New system crashing. : (

  • Thread starter Thread starter OM
  • Start date Start date
O

OM

I've got a fresh installation of XP, and randomly (without doing
anything) it will crash.

I have a brand new system with all new parts:

- Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe.
- SATA hard drive.
- Kingston memory.
- Seagate hard drive.
- AMD 3200 Athlon Barton CPU

The only older parts are:

- Sony CD writer.
- External DVD writer.
- dual head PCI graphics card.

I've spoken to someone and they have suggested that the graphics card
must be the problem. They've suggested that the fact the motherboard
has an external CPU speed of 200mhz on the BIOS is the problem.

What is the external CPU speed?

If I HAVE to, then I will change the graphics card.
But I need to be sure.

I have ALL the latest drivers for the motherboard installed as well.

Also, COULD the problem be with Windows XP?
On my system, I DON'T have ANY other programs installed at present.

ANY help/feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.


OM
 
OM said:
I've got a fresh installation of XP, and randomly (without doing
anything) it will crash.

I have a brand new system with all new parts:

- Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe.
- SATA hard drive.
- Kingston memory.
- Seagate hard drive.
- AMD 3200 Athlon Barton CPU
Click to expand...

run a RAM test
or try clocking down the system a bit and see if you can get it stable
 
I've got a fresh installation of XP, and randomly (without doing
anything) it will crash.

I have a brand new system with all new parts:

- Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe.
- SATA hard drive.
- Kingston memory.
- Seagate hard drive.
- AMD 3200 Athlon Barton CPU

The only older parts are:

- Sony CD writer.
- External DVD writer.
- dual head PCI graphics card.

I've spoken to someone and they have suggested that the graphics card
must be the problem. They've suggested that the fact the motherboard
has an external CPU speed of 200mhz on the BIOS is the problem.

What is the external CPU speed?

If I HAVE to, then I will change the graphics card.
But I need to be sure.

I have ALL the latest drivers for the motherboard installed as well.

Also, COULD the problem be with Windows XP?
On my system, I DON'T have ANY other programs installed at present.

ANY help/feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks.


OM
Click to expand...


I'd say heat. Run a temp monitor and see what you've got. You may not
have installed the heat sink correctly.
 
how would i run a ram test?
Click to expand...

There are free programs one popular one is memtest86.
Do a simple search in google and you can download it for free.
Copy it to a floppy and boot up with it and then it runs.

Theres also a CD image you can download called ultimate boot with
memtest - two versions and lots of other utils on it . YOu can burn it
to CD and boot up with the CD.
how can i clock the system down?
Click to expand...

Just set the FSB lower than 200 - like 166.

Check the temps with the free program Motherboard Monitor - do a
simple search and download.
 
theyak said:
I'd say heat. Run a temp monitor and see what you've got. You may not
have installed the heat sink correctly.
Click to expand...

Its that damned board thats your problem. I have two and the both have
terrible compatability problems. They both have restarting problems. No heat
problems. Different name brand PSU's. Different namebrand ram. Nvidia and an
ATI videocard. DIFFERENT CASES! DIFFERENT KEEYBOARDS!!!

I think you get the clue. The board sucks!
 
now u tell me! : )
i actually bought the motherboard because it had rave reviews on
ebuyer. : (
 
heat not a prob.
i've monitored the system for lengthy amounts of time.
there's a motherbaord utility that gives the temp - it's more or less
constant at 43 degrees.
 
erm... i 'think' i've found the problem.
i'd done EVERYTHING to check that my system was ok.
the only thing i hadn't done was to test the memory.
i had bought kingston memory.
foolishly i thought that kingston memory would never fail - especially
when it was brand new.

well... i got memtest and tested...
it came up with 2 errors veyr quickly.

i've now replaced with ddr333 and the system seems to be much much more
stable.
i haven't had a single crash.

THANKS for all of the replies.

just one thing...
the system is reported to be running at 2200 ghz, with a maximum of
3000.
i have an amd 3200 athlon. memory should be ddr400.
is this speed decrease to do with the memory?
let me know. thanks.
 
OM said:
just one thing...
the system is reported to be running at 2200 ghz, with a maximum of
3000.
i have an amd 3200 athlon. memory should be ddr400.
is this speed decrease to do with the memory?
let me know. thanks.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you have the same cpu as me... the Athlon XP 3200+ runs at
2.2 GHz normally.

Not sure what you mean by "maximum of 3000"... is that a motherboard
overclock setting?
 
i installed tools for the motherboard and that's what it reports.

what do u mean it runs at 2.2GHz?

am i being stoopid... but why shouldn't it run at 3.2Ghz??
i assume 3.2Ghz = 3200??
 
OM said:
i installed tools for the motherboard and that's what it reports.

what do u mean it runs at 2.2GHz?

am i being stoopid... but why shouldn't it run at 3.2Ghz??
i assume 3.2Ghz = 3200??
Click to expand...

That's what the "+" in "3200+" is there for -- a footnote.

Here's the official word:

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_3734_116
72,00.html

The performance rating allows AMD to market their cpu's on a more even
basis with Intel, who traditionally have had the worst perf-to-MHz ratio
of any processor manufacturer.
 
What ever you do don't run it at 3.2ghz, otherwise you might have a fire on
your hands.

you have been warned, lol.
 
OM said:
erm... i 'think' i've found the problem.
i'd done EVERYTHING to check that my system was ok.
the only thing i hadn't done was to test the memory.
i had bought kingston memory.
foolishly i thought that kingston memory would never fail - especially
when it was brand new.

well... i got memtest and tested...
it came up with 2 errors veyr quickly.
Click to expand...

kingston memory sucks.. I have bought it off the shelf at office depot and
also from newegg, both times I had serious problems..

go crucial.com or mushkin or even corsair unless you have found a better
supplier of dependable memory since the kingston debacle.
 
Veritech said:
What ever you do don't run it at 3.2ghz, otherwise you might have a fire
on your hands.
Click to expand...

Or Jet Airliners in the area will start crashing when you boot up.
 
kingston memory sucks.. I have bought it off the shelf at office depot and
also from newegg, both times I had serious problems..

go crucial.com or mushkin or even corsair unless you have found a better
supplier of dependable memory since the kingston debacle.
Click to expand...

Hmm, plenty of people use Kingston w/o problems...
 
kony said:
Hmm, plenty of people use Kingston w/o problems...
Click to expand...

Plenty of people use generic power supplies without problems too..

Plenty of people go through life without getting cancer.

Plenty of people never have car accidents.

Plenty of people still use old x486 processors without problems.

Plenty of people still use windows 3.1 as the primary OS in their homes with
no problems.

Plenty of people never get audited by the IRS.

Plenty of people go on pleasure cruises without getting sick.

Plenty of people never have a hard drive crash on them.
 
Plenty of people use generic power supplies without problems too..

Plenty of people go through life without getting cancer.

Plenty of people never have car accidents.

Plenty of people still use old x486 processors without problems.
Click to expand...

You countered your own argument . Thats why you say *I* have had
problems. You don't generalize and imply that *all* Kingston Memory
"sucks" and that you *have* to get corsair or crucial memory though
it's perfectly fine to say , you prefer to use what you percieve to be
"quality" brands because you have had bad experiences. This news
group is getting a bit ridiculous. I'm one of the "plenty of people"
who has used kingston in a variety of boards , including amd 64
systems and havent had a problem, and have also tested it with
memtest86.
 
You countered your own argument . Thats why you say *I* have had
problems. You don't generalize and imply that *all* Kingston Memory
"sucks" and that you *have* to get corsair or crucial memory though
it's perfectly fine to say , you prefer to use what you percieve to be
"quality" brands because you have had bad experiences. This news
group is getting a bit ridiculous. I'm one of the "plenty of people"
who has used kingston in a variety of boards , including amd 64
systems and havent had a problem, and have also tested it with
memtest86.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't. Kingston memory sucks.
 
Back
Top