Testing / comparing : Intel D975XBX2 / Asus P5B DX ***56K WARNING***

[gtj]

Now we are talking. That's what I was telling everybody in my last post you have to get the information directly to the BIOS team if the Tech Support is blocking you. Or at least the above ideas are the way things had to be addressed with MSI. It's not that the Tech Support dept doesn't want to help but their understanding level only goes so far. i.e. We aren't talking directly to the engineers who create C2D or BX2 we are talking to tech support which primary function is to maintain a product and secondary role is to feedback to the enginners MAJOR issues.

Blah blah about the C1E hardware locked. BIOS writing may be the most difficult coding on the planet. A BIOS engineer didn't put in a C1E "enable" "disable" in the BIOS on a whim or by accident if it was hardware locked. Just silly to even think that. You think the RM Clock coders work for Intel, no they found how to disable it by writing to a MSR in a white paper somewhere, it's probaly not even that big of deal to do, but it's not tech supports job to be writing CPU registers.

Another thing is a lot of people are mentioning overclocking to the tech support. To me this is like saying you had a few drinks to the cops, you are pretty much guilty of what ever happened to you. The C1E issue is there even and stock settings. IMO approaching it that way sends up more flags. "What our board is functioning weird at stock?!" That would get more attention from me then some guy who is overclocking and says he has an issue.

I'm not a know it all, not at all, but I spent at least 3 months battling MSI before we got a BIOS that helped and it wasn't by going the tech support route, and it started the same way this issue is bothering you guys right now when tech support is blocking.

What he said.

I never mention overclocking when talking to them but you DO have to have facts and a test case. For the C1E bug, I told them exactly what was happeneing, told them how I verified using the MSRs and gave them a walk through as to how they could duplicate it. Don't get mad or sarcastic or they turn off and don't get off topic. Eventually I got to someone on the phone who had a BX2 in front of them and walked through the issue. They acknowledged the issue but tried to tell me I shouldn't be disabling it. This is where you have to be nice and calm and bring them back to the point that this IS a BIOS feature and it does NOT work and insist that they report it.

Tell them specifically... "I disabled C1E and EIST in the BIOS but my multiplier and voltage continue to change. I have examined MSR 1A0 and verified that in fact C1E is still enabled even though it was disabled via the BIOS. If I manually disable it from utility programs, I get the correct behavior where the multipler and voltage are constant but this does not survive a reboot."

Also remember, the BIOS that was released yesterday was probably already baked when we first reported the problem. It's not like they have team dedicated to doing nothing but BX2 BIOS development.

Another thing to remember, although it was me that started the C1E thing, this is by no means a critical bug. It's an annoyance. Use RmClock and it will disable C1E whenever you reboot.

[ArcticOC]

In the last mail I got they told me that the multi was dropping because of overheating. Well, maybe I`m too ironic in my latest reply, but I could not help it:

Hello again!

Your theory on the TM2 does not stand, I have very powerful
watercooling in my system so heat is not even an issue! The CPU
temperature never even come close to it`s limits, at 100% load at both
cores the CPU temperature never passes 40deg.C. I use a whole lot of
different stress tool`s and no one can make the CPU pass 40deg.C.

But I think it`s quite ironic that Intel that designed both the 975x
chipset and my E4300 CPU can`t make C1E disabling?! There is an option
in the BIOS yes, but it don`t work! Trust me on this one.

The same CPU was tested on an Asus 975X motherboard last night, and
the C1E could be turned off with no problem at all. CPU-Z and all
other tools that messure the realtime speed did not report the
multiplier switching from 9 > 6 > 9 and so..

Why can your customers like Asus, Abit and most other disable C1E and
Intel who makes both chipset and CPU not?!

Here is the e-mail adress to Asus motherboard support team:
http://vip.asus.com/eservice/techserv.aspx

I`m shure they can help Intel resolving the issue/bug as you are partners!

Intel should take this problem more seriously as more and more tread`s
are developing on this issue on many tech forums by now. As for sale
and coming sales this must shurly be damaging for your company. Does
it boil down to this: "INTEL DOES NOT RESPECT ENTHUSIAST/POWER USERS"
who want full control over their system? Please take this user group
seriously, becuse they often tend to lead other groups/users also
choosing the same hardware/brand names.

[J@mmer]

Nice work there Arctic! I was going to mention why someone hasn't told Intel about Asus boards and how they CAN disable this C1E "feature".

Would some sort of class action work here??? Maybe if we all sent Intel emails regarding this stupid and obviously bullsh@t problem?

[Zucker2k]

It's not a bad thing to be an optimist, but the picture that is slowly emerging seems to indicate to me that what we're calling here a "CIE bug" is nothing but Intel sticking to its own specifications on safe operation of their chips. What we're talking about here is not necessarily getting to the bios engineers and coders, but an internal policy on safety and stability of their board and chips. Why? RMAs. They're in effect killing two birds with one stone. Yes, other board manufacturers have implemented the C1E 'hack' successfully, but most people will tell you the BX2 is the most stable board out there. I would think besides the obvious technological improvements, the persistent C1E kick-in helps to alleviate heat and voltage problems other boards may suffer.

For example, notice how the first advice to overclocking the BX2 in this thread and elsewhere is always to turn of C1E? Well, that myth is busted isn't it? Now, what if turning C1E off in the bios actually turned it off? Well here's a guess, all the extra voltage going into your processor would have been translated into heat which would have made your overclocks less stable. The difference between a stable and a non-stable overclock is less than 1c where heat becomes the siginificant factor.

So why put the feature in the bios? I can only speculate that if they didn't then maybe even RMclock, Clockgen, Everest, and all those third-party software will not work. In effect, intel left a hole knowing very well that hardcore overclockers will find and exploit it.

What needs to be done. Well, if Intel is going to tout this board as the overclockers board (which it is to a large extent) then they will have to go the whole nine yards. I am more than convinced at this stage that what we're fighting here is an internal policy instead of an oversight, or a bad code.
We'll need to put some pressure on the appropriate quarter as some have already suggested; it'll have to be significant too to warrant the appropriate response.
Regards.

[Skerlnik]

Came across this yesterday:

Creative ALchemy Project allows you to run your favorite DirectSound3D games on Windows Vista as the developers intended - with full hardware accelerated 3D Audio and EAX support! This is done by translating DirectSound calls into OpenAL. In order for this to happen, a couple of files need to be installed into each game directory. This is handled automatically by the ALchemy installer - but can also be performed manually by advanced users.

Requirements:
- Windows Vista
- SB X-Fi * series soundcard with native OpenAL 1.1 Support * Excludes SB X-Fi Xtreme Audio


Download here: http://preview.creativelabs.com/alch...hemy%201.3.zip

That's interesting. Any idea how to use it?

[Zucker2k]

That's interesting. Any idea how to use it?

Just download and run the app. It seems to be official creative software too.

[DaddyRabbit]

Didn't work for me, launch the Steam version of CoD2 and select EAX and it crashes.

[SLi_dog]

K, I received a replacement BX2 motherboard yesterday and still can't install windows XP on it?

Anyone else have a similar problem with installing XP on their BadAxe2???

[Zucker2k]

Didn't work for me, launch the Steam version of CoD2 and select EAX and it crashes.

Creative ALchemy is a simple download, which will detect the presence of a number of top PC games and convert their DS3D and EAX calls into OpenAL calls, allowing users to continue to enjoy their legacy titles the way they were meant to be enjoyed – in full, multichannel sound with hardware effects.
Is that what happened when you executed the file? You may want to google for it, find out what the general experience is. Read more here:
http://it-review.net/index.php?optio...=1184&Itemid=1

[ArcticOC]

So why put the feature in the bios? I can only speculate that if they didn't then maybe even RMclock, Clockgen, Everest, and all those third-party software will not work. In effect, intel left a hole knowing very well that hardcore overclockers will find and exploit it.

What needs to be done. Well, if Intel is going to tout this board as the overclockers board (which it is to a large extent) then they will have to go the whole nine yards. I am more than convinced at this stage that what we're fighting here is an internal policy instead of an oversight, or a bad code.
We'll need to put some pressure on the appropriate quarter as some have already suggested; it'll have to be significant too to warrant the appropriate response.
Regards.

Then why not just hide the C1E option from the menu? The functionallity would still be there. Hiding options is often done by OEM`s that don`t like users to have full accsess of BIOS functions, this is done mainly to reduce the support call`s and e-mails. Maybe they still let the option be visible/pretending to be there for not getting reactions for moving it? And maybe they tought no one would take a note of it

But I would bet a whole lot of money that Intel can fix the C1E issue in a fraction of a second, cause as you said this is most likely policy issues internally in the company, an interest conflict with in maybe?!

If an option exists and it doesn`t work, it`s my right as a consumer to get this problem fixed as I see it!

Intel needs to take a stand! Go all the way and reactivate this feature or remove it from the menu. Cause right now I`m a little bit confused? Intel let you overclock almost all the way but leave the last bit of functionality out.
Does Intel accept overclocking or not?! If they are so concerned about OC`ing why not go all the way and remove the whole override menu And why can`t anyone be honest from Intels side, instead of giving us all this bulls*#t? Tell it like it is..

Intel Press Relations (someone please mail the PR-dep., me I`m to fed up right now)

[Blacklash]

That's interesting. Any idea how to use it?

MS say they removed hardware sound acceleration because it causes instability in the OS and drivers|apps that patch the kernel may open one to security risks as well.

Some AV makers are using work arounds to get through "patchguard" in Vista x64 and that may not be a good idea. This article touches on the matter to a degree.

http://www.windows-now.com/blogs/rob...ows_vista.aspx

Personally I don't see the point in getting Vista x64 because you want a more stable secure platform then mucking up the kernel with crap. YMMV and to each their own.

[gbeans99]

1st off, greets to all.. I've followed this thread for awhile and have an XBX2 with an E4300 myself. I'm somewhat new to the "enthusiast/OC" crowd as I've only been doing it since socket 478 (IC7G/P4C800E and P4C) days, so I'm not really up on whether or not this is Intels' 1st true OC/Enthusiast level mobo. (besides the XBX1?)
But this post struck me as right on the money and brings up some good points IMHO.

It's not a bad thing to be an optimist, but the picture that is slowly emerging seems to indicate to me that what we're calling here a "CIE bug" is nothing but Intel sticking to its own specifications on safe operation of their chips. What we're talking about here is not necessarily getting to the bios engineers and coders, but an internal policy on safety and stability of their board and chips. Why? RMAs. They're in effect killing two birds with one stone. Yes, other board manufacturers have implemented the C1E 'hack' successfully, but most people will tell you the BX2 is the most stable board out there. I would think besides the obvious technological improvements, the persistent C1E kick-in helps to alleviate heat and voltage problems other boards may suffer.

Very well put! If this is indeed their first foray into the enthusiast level board market, they're way behind the curve and on very unsure footing of the clientele they're dealing with and what to expect and anticipate from them/us. For a company that is used to being in control, this isn't easy for them... But they DO know it helps to sell processors, else they wouldn't have made it easier to OC from the original "Bad Axe".

For example, notice how the first advice to overclocking the BX2 in this thread and elsewhere is always to turn of C1E? Well, that myth is busted isn't it? Now, what if turning C1E off in the bios actually turned it off? Well here's a guess, all the extra voltage going into your processor would have been translated into heat which would have made your overclocks less stable. The difference between a stable and a non-stable overclock is less than 1c where heat becomes the siginificant factor.

They're not confused, someone put that in the Bios knowing it would help with overclocking but got overridden by another person/dept. on the silly premise that it would allow greater heat generation so was forced to disable it. But what does allowing Vcore increases enhance? Ding..ding..ding.. greater heat generation. So it appears to me as more of an "internal" struggle within Intel due to their lack of participation in the enthusiast market and trying to play both sides of the fence. Keep the renowned Intel stability while increasing market share in both processors and mobo's by trying to court the VERY lucrative enthusiast market.... (It could just be a short term attempt to bit$h slap AMD further and they may have no real interest in pursuing the enthusiast market for long)

What needs to be done. Well, if Intel is going to tout this board as the overclockers board (which it is to a large extent) then they will have to go the whole nine yards. I am more than convinced at this stage that what we're fighting here is an internal policy instead of an oversight, or a bad code.
We'll need to put some pressure on the appropriate quarter as some have already suggested; it'll have to be significant too to warrant the appropriate response.
Regards.

Couldn't agree more, and I think you have summed it up very well. But I think it will take a gentle, patient persistence from this crowd to bring this around to reality. One of two things will happen in my opinion. If it's attempted to "force this down their throat" by people trying to be forceful/threatening to them, they'll abandon any further attempts to provide enthusiast level boards, or they'll eventually realize there is more to be gained by providing a moderate level of support to this community. I hope option 1 is not the case because this is a GREAT board with alot of potential, and if this is their first run at an OC mobo (not counting the BX1?) it's a damn good start!!

Either way, great post Zucker2k, well thought out and alot of insight to it.

[Xilikon]

It's not a bad thing to be an optimist, but the picture that is slowly emerging seems to indicate to me that what we're calling here a "CIE bug" is nothing but Intel sticking to its own specifications on safe operation of their chips. What we're talking about here is not necessarily getting to the bios engineers and coders, but an internal policy on safety and stability of their board and chips. Why? RMAs. They're in effect killing two birds with one stone. Yes, other board manufacturers have implemented the C1E 'hack' successfully, but most people will tell you the BX2 is the most stable board out there. I would think besides the obvious technological improvements, the persistent C1E kick-in helps to alleviate heat and voltage problems other boards may suffer.

For example, notice how the first advice to overclocking the BX2 in this thread and elsewhere is always to turn of C1E? Well, that myth is busted isn't it? Now, what if turning C1E off in the bios actually turned it off? Well here's a guess, all the extra voltage going into your processor would have been translated into heat which would have made your overclocks less stable. The difference between a stable and a non-stable overclock is less than 1c where heat becomes the siginificant factor.

So why put the feature in the bios? I can only speculate that if they didn't then maybe even RMclock, Clockgen, Everest, and all those third-party software will not work. In effect, intel left a hole knowing very well that hardcore overclockers will find and exploit it.

What needs to be done. Well, if Intel is going to tout this board as the overclockers board (which it is to a large extent) then they will have to go the whole nine yards. I am more than convinced at this stage that what we're fighting here is an internal policy instead of an oversight, or a bad code.
We'll need to put some pressure on the appropriate quarter as some have already suggested; it'll have to be significant too to warrant the appropriate response.
Regards.

I agree with this... Myself, I'm not that affected by the bug since i'm folding, thus avoiding the issue sorta but even while idling, it works perfectly so it's not a biggie.

On the other hand, and what I believe is a very very serious bug, is the fact that TM2 support is not working on XBX2, the one who allow us to throttle to avoid getting too hot. Currently, If I try to push too far, it just reboot like this, which isn't a thing we don't want. If Intel is seriously concerned about avoiding any CPU damage caused by his board, they must fix this bug. After asking fellow overclockers in another forum with different boards (Asus, Evga, etc...) and they all have TM2 enabled and with a option to disable it or not.

[argylesocks]

so odd. to get to 3.3ghz, i needed 1.475. last night i decided i would drop it down a bit. at 3.1ghz, i only needed 1.40. such a big voltage jump for such a small increase in speed... probably not worth the 'risk'.. im gonna see how things run with a 4:5 divider and ram at 862mhz.

[aicjofs]

It's not a bad thing to be an optimist,>>>.............<<<appropriate response.
Regards.

Understand what your saying but have to disagree with just a few small things.

I don't think they left a hole in the BIOS for 3rd party software, for Speed Step(or CnQ for AMD) the CPU has to have writable registers any software that knows the address has been able to edit these for some time.

The stuff you said about following their C1E spec. I see your point, but C1E is only really working to spec if you leave voltage at stock. On the BX2 if you adjust your Vcore to say 1.4V, and proceed to overclock or not, then C1E only adjusts the multiplier down not the voltage it stays at 1.4V. Voltage doesn't decrease and therefore help lower the heat. So C1E isn't functioning to spec in that situation(manually upping voltage).

Either way, I said before, personally I like C1E, if you have a 24/7 machine that doesn't do distributed computing what's not to like about it? If this C1E thing is one of our biggest complaints about the board that is fixable by software(BIOS) we have a fantastic board, and really be happy Actually my biggest complaint is NOT that I can't disable C1E, I wish it would lower voltage as well during C1E state(when you have upped the Vcore manually). My speed drops down from 3.66 to 2.0 but I still blast it with 1.47V all day every day. You said lowering voltage alot in your post and I wish that were true when you manually set voltage, I want that feature.

[theonlybabyface]

I actually like the feature as well as it keeps temps down. Having said that though, we should still have the ability to disable the feature if we choose and the fact that there's an option to disable it and it doesn't work is the "bug".

[GamingDaemon]

Came across this yesterday:

Creative ALchemy Project allows you to run your favorite DirectSound3D games on Windows Vista as the developers intended - with full hardware accelerated 3D Audio and EAX support! This is done by translating DirectSound calls into OpenAL. In order for this to happen, a couple of files need to be installed into each game directory. This is handled automatically by the ALchemy installer - but can also be performed manually by advanced users.

Requirements:
- Windows Vista
- SB X-Fi * series soundcard with native OpenAL 1.1 Support * Excludes SB X-Fi Xtreme Audio


Download here: http://preview.creativelabs.com/alch...hemy%201.3.zip

I asked a different forum here at XS devoted to sound cards, and they said I should not bother with getting a sound card at this time with Vista.

Here's the thread: X-Fi Vista Drivers are out

I am blocked from reading the article mentioned in the thread while I'm at work, but his point does make me think that if things are working fine, maybe I shouldn't mess with it....

[screwtech02]

So the "C1E" option in the bios is just for "visual" esthetics as far as INTEL is concerened, imagine that..... So lets tout this board as being overclockable, then show the end users the options, but NOT let them work...

Funny there seem to be other manufacturers opting not to allow the C1E, if im not mistaken the MSI 975X's latest bios doesnt even have the option anymore..

[GamingDaemon]

So the "C1E" option in the bios is just for "visual" esthetics as far as INTEL is concerened, imagine that..... So lets tout this board as being overclockable, then show the end users the options, but NOT let them work...

Funny there seem to be other manufacturers opting not to allow the C1E, if im not mistaken the MSI 975X's latest bios doesnt even have the option anymore..

So now you've confused me. Personally, I'm in the camp that I like C1E, I think it is poor engineering to have the option in the BIOS if disabling it means nothing (as that is misleading to the customer), but don't care if I can disable it. I also agree that that when C1E goes into effect, it should lower the voltage corresponding to the drop in the multiplier.

But if another manufacturer doesn't show the option in the BIOS, that is actually consistent with Intel, and probably a smarter mover, since it is less confusing to the customer.

[theonlybabyface]

I asked a different forum here at XS devoted to sound cards, and they said I should not bother with getting a sound card at this time with Vista.

Here's the thread: X-Fi Vista Drivers are out

I am blocked from reading the article mentioned in the thread while I'm at work, but his point does make me think that if things are working fine, maybe I shouldn't mess with it....

I disagree. I love my x-fi in Vista with the Alchemy. Works awesome and games sound perfect. I also have all of the apps working as well with the you-pax installation. If you need details on how to set this all up, pm me and I'll create instructions for you.

[argylesocks]

would i notice a difference between:
8*388 = 3.1ghz
9*345 = 3.1ghz

would lowering my multi to 8 be a good idea? is it the FSB or the overall that is the limiter for voltage.. meaning, if Vc=1.40 is stable at 9x345, could i still use 1.40 to get me at 8x388 or will i most likely need to raise it?

any disadvantage with a lower multi??

[GamingDaemon]

I disagree. I love my x-fi in Vista with the Alchemy. Works awesome and games sound perfect. I also have all of the apps working as well with the you-pax installation. If you need details on how to set this all up, pm me and I'll create instructions for you.

Hmmm, NewEgg has the X-Fi ExtremeGamer for $80. Is that a good deal?

[mezcal]

would i notice a difference between:
8*388 = 3.1ghz
9*345 = 3.1ghz

would lowering my multi to 8 be a good idea? is it the FSB or the overall that is the limiter for voltage.. meaning, if Vc=1.40 is stable at 9x345, could i still use 1.40 to get me at 8x388 or will i most likely need to raise it?

any disadvantage with a lower multi??

Did they fix the "no downward multi's feature" in the new bios and I missed it? My understanding was we couldn't do that at all with bx2 (except with extremes)

[argylesocks]

Did they fix the "no downward multi's feature" in the new bios and I missed it? My understanding was we couldn't do that at all with bx2 (except with extremes)

oops my bad.. guess that answers the question

[scaryogre]

Guys,

Does anyone know if when installing WinXP I *must* use the floppy for the Intel RAID drivers (I have a RAID 10 setup). Or can I use a CDROM?

I don't want to try it until I know because if I need a floppy I have to tear apart my system again to get it in there.

Thanks,

scaryogre