BIOS F7:Optimized Defaults not being accepted

  • Thread starter Thread starter Benny
  • Start date Start date
B

Benny

Hi again
After solving a recent problem with my PC not allowing 4x1Gb DDR3 RAM
modules to work, (Topic: Windows XP not starting after extra RAM added), I
have now noticed some unusual settings in the BIOS.
I have a 3.16GHz CPU (Intel E8500 Core Duo 1333 FSB) yet the BIOS shows
2.83GHz and CPU Host Frequency of 266MHz.
I have reset the BIOS to "F7: Optimized Defaults" and the CPU Frequency is
reset to the correct 3.16GHz and likewise the CPU Host Frequency changed to
the correct value of 333MHz. However, BIOS will not allow me to accept these
changes and does not boot any further. The BIOS screen just remains showing.
I have to "not accept" the BIOS changes in order to get the PC to continue
booting.
Why won't the BIOS allow the correct CPU frequency to be used?
I'm a little edgy at trying to update the BIOS to the latest version. If
this is a suggestion can you give me your preferred "safest" method to do
this. The motherboard (Gigabyte GA-EP45T-UD3R) does have Dual BIOS (ie Main
and Backup BIOS).
regards
Benny
 
Benny said:
Hi again
After solving a recent problem with my PC not allowing 4x1Gb DDR3 RAM
modules to work, (Topic: Windows XP not starting after extra RAM added), I
have now noticed some unusual settings in the BIOS.
I have a 3.16GHz CPU (Intel E8500 Core Duo 1333 FSB) yet the BIOS shows
2.83GHz and CPU Host Frequency of 266MHz.
I have reset the BIOS to "F7: Optimized Defaults" and the CPU Frequency is
reset to the correct 3.16GHz and likewise the CPU Host Frequency changed to
the correct value of 333MHz. However, BIOS will not allow me to accept these
changes and does not boot any further. The BIOS screen just remains showing.
I have to "not accept" the BIOS changes in order to get the PC to continue
booting.
Why won't the BIOS allow the correct CPU frequency to be used?
I'm a little edgy at trying to update the BIOS to the latest version. If
this is a suggestion can you give me your preferred "safest" method to do
this. The motherboard (Gigabyte GA-EP45T-UD3R) does have Dual BIOS (ie Main
and Backup BIOS).
regards
Benny
Click to expand...

The first question I'll ask, is whether the system is stable. If you've
done testing, (Memtest86+ and Prime95) and are not seeing errors, then
apart from the power going off during a BIOS flash, you should be in
good shape. (I use a UPS, to prevent power-fail accidents like that.
Your battery should be good for the 5 minutes tops, to complete a
flash update.)

My personal preference is booting with a DOS floppy and doing BIOS
flashing. But as time passes, this kind of option becomes less and
less feasible (some BIOS are now too big to fit on a floppy,
although you could also store the BIOS on a FAT32 C: drive -
I did my last flash update, using the C: drive to stage the BIOS).

It is possible to prepare a DOS CD, but that really isn't practical or free.
You might also do it from a USB flash, and I have managed to boot
my current system with a USB flash that had a floppy image copied
over with Linux "dd". But that was only a 1.4MB floppy and I
wasn't attempting to break any capacity records. If I had a big
BIOS image, the recipe would necessarily be different (and AFAIK,
the max that way is 2.88MB or so).

The built-in flash tool is likely a lot less hassle. Some of those
accept USB flash to hold the BIOS file.

In any case, I don't see a reason quite yet, to flash it.

*******

So what can we say about your current BIOS ?

OK, here is my guess on the BIOS.

Your motherboard has "M.I.T.", which is the tweaker that adjusts
all sorts of frequencies and voltages. While you've glanced at
the screen, and seen "266", it is possible the "CPU clock host
control" is not enabled, so the default value of 266 is not
actually being forced. Instead, the BSEL pins on the processor
are sending their default 333MHz request, and that is being
honored by the clock generator chip.

If we divide 2.83 by 266, we get 10.64, and that math is garbage.
If we try 2.83 by 333, we get 8.5, which is do-able, even if a
bit strange. At this moment, I cannot account for an 8.5x multiplier,
although it is an acceptable value (falls between min and max).

The multiplier is forced by the "CPU Clock Ratio" item. The Intel
processorfinder.intel.com web page, does not define the valid
range of multipliers, so I'm going to have to use a wild
ass guess. My guess is, your E8500 is 6x to 9.5x. On a locked
processor, you cannot write outside that range. If EIST is
enabled, the OS and ACPI, will vary the register setting
dynamically, from 6x at idle, to 9.5x when the CPU is running
100%. That saves power, when the computer is idle. Vcore
is also adjusted by those ACPI, but I'm not too worried about
that right now.

If EIST is disabled, then you can play with the multiplier
in the BIOS.

With EIST disabled, you could set "CPU Clock Ratio" to "9x"
and "Fine CPU Clock Ratio" to "0.5x", for a total of 9.5x.
When you get into Windows, with those three settings in place,
the processor should stay at 3.16GHz at all times. You can
verify that with CPUZ.

http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php

So take a gander through the M.I.T. page again. Try
disabling EIST, play with the CPU input clock if
you want (or leave the default 333MHz defined by
the processor). Play with the multiplier if you
like. Just don't try forcing a value like "10x",
because if the BIOS does a "read verify", it is
going to find "9.5x" as the max.

I think the "M.I.T." designers, need to go back
to "User Interface" school :-(

Paul
 
The first question I'll ask, is whether the system is stable. If you've
done testing, (Memtest86+ and Prime95) and are not seeing errors, then
apart from the power going off during a BIOS flash, you should be in
good shape. (I use a UPS, to prevent power-fail accidents like that.
Your battery should be good for the 5 minutes tops, to complete a
flash update.)

My personal preference is booting with a DOS floppy and doing BIOS
flashing. But as time passes, this kind of option becomes less and
less feasible (some BIOS are now too big to fit on a floppy,
although you could also store the BIOS on a FAT32 C: drive -
I did my last flash update, using the C: drive to stage the BIOS).

It is possible to prepare a DOS CD, but that really isn't practical or
free.
You might also do it from a USB flash, and I have managed to boot
my current system with a USB flash that had a floppy image copied
over with Linux "dd". But that was only a 1.4MB floppy and I
wasn't attempting to break any capacity records. If I had a big
BIOS image, the recipe would necessarily be different (and AFAIK,
the max that way is 2.88MB or so).

The built-in flash tool is likely a lot less hassle. Some of those
accept USB flash to hold the BIOS file.

In any case, I don't see a reason quite yet, to flash it.

*******

So what can we say about your current BIOS ?

OK, here is my guess on the BIOS.

Your motherboard has "M.I.T.", which is the tweaker that adjusts
all sorts of frequencies and voltages. While you've glanced at
the screen, and seen "266", it is possible the "CPU clock host
control" is not enabled, so the default value of 266 is not
actually being forced. Instead, the BSEL pins on the processor
are sending their default 333MHz request, and that is being
honored by the clock generator chip.

If we divide 2.83 by 266, we get 10.64, and that math is garbage.
If we try 2.83 by 333, we get 8.5, which is do-able, even if a
bit strange. At this moment, I cannot account for an 8.5x multiplier,
although it is an acceptable value (falls between min and max).

The multiplier is forced by the "CPU Clock Ratio" item. The Intel
processorfinder.intel.com web page, does not define the valid
range of multipliers, so I'm going to have to use a wild
ass guess. My guess is, your E8500 is 6x to 9.5x. On a locked
processor, you cannot write outside that range. If EIST is
enabled, the OS and ACPI, will vary the register setting
dynamically, from 6x at idle, to 9.5x when the CPU is running
100%. That saves power, when the computer is idle. Vcore
is also adjusted by those ACPI, but I'm not too worried about
that right now.

If EIST is disabled, then you can play with the multiplier
in the BIOS.

With EIST disabled, you could set "CPU Clock Ratio" to "9x"
and "Fine CPU Clock Ratio" to "0.5x", for a total of 9.5x.
When you get into Windows, with those three settings in place,
the processor should stay at 3.16GHz at all times. You can
verify that with CPUZ.

http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php

So take a gander through the M.I.T. page again. Try
disabling EIST, play with the CPU input clock if
you want (or leave the default 333MHz defined by
the processor). Play with the multiplier if you
like. Just don't try forcing a value like "10x",
because if the BIOS does a "read verify", it is
going to find "9.5x" as the max.

I think the "M.I.T." designers, need to go back
to "User Interface" school :-(

Paul
Click to expand...

Thanks for agreat explannation Paul.
After posting I did find a post elsewhere that also mentioned the EIST
function and how it works.
When I go to System Properties it does show the full "@ 3.16GHz".
The system seems to be running very stable so I won't be flashing the BIOS
and the 4 RAM modules are working fine as well.
I think I will loeave well enough alone at the moment.
I opened CPU-Z. The SPD tab showed some interesting info about the 4 modules
of RAM.
DIMMs 1 & 3 show the following info:

Memory SPD:

DIMMs 1 & 3
General
Memory type DDR3
Module format UDIMM
Manufacturer (ID) Corsair (7F7F9E0000000000)
Size 1024 MBytes
Max bandwidth PC3-10700H (667 MHz)
Part number CM3X1G1333C9DHX

Attributes
Number of banks 8
Nominal Voltage 1.50 Volts
EPP no
XMP no

Timings table
Frequency (MHz) 444 519 593 667
CAS# 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
RAS# to CAS# delay 6 8 9 10
RAS# Precharge 6 8 9 10
TRAS 16 19 22 25
TRC 23 27 31 34

While DIMMS 2 & 4 show the following:

DIMMs 2 & 4
General
Memory type DDR3
Module format UDIMM
Manufacturer (ID) Corsair (7F7F9E0000000000)
Size 1024 MBytes
Max bandwidth PC3-8500F (533 MHz)
Part number CM3X1024-1333C9DHX

Attributes
Number of banks 8
Nominal Voltage 1.50 Volts
EPP no
XMP no

Timings table
Frequency (MHz) 457 533 610 686
CAS# 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
RAS# to CAS# delay 6 7 9 10
RAS# Precharge 6 7 9 10
TRAS 18 20 23 26
TRC 24 27 31 35

How can this info be showing different details when they are exactly the
same RAM out of exactly the same packages?
One set is showing bandwidth of 667MHz and the other set is showing 533MHz
etc etc.

Also the Chipset info shows:

Northbridge Intel P45/P43 rev. A3
Southbridge Intel 82801JR (ICH10R) rev. 00
Graphic Interface PCI-Express
PCI-E Link Width x16
PCI-E Max Link Width x16
Memory Type DDR3
Memory Size 4096 MBytes
Channels Dual (Symmetric)
Memory Frequency 533.3 MHz (5:8)
CAS# 9.0
RAS# to CAS# 9
RAS# Precharge 9
Cycle Time (tRAS) 24
Command Rate 2T


regards
Benny
 
Benny said:
Thanks for agreat explannation Paul.
After posting I did find a post elsewhere that also mentioned the EIST
function and how it works.
When I go to System Properties it does show the full "@ 3.16GHz".
The system seems to be running very stable so I won't be flashing the BIOS
and the 4 RAM modules are working fine as well.
I think I will loeave well enough alone at the moment.
I opened CPU-Z. The SPD tab showed some interesting info about the 4 modules
of RAM.
DIMMs 1 & 3 show the following info:

Memory SPD:

DIMMs 1 & 3
General
Memory type DDR3
Module format UDIMM
Manufacturer (ID) Corsair (7F7F9E0000000000)
Size 1024 MBytes
Max bandwidth PC3-10700H (667 MHz)
Part number CM3X1G1333C9DHX

Attributes
Number of banks 8
Nominal Voltage 1.50 Volts
EPP no
XMP no

Timings table
Frequency (MHz) 444 519 593 667
CAS# 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
RAS# to CAS# delay 6 8 9 10
RAS# Precharge 6 8 9 10
TRAS 16 19 22 25
TRC 23 27 31 34

While DIMMS 2 & 4 show the following:

DIMMs 2 & 4
General
Memory type DDR3
Module format UDIMM
Manufacturer (ID) Corsair (7F7F9E0000000000)
Size 1024 MBytes
Max bandwidth PC3-8500F (533 MHz)
Part number CM3X1024-1333C9DHX

Attributes
Number of banks 8
Nominal Voltage 1.50 Volts
EPP no
XMP no

Timings table
Frequency (MHz) 457 533 610 686
CAS# 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0
RAS# to CAS# delay 6 7 9 10
RAS# Precharge 6 7 9 10
TRAS 18 20 23 26
TRC 24 27 31 35

How can this info be showing different details when they are exactly the
same RAM out of exactly the same packages?
One set is showing bandwidth of 667MHz and the other set is showing 533MHz
etc etc.

Also the Chipset info shows:

Northbridge Intel P45/P43 rev. A3
Southbridge Intel 82801JR (ICH10R) rev. 00
Graphic Interface PCI-Express
PCI-E Link Width x16
PCI-E Max Link Width x16
Memory Type DDR3
Memory Size 4096 MBytes
Channels Dual (Symmetric)
Memory Frequency 533.3 MHz (5:8)
CAS# 9.0
RAS# to CAS# 9
RAS# Precharge 9
Cycle Time (tRAS) 24
Command Rate 2T


regards
Benny
Click to expand...

All I can say is... weird.

I don't think the BIOS has done a particularly bad thing in this case.
At least it selected safe values, even if the values are not as
aggressive as the SPD tables suggest.

On non-enthusiast memory, you expect every column in the SPD to
be valid. The frequencies chosen should preferably be "canonical"
ones, as then it makes it easier to for the BIOS to select the
same column from each DIMM pair, then take the slowest timings
from those two columns.

I suppose the BIOS could sweep for the slowest in both directions.
Like use the 593 column and the 533 column, and end up with
8-9-9-22 at 533.

Why not send your info to Corsair and ask them to explain ?

On an enthusiast memory, you expect the SPD to be largely
bogus. On an enthusiast memory, the customer expectation is
that the board will POST, and then the user can enter
the BIOS and make the "shrink-wrap" settings manually. For
example, if the RAM was supposed to run at 667MHz, an enthusiast
table night stop at 533MHz, and the first time the board starts,
it runs at 533MHz. The user then enters the BIOS and sets 667MHz
and the correct timings at that speed. If the BIOS battery
ever runs flat, the next time the system starts, it is at
533MHz again, and the board successfully POSTs. The user
is never in a position where they're not in control.

There was a time, when SPD problems prevented enthusiast memory
from even POSTing, forcing a user to insert a stick of
cheap RAM from Best Buy, to get the motherboard to start.

The 686 is also a bit weird, as it suggests a set of conditions
above the shrink-wrap rating ? Is the memory tested to those
values, as well as "9-9-9 @ 1333" ? My expectation would be
that any lengthy verification test at the factory, would be
at the shrink-wrap conditions.

As far as the SPD chips themselves are concerned, there are
two approaches.

On my Crucial modules, each module had a custom serial number
burned into the SPD. That implies the SPD is programmed separately
for each chip. Yet the timing tables all match.

I've also seen module pairs, where the SPD obviously come out
of a big barrel of identical chips. They could have been programmed
at the SPD factory for example. All the serial numbers are the
same (meaning the serial number is useless). There was even
one poster, who had a module where the SPD did not match
the module design (meaning they were so sloppy, they used
the wrong SPD chip entirely).

In your Corsair example, I see no logic to speak of :-) In
which case, I'd love to see their tech support explain it.

(Some canonical frequencies might be 400 for DDR3-800,
533 for DDR3-1066, and 667 for DDR3-1333.)

Paul
 
All I can say is... weird.

I don't think the BIOS has done a particularly bad thing in this case.
At least it selected safe values, even if the values are not as
aggressive as the SPD tables suggest.

On non-enthusiast memory, you expect every column in the SPD to
be valid. The frequencies chosen should preferably be "canonical"
ones, as then it makes it easier to for the BIOS to select the
same column from each DIMM pair, then take the slowest timings
from those two columns.

I suppose the BIOS could sweep for the slowest in both directions.
Like use the 593 column and the 533 column, and end up with
8-9-9-22 at 533.

Why not send your info to Corsair and ask them to explain ?

On an enthusiast memory, you expect the SPD to be largely
bogus. On an enthusiast memory, the customer expectation is
that the board will POST, and then the user can enter
the BIOS and make the "shrink-wrap" settings manually. For
example, if the RAM was supposed to run at 667MHz, an enthusiast
table night stop at 533MHz, and the first time the board starts,
it runs at 533MHz. The user then enters the BIOS and sets 667MHz
and the correct timings at that speed. If the BIOS battery
ever runs flat, the next time the system starts, it is at
533MHz again, and the board successfully POSTs. The user
is never in a position where they're not in control.

There was a time, when SPD problems prevented enthusiast memory
from even POSTing, forcing a user to insert a stick of
cheap RAM from Best Buy, to get the motherboard to start.

The 686 is also a bit weird, as it suggests a set of conditions
above the shrink-wrap rating ? Is the memory tested to those
values, as well as "9-9-9 @ 1333" ? My expectation would be
that any lengthy verification test at the factory, would be
at the shrink-wrap conditions.

As far as the SPD chips themselves are concerned, there are
two approaches.

On my Crucial modules, each module had a custom serial number
burned into the SPD. That implies the SPD is programmed separately
for each chip. Yet the timing tables all match.

I've also seen module pairs, where the SPD obviously come out
of a big barrel of identical chips. They could have been programmed
at the SPD factory for example. All the serial numbers are the
same (meaning the serial number is useless). There was even
one poster, who had a module where the SPD did not match
the module design (meaning they were so sloppy, they used
the wrong SPD chip entirely).

In your Corsair example, I see no logic to speak of :-) In
which case, I'd love to see their tech support explain it.

(Some canonical frequencies might be 400 for DDR3-800,
533 for DDR3-1066, and 667 for DDR3-1333.)

Paul
Click to expand...

Thanks Paul
I've sent a query through to Corsair.
Will let you know their reply.
Benny
 
Mr. Smith said:
Why are you asking here? This problem has nothing to do with XP
(Please read the group title).
Click to expand...

Ignore our resident mental retard.

Your question is welcome.
 
Back
Top