Fatality FP-IN9 SLI & Q9550 E0
Hi Guys,
I would really appreciate some experienced opinions. I am very experienced with IT both hardware and software but feel that a few suggestions from some fellow techs could help me. Anyway I had a build consisting of the following.
fp-in9 sli mobo
penmtium d 915 2.83ghz
ati x1950 512mb
3gb crucial ballistix ram
I decided to upgrade and bought a core 2 quad q9550 E0 stepping version. Immediatly I ran into problems as the abit website had said that it supported the q9550 when in fact the temps are all wrong for the e0 version. Anyway I installed the update for the board posted by the guy from abit on this forum and all seemed good. The temps seem fine and I started to install a fresh copy of windows xp pro sp3. I can go all the way through the initial install process, i.e. formatting , copying files, but when I restart to actually begin the install process, the windows boot screen comes up and the blue loading icon moves for about 5 seconds then it goes to blue screen error(the actual error changes from time to time(irql_not_less_or_equal) is common though). My question is, is this likely to be a faulty processor or is the board bad. I have checked the ram and its fine. Surely if I can go through the loading , formatting copying process without problem the cpu must be fine. If it is the board thats wrong I can replace it, my main concern is to find out if its the processor so I can return it. I would really appreciate your help quickly guys. Thanks in advance for any suggestions.
Cheers,
Bar.:telephone:
Re: Fatality FP-IN9 SLI & Q9550 E0
my 1st guess would be a voltage (memory, chipset, CPU etc.) needing a tweek.
Re: Fatality FP-IN9 SLI & Q9550 E0
Hi Buff,
Thanks for the quick reply. I am experienced in IT and pc building but am not experienced with overclocking at all. How would I go about tweaking those values. I know where to tweak them but what values would be acceptable.
Cheers,
Bar.
Re: Fatality FP-IN9 SLI & Q9550 E0
for DDR2 2.1v is usually the norm and your CPU will run at 'auto' if you've not overclocked it.
Re: Fatality FP-IN9 SLI & Q9550 E0
Hi Guys,
This matter has been solved. I have confirmed that the cpu and other hardware is perfect. I used a live disk and it ran fine. There seems to be a problem with the sata controllers on the board. Anyway the board is proving to be a bit buggy for my liking so I have upgraded to an asus P5E3. Thanks for the suggestions.
Cheers,
Barry:rockon2:
Re: Fatality FP-IN9 SLI & Q9550 E0
Quote:
Originally Posted by
joroya
Hi Guys,
I would really appreciate some experienced opinions. I am very experienced with IT both hardware and software but feel that a few suggestions from some fellow techs could help me. Anyway I had a build consisting of the following.
fp-in9 sli mobo
penmtium d 915 2.83ghz
ati x1950 512mb
3gb crucial ballistix ram
I decided to upgrade and bought a core 2 quad q9550 E0 stepping version. Immediatly I ran into problems as the abit website had said that it supported the q9550 when in fact the temps are all wrong for the e0 version. Anyway I installed the update for the board posted by the guy from abit on this forum and all seemed good. The temps seem fine and I started to install a fresh copy of windows xp pro sp3. I can go all the way through the initial install process, i.e. formatting , copying files, but when I restart to actually begin the install process, the windows boot screen comes up and the blue loading icon moves for about 5 seconds then it goes to blue screen error(the actual error changes from time to time(irql_not_less_or_equal) is common though). My question is, is this likely to be a faulty processor or is the board bad. I have checked the ram and its fine. Surely if I can go through the loading , formatting copying process without problem the cpu must be fine. If it is the board thats wrong I can replace it, my main concern is to find out if its the processor so I can return it. I would really appreciate your help quickly guys. Thanks in advance for any suggestions.
Cheers,
Bar.:telephone:
650i chipset does not support officially core 2 quad 45nm cpu's.....
Re: Fatality FP-IN9 SLI & Q9550 E0
Man,
You are using BIOS 18 for this CPU ritgh?
My sugestion is that you Flash again your BIOS, this time UNDER DOS MODE, NOT WINDOWS. Create a bootdisk and boot in normal DOS mode (NOT FlashMenu/WinFlash), flash your BIOS again, and after that run a CLEAR CMOS, just like some folks recommended to me. After doint this my C0 45nm E8400 worked very fine... :D
Also, if you have 4 sticks of DDR2 i suggest a little overvolt, 1.95v for normal 1.8v DDR2 and set the Reference Memory Voltage to +2%.
Good Luck dude....
Re: Fatality FP-IN9 SLI & Q9550 E0
Both 45 nm and 65nm Quads?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
svkap
650i chipset does not support officially core 2 quad cpu's.....
Re: Fatality FP-IN9 SLI & Q9550 E0
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jclafi
Both 45 nm and 65nm Quads?
opssssss... I would say only 45nm Quads, of course :)
I just edited my post, thx!
Re: Fatality FP-IN9 SLI & Q9550 E0
Unless the VRM on the FP-IN9 is severely flawed, I can't see any reason why it should specifically have issues with 45nm quads... The C55 NB is also used in 680i, 750i and 780i, all of which work fine with 45nm quads (well, bar early revision 680i boards but that's nothing to do with the chipset :p)
Personally, I just think the FP-IN9 is rubbish. Mine was probably the most unstable board I've ever owned (although my EPoX 8KDA3J+ was a close second with similar BIOS/CMOS setting loss bugs although at least its SATA drivers didn't hose my Windows install every couple of weeks :mad:) and I never even put a quad near it.
Hopefully my IN9 32X-Max will restore my faith in Abit... And nVidia chipsets...
Re: Fatality FP-IN9 SLI & Q9550 E0
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Azurael
Unless the VRM on the FP-IN9 is severely flawed, I can't see any reason why it should specifically have issues with 45nm quads... The C55 NB is also used in 680i, 750i and 780i, all of which work fine with 45nm quads (well, bar early revision 680i boards but that's nothing to do with the chipset :p)
got a lot to do with the nVidia design guidelines & of course Intel not telling nVidia everything upfront.
You won't find a single 650i SLI mobo that will clock past middle 300s fsb with a quad, 65nm or 45nm.
I haven't checked but I would be very surprised if any of them officially support 45nm quads (my P5N-E SLI doesn't).
Re: Fatality FP-IN9 SLI & Q9550 E0
Sad to know that your IN9 was unstable. I´m currently running a daily FSB@1777 with my CPU@3.33, NB 1.43v and VTT 1.31v, stable as a ROCK, with a E8400. And Abit build this board not to overclock, it does not have uGURU. But even so it reach a nice FSB@1777!
I dont extend my CPU clock because i need a proper cooler for that. I can go all the way up to 3.9 if i need, link below.. I whould say that you got a defective board, or you dont even know how to overclock properly the IN9 (this board is not for noobs really). A lot of guys around use this board, and O.C with her too, reaching nice FSB and CPU speed´s....
http://img253.imageshack.us/my.php?image=39ku6.jpg
Right now im usng a 7.5 divider to reach 3.33. But this board does have the vCORE BUG, and i dont tested the BIOS18 to see if they fixed this...
Take care man !
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Azurael
Unless the VRM on the FP-IN9 is severely flawed, I can't see any reason why it should specifically have issues with 45nm quads... The C55 NB is also used in 680i, 750i and 780i, all of which work fine with 45nm quads (well, bar early revision 680i boards but that's nothing to do with the chipset :p)
Personally, I just think the FP-IN9 is rubbish. Mine was probably the most unstable board I've ever owned (although my EPoX 8KDA3J+ was a close second with similar BIOS/CMOS setting loss bugs although at least its SATA drivers didn't hose my Windows install every couple of weeks :mad:) and I never even put a quad near it.
Hopefully my IN9 32X-Max will restore my faith in Abit... And nVidia chipsets...
Re: Fatality FP-IN9 SLI & Q9550 E0
I never had a problem getting decent clocks out of it, when it was running, and the dodgy nF430 SATA drivers weren't busy killing my Windows install, it was stable. It's just that it would just regularly mess up for no apparent reason and require a CMOS reset to boot.
I'd heard they weren't good with quads, but I didn't have one back in the days when I had that dreadful board. It's also the only board I've ever had to make VTT changes on to get decent clocks out of it. Very odd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BUFF
got a lot to do with the nVidia design guidelines & of course Intel not telling nVidia everything upfront.
You won't find a single 650i SLI mobo that will clock past middle 300s fsb with a quad, 65nm or 45nm.
I haven't checked but I would be very surprised if any of them officially support 45nm quads (my P5N-E SLI doesn't).
Unfortunately, Abit's website is down (again) at the time of my posting this, but I checked the CPU support list for the FP-IN9 when I first responded to this thread and the 45nm quads are on there with the latest BIOS updates.
IN9 Support to 45 nm Quads !
Man in the CPU support page the IN9 do support 45nm Quad´s !
http://www.abit.com.tw/cpu-support-l...fp-in9-sli.htm
I´m looking for one 45nm Quad to test ! :D
See ya !
LGA 775 Motherboards
Model Name Fatal1ty FP-IN9 SLI
NB Chipset 650i SLI
Supports FSB 1333 / 1066 / 800 / 533MHz
Last Update: Jul. 2008
CPU List FSB MB Rev. BIOS Ver. Result
Core 2 Extreme QX9650 1333 All 16 OK
Core 2 Extreme QX6850 1333 All 16 OK
Core 2 Extreme QX6800 1066 All 16 OK
Core 2 Extreme QX6700 1066 All 16 OK
Core 2 Extreme X6800 1066 All 16 OK
Core 2 Quad Q9550 1333 All 16 OK
Core 2 Quad Q9450 1333 All 16 OK
Core 2 Quad Q9400 1333 All 一 Test
Core 2 Quad Q9300 1333 All 16 OK
Core 2 Quad Q8200 1333 All 一 Test
Core 2 Quad Q6700 1066 All 16 OK
Core 2 Quad Q6600 1066 All 16 OK
Core 2 Duo E8600(E0) 1333 All 一 Test
Core 2 Duo E8500(E0) 1333 All 一 Test
Core 2 Duo E8500(C0) 1333 All 16 OK
Core 2 Duo E8400(E0) 1333 All 一 Test
Core 2 Duo E8400(C0) 1333 All 16 OK
Core 2 Duo E8200 1333 All 16 OK
Core 2 Duo E7300 1066 All 16 OK
Core 2 Duo E7200 1066 All 16 OK
Core 2 Duo E6850 1333 All 16 OK
Core 2 Duo E6750 1333 All 16 OK
Core 2 Duo E6550 1333 All 16 OK
Core 2 Duo E6700 1066 All 16 OK
Core 2 Duo E6600 1066 All 16 OK
Core 2 Duo E6420 1066 All 16 OK
Core 2 Duo E6400 1066 All 16 OK
Core 2 Duo E6320 1066 All 16 OK
Core 2 Duo E6300 1066 All 16 OK
Core 2 Duo E5200 1066 All 一 Test
Core 2 Duo E4700 800 All 16 OK
Core 2 Duo E4600 800 All 16 OK
Core 2 Duo E4500 800 All 16 OK
Core 2 Duo E4400 800 All 16 OK
Core 2 Duo E4300 800 All 16 OK
Pentium Dual Core E2220 800 All 16 OK
Pentium Dual Core E2200 800 All 16 OK
Pentium Dual Core E2180 800 All 16 OK
Pentium Dual Core E2160 800 All 16 OK
Pentium Dual Core E2140 800 All 16 OK
Celeron 440 800 All 16 OK
Celeron 430 800 All 16 OK
Celeron 420 800 All 16 OK
Pentium EE 965 1066 All 16 OK
Pentium EE 955 1066 All 16 OK
Pentium EE 840 800 All 16 OK
Pentium D 960 800 All 16 OK
Pentium D 950 800 All 16 OK
Pentium D 945 800 All 16 OK
Pentium D 940 800 All 16 OK
Pentium D 930 800 All 16 OK
Pentium D 920 800 All 16 OK
Pentium D 840 800 All 16 OK
Pentium D 830 800 All 16 OK
Pentium D 820 800 All 16 OK
Pentium D 805 533 All 16 OK
Pentium 4 EE 3.73GHz 1066 All 16 OK
Pentium 4 661 800 All 16 OK
Pentium 4 651 800 All 16 OK
Pentium 4 641 800 All 16 OK
Pentium 4 631 800 All 16 OK
Pentium 4 672 800 All 16 OK
Pentium 4 670 800 All 16 OK
Pentium 4 662 800 All 16 OK
Pentium 4 660 800 All 16 OK
Pentium 4 650 800 All 16 OK
Pentium 4 640 800 All 16 OK
Pentium 4 630 800 All 16 OK
Pentium 4 571/ 570/J 800 All 16 OK
Pentium 4 561/ 560/J 800 All 16 OK
Pentium 4 551/ 550/J 800 All 16 OK
Pentium 4 541/ 540/J 800 All 16 OK
Pentium 4 531/ 530/J 800 All 16 OK
Pentium 4 521/ 520/J 800 All 16 OK
Pentium 4 519 533 All 16 OK
Pentium 4 506 533 All 16 OK
Pentium 4 505/J 533 All 16 OK
Celeron D 365 533 All 16 OK
Celeron D 356 533 All 16 OK
Celeron D 347 533 All 16 OK
Celeron D 351/350 533 All 16 OK
Celeron D 346/345/J 533 All 16 OK
Celeron D 341/340/J 533 All 16 OK
Celeron D 336/335/J 533 All 16 OK
Celeron D 331/330/J 533 All 16 OK
Celeron D 326/325/J 533 All 16 OK
Celeron D 320 533 All 16 OK
Celeron D 315 533 All 16 OK
*Intel CPU details:
http://processorfinder.intel.com/scripts/default.asp
http://www.intel.com/products/processor_number/info.htm
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BUFF
got a lot to do with the nVidia design guidelines & of course Intel not telling nVidia everything upfront.
You won't find a single 650i SLI mobo that will clock past middle 300s fsb with a quad, 65nm or 45nm.
I haven't checked but I would be very surprised if any of them officially support 45nm quads (my P5N-E SLI doesn't).
Re: IN9 Support to 45 nm Quads !
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jclafi
but apparently not EO steppings.
You still won't get more than middle 300s fsb out of it with a quad.
Re: IN9 Support to 45 nm Quads !
I wasn´t exacly thinking in over, but the E0 note is usefull.
I Believe that E0 Stepping is for BIOS18, witch is not is the list yet.
BIOS18 >> http://forums.hexus.net/abit-care-he...-stepping.html
hummm, looks good !
Quote:
Originally Posted by
BUFF
but apparently not EO steppings.
You still won't get more than middle 300s fsb out of it with a quad.
