> On Sat, 25 Jun 2005 10:08:23 -0700, Robert Heiling
> <robheil@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >kony wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005 14:10:25 -0700, Robert Heiling
> >> <robheil@comcast.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >The one I found is the Biostar M7VKE Socket A at:
> >> ><http://www.gearxs.com/gearxs/product_info.php?products_id=3624m> Since the board I'm replacing is a
> >> >PCChips M805LR with VIA KT133 chipset, AMD Duron and Athlon Socket A, PC133 SDRAM up to 1
> >> >GB, and AGP 4X (AGP2.0), the specs are very close.
> >>
> >> That's not a very high quality board, though it might be
> >> sufficient for a couple years use. It isn't KT133 though,
> >> it's the integrated-video version of it. That may be fine,
> >> windows may make the minor changes (which are only device
> >> names, functionally it's the same chipset plus the video),
> >> but I'd think it might be better to go with the KT133A since
> >> you don't need the integrated video. <SNIP>
> >
> >Sorry to bug you again on this, but I'd like your opinion if you would please. I've located another board
> >that fits all my specs - MSI built, Socket A, KT133, AGP, mATX, 200MHz FSB, etc and I can use my PC133
> >memory. They claim the boards are OEM overstock or pulls. Boards like this are pretty old and the technology
> >is outdated I would think, so the ones I've previously seen were priced from ~$20-$32. In this case, they're
> >asking $80 and claim that they will have no trouble selling them at that price. Who would buy them except
> >people in the same boat as I am with a failed motherboard? What do you think about that $80 price? Maybe I'm
> >just being too conservative.
>
> $80 is a bit overpriced, they might not've cost that much at
> many vendors when brand new and modern technology. I can't
> help but think the whole reason they still have them is
> because nobody pays $80 for it these days. Even so, this
> can be what happens to older hardware- the lowest cost
> vendors sell out and so on, till online the high-priced
> options remain.
>
> "Overstock or pulls" is a pretty big difference though...
> No way I'd pay $80 for a pull today.
>
> Here's one for $40, there may be others if you look around
> the 'net.
> http://www.targetpcinc.com/Details.a...mID=2485&Res=2
>
> I"m not claiming it's a great board, but rather I have no
> experience with it and generally avoid Chaintech. Even so,
> $40 less with option to return it if it doesn't work right
> seems a worthwhile risk.
and yet another question! As mentioned in another post, I ordered the Chaintech board above that you found at
TargetPC, it has arrived, and I've got everything apart and am ready to drop the cpu & memory into the new board
and install it. However, before I do .....
The new board is the CT-7AIA and has a KT133 (note: not a KT133A) chipset and Socket A. Its included manual says:
"Supports AMD Socket A processors up to 950MHz". My cpu is 1000Mhz (1GHz and I read on another review site of a
different board that: "As with any other Socket A based board, the issue of CPU multiplier selection is locked
after by the CPU itself with an internally locked multiplier."). I've been so used to seeing the websites give
Socket A claims of up to 1.2GHz & 1.5GHz that I didn't realize that the TargetPC site didn't mention cpu speed at
all. In fact, my old board, which is also KT133 claims support for 500MHz to 1GHz. Is it possibly the case that
950MHz was the fastest Athlon out at the time they wrote that manual and that it will actually support 1GHz? or am
I in trouble?
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 12:09:45 -0700, Robert Heiling
<robheil@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Here's one for $40, there may be others if you look around
>> the 'net.
>> http://www.targetpcinc.com/Details.a...mID=2485&Res=2
>>
>> I"m not claiming it's a great board, but rather I have no
>> experience with it and generally avoid Chaintech. Even so,
>> $40 less with option to return it if it doesn't work right
>> seems a worthwhile risk.
>
>and yet another question! As mentioned in another post, I ordered the Chaintech board above that you found at
>TargetPC, it has arrived, and I've got everything apart and am ready to drop the cpu & memory into the new board
>and install it. However, before I do .....
>
>The new board is the CT-7AIA and has a KT133 (note: not a KT133A) chipset and Socket A. Its included manual says:
>"Supports AMD Socket A processors up to 950MHz". My cpu is 1000Mhz (1GHz and I read on another review site of a
>different board that: "As with any other Socket A based board, the issue of CPU multiplier selection is locked
>after by the CPU itself with an internally locked multiplier."). I've been so used to seeing the websites give
>Socket A claims of up to 1.2GHz & 1.5GHz that I didn't realize that the TargetPC site didn't mention cpu speed at
>all. In fact, my old board, which is also KT133 claims support for 500MHz to 1GHz. Is it possibly the case that
>950MHz was the fastest Athlon out at the time they wrote that manual and that it will actually support 1GHz? or am
>I in trouble?
Yes that is possible.
Install the CPU, video and memory for the time being.
When it posts, note what the board reports for CPU.
If necessary (and possible) adjust bios settings or onboard
jumpers to accomodate your CPU- keeping in mind that KT133
(non-"A") does not support 133FSB (I dont recall the
particularly of your system at this time and I'd deleted the
original post).
Install floppy drive and run memtest86 to confirm memory
stability. Memtest86 will display the CPU frequency too
even if the BIOS POST screen misidentifies the CPU. Trust
memtest86's report over the BIOS report, BUT also you can
later run a windows CPU ID tool to confirm operational
frequency. For example, "WCPUID" would tell you, as would
"CPU-Z", http://www.cpuid.org/download/cpu-z-129.zip
Robert Heiling wrote:
>
> Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
> Encoding: 7bit
If you want to be heard on newsgroups, do not use html nor mime
encoding. They are potentially dangerous, and the better ISPs will
simply remove them from newsgroup traffic. Usenext is a pure text
medium.
--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
> On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 12:09:45 -0700, Robert Heiling
> <robheil@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> Here's one for $40, there may be others if you look around
> >> the 'net.
> >> http://www.targetpcinc.com/Details.a...mID=2485&Res=2
> >>
> >> I"m not claiming it's a great board, but rather I have no
> >> experience with it and generally avoid Chaintech. Even so,
> >> $40 less with option to return it if it doesn't work right
> >> seems a worthwhile risk.
> >
> >and yet another question! As mentioned in another post, I ordered the Chaintech board above that you found at
> >TargetPC, it has arrived, and I've got everything apart and am ready to drop the cpu & memory into the new board
> >and install it. However, before I do .....
> >
> >The new board is the CT-7AIA and has a KT133 (note: not a KT133A) chipset and Socket A. Its included manual says:
> >"Supports AMD Socket A processors up to 950MHz". My cpu is 1000Mhz (1GHz and I read on another review site of a
> >different board that: "As with any other Socket A based board, the issue of CPU multiplier selection is locked
> >after by the CPU itself with an internally locked multiplier."). I've been so used to seeing the websites give
> >Socket A claims of up to 1.2GHz & 1.5GHz that I didn't realize that the TargetPC site didn't mention cpu speed at
> >all. In fact, my old board, which is also KT133 claims support for 500MHz to 1GHz. Is it possibly the case that
> >950MHz was the fastest Athlon out at the time they wrote that manual and that it will actually support 1GHz? or am
> >I in trouble?
>
> Yes that is possible.
> Install the CPU, video and memory for the time being.
Then you think it will even run at all in spite of that speed conflict? That's my only real concern! I don't really
care if it runs at 950Mhz or 1000Mhz, just so it will work. I didn't want to touch the new mb if it wasn't going to
work and I had to return it.
> When it posts, note what the board reports for CPU.
> If necessary (and possible) adjust bios settings or onboard
> jumpers to accomodate your CPU- keeping in mind that KT133
> (non-"A") does not support 133FSB (I dont recall the
> particularly of your system at this time and I'd deleted the
> original post).
This one has a FSB jumper for 100/133. You may be thinking of 266 FSB which I've seen the KT133A supports in the later
CT-7AIA5 version of this board per: http://www.zen26266.zen.co.uk/CT-7AIA5-page1.htm
> Install floppy drive and run memtest86 to confirm memory
> stability.
I have the PC133 memory so it shouldn't be a problem.
> Memtest86 will display the CPU frequency too
> even if the BIOS POST screen misidentifies the CPU. Trust
> memtest86's report over the BIOS report, BUT also you can
> later run a windows CPU ID tool to confirm operational
> frequency. For example, "WCPUID" would tell you, as would
> "CPU-Z", http://www.cpuid.org/download/cpu-z-129.zip
Thanks again for the great help. If you give the go-ahead, it should be running sometime tomorrow.
> Robert Heiling wrote:
> >
> > Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
> > Encoding: 7bit
>
> If you want to be heard on newsgroups, do not use html nor mime
> encoding. They are potentially dangerous, and the better ISPs will
> simply remove them from newsgroup traffic. Usenext is a pure text
> medium.
I have previously explained the problem to you, so kindly get off my
case. I've been posting in newsgroups since the mid-90's and with
basically this same software and haven't had any complaints until yours.
Something, and I haven't had time to find out what, is causing my
newsreader to respond to what it thinks is html. My linewidth output is
also usually at 72, but since you brought that up, wasn't that to
accomodate teletype machines? and isn't that all a bit dated like you?
In any case, I don't take kindly to net nazis like yourself, and don't
waste much time in flame wars either. So get lost!
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 14:14:12 -0700, Robert Heiling
<robheil@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Yes that is possible.
>> Install the CPU, video and memory for the time being.
>
>Then you think it will even run at all in spite of that speed conflict? That's my only real concern! I don't really
>care if it runs at 950Mhz or 1000Mhz, just so it will work. I didn't want to touch the new mb if it wasn't going to
>work and I had to return it.
Mostly likely it will run at the correct frequency but
merely not be able to make a positive ID on the CPU. It may
correctly display the operational speed, or may display
something *wrong*. For this reason it is necessary to
confirm the speed with alternate methods as mentioned
previously. It is least likely that it would run at 950
instead of 1000MHz. More like it would not POST at all, but
the odds are it will.
I cannot guarantee it, but think it is worth trying. If
there is a newer bios available you might want to update the
bios, particularly if the board has a relatively early bios
version. This may combat other bios issues in additon to
CPU identification.
"In general" such boards did support 1GHz CPU, within the
limit of the [no support for 133FSB with non-'A' KT133] it
was the issue you mentioned that they simply didn't have
that speed yet when the spec for the board was produced- and
with lesser board brands/support, they may not update their
specs for it later, and sometimes won't even fully disclose
the changes a particular bios incorporates if there's even a
newer bios available. After flashing a bios, clear CMOS.
>
>> When it posts, note what the board reports for CPU.
>> If necessary (and possible) adjust bios settings or onboard
>> jumpers to accomodate your CPU- keeping in mind that KT133
>> (non-"A") does not support 133FSB (I dont recall the
>> particularly of your system at this time and I'd deleted the
>> original post).
>
>This one has a FSB jumper for 100/133. You may be thinking of 266 FSB which I've seen the KT133A supports in the later
>CT-7AIA5 version of this board per: http://www.zen26266.zen.co.uk/CT-7AIA5-page1.htm
>
No, KT133 non-"A" does not actually support 133FSB. It does
not matter if it has a jumper. Other non-supportive boards
also had such a jumper. Via originally had intended to be
able to get KT133 running up to 133FSB, but wasn't able to
and shipped out the chips they had at the time. LATER they
got 133FSB working right and this was the distinction of
KT133A.
>> Install floppy drive and run memtest86 to confirm memory
>> stability.
>
>I have the PC133 memory so it shouldn't be a problem.
Not so easy to assume, the board itself can be an issue even
when memory is spec'd higher, especially when a board looks
up SPD info and finds a module spec'd for (as an example)
CAS3 @ 133MHz but CAS2 @ 100MHz. In such cases there is the
potential for it to still be running the memory at most
aggressive CAS timing possible. Resolution if there were
this kind of problem is obviously different memory, or
manually setting a higher CAS #, or other things we need not
delve into at this time.
Re: OT: Trouble booting now totally out of service
Robert Heiling wrote:
> CBFalconer wrote:
>> Robert Heiling wrote:
>>>
>>> Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
>>> Encoding: 7bit
>>
>> If you want to be heard on newsgroups, do not use html nor mime
>> encoding. They are potentially dangerous, and the better ISPs will
>> simply remove them from newsgroup traffic. Usenext is a pure text
>> medium.
>
> I have previously explained the problem to you, so kindly get off my
> case. I've been posting in newsgroups since the mid-90's and with
> basically this same software and haven't had any complaints until yours.
> Something, and I haven't had time to find out what, is causing my
> newsreader to respond to what it thinks is html. My linewidth output is
> also usually at 72, but since you brought that up, wasn't that to
> accomodate teletype machines? and isn't that all a bit dated like you?
>
> In any case, I don't take kindly to net nazis like yourself, and don't
> waste much time in flame wars either. So get lost!
My, you are a surly one. I was really mean to explain some of the
facts of life to you. Do you really think I keep a list of silly
html posters who have been told the facts and responded with ugly
noises? You might consider that the cause of the message was the
appearance of the silly html, not your identity. After that you
might ponder on who placed that html on usenet in the first place.
However, if you have been doing this since the mid 90s, you do
appear to be fairly slow on the uptake.
--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
Re: OT: Trouble booting now totally out of service
CBFalconer wrote:
> Robert Heiling wrote:
> > CBFalconer wrote:
> >> Robert Heiling wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Part 1.1 Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
> >>> Encoding: 7bit
> >>
> >> If you want to be heard on newsgroups, do not use html nor mime
> >> encoding. They are potentially dangerous, and the better ISPs will
> >> simply remove them from newsgroup traffic. Usenext is a pure text
> >> medium.
> >
> > I have previously explained the problem to you, so kindly get off my
> > case. I've been posting in newsgroups since the mid-90's and with
> > basically this same software and haven't had any complaints until yours.
> > Something, and I haven't had time to find out what, is causing my
> > newsreader to respond to what it thinks is html. My linewidth output is
> > also usually at 72, but since you brought that up, wasn't that to
> > accomodate teletype machines? and isn't that all a bit dated like you?
> >
> > In any case, I don't take kindly to net nazis like yourself, and don't
> > waste much time in flame wars either. So get lost!
>
> My, you are a surly one.
You draw the reaction your posts deserve.
> I was really mean to explain some of the
> facts of life to you. Do you really think I keep a list of silly
> html posters who have been told the facts and responded with ugly
> noises? You might consider that the cause of the message was the
> appearance of the silly html, not your identity. After that you
> might ponder on who placed that html on usenet in the first place.
If you weren't being a childish net-nazi, you wouldn't have to worry about any
of that.
> However, if you have been doing this since the mid 90s, you do
> appear to be fairly slow on the uptake.
You might someday wake up to the fact that it's sop to place 'OT" or similar
in the subject header when you post something that has nothing whatsoever to
do with the subject at hand? Then again, you've had long enough to learn, but
your rudeness seems to prevail..
> "If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
> the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
> "show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
> "Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
How about the Usenet rule limiting sigs to 3 lines. Guess you're too good for
those rules also eh? and how about pmfji? I didn't see that either. You
obviously need to get a life badly. :-(
kony wrote:
>
> On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 14:14:12 -0700, Robert Heiling
> <robheil@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> Yes that is possible.
> >> Install the CPU, video and memory for the time being.
> >
> >Then you think it will even run at all in spite of that
> >speed conflict? That's my only real concern! I don't really
> >care if it runs at 950Mhz or 1000Mhz, just so it will work.
> >I didn't want to touch the new mb if it wasn't going to
> >work and I had to return it.
>
> Mostly likely it will run at the correct frequency but
> merely not be able to make a positive ID on the CPU. It may
> correctly display the operational speed, or may display
> something *wrong*. For this reason it is necessary to
> confirm the speed with alternate methods as mentioned
> previously. It is least likely that it would run at 950
> instead of 1000MHz. More like it would not POST at all, but
> the odds are it will.
It is working, but with problems. It's all covered in my other response.
> I cannot guarantee it, but think it is worth trying. If
> there is a newer bios available you might want to update the
> bios, particularly if the board has a relatively early bios
> version. This may combat other bios issues in additon to
> CPU identification.
I've done a lot of checking and it's pretty certain that my Bios is the
latest. It was also updated on 06/21/2002, which is the same day as the
Bios for a closely related board was also updated.
> "In general" such boards did support 1GHz CPU, within the
> limit of the [no support for 133FSB with non-'A' KT133] it
> was the issue you mentioned that they simply didn't have
> that speed yet when the spec for the board was produced- and
> with lesser board brands/support, they may not update their
> specs for it later, and sometimes won't even fully disclose
> the changes a particular bios incorporates if there's even a
> newer bios available. After flashing a bios, clear CMOS.
>
> >
> >> When it posts, note what the board reports for CPU.
> >> If necessary (and possible) adjust bios settings or onboard
> >> jumpers to accomodate your CPU- keeping in mind that KT133
> >> (non-"A") does not support 133FSB (I dont recall the
> >> particularly of your system at this time and I'd deleted the
> >> original post).
The board came with the jumper set at 100 and I left it there.
> >This one has a FSB jumper for 100/133. You may be thinking of
> >266 FSB which I've seen the KT133A supports in the later
> >CT-7AIA5 version of this board per:
> >http://www.zen26266.zen.co.uk/CT-7AIA5-page1.htm
> >
>
> No, KT133 non-"A" does not actually support 133FSB. It does
> not matter if it has a jumper. Other non-supportive boards
> also had such a jumper. Via originally had intended to be
> able to get KT133 running up to 133FSB, but wasn't able to
> and shipped out the chips they had at the time. LATER they
> got 133FSB working right and this was the distinction of
> KT133A.
Gotcha - Thanks - that makes it pretty clear.
> >> Install floppy drive and run memtest86 to confirm memory
> >> stability.
> >
> >I have the PC133 memory so it shouldn't be a problem.
>
> Not so easy to assume, the board itself can be an issue even
> when memory is spec'd higher, especially when a board looks
> up SPD info and finds a module spec'd for (as an example)
> CAS3 @ 133MHz but CAS2 @ 100MHz. In such cases there is the
> potential for it to still be running the memory at most
> aggressive CAS timing possible. Resolution if there were
> this kind of problem is obviously different memory, or
> manually setting a higher CAS #, or other things we need not
> delve into at this time.
Hmmmm. Wondering now about that. Details in next message and the 512
memory was running fine on the old system
kony wrote:
>
> On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 12:09:45 -0700, Robert Heiling
> <robheil@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> Here's one for $40, there may be others if you look around
> >> the 'net.
> >> http://www.targetpcinc.com/Details.a...mID=2485&Res=2
> >>
> >> I"m not claiming it's a great board, but rather I have no
> >> experience with it and generally avoid Chaintech. Even so,
> >> $40 less with option to return it if it doesn't work right
> >> seems a worthwhile risk.
> >
> >and yet another question! As mentioned in another post,
> >I ordered the Chaintech board above that you found at
> >TargetPC, it has arrived, and I've got everything apart and
> >am ready to drop the cpu & memory into the new board
> >and install it. However, before I do .....
> >
> >The new board is the CT-7AIA and has a KT133 (note: not a
> >KT133A) chipset and Socket A. Its included manual says:
> >"Supports AMD Socket A processors up to 950MHz". My cpu
> >is 1000Mhz (1GHz and I read on another review site of a
> >different board that: "As with any other Socket A based board,
> >the issue of CPU multiplier selection is locked
> >after by the CPU itself with an internally locked multiplier.").
> >I've been so used to seeing the websites give Socket A claims
> > of up to 1.2GHz & 1.5GHz that I didn't realize that the
> >TargetPC site didn't mention cpu speed at all. In fact, my
> > old board, which is also KT133 claims support for 500MHz
> >to 1GHz. Is it possibly the case that 950MHz was the fastest
> > Athlon out at the time they wrote that manual and that
> >it will actually support 1GHz? or am I in trouble?
>
> Yes that is possible.
> Install the CPU, video and memory for the time being.
> When it posts, note what the board reports for CPU.
The mb with CPU & memory were installed and then the AGP video. Floppy
and CD-ROM drives connected.
Booting shows (abbreviated):
Award Modular Bios v6.00PG 06/21/2002
Main Processor: AMD Athlon 1333MHz (s/b 1000Mhz)
Memory Testing: 524288K (no problems)
Floppy Disks(s) Fail (40) (note: connections all ok)
Press F1 to continue, DEL to enter Setup
06/21/2002-8363-686-IA6LMC5CC-00
<pause> F1 <cr>
Verifying DMI Pool Data
Then it boots into my Knoppix v3.4 CD and shows the splash screen.
Attempted continuation fails in the Linux loading process (blanked
screen and no CD activity), but Memtest on that same CD gives:
Memtest-86 v3.0
AMD Athlon 1335MHz
L1 cache 128K 8193MB/s
L2 cache 256K 2510MB/s
Memory 512M 324 MB/s
Chipset vt8363
etc
> If necessary (and possible) adjust bios settings or onboard
> jumpers to accomodate your CPU- keeping in mind that KT133
> (non-"A") does not support 133FSB (I dont recall the
> particularly of your system at this time and I'd deleted the
> original post).
Not sure what to do there. What was kept from the old system was Athlon
1GHz CPU and 512MB PC-133 memory and ATI-Radeon AGP card + case & power
supply from the old PC Chips M805LR mATX system.
> Install floppy drive and run memtest86 to confirm memory
> stability. Memtest86 will display the CPU frequency too
> even if the BIOS POST screen misidentifies the CPU. Trust
> memtest86's report over the BIOS report, BUT also you can
> later run a windows CPU ID tool to confirm operational
> frequency. For example, "WCPUID" would tell you, as would
> "CPU-Z", http://www.cpuid.org/download/cpu-z-129.zip
It's all quite flaky. Instead of going into Memtest it sometimes gives
"unexpected interrupt - halting". In one case, Memtest was going well
and then started to fail. In most every other case. it has been failing
on every memory address. I'm holding off on trying another 128MB stick,
which is probably good, at the moment as the fault may not be with
memory
itself?
Robert Heiling wrote:
<snip>
> I'm holding off on trying another 128MB stick,
> which is probably good, at the moment as the fault may not be with
> memory itself?
Just a quick note that I swapped out the memory (512 out, 128 in) and
tried again. This time it was actually booting into Knoppix Linux and I
let it go a bit, but not all the way as I thought I would be able to do
it again. I killed it to try something else and haven't gotten Linux to
load that far again.
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 11:19:30 -0700, Robert Heiling
<robheil@comcast.net> wrote:
>The mb with CPU & memory were installed and then the AGP video. Floppy
>and CD-ROM drives connected.
>Booting shows (abbreviated):
>Award Modular Bios v6.00PG 06/21/2002
>Main Processor: AMD Athlon 1333MHz (s/b 1000Mhz)
>Memory Testing: 524288K (no problems)
>
>Floppy Disks(s) Fail (40) (note: connections all ok)
Does this mean floppies weren't working?
Hold off on troubleshooting this though, because of the
overclocked-CPU potential I'll comment on below.
>
>Press F1 to continue, DEL to enter Setup
>06/21/2002-8363-686-IA6LMC5CC-00
><pause> F1 <cr>
>Verifying DMI Pool Data
>
>Then it boots into my Knoppix v3.4 CD and shows the splash screen.
>Attempted continuation fails in the Linux loading process (blanked
>screen and no CD activity), but Memtest on that same CD gives:
>Memtest-86 v3.0
>AMD Athlon 1335MHz
>L1 cache 128K 8193MB/s
>L2 cache 256K 2510MB/s
>Memory 512M 324 MB/s
>Chipset vt8363
>etc
It's a 1GHz CPU, yes?
I'm surprised that it even POSTs at 1.3GHz, at stock
voltage.
You are certain the 100MHz FSB jumper is set to 100MHz?
If so, try clearing CMOS. If it still appears to be at
1.3GHz, check the bios menus for a 2nd FSB setting in
addition to the jumper. Chaintech should NOT have allowed
that board to ever default to 133FSB no matter what CPU was
installed, since it uses KT133 instead of KT133A. What
"probably" happened is that they reused same bios for their
next-gen (or later revision of same board) that DID have a
KT133A chipset and so did support 133FSB CPUs.
>
>> If necessary (and possible) adjust bios settings or onboard
>> jumpers to accomodate your CPU- keeping in mind that KT133
>> (non-"A") does not support 133FSB (I dont recall the
>> particularly of your system at this time and I'd deleted the
>> original post).
>
>Not sure what to do there. What was kept from the old system was Athlon
>1GHz CPU and 512MB PC-133 memory and ATI-Radeon AGP card + case & power
>supply from the old PC Chips M805LR mATX system.
Making sure the FSB is correct is a manditory first step.
Myriad other false-errors may be reported while the CPU is
so overclocked (at stock voltage, though maybe either way).
>
>> Install floppy drive and run memtest86 to confirm memory
>> stability. Memtest86 will display the CPU frequency too
>> even if the BIOS POST screen misidentifies the CPU. Trust
>> memtest86's report over the BIOS report, BUT also you can
>> later run a windows CPU ID tool to confirm operational
>> frequency. For example, "WCPUID" would tell you, as would
>> "CPU-Z", http://www.cpuid.org/download/cpu-z-129.zip
>
>It's all quite flaky. Instead of going into Memtest it sometimes gives
>"unexpected interrupt - halting". In one case, Memtest was going well
>and then started to fail. In most every other case. it has been failing
>on every memory address. I'm holding off on trying another 128MB stick,
>which is probably good, at the moment as the fault may not be with
>memory
>itself?
Ignore memory errors for the time being and only use memtest
to check CPU speed, till it reports that at correct 100FSB.
Look around for jumpers for memory too, perhaps one for
memory at 100MHz or at 133MHz- and set it to 100MHz for the
time being, perhaps permanently. Again there may be a bios
(menued) setting for this even with a jumper.
kony wrote:
>
> On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 11:19:30 -0700, Robert Heiling
> <robheil@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >The mb with CPU & memory were installed and then the AGP video. Floppy
> >and CD-ROM drives connected.
> >Booting shows (abbreviated):
> >Award Modular Bios v6.00PG 06/21/2002
> >Main Processor: AMD Athlon 1333MHz (s/b 1000Mhz)
> >Memory Testing: 524288K (no problems)
> >
> >Floppy Disks(s) Fail (40) (note: connections all ok)
>
> Does this mean floppies weren't working?
It shows in POST and in Bios, but won't boot a bootable floppy like my
Memtest-86 or Win98 for example.
> Hold off on troubleshooting this though, because of the
> overclocked-CPU potential I'll comment on below.
>
> >Press F1 to continue, DEL to enter Setup
> >06/21/2002-8363-686-IA6LMC5CC-00
> ><pause> F1 <cr>
> >Verifying DMI Pool Data
> >
> >Then it boots into my Knoppix v3.4 CD and shows the splash screen.
> >Attempted continuation fails in the Linux loading process (blanked
> >screen and no CD activity), but Memtest on that same CD gives:
> >Memtest-86 v3.0
> >AMD Athlon 1335MHz
> >L1 cache 128K 8193MB/s
> >L2 cache 256K 2510MB/s
> >Memory 512M 324 MB/s
> >Chipset vt8363
> >etc
>
> It's a 1GHz CPU, yes?
Yes
> I'm surprised that it even POSTs at 1.3GHz, at stock
> voltage.
I'd have thought that it would run very hot, but it's been running only
about 51C even right after Memtest and the hottest I've seen is 53C.
> You are certain the 100MHz FSB jumper is set to 100MHz?
You aren't going to believe this. It has a standard 3 pins for a
2-position jumper with the left 2 pins being jumpered from the factory
or from? Facing the print & jump on the board it says:
1-2 cpu 100MHz
2-3 cpu 133MHz
I believed them and I don't know why I didn't try this before, but
they're lying. I moved the jumper to 2-3 and the cpu now posts as
1000MHz and Memtest-86 shows it as 1002MHz. It's running successful
memtests as I write.
> If so, try clearing CMOS. If it still appears to be at
> 1.3GHz, check the bios menus for a 2nd FSB setting in
> addition to the jumper. Chaintech should NOT have allowed
> that board to ever default to 133FSB no matter what CPU was
> installed, since it uses KT133 instead of KT133A. What
> "probably" happened is that they reused same bios for their
> next-gen (or later revision of same board) that DID have a
> KT133A chipset and so did support 133FSB CPUs.
That's really some mistake they made with those jumpers! The manual page
doesn't even look like it. "CPU Bus Frequency (SW4) This switch allows
you to select between 100MHz FSB or 133MHz FSB frequency speed (then a
chart, formatting may be off)
SW4 1 2 3 4
100MHz off on off off
133MHz off off off off
So we can see that they were a bit confused<vbg>
> >> If necessary (and possible) adjust bios settings or onboard
> >> jumpers to accomodate your CPU- keeping in mind that KT133
> >> (non-"A") does not support 133FSB (I dont recall the
> >> particularly of your system at this time and I'd deleted the
> >> original post).
> >
> >Not sure what to do there. What was kept from the old system was Athlon
> >1GHz CPU and 512MB PC-133 memory and ATI-Radeon AGP card + case & power
> >supply from the old PC Chips M805LR mATX system.
>
> Making sure the FSB is correct is a manditory first step.
> Myriad other false-errors may be reported while the CPU is
> so overclocked (at stock voltage, though maybe either way).
>
> >
> >> Install floppy drive and run memtest86 to confirm memory
> >> stability. Memtest86 will display the CPU frequency too
> >> even if the BIOS POST screen misidentifies the CPU. Trust
> >> memtest86's report over the BIOS report, BUT also you can
> >> later run a windows CPU ID tool to confirm operational
> >> frequency. For example, "WCPUID" would tell you, as would
> >> "CPU-Z", http://www.cpuid.org/download/cpu-z-129.zip
> >
> >It's all quite flaky. Instead of going into Memtest it sometimes gives
> >"unexpected interrupt - halting". In one case, Memtest was going well
> >and then started to fail. In most every other case. it has been failing
> >on every memory address. I'm holding off on trying another 128MB stick,
> >which is probably good, at the moment as the fault may not be with
> >memory
> >itself?
>
> Ignore memory errors for the time being and only use memtest
> to check CPU speed, till it reports that at correct 100FSB.
> Look around for jumpers for memory too, perhaps one for
> memory at 100MHz or at 133MHz- and set it to 100MHz for the
> time being, perhaps permanently. Again there may be a bios
> (menued) setting for this even with a jumper.
It's looking good now! Thanks as always for the great help!
It's running Knoppix now which all loaded off the Primary IDE so that's
probably ok & ready for a HD. I was chasing that floppy error message,
but the only advice I've found so far was to check connections or
replace the drive<lol>. That may also be a Bios setting that didn't work
right when it was overclocked and will now. That needs some
experimenting. I also need to buy an ethernet card. The old board has a
small pcb card with the RJ-45 jack for the rear and a small ribbon cable
with plug onto the motherboard. This board has no place to plug it, so
I'll pop the five bucks for a pci ethernet card. :-)
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:53:32 -0700, Robert Heiling
<robheil@comcast.net> wrote:
>> I'm surprised that it even POSTs at 1.3GHz, at stock
>> voltage.
>
>I'd have thought that it would run very hot, but it's been running only
>about 51C even right after Memtest and the hottest I've seen is 53C.
>
It has the in-socket-well thermal sensor though, which was
probably calibrated for lesser CPUs. It would then tend to
read temps a little low IF it had previously read correctly.
Even so, temp is mostly a function of heatsink interface and
it's overall efficiency. Raising clock speed without
voltage increase would raise temps much either.
>> You are certain the 100MHz FSB jumper is set to 100MHz?
>
>You aren't going to believe this. It has a standard 3 pins for a
>2-position jumper with the left 2 pins being jumpered from the factory
>or from? Facing the print & jump on the board it says:
>1-2 cpu 100MHz
>2-3 cpu 133MHz
>I believed them and I don't know why I didn't try this before, but
>they're lying. I moved the jumper to 2-3 and the cpu now posts as
>1000MHz and Memtest-86 shows it as 1002MHz. It's running successful
>memtests as I write.
Good, looks like you solved the larger part, but is the
floppy still a problem? Perhaps a bios setting needs
changed or the cable is backwards at the board?
If/when you boot to the OS, see if the floppy works then.
>That's really some mistake they made with those jumpers! The manual page
>doesn't even look like it. "CPU Bus Frequency (SW4) This switch allows
>you to select between 100MHz FSB or 133MHz FSB frequency speed (then a
>chart, formatting may be off)
> SW4 1 2 3 4
>100MHz off on off off
>133MHz off off off off
>
>So we can see that they were a bit confused<vbg>
Yep, sometimes those lower-end boards cut a lot of corners,
or make changes and then the relevant docs aren't updated to
reflect the changes.
kony wrote:
>
> Good, looks like you solved the larger part, but is the
> floppy still a problem? Perhaps a bios setting needs
> changed or the cable is backwards at the board?
>
> If/when you boot to the OS, see if the floppy works then.
I fixed it a while ago and it was something I've done in the past a
couple of times when moving cables around and had forgotten about. ;-)
Tomorrow I'll buy & install a 10/100 pci card, move her HD back from
this machine I use to that one, hassle with drivers again, then haul it
back upstairs to its cat-5 plug. monitor et al. The way I look at it is
that for ~$50, I've basically salvaged some memory that I recently paid
$75 for, plus the value of the other memory & cpu that was all headed
for the dumpster, and wound up with a 1GHz Athlon with 640MB memory that
will keep someone pretty happy for the comparatively minor amount of
usage it will get. Not an impressive machine, but a very usable one.
kony wrote:
>
> It's a 1GHz CPU, yes?
> I'm surprised that it even POSTs at 1.3GHz, at stock
> voltage.
>
> You are certain the 100MHz FSB jumper is set to 100MHz?
> If so, try clearing CMOS. If it still appears to be at
> 1.3GHz, check the bios menus for a 2nd FSB setting in
> addition to the jumper. Chaintech should NOT have allowed
> that board to ever default to 133FSB no matter what CPU was
> installed, since it uses KT133 instead of KT133A. What
> "probably" happened is that they reused same bios for their
> next-gen (or later revision of same board) that DID have a
> KT133A chipset and so did support 133FSB CPUs.
>
> >
> >> If necessary (and possible) adjust bios settings or onboard
> >> jumpers to accomodate your CPU- keeping in mind that KT133
> >> (non-"A") does not support 133FSB (I dont recall the
> >> particularly of your system at this time and I'd deleted the
> >> original post).
Discovered this & thought I'd pass it on fwiw as it explains something
confusing that was happening to us. The Athlon machine has been humming
along since yesterday, in fact I'm posting this from it. Once I had it
running solidly and on our network, I pulled over a copy of the CPU-Z
that you had alerted me too. It reports (partial)
AMD Athlon Thunderbird
Core Speed:1002.3 MHz
and significantly: Chipset VIA KT133A Rev 03 !!!
So even though the various web writeups for the CT-7AIA mb said it had
KT133 and the dealer's website said it had KT133 and the manual says it
has KT133, this particular board actually has KT133A which would explain
the unexpected 133 speed capability.
Re: Trouble booting now totally out of service 
Linear Mode
