ASUS P5W DH - Problems + Fixes Thread

[crazeconnolly]

Better..

does it still run 32bit programs just as good also?
Will i have to re-activate windows when i install a new processor?


c

[Unbornchild]

Computer:
Intel Core 2(TM) Extreme
CPU X9650 @ 3.00 ghz
360 mhz, 2.00 GB of RAM <---------???
Physical Address Extension <---------??? wth....

You actually have 2 GB RAM installed? Or is it 4 GB. Then you'd see Physical Address Extension (PAE): http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system...AE/PAEdrv.mspx




About your problem, Did you enable memory remapping in BIOS?

[Falkentyne]

I have 2 gigs of RAM installed. (2*1 GB of G.skill).
I've tried turning on and off remapping, doesn't do anything.

NOTE, in SAFE MODE, Windows not only does NOT show PAE, it also shows the real CPU speed. But in normal mode, it thinks it's 400-500 mhz.

I think I had that type of performance when I used Intel PAT on my X6800 and set the CPU duty cycle to 87.5&#37;...well then again it was still a lot faster (UT2004 was perfectly playable at that speed).

FWIW, I'm running on 2 cores now and things are running fine so far. (for some reason I had to install new Catalyst drivers or I got blue screens in UT2004 with 2 cores disabled (huh?). I'm at 3.6 ghz and 1.3v (haven't tried lower or higher). If the 4 core thing is a bug, I want it fixed. If it's something with my windows installation, well, huh...... O_O

I tried a repair install, (not a clean install; I can't stand redownloading everything from scratch, HOWEVER I do have a clean empty E: drive...maybe if I'm bored I'll install windows on THAT from scratch later on) that took forever, and even the repair install didn't solve anything (except made my Windows updates uninstallable without that workaround from microsoft for update+repair installations).

It DOES sound like a sort of driver bug, but it doesn't make sense.... why would the OS think my CPU is 400 mhz, but CPUZ finds the real speed ? Not sure what Coretemp reports....My system is completely up to date with windows updates....

If the clean install tomorrow doesn't work, then its CLEARLY a BIOS bug...eitiher that or Yorkfields only work on Vista? (doesn't seem like thats the case...). My gut feeling says it's 70% a BIOS issue. Unless someone else has seen this and can replicate it somehow....

And, why does disabling 2 cores make everything work as it should? (EXCEPT even with 2 cores running, the identification in system properties still says 360-400+ mhz, AND PAE enabled O_O.....) If it says that with 2 cores, why can't the system run at full speed with 4? T_T

[Unbornchild]

If you must disable PAE but your system processor supports hardware-enforced DEP, add /NOPAE /NOEXECUTE=alwaysoff to your Boot.ini file. Note: This will disable the DEP feature on your computer.

People who also have 4 GB installed can also add /MAXMEM=2048 in the boot.ini



EDIT: sorry Falkentyne for i'm not posting anything usefull info for your problem, i'm only mumbling .... your question pointed me to the PAE i saw on my Maximus system...

Hey, Asus didn't take the P5WDH off the 45nm support page for nothing!

[mikepaul]

Hey, Asus didn't take the P5WDH off the 45nm support page for nothing!

Hey, what did I miss??? I want a new CPU next year, and I had my heart set on one of the NEW ones. Not a new motherboard too...

[Unbornchild]

Has been posted many times, mikepaul. See ---> http://event.asus.com/mb/45nm/

[DrSlump]

I have 2 gigs of RAM installed. (2*1 GB of G.skill).
I've tried turning on and off remapping, doesn't do anything.

NOTE, in SAFE MODE, Windows not only does NOT show PAE, it also shows the real CPU speed. But in normal mode, it thinks it's 400-500 mhz.

I think I had that type of performance when I used Intel PAT on my X6800 and set the CPU duty cycle to 87.5%...well then again it was still a lot faster (UT2004 was perfectly playable at that speed).

FWIW, I'm running on 2 cores now and things are running fine so far. (for some reason I had to install new Catalyst drivers or I got blue screens in UT2004 with 2 cores disabled (huh?). I'm at 3.6 ghz and 1.3v (haven't tried lower or higher). If the 4 core thing is a bug, I want it fixed. If it's something with my windows installation, well, huh...... O_O

I tried a repair install, (not a clean install; I can't stand redownloading everything from scratch, HOWEVER I do have a clean empty E: drive...maybe if I'm bored I'll install windows on THAT from scratch later on) that took forever, and even the repair install didn't solve anything (except made my Windows updates uninstallable without that workaround from microsoft for update+repair installations).

It DOES sound like a sort of driver bug, but it doesn't make sense.... why would the OS think my CPU is 400 mhz, but CPUZ finds the real speed ? Not sure what Coretemp reports....My system is completely up to date with windows updates....

If the clean install tomorrow doesn't work, then its CLEARLY a BIOS bug...eitiher that or Yorkfields only work on Vista? (doesn't seem like thats the case...). My gut feeling says it's 70% a BIOS issue. Unless someone else has seen this and can replicate it somehow....

And, why does disabling 2 cores make everything work as it should? (EXCEPT even with 2 cores running, the identification in system properties still says 360-400+ mhz, AND PAE enabled O_O.....) If it says that with 2 cores, why can't the system run at full speed with 4? T_T

Hi, it seems a driver related problem.
Two tries:
one, try a 64 bit live linux distro, it's simple and fast: download the live linux, put into your drive, reboot and start it

two, try a clean windows vista install, better if 64 bit.

Good luck

[lawrywild]

does it still run 32bit programs just as good also?
Will i have to re-activate windows when i install a new processor?


c

Yes.

Possibly.

[mikepaul]

Has been posted many times, mikepaul. See ---> http://event.asus.com/mb/45nm/

Like I say, I didn't notice any postings discussing the list being changed, and I see that the list doesn't include the DH Deluxe so I'm seriously annoyed that my good feelings towards this MB from back when it WAS listed were unfounded...

[Gig4moller]

Like I say, I didn't notice any postings discussing the list being changed, and I see that the list doesn't include the DH Deluxe so I'm seriously annoyed that my good feelings towards this MB from back when it WAS listed were unfounded...

Check the previous page

[whizmsm]

how good is the onboard audio that comes with the p5w dh? I was thinking of adding a AuzenTech Auzen X-Fi Prelude 7.1 sound card. Is that a worthwhile investment? (I would most likely be using the digital output). How much of an increase would i be looking at in terms of quality of sound?

[mikepaul]

Check the previous page

New rule: visit daily, read carefully.

Thanks...

[lawrywild]

how good is the onboard audio that comes with the p5w dh? I was thinking of adding a AuzenTech Auzen X-Fi Prelude 7.1 sound card. Is that a worthwhile investment? (I would most likely be using the digital output). How much of an increase would i be looking at in terms of quality of sound?

If you have speakers worth more than the Auzentech card costs then it's worth it but if you have cheap speakers then don't bother.

[Falkentyne]

Well I'm installing windows on a completely clean drive right now. But I completely expect this NOT to work. I'm convinced this is a BIOS problem.

Just to let you know, with 2 cores, (NUMPROC=2) when I was using Rybka (chess engine, multiprocessor), Core 0 showed 46 C while core 1 showed 31 C -.- Setting the affinity for both processrs of rybka to core 1 made its temp go to around 34C only -.- (core 0 dropped to 39C). Definitely something whacky here. And this is with me overclocked to 3.6 ghz and 1.3v.

I HOPE u guys are right and it's a driver problem.

The only real good news I have is that my windows installation is going FAST. Its gone from 39 minutes to 19 minutes, in 5 minutes.
When I did the repair install, I swear it took 20 minutes to go down 5 minutes...... >.>

*edit again*
more good news i guess, so far...39 minute installation completed in 8 minutes .....
I'll let you know after all the chipset drivers are installed and I have SuperPi running...

ok windows installation took 10 minutes. fastest install ever....
And it reports the CPU speed correctly and all 4 cores shown.
But now I have to install chipset drivers and other stuff...let's see how far i get before something explodes again.....

[crazeconnolly]

Yes.

Possibly.

Thanx Mate. Installed Home Premium 64bit and used my 32bit key.
everything seems to be running ok. All i gotta do is get proper cd/dvd burning software.


c.

[Falkentyne]

Ok well looks like you guys are right.
it DOES seem to be a driver problem. but WHAT ? T_T......

I still have catalyst drivers and x-fi drivers to install...

I really don't get it, though...what sort of driver problem could possibly cause a system to choke on 4 cores? It would be nice if any search anywhere found a problem like this and a solution~_~

I could just use this HD as the master and nuke windows on the IDE one connected to the jmicron port, but so many programs to reinstall -.-...at least nothing would have to be redownloaded, but still...I would rather find out what exactly caused this to happen in the first place.

You people have "switched" out a dual core for a Quad, with no problems whatsoever (in the same motherboard), right?

*EDIT*
Found out something else:

On the CLEAN windows install, there is NO "PAE" thing showing in system properties. It simply shows Core 2 extreme (TM) X9650 (no Q) @ 3.00 ghz, 3.6 ghz, 2.00 GB RAM.

in my boot.ini, there's only "noexecute=optin" and "/fastdetect". Yet PAE is NOT on. (and thats how it SHOULD be).

On my "usual" install, as I said above, PAE *IS* on, (unless i force it off by /NOPAE /noexecute=AlwaysOff), and CPU speed is wrong and system is a dog.

So its clearly the same "driver problem" affecting both. But what could it possibly be?

[MacClipper]

huh, PAT or PAE?

[Falkentyne]

Sorry PAE.
I've been up all night so I'm like very tired right now and can't think anymore....

The new install of windows works perfectly. No slowdowns and no PAE And CPU reported currently as 3.6 ghz (OC).

I'm back at the old install for the moment, trying to figure out WHAT exactly is broken. Needless to say, I wont be reinstalling windows again if I break the 'old' installation somehow; I'll just use the new one then copy the files over.

I STILL want to know exactly what is causing this though...but it seems no one here has ever encountered such a problem, on these forums or elsewhere....once again I'm on my own =(

I will ask again:
Has everyone else gone from dual core to Quad effortlessly on 32 bit XP, on the same motherboard?

[MacClipper]

Sorry PAE.
I've been up all night so I'm like very tired right now and can't think anymore....

The new install of windows works perfectly. No slowdowns and no PAE And CPU reported currently as 3.6 ghz (OC).

Great to see that.

So just to confirm that if you deactivate PAE on your old setup, everything works OK?

Has everyone else gone from dual core to Quad effortlessly on 32 bit XP, on the same motherboard?

No problem going from E6300 -> E6750 -> Q6600 on mine but it's most unlikely I am getting a retail QX9650 to try.

[Falkentyne]

The old setup is dead. Nothing works to fix it. My attempts last night were to try to uninstall everything in device manager, until I nuked the PCI bus, which gave me e a dead keyboard and mouse, even in safe mode. Thus the repair install, which of course gave me full windows control back, but didn't fix anything cpu speed. I gave up trying to fix it. I'm just going to use the new windows install then copy files over and reinstall whatever games need to be reinstalled. Most of my save games should be fine, as most of the stuff I play doesn't copy anything to the windows folder anyway.

I still wish i knew what happened, though. I see posts ALL the time about people popping in a quad in place of their dual and they're off to the races. Yeah, I was off to the races too...riding on snails....

And no, forcibly disabling PAE did nothing to fix my problem. CPU still reported 432 mhz when set to 3.6 ghz in control panel >.>

For the good news, I'm at 3.7 ghz and 1.3v (1.27 reported) and 370 FSB (multi changed to 10). I tried 4 ghz (400 * 10) and 1.4v just to be safe, but the system (surprise, surprise) failed to even POST whatsoever. And I bet you my left and right foot that has NOTHING to do with the CPU. Running 4 thread prime with small fets, and no problem. CPU#0 reports 52C, CPU1 45C, CPU2 36C <--huh?_?, CPU3 50C.

Who knows how far this chip can go on a current board?
The P5W is famous for acting weird past 370 FSB especially when you start changing multipliers. I'll mess around with higher multis to see if I can run at 4 ghz or not. But at the moment, I'm happy. The fact that I was able to reach 3.7 ghz, and STILL *might* be able to lower the vcore, shows that the P5W *CAN* clock quads pretty well. (I don't think many people were able to get the qx6800 much higher than this). But the 975X's FSB quirks are really annoying. I'll reach 4 ghz (hopefully stable) obviously, but who knows what multiplier/FSB contortions it will take T_T. Clearly its the board's fault that won't make it POST at 400 * 10....

On my X6800, it needed OUTRAGEOUS amounts of voltage (like over 1.65v) to POST continuously at 370 * 10... (most of the time it didn't post at lower voltages), but if it DID POST, it ran fine.

I had absolutely NO problems posting 100&#37; of the time at 337 * 11 (same speed), although it was not game stable at 1.575v ...

[MacClipper]

at 3.7 ghz and 1.3v (1.27 reported) and 370 FSB (multi changed to 10)

Nice, looking good for 24/7 duty but what are your other settings and what Vcore is reported if set to Auto? I am a EIST/C1E fanatic.

btw, so are you using 2403 or 2406 for the BIOS and have you tried SPD/401FSB (loosens the NB timings) instead of 400?

PS: some have reported load balancing quirkiness in quads on certain stress apps, do a forum search for the thread.

[Falkentyne]

I have no idea about Auto. I've never once touched that setting except after a BIOS flash.

I'm using 2406. Thank god they fixed that rediculous upward multiplier bug; who knows what speed i would be limited to if I had to do something like 420 FSB just for 3.7 ghz (9*400 would be 3.6g). The sad thing is it took Asus a YEAR to fix it. Sort of reminds people about Nexon and Maple story, in the level of support....

I don't feel like dealing with no POST issues right now so I'll try 3.8 ghz later...

[w2richwood]

thankz for sharing all your work and eford with use looking good
Rich

[MacClipper]

I don't feel like dealing with no POST issues right now so I'll try 3.8 ghz later...

Easily dealt with - just make use of the Save Profiles in the BIOS.

Save your present settings in any of the 2 available slots, change o'c settings all you want - just clear the CMOS and reload the profile to get back to your present settings any time you run into problems.

[yoggi]

Bios 2406 sets the multiplier on E6600 sometimes to 8 by default.

Guess Asus still can´t build a proper bios.

Sigh