A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » Homebuilt PC's
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

New system build - reboot loop when attempting to boot from SATA HDD



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old December 19th 18, 02:05 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Paul[_28_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,467
Default New system build - reboot loop when attempting to boot from SATAHDD

Char Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 11:43:52 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:

I was looking through the data spec sheet at:

https://www.intel.com/content/dam/ww...heet-vol-1.pdf

to see what was the recommended normal operating voltage for Vcore or
Vcc. It says 1.52V maximum. Minimum is 0V (zero). Well, yeah, that
means unpowered. But you'd think they would list a recommended, normal,
typical, or optimal voltage.


At 1.1v, I guess I'm within that range. But yeah, why not just come
out with a recommended operating range so that a person would have a
starting point.


The processor has "multiplier min" and "multiplier max". On an
unlocked processor, the max isn't limited. Similarly, the processor
leaves the factory with a VID_min and a VID_max. The hardware
design basically "polices" controls that an enthusiast might
wish to hack. You can still override some of these things
(obviously on the K processors), but there aren't a lot of
"digital adder" implementations for exceeding the range
programmed into the processor.

It's not likely that "VID_max" = 1.5V in the VRM vid table.
It would not be like Intel to encourage knife-edge circuit
operation, for warranty support reasons.

Instead, an enthusiast motherboard may apply an offset, such
that the voltage is "VID_min + offset" to "VID_max + offset".
A tool which reads out only the VID field, doesn't tell
the whole story. You need an ADC converter, like in the
Hardware Monitor, to get some idea what the real value is,
as measured at the correct point (monitor pin) on the CPU.

On modern AMD systems, they have an entire measurement
subsystem, that measures stuff all over the processor
(dunno if tools exist to display this to users).

At one time, offsets were added manually with crappy little
home-grown circuits. Later, some VCore regulators were basically
"VRM non-compliant" in the sense that there were digital inputs
to specify an offset that might have run dangerously close
to the spec limit.

Some (compliant) VCore regulators actually have OVP, where
if they detect too much violation of the current regulated
voltage value, they latch off. When you manually offset those
by jamming current into the control node, jamming too much
turns them off. An enthusiast board isn't likely to be
designed around such a thing.

Enthusiasts usually deal in a "reliability limit", like
maybe noticing that long runs at 1.43 volts killed a certain
processor. And as a consequence, instead of dealing with
"absolute max suicide runs", most (poor people) users would
adhere to the herd wisdom on the "reliability limit" instead.

Reading some of these threads, suggests we're not getting
the best out of herd wisdom these days. Does anyone
still hang out at ExtremeSystems ? Over the years, sites
like that have had great primers on understanding
a generation of processors and their best
feeding and care. The people who destroy one $1000
processor after another, have done great service
for ordinary users :-) I hope those people haven't
passed on...

Paul
  #42  
Old December 19th 18, 09:22 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 213
Default New system build - reboot loop when attempting to boot from SATA HDD

On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 20:05:00 -0500, Paul wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 11:43:52 -0600, VanguardLH wrote:

I was looking through the data spec sheet at:

https://www.intel.com/content/dam/ww...heet-vol-1.pdf

to see what was the recommended normal operating voltage for Vcore or
Vcc. It says 1.52V maximum. Minimum is 0V (zero). Well, yeah, that
means unpowered. But you'd think they would list a recommended, normal,
typical, or optimal voltage.


At 1.1v, I guess I'm within that range. But yeah, why not just come
out with a recommended operating range so that a person would have a
starting point.


The processor has "multiplier min" and "multiplier max". On an
unlocked processor, the max isn't limited. Similarly, the processor
leaves the factory with a VID_min and a VID_max. The hardware
design basically "polices" controls that an enthusiast might
wish to hack. You can still override some of these things
(obviously on the K processors), but there aren't a lot of
"digital adder" implementations for exceeding the range
programmed into the processor.

It's not likely that "VID_max" = 1.5V in the VRM vid table.
It would not be like Intel to encourage knife-edge circuit
operation, for warranty support reasons.

Instead, an enthusiast motherboard may apply an offset, such
that the voltage is "VID_min + offset" to "VID_max + offset".
A tool which reads out only the VID field, doesn't tell
the whole story. You need an ADC converter, like in the
Hardware Monitor, to get some idea what the real value is,
as measured at the correct point (monitor pin) on the CPU.

On modern AMD systems, they have an entire measurement
subsystem, that measures stuff all over the processor
(dunno if tools exist to display this to users).

At one time, offsets were added manually with crappy little
home-grown circuits. Later, some VCore regulators were basically
"VRM non-compliant" in the sense that there were digital inputs
to specify an offset that might have run dangerously close
to the spec limit.

Some (compliant) VCore regulators actually have OVP, where
if they detect too much violation of the current regulated
voltage value, they latch off. When you manually offset those
by jamming current into the control node, jamming too much
turns them off. An enthusiast board isn't likely to be
designed around such a thing.

Enthusiasts usually deal in a "reliability limit", like
maybe noticing that long runs at 1.43 volts killed a certain
processor. And as a consequence, instead of dealing with
"absolute max suicide runs", most (poor people) users would
adhere to the herd wisdom on the "reliability limit" instead.

Reading some of these threads, suggests we're not getting
the best out of herd wisdom these days. Does anyone
still hang out at ExtremeSystems ? Over the years, sites
like that have had great primers on understanding
a generation of processors and their best
feeding and care. The people who destroy one $1000
processor after another, have done great service
for ordinary users :-) I hope those people haven't
passed on...


I just got off the phone with a technical guy from ASRock in California.
He says the default setting of Auto for VCore should absolutely work. If
it didn't, he says they'd have gotten a flood of calls and they haven't.
He strongly suggested that I not set a fixed VCore value, since that
voltage is intended to rise or fall, as needed, rising for performance
and falling to reduce heat.

At idle, he says 0.80v is common, and the voltage should ramp up, as
needed, but the CPU has to tell the motherboard what it needs. If not,
the motherboard just happily keeps the voltage at idle, which is fine
for the UEFI screens but too low for actual booting. I typically see
0.96v to 0.97v at idle. I lose visibility during boot attempts, but I
assume the voltage is not ramping up like it should.

When I explained the symptoms, he said I should RMA the board. When I
told him this is the second board with this identical behavior, he said
it's probably the CPU. So off I go to Newegg to see if they'll be as
nice about an RMA for the CPU as they were for the motherboard.


  #43  
Old December 19th 18, 09:59 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 213
Default New system build - reboot loop when attempting to boot from SATA HDD

On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 14:22:03 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

I just got off the phone with a technical guy from ASRock in California.
He says the default setting of Auto for VCore should absolutely work. If
it didn't, he says they'd have gotten a flood of calls and they haven't.
He strongly suggested that I not set a fixed VCore value, since that
voltage is intended to rise or fall, as needed, rising for performance
and falling to reduce heat.

At idle, he says 0.80v is common, and the voltage should ramp up, as
needed, but the CPU has to tell the motherboard what it needs. If not,
the motherboard just happily keeps the voltage at idle, which is fine
for the UEFI screens but too low for actual booting. I typically see
0.96v to 0.97v at idle. I lose visibility during boot attempts, but I
assume the voltage is not ramping up like it should.

When I explained the symptoms, he said I should RMA the board. When I
told him this is the second board with this identical behavior, he said
it's probably the CPU. So off I go to Newegg to see if they'll be as
nice about an RMA for the CPU as they were for the motherboard.


Just finished a nice online chat with Intel tech support. After some
back and forth, he says he doesn't think it's the CPU but he agrees that
I should try to RMA it, just in case. Next stop, Newegg.

  #44  
Old December 19th 18, 11:18 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Paul[_28_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,467
Default New system build - reboot loop when attempting to boot from SATAHDD

Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 14:22:03 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:
I just got off the phone with a technical guy from ASRock in California.
He says the default setting of Auto for VCore should absolutely work. If
it didn't, he says they'd have gotten a flood of calls and they haven't.
He strongly suggested that I not set a fixed VCore value, since that
voltage is intended to rise or fall, as needed, rising for performance
and falling to reduce heat.

At idle, he says 0.80v is common, and the voltage should ramp up, as
needed, but the CPU has to tell the motherboard what it needs. If not,
the motherboard just happily keeps the voltage at idle, which is fine
for the UEFI screens but too low for actual booting. I typically see
0.96v to 0.97v at idle. I lose visibility during boot attempts, but I
assume the voltage is not ramping up like it should.

When I explained the symptoms, he said I should RMA the board. When I
told him this is the second board with this identical behavior, he said
it's probably the CPU. So off I go to Newegg to see if they'll be as
nice about an RMA for the CPU as they were for the motherboard.


Just finished a nice online chat with Intel tech support. After some
back and forth, he says he doesn't think it's the CPU but he agrees that
I should try to RMA it, just in case. Next stop, Newegg.


Processors are tested along the curve.

Multiplier N 0.6V
Multiplier N+1 0.7V
....
Multiplier NMAX 1.2V Locked processor say

Multiplier NMAX+1 Via offsets Unlocked processor
Multiplier NMAX+... 1.43V Via offsets Unlocked processor

Of the first three, every VCore setting isn't
run through a full set of test vectors. In the past,
there were two stops with 500MHz margin on each run.
That's because running that set of vectors costs test
time and is quite thorough. Might take seconds to run,
instead of microseconds. Tester time could be a rate
limiting step in production.

If I had to guess:

Intel knows what they're doing

Award/AMI/Phoenix/Insyde are pretty good (bringup code)
Complete source is not given to the motherboard maker.

Motherboard manufacturer is the "unknown variable".
Some tweaking and tuning of all the Intel controls
goes on.

It's probably not hardware, but some problem with
adjustment of some dynamic control. Load line calibration.

The latest Intel processors have some extremely quick
power state change capabilities. Previous generations
would ramp over 100us or so. The time constants have
changed quite significantly.

*******

I have only one datapoint to offer. The BIOS for my
Asrock board had the *wrong* clock generator control
code in it. They changed brands of clock generator
in mid-production, without adding if-then-else
handling in the BIOS.

Clock generators don't *need* code at canonical frequencies.
Back at that time, BSEL could select 100MHz or 133MHz
(and multiply up), without invoking BIOS code. But
if you selected 101MHz, the board would crash at
BIOS level, because that caused the wrong registers
to be written in the ClockGen. It's like running
Marvell code, to program a Broadcom chip.

That's to give you some idea how clueless Asrock is.
The only overclocks I could do, were via BSEL mod.
That means insulating a pin in the LGA775 socket,
and soldering a wire to the correct BSEL pin on the
bottom of the motherboard. The board actually ran
with a 33% overclock but wasn't stable, so I backed
it out by leaving the wire floating in the computer
case. I used an offset mod on VCore, but elected to
not drive the voltage into the stratosphere. It was
just meant to get some "value" out of a $65 motherboard.

The VCore design on that $65 board was excellent.
I can't fault the mobo designer. Nor find fault
with the factory part change (you have to do that
if the previous clockgen has too long a lead time).
But the BIOS guys screwed the pooch in multiple
ways, such that I was using a hacked BIOS a guy in
Germany did instead. Even that couldn't fix the clockgen
issue. That requires more than just exposing
settings in the BIOS. People who hack BIOS, have
the ability to change the GUI items and expose
hidden ones, and the hacked BIOS allowed the
board to have "normal EIST". While Asrock kept
releasing the BIOS, with EIST broken. One stinking
"non-improved BIOS" after another. Like a
bunch of idiots. Just changing release numbers on
BIOS, without doing anything with the BIOS, isn't
"service" in my book.

I was willing at the time, to give them the
benefit of the doubt. But I've not had a
chance to test a second board and discover
a "theme of incompetence".

The chipset actually supported 1GB and 2GB DIMMs.
The board lacked 2GB tuning (Tsu/Th, delay taps etc).
But I can't really fault them, because the *chipset*
web site said it specifically could not work with
2GB DIMMs. Yet I plugged them in, and it *did*
work. Again, not stable. Using 1GB DIMMs, the
memory was perilously close to bulletproof.
All the board needed... was BIOS work to get 2GB working.

I think you can see some sort of theme here. It's just
one datapoint, but it does give you pause.

Paul
  #45  
Old December 21st 18, 09:12 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 213
Default New system build - reboot loop when attempting to boot from SATA HDD

On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 17:18:25 -0500, Paul wrote:

Char Jackson wrote:
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 14:22:03 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:
I just got off the phone with a technical guy from ASRock in California.
He says the default setting of Auto for VCore should absolutely work. If
it didn't, he says they'd have gotten a flood of calls and they haven't.
He strongly suggested that I not set a fixed VCore value, since that
voltage is intended to rise or fall, as needed, rising for performance
and falling to reduce heat.

At idle, he says 0.80v is common, and the voltage should ramp up, as
needed, but the CPU has to tell the motherboard what it needs. If not,
the motherboard just happily keeps the voltage at idle, which is fine
for the UEFI screens but too low for actual booting. I typically see
0.96v to 0.97v at idle. I lose visibility during boot attempts, but I
assume the voltage is not ramping up like it should.

When I explained the symptoms, he said I should RMA the board. When I
told him this is the second board with this identical behavior, he said
it's probably the CPU. So off I go to Newegg to see if they'll be as
nice about an RMA for the CPU as they were for the motherboard.


Just finished a nice online chat with Intel tech support. After some
back and forth, he says he doesn't think it's the CPU but he agrees that
I should try to RMA it, just in case. Next stop, Newegg.


Processors are tested along the curve.

Multiplier N 0.6V
Multiplier N+1 0.7V
...
Multiplier NMAX 1.2V Locked processor say

Multiplier NMAX+1 Via offsets Unlocked processor
Multiplier NMAX+... 1.43V Via offsets Unlocked processor

Of the first three, every VCore setting isn't
run through a full set of test vectors. In the past,
there were two stops with 500MHz margin on each run.
That's because running that set of vectors costs test
time and is quite thorough. Might take seconds to run,
instead of microseconds. Tester time could be a rate
limiting step in production.

If I had to guess:

Intel knows what they're doing

Award/AMI/Phoenix/Insyde are pretty good (bringup code)
Complete source is not given to the motherboard maker.

Motherboard manufacturer is the "unknown variable".
Some tweaking and tuning of all the Intel controls
goes on.

It's probably not hardware, but some problem with
adjustment of some dynamic control. Load line calibration.

The latest Intel processors have some extremely quick
power state change capabilities. Previous generations
would ramp over 100us or so. The time constants have
changed quite significantly.

*******

I have only one datapoint to offer. The BIOS for my
Asrock board had the *wrong* clock generator control
code in it. They changed brands of clock generator
in mid-production, without adding if-then-else
handling in the BIOS.

Clock generators don't *need* code at canonical frequencies.
Back at that time, BSEL could select 100MHz or 133MHz
(and multiply up), without invoking BIOS code. But
if you selected 101MHz, the board would crash at
BIOS level, because that caused the wrong registers
to be written in the ClockGen. It's like running
Marvell code, to program a Broadcom chip.

That's to give you some idea how clueless Asrock is.
The only overclocks I could do, were via BSEL mod.
That means insulating a pin in the LGA775 socket,
and soldering a wire to the correct BSEL pin on the
bottom of the motherboard. The board actually ran
with a 33% overclock but wasn't stable, so I backed
it out by leaving the wire floating in the computer
case. I used an offset mod on VCore, but elected to
not drive the voltage into the stratosphere. It was
just meant to get some "value" out of a $65 motherboard.

The VCore design on that $65 board was excellent.
I can't fault the mobo designer. Nor find fault
with the factory part change (you have to do that
if the previous clockgen has too long a lead time).
But the BIOS guys screwed the pooch in multiple
ways, such that I was using a hacked BIOS a guy in
Germany did instead. Even that couldn't fix the clockgen
issue. That requires more than just exposing
settings in the BIOS. People who hack BIOS, have
the ability to change the GUI items and expose
hidden ones, and the hacked BIOS allowed the
board to have "normal EIST". While Asrock kept
releasing the BIOS, with EIST broken. One stinking
"non-improved BIOS" after another. Like a
bunch of idiots. Just changing release numbers on
BIOS, without doing anything with the BIOS, isn't
"service" in my book.

I was willing at the time, to give them the
benefit of the doubt. But I've not had a
chance to test a second board and discover
a "theme of incompetence".

The chipset actually supported 1GB and 2GB DIMMs.
The board lacked 2GB tuning (Tsu/Th, delay taps etc).
But I can't really fault them, because the *chipset*
web site said it specifically could not work with
2GB DIMMs. Yet I plugged them in, and it *did*
work. Again, not stable. Using 1GB DIMMs, the
memory was perilously close to bulletproof.
All the board needed... was BIOS work to get 2GB working.

I think you can see some sort of theme here. It's just
one datapoint, but it does give you pause.


From a troubleshooting perspective, I'm in a pretty weak position
because I don't have two of anything at any given time. Amazon was out
of stock on the CPU so I went to Newegg, plus Newegg was a little less
expensive on the Motherboard and RAM. Those are all pluses for Newegg,
but unlike Amazon where replacement items get 2-day shipping, which for
me means 1 day or sometimes same day, Newegg switches over to FedEx
Ground for returns and replacements, and they require the returned item
to be inspected at their end before they ship the replacement. So if I
had ordered from Amazon, I'd have two motherboards and two CPUs by now
that I could mix and match, trying to find a good combo. As it is, I'll
be sitting here now for 10-14 days while I wait for a replacement CPU,
and if that doesn't resolve the 'no boot' issue, I'll be back at square
one.

Also from a troubleshooting perspective, the issue seems to be related
to VCore, and both ASRock and Intel told me the same story about how the
CPU tells the motherboard how much voltage it wants, and the motherboard
either complies or it doesn't. Just like everyone else, I don't have
test equipment that I can insert between the CPU and its socket to
monitor those requests and related responses, so I'm stuck doing
substitution.

As for setting a static VCore voltage, both support guys stressed that
that would be a very bad idea and was highly discouraged. Set it to less
than 'max' and the CPU will be hamstrung when it needs more power. OTOH,
set it to more than 'min' and the CPU will be converting any unused
power directly into heat. This CPU came with a stock cooler that would
be woefully inadequate for that job. That would call for water cooling,
at least. It would also affect the electric bill. Bottom line, it needs
to work properly. Anything less isn't good enough. The good news, I
guess, is that no one is pointing fingers at the RAM or any peripherals.

  #46  
Old December 21st 18, 11:02 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Flasherly[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,407
Default New system build - reboot loop when attempting to boot from SATA HDD

On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 14:12:34 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

Bottom line, it needs to work properly. Anything less isn't good
enough. The good news, I guess, is that no one is pointing fingers at
the RAM or any peripherals.

-
I'd want to have swapped in another MB, an ASUS proper (or Gigabyte
for a quarter to half the price). ASRock tech saying to you it's an
Intel issue ... come on. There may be an issue, that it also may not
be only limited to ASRock, among half-a-dozen possible board brands,
could be only as much conjecture over establishing stability in the
latest and upper-end of CPU product offerings. Intel, however, I'd
give, at least to bet my money on, the benefit for rigid
implementation of design within standards.

The CPU works and no differently than the first is my bet.

Gracefully easing onto a suitable platform and MB, one which also
works, would seem a matter now of diplomacy, between a layer of
distribution sources and how they view their commitment to provide a
product that fulfills both its advertisement for a reasonable
expectancy a customer is (legally or not legally) entitled.

Time is less material, waiting and an inconvenience, than a present
status of your capital investment and keeping that working for you on
an expected return of acceptable value. Time's just a variable in
part of a game for realizing that value. Were it not -- you might be
in a computer shop, with that same CPU, on a tested with a working and
certified platform, possibly ordering "out-house" on a same
preassembled premise -- for two to three times more cost outlay than
it's taking you to research and study all this yourself. . . .Playing
it for keeps: keeping appreciation on your money (not for a loss for
"restocking fees" or assessed extra shipping charges, among some
"jobber" production-distribution practices).
  #47  
Old December 22nd 18, 05:36 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 213
Default New system build - reboot loop when attempting to boot from SATA HDD

On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 17:02:18 -0500, Flasherly
wrote:

On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 14:12:34 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

Bottom line, it needs to work properly. Anything less isn't good
enough. The good news, I guess, is that no one is pointing fingers at
the RAM or any peripherals.

-
I'd want to have swapped in another MB, an ASUS proper (or Gigabyte
for a quarter to half the price).


Same here, but short of buying such an item, how can it happen? Then I'd
have an extra motherboard forevermore. As for the price, ASRock, Asus,
and Gigabyte are all in the same range of about $160 to $270, so cost
savings wouldn't be a reason to go to another brand.

ASRock tech saying to you it's an Intel issue ... come on.


What else should they say? The first time I talked with ASRock tech
support, they almost immediately suggested that I RMA the board. Fair
enough, that's what I did, partly because I think the board is the most
likely point of failure and partly because they agreed with that
assessment.

The second time I spoke with them, they again immediately suggested that
I RMA the board, but when I told them this is the second board with the
exact same issue, they said the next most likely culprit is the CPU.
That's where I am now.

There may be an issue, that it also may not
be only limited to ASRock, among half-a-dozen possible board brands,
could be only as much conjecture over establishing stability in the
latest and upper-end of CPU product offerings. Intel, however, I'd
give, at least to bet my money on, the benefit for rigid
implementation of design within standards.


Does Intel know what they're doing? Sure. Do people report getting bad
Intel CPUs? Absolutely. I can't rule out the CPU just because it says
Intel on the box.

I think I'm substituting on the basis of most likely failure.
Motherboard first, then CPU. If the next CPU behaves the same, I start
from scratch with ASRock, I guess, or I pester Newegg to let me try
something else.

The CPU works and no differently than the first is my bet.


You may well be right. I've considered the possibility myself.

  #48  
Old December 23rd 18, 02:19 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Flasherly[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,407
Default New system build - reboot loop when attempting to boot from SATA HDD

On Sat, 22 Dec 2018 10:36:28 -0600, Char Jackson
wrote:

The CPU works and no differently than the first is my bet.


You may well be right. I've considered the possibility myself.


A bet doesn't mean one can't lose. I've never personally had an issue
with a new CPU. In fact I effectively quit buying them. The two last
new CPUs I bought, a socket 478 Celeron D, goes back to 2005, and an
AMD octal (non-Ryzen) not long ago. Everything between were used
"guaranteed working" CPU pulls.

MBs, however, I wouldn't especially care to count the issues, failures
and replacements.

My idea for a splurge is the last one I bought (socket AMD3+ ) -- and
that's both fast enough (for factoring a market) to be already close
enough to a six-core Ryzen I saw on sale for $120 yesterday: AMD boxed
and w/ fan. Leaving a depreciation of 33% in six months on my
purchase.

Most of what can go wrong is all about MBs: some fail sooner than
later. ...At least until I switched to Gigabyte. And the rest is
near enough incidental to be a regular maintenance factor. A bad CPU
for me would be incredulous. I even into a South Korean
CPU-pull-market a few weeks ago to buy another. Something I couldn't
begin to imagine to attempt before - that amount of risk. CPUs have
just been tough and rugged in my experience.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
EP45-DS3L: Reboot Loop? (PeteCresswell) Gigabyte Motherboards 1 November 7th 08 11:22 AM
when installing XP pro, after first reboot, system corrected (destroy) files on attached SATA drive [email protected] Asus Motherboards 4 September 2nd 06 04:07 PM
a7v600-x stuck in reboot loop? Son Of LaL Asus Motherboards 10 November 29th 05 10:13 PM
Reboot loop woes... Ignacio Dinchong Asus Motherboards 3 July 3rd 05 11:54 PM
How to stop system attempting to boot from external hard drive? Miss Perspicacia Tick General 2 January 15th 05 04:46 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.