Incorrect cpu clock speed

[aeneid]

Hi,
I have the GA-MA770-UD3 mobo and the AMD Phenom II x4 955 cpus ( windows 7) . This cpu should be running at 3.2 ghz but all tests i run say it is at 1.6ghz. I have amd cool n quite off, i have power settings set to performance and i have my bios version at F4. I have read several other people talking about the same problem with gigabyte mobos and this cpu and they found some special bios version to fix it, but i cannot find a bios update that will fix it with this mobo. Does anybody know where to find the correct update and which it is? Gigabyte support is worthless and they only respond with their "cut n paste" response saying " we will look into it". I have a 700w power supply and i have tried overclocking it, but it only resorts to a black screen and having to reset the bios.

Any help is greatly appreciated,
Thanks

 

[JDFan]

Bios would be here - http://www.gigabyte.com.tw/Support/Motherboard/BIOS_Model.aspx?ProductID=2982

 

[mindless728]

could you be more specific about the tests you did

though if you haven't tried, use cpus to watch the speed and use Preim95 to load the cpu

 

[aeneid]

I tried the bios update, but it said "does not support 64 bit operating system" which doesnt make sense when it should only affect the bios. For the tests, i used a benchmark software to test the speed, i ran crysis and checked the speed, and i used cpu-z to check the speed. i have come down to the fact that it is a bios issue, i just cant find the correct version that works.

 

[bilbat]

The first question is: do you have a rev 1.0, 2.0, or 2.1 MOBO?

You're right about the 64 bit OS message - should never happen, as no OS should be loaded when you update - how are you trying to update? For god's sake - DO NOT use @BIOS - it's a well-known 'board-killer'!

 

[JDFan]

The first question is: do you have a rev 1.0, 2.0, or 2.1 MOBO?

You're right about the 64 bit OS message - should never happen, as no OS should be loaded when you update - how are you trying to update? For god's sake - DO NOT use @BIOS - it's a well-known 'board-killer'!

Agreed - though with Gigabytes Dual BIOS it does make using it a bit safer (since the secondary Bios will restore the board if something goes wrong during flashing of the primary !!)

 

[bilbat]

The whole problem with @BIOS is that it is capable, somehow, of 'breaking' the dual BIOS mechanism - we assume by allowing an overwrite of the BIOS' boot block - the code that is resposible for the various 'recovery' functions; no other BIOS loading mechanism will do this...

 

[JDFan]

The whole problem with @BIOS is that it is capable, somehow, of 'breaking' the dual BIOS mechanism - we assume by allowing an overwrite of the BIOS' boot block - the code that is resposible for the various 'recovery' functions; no other BIOS loading mechanism will do this...

Didn't know that (I've never used it as I prefer to do it from DOS anyway) but good to know not to try !

 

[bilbat]

Yup - the boot block (which is a stable piece of code - I don't think the Award boot block has been changed in over a decade...) does the recovery, including the dreaded 'blind flash'; I have infinite faith in GB's dual BIOS as I've recovered numerous machines (trashed one of mine twice in a row, as I refused to believe a BIOS file could be corrupted and still pass checksum!) for myself and others here, but, have seen numerous boards 'bricked' here, beyond all hope aside from an RMA, by @BIOS...