PDA

View Full Version : P3B-F question



Rob100
27th August 2001, 01:36
Every since upgrding to PIII 850 on boot the BIOS (1006) always reports "incorrect CPI ID = 0000686" or something like that.

I've checked the CPU is a genuine PIII 850 using Intels Processor Frequency ID utility. I thought that my ABit Slotket III may of caused the problem, so I bought an Asus S370-DL, but I still get same error message.

I don't have any problems with the system and all seems to work fine, but I do wonder "why" and besides I don't like error messages!

Thanks,


Rob.

dZeus
27th August 2001, 01:44
seems like your motherboard's BIOS doesn't have the coppermine cC0 stepping microcode yet, because 686 id is the cC0 stepping

dizzynoodle
27th August 2001, 06:17
The DOC seesm to have been running on that setup for a while check with him !

Dr Mordrid
27th August 2001, 06:40
My P3B-F/PIII-850 systems with the 1006 BIOS have worked fine for a LONG time. I'm using both the Asus Smart Slot 1 and the Gigabyte 6R7 slotkeys.

PIII E(B), revision 8, stepping 3

Dr. Mordrid

Rob100
27th August 2001, 12:57
Hmm, well I've had a twiddle in the BIOS and disabled the "BIOS Update" option and I don't get the message now ;-)

Rob.

Patrick
28th August 2001, 12:16
I've got a similar situation with my Asus CUBX board (with BIOS version 1006). I've just upgraded and installed a Celeron 900MHz processor and 1024Mbs of PC133 RAM. The processor is recognized as 900 MHz and the full compliment of RAM is also recognized. The computer seems to run properly. However, I now get this message during boot up:

<BIOS:> BIOS update data incorrect. CPUID=0000068A,

As Rob mentioned earlier, disabling BIOS Update in the BIOS menu eliminates this message during booting up, but of course that's not correcting anything. It's just masking the problem (if there's indeed any real problem).

What's of more concern to me is the alarm window that opens up every four seconds if I have Asus PC Probe running. It states:

Invalid floating point operation

Anybody have any idea what that's all about?:confused:

Rob100
28th August 2001, 14:56
To quote from the P3B-F manual, re [BIOS UPDATE]

"This functions as an update loader integrated into the BIOS to supply the processor with the required data. In the default position of [Enabled], BIOS will load the update on all processors during system bootup."

Well that clears that up... ;-) What on earth does that mean!

Patrick, I have no ideas on your FP error... Is there a later version of the Asus Probe? Maybe it's a bug?

mynx
28th August 2001, 16:02
Last month I put a P3/750 in my brother-in-laws P3B-F board.
The same problem. I set the bios to manually select the bus speed because it kept trying to boot at 66mhz. This worked for a few weeks, but now it crashes after runing for 20 minutes. The guy who built the system is saying its because the processor isn't recognized and isn't running at the correct voltages. He actually claims the processor is bad, but it ran for a month in my Epox board without a single problem.

Patrick
28th August 2001, 16:33
Rob, I downloaded and installed the latest version of Asus PC Probe this afternoon but it didn't make any difference.:( So it's still a mystery. Even though you get a similar message in your BIOS as I do when booting, I take it that you don't get the same alarm message as I do when running Asus PC Probe. Is that right?

Dr Mordrid
28th August 2001, 19:44
When you guys updated your BIOS's did you reload the defaults and reset all your settings? This stops problems due to an entry point in the program changing.

BIOS updating 101.

Dr. Mordrid

dchip
28th August 2001, 20:09
Mynx, might your brother-in-law have an older P3B-F? I have an early revision P3B-F that supposedly does not have the necessary hardware to get the voltage right for anything higher than 600Mhz.

I have a P-III 450Mhz on mine now, and I abandoned a plan to try an upgrade to 1Ghz recently. Reports are, mine won't work stably beyond 600Mhz even with the FC-PGA handling the voltage setting. The P3B-F would, for example, run the 1Ghz chip at 600Mhz to suit its design, or, just refuse to boot.

When I was plotting the upgrade, I found info somewhere which said revision 1.03 or higher of the P3B-F can be upgraded as high as 1Ghz. I have also gotten many other opinions saying I should force the upgrade on the board and overclock and all sorts of other stuff, but I have not tried any of it. I just face the reality that, when it comes to computers, what you bought is not nearly as important as when you bought it.

Patrick
28th August 2001, 22:08
Ummm.... sure, Doc.:rolleyes:

I've never heard any of this before. I guess I should try it. ;)

Greebe
28th August 2001, 22:13
LOL Doc! :)

No clue, how about you?!

mynx
29th August 2001, 10:10
dchip: How do you Identify which board revision it is? Can it be done without opening the case.

Dr Mordrid
29th August 2001, 11:38
I think you need to open the case and check a sticker oir silkscreen on the board.

Dr. Mordrid

Rob100
29th August 2001, 14:19
Patrick - Asus Probe runs fine here on PIII850.

Doc - Can't recall exactly which switches I used when flashing BIOS.

Dr Mordrid
29th August 2001, 15:43
It has nothing to do with the switches you used when you flashed the BIOS. You do this AFTER flashing from the BIOS setup program.

The option to look for is "Load BIOS defaults" or something similar. Before you do this you'll want to copy down your custom settings, if any, so you can re-enter them in the new setups.

When you execute this the default settings for the new BIOS are loaded in from the CMOS. Otherwise it uses the existing ones from the old BIOS.

The problem with this is that if the entry point of a routine in the new BIOS has changed location the old settings may be adjusting another routine or hitting in the middle of a routine. Neither is good ;)

Dr. Mordrid

Patrick
29th August 2001, 16:57
Arrghhh@!!! Well, as you can probably already tell, setting the BIOS to its default values and then manually resetting them all didn't make any difference. I still get this line displayed during boot-up:

<BIOS:> BIOS update data incorrect. CPUID=0000068A,

And I still get the alarm window that opens up every four seconds if I have Asus PC Probe running which states:

Invalid floating point operation

I think the Asus CUBX (BIOS version 1006) board is working properly with this new Celeron 900MHz processor, but I continue to be a little concerned by these messages...:(

Dr Mordrid
29th August 2001, 17:20
Well, I can't speak for the C900 but I have had a C600 working in this one for testing purposes.

I have to dig into the case later on to change a fan out. I'll check my mobo version number while I'm there.

One other thought: BIOS 1006 came out after the PIII-850 but BEFORE the C900. Perhaps the beta BIOS ver. 1008 has the updated microcode? I can't tell for sure as there are NO dox for it that I can find.

Dr. Mordrid

DJ
29th August 2001, 19:25
I have gotten that "Invalid floating point operation" message before and the solution was to increase the size of my swap file. Don't know if that will help your situation.

DJ

Patrick
29th August 2001, 20:08
Doc, you may be correct about the BIOS version I have not being current enough. I found this at the official ASUS site:

CUBX BIOS Ver. 1007 02/14/2001
1) Add microcode update.
2) Fix Hotkey error with older version of CMD BIOS.

Interestingly enough, at a website dedicated entirely to the CUBX motherboard, I found some information about even more current BIOS updates:

http://pub32.ezboard.com/fcubxfrm1.showMessage?topicID=151.topic

Is there any reason for me to shy away from CUBX BIOS Revision 1008 beta3 and/or is it "safer" to use BIOS version 1007 instead?

DJ, when I put this processor in, I also installed 1024Mbs of PC133 RAM. I've been running with NO swapfile since then. I'll try it with a swapfile and report back...:)

Patrick
29th August 2001, 20:27
Well, one mystery solved! Thanks DJ! Having a swapfile eliminates the alarm message from Asus PC Probe, although I don't understand why it was getting all worked up into a lather. I don't usually have Asus PC Probe running though, so eliminating the swapfile again shouldn't matter.

However, now that it's been brought up- Is there any real need for a swapfile in a Win98 system that has 1024Mbs of RAM?

Doc, still need your advice on the BIOS issue...:)

DJ
29th August 2001, 20:42
Thats what I thought and so turned off my swap file. It took me about a week to figure out why I was getting that error. If there are any other benefits to be derived from using a swap file I certainly do not know.

DJ

Dr Mordrid
29th August 2001, 21:05
Some software hits the swapfile regardless of there being enough RAM to store an army. Never could figure that one out though....

Dr. Mordrid

Patrick
30th August 2001, 10:00
Some software hits the swapfile regardless of there being enough RAM to store an army. Never could figure that one out though....So what happens then if there's no swapfile to swap to?:confused:


Is there any reason for me to shy away from CUBX BIOS Revision 1008 beta3 and/or is it "safer" to use BIOS version 1007 instead?Still interested in opinions on this question I asked a little earlier. Although I was asking specifically about the BIOS for a CUBX board, opinions about using beta versions of any motherboard's BIOS would be welcome!:)

Dr Mordrid
30th August 2001, 10:13
If there's no swapfile to swap to then you have problems ;)

Dr. Mordrid

Patrick
30th August 2001, 10:25
"Problems"? Come on Doc, be a little more specific!:) Are we talking freeze-up and crashes here?

Doc, you've GOT to have an opinion on using a beta version of a BIOS for a motherboard!:eek:

Dr Mordrid
30th August 2001, 10:41
Yes, we're talking crahses with an out of memory error. That's assuming you even get far enough to display the error.

As far as using BETA BIOS's goes they can be a mixed blessing.

If they have microcode for a CPU your previous version doesn't support then fine, you can use one in a pinch.

They can also cause a s**load of trouble too.

My suggestion to try using it is based on the fact that I've never had a poison BIOS from ASUS.

Abit is another story entirely...:mad:

Dr. Mordrid

Patrick
30th August 2001, 10:48
Thanks Doc, I'll probably try loading up version 1008 later today. Regarding the swapfile, as an experiment I'll continue to run without one for now. I'll see how long it takes for me to crash the system. :rolleyes:

Sciascia
30th August 2001, 10:56
If it is any consolation, I am running a beat BIOS on my 440 BX MB. Different animal, but it works. You could always flash it back to the original or current if it doesn't owkr.

By the way the beta VIOS did allow my faster proc to boot without the BSP CPU ERR...microcode. I did not see any differences good or bad though.

Patrick
30th August 2001, 23:40
Progress report...

I flashed the BIOS on my CUBX board with version 1008. I have good news and bad news.:rolleyes:

The good news is that the BIOS flash was successful (I think). I no longer get an error message about the BIOS update data being incorrect during boot up. I'm happy about that.:)

The bad news is now my Cd-rom and Cd-burner are no longer recognized.:( This I'm not so happy about. They are set up as master and slave on the secondary IDE connectors and before the BIOS flash they were recognized correctly and listed under Device Manager. In the BIOS setup I've tried both Auto and Cd-rom in the main menu, but it makes no difference. Is there something I'm forgetting to do here?:confused:

DJ
31st August 2001, 04:11
Check to see if the secondary IDE port is enabled in the bios.

DJ

Dr Mordrid
31st August 2001, 09:22
Right. He may also have to enter the BIOS and manually detect the problem devices.

Dr. Mordrid

Patrick
31st August 2001, 09:23
DJ, thanks for the suggestion, but that's something I've checked. I had set the Onboard PCI IDE Enable to Both. The PCI Bus Master IDE Controller is loaded along with the Primary and Secondary IDE controllers, so I don't know what's going on. All I can tell is that neither the Cd-rom nor the Cd-burner is being recognized in the BIOS or by Win98 at all. Could this be something as annoying as a bug in the beta 1008 BIOS, or is there something simple here I'm just overlooking?:(

Patrick
31st August 2001, 09:31
Doc, what is the trick to manually detecting these devices? When I first booted up after flashing the BIOS, I had both the Secondary Master and Secondary Slave set to None because this was how I had it set for these drives before the flash. I've now tried every choice since then but it makes no difference. Suggestions?

DJ
31st August 2001, 09:39
Maybe you should try a hard drive on that channel and see if it works.

DJ

Patrick
31st August 2001, 09:45
Yes, I was afraid that swapping stuff around would eventually be mentioned.;) I've got to leave this for a few hours now (duty calls), but I'll be back at it later.

News at eleven...:rolleyes:

Dr Mordrid
31st August 2001, 17:33
NO trick to it, it's a feature of the BIOS.

Normally it's set to autodetect devices, but you can enter a menu where they can be manually set up as well. Sometimes this has to be done when autodetect chokes.

These selections are on the MAIN page of Setup under Primarmary and Secondary master/slave. Changing them from AUTO brings up the manual setups.

Dr. Mordrid.

Patrick
31st August 2001, 23:23
Ummm.... well, I found the problem.

Just prior to flashing the BIOS on the motherboard, I had been messing about inside the case rearranging a few things. I discovered tonight that I had neglected to plug the secondary IDE cable back into the connector on the motherboard.:rolleyes: No wonder the drives on that cable weren't being recognized! Gotta look for the simple things first, gotta look for the simple things first...

Thanks to everyone for their help. Ok Rob, you can now have your thread back. ;)

DJ
1st September 2001, 05:51
Thats exactly why I suggested swapping things around. I figured if I just said check your cables it wouldn't go down too well, too simple! But we all get caught with these things every so often.

DJ