mastergamma12 wrote on 2020-06-07, 15:58:Looks good now, as for the 2666mhz ram running at 2666mhz, it was like that when I bought it.
Good, I would have been surprised had it not fixed it and suspect I will release Beta-09 in a couple of days.
Have you tried SIV on your Z390 Aorus Master and if so is it OK? I added support in V5.36 so it should be.
red-ray wrote on 2020-06-08, 18:39:mastergamma12 wrote on 2020-06-07, 15:58:Looks good now, as for the 2666mhz ram running at 2666mhz, it was like that when I bought it.
Good, I would have been surprised had it not fixed it and suspect I will release Beta-09 in a couple of days.
Have you tried SIV on your Z390 Aorus Master and if so is it OK? I added support in V5.36 so it should be.
Looks good
mastergamma12 wrote on 2020-06-08, 20:43:Looks good
Thank you, what's reported is correct but there should be System Power Usage directly below System File Cache, is it ever there?
The issue is that IR35217 PWM power controller @ [ 0_70 ] did not get detected, but the one @ [ 0_71 ] did, very strange. Looking at Menu->System->PMB Bus I can see it's there, but am at a loss as to why it was not detected on SIV start-up.
Update: I just spotted your board has an IR35217 PWM when the other board has an IR35201 PWM, please try the attached SIV64X V5.49 IR35217-07 test SIV.
If the issue is not fixed do siv64x -dbgsmb -exit=10 > SIV_DBGOUT.log | more and post SIV_DBGOUT.log otherwise new save files would be good.
I don't recall seeing this type of hardware change before and I wonder if your board is a version 2 and the other is version 1 or similar.
red-ray wrote on 2020-06-08, 21:20:Thank you, what's reported is correct but there should be System Power Usage directly below System File Cache, is it ever there? […]
mastergamma12 wrote on 2020-06-08, 20:43:Looks good
Thank you, what's reported is correct but there should be System Power Usage directly below System File Cache, is it ever there?
The issue is that IR35217 PWM power controller @ [ 0_70 ] did not get detected,
but the one @ [ 0_71 ] did, very strange. Looking at Menu->System->PMB Bus I can see it's there, but am at a loss as to why it was not detected on SIV start-up.Update: I just spotted your board has an IR35217 PWM when the other board has an IR35201 PWM, please try the attached SIV64X V5.49 IR35217-07 test SIV.
If the issue is not fixed do siv64x -dbgsmb -exit=10 > SIV_DBGOUT.log | more and post SIV_DBGOUT.log otherwise new save files would be good.
I don't recall seeing this type of hardware change before and I wonder if your board is a version 2 and the other is version 1 or similar.
Honestly I never payed attention to that section so I can't say if I did or didn't, that being said, it's there now.
Also attached the save file.
mastergamma12 wrote on 2020-06-08, 22:48:Honestly I never payed attention to that section so I can't say if I did or didn't, that being said, it's there now.
Thank you. Most recent high end boards tend to have System Power Usage, but there is no one way to check if it should be there. Looking for PWM power controllers on Menu->System->PMB Bus is one way and on ASUS boards offset 0xF4 being none zero on Menu->Hardware->H/W Detail->I/O Embedded is another.
It seems every system you have highlights something that should be improved, what get's reported for your ELSA GLADIAC ULTRA? I suspect it will just be reported as a NV15BR [GeForce2 Ultra (BladeRunner)] and wonder what Menu->Machine->GPU Info reports. I further suspect that as it's a Dell no SIO voltages can be reported.
red-ray wrote on 2020-06-09, 05:52:mastergamma12 wrote on 2020-06-08, 22:48:Honestly I never payed attention to that section so I can't say if I did or didn't, that being said, it's there now.
Thank you. Most recent high end boards tend to have System Power Usage, but there is no one way to check if it should be there. Looking for PWM power controllers on Menu->System->PMB Bus is one way and on ASUS boards offset 0xF4 being none zero on Menu->Hardware->H/W Detail->I/O Embedded is another.
It seems every system you have highlights something that should be improved, what get's reported for your ELSA GLADIAC ULTRA? I suspect it will just be reported as a NV15BR [GeForce2 Ultra (BladeRunner)] and wonder what Menu->Machine->GPU Info reports.
Would minixp suffice?
mastergamma12 wrote on 2020-06-09, 06:20:red-ray wrote on 2020-06-09, 05:52:It seems every system you have highlights something that should be improved, what get's reported for your ELSA GLADIAC ULTRA? I suspect it will just be reported as a NV15BR [GeForce2 Ultra (BladeRunner)] and wonder what Menu->Machine->GPU Info reports.
Would minixp suffice?
Not really as the NVidia drivers won't be present. Running SIV from a Windows 10 recovery command prompt might, but I doubt that is possible on a Pentium 4 (Northwood).
Which OS does it usually run?
red-ray wrote on 2020-06-09, 06:32:mastergamma12 wrote on 2020-06-09, 06:20:red-ray wrote on 2020-06-09, 05:52:It seems every system you have highlights something that should be improved, what get's reported for your ELSA GLADIAC ULTRA? I suspect it will just be reported as a NV15BR [GeForce2 Ultra (BladeRunner)] and wonder what Menu->Machine->GPU Info reports.
Would minixp suffice?
Not really as the NVidia drivers won't be present. Running SIV from a Windows 10 recovery command prompt might, but I doubt that is possible on a Pentium 4 (Northwood).
Which OS does it usually run?
Me
mastergamma12 wrote on 2020-06-09, 06:38:Me
SIV32L should run on Me and tell me all I need to know, but the GPU clocks won't get reported by Beta-06.
A save file from Me would tell me the PCI sub-device information and with that I will be able to adjust the reported name and generally improve things.
Well I saved the files from both MiniXP and Windows Me and took a screenshot of it running on Me.
mastergamma12 wrote on 2020-06-09, 06:44:Well I saved the files from both MiniXP and Windows Me and took a screenshot of it running on Me.
Thank you, the attached SIV32L V5.49 W-Me-07 test SIV should improve [GPU Info] on W-Me, does it please?
On W-Me did SIV popup a panel saying reboot to make SMART work? It should have.
Have you ever thought of making the system Dual Boot? If you shrink the C: partition by about 10GB and create a 10GB D: it would be pretty easy. This is the setup I have on my 98/Me systems, but I tend to install 2003 Server rather than XP.
On XP all looks to be 100% to me as the SMSC EMC2700P SIO does not report H/W sensor information.
red-ray wrote on 2020-06-09, 07:04:Thank you, the attached SIV32L V5.49 W-Me-07 test SIV should improve [GPU Info] on W-Me, does it please? […]
mastergamma12 wrote on 2020-06-09, 06:44:Well I saved the files from both MiniXP and Windows Me and took a screenshot of it running on Me.
Thank you, the attached SIV32L V5.49 W-Me-07 test SIV should improve [GPU Info] on W-Me, does it please?
On W-Me did SIV popup a panel saying reboot to make SMART work? It should have.
Have you ever thought of making the system Dual Boot? If you shrink the C: partition my about 10GB and create a 10GB D: it would be pretty easy. This is the setup I have on my 98/Me systems, but I tend to install 2003 Server rather than XP.
On XP all looks to be 100% to me as the SMSC EMC2700P SIO does not report H/W sensor information.
Looks good, shows clocks.
As for dual booting on this, as with the case with my P3 Rambus box, I'd prefer to keep them as is. These 2 machines were a major PITA to setup and I almost lost my mind trying to get dos audio to work with my Audigy 2 ZS a few hours ago.
mastergamma12 wrote on 2020-06-09, 07:18:Looks good, shows clocks.
As for dual booting on this, as with the case with my P3 Rambus box, I'd prefer to keep them as is. These 2 machines were a major PITA to setup and I almost lost my mind trying to get dos audio to work with my Audigy 2 ZS a few hours ago.
Thank you and all is as I hoped with the GPU and I also see that disk SMART is now there 😀 One day I may improve the 9x support, but such as the 3dfx Voodoo3/4/5 reporting is already as good on 9x as on NT.
OK, I have never known setting up dual boot cause issues for the 98/Me system, but better safe than sorry. My Dual P-III (Katmaï) is quad boot and the only nuisance is when the clocks change each system changes the clock by an hour.
Does the Intel Pentium 4 (Northwood) [C1] have hyperthreading that is disabled in the BIOS? I know my Intel Pentium 4 (Northwood) 2.80GHz [D1] has it, but can't remember if all Northwood CPUs have it.
red-ray wrote on 2020-06-09, 08:02:Thank you and all is as I hoped with the GPU and I also see that disk SMART is now there :) One day I may improve the 9x support […]
mastergamma12 wrote on 2020-06-09, 07:18:Looks good, shows clocks.
As for dual booting on this, as with the case with my P3 Rambus box, I'd prefer to keep them as is. These 2 machines were a major PITA to setup and I almost lost my mind trying to get dos audio to work with my Audigy 2 ZS a few hours ago.Thank you and all is as I hoped with the GPU and I also see that disk SMART is now there 😀 One day I may improve the 9x support, but such as the 3dfx Voodoo3/4/5 reporting is as already good on 9x as on NT.
OK, I have never known setting up dual boot cause issues for the 98/Me system, but better safe than sorry. My Dual P-III (Katmaï) is quad boot and the only nuisance is when the clocks change each system changes the clock by an hour.
Does the Intel Pentium 4 (Northwood) [C1] have hyperthreading that is disabled in the BIOS? I know my Intel Pentium 4 (Northwood) 2.80GHz [D1] has it, but can't remember if all Northwood CPUs have it.
AFAIK this Pentium 4 lacks HTT.
mastergamma12 wrote on 2020-06-09, 08:06:AFAIK this Pentium 4 lacks HTT.
Given it usually runs Me I guess > 1 CPU is pointless.
I have just uploaded all the SIV 5.49 Beta-07s, please use these rather than the test SIVs.
It's the older version but I tested SIV64X on an Asus B450i Strix and it's showing the 12v rail at 9/10v's while bios reports 11.96-12v.
mastergamma12 wrote on 2020-06-10, 18:21:It's the older version but I tested SIV64X on an Asus B450i Strix and it's showing the 12v rail at 9/10v's while bios reports 11.96-12v.
Thank you for the report and which SIV you are using does not matter as the incorrect voltage is caused be a bug in the ASUS BIOS, notice how SIV reported Sensor ASUS V3 ACPI WMI.
Checking Menu->System->ACPI + PnP->ASUS WMI notice how NU02 is 9.973 Volts 🙁. Please check if there is a later BIOS that fixes this, if not report this BIOS bug to ASUS and ask them to fix it.
I suspect HWiNFO + HWMonitor + AIDA64 will also report via ASUS WMI and report the incorrect voltage.
![[ASUS WMI].png](./thumbs/40916_8a041743dc3df1c60b8aad1852f87035/%5BASUS%20WMI%5D.png)
red-ray wrote on 2020-06-10, 20:40:Thank you for the report and which SIV you are using does not matter as the incorrect voltage is caused be a bug in the ASUS BIO […]
mastergamma12 wrote on 2020-06-10, 18:21:It's the older version but I tested SIV64X on an Asus B450i Strix and it's showing the 12v rail at 9/10v's while bios reports 11.96-12v.
Thank you for the report and which SIV you are using does not matter as the incorrect voltage is caused be a bug in the ASUS BIOS, notice how SIV reported Sensor ASUS V3 ACPI WMI.
Checking Menu->System->ACPI + PnP->ASUS WMI notice how NU02 is 9.973 Volts 🙁. Please check if there is a later BIOS that fixes this, if not report this BIOS bug to ASUS and ask them to fix it.
I suspect HWiNFO + HWMonitor + AIDA64 will also report via ASUS WMI and report the incorrect voltage.
Yeah, Latest bios, I'll report it to Asus later.
Browsing around the internet, seems the issue's been around for a while. Oh well.............
mastergamma12 wrote on 2020-06-10, 21:01:Browsing around the internet, seems the issue's been around for a while. Oh well.............
Yes, you don't know the half of it! I think much of what I know is NDA so can't say too much, but many have noted it's V3 and feel this is rather telling!
You could do SIV64X -NOASUS-WMI to stop SIV using ASUS WMI. I initially added -NOASUS-WMI for my own testing and made it public when other **** hit the fan!
red-ray wrote on 2020-06-10, 21:46:mastergamma12 wrote on 2020-06-10, 21:01:Browsing around the internet, seems the issue's been around for a while. Oh well.............
Yes, you don't know the half of it! I think much of what I know is NDA so can't say too much, but many have noted it's V3 and feel this is rather telling!
You could do SIV64X -NOASUS-WMI to stop SIV using ASUS WMI. I initially added -NOASUS-WMI for my own testing and made it public when other **** hit the fan!
Did that and everything looks good now.
It's directly reporting from the ITE IT8665E now.
I don't understand why Asus thought it was a good idea to use the WMI instead of directly reporting the superio chip.
Oh well....
