Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

GA EX58 UD4P reboots during XP setup

Last response: in Motherboards
Share
October 5, 2009 7:46:19 PM

Bought Gigabyte GA-EX58-UD4P motherboard for a i7 920 system and I can not complete the windows XP set up. The system re-boots automatically always at the same point in teh Win setup. Then it does not see the HDD.

Power supply Zalmar ZM 750 HP
CPU: i7 920
Modeboard: GA-EX58-UD4P
RAM: Kingston Hyper X KHX1600C9D3K3 / 6GB kit of 3
HDD: WD Caviar RE WD5002ABYS x 2 RAID 0
Graphics: GA N275UD-896I GTX275

I swapped graphics card - Same problem
Tried HDDs in RAID 0 and one at the time - Same problem
Tried memory one stick at the time - Same problem
Tried triple channel with XMP enabled at profile 1 and different timings (I am pushing the limits of my knowledge here !)
I took it for service: They said they replaced the motherboard (under warranty - no charge) and loaded Vista 64b. When I got home tried to setup XP again - Same problem.
Same happened under Vista when tried to load one of the UD4P chipset drivers they left out ! !.
a b V Motherboard
October 6, 2009 2:56:26 AM

OK, first of all, remove any over-clock or unusual settings in the BIOS before starting install. No XMP, Optimal defaults only.

Your two RAID drives, they are the only drives in the system? So it's them and optical drive for installing Windows?

Are you installing a RAID driver when you first begin the Windows Install - as prompted to on the first blue screen? You need that driver ready when asked for it.

Not familar with that motherboard, but should have options in BIOS about RAID/IDE config, what have you chosen?
October 6, 2009 4:40:32 AM

Mongox said:
OK, first of all, remove any over-clock or unusual settings in the BIOS before starting install. No XMP, Optimal defaults only.

Your two RAID drives, they are the only drives in the system? So it's them and optical drive for installing Windows?

Are you installing a RAID driver when you first begin the Windows Install - as prompted to on the first blue screen? You need that driver ready when asked for it.

Not familar with that motherboard, but should have options in BIOS about RAID/IDE config, what have you chosen?



Thanks very much. I few omitions on my part I notice.

Yes have an ODD installed as well. However because I am installin XP I have to install the RAID drivers via FDD. Icopied the drivers to a floppie.
This process works perfectly. I can see the RAID 0 drive in BIOS and also I format it during the first stages of XP set up.

You seem to know what you are talking about so my impression (with minimum experience) is a compatibility problem between the MoBo and the RAM. I tried both ways 1. with XMP disabled and then 2. with XMP enabled. I also 3. venture in changing some of the RAM timings loaded when XMP is enabled and interestingly although it still reboots I noticed some different behaviour. So I believe that manipulating the BIOS settings associated with the RAM is where the answer is. Unfortunately I lack experience on this.

I also read some issues with power PSUs but the one I bough had prety good reviews so at this stage I am ruling the PSU out (for now). Tricky issue ehe !

Related resources
a b V Motherboard
October 6, 2009 5:00:53 AM

Well, I think with the BIOS set to defaults is the way to go. That is, no special settings for the memory. As far as Windows install in concerned, if you have memory and it's working, it's happy. You don't want ANY type of overclocking or special settings if you can help it.

You have 6GBs of RAM - do you have 64-bit Win XP?

Some even suggest installing Windows with a single module when running into problems. And I see you tried that.

I actually have little experience with RAID drives - and no experience with having RAID be the primary Windows boot drive. But I am familar with common problems people have with them thru trouble-shooting and reading about them.

Make sure you don't have any external USB drives connected while installing Windows.

Again, make sure you set Optimal Defaults in BIOS before starting. Then set the DDR voltage to 1.65V. Only change any settings needed for the RAID, then install Windows.
October 6, 2009 5:09:33 AM

Mongox said:
Well, I think with the BIOS set to defaults is the way to go. That is, no special settings for the memory. As far as Windows install in concerned, if you have memory and it's working, it's happy. You don't want ANY type of overclocking or special settings if you can help it.

You have 6GBs of RAM - do you have 64-bit Win XP?

Some even suggest installing Windows with a single module when running into problems. And I see you tried that.

I actually have little experience with RAID drives - and no experience with having RAID be the primary Windows boot drive. But I am familar with common problems people have with them thru trouble-shooting and reading about them.

Make sure you don't have any external USB drives connected while installing Windows.

Again, make sure you set Optimal Defaults in BIOS before starting. Then set the DDR voltage to 1.65V. Only change any settings needed for the RAID, then install Windows.



Thanks again Mongox, much apreciated. I will try tonight and will let you know.
By the way just got a respones from Kingston saying that the RAM I have is not recommended for this particular mobo. They recomend a slower 1333 from the ValueRam line. Will follow this up also
October 6, 2009 3:21:19 PM

I've been having same problem with the "GA EX58 UD3R", reboots at the "Welcome to setup" screen when installing XP 32.

In case it helps, Vista 64 also works perfectly, my ram is 100% compatible with mainboard (according to both manufacturers and thoroughly tested in vista) and I've tried one ram module, underclocked, BIOS defaults, system at its lowest spec but could never resolve the problem.

In the end I reused the old XP installation on my raid 0 discs from my last mainboard, not ideal but for backward compatibility it gets by.

Hope you get it sorted!
a b V Motherboard
October 6, 2009 3:53:34 PM

I did notice that the Kingston memory you bought is perhaps their highest end. It's certainly the most expensive series, since it includes the 3 - 4GB set for $1200!!!!

So, someone else with RAID 0 problems with XP install on EX58 series.
October 6, 2009 7:50:24 PM

OK this is what hapened last night - I only had 1 hour to play though -

I dropped RAID 0 (too lenghthy to reset after a faillure) I am running two seprate HDDs. On one I have Vista 64b loaded by the repaire man however I can not load chipset drivers (reboots early in the process) The other one I use to try the XP SP3 32b installation (which I failed so far).

I reset BIOS to original. Raise DDR voltage to 1.64 (as you suggested mongox - closest to but below 1.65V speck) I noticed another voltage (next line in BIOS - but i do not know what that is - it was set to 1.7xxx - I left as it was) saved and exit.

Booted from the Vista 64b HDD and tried to load the chipset drivers - This time it took them OK ! ! !. Vista seems to be stable although I have not spent too much time with it. Checked that all drivers a installed OK nor yellow ?s.

Then disconnected the Vista disk and booted on the one I use for XP trials. Something diferent occured: It booted directly on the XP setup retaking it at the time it failed last time. (First time it happens - On previous times I always had to start the setup from zero and quick format the disk) looked promising . . . .

I continued with the installation through setting location, language and time. Then switches to network setup, I entered the "workgroup" name and shortly after: IT REBOOTED AGAIN bugger ! No change here this is the spot in the set up process at which always fail - always in the very same spot.

Lets be optimistic, this reinforces my thoughts that the key is compatibility between the mobo and RAM. The UD4P has so many settings particular to the memory, going through voltages and timings/delays etc (most of which I would not have a clue what they are) that I suspect there must be a combination of settings that make the RAM work OK with the board.

My next try is to research the second voltage line I mentioned before, the one following the DDR voltafe in BIOS (currently set to 1.7xxx) I may raise the volts after I understand what it is I thnk is labeled OIS or something like that.

I also notice that the Hyper X RAM I use has timings 9-9-9-27 the BIOS defauls goes to 8-8-8-24 ( I assume the settings in BIOS must be lower than the DDR rating ? ?).

Iny other ideas appreciated.

mongox, if your coment about the DDR cost was related to my DDR (Hyper X) I paid AUS$165 for the kit (discounted from AUS$204).

moomooman, Do not loose hope we will get there in the end. Kingston offered to swap the DDR for me provided I take another kit of the very same type - The would not swap for a different spec.

Cheers, ruben

October 6, 2009 8:03:55 PM

8 8 8 24 is a higher setting.. those numbers are latencies

if vista works and xp doesnt I'm not sure I could call it a ram/mobo problem.

Not sure why you would want xp on a brand new computer as its somewhat unoptimal for quadcore or that much memory.

you could go windows 7 and use xp mode for any legacy applications.
October 6, 2009 10:20:39 PM

rand_79 said:
8 8 8 24 is a higher setting.. those numbers are latencies

if vista works and xp doesnt I'm not sure I could call it a ram/mobo problem.

Not sure why you would want xp on a brand new computer as its somewhat unoptimal for quadcore or that much memory.

you could go windows 7 and use xp mode for any legacy applications.



Thanks rand_79, Tell me should the mobo latency numbers be set to higher or lower than those quoted in the DDR spec ?

My plan is to go Windows 7 64 as soon as it is available and I see good reviews. I do not want to waste time with Vista at all. That is the reason for installing XP. Nevertheless, even if I get Vista to work OK I was stung by the fact that I can not get XP to work.

Also remember that I still had problems to load the chipset drivers. Also Vista was loaded by a service shop that had the system for more than a week. IThey may have well loaded Vista on my HDD with othet syatem - I do not trust them I guess -

The purpose of puting together this system is basically to upgrade from my old Pentium 3 but also learn overclocking basics. I am learning the hard way you could say ! !


My DDR speck states 9-9-9-27 CL9 1.65V You say that the BIOS settings 8-8-8-24 is a higher setting ? should I change them to 9-9-9-27 ?

If you have any other suggestions re BIOS memory settings it would be great. The Kingston DataSheet for the DDR states: I do not know how to use these values to work out optimum BIOS settings !

Vddq= 1.5V
Programmable CAS latency: 5,6,7,8,9,10
Programmable Additive Latency: 0, CL2 or CL1 clock
Programmable CAS write latency (CWL)= 7 (DDR3 - 1333)
PERFORMANCE
CL(IDD): 9 cycles
tRCmin: 49.5ns(min)
tRFCmin: 110ns (min)





a b V Motherboard
October 6, 2009 11:45:09 PM

There are lots of resources, both in the Memory forum here and elsewhere about latency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAS_latency

Here's important stuff. Latency or Timings are delays in the processing of information by the RAM. Generally, the latency goes up - which is slower - as the speed/MHz of the RAM goes up.

Latency is expressed in different ways. The most common is to see CL=? In addition, any RAM module has different latencies depending on its chosen speed. Your moduels at their top rated speed of 1600 have a CL=9.

The other numbers are all related to the basic CL. So that a module with a CL=9 might have details latency or timing numbers of 9-9-9-27. The first 9 is the CL. The other numbers are somewhat dependent upon the 9 and have names of their own. You'll see all these timings and names in your BIOS and programs like CPUz.

So, generally, if a module has a CL=9 at 1600, it will have a CL=8 at 1333 and maybe a CL=7 at 1066. Notice, the processing delays, the latency, is reduced as the RAM slows down. Most would say that having a lower CL is better than having a higher speed - but you'll see arugments on the subject. --- By this I mean, if you look for 1333 speed DDR3 RAM, you can choose from CL=9 or 8 or 7. The CL=7 is always going to be faster than CL=8 at 1333 speed. CL=8 at 1600 is always faster than CL=9

Now, both higher speeds and lower latency are often very over-rated by "power" users - people looking to overclock and such. One reason is that increases in speed or better latency has very little effect on normal computer use - even high-end gaming use. Here's an article that discusses this - flip to the Conclusions page to avoid all the technical details. But it basically says you're better off not spending money for RAM over 1333 speed but you should try to get the lowest latency at that speed.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/memory-scaling-i7,2...

Overclocking RAM involves many different things. You might increase the speed beyond what it's rated at - change 1333 RAM to run at 1500. You might change the timings from 9 to 8 while leaving the speed at higher level. You might increase the voltage beyond specs to make it work better when overclocked. Overclocking RAM means to set it to run faster in speed or lower in latency than it's rated at.

Lots to learn eh?

Try this in setting your RAM. First, find out what speed it's showing as. If it's showing at 1333, then the 8-8-8 numbers are fine. If it's showing at 1600, then the 8-8-8 number are overclocked - change them to 9-9-9-27. And keep the voltage at 1.65. Test the system that way. You don't want any overclocking when installing your OS.

October 7, 2009 1:16:55 AM

Mongox said:
There are lots of resources, both in the Memory forum here and elsewhere about latency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAS_latency

Here's important stuff. Latency or Timings are delays in the processing of information by the RAM. Generally, the latency goes up - which is slower - as the speed/MHz of the RAM goes up.

Latency is expressed in different ways. The most common is to see CL=? In addition, any RAM module has different latencies depending on its chosen speed. Your moduels at their top rated speed of 1600 have a CL=9.

The other numbers are all related to the basic CL. So that a module with a CL=9 might have details latency or timing numbers of 9-9-9-27. The first 9 is the CL. The other numbers are somewhat dependent upon the 9 and have names of their own. You'll see all these timings and names in your BIOS and programs like CPUz.

So, generally, if a module has a CL=9 at 1600, it will have a CL=8 at 1333 and maybe a CL=7 at 1066. Notice, the processing delays, the latency, is reduced as the RAM slows down. Most would say that having a lower CL is better than having a higher speed - but you'll see arugments on the subject. --- By this I mean, if you look for 1333 speed DDR3 RAM, you can choose from CL=9 or 8 or 7. The CL=7 is always going to be faster than CL=8 at 1333 speed. CL=8 at 1600 is always faster than CL=9

Now, both higher speeds and lower latency are often very over-rated by "power" users - people looking to overclock and such. One reason is that increases in speed or better latency has very little effect on normal computer use - even high-end gaming use. Here's an article that discusses this - flip to the Conclusions page to avoid all the technical details. But it basically says you're better off not spending money for RAM over 1333 speed but you should try to get the lowest latency at that speed.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/memory-scaling-i7,2...

Overclocking RAM involves many different things. You might increase the speed beyond what it's rated at - change 1333 RAM to run at 1500. You might change the timings from 9 to 8 while leaving the speed at higher level. You might increase the voltage beyond specs to make it work better when overclocked. Overclocking RAM means to set it to run faster in speed or lower in latency than it's rated at.

Lots to learn eh?

Try this in setting your RAM. First, find out what speed it's showing as. If it's showing at 1333, then the 8-8-8 numbers are fine. If it's showing at 1600, then the 8-8-8 number are overclocked - change them to 9-9-9-27. And keep the voltage at 1.65. Test the system that way. You don't want any overclocking when installing your OS.



Good stuff I am getting my head around this now. The latency numbers quoted in BIOS are the timing at which the mobo will time the RAM and they should by norm be higher than the RAM's spec CL. However, if you run the RAM at below rated speed you would expect to perform OK at lowe latency numbers. I can take that as a point of reference.

By the way with optimum settings the BIOS is running at 1066 (looks conservative given RAM spec is 1600) and 8-8-8-24. Now I already mentioned the improvement gained when I raised the DDR volts to 1.65V.

QUESTION Below the DDR volts the BIOS lists QPI volts at 1.175 (just checked it out) is there any chance that raising the QPI volts to ? could improve my situation. Cheers.
a b V Motherboard
October 7, 2009 2:46:39 AM

I think it's fair to say that QPI is a Bus format used by Intel. Increasing the QPI voltage would presumably give you better performance and ability to raise the speeds it transfers information. Frankly, I don't much understand the details of the HyperTransport system used by AMD - Intel's QPI is beyond what I'm willing to teach myself at the moment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QPI_interface
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperTransport

Again, since you've already got problems running the computer's components at stock or normal settings, I'd resist fiddling with overclocking it until you get the Windows running properly. So I'd not mess with QPI or XMP - both tools Intel provides for overclocking.

The BIOS uses information physically located on the RAM module, called the SPD, to figure out how the timing should be set. Usually there will be a column on info showing the SPD at a given speed within the BIOS - showing what its AUTO settings are. You can read more info from the SPD by using a program like CPUz from www.cpuid.com ((XMP is a set of pre-defined overclock settings for RAM - like boosted SPDs, supported by some Intel boards and many newer RAM modules.)

One thing you should try is to increase the speed of the RAM to at least 1333. This is a good point to be at, even with 1600 RAM. Let the BIOS set the timings, likely the same 8-8-8-24 you're seeing now.

I'm still not sure why Kingston would say not to use this RAM in this motherboard - they may know more than they'll telling. But I'd take their advice and try some different RAM - perhaps not by Kingston.
October 7, 2009 7:49:17 PM

Mongox said:
I think it's fair to say that QPI is a Bus format used by Intel. Increasing the QPI voltage would presumably give you better performance and ability to raise the speeds it transfers information. Frankly, I don't much understand the details of the HyperTransport system used by AMD - Intel's QPI is beyond what I'm willing to teach myself at the moment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QPI_interface
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperTransport

Again, since you've already got problems running the computer's components at stock or normal settings, I'd resist fiddling with overclocking it until you get the Windows running properly. So I'd not mess with QPI or XMP - both tools Intel provides for overclocking.

The BIOS uses information physically located on the RAM module, called the SPD, to figure out how the timing should be set. Usually there will be a column on info showing the SPD at a given speed within the BIOS - showing what its AUTO settings are. You can read more info from the SPD by using a program like CPUz from www.cpuid.com ((XMP is a set of pre-defined overclock settings for RAM - like boosted SPDs, supported by some Intel boards and many newer RAM modules.)

One thing you should try is to increase the speed of the RAM to at least 1333. This is a good point to be at, even with 1600 RAM. Let the BIOS set the timings, likely the same 8-8-8-24 you're seeing now.

I'm still not sure why Kingston would say not to use this RAM in this motherboard - they may know more than they'll telling. But I'd take their advice and try some different RAM - perhaps not by Kingston.




Just to close the subject:
Raised RAM speed to 1333 and run tried with 8-8-8-24 first and RAM spec. times second (9-9-9-27) with no improvement. When I was running out of ideas I remembered a gigabyte utility "Easy Tune 6" that i installed under Vista. You may know what it is about.

Well I run Easy Tune 6 under Vista 64b and selected a setup that speeded up the i7 to 3.37Ghz - Noticed that it did so by running the base clock faster and leaving the multipier at max (x20). I read that raising the base clock has other implications that need to be reviewed/checked but did not have the time to check my notes on the subject. Just assumed that gigabyte would do it on the safe side.

I then tried to load XP again and guess what, this time went through the process without rebooting ? !. With the XP set up completed I installed the chipset drivers and then the graphics card driver and utilities all w/o a glitch ! !

How it worked ? (RAM at 1333, 9-9-9-27 (spec timing) and 1.66 V. CPU i7 920 at 3.37xMHz)

I do not know how stable it would be to run it at this sttings all the time, I will find out. The purpose of puting this rig together was to learn about overclocking after all and I am already learning a few things on the way.

Next step is to install a decent CPU cooler, I picked a Noctua NH-U12P. Noticed that running a 3.37MHz in Idle the CPU heats up to 40degC w/ 25C ambient.
With the new cooler installed I will run some load tests on all four cores to see how stable it is.

mongox, I do not want to abuse your kindness and bother you with more talk. I think I solved my problem - with your help - thanks again cheers, Ruben.
a b V Motherboard
October 7, 2009 11:11:32 PM

Good luck Ruben and glad to help.

One thing about any "program" to adjust the overclocking. They are useful for testing different configs and experimenting, but after you find something that seems to work, you should adjust the BIOS yourself to those settings - then don't run the program. Some complain about EasyTune but it's useful for its purpose that as far as I can see.

Mongo is fine - I have to add the x at many sites as Mongo is already taken!
!