ASUS M4A79XTD EVO - CPU Voltage issues

[jusval]

Asus M4A790XTD EVO Version 0602 BIOS
AMD Phenom II x2 Callisto - unlocked to a Phenom II x4 B45
2x1gb Crucial Ballistic DDR3 1333 Memory set at 6-6-6-20 (runs no different with the default 9-9-9-24)
EVGA 512meg 8600GT Low Power PCIE2 video card
WD 320gig SATA3 HDD

Hello,
I am not the smartest person on my block, or probably on your block either, but I do my own builds and I do spend some time reading and searching for what I need, when I have a problem.

The one I'm having now is just because my lack of understanding I'm sure, but I need to understand it and understand what I need to do with it.

Here's the problem: If I manually change the CPU voltage in the BIOS and reboot, the voltage I set shows up in the BOIS as the value I set, but in CPU-Z and in AOD, the voltage shows something totally different. The higher I go with the voltage in the BIOS, the lower it shows in CPU-Z and AOD.

Now, let me fill in the background as to why I am adjusting the voltage. I feel that is relevant to where I am going. I purchased a Phenom II x2 Callisto. I unlocked the cores, to see if I would get "2 free cores" (I couldn't afford the 4 core 945 CPU) and I ended up with a Phenom II X4 B45. All I did was to use these settings in the BIOS:Unleashing - Enabled, Active CPU Cores - 4 cores, Value all cores +4%.

By using those settings, I achieved a 4 core processor, but not without an issue. Let me say that when I first put this system together, I tested the memory using memtest86 before I did anything else. I then loaded XP and all the updates to XP including SP3. Then I installed Prime95 and other benchmark & testing programs. I tested with the processor at the stock 2 core settings and then I went to unlock the other cores. Since unlocking the other cores I have run prime95 for 12 hours straight in two modes "Small FFT's and Blend". It runs perfect, no errors. All the other benchmark programs I have run with no errors, no blue screens, no lock ups.

But........ I still get lockups in other programs. They are erratic. I might open internet explorer 10 times and work perfect or I might get locked up. I can open Outlook express a dozen times, but then I might get locked up. I can run games like Flight Simulator 9 for hours with no problems and try to leave the game and then lock up. The lock ups are always total, where I can only power off as a means to get out of the lock up. It does not matter if it's a microsoft program or an add-on program and it is not time based. It is sporradic and erratic, but it never locks up in any of the benchmark software. This is why I wanted to try upping the CPU core voltage and this is where I ran into this problem of upping the voltage in the BIOS only to find that after booting and loading into the OS, the voltage is Lower than it was before, even though it shows higher in the BIOS monitor screen. The only thing I can even reomtely think of would be that the CPU/VDDA voltage setting (if set manually), might help stop the voltage from lowering itself, but I don't think that will do it, since I understand setting it manually is only going to put a (high limit) on a setting that still automatically changes as needed?

I am not even thinking about overclocking yet. If I can't get it stable now, I won't try overclocking at all. What I just don't get is why it can run 12 hours of prime95 prefectly and then it can lock up opening a web page or outlook express. Or why I can play something like HAWX for an hour and lock up only when I exit the game.

Also about 1 out of 15 times, when I first power up, I get a BIOS statement that the CPU powered up unstable and I need to enter BOIS set up. I can enter the BOIS and then just exit without saving changes and it works fine again.

My personal feeling is that upping the voltage might help, but I don't seem to find a way to do that right now, so that's what I need, is an answer to the mysterious voltage setting.

I have read something that the CPU core voltage automatically lowers as the processor is pushed, more processing use, less voltage automatically, to save the cores? That is new to me, but does that have any bearing on why the voltage is lowering, when I manually try to raise it? If so, then how to stop that?

I know that, in the end, I may just have to go back to 2 cores, but I sure would like to try the voltages, to see if it becomes stable first.

Thanks in advance for your help here..... and your patience......

 

[MadInsane]

This is due to something called, VDROOP or v-droop, however it's spelled lol. Look it up on the forums. It's not due to the board, I have the same board, what type of power supply are you running?

 

[MadInsane]

Just read some more of your post...

You probably have 2 faulty cores on your 550. That happened to me, and I stopped being cheap and bought the x4 955. Guess what, it works great w/ 4 cores now! And I'm at 3.7 rock solid stable on the same board as you.

I can tell you one thing, however, when I put the cpu/nb up to 2600 instead of 2400 I would get blue screens coming OUT of prime95. Just like you're saying. I just left it at 2400. I'm thinking you need to check your ram for stability too, those timings look pretty tight.. Also update to the newer 0604 bios for better memory compatability.

 

[EarthDog]

Let me clear something up...

Vdrop = the voltage difference you set in the bios vs CPUz readings at idle
Vdroop = the voltage difference between an idle processor and load.

What you are experiencing is VDROP, not VDROOP (I bet it may sag a little more with a 100% load on the CPU).

There is a reason that the chip wasnt sold as a quad, b/c its broken. Unlocking chips is not guaranteed. Try a bit more vcore though to see if it straightens out. I would also look around the AMD forum for some hints an tips about unlocking and getting things stable. Its not the first time this has been asked and answered.

Voltage settings are in your bios.....you may need to take something off auto in order to see it. I have this board at gome for a customer build. If you cant figure out in the next 2 hours, LMK and I will check at lunch.

 

[jusval]

Ok, well then I probably have two bad cores. I won't be buying a 4 core till they are outdated and fall in the less than $75 price range. Money is tight on a fixed income.... So I'll have to live with what I got. I only tried it because of some articles I had read suggesting that AMD had disabled perfectly good cores on 4 core processors and sold tham as 2 core, because the demand for 2 core was so much higher than 4 core and they needed to ship processors. Supposedly they do that quite often, but all that is second hand, so it's probably just bunk.

As fas as voltage settings in the bios, I know where they are, I have tried manual settings in the bois, but as I said every time I raise the voltage settings manually, in the bios, the voltage shown in CPU-Z or AOD just gets lower and lower as I raise them in the BIOS.

Funny thing is that the ASUS Monitoring program (PC Probe) shows the voltages Increasing. SO I can open CPU-Z and it shows 1.250V and Open the ASUS PC Probe right beside it and it shows 1.475V

If I leave the voltage setting as "auto" in the bios, it shows 1.350 in the bios monitor and 1.350 in all the other monitors like CPU-Z and it doesn't drop any, so I guess that's the place to be.

I just don't get that, but I am a little dense at times........

Thanks for your time.

 

[EarthDog]

Try enabling Load Line Calibration and see if that helps the voltage issue.

I wonder why CPUz is playing games with you?

 

[jusval]

Try enabling Load Line Calibration and see if that helps the voltage issue.

I wonder why CPUz is playing games with you?

CPU-Z & AOD & Sandra & etc. The only program that shows the same reading as the bios does, is the Asus utility. So the bios and Asus utility read the same and all other utilities read lower (whenever I manually set the voltage). In Auto setting, they All read the same. Seems strange to me.

Ok, Load Line Calibration? Could you expand on what that is?

Thanks

 

[EarthDog]

minimizes vdrOOp.

 

[jusval]

From Asus:

Hello,

We only recommend going by what the BIOS says. CPU-Z seems to not read correctly on the newer boards and CPU's. As for unlocking the cores they were locked and resold as dual cores because the other two cores where most likely bad. AMD has been doing this with their newer CPU's. So if you close off both cores and run on the dual then performance should be much better. But as for the problem it is the CPU and not the system board or BIOS that is responsible.

Best Regards,

Rob
Lead Support Technician

So, I guess "only Asus" as far as they are concerned. Well it's been an experience. I've had AMD for over 10 years, maybe 15 and I've never had the amount of issues with any other socket. I've had 3 boards, 2 processors and 2 different makers of memory so far and haven't been satisfied with the stability of the 780/785 or 790 chipsets so far. None seem stable, even at stock settings, but maybe it's just me. My 939 socket was rock stable for 3 years, till it just got too outdated.

 

[jusval]

I decided to do a comparison of the 2 core & 4 core settings, just to see how much I'm loosing going back to 2 core. I used Passmark, just to see how the 3d & 2d scores would come out.

I figured the CPU score would be 50% better and it came out 49.5% better with 4 cores. The 2D was only 1.2% better with 4 cores. The 3D was overall 27% better with 4 cores, but interesting that the 3D Complex score was only 1.2% better, which leads me to believe it's the limit of the video card and PCIE. No difference in Memory & HDD scores, as I figured.

I will feel some difference due to loosing the 2 cores, but it seems like as far as 3D I won't see any difference. Games like HAWX won't see any difference, but unfortunately FS2004 will see a 40-50% hit in the constant redraw of textures, which means it won't be worth playing any more, but that's life. Maybe next year I can buy a 4 core 3ghz CPU.

Thanks to y'all for your time.
Oh, I think Load Line Calibration only applies to intel bios.

 

[EarthDog]

I just had that board. I swear its a bios option on that board...I could be wrong though. But I remember adding a percentage of voltage on that board to compensate. Double check the bios.

I think its the vdda option.

 

[Malakai]

From Asus:

Hello,

We only recommend going by what the BIOS says. CPU-Z seems to not read correctly on the newer boards and CPU's. As for unlocking the cores they were locked and resold as dual cores because the other two cores where most likely bad. AMD has been doing this with their newer CPU's. So if you close off both cores and run on the dual then performance should be much better. But as for the problem it is the CPU and not the system board or BIOS that is responsible.

Best Regards,

Rob
Lead Support Technician

So, I guess "only Asus" as far as they are concerned. Well it's been an experience. I've had AMD for over 10 years, maybe 15 and I've never had the amount of issues with any other socket. I've had 3 boards, 2 processors and 2 different makers of memory so far and haven't been satisfied with the stability of the 780/785 or 790 chipsets so far. None seem stable, even at stock settings, but maybe it's just me. My 939 socket was rock stable for 3 years, till it just got too outdated.

just try to keep in mind, you are having issues because you are trying to unlock a 80-100 dollar cpu to a 150-180 dollar cpu. If you just ran everything at stock, you would not be having problems, so you absolutely cannot get mad at either AMD or Asus when you have problems running your hardware out of spec. They openly admit that they only test and plan hardware to run at spec, I mean, thats what spec is right, the settings teh manufacturer tells you to run their hardware at!

So this is the ocforums, we are here to run stuff out of spec. But you need to not blame the people who made it when you run their hardware in a way they tell you not to. As the CS Rep said, the cpu was adjusted to be a dual core cuz the other 2 did not work right - you bought it knowing ahead of time that it was only designed to run 2 cores; the other 2 MAY work right, and if they do you just got a product worth 2x what you paid for free, but you cant expect it to work in a way not advertised

Im not being mean or anything, but it does bug me when people complain to companies that running their hardware in a non recommended way is causing them trouble; if you cant handle the extra work involved in tweaking and oc'ing, then run your stuff @stock and it will work fine!!

Take care