|
pc
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New system crashing. : (
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" <om.newsgr***@gmail.com> wrote in message run a RAM testnews:1109723418.167235.312640@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > 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 > or try clocking down the system a bit and see if you can get it stable On 1 Mar 2005 17:13:44 -0800, "OM" <om.newsgr***@gmail.com> wrote: There are free programs one popular one is memtest86. >how would i run a ram test? 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? Just set the FSB lower than 200 - like 166. Check the temps with the free program Motherboard Monitor - do a simple search and download. In article <1109723418.167235.312***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
om.newsgr***@gmail.com says... Show quoteHide quote > I've got a fresh installation of XP, and randomly (without doing I'd say heat. Run a temp monitor and see what you've got. You may not > 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 > > have installed the heat sink correctly.
Show quote
Hide quote
"theyak" <y**@dev.null> wrote in message Its that damned board thats your problem. I have two and the both have news:MPG.1c8ef258b57ddf7e989fef@news.easynews.com... > In article <1109723418.167235.312***@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, > om.newsgr***@gmail.com says... >> 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 >> >> > > > I'd say heat. Run a temp monitor and see what you've got. You may not > have installed the heat sink correctly. 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. Hi,
download memtest86 from here, http://www.memtest86.com/ burn it to a cd and reboot your system from it. The longer you run it the more accurate it will be. Myabe over night or something. Rex 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. In article <1109821007.886353.301***@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"OM" <om.newsgr***@gmail.com> wrote: Sounds like you have the same cpu as me... the Athlon XP 3200+ runs at > 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. 2.2 GHz normally. Not sure what you mean by "maximum of 3000"... is that a motherboard overclock setting? -- Steve Kives -- Unix sysadmin/netadmin -- Denver, CO Forward and fiaka, Manacle an den gosaka 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?? In article <1109872632.234939.69***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"OM" <om.newsgr***@gmail.com> wrote: That's what the "+" in "3200+" is there for -- a footnote. > 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?? 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. -- Steve Kives -- Unix sysadmin/netadmin -- Denver, CO Forward and fiaka, Manacle an den gosaka 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. Show quoteHide quote "chocolatemalt" <chocolatemalt@dim=dot=com.invalid> wrote in message news:chocolatemalt-01DA1F.11255603032005@news.isp.giganews.com... > In article <1109872632.234939.69***@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, > "OM" <om.newsgr***@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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?? > > 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. > > -- > Steve Kives -- Unix sysadmin/netadmin -- Denver, CO > Forward and fiaka, Manacle an den gosaka "Veritech" <avis.dalrym***@ntlworld.com> wrote in message Or Jet Airliners in the area will start crashing when you boot up.news:ICNVd.1290$077.490@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net... > What ever you do don't run it at 3.2ghz, otherwise you might have a fire > on your hands. "OM" <om.newsgr***@gmail.com> wrote in message kingston memory sucks.. I have bought it off the shelf at office depot and news:1109821007.886353.301430@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... > 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. 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. On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 08:37:31 GMT, "Morituri-|-Max"
<new***@sendarico.net> wrote: Show quoteHide quote > Hmm, plenty of people use Kingston w/o problems...>"OM" <om.newsgr***@gmail.com> wrote in message >news:1109821007.886353.301430@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... >> 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. > >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. > >
Show quote
Hide quote
"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message Plenty of people use generic power supplies without problems too..news:bsaj21dq421r29lrpegb4hjpa4bpj260o9@4ax.com... > On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 08:37:31 GMT, "Morituri-|-Max" > <new***@sendarico.net> wrote: > >> >>"OM" <om.newsgr***@gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:1109821007.886353.301430@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... >>> 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. >> >>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. > > Hmm, plenty of people use Kingston w/o problems... 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. On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 19:00:55 GMT, "Morituri-|-Max"
<new***@sendarico.net> wrote: Show quoteHide quote >"kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message You countered your own argument . Thats why you say *I* have had>news:bsaj21dq421r29lrpegb4hjpa4bpj260o9@4ax.com... >> On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 08:37:31 GMT, "Morituri-|-Max" >> <new***@sendarico.net> wrote: >> >>> >>>"OM" <om.newsgr***@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>news:1109821007.886353.301430@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com... >>>> 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. >>> >>>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. >> >> Hmm, plenty of people use Kingston w/o problems... > >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. 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. "Pacheko" <B**@Pacheko.com> wrote in message No, I didn't. Kingston memory sucks.news:je3k21ddos6foskkrv09lfisg6gcp1mo4p@4ax.com... > 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. On Sun, 06 Mar 2005 02:22:48 GMT, "Morituri-|-Max"
<new***@sendarico.net> wrote: Show quoteHide quote >"Pacheko" <B**@Pacheko.com> wrote in message If Kingston memory works for most people but not for you,>news:je3k21ddos6foskkrv09lfisg6gcp1mo4p@4ax.com... > >> 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. > >No, I didn't. Kingston memory sucks. > what is it that sucks? 
Other interesting topics
To buy tigerdirect or not to buy tigerdirect?
[OT] Seek 'usage timer' utility to stop Net addiction! Find Out What Causes IRQ Conflict, Sticky Mouse, and Stuttering Video Pentium 4 or AMD Althon ? What to look for in a case? Rebooting Problems! Power Supply What's the *most recommended* way to backup an image of a system? Netgear ME102 Wireless AP Is it OK to have an AGP graphics card AND a PCI one? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
