ga-965p-ds3 3.3 clocking itself down

I run everest to detect my hardware speeds. Everything has been fine for the last 2 years, and all of a sudden my cpu fsb and multiplier are showing low. I thought probably the default settings got tripped as it does once in a great while.

But... all my settings in my bios show correct: 3200mhz with a fsb of 400 and a multiplier of 8.

In windows, my clock speed is presently 1600 and my fsb is 267 with a multiplier of 6.

Its like something is automatically clocking my computer down... I dont know what it could be. I am running a fresh XP install and have about 20 processes running and absolutely no unnecessary applications going.

I went and flashed the newest BIOs hoping that would fix it, but deep down I felt it was probably some sort of hardware issue. The bios flash did nothing.

Anyone know what this could be?

edit:
#######################
Update on the problem

Well it seems the problem is the motherboard will not keep the multiplier or memory multiplier where its set. It just goes to the lowest possible which is 6 and 1 for the memory. That explains the speeds. When I set it at default 9/266 it was going to 6/266 for a 1600mhz. When I raised it to 9/400 (should be 3.6), it says 2.4 (6*400).

Now this is the weird thing. When I run cpuz, it says my multiplier is at the proper 9, and the frequency is what is low. Its really *** backwards.

What could this be a symptom of? Im guessing bad motherboard, but im hoping something simple like I need a new cmos battery (lol).

In the BIOS disable both CPU Enhanced HALT (C1E) and CPU EIST Function options. These are both Intel power-savings features built into the processor, which you can read about at AnandTech here...

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2725

I have always kept those off.

This seems like a hardware failure.

My computer (listed below) is 2.4ghz stock (9 x 266). I have kept it at 3.2 (8 x 400) for quite a while. Now when running at 3.2 according to the bios, everest and cpuz show that my bus speed is 269.1 with my core at 2153.

This is just bizarre.

It totally ignores my 2x memory multiplier, so it says I'm running my memory at 269.1mhz. I ran some simple benchmarks, and I can confirm that my system does run at those speeds compared to previous scores at default and overclocked speeds.

What is happening, is when you put a load on the system, everything goes to the clocks you have them set to. If you start up an instance of Prime95, and open up CPU-z, you will see 400x8 and 3200 MHz. Try checking Windows power saving functions, and double check the BIOS for the settings that redduc pointed out. Chances are that something is set to go into a power saving mode when the rig is idle.

Just to clarify, it does not say my system is running at 3200mhz anywhere in windows. Every hardware scanning program reads it at strange numbers contrary to the bios settings.

I have turned off just about every setting in my bios. After two years with this computer, I am familiar with them all.

One reason I don't believe this is the problem is because I just booted my PC with my core speed set to 3.6 (on my 2.4 e6600) which would never boot. I know because I've maxed out my overclock many many times and run thorough testing for dozens of hours in the last few years. Its my hobby. I bet I could set it to 9 x max fsb and it would still probably boot.... because its not running at what I set it at. This computer never boots over 3.4 unless I raise the crap out of the voltage and even then, its not stable.

Now, with my 3.2 overclock set, it shows 2132 Mhz (8x266). The fsb is just sitting at 266 in windows from the second it boots, even though I set it at 400 (8x400) in the bios.

Its like the fsb is spent or something. Has anyone heard of anything like this?

Edit:
I maxed out both the fsb and multiplier, and the computer booted just fine... because soon as I leave bios, the settings are dropping down to some strange values that I have not really been able to establish a pattern or constant with.

All I know, is when I manually put in the stock speed (9x266) with a mem multiplier of 3 (3x266 = 800mhz) .. it actually is showing this speed when I boot windows. If I let it run stock settings with optimized defaults, it drops to like 2100 or 1600 or something.. and I can not run with a multiplier of 8 period. It just wont let me push the fsb above 266... so its 8x266 or nothing.

Wtf?...

Well since I can no longer raise my fsb above 266 without it clocking itself back down upon reboot (though it still saves bios settings), I take it my mobo is fried.

Can anyone confirm before I put in my order for another board?

Something similar happens to me.
The same motherboard for almost a year was fine being over clocked then one day reverted back to std settings.
Now I can boot up over clocked but it wont keep the settings.
Maybe its something to do with this motherboard?

I wish I knew before I spent 100 replacing it. I mean, I guess I could just live with running stock specs, but there is obviously a serious problem and it may get worse.

After changing the clock speed, i.e. increasing the bus to 400MHz, does the corrected clock appear on the POST screen?

I dont see my clock speed on the post screen. The information is only there for about .25 seconds.

The settings are still there when I reenter the bios, but Im betting they aren't there at post. I set my multiplier/fsb up to max which would be like 6.7ghz and it still booted lol.

Maybe bad caps. (even without them visibly bad)

Over at http://badcaps.net , IIRC, there's been a report of caps silently going bad.

I will survey my board for bad capacitors.

Whether or not its the culprit, badcaps.net is a total sham.

Though badcaps contains some useful info, its full of vague, shady arguements on why capacitors are some secret cause of many computer woes. That and the fact that its a bunch of backwards logic and straw dummy arguments that suggest theres some conspiracy that took place years ago that is still plagueing computers everywhere, and that they can fix them all for the low low price of what it would cost anyone for a new motherboard, just makes me laugh.

If someone was privy to such information, why not be specific? Oh, because they might refute it. Why would someone effectively refurbish their motherboard to refrain from buying a vista system? Oh, because you can't just get a new pc and put xp on it... or wait, yes you can.

Anyway, thanks for the suggestion.