V! Intel lists a VIDmax for this chip of 1.3625V - lots of overclocking 'crazies' are running it at 1.4-1.55, and getting past 4GHz for the risk; I like to keep 'em 'in spec' and cool - makes for good longevity...

rockyjohn

I don't know where to begin...

Quote:
Am I reading the DRAM voltage correctly as 1.84v? If yes to both I can only repeat what I said two days ago - the very first thing you need to do is increase it to 2.2v.


I reposted the OCZ tech article that, to summarize, simply states "run your memory as fast as you want, at the lowest voltage that you can..."

There IS NO such thing as '2.2 Volt' memory; all DDR2 adheres to JEDEC specifications at 1.8V; the ram coming out of assembly is clamped into a test fixture; it is powered to 1.8 Volts, clocked at 800, and random inversions (always at least thrice - write pattern, read pattern, invert bits [checks both transitions from 1 to 0, and 0 to 1] write, read, invert, etc.) are written to/read from every row and every column on every rank, to check both address and data lines for all chips [every memory location in every chip is not tested]; it is then 'bumped up' to whatever voltage the engineers have found gives them the best yield, without endangering the chips themselves; if their 'characterization' of the design has shown a possible yield at 1200, they'll start there - the idea being, that if the chip works at 1200, you've automatically eliminated the need to test at, say, 1150, 1100; and 1066; and do the same tests; pass and it's 'kicked out' as a 1200 stick; fail, and we reset and drop to the next speed that we're sorting for. A lot of companies know they'll have no significant yield at 1200, and just sort their sticks to 1066 and 'not', i.e., 1.8V JEDEC DDR2/800.

I 'characterize', or 'speed-bin' my own memory; for my last four stick system, I bought six, and tested, one pass of MemTest each, for the fastest speed the chip would reach with voltage at or slightly over 'rated', and then the 'sweet spot' - the fastest the RAM would go at a tenth under... Once I found that spec, I ran MemTest 24 hours on each stick to eliminate 'infant mortality'; I wound up with four sticks of 2.1V 1066, that would actually do 1150 at 2.0V - and I cool my RAM, so further voltage reductions were pointless.

Quote:
I ask again - have you run memtest stable for 8 hours?


you would appear to be fixated here; in the tenth post, Dave said:
Quote:
I raised the ram voltage to 1.84V and both sticks together are stable!!! :o 

in the twelfth:
Quote:
All is now solid at 1.84, so, we'll see.


Would you suggest we have him post a notarized affadavit from a lie detector test?

Quote:
Are you making other changes one at a time (in some cases certain similar changes can be grouped) and checking to see <sic> affect?


He's taking my word, because I've done this dozens of times...

This group:
"CPU Enhanced Halt (C1E)" to "Disabled"
"C2/C2E State Support" to "Disabled"
"C4/C4E State Support" to "Disabled"
"CPU Thermal Monitor 2 (TM2)" to "Enabled"
"CPU EIST Function" to "Disabled"
is basic to any overclock, on any GB MOBO; you need to kill the 'green' stuff, so it quits didling with your clocks and voltages - if you want to save the planet, plant a tree; if you want a fast computer, and to save the planet, kill the 'green bits', and turn the damned thing off when you're not using it! With Win7, a cold boot is only ninety seconds away...

Quote:
You have no way of knowing which are helping, hurting, or have no <sic> affect.


It simply runs (faster), or it doesn't, in which case I recalculate a bit, and pass him some new parameters; a mild overclock is not rocket science - it doesn't need to be 'snuck up on' one parameter at a time!

Quote:
And I see no reason to be changing CPU voltage at this point.

A mild overclock requires a mild overvolt - this OC may run at stock voltage, but it's 'borderline', so I had him 'bump it' a bit...
a b V Motherboard
July 21, 2009 8:19:26 PM

bilbat - you are the one not listening to OldAnalogGuy.

Yes on post 11 he said he was stable. On Post 13 and 15 he said he was solid. But he obviously thought passing only one or a few passes of memtest meant that it was stable. Since he is new I would not expect him to understand and kept repeating the question. Meanwhile you took him on to more advanced changes.

On post 14 - I asked what he meant by stable and repeated that he needed an overnight run to prove out the system. I told him that this needed to be done first. And even to try to bring you onboard instead of continuing in a different direction specifically asked you in the post "Are we in sync on this bilbat?" - which you choose to ignore.

On post 15 he provided a photos of his bios and asked "Let me know how scewed up I am". It was not clear to me if he was just asking about those particular bios settings or what - so I keep repeating the basic question because communications need to be clear in a troubleshooting situation like this.

In post 16 - yes I again repeat the question about testing because he has not confirmed that he has completed it and his pictures show he is still at 1.8v. I again repeat that if he is not stable he needs to go to 2.2v first and test.

In post 16 - you ignore the both the testing and voltage issues and proceed to take him on to overclocking.

On post 29 he finally reveals "still running at 1.84v...passing many passes of mentest HOWEVER I WOULD GET A LOCK-UP NOW AND THEN"? Is this stable Bilbat? He went on to say he did finally raise the voltage to 2.0 - obviously because I kept after him to do that - and again reported he was "stable". Now you tell me what he meant that time bilbat. Did that mean one test of memtest? Multiple tests? Enough tests? He goes on later to say he will only pass it on to his friend IF it is stable. Wait a minute - is he stable or not? How loosely is he using those words if in one post he says he is stable and also implies that he is not?

Sorry if I belabor the point but trouble shooting has to be done in an orderly fashion to work. As far as I know he has not passed the 8 hour test and may have memory issues - maybe ones that require other BIOS changes to fix - but if he has been following your directions he has compounded the troubleshooting problem by making other changes as well. Now impossible to tell if any memtest issues are do to original issues or compounded by other changes.

I hope he is stable on memory and can run memtest for 8 hours without error. But because he has not confirmed - just as he did not confirm to my earlier requests - it is the FIRST thing we need to know.

After that - and before you start OC - the performance issues should be addressed - which may be some bios changes or might be something else.

OldAnalogGuy - Sorry that you are caught in the middle here. I know you are new to this and that is why communication must be very specific and complete. To get everyone in sync - Please report what is the longest memtest you have completed since increasing voltage to 2.0v and what are any and all performance issues you have at the moment and where you are at in implementing the changes bilbat requested. I will again repeat another earlier suggestion even tho it too may earn me another tongue lashing from Bilbat - but I really believe you should check out the official Gigabyte forum at tweaktown.com.

You have now been working on this for 4 days and as far as I know your memory stability has not been confirmed, your performance issues are not getting addressed, but you are being taken to OC. OC is not a process for fixing your basic performance issues. Just like with the memory and memtest - you should fix the basic performance issues first and only when you have good, stable peformance should you go on to OC.. You have used up 4 days and have less then 2 left before you would like to present the system to your friend. You may still be able to meet the deadline with expert help from tweaktown.
a c 177 V Motherboard
July 21, 2009 11:20:10 PM

Quote:
And even to try to bring you onboard instead of continuing in a different direction specifically asked you in the post "Are we in sync on this bilbat?" - which you choose to ignore.


I thought it was pretty obvious that we had both, by this point, chosen to ignore you...

Whatever - like McDonalds says - "have it your way"; I've got better things to do than argue with someone here; I'm on about page two thousand of:

i7 Thermal / Mechanical Design Guide 72 pages
i7 Specification Update 56 pages
i7 Datasheet, Volume 1 96 pages
i7 Datasheet, Volume 2 98 pages
(ICH10) Family Datasheet 840 pages
QuickPath Architecture Whitepaper 6 pages
Introduction to the Intel QuickPath Interconnect 22 pages
i7 Software Developer’s Manual Volume 1: Basic Architecture 500 pages
i7 Volume 2A: Instruction Set Reference, A-M 812 pages
i7 Volume 2B: Instruction Set Reference, N-Z 796 pages
i7 Volume 3A: System Programming & Memory Guide, Part 1 716 pages
i7 Volume 3B: System Programming Guide, Part 2 896 pages
Intel® 64 Architecture x2APIC Specification Update 49 pages
X58 Express Chipset Datasheet 542 pages
X58 Express Chipset Specification Update 30 pages
Total: 5,531 pages

in an effort to bring some clarity to the plethora of of problems, and I'm planning (after the architecture's scheduled 'down-scaling' to 35 or 32 nM) a job that could really use all the i7 has to offer...
a b V Motherboard
July 24, 2009 5:18:51 PM

For the benefit of OldAnalogGuy and to keep the focus on his system issues, I was going to ignore your last attempt to put me down again. But since he has apparently now deserted this thread and is ignoring your attempts to take him into OC, I will defend myself. Particularly since in another thread, where I also disagreed with certain false claims you made, you try to again put me down again by repeating and referring to your claims in this post, as if your claims were valid.

In the above post, why are you bragging about ignoring me - when in the previous post I clearly show that what I was trying to get OldAnalogGuy to do was right and that indeed he took that advice? After the point you quote above, OldGuy reported continuing stability issues - and he took my advice to increase voltage. And obviously he was not ignoring me so your claim above that he was is just another factual error.

Off course you choose not to try to argue with the points I made in my prior post, they were obviously specific, accurate and irrefutable.

Choosing instead to try to parade what you are reading is foolish. First, the material is irrelevant to the specific issue at hand. Second, reading does not mean mastery. Third, in critical reasoning theory it is considered a classic error in logic - called argumentum ad hominem. The error, loosely put, being that if you are wrong on the issue or content, try to hide that fact by arguing that you are smarter - excactly what you did. Perhaps you should add some books on troubleshooting, critical reasoning, or logic to your reading list.

In two long posts in a row you have made repeated bogus personal attacks on me, while I have only been trying to help the originator and get him back to a reasonable troublshooting process. Instead of trying to use lies to put me down and resorting to cheap rhetorical tricks that actually show faulty reasoning, it would have been more appropriate to admit your mistake and apologize to OldAnalagGuy.

And now it appears he has deserted this thread, his last reported act being to mistakenly raise his CPU Vcore to 3.5v while attempting to follow your instructions on OC. I hope he was able to set it back down with no damage done. Since it was in his immediately prior post that he said he finally followed my suggestion and increased his memory voltage to 2.0v, I hope that means he has a stable good system.

a c 177 V Motherboard
July 24, 2009 7:05:01 PM

Quote:
irrefutable
:lol: 

the 'refutations' are on their way, in the other post - mind you, it's four pages long so far - so egregious are your errors!
a b V Motherboard
July 26, 2009 3:36:17 PM

Where are your four pages or longer of alleged 'refutations'? They are not on the other post - the only other post mentioned - where you said you would make them.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/261534-30-possible-mo...

Did you post them on some third thread? Obviously wherever you posted them, if you did, readers of this thread would have no idea where to go to read these alleged 'refutations, so please let is know. I am most anxious to learn about all of my "egregious" errors. I would like to see how in a few short posts - mostly on the same subject - I could have four pages of 'egregious' errors - even more so that the poster finally took my repeated suggestion to increase his RAM voltage and it appears to have solved his issue.

About 4 hours after your post above, you did post on the other thread - but it was just only about the other thread and another misleading attempt to evade addressing your errors there and another personal attack on me.

If you did not post, then why are you telling readers of this thread that you would or did? Is this is yet another example of your misleading posts that, in place of a rational discussion of the subject, you try to hide the fact that you cannot refute the facts I stated and, instead, make misleading statments and a bogus and unsupportable attack on me? If so how sad that you try to defend making misleading posts and personal attacks with more of the same. But I will give you this - you are consistent.
!