Majin Vegita Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 just wondering if anyone else has had this problem, i did a brief search and came up with nothing... well i'll tell you what's up with mine. have the mbm dfi data patched in, working fine 200x10.5 1.75v mbm read 2100mhz fine and dandy (set it to analog so it looked like i was off the chart) today come home reboot, crank the fsb to 210x10.5 1.75v ram at usual 2.0 2,2,5 cpc disabled. get into windows, runs beautifully.... but... look at mbm reads 2126mhz...... odd... cpu-z ver1.3 reads perfectly at 2210mhz.... odd but wanted to see if anyone else had this problem or any ideas on a remedy. thanks! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dr_bowtie Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 1/2 multi's gives problems.... 210x10.5 = 2205mhz.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majin Vegita Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 1/2 multi's gives problems.... 210x10.5 = 2205mhz.... only in mbm tho? i remember hearing that maybe i should go to a solid multi and go from there then. :-) ahh back to poking and prodding, it was running great at 210x10.5 got it at 215x10.5 stable now for 30 min 1.825v cpu at 39c aircooled Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majin Vegita Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 pic. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v218/nis...2gig_012306.jpg Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundx98 Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 may help http://www.dfi-street.com/forum/showpost.p...&postcount=1108 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majin Vegita Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 may help http://www.dfi-street.com/forum/showpost.p...&postcount=1108 that's my dog!!! WooT WooT, OG DFI Guru Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundx98 Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 Half multis work fine on NF2 OFN OldFahtNerd Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dynamic Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 Hey at least your Vcore is not out of spec. I have my Vcore VID Control @ 1.45v and special on 110% which should be @ 1.59v but only displayed 1.55v. Noticed Sandra displaying 1.55v as well, what gives? My +12v Rail is also off specs. Sandra reports 11.67 which is not good, but MBM is always around 12v and up to 12.27. weird but true...anyone? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundx98 Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 It's only software man You can measure with a DVM and then calibrate. Follow Autchthon's link in 1st post in MBM5 thread. Voltage testpoints on mobo in Post #2 of MBM thread. Link below sig. GL to all. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEOAethyr Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 I've had issues with the 619 bios where it would say a totally diffrent speed then the 505. Generally it's diffrent, just the bios txt of it that's it. But on some cases it was the fsb not being setup correctly. It was a dividor issue, kinda like how the 2:1 dividor does'nt work at all sort of thing, just buggy dividor stuff. As for half step multi's..., ie .5's. I do know of one issue, not sure but I don't think it's only my bios that's affected. The .5 have some slow as heck bandwith going for them compared to the whole steps. For example, just today I compared 275x8 against 275x8.5 Guess which one won in everest? It's by a long shot too, over 3900m @ 8x, but only 3800+ @ 8.5x. That's over 100megs a sec diffrence! It really sucks. That's defently an issue if I ever saw one ^^. Someone else said they noticed the same thing on a totally diff bios. Speaking of issues, soundx98... That screen you posted, seems like it's from the 11/24 bios. At that given time where the screenshot was taken, that instance of windows was only running off 256k of l2 cache ^^. It's the truth yo. When windows see's an unknown cpu, it defaults to that amount of l2. That name string is a prob, not only in the 11/24 bios and such, but even in the 728. Just that the issue does'nt outright turn into an unknown cpu, it just cuts of the name. So it's allways an xp if it's that sort of cpu. But on the other hand, if the cpu is an mp type, and it cuts off the name, windows thinks it's an xp cpu, instead of an mp :. Not a huge deal though, not nearly like cutting off half the l2 cache ^^. I'm not trying to single you out . So many small issues with these bios'es I think. The stability is awesome, but the small things, they get you. Bad cmos stuff, bad cpu id stuff... I would not doubt there's oddities in the cpu clocks. Like I said, I noticed it in the 619 bios, at least compared to what the 505 would setup. And again(I think anyways) it was just the bios screen cpu speed, posting I mean. I have'nt really noticed anything wrong though with 728's cpu speed, but then again I have'nt used an older bios in ages. And the dividors..., that's the worst thing I think. In 505, the stability of the lower dividors was allright, but from 619 and up, it blows. 240, maybe a tiny bit more and that's max for 619 and up with a dividor of any kind. While 505 could do up around 250 with some dividors, and up to at least 280 with 1:2. Not only that, 2:1, the max dividor, meaning 2x mem then fsb, does'nt work at all period. I don't think it ever did. Anyways... If you're off from what you'de normally calculate, like a few mhz, not an issue. It's allways that way no matter what board you're using. Sometime it's because some fsb's are like for example: 135mhz = 136 136 = 136 Or some are like 136.5 Stuff like that happens, etc etc, dumb progs, you get the idea. I never used mbm for cpu speed though. For 1, I did'nt think it was cool lol. For 2, it does'nt work in speedfan at all anyways, neither does the cpu usage %... At least for me it does'nt, maybe my windows again, and again it would'nt matter to me . There's my rant lol. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
soundx98 Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 NEO, great to hear from you. I'd have to agree. yes, yes, and yes. Maybe I will give your latest Bios a run during next "nerd" time Mostly old pics from 2004. Some of your "catches" have been fixed (L2) since then. As always, your post contains a wealth of information. Just need to keep my ADD in check to finish reading the post I always read the posts from the "smart" dudes like yourself. Me? I'm just a salesman that collects and assembles info. Best Regards my brutha. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEOAethyr Posted January 24, 2006 Posted January 24, 2006 Nah dude it's no prob lol . The l2 cache thing was an issue though, not a very cool one. But easyly fixable using a reg file of all things. Forcing this as 512k did the trick: SecondLevelDataCache, in dec. Ms deny's it does anything performance wise. But I found long ago that there was a diff when the cpu was unknown. When it was known, there was no diff in performance, the diff was small, very small. Still, who want's half there cache cut off? Forcing it to 512 in dc makes windows allways use 512k, worked anyways. That unknown cpu type I freaked out a few peeps with on irc lol . Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now