Memtest86+ is always right? So it must be a software problem


R

RayLopez99

On rare occasions, using a pirate version of Windows I got for $5 but am too lazy to change, I get a BSOD. The other day, while using Google Chrome on Youtube, I got such a problem. I think it's software related (I got rid of Google Updater and Google Chrome Frame, which I think are unstable, and I'm also thinking of getting rid of Google Earth, which also I think acts like some sort of memory leak, or so it seems).

But to test the hardware, I ran for 8 hours straight, with no errors, the latest Memtest86+, version 5.01. I am using DDR3 memory by Kingston, 4 MB. BTW an early "beta" version of Memtest showed numerous false positive errors in a certain test involving random test patterns, but running the latestversion found no such errors. These errors were clearly some sort of programming error.

So by definition it cannot be a hardware problem? Paul once mentioned somelose connection causing an occasional problem on and off, but this is not a laptop and I doubt the PC moves around enough to cause a lose connection.

So it must be software.

I use msconfig.exe to check startup services, and disable stuff I think is unstable (see above). Anything else I can do? Any sort of TSR type programI can run to check for memory leaks over time while I work? It's rare that I ever got a BSOD with Microsoft Genuine Advantage version Windows, so maybe it's the pirate copy? But to date it has not given me any problems, until the last year or so. So again that points to a software problem, unless some rare alpha particle has corrupted my memory but somehow fails to be detected by Memtest86+?

RL
 
Ad

Advertisements

P

Paul

RayLopez99 said:
On rare occasions, using a pirate version of Windows I got for $5 but
am too lazy to change, I get a BSOD. The other day, while using Google
Chrome on Youtube, I got such a problem. I think it's software related
(I got rid of Google Updater and Google Chrome Frame, which I think are
unstable, and I'm also thinking of getting rid of Google Earth, which also
I think acts like some sort of memory leak, or so it seems).

But to test the hardware, I ran for 8 hours straight, with no errors,
the latest Memtest86+, version 5.01. I am using DDR3 memory by Kingston,
4 MB. BTW an early "beta" version of Memtest showed numerous false positive
errors in a certain test involving random test patterns, but running the
latest version found no such errors. These errors were clearly some sort
of programming error.

So by definition it cannot be a hardware problem? Paul once mentioned
some lose connection causing an occasional problem on and off, but this is
not a laptop and I doubt the PC moves around enough to cause a lose connection.

So it must be software.

I use msconfig.exe to check startup services, and disable stuff I think is
unstable (see above). Anything else I can do? Any sort of TSR type program
I can run to check for memory leaks over time while I work? It's rare that
I ever got a BSOD with Microsoft Genuine Advantage version Windows, so maybe
it's the pirate copy? But to date it has not given me any problems, until
the last year or so. So again that points to a software problem, unless
some rare alpha particle has corrupted my memory but somehow fails to be
detected by Memtest86+?

RL

I think there were some problems created at first,
when the memtest author attempted to do multithreaded
testing. I don't know all the details on that. See if there
is an option in the interface of Memtest, to turn that
off and do all the testing with one core. The earlier
versions were only testing with the one core. And that
makes sense, as the processor is normally faster than
the memory subsystem, and can keep it pretty busy. I
don't know if multithreading is all that necessary.

It could be that multithreaded testing, was an attempt
to simulate the thoroughness you get from Prime95 testing.

*******

As a programmer, you should be setting up your system
for debugging. Make sure when the system BSODs, it
created a memory dump. And, that you have a set of
symbol files for the OS, so you can debug what
shows in the crash. It's possible windbg can
read a large dump file for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinDbg

When an application crashes, you can configure a system
to not report to Microsoft, and instead create a .dmp file.
That's a minidump, and can be read with BlueScreenView.
That's a relatively small file, with a stack trace in it.

When the OS crashes, I think it uses the pagefile as a place
to dump, so the pagefile has to be big enough to hold all
of memory. Something like that.

I haven't attempted to run a debugger in some time, so
have conveniently forgotten all the details :) I may
have a copy of windbg loaded in a VM here, for when
I was trying to get debug information when compiling
a debug version of Firefox in Win2K.

On other platforms, usually a different debugger is
used for kernel debug (like, kdb), versus program
debugging (maybe, gdb). It's possible Windows does
both with the one tool suite. But don't quote me on
that. Any time I have to do this stuff, I have to
research it all over again.

*******

Memtest86+ (memtest.org) is not the final authority
on stable memory. This is a tradeoff, between good
coverage (testing all the memory), versus being thorough.

Memtest86+ tests most all of the memory. It misses
the low 1MB of memory, which contains the 640K area
Bill Gates was so proud of. Any area like that which is
marked as "reserved", memtest cannot touch it.

Thorough, 100% testing, requires configuring the memory
under test, into single channel mode, installing two
sticks. That makes one DIMM the "high DIMM", the other
dimm the "low DIMM". Memtest86+ then misses testing
1MB of space on the "low DIMM". By then swapping DIMMs
and doing another test, the moved DIMM then gets 100%
tested. The high DIMM is completely tested, when you
run in that special test setup of using single channel
mode. You must inspect the color of the motherboard RAM
sockets, to figure out how to get single channel. On
some rare platforms (LGA2011 microATX), there may not
be the slots needed to do single channel mode. And proper
testing then is not possible.

That is only an issue, if you suspect a problem in the
640K area.

The final authority on memory, is Prime95 Torture Test
(or for that matter, any test constructed to do similar
things, that came after Prime95). It doesn't cover
all the memory, as the OS "owns" about 300MB.

I think there is some Intel test, that is used as a
thorough test like that.

These tests tend to be multithreaded, and avoid some
level of self-synchronization. When you run Prime95, the
individual threads can get ahead of one another in terms
of progress, so they may not have the same time relationship
between each other when running. For a hardware noise
perspective, it's good if the threads tend not to
"lock" with one another in the time domain.

You can get Prime95 from mersenne.org/freesoft. Versions
are available for Windows and Linux. On Windows, for my
own systems here, I play a DirectX 3D game, at the same
time as Prime95 has a thread per core running. That seems
to be a good test case for proving the system is stable.

In Prime95, a thread of execution stops, any time a "roundoff
error" is detected. And one presumes, a significant "roundoff
error", is being causes by a memory corruption. It could
also be caused by a flaky FPU on a processor, which may
happen once in a blue moon (there was a bad batch of
Intel processors with a problem like that). Prime95 knows
what the answer of any of the FFTs it runs should be, and
that's how it knows what to expect and how it can claim a
"roundoff error".

My acceptance test, is a 4 hour run with Prime95, where
no thread of execution stops on an error. Other people
like to run it all night.

Paul
 
F

Flasherly

I use msconfig.exe to check startup services, and disable stuff I
think is unstable (see above). Anything else I can do? Any sort of
TSR type program I can run to check for memory leaks over time while I
work? It's rare that I ever got a BSOD with Microsoft Genuine
Advantage version Windows, so maybe it's the pirate copy? But to date
it has not given me any problems, until the last year or so.

-

I never get any problems until the last year or so, usually being the
last years, or so, and potentially hardware related;- I'm going to cut
the front out of my cases, those I need to, to expose the front fans
for when the next one with frozen bearings burns up.

When I do, however, get problems that need to be addressed, although
they may surface fast for as early as within a week, it's usually
intimate because I've been using the same ghosted OS, in binary
images, longer than I care to reveal. (Everything, btw, is migrated
to a SSD).

One of my recent additions along the lines of process monitoring is
PL*, although I can't offhand recall the differences to its free and
paid incarnations. . . My oldest browser, btw, I do use frequently, I
keep its processes heavily contained within both process and filtering
rules -- I'm less comfortable engaging upon a few newer browsers more
apt to be shadowed (from their original install configurations) --
through such as batched preprocessing calls designed to determine an
incremental backup point based on changes (mutations) the browser
engages, upon being and while connected, for synchronization purposes
by another program, within the batch call, as in essence to
restorative measure subsequent, or each time the browser is run. (With
TOR exit nodes and potential NSA middleman hijacks, it can get more
involved than that...although not terribly so.)

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_Lasso
 
Y

Yousuf Khan

On rare occasions, using a pirate version of Windows I got for $5 but
am too lazy to change, I get a BSOD. The other day, while using
Google Chrome on Youtube, I got such a problem. I think it's
software related (I got rid of Google Updater and Google Chrome
Frame, which I think are unstable, and I'm also thinking of getting
rid of Google Earth, which also I think acts like some sort of memory
leak, or so it seems).

I'd first try to find out what the BSOD is all about before I even start
to blame it on bad memory. Not all BSOD's are caused by bad memory. Run
a crash dump analysis program. Here are two good ones:

Resplendence Software - WhoCrashed, automatic crash dump analyzer
http://www.resplendence.com/whocrashed

Blue screen of death (STOP error) information in dump files.
http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/blue_screen_view.html

Yousuf Khan
 
R

RayLopez99

I'd first try to find out what the BSOD is all about before I even start

to blame it on bad memory. Not all BSOD's are caused by bad memory. Run

a crash dump analysis program. Here are two good ones:



Resplendence Software - WhoCrashed, automatic crash dump analyzer

http://www.resplendence.com/whocrashed



Blue screen of death (STOP error) information in dump files.

http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/blue_screen_view.html



Yousuf Khan

Thanks Khan! Thanks Paul and Flasherly.

As for debugging the BSOD, I tried to use Visual Studio 2010's debugger, but for some strange reason could not get it to work. Next time I will try Khan's solution, having seen this caveat: "Note that WhoCrashed cannot always be exactly sure about the root cause of a system crash. Because all kernel modules run in the same address space, any driver or other kernel module can potentially corrupt another. Also, any driver may be able to cause problems to any other driver that runs in the same device stack. This is to saythis software is not guaranteed to identify the culprit in every scenario."

Also the system crashed while I was hooked up to the internet using a proxyserver and Google's Chrome, having just run Google Earth and CCleaner to clean unwanted files. Perhaps this combination was too much for Google's software? I've since removed Google Earth which seems to me to be buggy.

Anyway for now the problem has gone away, and anyway it's rare, but with myother systems I never got a BSOD.

RL
 
Y

Yousuf Khan

Thanks Khan! Thanks Paul and Flasherly.

As for debugging the BSOD, I tried to use Visual Studio 2010's debugger, but for some strange reason could not get it to work. Next time I will try Khan's solution, having seen this caveat: "Note that WhoCrashed cannot always be exactly sure about the root cause of a system crash. Because all kernel modules run in the same address space, any driver or other kernel module can potentially corrupt another. Also, any driver may be able to cause problems to any other driver that runs in the same device stack. This is to say this software is not guaranteed to identify the culprit in every scenario. "

I started out using the Microsoft Visual Studio debugger, but once I
found the BlueScreenView and to a lesser extent, WhoCrashed, there was
never a reason to use the manual method any longer. It was a lot of fun
using the VS debugger, you got to really learn how to follow the path of
your programs, and even look at the assembly code involved in the crash,
but it was a lot of unnecessary work. These automatic crash dump
analysis programs do the same job, just a lot faster and with less
hassle to you. Yes, it's true that one driver could corrupt another
driver, but that's always the case, you'd be just as fooled whether you
were doing the manual debug or the automatic one.

Did the auto debuggers tell you what the cause of the previous crashes were?

Yousuf Khan
 
Ad

Advertisements

R

RayLopez99

Did the auto debuggers tell you what the cause of the previous
crashes were?

I used the freeware Blue Screen view and I thought it indicated the AMD Radeon graphics card was at fault (that was the last driver that hung says theprogram, or so it seemed to say). Currently I am using DriverMax to replace all old drivers (see another thread here) and I've replaced half of them(two a day, the maximum allowed by the freeware version), including the Radeon drivers, and so far, fingers crossed, no BSOD after a week, but it's too early to tell since even before the BSOD would happen once a week or so.Worse case I'll do a clean reinstall using a licensed copy of Windows 7 (this is a pirate copy), but I'm too lazy and this workaround is working fornow.

I wonder if several bad drivers can affect each other, that is, somehow, depending on how they are loaded (what sequence) into memory, they can corrupt each other. I take it that this is unlikely, and more likely one badly written driver has a memory leak. It seems also that disabling Daemon Toolslite at Startup (which is what I was doing) and viewing embedded Youtube videos through a website (that is, not going directly to Youtube but viewingthe videos at a website) may (but not clear) have triggered the bad drivers. Anyway it's like working backwards in a game of retrograde chess analysis to figure out the cause of BSOD.

RL
 
D

Davej


I have an older version of Memtest86+ and always saw some errors on test 7. Recently I added another 2GB to that machine and now it never detects any memory errors.
 
P

Paul

Davej said:

I have an older version of Memtest86+ and always saw some errors on test 7. Recently I added another 2GB to that machine and now it never detects any memory errors.

That could be a memory reservation issue.

Memtest relies on some tables the BIOS provides, to warn
it about areas it should not use. There might typically
be around 1MB of memory that cannot be tested by Memtest86+.
And there is some standard BIOS call for getting that information (E820?).

You can download the source code, and find a reference to that.
The memsize.c module does some stuff with that E820 info.

It could be, that when you had the lesser amount of memory,
the BIOS was not able to correctly report about high memory
reservations. Then, BIOS usage of the affected area,
conflicted with memtest86+ trying to read/write test there.

Using SMM, I think it is possible for the BIOS to
interrupt the execution of memtest86+, so that the
BIOS SMM code can run. And there is nothing memtest86+
can do about it (it's an interruption that cannot be
blocked, and it also upsets audio workstation users when
SMM runs for too long).

It could be some SMM code, which writes to a reserved area,
or does something to upset an area that memtest86+ just wrote.
A typical SMM application, might run 30 or 60 times a second.

SMM might have been used by the Asus iPanel, to
drive the display on the iPanel, without the OS
knowing what was going on. Later motherboards used
SMM to adjust the Vcore regulator running phases
(turn off extra regulator phases when they're not needed,
to improve efficiency).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_Management_Mode

"Control power management operations, such as managing
the voltage regulator modules"

(Example of an iPanel, a display device connected to SMI
interrupt to gain attention. The display is updated by
BIOS code, on motherboards with support for it. The idea
seems silly now, but the idea was to avoid users needing
an application running to do this instead. So they made
the BIOS do it, in the background.)

http://ixbtlabs.com/articles/asusipanelbasic/

The description here, suggests the SMI to trigger SMM,
may support a roughly 60Hz rate.

http://www.google.com/patents/US5606713

And it could be one of those kinds of undocumented
routines or activities in your hardware, that
is interfering. A properly coded E820 table
would have prevented that (avoid conflicts between
BIOS usage and other usages).

*******

An interesting test you can run, is as follows.

Say you have a four DIMM slot motherboard. Two
DIMM slots are occupied. Most people install the
RAM in dual channel mode, for best performance.

If you have memtest86+ failures, you can move
one of the DIMMs around, until you're in
"Single Channel Mode". That causes one DIMM to
be the "High Memory DIMM" and the other DIMM
to be the "Low Memory DIMM". In dual channel
mode, they're interleaved, and it's pretty
difficult for a human doing hex in their head,
to convert a failure address, into a particular
DIMM fault.

Now, run memtest86+. Note the failure address
(assuming a failure is still observed). Now
swap the two DIMMs into each other's slot.
Now, the Low Memory DIMM becomes the High
Memory DIMM, and vice versa. If you really have
a memory problem, the address of the fault will
move in proportion to the new physical address
of the module. If you find the faults haven't
moved, and the faults are still at the same address,
then that's an SMM conflict. Or, it could be.

Other things running on your computer, include
the Intel Active Management Technology (AMT).
But that's only running on Q series chipsets,
and the microcontroller located somewhere
inside the chipset, shares a portion of
system memory for its execution. Presumably,
the BIOS E820 table is updated, so AMT activity
won't upset things like memtest86+. At one time,
AMT required that a certain Intel chipset DIMM
slot, had to be populated first when fitting the
RAM.

*******

Of course it could always be bad RAM :)

Just a guess,
Paul
 
F

Flasherly

case I'll do a clean reinstall using a licensed copy of Windows 7
(this is a pirate copy), but I'm too lazy and this workaround is
working for now.
wonder if several bad drivers can affect each other, that is, somehow,
depending on how they are loaded (what sequence) into memory, they can
corrupt each other. I take it that this is unlikely, and more likely
one badly written driver has a memory leak. It seems also that
disabling Daemon Tools lite at Startup (which is what I was doing) and
viewing embedded Youtube videos through a website (that is, not going
directly to Youtube but viewing the videos at a website) may (but not
clear) have triggered the bad drivers. Anyway it's like working
backwards in a game of retrograde chess analysis to figure out the
cause of BSOD.

--
That's what I call going hard core on it, reinstalling the MicroSoft
OS. Only I may add another layer of successive binary OS images to
the strategy of advancing installs [over and upon the initial
install]. Seems ATI started out a Canadian company and is now
absorbed by AMD;- Hence quite a long history, near since the
beginnings of PCs, actually. The one abiding credit I'd most
certainly ascribe to ATI to a slang PC dictionary of distinctions and
notables, is first, (MS doesn't really count), right up there
alongside commercial virus security suites, for having developed an
install routine, few, if any, can break down, afterwards, for
restorative analysis.

Regardless whether the binaries are for troubleshooting, they do,
nevertheless, form a routine integral and periodic application,
personally, for wiping off MSOS partition, weekly on average, with a
clean binary MSOS;- a backup image never, on certain principle,
exposed to the WWW during its creation.

I've seen one too many instances of what you're describing, now for
the greater part to summarily dismiss what by binary copies expedite
within character of anomalies I occasionally do encounter for no other
apparent reason than being connected. (Chess is very patterned for
its openings, which evinces at higher levels of play corresponding
parity in safety, often declared draws, if not a parity, then, at an
earlier axis of extant resources within a leeway subsequent, thereby
to tax its masters. I play chess at the edge of its excellent
rankings, above average, good players, when I take time, a few weeks
of preparatory studies before entering its arena. The "game" as so
applied to computers is within patterning absolutes to an established
parity, de facto, MicroSoft garners every time it adds large venues,
e.g., HP and Dell, to its corporate harem of capitalistic hegemony of
PCs, certifiably approved, with a pre-installed OS;- a game for
latecomers to lose, by default, from the challenge of codework upon
deviating from those same preestablished rules, certifiable MSOS code
(sic), subsequent in form and contingency to corrupt the "game"
environment. The analogy would then seem be given reason for as much
use, there cannot be in a contradiction, whereby gain is at all
apropos to fix what is upon principle broken to begin with.)
 
R

RayLopez99

On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 9:06:08 AM UTC+8, Flasherly wrote:
[stuff]

Well the BSOD is not going away, but not getting worse either. Perusing the net, I saw some threads that indicated it was a motherboard problem.

How would a motherboard problem cause BSOD that is intermittent? That is, does not always occur?

I have gradually replaced all 25 drivers identified with DriverMax save three: Mouse and KB drivers and the Intel(R) 6 Series/C200 Series Chipset Family USB Enhanced Host Controller -

This last one I see has caused a problem with at least one user here: https://communities.intel.com/message/185025

But I doubt this driver is at fault, but who knows?

Questions:

1/ would mainboard for an i5 system bought in 2011 be at fault? Would it go bad so quickly? Doubtful. Is it easy to replace the motherboard? I've build a system, so of course the answer is yes, just double checking. For an i5 quad core the only issue is finding a mainboard that accepts the uP, andgetting the heat transfer patch applied correctly; I probably would go to the local PC shop and let them do it quickly rather than soil my hands (been there done that).

2/ would fact I am using a pirate version of Windows 7, SP1, but no other updates since SP1, be at fault? Why would having the latest update be important? Wasn't Win7, SP1 stable?

3/ would installing a new but cheap graphics card, by ATI, Radeon MHD 4600,be at fault, even though I have the latest drivers from this year reinstalled? I doubt it.

4/ would a faulty USB port be at fault? At one point I had USB 3.0 but now it only defaults to USB 2.0. Either a bad driver or the port has gone bad.But why would this cause a BSOD? I can see it not working, but would a faulty driver for USB or bad hardware USB port cause BSOD? I doubt it

5/ Here is what the excellent freeware BlueScreenView shows. Various drivers are last reported in various BSOD's, so it's not always one, but common causes are:

DRIVER_IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL

MEMORY_MANAGEMENT

And of course the classic driver ntoskrnl.exe is usually at the top of the culprit list, but I doubt this necessary program is at fault or corrupted.

I think however cause 2/ might be a problem, but in connection with some other program I may have installed, like freeware GOM video player (I think this is buggy, but it also is very handy) ...I do have a licensed version ofWin7 and worse case, if this BSOD becomes more annoying (right now it's tolerable) I might do a clean reinstall and use the licensed CD.

Any suggestions appreciated.

RL
 
Ad

Advertisements

P

Paul

RayLopez99 said:
On Tuesday, December 3, 2013 9:06:08 AM UTC+8, Flasherly wrote:
[stuff]

Well the BSOD is not going away, but not getting worse either. Perusing the net, I saw some threads that indicated it was a motherboard problem.

How would a motherboard problem cause BSOD that is intermittent? That is, does not always occur?

I have gradually replaced all 25 drivers identified with DriverMax save three: Mouse and KB drivers and the Intel(R) 6 Series/C200 Series Chipset Family USB Enhanced Host Controller -

This last one I see has caused a problem with at least one user here: https://communities.intel.com/message/185025

But I doubt this driver is at fault, but who knows?

Questions:

1/ would mainboard for an i5 system bought in 2011 be at fault? Would it go bad so quickly? Doubtful. Is it easy to replace the motherboard? I've build a system, so of course the answer is yes, just double checking. For an i5 quad core the only issue is finding a mainboard that accepts the uP, and getting the heat transfer patch applied correctly; I probably would go to the local PC shop and let them do it quickly rather than soil my hands (been there done that).

2/ would fact I am using a pirate version of Windows 7, SP1, but no other updates since SP1, be at fault? Why would having the latest update be important? Wasn't Win7, SP1 stable?

3/ would installing a new but cheap graphics card, by ATI, Radeon MHD 4600, be at fault, even though I have the latest drivers from this year reinstalled? I doubt it.

4/ would a faulty USB port be at fault? At one point I had USB 3.0 but now it only defaults to USB 2.0. Either a bad driver or the port has gone bad. But why would this cause a BSOD? I can see it not working, but would a faulty driver for USB or bad hardware USB port cause BSOD? I doubt it

5/ Here is what the excellent freeware BlueScreenView shows. Various drivers are last reported in various BSOD's, so it's not always one, but common causes are:

DRIVER_IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL

MEMORY_MANAGEMENT

And of course the classic driver ntoskrnl.exe is usually at the top of the culprit list, but I doubt this necessary program is at fault or corrupted.

I think however cause 2/ might be a problem, but in connection with some other program I may have installed, like freeware GOM video player (I think this is buggy, but it also is very handy) ...I do have a licensed version of Win7 and worse case, if this BSOD becomes more annoying (right now it's tolerable) I might do a clean reinstall and use the licensed CD.

Any suggestions appreciated.

RL

You double check, by running another OS.
And observe whether the same symptoms are showing up.

I used to have a problem with Win98. I suffered with the
problem for about a year. Then, one day, I booted a Linux
LiveCD. With the problem hardware in place. And I got
similar problems. Immediately, based on the severity of
the problem, I could conclude it was a motherboard design
problem. Up to that time, I'd been blaming Win98. And
Win98 wasn't actually the problem. The motherboard used
440BX chipset - two sticks of RAM were extremely stable
(16 hours of Prime95, no errors), install all four sticks
and it could crash sitting idle in the desktop. I didn't
even need to run Prime95 when all the RAM slots were full.
In either Windows 98 or Linux. Same level of instability.
It seemed like an AGP problem.

I wouldn't have known that, if I hadn't run a second OS.
Now, it's a part of my testing procedures.

Versions of Prime95 run under both Windows and Linux.
If you need a 100% CPU test, you can use that. It's
available from mersenne.org/freesoft . You use the
torture test, as a way to check the stability of
your processor and memory.

*******

The Intel chipset drivers have a USB section. The
USB section is a stub. It applies a nice neat text
title to the USB entries showing in Device Manager.
Then, it calls "usbport.inf", the standard Microsoft
driver. And that driver installs the Microsoft stuff.
There's nothing Intel in that, to speak of. It's a stub.

If you download the chipset drivers for your chipset
from Intel, you can review the USB section for yourself.
The driver used to be called INFINST.

USB2 and USB3, are different animals. I'm not going into
the details, because it's quite possible you don't
have any USB3. USB3 is a much more "uneven" situation.
In one OS, Microsoft owns the driver now. And in older
OSes, you may end up using the hardware company driver.
(Just like in Win98, there was the Maximus Decim driver,
because no other driver was available.)

Paul
 
R

RayLopez99

On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 4:28:27 PM UTC+8, Paul wrote:
[useful stuff]

Here are some more "for Paul type" questions: :)

1/ why would Memtest86+ take more than 8 hours to run? I ran it overnight,at least eight hours, with no errors found in the RAM. I have 4 GB RAM and an i5 fast uP. So why isn't the memory exhaustively tested? Why would Ihave to run the test for say 18 hours just to be extra sure of no errors?

2/ I test using Memtest on a USB stick that is bootable, and it defaults toa DOS console mode. Thus obviously memtest cannot test the area in memorythat the program itself occupies (though I supposed it can randomly occupyvarious places in RAM to avoid this problem), nor can memtest test the programs occupying RAM during bootup, such as the tiny drivers or somesuch that is driving the console, right? So what if your error is in those areas of the RAM? Well I suppose if that was true perhaps your PC would not even boot up properly, or crash before it even gets to Memtest?

3/ Why would running a program like Prime95 or some such that stress the PCuP and RAM be helpful? Is it because if there's an error in your RAM, it will manifest itself by having the PC crash when running Prime95 overnight?That's a rather crude way of testing memory but I guess it makes sense. BTW, is this finding a prime number program a sort of TSR program that is hard to remove? I downloaded it, looked at the documentation, and was a bitleery since it seemed to almost be like spyware, running in the backgroundand/or maybe embedding itself in your registry and maybe hard to uninstall.. If that's not the case I might install it.

Thank you.

RL
 
P

Paul

RayLopez99 said:
On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 4:28:27 PM UTC+8, Paul wrote:
[useful stuff]

Here are some more "for Paul type" questions: :)

1/ why would Memtest86+ take more than 8 hours to run? I ran it overnight,
at least eight hours, with no errors found in the RAM. I have 4 GB RAM and
an i5 fast uP. So why isn't the memory exhaustively tested? Why would I
have to run the test for say 18 hours just to be extra sure of no errors?

Consult the "Pass" counter on the screen. It records the
number of times the whole test suite has been run. Considering
what memtest86+ detects, and how well it works, I'm happy
just doing one pass, then moving on to other testing.

I treat it mainly as a "stuck-at" tester. Not as a "transient"
tester. For transients (non-repeatable errors), I'd rather use
the more stressful Prime95. Even if it doesn't test every
memory location, it can still be used to detect bad timing.
(Marginal RAM timing, will eventually throw an error.)

The memtest86+ test will run forever, bumping the Pass counter
and the said:
2/ I test using Memtest on a USB stick that is bootable, and it defaults
to a DOS console mode. Thus obviously memtest cannot test the area in
memory that the program itself occupies (though I supposed it can randomly
occupy various places in RAM to avoid this problem), nor can memtest test
the programs occupying RAM during bootup, such as the tiny drivers or
somesuch that is driving the console, right? So what if your error is in
those areas of the RAM? Well I suppose if that was true perhaps your PC
would not even boot up properly, or crash before it even gets to Memtest?

See the source code. There is source code available.

There was no "DOS" in anything I ran here.

The code is rather unique, in that it boots from
the BIOS, and that single program is the "whole OS".
For the single threaded version, there is no scheduler,
no kernel, no nothing. Just a single program, making
BIOS calls to do stuff. It's probably writing directly
to a BIOS frame buffer, and accepting the BIOS VESA screen
mode that is already set up. That's why it's stuck at
800x600 or whatever. It's using a default VESA mode,
just like the BIOS does.

When you prepare a boot floppy, you can't even see a
file system on the floppy. It seems the program is
just copied directly to the floppy as a block device.
Perhaps the USB version is similar ?

The code also "lifts the executable out of the way"
and tests underneath it. Look at the address counter
carefully. You'll see an extremely short test interval,
which is the "testing the underneath part". The code
copies itself to an already-tested area, then does
a JMP to the copied code, then sets the test address to
point to the old code location, and runs the tests.

For all that care and cleverness, the program still has
untestable locations. The BIOS passes a table of
reserved locations, which are not to be used. Memtest86+
honors that table. That causes around 1MB of RAM to
not get tested. You can cover all the RAM, by running
single channel mode, and swapping the upper and lower
DIMMs. That means, you test two sticks at a time,
and run two test cases, to cover all the memory locations
on the two DIMMs.
3/ Why would running a program like Prime95 or some such
that stress the PC uP and RAM be helpful? Is it because
if there's an error in your RAM, it will manifest itself by
having the PC crash when running Prime95 overnight? That's
a rather crude way of testing memory but I guess it makes sense.
BTW, is this finding a prime number program a sort of TSR
program that is hard to remove? I downloaded it, looked at
the documentation, and was a bit leery since it seemed to
almost be like spyware, running in the background and/or maybe
embedding itself in your registry and maybe hard to uninstall.
If that's not the case I might install it.

Thank you.

RL

Prime95 has two operating modes.

It wasn't written for us. It was written for mathematicians,
to detect prime numbers. The prime numbers can be used for
diverse things, like being part of polynomials used for
encryption. Stuff like that.

Since the run time is long, and the task is important, the
author of the program, wanted to test the computer hardware.
You test the hardware, before relying on the hardware to
do the actual math.

When you run the program for the first time, you can
"Join GIMPs" or you can do "Just Testing". You don't
want to join GIMPs, unless you intend to leave the TSR
running 24/7. GIMPS server will send you numbers
to test, and then your computer goes off and tests
them.

As overclockers, we use the hardware test ("Just Testing")
to our advantage.

The test is relatively simple. A large number of FFTs are run.
The FFTs are different sizes. They test different amounts of
memory. The author of the program, knows the "exact answer"
for each test. If a test is wrong, the test thread stops,
and the screen may have some red color to show the thread
has stopped. That means your PC needs work.

The program should start a thread per physical or virtual core.
You leave it running overnight, then the next day, check
to see if any thread got a "rounding error". They're not
really rounding errors - typically a result is bad because
there was a memory error. We don't get an "address" of
a bad location. We merely know "our memory is unreliable".

In obscure cases, the fault is actually with the FPU on
the processor. Or the ALU. There have been cases, where it
was actually the processor that was bad. There was at least
one small batch of Intel processors like that.

When you get a "stopped" thread, you don't really know
what broke. All you know, is you can no longer rely on
your computer for a correct result. Then, go off and
fix it.

A slightly better test, is to run Prime95, at the
same time as you play a 3D game. That seems to
offer a bit more electrical stress (to power supply),
than running Prime95 by itself. Obviously, I do that
for shorter runs. I'd get pretty bored doing that
all night. I was using that, while testing some
overclocks on my P4 (which happened to be a miserable
overclocker).

Paul
 
R

RayLopez99

On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:43:47 PM UTC+8, Paul wrote:

[useful stuff]

Well this mystery deepens. I downloaded the Prime95 program, clicked on "Just Testing", and *immediately* got rejected. Very strange. As I type this I am running CPU Stability Test 6.0 without any problems so far, but I will run for at least 8 hours. Also I am downloading the PCMark freeware version. Can you recommend others? I am relying on the Prime95 author of thenote below for suggestions. Can you endorse any of these sites for usefulinformation, like Tom's Hardware or www.overclockers.com?

What is weird is that if Prime95 immediately rejects my i5 PC, it must be due to some detected trivial to find property like temperature (but my mobo temperatures are OK, just giving an example)? What else can cause an immediate fail? Can you detect "bad RAM memory timings" immediately for example?

BTW I program just fine on this machine, using Visual Studio 2010, so programming must not be a high-stress PC activity. The PC seems to crash when playing back Youtube music videos (or shortly thereafter, so it seems, and the sound card seems a bit weak on volume at times for certain videos, but not for Skype--can a bad sound card cause a system to hang?) so perhaps it'sa graphics card problem, but how could Prime95 detect that so fast? Strange.

RL

Forums are a great place to learn about available stability test programs
and to get advice on what to do when a problem is found.

The currently popular stability test programs are (sorry, I don't have
web addresses for these):
Prime95 (this program's torture test)
3DMark2001
CPU Stability test
Sisoft sandra
Quake and other games
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Several useful websites for help (look for overclocking community or forum):
http://www.overclockers.com
http://www.arstechnica.com
http://www.hardocp.com
http://www.anandtech.com
http://www.tomshardware.com
http://www.sharkyextreme.com
Also try the alt.comp.hardware.overclocking Usenet newsgroup.

Utility programs you may find useful (I'm sure there are others - look around):
Motherboard monitor from http://mbm.livewiredev.com
Memtest86 from http://www.memtest86.com
Cpuburn by redelm: http://pages.sbcglobal.net/redelm/
TaskInfo2002 from http://www.iarsn.com/


WHAT TO DO IF A PROBLEM IS FOUND?
---------------------------------

The exact cause of a hardware problem can be very hard to find.

If you are not overclocking, the most likely cause is an overheating CPU
or memory DIMMs that are not quite up to spec. Another possibility is
you might need a better power supply. Try running MotherBoard monitor
and browse the forums above to see if your CPU is running too hot.
If so, make sure the heat sink is properly attached, fans are operational,
and air flow inside the case is good. For isolating memory problems, try
swapping memory DIMMs with a co-worker's or friend's machine. If the errors
go away, then you can be fairly confidant that memory was the cause of
the trouble. A power supply problem can often be identified by a significant
drop in the voltages when prime95 starts running. Once again the overclocker
forums are a good resource for what voltages are acceptable.
From Prime95 stress.txt file


If you are overclocking then try increasing the core voltage, reduce the
CPU speed, reduce the front side bus speed, or change the memory timings
(CAS latency). Also try asking for help in one of the forums above - they
may have other ideas to try.


CAN I IGNORE THE PROBLEM?
-------------------------

Ignoring the problem is a matter of personal preference. There are
two schools of thought on this subject.

Most programs you run will not stress your computer enough to cause a
wrong result or system crash. If you ignore the problem, then video games
may stress your machine resulting in a system crash. Also, stay away from
distributed computing projects where an incorrect calculation might cause
you to return wrong results. Bad data will not help these projects!
In conclusion, if you are comfortable with a small risk of an occasional
system crash then feel free to live a little dangerously! Keep in mind
that the faster prime95 finds a hardware error the more likely it is that
other programs will experience problems.

The second school of thought is, "Why run a stress test if you are going
to ignore the results?" These people want a guaranteed 100% rock solid
machine. Passing these stability tests gives them the ability to run
CPU intensive programs with confidence.


FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
--------------------------
 
R

RayLopez99

On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 12:43:47 PM UTC+8, Paul wrote:



[useful stuff]



Well this mystery deepens.

OMG! I may have a bad math co-processor (or whatever you call that FPU/CPUcomponent)? I re-ran the Prime95 "just testing" stress test and get this error, almost right away, for all four cores (some failed first before the others did): "FATAL ERROR: Rounding was 0.5 [or for some cores 0.4975...] expected less than 0.4".

So that means a uP error, right? I got this chip when i5-2400 just came out, and I have the CPU part number: CM8062300834106. Is there any way to check for 'recalled' or 'defective' Intel chips? I see this Part Number is found on the net: http://www.memory4less.com/m4l_item...34106&rid=89&gclid=CP7By9mSqrsCFYtQOgod3AYAig

Seems OK, no recalls.

What are the chances I have a defective CPU? I thought if that was true the PC would hang on bootup, no? How can rounding errors not cause a CPU to hang? Well I guess maybe precision is not that critical to a PC? Strange and stranger... Now I wonder if my Excel spreadsheets are all wrong, lol, but i suspect if the error is small that they are not, since I don't use more than 0.xx two decimal points levels of precision.

RL
 
Ad

Advertisements

R

RayLopez99

Update:

I ran PCMark07 freeware version and after 30 minutes of tests, including video, it found no problems and my score was respectable for this PC. It underscores how superior Prime95 is to these other tests, since Prime95 knows what it is looking for (an exact answer to a predetermined problem) whereasthese other tests are statistical 'hit and miss' tests. I will uninstall PCMark btw, which is trivial except to overclockers who want to compare benchmarks. The other program, CPU Stability Test, also has found no errors after running a few hours but I intend to run it longer.

RL
 
P

Paul

RayLopez99 said:
Update:

I ran PCMark07 freeware version and after 30 minutes of tests, including video, it found no problems and my score was respectable for this PC. It underscores how superior Prime95 is to these other tests, since Prime95 knows what it is looking for (an exact answer to a predetermined problem) whereas these other tests are statistical 'hit and miss' tests. I will uninstall PCMark btw, which is trivial except to overclockers who want to compare benchmarks. The other program, CPU Stability Test, also has found no errors after running a few hours but I intend to run it longer.

RL

I don't know if I can debug a Prime95 failure for you,
because portions of the program are written in assembler
for speed.

A rounding error does not necessarily mean the FPU or ALU
played a part in it. You suspect the error was caused by
a memory error first. If you test the memory using
other means and it passes (like, test in another machine),
then you might suspect the CPU is marginal. Or, you
overclocked too far :)

It it was my machine, I'd take a look in my BIOS, that
I hadn't manually mis-adjusted something. Some BIOS
are chock full of "red-yellow-green" parameter adjustments
that the overclockers use, and something in there might
be turned down too low or up too high.

In any case, I would work on getting Prime95 to run, to
prove my system was stable.

You can also boot a Linux LiveCD, and run the Linux version
of Prime95 off a pen drive if you want. Keeping a copy on
the pen drive, is so you'll have it for next time. The Linux
LiveCD just provides a slightly different execution
environment to test from. If there is a stability error,
Prime95 will turn red immediately, just like a Windows
run would. The visual appearance won't be exactly the
same, but you'll figure it out.

Paul
 
R

RayLopez99

I don't know if I can debug a Prime95 failure for you,

because portions of the program are written in assembler

for speed.



A rounding error does not necessarily mean the FPU or ALU

played a part in it. You suspect the error was caused by

a memory error first. If you test the memory using

other means and it passes (like, test in another machine),

then you might suspect the CPU is marginal. Or, you

overclocked too far :)



It it was my machine, I'd take a look in my BIOS, that

I hadn't manually mis-adjusted something. Some BIOS

are chock full of "red-yellow-green" parameter adjustments

that the overclockers use, and something in there might

be turned down too low or up too high.



In any case, I would work on getting Prime95 to run, to

prove my system was stable.



You can also boot a Linux LiveCD, and run the Linux version

of Prime95 off a pen drive if you want. Keeping a copy on

the pen drive, is so you'll have it for next time. The Linux

LiveCD just provides a slightly different execution

environment to test from. If there is a stability error,

Prime95 will turn red immediately, just like a Windows

run would. The visual appearance won't be exactly the

same, but you'll figure it out.



Paul



Update. I think you're right Paul, it was something in the BIOS. But I'llnever know since now I cannot even get to POST in the desktop in question (I am using my laptop to write this message). Very long story somewhat short. After screwing around in the BIOS, seeing if I accidentally overclocked (since another program SiSoft, indicated perhaps there was a BIOS mistake/overclock), I exited BIOS without saving, but then I got what is notoriousfor this mobo, an Asus mobo (P8H67), the dreaded "USB device over current status detected will shut down in 15 seconds" message.

Long story a bit shorter: I bet this ASUS mobo is crappy. I tried resetting the CMOS via jumper (drains the 'battery' charge for the BIOS), tried a PS/2 keyboard, new mouse, unplugging the front USB panel, checking that my mobo is not touching the metal case, and still no POST. This particular company ASUS is popular with overclockers, and perhaps I set (or it was set) to overclock incorrectly (the system always was a bit weird, even when I bought it at a Thai shop, so it could be the tech who built it had it overclocked) and perhaps that and in combination with a short somewhere, the uP will not boot up (apparently Intel has a switch that will shut off the chip if there's any short, so you won't even get into POST). I will take the entire desktop to the local PC shop and try another motherboard.

Question: I assume that you can switch out a mobo, connect all the cables,and voila! your system is back to normal, right? I don't see why not...any dissents?

I'll post here later, probably in a few days, when the repairs are made.

RL

More info from the net:

USB device over current status detected will shut down in 15 seconds

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/299213-28-device-current-status-detected-system-shut-seconds

What system do you have and how old is it? Sometimes that is actually caused by the USB device, but sometimes it is caused by a motherboard issue.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/319137-30-asus-m5a88-current-device-status-detected

I have newly purchased (1 month) a computer with AMD FX 8120 CPU & VIP-500Wsmps, Odyssey Cabinet, Sata 500GB. Recently I face usb over current issue to ASUS M5A88-M MB.

I read the thread & other posts. Many a times when I boot pc after 6-7 hours it starts well. But for another boot it shows same prob. Also I had removed all cables and put it on paper and then connected.. I also changed the jumper (for 2-3 seconds to clear cmos).

It only shows the USB 3.0 connected ports. But suddenly it started again with the same prob. I also updated the bios through usb ez flash but no use..http://img.tomshardware.com/forum/uk/icones/smilies/non...

I'm really fed up with this. Instead of this my other 2.4 GZ intel PC with chinese mb is going OK..

Now also I'll need to pay Rs.175/- to the shop from where I purchased pc astraveling charges. In future I'll not prefer Asus.. Nobody should have such trouble.. I don't know after repairing for how many times I'll face same problem...

http://www.whoho.com/2011/03/usb-device-over-current-status-detected.html

Causes:

Screws used to mount the motherboard are too tight
Rogue mounting bolts attached to your case are touching the underside of your motherboard
Some kind of conductive material is under or on your motherboard causing short-circuits
Wrong installation of front-panel cables

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-1741924/post-usb-device-current-status-detected.html

Hey everyone I have never posted here because I have not needed to yet. I have been working on computers for about 10 years so I have a lot of knowledge. Today I received a computer in that wouldn't boot.. wouldn't even post.I tore the computer down to just the motherboard, 24 pin power and 4 pin (cpu) power and the monitor into the onboard graphics. I got the computer topost but it showed the error below. I have looked through tons of forums to find that it's as I expected usually caused by the front usb ports plugged into the motherboard or a dirty or bent usb port. I cleaned out the usb ports on the board and as far as I can tell there is no debris or problems with them. All that's plugged into the board is power and one piece of ram and I am getting this error. I have tried everything I can think of can anyone assist? The motherboard is running outside of the case right now but gives the same error screwed down to the case or out of the case. This motherboard has a jumper to clear CMOS I tried that. I even took out the battery to try reseting that way. This error is given with or without the keyboard plugged in.

ASUS P7H55-M/CG5275/DP_MB

auto-detecting usb mass storage devices
00 usb mass storage devices found
no keyboard
usb device over current status detected
system will reboot.


http://www.tomshardware.com/answers...7-pro-usb-device-current-status-detected.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/answers...ected-usb-device-current-status-detected.html
Yeah i tried a ps/2 keyboard and yes i get the error without anything connected to it. Im guessing it is shorting out somewhere? By the looks of it the backplate prongs are not touching anything.

he shouldn't need more standoffs..... You should be able to turn that boardon, outside of a case(no standoffs). A true "short" would most likely prevent any boot-up/POST. Maybe you try this next.... I know it is a real pain the @$$ but if you still get the error, you have an issue with your main board or PSU. I believe most PSU over current protections prevent bootup/POSTalso. The main-board's power management utility may be malfunctioning... or working as intended. were you able to reset the BIOS?

skit75 said:
http://mediapool.getthespec.com/media.pdf?m=TZ3yZfARfgG...

There is a pdf of the manual. Go to section 1.9 and do the steps to clear the RTC RAM clock & memory and settings. Any luck or have you tried that already?


I tried that already, still nothing. I went ahead and bought a gigabyte mobo.

1337rofl
June 30, 2013 7:11:05 AM
 
Ad

Advertisements

P

Paul

RayLopez99 said:
Update. I think you're right Paul, it was something in the BIOS. But I'll never know since now I cannot even get to POST in the desktop in question (I am using my laptop to write this message). Very long story somewhat short. After screwing around in the BIOS, seeing if I accidentally overclocked (since another program SiSoft, indicated perhaps there was a BIOS mistake/overclock), I exited BIOS without saving, but then I got what is notorious for this mobo, an Asus mobo (P8H67), the dreaded "USB device over current status detected will shut down in 15 seconds" message.

Long story a bit shorter: I bet this ASUS mobo is crappy. I tried resetting the CMOS via jumper (drains the 'battery' charge for the BIOS), tried a PS/2 keyboard, new mouse, unplugging the front USB panel, checking that my mobo is not touching the metal case, and still no POST. This particular company ASUS is popular with overclockers, and perhaps I set (or it was set) to overclock incorrectly (the system always was a bit weird, even when I bought it at a Thai shop, so it could be the tech who built it had it overclocked) and perhaps that and in combination with a short somewhere, the uP will not boot up (apparently Intel has a switch that will shut off the chip if there's any short, so you won't even get into POST). I will take the entire desktop to the local PC shop and try another motherboard.

Question: I assume that you can switch out a mobo, connect all the cables, and voila! your system is back to normal, right? I don't see why not...any dissents?

I'll post here later, probably in a few days, when the repairs are made.

RL

More info from the net:

USB device over current status detected will shut down in 15 seconds

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/299213-28-device-current-status-detected-system-shut-seconds

What system do you have and how old is it? Sometimes that is actually caused by the USB device, but sometimes it is caused by a motherboard issue.

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/319137-30-asus-m5a88-current-device-status-detected

I have newly purchased (1 month) a computer with AMD FX 8120 CPU & VIP-500W smps, Odyssey Cabinet, Sata 500GB. Recently I face usb over current issue to ASUS M5A88-M MB.

I read the thread & other posts. Many a times when I boot pc after 6-7 hours it starts well. But for another boot it shows same prob. Also I had removed all cables and put it on paper and then connected.. I also changed the jumper (for 2-3 seconds to clear cmos).

It only shows the USB 3.0 connected ports. But suddenly it started again with the same prob. I also updated the bios through usb ez flash but no use..http://img.tomshardware.com/forum/uk/icones/smilies/non...

I'm really fed up with this. Instead of this my other 2.4 GZ intel PC with chinese mb is going OK..

Now also I'll need to pay Rs.175/- to the shop from where I purchased pc as traveling charges. In future I'll not prefer Asus.. Nobody should have such trouble.. I don't know after repairing for how many times I'll face same problem...

http://www.whoho.com/2011/03/usb-device-over-current-status-detected.html

Causes:

Screws used to mount the motherboard are too tight
Rogue mounting bolts attached to your case are touching the underside of your motherboard
Some kind of conductive material is under or on your motherboard causing short-circuits
Wrong installation of front-panel cables

http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-1741924/post-usb-device-current-status-detected.html

Hey everyone I have never posted here because I have not needed to yet. I have been working on computers for about 10 years so I have a lot of knowledge. Today I received a computer in that wouldn't boot.. wouldn't even post. I tore the computer down to just the motherboard, 24 pin power and 4 pin (cpu) power and the monitor into the onboard graphics. I got the computer to post but it showed the error below. I have looked through tons of forums to find that it's as I expected usually caused by the front usb ports plugged into the motherboard or a dirty or bent usb port. I cleaned out the usb ports on the board and as far as I can tell there is no debris or problems with them. All that's plugged into the board is power and one piece of ram and I am getting this error. I have tried everything I can think of can anyone assist? The motherboard is running outside of the case right now but gives the same error screwed down to the case or out of the case. This motherboard has a j
umper to clear CMOS I tried that. I even took out the battery to try reseting that way. This error is given with or without the keyboard plugged in.
ASUS P7H55-M/CG5275/DP_MB

auto-detecting usb mass storage devices
00 usb mass storage devices found
no keyboard
usb device over current status detected
system will reboot.


http://www.tomshardware.com/answers...7-pro-usb-device-current-status-detected.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/answers...ected-usb-device-current-status-detected.html
Yeah i tried a ps/2 keyboard and yes i get the error without anything connected to it. Im guessing it is shorting out somewhere? By the looks of it the backplate prongs are not touching anything.

he shouldn't need more standoffs..... You should be able to turn that board on, outside of a case(no standoffs). A true "short" would most likely prevent any boot-up/POST. Maybe you try this next.... I know it is a real pain the @$$ but if you still get the error, you have an issue with your main board or PSU. I believe most PSU over current protections prevent bootup/POST also. The main-board's power management utility may be malfunctioning... or working as intended. were you able to reset the BIOS?

skit75 said:
http://mediapool.getthespec.com/media.pdf?m=TZ3yZfARfgG...

There is a pdf of the manual. Go to section 1.9 and do the steps to clear the RTC RAM clock & memory and settings. Any luck or have you tried that already?


I tried that already, still nothing. I went ahead and bought a gigabyte mobo.

1337rofl
June 30, 2013 7:11:05 AM

A couple quick notes, before I go through your post in detail.

1) When clearing CMOS, you unplug the computer. That's to
cover bad motherboard designs, where using the CMOS jumper,
causes a certain diode to get burned. It can only burn
if the PC is powered. Unplugging the PC, before using the
jumper, covers those bad designs. On an Asus motherboard,
you want the green LED to be off, before using the jumper.

2) Not all "USB overcurrent" errors are caused by an actual
hardware event on the USB port. Some are caused by the
BIOS not handling a 4GB memory configuration correctly. It has
to do with the memory map not being set up right, in the
BIOS. Some code thinks it is working with system memory,
when actually, it's messing up some chipset registers. And
then a USB overcurrent error appears out of nowhere. So
don't accept the event at face value, until Googling
the motherboard model number, to see if the problem
is a known bug.

By the time you read this, your shop technician will have
"dialed in" the motherboard settings again, and you'll be
good to go. You could ask the shop tech, to run Prime95
Torture Test for ten minutes, just to make sure you're
reasonably close to the right settings. I don't know if
any shops like to run that overnight, or spend that kind
of time working on any system. Usually, they're in a rush
to get the next system up on the bench, and bench space is
limited.

HTH,
Paul
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Top