/ Sign-up
Your question

XP 1900+ can't run at 1600Mhz?

  • CPUs
  • Asus
  • BIOS
  • Windows XP
Last response: in CPUs
December 12, 2001 7:21:16 AM

I have an ASUS A7A266 motherboard (BIOS rev 1009) with 512MB PC2100 (Crucial). I swapped out my AMD 1.3 GHz T-Bird for the AMD XP 1900+. Fire up the PC, go into the BIOS and set the CPU speed to 1600 (12.0 X 133/33) and Windows ME will not boot and I get Windows Protect fault system halted errors. So I back into the BIOS and cripple the PC by setting it to 1200 - PC boot, Windows ME loads fine, but my PC is clearly slower than my original AMD T-Bird 1.3 GHz. So, anyone know what setting the ASUS A7A266 should get for a the XP 1900. According to ASUS the A7A266 with the latest BIOS I have does support XP 1900.

Any suggestions?

Thanks, Rob.

More about : 1900 run 1600mhz

December 12, 2001 8:31:12 AM

Did you change heatsinks.

Also you will want to reinstall your os to take advantage of the sse.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
December 12, 2001 8:19:14 PM

sounds like a Heat Issue......what does the BIOS report your temperature at ??!??

BTW, try loadign windows in Safe Mode and see fi it boots, if it does...than its doubtfull its a heat issue.....

Post back....

-MeTaL RoCkEr

<A HREF="" target="_new"> <b> My Rig </b> </A>
Related resources
a b à CPUs
a b Ĉ ASUS
December 13, 2001 5:23:06 PM

Well actually at 1200 it should still be faster than your 1300 becuase of the xp architecture. Definitely reinstall windows whenever you change your proc. You might want to try and update BIOS again just to make sure.
December 13, 2001 7:55:37 PM

Ok folks, I'm a software developer so you'll have to give me some really concrete reasons why I need to re-install my OS going from an AMD 1.3 T-Bird to an AMD XP 1900. I can query the API to determine my SSE state which implies I do NOT need to re-install the OS.

I'm not trying to pick on you folks, but all too often I see bad information backed up with NO concrete facts. So unless any Windows OS has suddenly become brain dead, please explain to me why the OS needs to be re-installed so I can use SSE?

Thanks, Rob.
December 13, 2001 8:21:49 PM

Well first off, old Billy Boy [gates] designed the win9x architecture so thats problem no.1. Secondly, It's always good to format every once-in-a-while.

No-one knows why (hopefully someone does) but often the problem - whatever it may be, can be fixed by reinstalling the OS.

I personally would just back up all my stuff and start over.

"The answer to life's problems aren't at the bottom of a beer bottle, they're on TV."
December 13, 2001 8:48:03 PM

Well, sir, I'd say it's a heat issue. The other specs of your system seem to show that you should have no problems. So, unless you have a real nice HSF, I'd have to say you need a new HSF. As to what kind you should pick up, I'm not the guy to ask.

My only other concern is your motherboard. I'm have a A7A266, and even with the BIOS update, it will not support an XP processor. The reason? My A7A266 is board rev. 1.04, and you need to have a board that is rev. 1.10 or higher. Now, I'm not sure what will happen if I try to put the XP in my board. It might just be it doesn't support SSE instructions, the voltage range not right, or it might be that it will exhibit issues similar to yours.

My suggestion is this: First, check your motherboard revision. It is located below the 1st PCI slot, by the southbridge chip. It will say A7A266, and below that, in smaller letters, is rev 1.XX. If it's 1.09 or less, your board does not support the XP processor, and that might be the issue. If it's 1.10 or higher, read on:

Download <A HREF="" target="_new">Motherbord Monitor</A> and check your temps at the 1.2GHz speed. Assuming that your processor is unlocked, set the multiplier to 9 and the FSB to 133/33. Load it up like that, turn on MBM, and let it sit for a few minutes. Since your computer is crashing very quickly after startup, the heat might build up pretty fast. Let it level out, then restart. Increase your multiplier up by .5, and repeat the process. Your temp should level out at a higher temp. From everything I've read, the safe sone of the AMD is below 70C. But, if at the lower multipliers it's already around 60C, you are definately having heat issues. Get a new heatsink. Try looking at the AMD site for recommended HSF for XP1900+. If your temps are normal, there might be an issue with the board, other than the revision thing. If you processor is not unlocked, you can either try to unlock it (which, I just remembered, very hard on the XP), or you can set it to 1.6GHz, and hope that MBM loads up and will show you the CPU temp. Otherwise, the only thing you can do is go into the BIOS and under Hardware, check the CPU temps. It might not get high enough, though, to show any problems. Ergo, if your temps are at ~65C or higher, just pick up a new HSF

Hope this helps!

December 13, 2001 9:01:25 PM

I have rev 1.03 with BIOS 1009. It does indeed support the XP processor, but requires that I step the voltage up to 1.8v. CPU temps are around 110 degrees F. The CPU settings are 12X multiplier with 133/33 (CPU/Bus) frequency.
December 13, 2001 10:36:27 PM

While I trust your assertion that your MB will run an XP, this <A HREF="" target="_new">link</A> here backs up what I had to say earlier. Notice, it is from ASUS's own website, so I'm apt to trust what they have to say.

December 13, 2001 10:44:08 PM

Re-installing an OS is generally a waste of time unless system files got corrupted somehow. I haven't re-installed my OS in over five years, just upgraded from Win95 to 98 to ME and *many* hardware upgrades including motherboard/CPU three or four times. No problems, all my games run fine today including the DOS ones.

Just make sure you're running Win98 SE or later so it can detect the more recent hardware. And always visit to patch your OS to bring it up to date. Even Win95 users can use this site to get the latest updates.
December 13, 2001 11:04:24 PM

Thanks for the link, this is not a decisive link of information since I've also read on ASUS's same board that all that is needed for AMD XP support is BIOS 1008 or higher, no mention of the PCB revision. It seems ASUS are sending mixed signals on this. The fact I've got my 1.03 PCB to work with an XP processor at rated speeds by just moving up one notch on the voltage 1.7 to 1.8 without any major heat penalty, is indication of inconsistancey in the information.

I think a call to ASUS is in order (not that this is final either unless I get a well equipped support person), but I do suspect that the 1.10 version fixes some initial voltage issues. Odd these issues existed, ASUS are usually pretty good with a solid PCB and can do most fixes via the BIOS.

Has ASUS explained why they claim no XP support for PCB prior to 1.10?

December 14, 2001 2:48:45 AM

Well, the only assumption I can make as to why they needed later board revisions is that, intitially, they didn't follow the SocketA specs for future, unreleased processors. Since the XP has a few more pins that are used, it's possible that earlier revisions didn't have the traces it needed. Also, it has been shown that even recently released boards (from top-tier makers) for XP don't have all the circuitry needed to read the on-die thermal diode. So, it's possible that Asus neglected to add certain traces and hardware because they didn't expect the A7A266 to be around this long, as sell this long. Really, what I would think is that the Asus tech ref. site I linked to earlier may have had the best info. The only reason is that I think, at lower speeds, the XP runs just fine, but at higher speeds, certain traces don't exist that it needs. Really, I have no knowledge of motherboard creation, socket designs, etc. I'm just trying to reason my way as to why we've recieved varying signals.

December 14, 2001 3:00:37 AM

Try to put the FSB at 133 and the multiplier at AUTO..

that what worked for my XP processor
a b à CPUs
December 14, 2001 3:17:11 AM

Could be the power supply. 90% or more of the people who have complained of similar problems have found out that their old power supply could not provide enough current to make their new processors stable at full speed. Remember, more speed means more power!

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
a b à CPUs
a b Ĉ ASUS
December 14, 2001 7:27:33 AM

>The fact I've got my 1.03 PCB to work with an XP processor
>at rated speeds by just moving up one notch on the voltage
>1.7 to 1.8

Does this mean you are running your XP1900 on that board now, at rated speed ? Or did you get some other XP to work on a similar board ?

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
December 14, 2001 10:20:35 AM

well, if you are going to throw your mobo i really recomand the MSI-KT266A pro2-RU(with RAID 1,0).
its fu*&n good.
and for the BS post about not reinstalling in five years(!!), we dont use it for only Solitaire and notepad.
I have tripple boot system with -win2k(SP2)/win98SE/SuSe linux 7.2.
its not posible that you upgraded(!!) your os to a later version with no glitch, upgrading is just asking for it!
and further more lats say i did take your post seriously(which i dont and my reaction it just to meke my point) most people dont just run office tasks and crap like that exclusively on their mechine, they also use less know software titles and hardware components that have big problams when upgrading, cousing unwanted hangs and system crashes.

<font color=green>
*(k)eep (I)t (S)imple (S)tupid*
</font color=green>
December 14, 2001 10:27:04 AM

V8 I have heard(and am not positive) that windows detects sse enhancement at install and if none is detected it will not install the sse libraries. I do not know if this is true but the reinstall cant hurt either way.

(in windows xp you can load core optimisations for different cpus, but it still requires work on your part).

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
December 14, 2001 1:27:39 PM

Nope I wasn't kidding. :) 

I seriously haven't re-installed my OS from scratch in over five years, since about the time Win95 came out. The upgrade process has been painless every time. And I'm a pretty hardcore gamer with over 30 gigs of games installed. In that time I've upgraded through several hard drives and I simply did an XCOPY to move the OS over to the next hard drive. For a couple years in there I had four hard drives running with SCSI and now I'm running two sound cards and two network cards, no problems, never re-installed the OS. I've been through around four motherboards with only Intel chipsets: 430HX then 440BX.

It's ridiculously amateurish to have to re-install an OS every six months like some people suggest and all I can think of is that their chipsets or platforms are inherently unstable with IRQs and such that don't like hardware being swapped in and out. I've used other people's VIA systems and I use one at work and they're horribly unstable compared to the rock solid 440BX. I have to reboot my Compaq VIA chipset machine at work a few times a week while running simulations because it just crashes when I try to multitask heavily.

Also to prevent re-installing the OS don't install crap that your machine doesn't need like ICQ, AOL, etc.
December 14, 2001 1:48:59 PM

I have no idea why so many people on here still claim that the OS detects SSE, MMX, etc. This is not true. I'm not flaming you Matisaro, but just wanted to let you know. When a program is able to support these instructions, it queries the processor itself, not the OS. I don't know about XP, but I know Windows 2000 was compiled and optimized for Pentium Pro, no SSE, no MMX, nothing of that nature. You could take advantage of SSE and MMX under DOS if you want, it's the software, not the OS that detects whether or not it can use the extended instruction set.
December 14, 2001 3:22:37 PM

Yes, running XP 1900 at 1600Mhz on the 1.03 PCB right now, but setting voltage to 1.8 rather than 1.7. The only issues I'm having is with one game is Return to Castel Wolfenstein, all other games are working fine FS2002, F1 2001, Empire Earth, Quake III, etc. etc.
December 14, 2001 4:02:08 PM

SSE is used in DirectX (Direct3D) API, the core OS files don't give a hoot about SSE. I have re-installed DirectX 8.1.

Sorry, but reinstalling the OS is a major waste of time and will NOT resolve anything. The "reinstall" the OS is often used WAY TOO much my just about every support group I know. Would you go to a car dealer and say replace my engine because of a vacuum leak in a hose?

Don't call the fire department when a bucket of water will do.
December 14, 2001 6:12:18 PM

Well, there are certain cases where an fresh install of an OS will give benefits... but I will agree with you that it is an overperscribed remedy. Usually, I'd consider an fresh install when upgrading to a new OS, changing the motherboard, or adding a new/faster HDD. Otherwise, most issues with Win9x can be resolved with a good reg cleaner, reg editor, and patience.

December 15, 2001 8:44:43 AM

But the os itself is a program, thats all I was saying, I am sure the apps with sse requirements will have support, but the os itself will not take advantage of the sse enhancements.

Thats what I heard, again, I am not positive.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
December 15, 2001 1:36:56 PM

Like I said, Windows 2000, for example, is compiled for Pentium Pro, so it does not take advantage of even MMX, let alone SSE or 3DNow. So it's probably not likely that even Windows XP will take advantage of these extended instruction sets.
December 15, 2001 2:31:38 PM


When a program is able to support these instructions, it queries the processor itself, not the OS.

I don't think that's a true statement in general. Depends on the application. I know of at least one game that uses SSE but does not check for SSE capability at run time. I believe the install program in this case checks for the SSE capability, and sets the registry key indicating whether SSE is present on that machine for that application to use.
December 16, 2001 9:19:27 AM

To madcat, that is what I heard, I personally would just reinstall to be sure.

To the guy about ppro, windows xp does in fact use sse sse2 and 3dnow in the os, and I have heard many times that it does not install the specific instructions when they are not detected when installation occurs.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
December 17, 2001 9:19:56 AM

Sorry guys I agree with Matisaro. When I redid my system from amd athlon 700 to a amd athlon 1.53 1800 I look on the os and no sse. So I formatted and reinstalled. and I have sse on the OS.
December 17, 2001 11:26:43 AM

Ok, there might be exceptions, but the in general, it's usually at runtime. That though, was not my point, my point was that current OS's do not use these instructions, because they are compiled for much older processors, like in the case of Windows 2000, which is compiled for Pentium Pro.
December 17, 2001 11:01:57 PM

Im sorry AtolSammeek....but that was a very vague description.....what do you mean you "look on the os" and you don't see SSE, but after you re-formatetd you exactly do you LOOK for SSE beign used on the OS if you don't mind me asking ?

-MeTaL RoCkEr

My <font color=red>Z28</font color=red> can take your <font color=blue>P4</font color=blue> off the line!