New A7N8XED board has CPU/memory problems

[Doug]

Hi All,

I just got this machine running, but am having trouble with either CPU or
memory, (or... ?) I took a Barton 2500+ CPU off my old Abit machine, so I'm
pretty sure that is working OK. I bought some supposedly good
Micron/Infineon 3200 memory and a new Antec Case. I had previously unlocked
the CPU, and wasn't sure of the factory settings, so first started the
machine at 13X166, and was pleasantly surprised to see it running nicely at
2162 MHZ. Memory speed was reported as 334. This memory is supposed to be
good to 400 MHZ though, and so I attempted a few other settings. It seemed
that everything I tried made things worse, and it wouldn't even POST at 166
any more. I'm now running at 133X13, with memory at 133 ;-( . If I
independently increase the memory speed, the system again wont POST, or
sometimes Windows will boot into a blue screen. Same thing if I try to
increase either the FSB or the multiplier.

If the memory was the culprit, I would think that raising the CPU multiplier
would have no effect. If the CPU was the culprit, I would think that raising
the memory speed would have no effect. But in truth I'm just grasping for
theories here, because I'm clueless.

Can anyone tell me the factory settings for this CPU? Is this CPU not
capable of running at 200 FSB?

Thanks in advance for any hints
Doug

 

[dino]

yes some are..and I am running mine at 200x9.5

here are my settings
CPU Freq:200
Multiplier 9.5
CPU Interface..Optimal
Mem Frequency 100%
Mem Timings 6-3-2-2T
specs
A7N8X-Deluxe Rev2.0 Uber Bios 1007
Barton 2500 (9.5x200=1900mhz) have ran at 2200mhz
Thermaltake Volcano 11+
2x256 OCZ PC3200EL (overclockers ram...so they say)
ATI9600XT
120 gig Max on SATA
20gig max
30 gig Max
Lite-On DVD-RW
LG 52X
Enermax 465 FM psu
Chenming 601 AE tower

 

[Doug]

Thanks Dino. I see that you are running your 3200 memory at 200 instead 400
mhz. Is this one of those trick bios settings, where 200 actually means
2X200? 3200 memory is billed as "400mhz" memory, but I can't get mine to
run faster than 200....

Doug

 

[Ed]

Thanks Dino. I see that you are running your 3200 memory at 200 instead 400
mhz. Is this one of those trick bios settings, where 200 actually means
2X200? 3200 memory is billed as "400mhz" memory, but I can't get mine to
run faster than 200....

Doug

DDR 400 runs at 200MHz

PCxxxx / DDR / MHz
PC1600 / 200 / 100
PC2100 / 266 / 133
PC2400 / 300 / 150
PC2700 / 333 / 166
PC3000 / 366 / 183
PC3200 / 400 / 200
PC3500 / 433 / 216
PC3700 / 466 / 233
PC4000 / 500 / 250
PC4200 / 533 / 266
PC4400 / 550 / 275

 

[rstlne]

Hi All,

I just got this machine running, but am having trouble with either CPU or
memory, (or... ?) I took a Barton 2500+ CPU off my old Abit machine, so I'm
pretty sure that is working OK. I bought some supposedly good
Micron/Infineon 3200 memory and a new Antec Case. I had previously unlocked
the CPU, and wasn't sure of the factory settings, so first started the
machine at 13X166, and was pleasantly surprised to see it running nicely at
2162 MHZ. Memory speed was reported as 334. This memory is supposed to be
good to 400 MHZ though, and so I attempted a few other settings. It seemed
that everything I tried made things worse, and it wouldn't even POST at 166
any more. I'm now running at 133X13, with memory at 133 ;-( . If I
independently increase the memory speed, the system again wont POST, or
sometimes Windows will boot into a blue screen. Same thing if I try to
increase either the FSB or the multiplier.

If the memory was the culprit, I would think that raising the CPU multiplier
would have no effect. If the CPU was the culprit, I would think that raising
the memory speed would have no effect. But in truth I'm just grasping for
theories here, because I'm clueless.

Can anyone tell me the factory settings for this CPU? Is this CPU not
capable of running at 200 FSB?

Thanks in advance for any hints
Doug

The CPU you bought might be capable of running at 200 but it's not sold as
such.. It's sold to run at 166x11
So your initial 13x166 was really max for the cpu. It seems that your 13
multiplier wasnt a good choice and I have no doubt that you tried it at
13x200 even tho you neglected to say such a thing. That would have been a
huge overclock for air cooling. (is that what you tried)..

Even so, if it's running, you should be able to set it back to 166x11 and it
will start without trouble.. Then You can try 200x9 or 9.5 and it should
start without any trouble. If you do have trouble at 200x9 or 166x11 then
try say 133x13.5 (if 13.5 is an option) and see what that gets you, if it
will boot at any/all of those then I will guess ram

 

[Doug]

Thanks for clearing things up, Ed and rstlne. I guess the only "defect" was
in my understanding ;-) .

Also, I apparently wasn't leaving the machine off long enough between
restarts, which was leading to inconsistent results. It's now running again
at 13X166, with the memory set by "spd" at 200 mhz. If I understand
correctly, this is the advertised "400" memory speed (doubled by the dual
channel thingy), and is also plenty fast for my 2500 CPU. Cool.

It may be that my modifications to the CPU are preventing it from running at
200 FSB. I cut two leads to allow it to run on my older Abit board, and
perhaps this caused the system to be confused about the CPU. Even at very
slow multipliers, it wouldn't run at 200 FSB. In this board's bios, the 9.5
multiplier is also the 17 or 18 multiplier (it's listed as "9.5/18", or
something), so maybe the machine was attempting the higher of the two
numbers, and failing completely.

I'm not trying to get to Overclockers Heaven, however; I just wanted these
components to run at their advertised speeds before the 10 day warranty
gives out ;-) Thanks!

Doug

 

[rstlne]

Thanks for clearing things up, Ed and rstlne. I guess the only "defect" was
in my understanding ;-) .

Also, I apparently wasn't leaving the machine off long enough between
restarts, which was leading to inconsistent results. It's now running again
at 13X166, with the memory set by "spd" at 200 mhz. If I understand
correctly, this is the advertised "400" memory speed (doubled by the dual
channel thingy), and is also plenty fast for my 2500 CPU. Cool.

Well the 2500+'s (mine at least) seem to do well at 11x200.. and If your
memory is running at 200 now then I would def change the fsb to 200 and the
memory to 200 to let them be in sync.. Set the multiplier to 11 and then
your system should be a bit faster..

The "dual Channel" thing is something different than DDR

DDR = DoubleDataRate.. DualChannel is not the same thing

 

[Doug]

I guess I spoke too soon, things are still a bit strange. It seems the CPU
defaults to a 13 multiplier (if set to "auto," that's what it selects), and
in fact, it seems that it will not run at any other multiplier. Puzzling
thing is that I can't see how a 13 multiplier would work as a default
setting for an xp 2500 CPU, which I believe is supposed to run at about
2000mhz. 13X133 makes it aprox.1700, while 13X166 makes about 2100.

As I said, I cut two traces (not sure which), which I thought "unlocked" the
processor, to make the CPU run on my old Abit board. Maybe that somehow
caused this behavior...

As it is, I'm having to raise the voltage to 1.8 to keep the system stable
at 13X166. Is that to be expected?

Thanks again for any advice...

Doug

 

[rstlne]

I guess I spoke too soon, things are still a bit strange. It seems the CPU
defaults to a 13 multiplier (if set to "auto," that's what it selects), and
in fact, it seems that it will not run at any other multiplier. Puzzling
thing is that I can't see how a 13 multiplier would work as a default
setting for an xp 2500 CPU, which I believe is supposed to run at about
2000mhz. 13X133 makes it aprox.1700, while 13X166 makes about 2100.

As I said, I cut two traces (not sure which), which I thought "unlocked" the
processor, to make the CPU run on my old Abit board. Maybe that somehow
caused this behavior...

As it is, I'm having to raise the voltage to 1.8 to keep the system stable
at 13X166. Is that to be expected?

Thanks again for any advice...

Doug

No.. Something sounds wrong there to be honest..
the 2500+ is 1833mhz

Are you sure you dont have the 2600+ Thoroughbred..
It's 166x133.. Is this what the system try's to default to? If so they are
all lock'd and they def wont run at 200fsb with air cooling (I dont know how
high they'll go)
get cpuid and run it and tell us how much l2 cache it shows
256 would support that you have a 2600+ Thoroughbred
512 would support that you have a barton (and something would be wrong
there)
Get back to us

 

[Doug]

It was a retail boxed 2500+ Barton, and cupid reports a 512 L2, so no
mystery there, probably.

This bios doesn't seem to have a default FSB, but the multiplier does
default to 13. Apparently with any setting *lower* than that the machine
won't even POST. Oddly, I just set it to 14X133 and it booted fine, and
actually reported the correct CPU for a change (usually it says "3000+" , I
think.). I could leave it at this setting, I suppose, running at 1871 mhz,
but then I'm limiting the system to 133 fsb, which seems pretty lame for
this lovely motherboard. Running at 13X166 doesn't seem to be an option,
because this morning it again wouldn't make it through the Windows startup,
even at 1.8 volts.

I looked through the Abit NG but couldn't find the thread describing which
traces I cut. Ah well. Must have been the wrong ones ;-) . Looks like my
options are to either get some better cooling and up the voltage some more,
or get a new CPU.

 

[rstlne]

It was a retail boxed 2500+ Barton, and cupid reports a 512 L2, so no
mystery there, probably.

This bios doesn't seem to have a default FSB, but the multiplier does
default to 13. Apparently with any setting *lower* than that the machine
won't even POST. Oddly, I just set it to 14X133 and it booted fine, and
actually reported the correct CPU for a change (usually it says "3000+" , I
think.). I could leave it at this setting, I suppose, running at 1871 mhz,
but then I'm limiting the system to 133 fsb, which seems pretty lame for
this lovely motherboard. Running at 13X166 doesn't seem to be an option,
because this morning it again wouldn't make it through the Windows startup,
even at 1.8 volts.

I looked through the Abit NG but couldn't find the thread describing which
traces I cut. Ah well. Must have been the wrong ones ;-) . Looks like my
options are to either get some better cooling and up the voltage some more,
or get a new CPU.

13 is def the incorrect ones.. I dont see why you would have touched the
chip as (going by the age of it as you describe it) it would have been
unlock'd. You have def screw'd something up.. These traces you cut.. Why
did you cut them..
I mean to me the traces(tracks) are the wires that are imprinted on the
motherboard.. The cpu has Pins on it and there would have been no reason to
muck with those either.. If you can set the cpu to 11x in the bios.. Boot
the system and check it with cpuid (both by looking at 11x and doing the
frequency calc yourself ot make sure that it's correct) then there should be
no reason that you cant run it at 200x11

 

[Doug]

I was referring to the traces on the CPU - the L1, L2 bridge, etc. On my old
Abit Kt7a, two traces needed to be cut in order to run this CPU at its rated
speed (the board did not officially support xp CPUs). Anyway, for whatever
reason (I'm going to assume it was the cut trace, for lack of a better
reason), this CPU won't boot at all using 11 as the multiplier. So yep, I
must have screwed it up.