VOGONS


Asrock 775Dual VSTA & Core4Dual thread

Topic actions

Reply 280 of 688, by ruthan

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I suppose that know what is jumper, look at manual where is CMOS/Bios reset jumper located (update: page 11 - point 19, info in on page 20) and check which pins are connected, if these for normal usage, or these for cmos reset (in which case is Bios setting reset for every boot).. Its quite typical that sells reset bios before MB selling and forgot to return jumper at original position.. Other possibility is that battery is broken, of discharged.

Im old goal oriented goatman, i care about facts and freedom, not about egos+prejudices. Hoarding=sickness. If you want respect, gain it by your behavior. I hate stupid SW limits, SW=virtual world, everything should be possible if you have enough raw HW.

Reply 282 of 688, by Apollonios

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

I have now made a jumper reset and swapped the new no name 2032 for a 2032 of "ATS" and now it saves the time and settings! which bios is the latest beta for the Asrock 4 Core Dual -VSTA?

Reply 283 of 688, by ruthan

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

There is unofficial 2.39a.. Details.

Im old goal oriented goatman, i care about facts and freedom, not about egos+prejudices. Hoarding=sickness. If you want respect, gain it by your behavior. I hate stupid SW limits, SW=virtual world, everything should be possible if you have enough raw HW.

Reply 284 of 688, by ruthan

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I had problem with Windows 98 / DOS 7.1 boot menu load problem with AGP Videocard and this MB, i was stuck with blinking cursor.. i find out that is related to combination of Sata controller in NON-RAID mode and AGP video card, with PCI-E and PCI video cards it worked fine with NON RAID.. But for AGP videocards (or at least AGP Nvidia Videocards) you need to switch sata controller to RAID mode, dont ask me why..

Im old goal oriented goatman, i care about facts and freedom, not about egos+prejudices. Hoarding=sickness. If you want respect, gain it by your behavior. I hate stupid SW limits, SW=virtual world, everything should be possible if you have enough raw HW.

Reply 286 of 688, by ruthan

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

It would be some resource bug, for the record i hadn't any other card plugged in, in bios not too much IRQ settings to fiddle than disable integrated NIC and audio and serial and parallel ports.
Update: I find out that RAID mode is not compatible with PCI Videocard and EMS mode, so you have to fiddle with this option in dependency of selected video card slot..

Im old goal oriented goatman, i care about facts and freedom, not about egos+prejudices. Hoarding=sickness. If you want respect, gain it by your behavior. I hate stupid SW limits, SW=virtual world, everything should be possible if you have enough raw HW.

Reply 287 of 688, by ruthan

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

I just finished testing pure DOS soudcards with this MB
link
For this chipset, is with big lead best Aureal V1 - 86% (my educated guess is that Aureal V2 would be very similar), Yamaha 744 - 66%, ESS solo - 55%, SB Live not working at all.

Last edited by ruthan on 2018-10-19, 18:55. Edited 1 time in total.

Im old goal oriented goatman, i care about facts and freedom, not about egos+prejudices. Hoarding=sickness. If you want respect, gain it by your behavior. I hate stupid SW limits, SW=virtual world, everything should be possible if you have enough raw HW.

Reply 288 of 688, by kaputnik

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
ruthan wrote:

I just finished testing pure DOS soudcards with this MB
https://docs.zoho.com/sheet/published.d ... &mode=html
For this chipset, is with big lead best Aureal V1 - 86% (my educated guess is that Aureal V2 would be very similar), Yamaha 744 - 66%, ESS solo - 55%, SB Live not working at all.

Seems the URL has been truncated somehow, you might want to repost it 😀

Reply 289 of 688, by ruthan

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Thx, fixed.

Tried someone Xeon for 771 with this MB?

Im old goal oriented goatman, i care about facts and freedom, not about egos+prejudices. Hoarding=sickness. If you want respect, gain it by your behavior. I hate stupid SW limits, SW=virtual world, everything should be possible if you have enough raw HW.

Reply 291 of 688, by agent_x007

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

There really is no point in moding this boards to LGA 771.
ALL 1600/1333MHz Xeons will be downclocked and limited to ~1050MHz FSB.
That's 1/4 of core clock gone for 1333MHz, and over 1/3 for 1600MHz FSB stuff.
If you want a 1066MHz FSB Xeon, you can get Q6600/Q6700 based one, they should work after ucode update.

157143230295.png

Reply 292 of 688, by ruthan

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

There is big price difference, they are much cheaper - 1/3 of price and there are some models with specific TDP ie 80W Quads which are not available by 775 cpus.

Im old goal oriented goatman, i care about facts and freedom, not about egos+prejudices. Hoarding=sickness. If you want respect, gain it by your behavior. I hate stupid SW limits, SW=virtual world, everything should be possible if you have enough raw HW.

Reply 293 of 688, by agent_x007

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

You shouldn't buy this board for low power Quads.
If you need a low power chip for this boards, buy 45nm Dual Core.
If you want to do a AGP low power Quad Core rig, AM2+ boards are much better choise.
To better get my point across :
Q9650/E5450 = <2,4GHz,
Q9400 = <2,13GHz,
Q8400 = <1,86GHz.

157143230295.png

Reply 294 of 688, by ruthan

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
agent_x007 wrote:

You shoudn't buy this board for low power Quads.
If you need a low power chip for this boards, buy 45nm Dual Core..

Why i should to buy dual core, when i can have Quad core with similar TDP?

agent_x007 wrote:

If you want to do a AGP low power Quad Core rig, AM2+ boards are much better choise.

For me is not important if AGP or PCI-E, AM2 is problem for DOS, bad sound cards support, i far as i know there only varians with VIA chipset capable of DOS sound and and there are not better than Intel chipsets from compatibility view.. I checked last VIA + AM2 solution and best CPU which could be used is Athlon X2 6000+ or similar and they are slower than Core 2 Duo / Quad, so no advantage here.

For me are interesting Xeon E5430-E5450 they are all 1333, so 1066 FSB will not kill them totally and they have big cache (12 MB) and are 80W so with slower FSB they would be probably around 65W, what is same as Core 2 Duo basic dual cores, but i would again quad instead of dual core with similar price.

Im old goal oriented goatman, i care about facts and freedom, not about egos+prejudices. Hoarding=sickness. If you want respect, gain it by your behavior. I hate stupid SW limits, SW=virtual world, everything should be possible if you have enough raw HW.

Reply 295 of 688, by agent_x007

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Ad. 1. Because 40%+ clock difference per core is noticable almost everytime (E5450 @ <2,4GHz vs. E5400 @ ~3,5GHz). Not sure what you plan to do, but 12MB cache (or 6MB per two cores to be precise), isn't enough to overcome that big of a clock gap (and E5400/E5500 shouldn't have much problems with ~3,5GHz clock, even on these boards).
Ad. 2. There are nForce3 boards with Phenom II support (and AGP slot).

TDP does NOT scale with frequency as much as you would want it to.
However, I'm pretty sure most Quad Cores will have a much lower TDP on those boards regardless of what Intel says "on the box" though.
Reason is simple : Vdroop control and LLC does not exists on them, so having a 0,1V Vcore drop on load isn't unusual.

157143230295.png

Reply 297 of 688, by agent_x007

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Yes, on unlocked chips you can go both up, and down.
However C1E and SpeedStep have to be disabled for this option to become available.
PS. You should be able to change CPU multiplier down*, regardless if model you use is locked or not (*limited to Core 2 based CPUs).

157143230295.png

Reply 298 of 688, by ruthan

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie
agent_x007 wrote:

Ad. 1. Because 40%+ clock difference per core is noticable almost everytime (E5450 @ <2,4GHz vs. E5400 @ ~3,5GHz). Not sure what you plan to do, but 12MB cache (or 6MB per two cores to be precise), isn't enough to overcome that big of a clock gap (and E5400/E5500 shouldn't have much problems with ~3,5GHz clock, even on these boards).

You are comparing E5450 with overclocked E5400 (because stock is 2.7 GHz) so you probably assume that that 800 FSB is not problem to increase to 1066 to reach 3.5 GHz, ok that could be good idea.. About L2 cache afaik its not per core its shared between all of them and E5400 has only 2 MB and Xeon 12 MB, its big difference. Before i will check numbers, for me are all of these cpus to slow for real XP gaming, i have other machine to it, so i dont care too much about single core performance / clock even 2 GHz are still good enough for DOS and WIn98 and Windows Xp/7/ Linux im using to thing like Web browsing multitasking where is really good to have 4 cores.

A now numbers.. Here is comparision of CPU+MB+MEMM power which im used to use.. Geekbench 3, im selecting some average stock clock results. To be fair and count and downclocking on E5450 and overclock on E5400. wem should remove + 20% from E5450 results and add +30% (800 to 1066) to E5400 result, lets count that cpu power scale linearly with frequency.
https://browser.geekbench.com/geekbench3/comp … aseline=8685898
So number would be:
Single core E5400: 1417 x1.3 = 1842 vs. E5450 1605 x 0,8 = 1320 => OK E5400 is better for single thread is 40% faster
Multi core: E5400 = 2650 x 1.3 = 3445 vs. E2120 = 4900 x0.8 = 3920 => OK 5450 is faster but only by 13%
What about price E5400/E5500 are just 5$ on Ebay, 5450 are $20.
Xeon has additional small advantage in HW virtuallization which you can use for some task, im using it often for some testing even on these old machines.

Ok i have to admit that E5400 is better choice, than Xeons. Only thing im not use its noise and TDP, because E5400 is 65W chip, but its quite big overlocking, so it could be 80W, but also 100W, maybe someone now more precisely. Note that there is also Core 2 Duo E4700 - 800 FBS at 2.6 - 65W its very similar to Penitum E5400.

agent_x007 wrote:

Ad. 2. There are nForce3 boards with Phenom II support (and AGP slot).

Still not understand why i would want such combination, because afaik nforce 3 is not working DOS PCI sound cards and for Windows 98+ there are better combinations (i have Windows 98 on X99 chipset for example). There MBs with primary video cards selection to have additional AGP slot for other OSes is no really benefit.

agent_x007 wrote:

TDP does NOT scale with frequency as much as you would want it to.
However, I'm pretty sure most Quad Cores will have a much lower TDP on those boards regardless of what Intel says "on the box" though.
Reason is simple : Vdroop control and LLC does not exists on them, so having a 0,1V Vcore drop on load isn't unusual.

There is not exact formula for TDP decrease depends on max. frequency, but from Afterburner monitoring i would say that decrease is quite big, similar to bigger power consumation when cpu is overclocked. Maybe these older architecture are not soo good with it, but some ryzen MBs and CPU has imn options to decrease TDP from 65W to 45W or 35W, lots of X99 and i thing X79 too have possiblity to set TDP for CPU directly in the Bios and real effect are such lesser clocks (there are not cpu architecture mods depends on it, just different power state handling / limits), so it should work vice versa.

Im old goal oriented goatman, i care about facts and freedom, not about egos+prejudices. Hoarding=sickness. If you want respect, gain it by your behavior. I hate stupid SW limits, SW=virtual world, everything should be possible if you have enough raw HW.

Reply 299 of 688, by watson

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Hi agent_x007, is there a specific reason why you mentioned the E5400?
I just bought the 4CoreDual-SATA2 (it's rev. 1.02) and I had an E5400 lying around.
I have it running at 3.4 GHz (even though it's not on the R1.0 support list, maybe they forgot to update it?) and it seems to be Prime95 stable.
However, do you think an E5800 would be able to go to 4.0 GHz (250x16)? Or should I perhaps buy a Pentium E6700 or Core 2 Duo E7500?