AMD XP2000+ reduced speed A7V333

Sorry if this is the wrong group, as I'm not sure where to put this.

I have an AMD XP2000+ with Asus A7V333. 1GB Ram as 2x256 and 1x512. 2
HDD (400GB and 80GB), running XP home. It's a 5.5 year old PC

Recently the power supply failed, so I got a quick new one from pcworld
(jeantech 350W) which looked roughly the right one to replace the old 300W.

Since then, I've noticed a few strange things happening. Screen would
occasionally go blank for a split second, often just Alt-Tab between
windows - then the odd time the screen seemed to be slightly corrupt
with a "bleed" or a line across the screen (removed by just moving a
window about refreshing the display).

Very recently, it wouldn't boot at all, or fail to get into windows.

I changed the battery (original still there, voltage at 3.0) and reset
the BIOS. I found that the machine didn't want to know at the usual speed.
The BIOS gives 1250MHz or 1667MHz as options (as well as Manual - which
needs motherboard settings altered).


The machine now only runs at 1250MHz, and I'm at a loss to know why.


I've tried removing all peripherals including PCI cards etc, I've run
memtest86+, which gave no RAM errors - but the computer shut down after
about 50 minutes (I didn't see it happen as I wasn't in the room).

One item that maybe the culprit is perhaps the replacement PSU ? I've
not got another to try unfortunately - but I checked the Power menu in
BIOS, and the +12V was showing at 12.78V when at 1250Mhz (when I got it
going, it was at 12.90V at 1667Mhz) - is this figure too high ?


I've looked around the web for hours to see if I can see anything
concrete, but I'm stumped. Maybe there is a motherboard component that
has failed, but is only relevant at higher speed.


Thanks for any help.

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 19:38:35 +0000, Brian Timpkins wrote:

Sorry if this is the wrong group, as I'm not sure where to put this.

I have an AMD XP2000+ with Asus A7V333. 1GB Ram as 2x256 and 1x512. 2
HDD (400GB and 80GB), running XP home. It's a 5.5 year old PC

Recently the power supply failed, so I got a quick new one from pcworld
(jeantech 350W) which looked roughly the right one to replace the old
300W.

If you get another one, and from the looks of your 12V rail, you probably
will, Go ahead and get a cheap 550-700W. I've used several of these.

http://3btech.net/chdufan600wa.html

Since then, I've noticed a few strange things happening. Screen would
occasionally go blank for a split second, often just Alt-Tab between
windows - then the odd time the screen seemed to be slightly corrupt
with a "bleed" or a line across the screen (removed by just moving a
window about refreshing the display).

Very recently, it wouldn't boot at all, or fail to get into windows.

I changed the battery (original still there, voltage at 3.0) and reset
the BIOS. I found that the machine didn't want to know at the usual
speed. The BIOS gives 1250MHz or 1667MHz as options (as well as Manual -
which needs motherboard settings altered).


The machine now only runs at 1250MHz, and I'm at a loss to know why.

It looks like you know this, but it's not clear,so. The default multiplier
of the 2000+ is 12.5. Default FSB speed is 133MHz. Running at 1250Mhz
because the FSB is set to 100 instead of 133MHz. Would also help to know
which 2000+ you have. There are 3 versions. Palomino core cpuid 662, Tbred
A core cpuid 680, and Tbred B core cpuid 681. The Palomino cores are the
original XP core and they are definitely prone to fail at their default
speeds (fastest model was the 2100+). They also use more voltage (1.75v)
and run a lot hotter than the Tbred B core. The Tbred A core isn't much
better than the original, but probably isn't as prone to failure in the
2000+ model (fastest model was the 2200+). The Tbred B core was a huge
improvement. This was the one that allowed them to go up to the 2800+
model (2250MHz). If you have this model the chances of it failing at
anything under 2000MHz should be almost nil. Default voltages varied on
this from 1.5v to 1.65v for the faster models. So if you have this model
and it's running a slower voltage you night try increasing it .05v. But I
still doubt it would be bad. They are rock solid.

I've tried removing all peripherals including PCI cards etc, I've run
memtest86+, which gave no RAM errors - but the computer shut down after
about 50 minutes (I didn't see it happen as I wasn't in the room).

I use memtest too, but it's not designed to stress the machine much, only
test ram.

One item that maybe the culprit is perhaps the replacement PSU ? I've
not got another to try unfortunately - but I checked the Power menu in
BIOS, and the +12V was showing at 12.78V when at 1250Mhz (when I got it
going, it was at 12.90V at 1667Mhz) - is this figure too high ?

I think this might be the problem. Each rail should have a 5% tolerance.
So it shouldn't go over 12.6v. I'd replace it with the one above. Might as
well get a 600W now, you'll need more than 350W when you upgrade the
system. If the PSU isn't the problem it never hurts to have a spare handy.

I've looked around the web for hours to see if I can see anything
concrete, but I'm stumped. Maybe there is a motherboard component that
has failed, but is only relevant at higher speed.

I'd bet on the PSU, video card, or CPU. Good luck.

--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
My Tivo Experience http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/tivo.htm
Tivo HD/S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm
AMD cpu help http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php

This one is really good.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16817371005

It goes in and out of discounts and rebates. I got one for $18 total
once. Right now it's $30 after rebate + shipping. Antec honors their
rebates.

---
Ed Light

Better World News TV Channel:
http://realnews.com

Bring the Troops Home:
http://bringthemhomenow.org
http://antiwar.com

Send spam to the FTC at

Thanks, robots.

Ed Light wrote:
This one is really good.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16817371005

Oops wait, emergency.

Not sure if your system is old enough that it needs the line the newer
psu's don't supply. I'm not sure which that is -- but probably -5v.

-Ed Light

Wes Newell wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 19:38:35 +0000, Brian Timpkins wrote:

Sorry if this is the wrong group, as I'm not sure where to put this.

I have an AMD XP2000+ with Asus A7V333. 1GB Ram as 2x256 and 1x512. 2
HDD (400GB and 80GB), running XP home. It's a 5.5 year old PC

Recently the power supply failed, so I got a quick new one from pcworld
(jeantech 350W) which looked roughly the right one to replace the old
300W.

If you get another one, and from the looks of your 12V rail, you probably
will, Go ahead and get a cheap 550-700W. I've used several of these.

http://3btech.net/chdufan600wa.html

I'm in the UK, so I'll take a look and bear them in mind, thanks.

Plus of course take the other back.


The machine now only runs at 1250MHz, and I'm at a loss to know why.


It looks like you know this, but it's not clear,so. The default multiplier
of the 2000+ is 12.5. Default FSB speed is 133MHz. Running at 1250Mhz
because the FSB is set to 100 instead of 133MHz. Would also help to know
which 2000+ you have. There are 3 versions. Palomino core cpuid 662, Tbred
A core cpuid 680, and Tbred B core cpuid 681.

I have the Palomino one. Indeed, the info about FSB is correct as the
BIOS is setting that. I could change it via motherboard DIP and jumpers,
but I was a little unsure if that may cause a problem.
I've also not updated the BIOS (mine's still at the original Revision
1005). As it has not been needed over the years, I didn't see any real
point in updating it - perhaps I should.

The Palomino cores are the
original XP core and they are definitely prone to fail at their default
speeds (fastest model was the 2100+).

I don't believe I've ever had it fail at default speed of 1667Mhz, but
I'm not sure. I've had the odd BSOD for drivers over the years, but
these are rare (USB2 drivers seemed the most prone).

One item that maybe the culprit is perhaps the replacement PSU ? I've
not got another to try unfortunately - but I checked the Power menu in
BIOS, and the +12V was showing at 12.78V when at 1250Mhz (when I got it
going, it was at 12.90V at 1667Mhz) - is this figure too high ?

I think this might be the problem. Each rail should have a 5% tolerance.
So it shouldn't go over 12.6v. I'd replace it with the one above. Might as
well get a 600W now, you'll need more than 350W when you upgrade the
system. If the PSU isn't the problem it never hurts to have a spare handy.

Everest (ok, it's old now perhaps) is currently showing +12V as 13.25
and -12V as -13.16, and the machine is fine at this slower speed.

Why would these voltages be this high ? Is it the PSU that is a bit duff ?

As for upgrading my system, I feel it's perhaps too old for that now and
a new one with better equipment all round would be a better option.
But's it has been a fine beasty over the years.


I've looked around the web for hours to see if I can see anything
concrete, but I'm stumped. Maybe there is a motherboard component that
has failed, but is only relevant at higher speed.

I'd bet on the PSU, video card, or CPU. Good luck.


Thanks for all of your help and info.

I've got a new video card (only an AGP FX5200 128MB), but that makes a
big difference already to the slower speed !. It's also much, much
quieter than my old MX440 64MB. Of course, that doesn't improve on the
main problem I seem to have.
If it was a CPU fault, wouldn't that show as other failures as well,
unless there is some form of failsafe mode "because" of the voltages.

Hold on, I remember doing an Everest printout a while back, almost
exactly 2 years ago.

I've checked, and the +12/-12V were not much different (they were both
over 13 then).

Ok, I've added an extra 512MB RAM and a 400GB HDD since then, as well as
change the CPU fan to a Zalman quiet brute as I was having heat
problems. Clearly it's not heat now, since the machine doesn't hardly
want to know about the higher speed even when cold etc.


Perhaps something is broken in the CPU/motherboard that stops it working
at the higher speed.
It's just like I've done something wrong, or pressed something. I
suppose it's lucky I don't need vast quantities of power or speed
(though extra would be nice). Hence a new machine is going to be a real
eye-opener )

Ed Light wrote:
Ed Light wrote:
This one is really good.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16817371005

Oops wait, emergency.

Not sure if your system is old enough that it needs the line the newer
psu's don't supply. I'm not sure which that is -- but probably -5v.

-Ed Light


Thanks for the info Ed.

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 14:40:38 +0000, Brian Timpkins wrote:

Wes Newell wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 19:38:35 +0000, Brian Timpkins wrote:

I have an AMD XP2000+ with Asus A7V333. 1GB Ram as 2x256 and 1x512. 2
HDD (400GB and 80GB), running XP home. It's a 5.5 year old PC

The machine now only runs at 1250MHz, and I'm at a loss to know why.


It looks like you know this, but it's not clear,so. The default
multiplier of the 2000+ is 12.5. Default FSB speed is 133MHz. Running
at 1250Mhz because the FSB is set to 100 instead of 133MHz. Would also
help to know which 2000+ you have. There are 3 versions. Palomino core
cpuid 662, Tbred A core cpuid 680, and Tbred B core cpuid 681.

I have the Palomino one. Indeed, the info about FSB is correct as the
BIOS is setting that. I could change it via motherboard DIP and jumpers,
but I was a little unsure if that may cause a problem. I've also not
updated the BIOS (mine's still at the original Revision 1005). As it has
not been needed over the years, I didn't see any real point in updating
it - perhaps I should.

Another thing could be bad caps on the MB. I've had this cause the exact
same problem you're having. Might want to check the caps on the bmB and
even video card for bulges or leaks. I've also had a 1600+ XP palomino
core that ran at 1650MHZ for years that finally wouldn't do it. Setting
the speed back to 1200Mhz it runs like a top. This one I know was a CPU
problem.

The Palomino cores are the
original XP core and they are definitely prone to fail at their default
speeds (fastest model was the 2100+).

I don't believe I've ever had it fail at default speed of 1667Mhz, but
I'm not sure. I've had the odd BSOD for drivers over the years, but
these are rare (USB2 drivers seemed the most prone).

I thought that was your whole problem and you had to lower the FSB so it
ran at 1250MHz (12.5x100).

Everest (ok, it's old now perhaps) is currently showing +12V as 13.25
and -12V as -13.16, and the machine is fine at this slower speed.

I don't know what everest is. Look at the bios readings. Don't trust any
third party software when it comes to this. Unless you configured the
sensors for it there's no telling how accurate it is.

Why would these voltages be this high ? Is it the PSU that is a bit duff
?

I don't know. Voltages usually drop under heavier loads. Check the bios
voltages.

As for upgrading my system, I feel it's perhaps too old for that now and
a new one with better equipment all round would be a better option.
But's it has been a fine beasty over the years.

The MB, cpu, ram and video card is basically the system. Change them and
you've got a new system. And get on board video and you don't even have to
buy another video card.

I've got a new video card (only an AGP FX5200 128MB), but that makes a
big difference already to the slower speed !. It's also much, much
quieter than my old MX440 64MB. Of course, that doesn't improve on the
main problem I seem to have.
If it was a CPU fault, wouldn't that show as other failures as well,
unless there is some form of failsafe mode "because" of the voltages.

Hold on, I remember doing an Everest printout a while back, almost
exactly 2 years ago.

I've checked, and the +12/-12V were not much different (they were both
over 13 then).

Ok, I've added an extra 512MB RAM and a 400GB HDD since then, as well as
change the CPU fan to a Zalman quiet brute as I was having heat
problems. Clearly it's not heat now, since the machine doesn't hardly
want to know about the higher speed even when cold etc.


Perhaps something is broken in the CPU/motherboard that stops it working
at the higher speed.
It's just like I've done something wrong, or pressed something. I
suppose it's lucky I don't need vast quantities of power or speed
(though extra would be nice). Hence a new machine is going to be a real
eye-opener )

I'm getting confused here. By speed, I assumed you meant the cpu wouldn't
run at it default speed of 1667Mhz when you set it up properly. Now I;m
getting the impression that's not what you are talking about, but that the
cpu is running at 1250MHz and you don't know why. The reason it's running
at 1250MHZ is because the FSB defaulted to 100MHz, and you need to reset
it to 133 in bios. You also need to set the pci divider to 4 if needed.
See advanced seeting in the bios and the CPU freq. should be set to 133/33
for the cpu to run at it intended speed of 1667MHz. If the cou is running
at 1250, then it's now set to 100/33.




--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
My Tivo Experience http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/tivo.htm
Tivo HD/S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm
AMD cpu help http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php

Wes Newell wrote:


I'm getting confused here. By speed, I assumed you meant the cpu wouldn't
run at it default speed of 1667Mhz when you set it up properly. Now I;m
getting the impression that's not what you are talking about, but that the
cpu is running at 1250MHz and you don't know why. The reason it's running
at 1250MHZ is because the FSB defaulted to 100MHz, and you need to reset
it to 133 in bios. You also need to set the pci divider to 4 if needed.
See advanced seeting in the bios and the CPU freq. should be set to 133/33
for the cpu to run at it intended speed of 1667MHz. If the cou is running
at 1250, then it's now set to 100/33.






My apologies Wes, I'm getting confused myself really.

In short, my PC was running at 1667Mhz. This was set in BIOS, the FSB
and multiplier are set in BIOS automatically when the CPU speed is chosen.

Now, it wont run at 1667. I set it to 1250Mhz in BIOS (which sets the
FSB to 100 automatically). I only set it to this to see if it would run!

(BIOS only gives me the choice of Manual/1250/1667 CPU speed - manual is
when the motherboard DIP and jumpers are specially set, something I've
never done).

Your comment about caps, and CPU problem looks to be relevant here, as
it seems the same case.

On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:49:21 +0000, Brian Timpkins wrote:


In short, my PC was running at 1667Mhz. This was set in BIOS, the FSB
and multiplier are set in BIOS automatically when the CPU speed is
chosen.

Now, it wont run at 1667. I set it to 1250Mhz in BIOS (which sets the
FSB to 100 automatically). I only set it to this to see if it would run!

(BIOS only gives me the choice of Manual/1250/1667 CPU speed - manual is
when the motherboard DIP and jumpers are specially set, something I've
never done).

Your comment about caps, and CPU problem looks to be relevant here, as
it seems the same case.

Ok, so you know how to set it to 1667MHz. I just won't run reliably there.


--
Want the ultimate in free OTA SD/HDTV Recorder? http://mythtv.org
My Tivo Experience http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/tivo.htm
Tivo HD/S3 compared http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/mythtivo.htm
AMD cpu help http://wesnewell.no-ip.com/cpu.php

Wes Newell wrote:
On Sat, 05 Jan 2008 20:49:21 +0000, Brian Timpkins wrote:


In short, my PC was running at 1667Mhz. This was set in BIOS, the FSB
and multiplier are set in BIOS automatically when the CPU speed is
chosen.

Now, it wont run at 1667. I set it to 1250Mhz in BIOS (which sets the
FSB to 100 automatically). I only set it to this to see if it would run!

(BIOS only gives me the choice of Manual/1250/1667 CPU speed - manual is
when the motherboard DIP and jumpers are specially set, something I've
never done).

Your comment about caps, and CPU problem looks to be relevant here, as
it seems the same case.

Ok, so you know how to set it to 1667MHz. I just won't run reliably there.



Yep, that's it in a nutshell. Clearly something recent has happened
(either I've done something, or a faulty part or two).