Post #74,391
1/14/03 10:33:42 AM
|
Various questions about my CPU and BIOS
IWETHEY is a case study in why direct access to experts is always preferable to direct access to documentation. :D
In my last post, I was complaining about random reboots. I've fixed that, by changing the way Windows XP handles errors. Now I just get the BSOD, which while no less aggravating is actually a bit more useful.
One of the things mentioned there is that a computer will be unstable until you find just the right balance of bios settings, drivers, etc. needed to make it happy. And I realized that there are a lot of things about my new CPU that I just don't know... and looking through AMD's website returns either a) marketing spiel, b) very general, high-level information, or c) lists of low-level information that I don't understand.
I'm at that middle area, see. I know enough for the beginners docs to be useless, and not enough to actually do anything useful with what I know. Heh.
At any rate, when I upgraded my computer's BIOS, I discoverd that my computer finally recognized that I had an Athlon 2000 + processor, which was nice. Now for my questions:
Processor speed -
The "Autodetect" bios settings (which I try to stick to, because I'm not interested in overclocking) gives me a choice for processor speed: 1250mHz or 1667mHz. Why is this, exactly? The 2000 + processor doesn't actually run at 2000mHz, I know that much, but I'm not sure which of those is the proper setting. I do know that currently if I set it to 1667 the computer reboots endlessly, so 1250 is the "workable" one.
Bus speed -
The bus speed defaults to 133 when the cpu is set to 1667, and 100 when set to 1250. I have no idea why, since when the Athlon 1000 was installed it was always at 133. I don't have one of those new 266 boards, and I don't have any of that super-RAM either, but I do have RAM that runs at 133. Why would the board scale back to 100, ever?
Processor voltage -
I dimly recall reading somewhere that it's very important for a processor to be running at the correct voltage. My motherboard defaults to sending it 1.75 volts, apparently. But my software-driven hardware monitor flags this as "too much." I have no idea if it is or not. Any pointers?
Processor heat -
What kind of CPU temperatures should I be aiming for? I know 80 celsius is too much (geez Jay <grin>) and I know a lot of hardware monitors start to warn you at around 60... but what should I aim for with all the heat sinks and fans and stuff? What's the optimal heat level for one of these AMD processor thingies? With the case off, the processor tends to average 50-51, this goes up when playing a graphics-intensive or computation-intensive game (Morrowind and Civ III respectively).
Video settings -
The video settings in BIOS have never made any sense to me. I hear that with most boards, AGP 4x settings are buggy, so it's best to just set it at AGP 2x and be done with it. I also hear that setting the AGP card to fast write is a similar waste of time, because the slight performance increase isn't worth the instability. What about this apeture thingy? Some people say you need to set it to half the size of your installed ram. What's the deal with that?
Anyway, those are my general questions. Thanks for any and all responses.
"We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?"
- Edward Young
|
Post #74,406
1/14/03 11:05:49 AM
|
The CPU speed is a multiple of your memory bus speed.
I think you're very close to resolving your problems.
:-)
Processor speed -
The "Autodetect" bios settings (which I try to stick to, because I'm not interested in overclocking) gives me a choice for processor speed: 1250mHz or 1667mHz. Why is this, exactly? The 2000 + processor doesn't actually run at 2000mHz, I know that much, but I'm not sure which of those is the proper setting. I do know that currently if I set it to 1667 the computer reboots endlessly, so 1250 is the "workable" one.
Bus speed -
The bus speed defaults to 133 when the cpu is set to 1667, and 100 when set to 1250. I have no idea why, since when the Athlon 1000 was installed it was always at 133. I don't have one of those new 266 boards, and I don't have any of that super-RAM either, but I do have RAM that runs at 133. Why would the board scale back to 100, ever?
At 1000 MHz, your system is running 133 MHz x 7.5, so it's not having to be driven as hard as when it's trying to run faster. Memory timing issues between the CPU and memory aren't quite as critical in the slower case.
Your system is giving you choices of 1250 MHz (12.5 x 100 MHz) or 1667 MHz (12.5 times 133 MHz) with the 2000+ processor. For your 2000+ (1667 MHz) processor to run at 1667 MHz, it has to run at 12.5 times the 133 MHz memory clock. If it won't run there, it means that there's some memory timing issue or something similar. Sometimes these issues can be resolved by tweaking the CPU voltage, but that'll make it run hotter. I've never done such tweaking.
Since only the 12.5 x 100 MHz version is working, it seems to be saying that your memory won't run at 133 MHz (at least on this board with this CPU at the moment). You could try using SpeedFan (mentioned earlier) to slowly tweak your memory clock and see if you can squeeze a little more speed out of it. On my Abit 1000 MHz Athlon system, I have choices of 100, 101.5, 103, 105, 107.5, 110, 112, 115, 117.5, etc. Note that increasing these frequencies also increases your PCI bus speed, so it may affect the stability of your peripherals as well.
I rechecked your motherboard specs and it does use PC133 RAM rather than DDR. It does seem a little risky to me, though, to try to run such a fast processor with relatively slow memory like that, but others have reported success.
[link|http://www.active-hardware.com/english/reviews/mainboard/a7v.htm|This] review of your board talks about various jumpers and ways of tweaking things in the BIOS. You might want to glance at that, if you haven't done so.
Bottom line: I think it's the RAM or RAM settings.
Good luck!
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #74,430
1/14/03 12:24:01 PM
|
I used to have some problems like this.
Until I realized it was always with an Asus board, so I don't use Asus boards any more and don't have these problems (currently using Shuttle - same board, no problems from 900-MHz Duron to Athlon 2000+). Built about 40 machines this year with AK11, AK12 and AK32.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #74,436
1/14/03 12:41:50 PM
|
Succient and to the point...
AS always...
| [link|mailto:curley95@attbi.com|greg] - Grand-Master Artist in IT | | [link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry/|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] [link|http://pascal.rockford.com:8888/SSK@kQMsmc74S0Tw3KHQiRQmDem0gAIPAgM/edcurry/1//|ED'S GHOST SPEAKS!] | Heimatland Geheime Staatspolizei reminds:
These [link|http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcipb/cyberstrategy-draft.html|Civilian General Orders], please memorize them.
"Questions" will be asked at safety checkpoints. |
|
Post #74,441
1/14/03 1:09:01 PM
|
I'm looking into GigaByte myself.
Mainly because I currently have a GigaByte board that currently runs an overclocked Slot A 650 (can only get it to 715 because anything higher and it won't even POST) and it's been working flawlessly since Day One.
My current fascination is an older [link|http://www.giga-byte.com/products/7vrxp.htm|GA-7VRXP] and possibly an XP 2000+. Yes, the board is a bit dated, but a) I don't want Bleeding Edge, b) the onboard NIC and sound have a prayer of working with OS/2 Warp 4, and c) the prices for it are coming down as vendors are unloading excess inventory that hasn't sold.
|
Post #74,456
1/14/03 3:12:41 PM
|
I have used a few GigaByte without problems
If I remember correctly, for dual processor units, though I think at least one was a single processor.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #74,549
1/14/03 9:55:25 PM
|
I have one of those
I've got an GA-7VRXP in my older system and the nice bleeding edge GA-7VAXP in my new one. I got the GA-7VAXP because the GA-7VRXP worked so well I just went with the latest model in that line.
The GA-7VRXP worked like a charm, the only tweaking I ever had to do was with the memory setting. I had to up the voltage one step on both systems to get my 333Mhz CL2 memory to work stably.
I had my 2200+xp running in the GA-7VRXP for a while, and it worked fine.
Jay
|
Post #74,443
1/14/03 1:32:43 PM
|
Why risky?
When you say a memory problem, do you mean that my memory has probably gone bad, or that it's just not fast enough for the processor?
So I guess to fix my problem what I need to do is go out and buy a new motherboard with a 266 bus and some of that new-fangled DDR Ram...
Not that I'd mind, I'm just a bit short on cash right now.
"We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?"
- Edward Young
|
Post #74,444
1/14/03 1:35:03 PM
|
While I'm on the subject...
if I'm going out to buy this new motherboard and ram, should I get a bigger power supply? Maybe go on up to 500? I don't know what the minimum is supposed to be anymore...
"We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?"
- Edward Young
|
Post #74,449
1/14/03 2:06:44 PM
|
I don't think your parts are "bad" - they just interact as
if they are. The RAM (what brand and specs, BTW?) may be fine on another machine. In [link|http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1303&p=3|Anandtech's review of this board] they recommend Corsair or Muskin memory. Newegg.com has a 512 MB stick of PC133 Corsair CL-2.5 memory for $67. I've been happy with my Soyo K7V Dragon+ using Crucial memory. Newegg's cheapest Soyo board is $78. 512 MB of Crucial DDR for it would be $128.
If you don't have money to burn, *don't* buy anything. Just use what you've got but tweak it until it's reliable (even if you have to run it slightly slowly). Things will always be faster and cheaper in the future. :-)
You shouldn't need more than 300 W for your system. 500 W is overkill unless you've got lots of PCI cards (e.g. SCSI cards) and lots of hard drives.
According to [link|http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/24309.pdf|this], your 2000+ dissipates a maximum power of 70 W (maximum chip temperature of 90 C). It draws a maximum of 40 A at 1.75 V (35.7 A typical). [link|http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/26003.pdf|This] AMD paper gives you pointers on how to calculate how big a PS you need. 300 W should be plenty if it's an ATX12V supply.
HTH.
Cheers,
Scott.
(Who thinks his 1.2 GHz Athlon home system is plenty fast enough right now...)
|
Post #74,516
1/14/03 7:38:03 PM
|
Voltages et al.
Time to go fishing in the motherboard manual again... and perhaps the AMD website.
What you're looking for is the correct CPU voltage for your processor. The motherboard manual might not have that information if you had to upgrade the BIOS to get it to see your processor correctly. But it will have a jumper setting you can change to get the voltage right! This is sounding like *the* core problem, BTW.
Argh... Asus now have Opera-hostile JavaScript on their website. And I couldn't find out from AMD's site what voltage an Athlon 2000 is supposed to run at. :-( If no other information can be found, drop it in 0.05 increments and see what happens.
Wade.
Is it enough to love
Is it enough to breathe
Somebody rip my heart out
And leave me here to bleed
| |
Is it enough to die
Somebody save my life
I'd rather be Anything but Ordinary
Please
| -- "Anything but Ordinary" by Avril Lavigne. |
|
Post #74,529
1/14/03 8:24:40 PM
|
1.75 V. See 1st AMD .PDF link in "I don't think ..." above.
|
Post #74,547
1/14/03 9:47:31 PM
|
Various Answers
First thing to do is pin down exactly which AMD 2000+xp you have. Run this [link|http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/utilities/cpuinfo.exe|CPUInfo] little program from AMD. It pops up a simple window with a bunch of information about your CPU. The one I'm interested in is the Family.Model.Step number, which should be something like 68x or 66x. If it's a model 6 then it's supposed to get 1.75 V, if it's a model 8 then it's supposed to get 1.65 V or 1.60 V acording to some other critera I don't know. Note that the speed given by CPUInfo may be wrong, it's off by 100 Mhz on my machine. It's a real cheesy program, but it reads the model number off the chip and thats what we want to know here. The "Autodetect" bios settings (which I try to stick to, because I'm not interested in overclocking) gives me a choice for processor speed: 1250mHz or 1667mHz. Why is this, exactly? The 2000 + processor doesn't actually run at 2000mHz, I know that much, but I'm not sure which of those is the proper setting. I do know that currently if I set it to 1667 the computer reboots endlessly, so 1250 is the "workable" one. The 2000+xp is supposed to run at 1667 Mhz, or a bus speed of 133 and a multiplier of 12.5. Of course 133 * 12.5 is actually a bit less then 1667 but these things are fudged slightly. As for why it asks you which, I think it's because the motherboard can't tell from the CPU if it's a 100 or 133 bus speed chip but it knows that it's a 12.5 multiplier chip. The bus speed defaults to 133 when the cpu is set to 1667, and 100 when set to 1250. I have no idea why, since when the Athlon 1000 was installed it was always at 133. I don't have one of those new 266 boards, and I don't have any of that super-RAM either, but I do have RAM that runs at 133. Why would the board scale back to 100, ever? The reason it runs at either 1667 or 1250 is that the multiplier is locked, so it can run at either 133*12.5 or 100*12.5 those are the only (legal) choices. On most motherboards you would set the bus speed but yours does it the other way around. Memory speed and bus speed should be independent of each other in all the resonably new motherboards. It's quite possible that your memory is still running at 133 even if your bus is running at 100. What kind of CPU temperatures should I be aiming for? I know 80 celsius is too much (geez Jay <grin>) and I know a lot of hardware monitors start to warn you at around 60... but what should I aim for with all the heat sinks and fans and stuff? What's the optimal heat level for one of these AMD processor thingies? With the case off, the processor tends to average 50-51, this goes up when playing a graphics-intensive or computation-intensive game (Morrowind and Civ III respectively). Your chip is actually rated for anything up to 90 degrees centigrade. But I would consider anything over 60 when the system is sitting idle as too high, and I would like to keep in under 80 even when pushed. If you can keep it under 60 all the time your doing fine. I spent a few days untangling this information myself when I put my 2200+xp in. Jay
|
Post #74,565
1/15/03 7:47:16 AM
|
family.model.step 6.4.2
So 1.75 it is. Thanks for the answers, they've helped a lot.
After all is said and done, the problem seems to be that the cpu isn't playing nice with either the motherboard or the memory. The answer will be to ultimately get a newer motherboard and faster memory and hope that does it. For now, the answer is putting the old CPU back in, since it works with my current setup just fine.
*sigh* speed denied... :)
"We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?"
- Edward Young
|
Post #74,566
1/15/03 7:51:18 AM
|
whoops, ran report on wrong processor :P
I forgot, I put the old processor back in because I need to, you know, use my PC and all that. :)
So I have no idea what version the processor is, but the next time I fight with this stuff (when I have more money, I guess) I'll be sure to run that thingy again...
"We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?"
- Edward Young
|
