Hello everyone, here is how to tell if you have the 219 bug - it really should be called the 219 - 229 cold boot hypertransport bug. Here is some excepts from my original post 2 1/2 weeks ago:
http://forum.msi.com.tw/index.php?topic=80211.0
In this illustration (from me in the thread), I let the bios ver 3.1 autoset the memory timings. On each cold boot post, the bios autoset the vdimm at 2.70v and the memory timings were autoset at 2.5,3,3,8 at 1T (1T manually set).
1. fsb 218x9, htt 218x5, ok
2. fsb 219x9, htt 219x5, ok
3. fsb 220x9, htt 220x5, no cold boot post
4. fsb 220x9, htt 220x4, no cold boot post - this is the 219 bug...at higher fsb, it really starts to affect performance
5. fsb 220x9, htt 220x3, ok
6. fsb 221x9, htt 221x3, ok
7. fsb 222x9, htt 222x3, ok - highest stability level of my valueram at 1:1, prime95 and memtest stable 8 hours plus each
However, if I manually lower vdimm to 2.55v and manually raise the n4 chipset voltage to 1.55v, my rig cold boot posts 4 out of 5 times at 222x9 and 222x4...
And some more from me...
I just dont accept the arguements that this cold boot 219 - 229 hypertransport problem doesnt affect performance...it does...
My test scenario is setting the ref clock(fsb) to 250x9, ht frequency multiplier to 250x1 and memclock to 166. At this setting, I can cold boot my rig no problem. I did overclock my MSI 6600gt to 11% (555/1110) because if you use DOT, the average person can overclock to this level (using coolbits, I can get to 580/1160). Here are my test scores - I test twice just to be sure and cold boot post each time:
Test 1 - 250x9, 250x1, 166 - 3Dmark05=3748, PCmark04=4388
Test 2 - 250x9, 250x1, 166 - 3Dmark05=3744, PCmark04=4394
The change I made using clockgen is to initially set fsb to 200x9, ht freq mult to 200x4 and memclock to 166. After I cold boot post, I use clockgen to increase fsb to 250x9 and by default, the ht freq multiplier is at 250x4. Here are my test scores using clockgen:
Test 3 - 250x9, 250x4, 166 - 3Dmark05=3983, PCmark04=4531
Test 4 - 250x9, 250x4, 166 - 3Dmark05=3986, PCmark04=4529
As you can see in every test case, I take a performance HIT when I have to boot at ht freq multiplier at x1 versus using clockgen after you boot to windows xp (which freq mult is set at x4 at 250).
I just cant get over the fact that we have to accept lesser performance since I can get to 250x4 thru clockgen but not through the bios thru a cold boot. IMO this is a bios problem-period!!!!!!!!!! And I hope this is a bios problem because if its a problem with the motherboard, then were all SOL....
And finally what Wesley Fink and Kristopher Kubicki from Anandtech did when they confronted MSI at Computex this last week:
Anandtech has now formally announced the following on its website:
Unfortunately, we have recently discovered some performance issues when using the board with 90nm processors, so until MSI can release a BIOS update that addresses the issue, we would avoid the board.
Update: After this Guide was initially written, it came to light that the MSI boards are having problems with 90nm parts. The MSI Neo4 SLI was our original high-end pick, but we changed that out after the new information. Sorry for the confusion!
Will MSI care to notice this and get this bios fixed soon?
http://www.anandtech.com/guides/showdoc.aspx?i=2426&p=2
However, The Problem Gets Worse! Well, the thread was locked on the MSI forum boards and a few users have been banned regarding the 219 cold boot hypertransport bug - actually 2 threads on the issue. The mods refuse to acknowledge the problem!
http://forum.msi.com.tw/index.php?topic=80974.0
http://forum.msi.com.tw/index.php?topic=80211.240
A new thread was started a week ago on Rebelshaven for those interested in this 219 bug and any updates to the problem - THANK GOD FOR ANANDTECH FOR HELPING TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS PROBLEM WITH MSI!!!!!!!!!:
http://www.rhcf.com/sisubb/ultimate...c/21/242/3.html