GA-VM900M 1.0 : No "Virtualization Technology" for a processor that supports it

[alb3530]

Re: GA-VM900M 1.0 : No "Virtualization Technology" for a processor that supports it

Thank you guys.

I've made more tests here.

Flashed board from F4 to F6 BIOS and then Vcore was displayed as 1.248 (against 1.072 when using F4 BIOS).

When in full load (Intel Burn Test), Vcore was 1.182 (if I remember well).
But Gflops measured were like before: about 16

It means, with F4 BIOS, Vcore is below normal, and that's why BIOS shows Vcore FAIL

Noticed another problem in F6 BIOS though: SSE4.1 isn't supported, just like VT-x


Then, I've downgraded to F4 and so I'll remain.

The good news are I've tighten memory timings from 5-5-5-15 to 4-4-4-12, and machine PASSED through Intel Burn Test, but now with Gflops 17.
Also, MaxxMEM showed memory latency decreased by 10 ns, and average speed is now 5.03 Gb/s, against 4.91 Gb/s with default timings


Best regards

[Chike]

Re: GA-VM900M 1.0 : No "Virtualization Technology" for a processor that supports it

If you create a text report you can see the actual Max VID, 1.248v looks right.
One more GFlops and 10ns latency is also good to have.

[Lsdmeasap]

Re: GA-VM900M 1.0 : No "Virtualization Technology" for a processor that supports it

You say BIOS Vcore fail? Does your BIOS really say this?

If so WOW, cool!

So you sticking with F4 then? If so, you might as well go ahead and make a lit of features missing in the newer BIOSes and send that to Gigabyte.

Send it here, and ask them to forward to the BIOS engineers, let them know of your testing with old and new BIOSes and which settings are missing in the new ones that should be there.
GIGABYTE - Upgrade Your Life

Link to this thread as well for their reference. This way, when/if they make a new BIOS for this board they know these issues need corrected

[alb3530]

Re: GA-VM900M 1.0 : No "Virtualization Technology" for a processor that supports it

You say BIOS Vcore fail? Does your BIOS really say this?

If so WOW, cool!

So you sticking with F4 then? If so, you might as well go ahead and make a lit of features missing in the newer BIOSes and send that to Gigabyte.

Send it here, and ask them to forward to the BIOS engineers, let them know of your testing with old and new BIOSes and which settings are missing in the new ones that should be there.
GIGABYTE - Upgrade Your Life

Link to this thread as well for their reference. This way, when/if they make a new BIOS for this board they know these issues need corrected

Yes, It says VCORE FAIL in BIOS, will post a picture of BIOS screen as soon as I can...

See a picture of my screen now, I tightened RAM timings to their limits:

http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/3316219/img/Anonymous/TweakTownPost-1.png

As you can see, Gflops are now ~17.5 and latency decreased by 2.5 ns: it was 100.5 ns with SPD timings and now it's 87.5 ns, fully stable (according IBT)

I'll contact Gigabyte as you've suggested, Lsdmeasap.

By the way, the F7A BIOS seems really beta.Information about motherboard model seems not to be implemented (once Windows can't display it) and some other things.


On Windows 7 64-BIT, Windows Experience Index also fails in that BIOS (maybe cause Windows can't determine some component's names, like motherboard model)


Best regards

[Chike]

Re: GA-VM900M 1.0 : No "Virtualization Technology" for a processor that supports it

IBT may not be enough to test stability, run an hour or ywo Prime95 large FFT and then 8+ hours blend.

With Pxx chipsets memory copy bandwidth is usually higher or equal than the read and write, could be the reason for thr low Flops.

[Lsdmeasap]

Re: GA-VM900M 1.0 : No "Virtualization Technology" for a processor that supports it

Cool, thanks, yes please do post a picture of that I have never seen it myself so I just wanted to see it. They should make all BIOS be able to do that, especially if it is correctly detecting that it is mainly the Vcore that fails on incorrect settings.

Be sure you mention your issues with F7a as well on your report you send them, so they can correct that as well.

[alb3530]

Re: GA-VM900M 1.0 : No "Virtualization Technology" for a processor that supports it

Cool, thanks, yes please do post a picture of that I have never seen it myself so I just wanted to see it. They should make all BIOS be able to do that, especially if it is correctly detecting that it is mainly the Vcore that fails on incorrect settings.

Be sure you mention your issues with F7a as well on your report you send them, so they can correct that as well.

Here it goes:

http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/3325046/img/Anonymous/Vcore-FAIL.jpg

RAM Timings:

http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/3325049/img/Anonymous/RAM-Timings.jpg

Virtualization and EIST:

http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/3325053/img/Anonymous/VT-X-EIST.jpg

All the above are from F4 BIOS

Best regards

[Chike]

Re: GA-VM900M 1.0 : No "Virtualization Technology" for a processor that supports it

You do want CPU Thermal Monitor enabled, do not disable it.

[Lsdmeasap]

Re: GA-VM900M 1.0 : No "Virtualization Technology" for a processor that supports it

Here it goes:

http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/3325046/img/Anonymous/Vcore-FAIL.jpg

RAM Timings:

http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/3325049/img/Anonymous/RAM-Timings.jpg

Virtualization and EIST:

http://www5.picturepush.com/photo/a/3325053/img/Anonymous/VT-X-EIST.jpg

All the above are from F4 BIOS

Best regards

Thanks, that's cool!

So have you found out for sure if this means the Vcore amount set is "Fail", or could that possibly mean it "Fail" to detect the Vcore value?

[alb3530]

Re: GA-VM900M 1.0 : No "Virtualization Technology" for a processor that supports it

Thanks, that's cool!

So have you found out for sure if this means the Vcore amount set is "Fail", or could that possibly mean it "Fail" to detect the Vcore value?

No, I just suppose the FAIL is due to insufficient VCORE value...

If there was a way to determine it, I'd do it.Unless it was something very complex

Best regards

[Lsdmeasap]

Re: GA-VM900M 1.0 : No "Virtualization Technology" for a processor that supports it

Well not sure how you would go about testing? Maybe too high or way to low, but too low would likely cause insufficient as well so that wouldn't help.

It probably means not enough like you suspected, too bad they do not all do this!