PPro on a BX?

David Maynard wrote:

P2B wrote:



P2B wrote:



David Maynard wrote:

P2B wrote:



David Maynard wrote:

The VRM datasheet says 1.3 - 3.5 - and the board wouldn't POST
if the CPU wasn't getting Vcore.







It might post, and then lock up, if it was getting too low a Vcore.

Just thought it might be worth verifying.






Never let it be said I left a stone unturned :-)





Hehe


Vcore = 3.31v according to my trusty DMM.





Doesn't look like that's 'the problem'




No.

Disabling the CPU caches in BIOS then installing the PPro didn't make
any difference either.



.. to booting the PPro - but it had a somewhat surprising side-effect:

I forgot to re-enable the CPU caches when I re-installed the
Tualatin-S today to test some new software. XP Pro wouldn't even boot
with the caches off - it sat at the splash screen for 3-4 minutes,
then BSOD. I assumed the hardware had been disturbed (it's a
board-on-the-bench system) and re-plugged it all, same thing. Then I
remembered the caches...

Interesting - NT and W2K systems are dead slow but otherwise
unaffected by lack of CPU cache, however it stops XP Pro cold.


Well, that is strange. Why would XP give a hoot whether cache is enabled
or not?

Dunno, but it's also the only OS I've used that objects to you removing
one CPU in a dual setup - similar issues result.

Hmm. Maybe it's trying to time something and being super slow screws up
a counter somewhere, or tells it crucial things are missing/defective
(from time-out).

It certainly was sloooow - I didn't know XP displayed the black & white
progress bar (like W2K) before the splash, I guess it's normally not
there long enough to see - but surely if it's timing something it would
use system clock timer-ticks, which are presumably unaffected.

P2B wrote:



David Maynard wrote:

P2B wrote:



P2B wrote:



David Maynard wrote:

P2B wrote:



David Maynard wrote:

The VRM datasheet says 1.3 - 3.5 - and the board wouldn't POST
if the CPU wasn't getting Vcore.








It might post, and then lock up, if it was getting too low a Vcore.

Just thought it might be worth verifying.







Never let it be said I left a stone unturned :-)






Hehe


Vcore = 3.31v according to my trusty DMM.






Doesn't look like that's 'the problem'





No.

Disabling the CPU caches in BIOS then installing the PPro didn't
make any difference either.




.. to booting the PPro - but it had a somewhat surprising side-effect:

I forgot to re-enable the CPU caches when I re-installed the
Tualatin-S today to test some new software. XP Pro wouldn't even boot
with the caches off - it sat at the splash screen for 3-4 minutes,
then BSOD. I assumed the hardware had been disturbed (it's a
board-on-the-bench system) and re-plugged it all, same thing. Then I
remembered the caches...

Interesting - NT and W2K systems are dead slow but otherwise
unaffected by lack of CPU cache, however it stops XP Pro cold.



Well, that is strange. Why would XP give a hoot whether cache is
enabled or not?


Dunno, but it's also the only OS I've used that objects to you removing
one CPU in a dual setup - similar issues result.

Hmm. Maybe it's trying to time something and being super slow screws
up a counter somewhere, or tells it crucial things are
missing/defective (from time-out).


It certainly was sloooow - I didn't know XP displayed the black & white
progress bar (like W2K) before the splash, I guess it's normally not
there long enough to see

Hehe. Yeah. I caught it going by once too. Don't remember why. Maybe I
blinked just right

- but surely if it's timing something it would
use system clock timer-ticks, which are presumably unaffected.

One would think so but MS has been known to use timing loops. At any rate,
the second half of my 'hmm' doesn't depend on a counter overflow for the
'problem'. It might simply think something critical is not working, hence
'missing', because it failed to respond in a timely manner.