P4C800E deluxe Intel Prescott ready?

Ulrich F. Heidenreich · Nov 26, 2004

Hi!

I've tried to get one of those older Northwoods, but seemingly no dealer
is selling them anymore. So I will have to buy a Prescott instead, but
I'm not quite sure, if it is supported by the P4C800E deluxe. Is it?

TIA,
Ulrich

Bronney Hui · Nov 26, 2004

"Ulrich F. Heidenreich" <[email protected]> ???
???...
Hi!

I've tried to get one of those older Northwoods, but seemingly no dealer
is selling them anymore. So I will have to buy a Prescott instead, but
I'm not quite sure, if it is supported by the P4C800E deluxe. Is it?

TIA,
Ulrich

===

Yes it does.
http://www.asus.com/prog/spec.asp?m=P4C800-E Deluxe&langs=01
-Socket 478 for Intel Pentium 4/ Celeron up to 3.2 GHz+
-Intel Hyper-Threading Technology ready
-New power design supports Intel next generation Prescott CPU

Make sure you flash it to the latest bios.

Ulrich F. Heidenreich · Nov 26, 2004

Bronney Hui in said:
Yes it does.

Thanks a lot.

http://www.asus.com/prog/spec.asp?m=P4C800-E Deluxe&langs=01
-New power design supports Intel next generation Prescott CPU

This sentence is missing on ASUS' german site.

Make sure you flash it to the latest bios.

I've not bought it yet. I think, it will come with the latest one.

May I ask (you) too, if there are possible known problems, by putting a
Sapphire Radeon 8900 pro and two Kingston KVR400X64C3A/512 onto that
board? This memory is both mentioned within ASUS so called QVL at
http://www.asuscom.de/products/mb/socket478/P4C800_DDR400_QVL.pdf and
certified by Kingston to work on this board. I think, it will be the
right choice. Any hints regarding the vga card?

TIA,
Ulrich

MoFoYa · Nov 27, 2004

Hi!

I've tried to get one of those older Northwoods, but seemingly no dealer
is selling them anymore. So I will have to buy a Prescott instead, but
I'm not quite sure, if it is supported by the P4C800E deluxe. Is it?

TIA,
Ulrich
--
Sorry: English isn't my native language.
So please don't feel confused by that
dialect, I'm perhaps using instead ;-)

I just got that board like 2 weeks ago with a 3.2E prescott. flashing the
bios was not necessary, it worked flawlessly out of the box. I don't
recomment the intel HS/fan though. The prescott runs a bit hot, but after a
cooling upgrade the temps came down to a comfortable level.

tommy

Bob Willard · Nov 27, 2004

MoFoYa said:
Hi!

I've tried to get one of those older Northwoods, but seemingly no dealer
is selling them anymore. So I will have to buy a Prescott instead, but
I'm not quite sure, if it is supported by the P4C800E deluxe. Is it?

TIA,
Ulrich

It is.

Ralph Stens · Nov 27, 2004

Ulrich said:
Hi!

I've tried to get one of those older Northwoods, but seemingly no dealer
is selling them anymore. So I will have to buy a Prescott instead, but
I'm not quite sure, if it is supported by the P4C800E deluxe. Is it?

TIA,
Ulrich

Hello,

I use a P4 3.2GHz Prescott on the P4C800E-Deluxe with BIOS version 1019 -
no problems (OS Linux & Windows).

Ralph

============================================================
Ralph Stens
email : (e-mail address removed)
============================================================

Noozer · Nov 27, 2004

Bob Willard said:
It is.

Just be sure to flash the latest BIOS... Not sure if/when the Prescott
support was added for WinXP SP2

Ender · Nov 27, 2004

May I ask (you) too, if there are possible known problems, by putting a
Sapphire Radeon 8900 pro and two Kingston KVR400X64C3A/512 onto that
board? This memory is both mentioned within ASUS so called QVL at
http://www.asuscom.de/products/mb/socket478/P4C800_DDR400_QVL.pdf and
certified by Kingston to work on this board. I think, it will be the
right choice. Any hints regarding the vga card?

TIA,
Ulrich

Hello Ulrich,

If the Radeon you are asking about is actually a 9800 Pro (transposed
8 with 9?) there are no issues with this board and that video chipset.
The 9800 Pro runs beautifully on the P4C800E Deluxe.

Regards,

Ender.
____
[____]
(OIIIIIIO)
[] []

Ulrich F. Heidenreich · Nov 27, 2004

Ender in said:
If the Radeon you are asking about is actually a 9800 Pro

Sure it is.

(transposed 8 with 9?)

It looks like. Please ask my keyborad. It recently has a tendency to
turn letters round ...

there are no issues with this board and that video chipset.
The 9800 Pro runs beautifully on the P4C800E Deluxe.

Fine. Thanks.

CU!
Ulrich

Bob Willard · Nov 28, 2004

Noozer said:
Just be sure to flash the latest BIOS... Not sure if/when the Prescott
support was added for WinXP SP2

The Asus site says BIOS 1017 is needed for the 3.0 GHz Prescott CPU. But
I have no problems with a 3.0 GHz Prescott on my P4C800ED, using XP PRO SP2,
running the as-shipped 1012 BIOS; I don't use all of the MB's capabilities
(e.g., RAID), which may be why I'm getting by with an old BIOS.

The Asus site is not very detailed about what bugs were fixed in what BIOS
release. ISTR more detailed info about BIOS releases for my T2P4.

Ulrich F. Heidenreich · Jan 12, 2005

Ender in <
Sorry, me again ...

If the Radeon you are asking about is actually a 9800 Pro
Yes.

there are no issues with this board and that video chipset.
The 9800 Pro runs beautifully on the P4C800E Deluxe.

Except here :-(

Yesterday I at least got the entire stuff; here in Germany things were
sold out due to Christams: The board, two 512 MByte Kingston memory
sticks, an Aopen big tower H700A (btw a very good case, imho) and that
Sapphire Radeon 9800 Atlantis pro.

Win 98 SE installation seems to run fine. At least up to the point, when
I tried to install the graphic card drivers: As usual the systems wanted
to be rebooted after installing the drivers, it reboots properly, it
shows the network login dialog asking me for user and password and then
... a pretty empty desktop, cursor sticking to its hourglass, still
movable, but no desktop icons at all to click on. Boring, isn't it?

What may I have done wrong?

CU!
Ulrich

DanO · Jan 14, 2005

What may I have done wrong?

You tried installing a 7+ year old OS on a new MB. Grab a copy of XP Pro
and life will be much better for you and that system.

Ulrich F. Heidenreich · Jan 14, 2005

DanO in said:
You tried installing a 7+ year old OS on a new MB. Grab a copy of XP Pro
and life will be much better for you and that system.

Does that mean, it won't work at all, trying to install a win98 graphic
card's driver on a mainboard younger than 7 years? If that's true, I'm
*indeed* wasting time. Or are you just joking?

As I'm not really sure, if it is a hardware issue due to the board or
the graphic card or whatsoever, or just a software incompatibility, I
will be very pleased to get an honest answer: Does that catalyst driver
really won't work under win98SE?

Or do you just not recommend it, using an OS out of the museum :-)

TIA,
Ulrich

Austin P. So (Hae Jin) · Jan 14, 2005

Does that mean, it won't work at all, trying to install a win98 graphic
card's driver on a mainboard younger than 7 years? If that's true, I'm
*indeed* wasting time. Or are you just joking?

Win98SE can only handle 512 MB RAM maximum.

That is why your computer is not working...it has little to do with your
graphics card (at least I would be surprised if it mattered).

Just check by taking a stick of RAM out.

Austin

Paul · Jan 14, 2005

Does that mean, it won't work at all, trying to install a win98 graphic
card's driver on a mainboard younger than 7 years? If that's true, I'm
*indeed* wasting time. Or are you just joking?

As I'm not really sure, if it is a hardware issue due to the board or
the graphic card or whatsoever, or just a software incompatibility, I
will be very pleased to get an honest answer: Does that catalyst driver
really won't work under win98SE?

Or do you just not recommend it, using an OS out of the museum

TIA,
Ulrich

Sorry: English isn't my native language.
So please don't feel confused by that
dialect, I'm perhaps using instead ;-)

In your hardware config in the original post, you mention 1GB of
RAM. There are issues with Win98SE and more than 512MB of RAM.

A quick test for you, is remove one stick of RAM, and continue
your installation efforts. If the stuff installs properly, then
do a search in Google, for the two .ini fixes that allow
operation with more RAM.

Looking at an Asus web page for their 9800pro video card, it
seems the drivers are for Win2K/WinXP. So it is possible that
DanO is right.

http://www.asus.com.tw/support/download/item.aspx?ModelName=A9800 SERIES

If you go to the ATI driver download page and select Win98:

http://mirror.ati.com/support/driver.html

you will end up here:

http://mirror.ati.com/support/drive...rod=productsME98driver&submit.x=13&submit.y=7

and they offer the Catalyst 4.10 driver. 19.4MB. Posted 10/28/04
Give this a try.

http://www2.ati.com/drivers/wme-8-03-98-2-041020a-018705e.exe

Good luck,
Paul

Ulrich F. Heidenreich · Jan 14, 2005

Austin P. So (Hae Jin) in said:
Win98SE can only handle 512 MB RAM maximum.

That's not basically true. I've another machine - ASUS CUV4XD - running
fine with 1 GByte of RAM under Win98 SE. I even run 768 MByte on an ASUS
P2B-LS using Win 95.

The ini patches, Paul mentioned in
<are installed only due to
other reasons. No Problems without them with the graphic card drivers at
all: On the P2B-LS a really ancient GForce 256; in the CUV4XD a Matrox
G550. But maybe ATI cards and their catalyst drivers are more sensitive
.... :-(

Just check by taking a stick of RAM out.

Thanks a lot Austin and of course Paul: That's exactly what I'll check
out tomorrow.

CU!
Ulrich

Ulrich F. Heidenreich · Jan 14, 2005

Austin P. So (Hae Jin) in said:
Win98SE can only handle 512 MB RAM maximum.

That's not basically true. I've another machine - ASUS CUV4XD - running
fine with 1 GByte of RAM under Win98 SE. I even run 768 MByte on an ASUS
P2B-LS using Win 95.

The ini patches, Paul mentioned in
<are installed only due to
other reasons. No Problems without them with the graphic card drivers at
all: On the P2B-LS a really ancient GForce 256; in the CUV4XD a Matrox
G550. But maybe ATI cards and their catalyst drivers are more sensitive
... :-(

Just check by taking a stick of RAM out.

Thanks a lot Austin and of course Paul: That's exactly what I'll check
out tomorrow.

CU!
Ulrich

Ulrich F. Heidenreich · Jan 16, 2005

Paul in said:
In your hardware config in the original post, you mention 1GB of
RAM. There are issues with Win98SE and more than 512MB of RAM.

I remember.

A quick test for you, is remove one stick of RAM, and continue
your installation efforts. If the stuff installs properly, then
do a search in Google, for the two .ini fixes that allow
operation with more RAM.

Meanwhile I've tried it the other way round: First made the patches,
which worked fine under Win95 on a P2B-LS and Win98SE on an CUV4XD. But
that was without success. Then I removed one of the sticks, and at last
I can install the drivers. But not completely: The "ATI Control Panel"
failed to start, claiming that there were no ATI video drivers
installed.

Remembering, that some posts here said, that board and card will be a
very fine couple, a very frustrating result ...

Looking at an Asus web page for their 9800pro video card, it
seems the drivers are for Win2K/WinXP.

The ATI Setup explizitely titled itself as "Windows 98 Driver install".
That will be not the issue. I rather guess, the drivers are just poorly
designed. More then 512 MByte RAM without (sic!) any patches crashes
neither my GeForce 256 nor the Matrox G550 drivers on the above
mentioned systems.

http://www2.ati.com/drivers/wme-8-03-98-2-041020a-018705e.exe

BTDT. No succes with 1 GByte of RAM.

Good luck,

Thanks. I guess, I'll need it somehow ... :-\

CU!
Ulrich

Paul · Jan 17, 2005

I remember.

Meanwhile I've tried it the other way round: First made the patches,
which worked fine under Win95 on a P2B-LS and Win98SE on an CUV4XD. But
that was without success. Then I removed one of the sticks, and at last
I can install the drivers. But not completely: The "ATI Control Panel"
failed to start, claiming that there were no ATI video drivers
installed.=20

Remembering, that some posts here said, that board and card will be a
very fine couple, a very frustrating result ...=20

The ATI Setup explizitely titled itself as "Windows 98 Driver install".
That will be not the issue. I rather guess, the drivers are just poorly
designed. More then 512 MByte RAM without (sic!) any patches crashes
neither my GeForce 256 nor the Matrox G550 drivers on the above
mentioned systems. =20

BTDT. No succes with 1 GByte of RAM.

Thanks. I guess, I'll need it somehow ... :-\=20

CU!
Ulrich
--=20
Sorry: English isn't my native language.
So please don't feel confused by that
dialect, I'm perhaps using instead ;-)

I trust you have installed the Intel chipset drivers. They are
referred to sometimes as INFINST.exe . Check your motherboard
CD for a copy, or visit downloadfinder.intel.com and try and
find the relevant version there.

The ATI installation software may also get picky about the
version of DirectX you are using. You could try a DirectX
upgrade in that case.

http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/search.aspx?displaylang=en&categoryid=2

But right now, I would search for a chipset INFINST driver
set to install.

Video card software only really installs in one order -
chipset_drivers, ATI_video_card_driver, ATI_control_panel

and the installer will complain at some point, about DirectX,
but I don't remember exactly which step that would be.
In any case, the computer will request enough reboots, to
enforce that installation order. Since you can install the
same version of DirectX over and over again, without harm,
you could start the install process with the DirectX upgrade
if you want.

I still think there is hope. Think positive thoughts :-)

Paul

Ulrich F. Heidenreich · Jan 17, 2005

And now the, somehow surprising, solution:

I removed the ATI drivers once more and did a new installation again.
Voilà: Drivers *and* control panel were working fine. Then I replaced
the removed 512 MByte stick just for fun, expecting to see a crash
again. As we say in German: "Denkste!" (Sorry: I don't know the english
phrase). The driver keeps working fine even with 1 GByte of memory.

Obviously only the driver _installation_ routine had problems with that
large amount of memory and messed it up.

I trust you have installed the Intel chipset drivers.

Sure. Without them you won't get rid of numerous yellow question marks
in the device manager. They are installed, of course.

The ATI installation software may also get picky about the
version of DirectX you are using. You could try a DirectX
upgrade in that case.

The DirectX ist 9.0 and has been installed by the ATI Driver setup prior
to installing the driver itself.

I still think there is hope. Think positive thoughts

Thanks a lot. At last it helped. :-)

CU!
Ulrich