ASUS P5W DH - Problems + Fixes Thread

[scaramonga]

Such a relief........LOL.........I'll refrain from upgrading to 1901 LOL

[wagoogee]

You can return to a prior version from 1901 by using afudos211 on Asus's ftp site. I used it to return to 1601.

And BTW, 1901 does NOT fix the multiplier problem.

[DJSUB]

You can return to a prior version from 1901 by using afudos211 on Asus's ftp site. I used it to return to 1601.

And BTW, 1901 does NOT fix the multiplier problem.

confirmed working

tnx for ur help bro

[JokerCPoC]

You can return to a prior version from 1901 by using afudos211 on Asus's ftp site. I used it to return to 1601.

And BTW, 1901 does NOT fix the multiplier problem.

Thanks, wagoogee.

Asus what are You thinkin?

[nickfd]

Unbelievable.. Same thing happened to me, however I was trying to use ez-flash, windows flash, and afudos 2.07. Will try now with 2.21.

I am NOT happy with this bios at all. My once stable 385x9 at 1.58 vcore with 2.3 vdimm at 4-4-4-12 6-28 without a problem cannot do it anymore on 1901. Why is it that Asus is moving backwards with these subsequent bios updates? It's shameful.

DO NOT UPGRADE TO THIS BIOS!!! IT'S WORTHLESS AND WILL MAKE YOUR BOX UNSTABLE AND LOWER YOUR OVERCLOCK!

Thank you. Off to try to salvage 1707 back using this newer ver of afu dos.

Damn. 2.21 didn't work, and now that I scrolled up, the poster said 2.11. I'm too exhausted for tonight and will hopefully be successful in downgrading tomorrow. I was hoping for more stability and a possible higher memory clock, and all I got was the same thing that i'm getting used to with these past few bios releases; instability. What a shame.

Can anyone else verify that 2.11 afudos does downgrade plase ?

[scaramonga]

Why is it that Asus is moving backwards with these subsequent bios updates? It's shameful.

1. No one 'forced' you to upgrade?

2. This BIOS is not 'official' and is only seen on ASUS FTP.

3. Use at 'own risk' policy I would think.

4. Always let the 'silly' people test before jumping in with big feet.

[nickfd]

1. No one 'forced' you to upgrade?

2. This BIOS is not 'official' and is only seen on ASUS FTP.

3. Use at 'own risk' policy I would think.

4. Always let the 'silly' people test before jumping in with big feet.

Yeah, I take full responsibility for my actions. I'm not as stable as I was anymore, and can't even do 385x9 with 1.60 stablely, but I went down to 380x9 and ran my 3dmark and while I got a slightly marginally lower CPU score, my shader model 2 and 3 scores went up..

Gonna try 4:5 mem to see if I can get it stable, then make a determination if I will stay or go back down. I don't mind being slightly clocked lower since my performance is up.

[nickfd]

Yeah, I take full responsibility for my actions. I'm not as stable as I was anymore, and can't even do 385x9 with 1.60 stablely, but I went down to 380x9 and ran my 3dmark and while I got a slightly marginally lower CPU score, my shader model 2 and 3 scores went up..

Gonna try 4:5 mem to see if I can get it stable, then make a determination if I will stay or go back down. I don't mind being slightly clocked lower since my performance is up.

Okay, I'm at 4:5 with 380fsb and 950mem, and I got better performance all the way around.. Granted, I'm only looking at 3dmark06 breakdowns, since I never took number readings from superpi, so my apologies for that.

When I was at 1:1 385x9 4-4-4-12 28-6 (bios 1707), i got: 11360 3dmarks (4970 sm2, 5036 sm3, 2991 cpu).

I wasn't stable at 385x9 with same timings on mb 1901, so went down to 380x9 and did same 1:1 tests. GPU drivers have not changed, and got 11638 3dmarks (5156 sm2, 5182 sm3, 2979 cpu).

Now I did 4:5, 380x9 mem at 950 4-4-4-12 28-6 (1901 bios), i got: 11693 3dmarks (5150 sm2, 5179 sm3, 3047 cpu).

Marginal? Sure, but I think I'm going to stick with this bios and 4:5.. At least until people show us some superpi numbers showing which is the computational right way to go.

Let the comparison matrix's come!