P4P800-E: Getting Goofey After New Memory Install?

Old Memory: two 512-meg Crucial DDR 400

New Memory: four 1-GB Crucial DDR UNBUFF DIMM 128mx64

At initial boot with the new memory the MB issued something about
not buying the existing over clocking settings (which I never set
- I assume there was something set at the factory).

I hit F2 "To restore defaults" and it booted ok and Windows XP
Pro started up.

Ran a benchmark before/after and the numbers were slightly worse
*after*.

Then, at a subsequent Windows XP Pro startup, it began throwing a
Found New Hardware Wizard for "RAID Controller".

Anybody got an idea of what might be going on?
--
PeteCresswell

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
> Old Memory: two 512-meg Crucial DDR 400
>
> New Memory: four 1-GB Crucial DDR UNBUFF DIMM 128mx64
>
> At initial boot with the new memory the MB issued something about
> not buying the existing over clocking settings (which I never set
> - I assume there was something set at the factory).
>
> I hit F2 "To restore defaults" and it booted ok and Windows XP
> Pro started up.
>
> Ran a benchmark before/after and the numbers were slightly worse
> *after*.
>
> Then, at a subsequent Windows XP Pro startup, it began throwing a
> Found New Hardware Wizard for "RAID Controller".
>
> Anybody got an idea of what might be going on?

An "overclocking failure", is the BIOS using a flag to detect
a previous crash. When you start the computer, the BIOS at
some point is supposed to clear a flag in hardware. If, during
a subsequent POST, the flag is still set, the BIOS concludes
that the computer crashed during the previous session. The message
indicates an "overclocking failure", but in fact it can be caused
by any crash event, that prevents the flag from being cleared
before the next session. The response, when that happens, is
to *reset* all the BIOS settings to defaults. (The detection
and resetting feature is designed to help overclockers while
they are experimenting, but for the inexperienced user, the
feature tends to "shoot them in the foot". The error message
should have been changed, to indicate "some kind of crash
happened, so I'm resetting your settings".)

This was pretty annoying on my P4C800-E, because I had some
non-default settings at one time, for the disk interfaces.
For example, the Promise controller has some options that
I had to restore, every time this happens.

If the BIOS decides to reset the settings, on some occasion,
then the result can be a refusal to boot. Entering the
BIOS, and restoring the disk related settings, and the boot
order, may be all that is needed to set it right.

You can use CPUZ to verify what the BIOS settings are with
two sticks versus four sticks. If the motherboard decided to
use a different memory clock divider, for the heavier loading
case, that might be why the benchmark is different. With
FSB800, the memory can run at DDR400, DDR320, or DDR266.
CPUZ will help you verify what is going on. It could
even be, that the new memory has a higher stock CAS value.

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

Paul

Most consumer grade motherboards do NOT like having all four RAM slots
populated; it tends to result in timing problems for the RAM. You are MUCH
better off using two 2 GB sticks to get 4 GB of RAM total.

--
--DaveW


"(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote in message
news:cbh55418fse3cfn3i547cvanmp6eos203v@4ax.com...
> Old Memory: two 512-meg Crucial DDR 400
>
> New Memory: four 1-GB Crucial DDR UNBUFF DIMM 128mx64
>
> At initial boot with the new memory the MB issued something about
> not buying the existing over clocking settings (which I never set
> - I assume there was something set at the factory).
>
> I hit F2 "To restore defaults" and it booted ok and Windows XP
> Pro started up.
>
> Ran a benchmark before/after and the numbers were slightly worse
> *after*.
>
> Then, at a subsequent Windows XP Pro startup, it began throwing a
> Found New Hardware Wizard for "RAID Controller".
>
> Anybody got an idea of what might be going on?
> --
> PeteCresswell

DaveW wrote:
> Most consumer grade motherboards do NOT like having all four RAM slots
> populated; it tends to result in timing problems for the RAM. You are MUCH
> better off using two 2 GB sticks to get 4 GB of RAM total.
>

My P5P800 has no problems running 3 GB of memory at full speed. I have
2 512 MB sticks and 2 1 GB sticks and all are running at 800 MHz.

Per Michael W. Ryder:
>My P5P800 has no problems running 3 GB of memory at full speed. I have
>2 512 MB sticks and 2 1 GB sticks and all are running at 800 MHz.

Maybe I'll try that.

Use the leftovers for the other PC if they're compatible.
--
PeteCresswell

Per Paul:
>This was pretty annoying on my P4C800-E, because I had some
>non-default settings at one time, for the disk interfaces.
>For example, the Promise controller has some options that
>I had to restore, every time this happens.

Now that you've said it, that's probably the explanation for the
RAID driver prompt - IIRC, I had disabled it and resetting to
defaults probably brought it back.
--
PeteCresswell

Per (PeteCresswell):
>Now that you've said it, that's probably the explanation for the
>RAID driver prompt - IIRC, I had disabled it and resetting to
>defaults probably brought it back.

Nope. I was lying. Without it, recognizes the C: (system)
drive, but doesn't recognize my other SATA drive - that I use for
data.

But Windows XP Pro still wants a driver or something for "RAID
Controller".

FWIW, in the BIOS, I set the Promise controller to IDE instead of
RAID hoping to get around the driver prompt.... but to no avail.

Funny thing is that otherwise the system seems tb running ok.
--
PeteCresswell

OT:
would consider Asus P5E-WS-PRO or maximizer consumer grade in the sense they
can not take on full load (2 sets of 2x2 matched ddr800) at full speed
(800Mhz)?
anyone has success on either of the above?

"DaveW" <radiation@nuclear.org> wrote in message
news:vp6dnXOiMp-HcM_VnZ2dnUVZ_r3inZ2d@comcast.com...
> Most consumer grade motherboards do NOT like having all four RAM slots
> populated; it tends to result in timing problems for the RAM. You are
MUCH
> better off using two 2 GB sticks to get 4 GB of RAM total.
>
> --
> --DaveW
>
>
> "(PeteCresswell)" <x@y.Invalid> wrote in message
> news:cbh55418fse3cfn3i547cvanmp6eos203v@4ax.com...
> > Old Memory: two 512-meg Crucial DDR 400
> >
> > New Memory: four 1-GB Crucial DDR UNBUFF DIMM 128mx64
> >
> > At initial boot with the new memory the MB issued something about
> > not buying the existing over clocking settings (which I never set
> > - I assume there was something set at the factory).
> >
> > I hit F2 "To restore defaults" and it booted ok and Windows XP
> > Pro started up.
> >
> > Ran a benchmark before/after and the numbers were slightly worse
> > *after*.
> >
> > Then, at a subsequent Windows XP Pro startup, it began throwing a
> > Found New Hardware Wizard for "RAID Controller".
> >
> > Anybody got an idea of what might be going on?
> > --
> > PeteCresswell
>
>

DaveW wrote:
> Most consumer grade motherboards do NOT like having all four RAM slots
> populated; it tends to result in timing problems for the RAM. You are MUCH
> better off using two 2 GB sticks to get 4 GB of RAM total.
>

My machine runs four sticks at the same speed as two sticks.
And doesn't even break a sweat.

With Intel, this may be due to the use of 2T command rate at
all times. If a Northbridge design is set up that way, that
provides plenty of compensation for the extra bus loading
of four sticks.

Paul

On Jun 13, 6:03 pm, "DaveW" <radiat...@nuclear.org> wrote:
> Most consumer grade motherboards do NOT like having all four RAM slots
> populated; it tends to result in timing problems for the RAM. You are MUCH
> better off using two 2 GB sticks to get 4 GB of RAM total.

I've got 4x1GB in my M2AVM HDMI and it works just fine. With an AMD
64X2
5600+ and RHEL4 running in SMP mode, this thing positively screams!
Oracle performance is simply amazing with 2x250 GB SATA II drives...