Jump to content

Welcome to MSFN Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account



Photo

Advice on a 64bit system upgrade

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
143 replies to this topic

#126
Dave-H

Dave-H

    Friend of MSFN

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 827 posts
  • Joined 04-January 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

PM sent.

 

Post #107 has a grab of Core Temp's output.

The guy at Supermicro said it reads directly from the processors and does not use the PECI system.

Personally I'd much rather have actual temperature readings anyway than just the "high" "medium" or "low" readings.

That seems rather useless to me! Not one of Intel's better ideas!

 

What do you think about the ECC errors?

I've found that I can switch the logging of just single bit ones off in the BIOS, so it only record multi-bit errors now.

I'm hoping that's OK to do.

:)


Dual boot Windows 98SE SP2.1a and Windows XP Professional SP3.
Dual 3.16GHz X5460 Quad Core Xeons with 8GB RAM. Asus AMD Radeon HD5450 Graphics 1920x1080 32 Bit Colour with Large Fonts.



How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#127
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 5,943 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Well, I'm not used to working with ECC RAM...
I sure don't like any hardware errors around, but ECC RAM is made to recover from errors.
That said, I think it odd those errors should be much frequent.
I think you should both delve into 'net looking for more info and ask your contacts at supermicro about it.
They've been so helpful up to now, I'm sure they can give you sure guidance regarding ECC RAM, since their boards always use it (or, at least, support it).

Having just looked at the pic in post # 107:
Core Temp does give what you want... the first column is current temp, core by core; the next two columns keep record of the maximum and minimum reached during the monitored period, so they help you become aware of peaks of temp when you're not at the console. Seems pretty complete for my taste. So, if you have balanced readings from both processors, then, of course, the PECI system is really faulty, but irrelevant, because you've got a much better way to keep track of the temps, using Core Temp. Great!

#128
Dave-H

Dave-H

    Friend of MSFN

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 827 posts
  • Joined 04-January 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Yes, I think Core Temp will do everything I need, it even has its own overheat notification system.

I wish you could completely turn off the PECI monitoring system, but I see no way of doing that unfortunately.

 

I had the same ECC errors on one of the four DIMMs that came with the motherboard, which is why I decided to get the others.

Also I reasoned that two DIMMs weren't going to produce as much heat as four, so I went for a couple of 4GB ones which doubled the amount of  memory with half the number of modules!

It seemed fine at first, but now I'm getting the same error messages from one of the replacements, and occasionally from the other one.

Again I guess that's the risk you take when you buy used hardware!

I have set it to hopefully still log multi-bit errors, so I will know if it gets worse.

:)


Dual boot Windows 98SE SP2.1a and Windows XP Professional SP3.
Dual 3.16GHz X5460 Quad Core Xeons with 8GB RAM. Asus AMD Radeon HD5450 Graphics 1920x1080 32 Bit Colour with Large Fonts.


#129
submix8c

submix8c

    Inconceivable!

  • Patrons
  • 4,325 posts
  • Joined 14-September 05
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

FWIW, you might -carefully- check the RAM contacts on the MoBo. I've used an -extremely- fine grit piece of sandpaper (folded) and run it through the slot to clear off the contacts then blown the residue out. It did help. Remember, -carefully- since they're -spring-loaded- so make sure they fully contact/"spring". Just a suggestion. :unsure:


Edited by submix8c, 20 October 2014 - 08:32 AM.

Someday the tyrants will be unthroned... Jason "Jay" Chasteen; RIP, bro!

Posted Image


#130
Dave-H

Dave-H

    Friend of MSFN

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 827 posts
  • Joined 04-January 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Thanks for that.

The first thing I did was properly clean the contacts on the DIMMs, but I only sprayed Isopropanol Cleaning Solvent into the sockets, as I was a bit scared of actually doing physical damage if I put any cleaning tool into them.

I convinced myself anyway that it was the modules that were faulty, not the sockets, because the errors moved to another slot when I swapped the modules.

That was a great relief as you can imagine!

If it persists I will try what you suggest though.

:)


Dual boot Windows 98SE SP2.1a and Windows XP Professional SP3.
Dual 3.16GHz X5460 Quad Core Xeons with 8GB RAM. Asus AMD Radeon HD5450 Graphics 1920x1080 32 Bit Colour with Large Fonts.


#131
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 5,943 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Did you clean the contacts on the modules, too? I bet you did, but maybe not this way: For that I habitually use a soft white rubber-eraser intended for retouching pencil-drawing. They are somewhat softer than the erasers that sometimes come on the near-end of some pencils, but they do a great job at cleaning module contacts, and you dont run the risk of shortening any contacts, if some rubber trimming remains clung to the module, after you brush them away before mounting. BTW, do your new modules have heat spreaders/dissipators?



#132
Dave-H

Dave-H

    Friend of MSFN

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 827 posts
  • Joined 04-January 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Yes I did clean the modules' contacts, as I said, but only with cleaning solvent on a cotton bud.

Perhaps I'll try the rubber eraser method next time I've got the covers off the machine.

The DIMMs do have some sort of metal heatsinks on them.

 

Attached File  DIMMs.jpg   140.73KB   0 downloads

 

These are the original 1GB DIMMs that came with the motherboard, but the present 4GB ones look physically the same.

When they say "hot surface" they're not kidding!

 

Just going ahead a bit now, and sorry this is probably now not in the right forum, but I'm starting to think about my 64 bit OS installation, which was the whole point of the motherboard upgrade.

I ran the MS Windows 8 compatibility checker, and it said that my processors "might" not support NX, which I gather is a malicious code execution prevention technology. If they don't, Windows 8/8.1 will not install.

According to the Sysinternals CoreInfo utility, my processors do support NX!

The MS utility says they don't or it's disabled in the BIOS, but there is no BIOS option for it that I can see.

I will obviously ask Supermicro about this, but I'm now worried that I could pay out for a full 64 bit install of Windows 8.1 Pro, only to find that it refuses to install! Windows 7 will be fine, but I'm still tempted to go for 8.1, simply because it is the most up to date OS, which I'll get the longest support for.

:no:


Edited by Dave-H, 20 October 2014 - 11:34 AM.

Dual boot Windows 98SE SP2.1a and Windows XP Professional SP3.
Dual 3.16GHz X5460 Quad Core Xeons with 8GB RAM. Asus AMD Radeon HD5450 Graphics 1920x1080 32 Bit Colour with Large Fonts.


#133
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 5,943 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

You're much better served by a 7 Ultimate 64 than by anything MS did afterwards, I regret to say, so don't hurry.

Your processor sure should support NX, and CPU-Z is the standard way to confirm it. What does CPU-Z say?



#134
Dave-H

Dave-H

    Friend of MSFN

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 827 posts
  • Joined 04-January 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Well, CPU-Z doesn't seem to mention NX, at least not by name, which is even more worrying!

I've attached the report so you can have a look.

To me this would seem to indicate that if the processors do support it, it's disabled somehow, but as I said I can't find any specific entry in the BIOS for it.

:no:

Attached File  CPU-Z.txt   88.01KB   3 downloads


Edited by Dave-H, 20 October 2014 - 12:37 PM.

Dual boot Windows 98SE SP2.1a and Windows XP Professional SP3.
Dual 3.16GHz X5460 Quad Core Xeons with 8GB RAM. Asus AMD Radeon HD5450 Graphics 1920x1080 32 Bit Colour with Large Fonts.


#135
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 5,943 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

They're Harpertowns... they all support the NX bit, AFAIK.



#136
Dave-H

Dave-H

    Friend of MSFN

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 827 posts
  • Joined 04-January 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Strange that CPU-Z and the MS Windows 8 compatibility program don't seem to be recognising this.

I will have to ask Supermicro whether the option is off by default, and if so, how to enable it!

:)


Dual boot Windows 98SE SP2.1a and Windows XP Professional SP3.
Dual 3.16GHz X5460 Quad Core Xeons with 8GB RAM. Asus AMD Radeon HD5450 Graphics 1920x1080 32 Bit Colour with Large Fonts.


#137
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 5,943 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

It may well be because you're on XP SP3 with PAE activate but DEP deactivated.
I just checked my other machine, an Asus P8Z68-V LX having a Core i7 3770K, and CPU-Z 1.69 didn't find the NX bit...
Later today I'll reboot it on 7 x64 and run CPU-Z again, then report back.
My 7 x64 sure has DEP activated (I doubt one can deactivate it on Win x64, BTW).

#138
submix8c

submix8c

    Inconceivable!

  • Patrons
  • 4,325 posts
  • Joined 14-September 05
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

FWIW, NX also goes by (AFAICR) two other acronyms in various BIOS.


Someday the tyrants will be unthroned... Jason "Jay" Chasteen; RIP, bro!

Posted Image


#139
Dave-H

Dave-H

    Friend of MSFN

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 827 posts
  • Joined 04-January 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Thanks.

The only even vaguely relevant entry I can see in the BIOS settings is this one -

 

Execute Disable Bit (Available if supported by the CPU & the OS.)
Set to Enabled to enable Execute Disable Bit and allow the processor to classify
areas in memory where an application code can execute and where it cannot, and
thus preventing a worm or a virus from inserting and creating a flood of codes to
overwhelm the processor or damage the system during an attack. The options are
Enabled and Disabled. (Note: For more information regarding hardware/software
support for this function, please refer to Intel's and Microsoft's web sites.)

 

Is that the NX bit?

If it is, it's already enabled, which is the default setting.

:unsure:


Edited by Dave-H, Yesterday, 02:05 PM.

Dual boot Windows 98SE SP2.1a and Windows XP Professional SP3.
Dual 3.16GHz X5460 Quad Core Xeons with 8GB RAM. Asus AMD Radeon HD5450 Graphics 1920x1080 32 Bit Colour with Large Fonts.


#140
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 5,943 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Yes, it is! :yes:

 

Turs out CPU-Z does not find (or even care to look for!) the NX bit eve when on 7 ultimate x64! :blink:

Hence, let's move on to the Flounder: try  CPUID Explorer.

I bet it'll find the NX bit in your processor.



#141
Dave-H

Dave-H

    Friend of MSFN

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 827 posts
  • Joined 04-January 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Thanks Den!

When I finally worked out how to run the thing, CPUID Explorer didn't actually mention NX specifically anywhere in its analysis results, but in one tab "CPUID(0x80000001)" in the "EDX" section it does display "Execute Disable Available" in green with a green "1" above it.

Is that it?

Attached File  CPUID Explorer.jpg   40.93KB   1 downloads


Dual boot Windows 98SE SP2.1a and Windows XP Professional SP3.
Dual 3.16GHz X5460 Quad Core Xeons with 8GB RAM. Asus AMD Radeon HD5450 Graphics 1920x1080 32 Bit Colour with Large Fonts.


#142
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 5,943 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Sure! :yes:



#143
Dave-H

Dave-H

    Friend of MSFN

  • MSFN Sponsor
  • 827 posts
  • Joined 04-January 06
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Sounds confirmed then, that's good!

:thumbup

I have asked Supermicro about it too.

I still have this horrible dread that I'll try and install Windows 8 and the installer will still say "no", as the compatibility checker did!

 

What I may do is try first using the Windows 8 Pro install disk that I already have. I do have a 64 bit disk as well as a 32 bit one.

I'm sure it won't work completely because I've already installed from the 32 bit disk onto my netbook so it will probably reject the serial number, but hopefully it will get far enough at least to tell me that it's happy with the hardware.

:)


Dual boot Windows 98SE SP2.1a and Windows XP Professional SP3.
Dual 3.16GHz X5460 Quad Core Xeons with 8GB RAM. Asus AMD Radeon HD5450 Graphics 1920x1080 32 Bit Colour with Large Fonts.


#144
dencorso

dencorso

    Iuvat plus qui nihil obstat

  • Supervisor
  • 5,943 posts
  • Joined 07-April 07
  • OS:98SE
  • Country: Country Flag

Donator

Sure it will. But, as I said, were I you, I'd stick to 7 ultimate x64, especially if you're contemplating buying a new FPP unit intended for the machine. And take care of installing to a separate HDD, with the current ones disconnected, or your trial install will become a big disaster, because the 7 and 8 installs do like to mess up with all partitions. Careful planing beforehand avoids mammoth headaches afterwards, you know!






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users