Jump to content

SADtherobot

Members
  • Content Count

    79
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About SADtherobot

  • Rank
    Member
  1. No, I never use this feature. Well, from what you 2 have said, I guess it really is only the CAS 1 and 1.5 settings that are mislabeled. This means the the problem will affect much fewer people than I had originally thought. Basically only people running BH-5, TCCD, or UTT (VX) will encounter the problem, if they like to run at ultra-low latency settings. If you are referring to what I said about the A64Tweaker pictures being fake, I think this is fully possible. I've been using the Lanparty NF4-based boards since they first came out, and I've always tried to pair them with BH-5, TCCD, or VX in order to achieve ultra-low latency settings (usually 1.5-2-2-0). I've used many BIOS versions and many different boards and all of them were able to run at the CAS1.5 setting. Every time I checked the values in Windows, CPU-Z and Everest have always shown CAS1.5 while A64Tweaker (3 different versions, 0.31, 0.50, and 0.60) says CAS1. This fact led me to believe that all of the A64Tweaker pictures I had seen with people running CAS1.5 at higher clockspeeds were faked (which is extremely easy to do with A64Tweaker), since the real CAS1.5 shows up as CAS1 in A64Tweaker.
  2. As the title states, the CAS timing settings are mislabeled in the 4/06 BIOS. I discovered this when I recently upgraded a Lanparty NF4 Ultra-D to the new BIOS. Originally I couldn't figure out why my BH-5 would no longer boot at the CAS1.5 setting, but then I realized that the order of the list of CAS options was different. I decided to give CAS1 a try and sure enough it boots at that setting. I checked the timings in windows using both CPU-Z and Everest, each show the CAS latency as being 1.5, like it used to be. I ran A64Tweaker 0.60 and it says that it is CAS1, but that's what it said with the old BIOS at the CAS1.5 setting, so I guess that program doesn't read non-standard CAS latency correctly (which means that some of the screenshots people post are misleading or fake). I should have also tested some of the other CAS latency settings, but the computer I worked on is in use 24/7, so I can't really play around with the BIOS right now. I believe that other settings are mislabeled as well, since all of the entries in the list were rearranged. I'm not sure if there will be a new BIOS released for these boards again, but if so, I hope they fix this problem, cause it can be frustrating for people that don't know about this issue.
  3. The CPU works fine, I tested it in another computer, plus it worked fine in the other motherboard I put in my friend's computer. Incorrect, Prime95 puts plenty of stress on the CPU, it actually stresses it more than 3DMark does. Now it doesn't work on any test at the old settings (because the old settings require more VDIMM voltage), as I said, even Memtest86 is having errors now. It's because the RAM voltage keeps fluctuating. Which is the same problem I had with this board before, hence the reason I RMAd it for re-work. This time the board just failed a lot faster. My entire post was about how the board has a problem with the VDIMM voltage jumping all over the place. It started failing after putting a huge load on the computer for days, it just happened to fail during the last run of 3DMark2001, but it could have failed at any time. The problem is 1 or more defective components on the motherboard that fail at regulating the VDIMM voltage. I was simply trying to find out if anyone knew if the Rev.B boards have the same problem. I have searched this forum and found a few posts about anomalous voltages and temperature readings on the NF4 Infinity boards, so it might be a common problem. From what I've read, people have some very random results with the Infinity boards, so there seems to be a number of problems with them. I'm hoping that someone can get a Rev.B board to test if anything has been corrected.
  4. I have an Infinity SLI running in my friend's computer, it's a Rev.A board. I'm using some old OCZ Value VX cause I wanted to see what I could do with it. I configured his system months ago and it was running for 2-3 months without any problems. He then mentioned that it started to blue screen on him, so I went to check it out. I noticed that the problems were RAM related, but I knew the RAM was good, since it had never given me problems, and I had thoroughly tested it (30 loops of memtest86+, 24 hours mprime, 24 hours Prime95, 12-16 hours 3DMark) on his board without a single error. I was running the RAM pretty fast (I can't remember exactly, it was in February when I first configured it) so I needed some pretty high voltage, so I had it set to 3.1V, but I knew it was not good to run too close to 3.3V, so I turned up the 3.3V rail a little (he has an OCZ powerstream 520W) to compensate. Since I knew the RAM was good and the PSU was giving decent voltage, I decided to look around the BIOS for any clues, that's when I noticed that the VDIMM voltage was jumping around from 2.65-3.2V in the BIOS's VDIMM voltage monitor. I was shocked to see something like that happening, so I knew that some component on the board had failed. I also noticed that after I exited the BIOS and rebooted that it wouldnt boot anymore cause the RAM wasn't getting enough voltage, so I cleared the CMOS and ran at much slower settings using a lower VDIMM setting. After rebooting this time, I noticed that the CPU fan had stopped spinning and I couldnt get it started again. I made sure the fan wasn't dead by plugging it into a different header, sure enough it worked fine. I tried the CPU fan header again and it still wouldnt work, so i tried lowering the CPU fan speed percentage in the BIOS from 100% to about 85%, this got the fan working again. Obviously the board had problems, so I put a temporary board in my friend's computer, then I went through a huge ordeal to get the board RMAd. My friend lives far away, so I didn't get to put the Infinity back in for a while. I put the board in about 5 days ago and set it to some decent settings and again I used 3.1V just to see what would happen. I tested the board for days, more memtest, prime, and 3DMark, all passed without errors. I decided to do a single run of 3DMark yesterday, just to see a final score with the new drivers and other things I changed. At some point during the benchmark, the computer threw a blue screen, but no error message (like the usual "bad pool caller" or "IRQL not less or equal", etc.). I hard reseted the computer, but it wouldn't restart unless i held the reset button for a while. When it booted, it gave me some message about the system being in safe mode cause the CPU was OCed or something (though I hadnt OCed the CPU in any way, all clocks for everything were at stock at this point in time). I entered the BIOS and went straight to the VDIMM voltage read-out, sure enough, it was jumping around again. I don't know why I got a message about the CPU, cause the other voltages looked fine and the settings were all at the defaults, but I assume that the board doesn't have any messages about the RAM, so it just said something about the CPU cause it knew it couldn't boot for some reason (since the VDIMM voltage was too low when it tried to boot that time). Now I guess i'll have to RMA this board as well, but my friend leaves tomorrow, so I will have to give him a replacement again, and I have no idea when i'll get to try to swap this board back in (that is, if he wants to go through the trouble 1 more time). It's quite ridiculous that the board failed so quickly after it was repaired (I assumed it was repaired cause I got the same exact board back and it had a different smell, so they probably replaced a few components). I was wondering if other people have had this type of failure. I've read a few other threads that discuss both VDIMM and VTT problems, so maybe the Infinity boards are prone to failure. If this is true, does anyone know if the Rev.B have any of the same problems? I'm currently having memtest failures even at 2.7V, so I'm guessing I should RMA the board, but should I even bother RMAing this board again? If you must know the specs of this system (though they are almost irrelevant in this case cause the board IS broken, it's not some other component causing a problem), they are as follows: Athlon64 3500+ (Newcastle core) DFI Infinity SLI Rev. A (4/10/06 BIOS) 1GB OCZ Value VX EVGA GeForce 6800GT Maxtor DM10 250GB (yes, this drive sucks) Toshiba DVD-ROM Samsung CD-RW OCZ Powerstream 520W
  5. Has anyone tried the newest 2/6 BIOS to see if it resolves this issue?
  6. Has anyone tried the new 1/19 beta BIOS (though it mentions nothing about fixing a temperature problem)? Or is it accepted that it's not really a BIOS problem anymore?
  7. The "BT" version is based on the original 7/04 BIOS. The "BTA" version is based on the 7/06 BIOS, I have been wondering for a while why the BIOS wasn't just renamed to 706-2BT cause the current name is misleading, but whatever. The "BT" stands for BigToe (OCZTony), since he is the person who worked on them. There are more differences than just that though. Even though the "BT" version was based on the original 7/04 BIOS, it had the higher Special CPU voltages removed because they could cause the CPU to be fried in the 7/04 BIOS. Another change was the addition of some random dividers being added to the RAM divider list, but other than those 2 changes, it was basically the same as the 7/04 BIOS. The "BTA" version has the same voltages removed, which is sort of odd cause I would have thought that the 7/04 CPU frying issue would have been resolved in the 7/06 BIOS. There is also 1 timing option that was removed in the "BTA" BIOS (Twcl), so if you are going for really low latency settings (as I usually do, for example 1.5,2,0,2,9,12,0,2,1,1,3120,1 at 1T), you should probably stick with the "BT" version since it still has Twcl. The "BTA" version also has a newer version of memtest86+ built in. That's pretty much it for the differences, at least, those are the ones that I noticed and I've used both of these BIOS versions quite a bit on a number of boards. Thanks to OCZTony for these awesome BIOS versions.
  8. Make sure your memory is stable by running memtest86 and prime95 for at least 12 hours each before installing your OS.
  9. The fact that the NF3 doesnt support SATA/300 should have no bearing on that hard drive purchase since that drive isnt actually SATA/300. I posted the following in another thread, but it applies to your case as well: "the problem you are having has nothing to do with drivers or the board, you, as well as MANY others, fell for Maxtor's false advertising. Maxtor claims that because the DM10/Maxline3 drives are native SATA and support NCQ, that they are somehow SATA2 drives. None of the Maxtor drives support the SATA300 speed, they are the only company that doesn't support it right now, yet they still claim that their drives are SATA2. I guess the only way they can get away with saying that is because they support the NCQ feature, but it is not mandatory in the SATA2 spec, just like the SATA1 spec, so I have no clue what part of the drive is SATA2. I think that currently, the worst hard drives you can get are the Maxtor DM10/Maxline3 drives because they have massive incompatibilities with all drive controllers (firmware updates are required most of the time to get the drive working at all, trust me, I've had to deal with this problem WAY too much) and because they falsely advertise SATA2, which confuses people." The bottom line is that Maxtor's DM10/Maxline3 series are not SATA/300, but that wouldnt matter anyway because SATA/300 is backwards compatible with SATA/150, so it would work with your NF3 board even if it were a true SATA/300 drive. I was having the same problem with these drives. They would cause the system to lock up in Windows, then upon reboot, the drive would no longer be detected. There is a chance that the firmware update will help, but as I've mentioned in other threads, it doesnt always work. I posted this in the 5/10 BIOS thread about 3 months ago, but I received no response at all: "Does anybody know if any fixes have been implemented for the 2 extremely annoying Maxtor Diamond Max 10s that have the detection issue (models 6B250S0 and 6B300S0)? I know that there is a thread about correcting the problem (I've read it, and many others like it), but the firmware update on the drive does not appear to work every time. I have read on many other forums that both a BIOS update and firmware update are necessary. I was wondering if any steps have been taken by DFI to help remedy Maxtor's fault (which they claim is not an issue). I know that the 1004 BIOS (and above) on the crappy Asus A8N-SLI Deluxe has some sort of fix for this drive (I've tested it A LOT), they claim they updated the SATA bootrom to help detect this drive model. MSI has also claimed that they fixed the issue with their v1.2 BIOS, but I am unable to test that board. If anyone knows if the 5/10 BIOS helps fix this issue, please let me know." Since I posted that, I was able to test an NF4-based MSI board, the combination of new motherboard BIOS and new drive firmware fixed the detection issues on the MSI board. The issue with the drives is not limited to NF4-based boards either (as some people tend to think), I've found that these Maxtor drives have compatibility issues with almost every SATA controller, whether it be onboard or PCI based. An example would be Bushwacka, his Highpoint RocketRAID card constantly loses drives: The most annoying part about the Maxtor drive problem is that the firmware updates only work with certain SATA controllers, so once you waste your time dealing with tech support and you actually get the firmware updates, you probably wont even be able to update your drives using the computer that they are connected to (this is true for nForce users). I can't believe Maxtor released such a terrible drive, and an even worse fix for the problem. They falsely advertise the interface, confuse people about speeds, blame the lack of features on the chipset (there is another thread on this forum discussing this, Maxtor blames nVidia for it's own false speed advertising), and blame all of the non-detection issues on the motherboard and chipset (nVidia, Silicon Image, Highpoint, Promise, etc.) manucturers. I've been dealing with this problem since December 2004 and I think that the only way that Maxtor could possibly make up for their actions would be to make a firmware update that actually fixes the problems, can be used with ALL chipsets, and is publicly available. Edit: I believe I've found the reason that Maxtor is able to claim that their drives are able to be called "SATA2". The DM10/Maxline3 drives support a feature called "staggered spin-up", which is part of the SATA2 spec (and what is also causing the problem). Both SATA300 (3Gbps) and NCQ are optional features of the SATA2 spec, but most SATA2 drives have them. So far it seems as though the Hitachi SATA2 drives are the best because they support both SATA300 and NCQ, even the new WD SATA2 drives don't support these (the drive shows up as SATA300, but the burst speed is NO different than in SATA150 mode), they are basically as worthless as the Maxtor drives, just a 16MB cache (on the 250GB+ models, like Maxtor's), but without NCQ (only the 400GB has NCQ).
  10. I'd suggest doing a search on this forum for the Diamond Max 10 drives. You will find that a number of people are having problems with those drives. Most of the issues are non-detection issues, but others exist (I've had other problems with the ones I've used).
  11. I posted the following in a different thread, but it pretty much applies to this 1 also: "I've used every beta of XP x64 and I've been using the OS since it was released (as have some of my friends) and I've never seen any real "loss" due to WOW in games, at most there might be like 5 FPS difference, but from what I saw, there was either 0 or 1-2. I've actually seen XP x64 run some games faster, and on my Shuttle SN95G5, my 3DMark scores are slightly higher in XP x64. As far as non-game applications go, most of them launch faster probably because XP x64 seems to handle virtual memory and pagefile much more efficiently. The OS also boots faster than XP 32-bit, on 1 of my friend's computers, his XP x64 boot time was 1/10th of his XP 32-bit (1/4 loading bar compared to 4), with the same driver versions and software installed. The fact is that the differences (if any) would be so small, that you probably wouldnt notice. As for 64-bit applications, they are faster, not because they have 64-bit code, or because they can address more RAM, but because they are able to use the additional x86-64 features. The 64-bit software will be faster (even without a ton of RAM) because it can use 64-bit ALU, pathways, registers, and they can compute a 64-bit instruction. XP x64 is also more stable that 32-bit XP because it is based on Windows Server 2003. This is also the reason why some applications (very few) don't work correctly, it is not because the OS is 64-bit, but because the software wasnt written to work with Windows2003. Since I started using the betas last year, the only application that I couldnt get to run was Aquamark3, but that was a while ago and there is problably a patch by now. There isnt really a reason not to buy XP x64, unless you already have a copy of XP 32-bit that you can use. You will basically be limiting your upgrade path because you wont be able to use 64-bit software when it is released. The only annoyance that I can think of about the OS is the printer drivers, but the OS already supports a lot of drivers, and the printer companies are slowly re-writing their drivers. MS has a page that explains how to use a compatible driver if you can't find 1 for your specific printer. I personally havent encountered this problem, and I know only 1 person that has, but I can understand that this would be a problem for some people." There are many people that bash the OS without knowing any of the facts, or without having used the OS. How can you believe somebody that hasnt used the OS? I've never had a problem running any games on XP x64 and I'm using it on a few computers. One of my friends only runs XP x64 and he plays a ton of games, he said that there hasnt been a single problem with any of them and that most load faster than under XP 32-bit (he used to use 32-bit before x64 was released).
  12. You want to get the AMD platform drivers, nTune has nothing to do with drivers. Ntune is for doing minor overclocking and reporting temperatures and voltages, but most of the time it does these incorrectly. I would suggest staying away from nTune, it can cause a number of problems. If the platform drivers dont help you, you can try changing the hardware acceleration settings or PCI latency for that device.
  13. I've used every beta of XP x64 and I've been using the OS since it was released (as have some of my friends) and I've never seen any real "loss" due to WOW in games, at most there might be like 5 FPS difference, but from what I saw, there was either 0 or 1-2. I've actually seen XP x64 run some games faster, and on my Shuttle SN95G5, my 3DMark scores are slightly higher in XP x64. As far as non-game applications go, most of them launch faster probably because XP x64 seems to handle virtual memory and pagefile much more efficiently. The OS also boots faster than XP 32-bit, on 1 of my friend's computers, his XP x64 boot time was 1/10th of his XP 32-bit (1/4 loading bar compared to 4), with the same driver versions and software installed. The fact is that the differences (if any) would be so small, that you probably wouldnt notice. As for 64-bit applications, they are faster, not because they have 64-bit code, or because they can address more RAM, but because they are able to use the additional x86-64 features. The 64-bit software will be faster (even without a ton of RAM) because it can use 64-bit ALU, pathways, registers, and they can compute a 64-bit instruction. XP x64 is also more stable that 32-bit XP because it is based on Windows Server 2003. This is also the reason why some applications (very few) don't work correctly, it is not because the OS is 64-bit, but because the software wasnt written to work with Windows2003. Since I started using the betas last year, the only application that I couldnt get to run was Aquamark3, but that was a while ago and there is problably a patch by now. There isnt really a reason not to buy XP x64, unless you already have a copy of XP 32-bit that you can use. You will basically be limiting your upgrade path because you wont be able to use 64-bit software when it is released. The only annoyance that I can think of about the OS is the printer drivers, but the OS already supports a lot of drivers, and the printer companies are slowly re-writing their drivers. MS has a page that explains how to use a compatible driver if you can't find 1 for your specific printer. I personally havent encountered this problem, and I know only 1 person that has, but I can understand that this would be a problem for some people.
  14. If your PATA drive was present when installing Windows on the Raptor, then Windows would have copied the boot files to the first drive it saw (I hate this behavior, Windows always does this, at least it seems to be fixed in Vista though), which would have been the PATA drive. You should be able to use the recovery console on the Windows CD to create new boot files on the SATA drive.
×
×
  • Create New...