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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Post problem with Z77H2-A3 motherboard
Bob F wrote:
The BIOS seems to default to running at the 1600MHz the RAM is rated for. If I change memory clk multiplier to manual at 10 instead of 12, it will now boot every time at 1333 MHz. It does still do the double start, like it would do if overclocked too much when I was last using it full time. I did not previously have to do any of this slowing things down. I am beginning to think this board is just fading significantly. I just read your latest comment, and it gives me a lot more to think about. The DMI rewrite thing could be involved. Could it be that the DMI is failing and replacing the BIOS chip might clean up my problems? Another step backwards. Now, I just discovered that the Motherboard is not shutting off the power supply when it shuts down. This is really getting frustrating. Resetting the BIOS to default does nothing for this one. Well, that one would be a gate level hardware problem. Like an open collector driver that drives PS_ON# signal on the ATX main cable. Since it's open collector, it supports wired-OR operation, and if a second person was working on the project, they could have left a shorting jumper (PS_ON# to ground) on the thing. A pullup resistor, normally pulls PS_ON# to +5VSB voltage level, when the motherboard stops trying to drive PS_ON# low. The "#" means "active low". When the voltage level on PS_ON# is below 0.8V or so, the ATX supply starts spinning the fan and delivering 3.3/5/12/-12 rails. If the PS_ON# voltage rises to 5VSB level, the ATX supply main section goes off and the fan stops spinning. The +5VSB should remain running at all times, for this interface to work of course, as +5VSB powers the gates on the motherboard looking for that control signal. So when it doesn't shut off, it means something is pulling the signal down, closer to zero volts than to the logic one value of +5VSB volts. You can't "drive it high", as this is Open Collector logic, and only a 2K to 10K ohm resistor might be pulling it up. You would need to place a multimeter on PS_ON# to scope out the problem. You can shove a multimeter probe into the back of the main cable nylon shroud and touch the conductive metal on PS_ON#. And take a reading. While it could be related to an ACPI/APM kind of problem, I kind of doubt that would appear out of the blue like that. I'd start by checking the PS_ON# to see what kind of swing is present. One thing I've never understood, is how older motherboards worked. The pullup resistor scheme, doesn't require the motherboard end to sink more than 2mA of current (to make a logic zero and switch on the PSU). Yet, motherboards have 24mA or 48mA drive capability (knuckle dragger 74F07 driver chips) in those cases. What were they expecting the PSU to do ??? I couldn't figure out the level of overengineering on that signal. It's like the motherboard designers had their doubts about the PSU designers design credentials :-) And yet, PS_ON# failures seem quite common. Why ? I just don't get it. There's no reason for that interface to be "flake city", and yet that particular failure stands out. The PSU receiving end, does not use a logic gate, and uses a transistor-based substitute. Even though today, in 2020, you can get 5 pin miniature single logic gates, that could do a spec compliant TTL level interface on the thing. The engineers making PSUs prefer their transistor bodge instead. If another motherboard had been able to turn the PSU on and off properly ("soft off"), then this would implicate the current motherboard as having a "driving low" problem on PS_ON#. If every motherboard you connect to the PSU, cannot gain proper control, the PSU is then implicated (bodge transistor circuit failure). Paul |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Post problem with Z77H2-A3 motherboard
On 4/2/2020 2:41 AM, Paul wrote:
Bob F wrote: The BIOS seems to default to running at the 1600MHz the RAM is rated for. If I change memory clk multiplier to manual at 10 instead of 12, it will now boot every time at 1333 MHz. It does still do the double start, like it would do if overclocked too much when I was last using it full time. I did not previously have to do any of this slowing things down. I am beginning to think this board is just fading significantly. I just read your latest comment, and it gives me a lot more to think about. The DMI rewrite thing could be involved. Could it be that the DMI is failing and replacing the BIOS chip might clean up my problems? Another step backwards. Now, I just discovered that the Motherboard is not shutting off the power supply when it shuts down. This is really getting frustrating. Resetting the BIOS to default does nothing for this one. Well, that one would be a gate level hardware problem. Like an open collector driver that drives PS_ON# signal on the ATX main cable. Since it's open collector, it supports wired-OR operation, and if a second person was working on the project, they could have left a shorting jumper (PS_ON# to ground) on the thing. A pullup resistor, normally pulls PS_ON# to +5VSB voltage level, when the motherboard stops trying to drive PS_ON# low. The "#" means "active low". When the voltage level on PS_ON# is below 0.8V or so, the ATX supply starts spinning the fan and delivering 3.3/5/12/-12 rails. If the PS_ON# voltage rises to 5VSB level, the ATX supply main section goes off and the fan stops spinning. The +5VSB should remain running at all times, for this interface to work of course, as +5VSB powers the gates on the motherboard looking for that control signal. So when it doesn't shut off, it means something is pulling the signal down, closer to zero volts than to the logic one value of +5VSB volts. You can't "drive it high", as this is Open Collector logic, and only a 2K to 10K ohm resistor might be pulling it up. You would need to place a multimeter on PS_ON# to scope out the problem. You can shove a multimeter probe into the back of the main cable nylon shroud and touch the conductive metal on PS_ON#. And take a reading. While it could be related to an ACPI/APM kind of problem, I kind of doubt that would appear out of the blue like that. I'd start by checking the PS_ON# to see what kind of swing is present. One thing I've never understood, is how older motherboards worked. The pullup resistor scheme, doesn't require the motherboard end to sink more than 2mA of current (to make a logic zero and switch on the PSU). Yet, motherboards have 24mA or 48mA drive capability (knuckle dragger 74F07 driver chips) in those cases. What were they expecting the PSU to do ??? I couldn't figure out the level of overengineering on that signal. It's like the motherboard designers had their doubts about the PSU designers design credentials :-) And yet, PS_ON# failures seem quite common. Why ? I just don't get it. There's no reason for that interface to be "flake city", and yet that particular failure stands out. The PSU receiving end, does not use a logic gate, and uses a transistor-based substitute. Even though today, in 2020, you can get 5 pin miniature single logic gates, that could do a spec compliant TTL level interface on the thing. The engineers making PSUs prefer their transistor bodge instead. If another motherboard had been able to turn the PSU on and off properly ("soft off"), then this would implicate the current motherboard as having a "driving low" problem on PS_ON#. If every motherboard you connect to the PSU, cannot gain proper control, the PSU is then implicated (bodge transistor circuit failure). Â*Â* Paul This problem showed up while I had a second power supply hooked up to it, but carried over to the original when I went back to it. I checked the voltage at PS_ON#, and it is 5V after I power the supply up. It goes to 0V when I push the power button, and stays there from then on after shut down. So, it seems like the actual switching works in the power on direction but it is not reversing on shutdown. I am leaning towards giving up on this board, and going back to the other board I have with flakey USB 3.0 ports. I did a little looking, and these boards are a lot more expensive than I thought old boards should be. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Post problem with Z77H2-A3 motherboard
Bob F wrote:
This problem showed up while I had a second power supply hooked up to it, but carried over to the original when I went back to it. I checked the voltage at PS_ON#, and it is 5V after I power the supply up. It goes to 0V when I push the power button, and stays there from then on after shut down. So, it seems like the actual switching works in the power on direction but it is not reversing on shutdown. I am leaning towards giving up on this board, and going back to the other board I have with flakey USB 3.0 ports. I did a little looking, and these boards are a lot more expensive than I thought old boards should be. You could try adding a pullup resistor to the circuit. +5VSB | 4.7K ohm resistor | Mobo --------+----------------- PS_IN# (PSU) What that does, is inject a max of 1mA of current into that signal, and see if the motherboard end is releasing properly when the intent is to soft power off. A sample Intel document I found, seems to have some idea how the stuff works. The drive capability is 8mA. A 1K pullup resistor is recommended in the SuperIO datasheet, whereas the 865G doc uses a 22K (weak) pullup, which surely is getting close to a minimum for that point in the circuit. If a 1K ohm resistor (recommended by SuperIO datasheet) were to be used in place of the 22K, that would be a sinking current of 5mA. The 4.7K testing resistor would bring that to 6mA, leaving 2mA to drive the pullup inside the PSU. 5VSB 5VSB 5VSB | | | ICH/PCH SuperIO 22K 4.7K (PU) SLP_S3# | | | PWRBTN# ---+ +-----------------+ OD8 +-----+------+------ (PSU) --+ CPU_PRESENT# PS_ON# ---------------+ CPUSLP# --- The path to switch off the power, is a bugger to trace. It almost looks like the CPU executes a HALT, that might assert CPUSLP#, turns into SLP_S3# (because there's some sequencing going on to make a soft landing), and the SuperIO then stops driving low on PS_ON#. Even if the sequenced soft landing fails, you still get to see "it is safe to turn off this PC" on the screen. And failures of this sort are blamed on a broken ACPI subsystem in software. But because I can't find a description of what actually happens, this is just a guess from looking at signal names. I see no evidence (yet), of an actual register controlling the powering off thing. On the older schematic, instead of a SuperIO performing the buffer task, the designer used a 74F07 open collector jelly bean logic chip for the final drive. In other words, something with more than OD8 (open drain 8 milliamp) capability, and not going to take "no" for an answer when it engages. The designer who did that, that's "virtue signaling" in the engineering profession, and says "I know something but I'm not telling you" :-) The CPU_PRESENT type signal, is a static signal asserted by the CPU (a strap condition), which tells the motherboard that a CPU is inserted in the socket. It doesn't say the CPU works, and it's present to prevent the PWRBTN from working if the motherboard has no CPU installed. It's hard to believe a proper sized resistor wasn't placed on PS_ON#. And as far as I know, the power supply end has its own resistor (because the PSU must behave properly if sitting on a table, and someone plugs in the power cord - it can't take off because it lacked a pullup). ******* You could go to Device Manager while the system is running, and see if the "Computer" item in device manager, the HAL value is "ACPI Uniprocessor PC" or "ACPI Multiprocessor PC", as there is also the possibility of some non-ACPI value. It's possible in the BIOS, after you've finished fiddling with the CMOS CR2032 battery, you disabled the ACPI setting and damaged the HAL value in Device Manager. On more modern OSes, it might repair this on its own when the BIOS setting is corrected. With Windows XP, there were some "horrid procedures" for fixing the damage caused by starting a system with the BIOS ACPI set improperly. For example, on some computers here, the desired setting is "ACPI 2.0" [Enabled] versus the not-so-nice value of [Disabled]. The older version of ACPI may not be sufficient to keep any sort of modern Windows happy. I think I had Win2K refuse to install, with the [Disabled] value set by accident. I can't really see a good explanation in terms of the pullup resistor thing. Perhaps your evaluation order should be: 1) Check Device Manager "Computer" entry for correct value. Remedy by checking BIOS setup in Power menu, ACPI. If the HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) label is wrong, that could account for your "new symptom". 2) If the HAL appears correct, now work on your pullup resistor. Not really good odds this will be indicative, but it's what I'd try before "trashing my setup" and moving on. If it's (1), you don't have to panic :-) Paul |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Post problem with Z77H2-A3 motherboard
On Thu, 2 Apr 2020 12:51:56 -0700, Bob F wrote:
I did a little looking, and these boards are a lot more expensive than I thought old boards should be. - They're sometimes actually not, but can be a result of supply and demand. The last board I dealt in quadrupled its price once Taiwan facilities began the transition for manufacture cessation. Less reputability comes to point, as it became destined an OEM item for a likes of Ebay and secondary-tier sellers. The next manufacture release is of course bound to the next CPU socket, fewer if any driver support than for Microsoft dominance, along with shrinking MB real estate, fewer firmware features, slots and plugs, at smaller form factors. All of less of nothing, a potential consideration, for more money at the budget platform entry, effectively in sole dependence on Windows 10. What that makes old about boards now, to say somewhat demandingly tedious, is that they're more complicated an affair required to conclusively discern for widest software compatibility support (leaving fractional *NIX platforms) at an opportune price. Handhelds and proprietary services have seen to as much that vision, one for certain inconveniences if betoken of olden, where personal computers consequently adjust to fit perhaps a resultant residual of niche items. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Post problem with Z77H2-A3 motherboard
On 4/2/2020 9:05 PM, Paul wrote:
Bob F wrote: This problem showed up while I had a second power supply hooked up to it, but carried over to the original when I went back to it. I checked the voltage at PS_ON#, and it is 5V after I power the supply up. It goes to 0V when I push the power button, and stays there from then on after shut down. So, it seems like the actual switching works in the power on direction but it is not reversing on shutdown. I am leaning towards giving up on this board, and going back to the other board I have with flakey USB 3.0 ports. I did a little looking, and these boards are a lot more expensive than I thought old boards should be. You could try adding a pullup resistor to the circuit. Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* +5VSB Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* | Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 4.7K ohm resistor Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* | Â*Â* Mobo --------+----------------- PS_IN# (PSU) What that does, is inject a max of 1mA of current into that signal, and see if the motherboard end is releasing properly when the intent is to soft power off. A sample Intel document I found, seems to have some idea how the stuff works. The drive capability is 8mA. A 1K pullup resistor is recommended in the SuperIO datasheet, whereas the 865G doc uses a 22K (weak) pullup, which surely is getting close to a minimum for that point in the circuit. If a 1K ohm resistor (recommended by SuperIO datasheet) were to be used in place of the 22K, that would be a sinking current of 5mA. The 4.7K testing resistor would bring that to 6mA, leaving 2mA to drive the pullup inside the PSU. Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 5VSB 5VSBÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* 5VSB Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* | |Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* | Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* ICH/PCHÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* SuperIOÂ*Â*Â*Â* 22K 4.7KÂ*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* (PU) Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* SLP_S3#Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* | |Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* | Â*PWRBTN# ---+Â*Â*Â*Â* +-----------------+Â*Â* OD8 +-----+------+------ (PSU) --+ Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* CPU_PRESENT#Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* PS_ON# Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â*Â* ---------------+ Â*CPUSLP# --- The path to switch off the power, is a bugger to trace. It almost looks like the CPU executes a HALT, that might assert CPUSLP#, turns into SLP_S3# (because there's some sequencing going on to make a soft landing), and the SuperIO then stops driving low on PS_ON#. Even if the sequenced soft landing fails, you still get to see "it is safe to turn off this PC" on the screen. And failures of this sort are blamed on a broken ACPI subsystem in software. But because I can't find a description of what actually happens, this is just a guess from looking at signal names. I see no evidence (yet), of an actual register controlling the powering off thing. On the older schematic, instead of a SuperIO performing the buffer task, the designer used a 74F07 open collector jelly bean logic chip for the final drive. In other words, something with more than OD8 (open drain 8 milliamp) capability, and not going to take "no" for an answer when it engages. The designer who did that, that's "virtue signaling" in the engineering profession, and says "I know something but I'm not telling you" :-) The CPU_PRESENT type signal, is a static signal asserted by the CPU (a strap condition), which tells the motherboard that a CPU is inserted in the socket. It doesn't say the CPU works, and it's present to prevent the PWRBTN from working if the motherboard has no CPU installed. It's hard to believe a proper sized resistor wasn't placed on PS_ON#. And as far as I know, the power supply end has its own resistor (because the PSU must behave properly if sitting on a table, and someone plugs in the power cord - it can't take off because it lacked a pullup). ******* You could go to Device Manager while the system is running, and see if the "Computer" item in device manager, the HAL value is "ACPI Uniprocessor PC" or "ACPI Multiprocessor PC", as there is also the possibility of some non-ACPI value. It's possible in the BIOS, after you've finished fiddling with the CMOS CR2032 battery, you disabled the ACPI setting and damaged the HAL value in Device Manager. On more modern OSes, it might repair this on its own when the BIOS setting is corrected. With Windows XP, there were some "horrid procedures" for fixing the damage caused by starting a system with the BIOS ACPI set improperly. For example, on some computers here, the desired setting is "ACPI 2.0" [Enabled] versus the not-so-nice value of [Disabled]. The older version of ACPI may not be sufficient to keep any sort of modern Windows happy. I think I had Win2K refuse to install, with the [Disabled] value set by accident. I can't really see a good explanation in terms of the pullup resistor thing. Perhaps your evaluation order should be: 1) Check Device Manager "Computer" entry for correct value. Â*Â* Remedy by checking BIOS setup in Power menu, ACPI. Â*Â* If the HAL (Hardware Abstraction Layer) label is wrong, Â*Â* that could account for your "new symptom". 2) If the HAL appears correct, now work on your pullup resistor. Â*Â* Not really good odds this will be indicative, but it's Â*Â* what I'd try before "trashing my setup" and moving on. If it's (1), you don't have to panic :-) Paul and Flasherly Thank you both for your thoughtful consideration of my problems here. I have, for the moment set the Z77 board aside, and gone back to the less problematic Z68 board which does work other than the USB 3 problem. Since I only have the one 1155 processor, I will not be able to continue with debugging the Z77 board at this time. You both gave me plenty to think about on this project, and I appreciate the education. Bob |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Post problem with Z77H2-A3 motherboard
On Mon, 13 Apr 2020 20:23:49 -0700, Bob F wrote:
Since I only have the one 1155 processor, I will not be able to continue with debugging the Z77 board at this time. You both gave me plenty to think about on this project, and I appreciate the education. Last Intel I ran was a nice experience and the first time, apart from richer processor costs, I went with over a spread of Intel processors supported on that brand motherboard. A motherboard purchased to build with a new Intel dual core, and the first time subsequently I'd considered a supply of used processors. Three or four times I went back to used processors, from that support list, eventually to max it out with the fastest Intel listed. Each time as used processors dropped to a fraction of their original values. The first new Intel was probably $50 and a budget model. The rest, afterwards, I didn't have to pay usually more than $20 a processor. EBAY business pulls. Look them through and some are respectable enough. Look a little more distantly, generally in such a market, which I did on an AMD platform since for a budget AMD processor I bought twice to get the best value for performance from the first purchased misapplied, but later corrected from South Korea, my first time that distant, among sellers of used processors. Overall, I've been surprised how very nice very little cost-outlay can be for options indeed available in a secondary CPU market. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Post problem with Z77H2-A3 motherboard
On Tue, 14 Apr 2020 05:49:45 -0400, Flasherly
wrote: Intel CPU updates over a course of 2011-2015 -- http://stores.ebay.com/greenITexchange/Processors Coreâ„¢ 2 Duo E6850 $12 free ship ebay Intel Pentium D 805 2.66 GHz LGA 775 CPU SL8ZH 2M/533 dual core 64-bit 10.95 shipped ebay Item number361026204698 INTEL CORE 2 DUO PROCESSOR E6850 3GHz/4M/1333MHz SLA9U CPU Qty: 1 $11.95 Standard Shipping FREE tax $0.84 tot 12.79 ebay INTEL CORE 2 QUAD Q8200 SLG9S 2.33GHZ 4MB CACHE 1333MHZ CPU Qty: 1 $24.99 USPS First Class Package FREE Sold by ci-elec -- Intel board replaced since and most recent, including corrected AMD already mentioned -- ebay s korea Sold by gtron7 Jan 2019 AMD FX-Series FX-4100 Zambezi FD4100WMW4KGU Socket AM3+ 95W CPU Quantity 1 Item 192079749758 Order total Shipping Free $24.50 ( I didn't like this Amd Phenom II X4 810 - 2.6Ghz (Used/Pull) $29.95 and replaced it with the above FX-4100 [arguably, combined, cost of an AMD-3+ hexcore] ) |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
New motherboard that does not post | Daniel Prince | General | 17 | July 19th 12 10:39 AM |
Asus M2NPV-VM motherboard Power-On Self-TEST (POST) problem whenchanging disks (etc) | [email protected] | General | 4 | January 11th 09 04:18 PM |
Asus Motherboard/Antec case sound problem - oringinal post to Asusnewsgrp | Fitz[_2_] | Homebuilt PC's | 0 | December 22nd 07 07:56 AM |
Asus SP97-V and strange post/no post problem | Olli Meckelburg | Asus Motherboards | 0 | February 14th 04 12:25 PM |
Motherboard won't post? | Gary LosHuertos | General | 5 | February 4th 04 09:46 AM |