Got a dishwasher?
I've run dozens of things through and about half the dead ones came to life.
Zero soap. Full cycle. Dry in full sun about 4 hours after flicking fairly dry. Or any 3 days inside. Or about 15m in a 90c oven.

myne wrote on 2025-05-04, 10:28:

Got a dishwasher?
I've run dozens of things through and about half the dead ones came to life.
Zero soap. Full cycle. Dry in full sun about 4 hours after flicking fairly dry. Or any 3 days inside. Or about 15m in a 90c oven.

I thought you were just messing with me when you first suggested the dishwasher. Most be an old school technique. 😀

How do you think they're cleaned in the factory?

As long as there's no power/battery there's nothing magical about electronics.

Trying to find closure (SOLVED ) status, why I failed to repair my TUV4X, I spent a number of additional hours visually re-inspecting the board to find physical damage. It appears I initially damaged the board installing the heatsink. A very tiny surface trace near the cpu socket was discovered deformed, only visible under high magnification. Apparently I caused the damage with impact from my screwdriver during installation. I am unable to check for continuity, it's too small. I have attached a few images for others to analyze. It just never sat well not reviving my board from death, especially with EXPERT remote assistance from Vogons member @shevalier. At this point I feel confident to conclude SOLVED status for this posting. Thank you to all the other Vogons members kind enough to help out and advise as well!

Doesn't look bad enough.

But the board does look dirty.

Again, wash it.

myne wrote on 2025-05-13, 01:36:

Doesn't look bad enough.

But the board does look dirty.

Again, wash it.

Here is an added image, it's not under the same magnification I was using, but illustrates a likely issue.

Fair enough.
One tiny solder blob and you'll know.
Still can't hurt to wash it. Toothbrush and dishwashing liquid if you don't have a dishwasher.

myne wrote on 2025-05-13, 03:20:

Fair enough.
One tiny solder blob and you'll know.
Still can't hurt to wash it. Toothbrush and dishwashing liquid if you don't have a dishwasher.

haha, its such a tiny trace I can hardly see it, even with magnification. If I did attempt, I would need to purchase a new iron tip and a mounted magnifier, guess its worth a shot...

Kittyboy wrote on 2025-05-13, 03:56:

haha, its such a tiny trace I can hardly see it, even with magnification. If I did attempt, I would need to purchase a new iron tip and a mounted magnifier, guess its worth a shot...

You most likely don’t need a new iron tip. Even a large one will work fine for this job.

Rather than create a new page, I thought to keep adding to this one with TUV4X related information based on my current experiences with my TUV4X setup. Fortunately, I purchased two TUV4X boards, down to one now, thru operator error I killed-off one already out the gate. And "I do" deserve to be slammed into the rocks for its timely destruction at my hands! I am still experiencing nightmares...

So for this post, I wanted to share a couple observations I don't understand? First, the 'back-to-back' BIOS enable/disable memory related setting and its purpose, (see image). I experience OS freeze-up during boot into Win98 with back-to-back default setting 'enabled' with one stick of 512MB ram and/or two sticks of ram. However, if set to 'disable' everything seems fine? I am also curious to learn if I am operating at full system capability with disabled selected?

Also, what exactly does 'enable' BIOS auto setting enable?

Kittyboy wrote on 2025-05-22, 22:45:

Rather than create a new page, I thought to keep adding to this one with TUV4X related information based on my current experiences with my TUV4X setup. Fortunately, I purchased two TUV4X boards, down to one now, thru operator error I killed-off one already out the gate. And "I do" deserve to be slammed into the rocks for its timely destruction at my hands! I am still experiencing nightmares...

So for this post, I wanted to share a couple observations I don't understand? First, the 'back-to-back' BIOS enable/disable memory related setting and its purpose, (see image). I experience OS freeze-up during boot into Win98 with back-to-back default setting 'enabled' with one stick of 512MB ram and/or two sticks of ram. However, if set to 'disable' everything seems fine? I am also curious to learn if I am operating at full system capability with disabled selected?

Also, what exactly does 'enable' BIOS auto setting enable?

Oh my GOSH!! you saved my day...you really did with this hint!

Just for the record, since yesterday i was bashing my head with a TUV4X paired with a Tualatin 1.4Ghz.

I noticed that i couldn't boot most of diagnostic programs i use to test the stability ( and Windows 98 SE setup too was getting stuck all the time ).

I tried EVERYTHING since yesterday.......changing RAM, PSU, CD-ROM, cables....nothing worked. Almost every testing tool was going on a blank screen before the boot.

The motherboard is even perfectly clean and the capacitors looks like new. So i was wondering where the heck was the problem

Then i tried to reduce the CPU speed from 1400 mhz to 1050 mhz, so the bus from 133 mhz to 100 mhz...and everything was working again.....win 98 setup aswell.

So i installed Win 98 SE with the CPU at 1050 mhz / 100 mhz......then i tried to put the CPU on default again at 1.4Ghz, and.......Windows 98 was getting freezes right at the boot with the background logo.

Then i searched on internet and came up here...to read about this damn option in the BIOS....and guess what ?

It solved everything. Now the setup and every diagnostic program boots...and i can finally complete the build

P.S: And yes i wonder what's the purpose of this cursed option..which is Enabled by default -__-"

What that setting does is reduce latency for consecutive CPU -> memory transactions.
The memory controller allows the CPU to start a new memory transaction immediately after the previous one, without inserting idle cycles (a sort of "0 wait states" for consecutive memory access chains).
Stability when using this setting might heavily depend on the RAM silicon lottery, chipset silicon lottery and overall board design.

bloodem wrote on 2025-05-23, 08:21:

What that setting does is reduce latency for consecutive CPU -> memory transactions.
The memory controller allows the CPU to start a new memory transaction immediately after the previous one, without inserting idle cycles (a sort of "0 wait states" for consecutive memory access chains).
Stability when using this setting might heavily depend on the RAM silicon lottery, chipset silicon lottery and overall board design.

I will never forget this BIOS option from now onward.....i was going crazy to figure out what the problem was x)

_StIwY_ wrote on 2025-05-23, 08:30:

bloodem wrote on 2025-05-23, 08:21:

What that setting does is reduce latency for consecutive CPU -> memory transactions.
The memory controller allows the CPU to start a new memory transaction immediately after the previous one, without inserting idle cycles (a sort of "0 wait states" for consecutive memory access chains).
Stability when using this setting might heavily depend on the RAM silicon lottery, chipset silicon lottery and overall board design.

I will never forget this BIOS option from now onward.....i was going crazy to figure out what the problem was x)

I am happy it helped out. One other thing to keep in mind. The 'disable' setting some how will 'self' 'reenable' at times. When that occurs, you have to go back into the BIOS and change again. I don't know how the BIOS just decides when to change things on its own?

Kittyboy wrote on 2025-05-23, 09:02:

_StIwY_ wrote on 2025-05-23, 08:30:

bloodem wrote on 2025-05-23, 08:21:

What that setting does is reduce latency for consecutive CPU -> memory transactions.
The memory controller allows the CPU to start a new memory transaction immediately after the previous one, without inserting idle cycles (a sort of "0 wait states" for consecutive memory access chains).
Stability when using this setting might heavily depend on the RAM silicon lottery, chipset silicon lottery and overall board design.

I will never forget this BIOS option from now onward.....i was going crazy to figure out what the problem was x)

I am happy it helped out. One other thing to keep in mind. The 'disable' setting some how will 'self' 'reenable' at times. When that occurs, you have to go back into the BIOS and change again. I don't know how the BIOS just decides when to change things on its own?

Also, I have noticed that when clocking down to 1050, the issue does not occur as frequently, experiment with that and follow-up please. May be that 1400 is too fast for the board design/memory as previously noted by another VOGONS member.

Kittyboy wrote on 2025-05-23, 09:02:

The 'disable' setting some how will 'self' 'reenable' at times.

That's weird, i never had this motherboard until a couple of days ago, i will keep you updated because i'm still testing everything, then i will use the PC for retrogaming.

P.S: Let's not forget that the BIOS 1006.002 was left on beta state, maybe is afflicted by some glitch?

_StIwY_ wrote on 2025-05-23, 12:21:

Kittyboy wrote on 2025-05-23, 09:02:

The 'disable' setting some how will 'self' 'reenable' at times.

That's weird, i never had this motherboard until a couple of days ago, i will keep you updated because i'm still testing everything, then i will use the PC for retrogaming.

P.S: Let's not forget that the BIOS 1006.002 was left on beta state, maybe is afflicted by some glitch?

Yes, mine is the 1006.002 as well. Thanks for reminding me. I will revert to the previous 1005 and test that out.

Kittyboy wrote on 2025-05-23, 12:39:

_StIwY_ wrote on 2025-05-23, 12:21:

Kittyboy wrote on 2025-05-23, 09:02:

The 'disable' setting some how will 'self' 'reenable' at times.

That's weird, i never had this motherboard until a couple of days ago, i will keep you updated because i'm still testing everything, then i will use the PC for retrogaming.

P.S: Let's not forget that the BIOS 1006.002 was left on beta state, maybe is afflicted by some glitch?

Yes, mine is the 1006.002 as well. Thanks for reminding me. I will revert to the previous 1005 and test that out.

Any news ? I've been using the PC for two days, dozens of reboots, installing game / playing games / stress test like 3dmark2000 in loop ....etc. Nothing to report, PC seems perfectly rock solid, after disabling that option.

I am working out a few things, primarily, when I perform a cold power boot with power disconnected overnight, it will boot into the BIOS (see image). This may be because currently I'm running a dual boot setup, MS-DOS 6.22/Win98se?

_StIwY_ wrote on 2025-05-23, 08:30:

bloodem wrote on 2025-05-23, 08:21:

What that setting does is reduce latency for consecutive CPU -> memory transactions.
The memory controller allows the CPU to start a new memory transaction immediately after the previous one, without inserting idle cycles (a sort of "0 wait states" for consecutive memory access chains).
Stability when using this setting might heavily depend on the RAM silicon lottery, chipset silicon lottery and overall board design.

I will never forget this BIOS option from now onward.....i was going crazy to figure out what the problem was x)

Oh man, I too was thrown off by that 'CPU DRAM back to back transaction' thing when I had my TUV4X.
I could only get that setting to work @ 133MHz FSB with Coppermine CPUs. With Tualatin, it'd only boot at 100MHz.

Based on the brief description of what the setting does, and the fact that Tualatin has a data prefetcher (Coppermine doesn't) I'd wager that Tualatin @ FSB133 is simply too demanding on the memory controller.