who have tested the Beta BIOS BD7_7B.B02 for BD7/BD7-RAID??

is the cold boot problem fixed?

So it would seem... here the snap and link;

I can honestly say that the bios fixes the issue. After 50 successful cold boots at 16x150mhz, I am convinced that the BD7 is worthy of the review it is about to get. Sure, the product had some issues at first, but many products do.

http://www.tweakersasylum.com/Reviews/ABIT/BD7-RAID/01.htm

also this is the text file with bios;

Beta BIOS BD7_7B.B02 for BD7/BD7-RAID

1. Raise the adjustable CPU Core Voltage for Pentium4 processors.
2. Support P4 2.4G(100) CPU.
3. Fix occasional no POST with debug code 26 issue while "Fixed PCI=33"
option was enabled in SoftmenuIII.
4. HPT 37x BIOS version 2.0.1024. The RAID function is for BD7-RAID
only. This BIOS version is also for non RAID boards and HPT BIOS
will be automatically disabled while RAID controller chip not
detected.
5. BIOS compile date: 4/18/2002.

laters

I can't get the download to work from Abit's site.
Anyone got another link to the BD7-Raid BIOS?

Thanks,
Mike

Yea, the beta BIOS for thhe BD7 does resolve the cold boot problems. I tried it last night and it works wonderfully. I got some more Mhz out of it too, from 2250 to 2280.

From the Tweakers Asylum Page:
http://fae.abit.com.tw/download/beta/bd7/

bd77b02.zip

Major thanks go out to Doormat for that one! He's the man of the hour.

Click to expand...

i like. must try.

Ugh, like I can't get any of these files to download from the Abit site, and I've been trying all day! Are any of you ables to download from their site?

Mike

Been running all the day. Rock stable , have restarted from cold boot a dozen times. It all seems fine. Now just waiting for a modded bios to hit 1.85vcore.

cjordan61 said:

Been running all the day. Rock stable , have restarted from cold boot a dozen times. It all seems fine. Now just waiting for a modded bios to hit 1.85vcore.

Click to expand...

I still wait for the "1.85 Volt Mod" too.

PLEASE MrNatural, mod it

beta bios BD7_7B.B02

i tried it , i think the cold boot problem is gone now , but i higher Core voltage then 1.7v will be nice... Because i cannot get it stable over 150 , with the modified bios (1.75v) i am able to get 155 fsb ( 2.448GHz)



It will be nice if someone can modify the beta bios for more core voltage...




---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abit BD7-Raid
Intel Pentium 4 1.6NW overcloked to 2.448
FSB 155
Twinmos 512mb PC2700 DDRAM
40 and 100 gb Western Digital HD
Gainward GF4 PowerPack! Ultra/750XP Golden Sample
Chieftec Dragon Midi Tower
Enermax 450 PS
Pioneer DVD
Plextor 24x CDR
Hansol 19" Monitor
Logitech Cordless Desktop Optical
Creative Soundblaster Audigy
3com Nic
Windows XP Pro
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

@cdier

how much points you get with your system in 3dmark2001se??

my 3dmark2001se point

My highest point is : 12008..

I think the cpu is the bottleneck now , have to buy 2.0GHz CPU----


-cdier-

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abit BD7-Raid
Intel Pentium 4 1.6NW overcloked to 2.448
FSB 155
Twinmos 512mb PC2700 DDRAM
40 and 100 gb Western Digital HD
Gainward GF4 PowerPack! Ultra/750XP Golden Sample
Chieftec Dragon Midi Tower
Enermax 450 PS
Pioneer DVD
Plextor 24x CDR
Hansol 19" Monitor
Logitech Cordless Desktop Optical
Creative Soundblaster Audigy
3com Nic
Windows XP Pro
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well all I can say is "****e" cos that's what that new BETA bios is, straight after flashing what happens... oh look... CODE 26... fixed my arse.... took me 4 attempts to boot, then once I got into my bios, changed a few setting's saved and exited and... lo and behold... CODE 26.... back on the 4X bios again, anyting higher and I get more cold boot problems, with the 4X I can boot 1 in 2 times, with the 6h, I can ONLY boot at default speed, with the first Beta, 1 - 5 times, with the Beta 2 about 1 - 4... will they ever fix it...

I'm gonna be forced to buy a new board soon

With Mr Naturals 6H2 bios I would get the cold boot problem more often then not, but when it did boot properly I could run my 1.6A @ 2.4Ghz at the default voltage (1.5V; on a BD7-Raid).

With the new beta bios from Abit the problem seems to be gone, but I've only tried it a few times. However, my system now refusues to boot at 2.4Ghz at the default voltage (I get ntdetect errors when win2K tries to load....).

Hey HeXaDeCiMaL,

I read the review you wrote about the BD7 on the website
you listed here the other day. I think you scored the mobo
too high.

But you're right, looks like I'm going to be in the market
for a new mobo before long myself. The BL7 has been out
for over 6 months and the BD7 for over 4 months, and Abit doesn't seem to have a fix in sight! Maybe they don't care,
I dunno. But as it stands now, these mobos aren't really
oc'ing motherboards, and I think the reviews should state
such! Good review though, if you had only been more critical.
(Seems reviewers have forgotten how to critically do a review anymore.)

Cheers,
Mike Lamb

get it here, for those having problems with abit FTP's

Saytan,
Got it.
Thanks,
Mike

gonna flash it on myself later. want my 2.3ghz back!

Mike360000 said:

Hey HeXaDeCiMaL,

I read the review you wrote about the BD7 on the website
you listed here the other day. I think you scored the mobo
too high.

But you're right, looks like I'm going to be in the market
for a new mobo before long myself. The BL7 has been out
for over 6 months and the BD7 for over 4 months, and Abit doesn't seem to have a fix in sight! Maybe they don't care,
I dunno. But as it stands now, these mobos aren't really
oc'ing motherboards, and I think the reviews should state
such! Good review though, if you had only been more critical.
(Seems reviewers have forgotten how to critically do a review anymore.)

Cheers,
Mike Lamb

Click to expand...

Thanks for the input, and as you say I too believe I gave the board a too higher score, I wrote that over 3weeks ago, and my problems have only increaced with every beta bios released... with no sign of a fix that actually works (for me) , I belive a score more in the mid 6's would be more fitting

As for being more critical, the only major problem I encountered witht the board was the CODE 26 bug, I could have gone into more detail about the actual course of the bug, but i felt it would be OK to just leave it at the fact that the problem was there and needed to be fixed and it was a major downfall of the board....

The board is an OK overclocker, but is by no means a super overclocking board... The highest I have managed to boot @ is 2.27Ghz even a single Mhz more and it wont POST.... with any bios revision....

I'm still hopeing that ABIT will fix the problem... but my hopes are weening, and i'm being ever more drawn to a Gigabyte - 8IRXP board instead.....

Thanks again

HeX

"Thanks for the input, and as you say I too believe I gave the board a too higher score, I wrote that over 3weeks ago, and my problems have only increaced with every beta bios released... with no sign of a fix that actually works (for me) , I belive a score more in the mid 6's would be more fitting "

Well I'll add a little. Maybe some peeps will se different, but that's ok. I've been into the computer scene since the early 80's. Started with a VIC20. Been building computers since about 1989. I got serious with oc'ing in about 1997. But what I've noticed is that 15 years ago on the net, reviewers were much more critical about their reviews. I mean little faults were pointed out. And it would have been hard for any product to score a 9 out of a 10. These days any product can get 7.5 with medicore products scoring 9 or 9.5. And you see the best products today scoring a 10 whereas 15 years they would have scored a 9 at best. But what's worse is the commercialism in reviewing products. Tom's Hardware is absolutely the worst or the worst review websites! While his commercialism is bad enough, and he points out even little faults in *SOME* products, he is biased dhowing favoritism. Not that I am saying you were biased or wrong or anyhting, as you did give a pretty decent review compared to most review sites. But for example, if I was new to oc'ing and looking for a good motherboard, and I read your review; What would think I as a new computer builder/oc'er would think about the mobo you reviewed? And what do you think I would experience once I broke down and actually got that mobo? That's what I'm really getting at.....

OTOH if Abit sent you that mobo for free to review, then you might would be in a little trouble with Abit if you actually rated it for what it was. Same applies to everything else. I could understand this delimema if you were in such a position. Regardless, this seems to be a problem with reviewing products these days, especially computer products. Gee. I've been burned so many times now it isn't even funny anymore, and it's beginning to make computer building and oc'ing more troble than it's worth.
----------------------

"As for being more critical, the only major problem I encountered witht the board was the CODE 26 bug, I could have gone into more detail about the actual course of the bug, but i felt it would be OK to just leave it at the fact that the problem was there and needed to be fixed and it was a major downfall of the board.... "

Strange things!
I had the cold boot bug with the OCZ ram BAD! And regardless to the settings and oc'ing. However I haven't had a cold boot problem since I changed back to the Crucial 2100 ram I had. But my problem is I can't oc very high at all, and it ain't the cpu! I know that for a fact... And *WE* all know other people are having these problems to. It was in this respect I meant these mobos weren't good oc'ers. Personally I'm beginning to think it is the ram itself, but there are so many questions concerning this whole mobo, I'm not sure and I can't get the right information. And I'll tell'ya what's even stranger, Intel said this would happen for the P4's! And Tom's Hardware dogged Intel badly for saying it! Matter of fact Tom's Hardware has done an about face with regards to Rambus ram. Yet they won't admit they were very much against Rambus and spoke very badly of it for a long time!
--------------------------------


"The board is an OK overclocker, but is by no means a super overclocking board... The highest I have managed to boot @ is 2.27Ghz even a single Mhz more and it wont POST.... with any bios revision.... "

Well the mobo has everything an oc'er could dream of! It is a dream board *IF* and I *IF* it would oc and not have the cold boot problem. But if an oc'ing mobo won't oc; Then what's the purpose of calling the mobo such? In this case we have the bL and BD 7 mobos, which are made to be oc'ing mobos, NOT oc'ing worth a flip! So why spend the money on a mobo that won't perform? And why call it an oc'ing mobo to begin with?

I am tending to agree with you though about the Gigabyte mobos for the P4s. They seem to be the oc'ing mobo for the P4 at the moment. Although I've done wasted my money on TWO Abit mobos that DON'T perform to claims, and so I'm out'ta spending money at the moment.
-----------------------------

"I'm still hopeing that ABIT will fix the problem... but my hopes are weening, and i'm being ever more drawn to a Gigabyte - 8IRXP board instead.....

Thanks again
HeX"

I'm book marking your website.
Not too bad a place, but I gotta read some more of your, and the sites reviews.

Thanks and Cheers,
Mike

Mike360000 said:

"Thanks for the input, and as you say I too believe I gave the board a too higher score, I wrote that over 3weeks ago, and my problems have only increaced with every beta bios released... with no sign of a fix that actually works (for me) , I belive a score more in the mid 6's would be more fitting "

Well I'll add a little. Maybe some peeps will se different, but that's ok. I've been into the computer scene since the early 80's. Started with a VIC20. Been building computers since about 1989. I got serious with oc'ing in about 1997. But what I've noticed is that 15 years ago on the net, reviewers were much more critical about their reviews. I mean little faults were pointed out. And it would have been hard for any product to score a 9 out of a 10. These days any product can get 7.5 with medicore products scoring 9 or 9.5. And you see the best products today scoring a 10 whereas 15 years they would have scored a 9 at best. But what's worse is the commercialism in reviewing products. Tom's Hardware is absolutely the worst or the worst review websites! While his commercialism is bad enough, and he points out even little faults in *SOME* products, he is biased dhowing favoritism. Not that I am saying you were biased or wrong or anyhting, as you did give a pretty decent review compared to most review sites. But for example, if I was new to oc'ing and looking for a good motherboard, and I read your review; What would think I as a new computer builder/oc'er would think about the mobo you reviewed? And what do you think I would experience once I broke down and actually got that mobo? That's what I'm really getting at.....

OTOH if Abit sent you that mobo for free to review, then you might would be in a little trouble with Abit if you actually rated it for what it was. Same applies to everything else. I could understand this delimema if you were in such a position. Regardless, this seems to be a problem with reviewing products these days, especially computer products. Gee. I've been burned so many times now it isn't even funny anymore, and it's beginning to make computer building and oc'ing more troble than it's worth.
----------------------

"As for being more critical, the only major problem I encountered witht the board was the CODE 26 bug, I could have gone into more detail about the actual course of the bug, but i felt it would be OK to just leave it at the fact that the problem was there and needed to be fixed and it was a major downfall of the board.... "

Strange things!
I had the cold boot bug with the OCZ ram BAD! And regardless to the settings and oc'ing. However I haven't had a cold boot problem since I changed back to the Crucial 2100 ram I had. But my problem is I can't oc very high at all, and it ain't the cpu! I know that for a fact... And *WE* all know other people are having these problems to. It was in this respect I meant these mobos weren't good oc'ers. Personally I'm beginning to think it is the ram itself, but there are so many questions concerning this whole mobo, I'm not sure and I can't get the right information. And I'll tell'ya what's even stranger, Intel said this would happen for the P4's! And Tom's Hardware dogged Intel badly for saying it! Matter of fact Tom's Hardware has done an about face with regards to Rambus ram. Yet they won't admit they were very much against Rambus and spoke very badly of it for a long time!
--------------------------------


"The board is an OK overclocker, but is by no means a super overclocking board... The highest I have managed to boot @ is 2.27Ghz even a single Mhz more and it wont POST.... with any bios revision.... "

Well the mobo has everything an oc'er could dream of! It is a dream board *IF* and I *IF* it would oc and not have the cold boot problem. But if an oc'ing mobo won't oc; Then what's the purpose of calling the mobo such? In this case we have the bL and BD 7 mobos, which are made to be oc'ing mobos, NOT oc'ing worth a flip! So why spend the money on a mobo that won't perform? And why call it an oc'ing mobo to begin with?

I am tending to agree with you though about the Gigabyte mobos for the P4s. They seem to be the oc'ing mobo for the P4 at the moment. Although I've done wasted my money on TWO Abit mobos that DON'T perform to claims, and so I'm out'ta spending money at the moment.
-----------------------------

"I'm still hopeing that ABIT will fix the problem... but my hopes are weening, and i'm being ever more drawn to a Gigabyte - 8IRXP board instead.....

Thanks again
HeX"

I'm book marking your website.
Not too bad a place, but I gotta read some more of your, and the sites reviews.

Thanks and Cheers,
Mike

Click to expand...

Thanks again for sharing stuff, I really do like to know what ppl think I will take it all into account upon my next review

To answer one of your questions, NO Abit did NOT send me the board as a review sample, I bought it out of my own money, and at first thought it was OK, apart from the CODE 26 boot problem as previously mentioned. I was very annoyed that this problem was not mentioned on any other review.... I deemed the board an overclockers board due to the fact it contains the Softmenu III system plus the FIX PCI ratios definatly made for overclocking purposes and the fact it's an ABIT produced board, the company renound ofr making the best in overclocking boards... I still stand by the fact that this board IS an overclocking board, I did manage a 42% overclock which is more than alot of boards, but once again was halted by the CODE 26 bug...

As I said in my previous post, I do believe I gave the board to high a score, I try to be critical with my reviews and I couldn't care less if ABIT doesn't like it At the time I thought the board was deserving of the score, I had a nice OC from the box, simple installation, no stability issues, etc. It was only later on when ABIT still hadn't released a fix and the problem really started to get to me that I began wondering if I scored it correctly... a downfall of the reviewing process, you don't have much time to stress the product before the artical has to be in... I try to get as many tests in as possible but you always miss something...

Thanks

HeX.

As for bookmarking our site, I take that as a great honour, every visitor is appreaciated. Have you tried our forums, there pretty good... But I would say that wouldn't I

If you want to give me anymore feed back about my article u can e-mail me @ [email protected] or u can post here thanks again