Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 60

Thread: Windows Only Sees Sata_0 and Sata_1 on ASR Z97X Killer MB?




  1. #11
    Ken429 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Valapariso, Indiana
    Posts
    516

    Default Re: Windows Only Sees Sata_0 and Sata_1 on ASR Z97X Killer MB?

    Oh well, some cold rainy day I try installing a fresh copy of W8.1 and see what happens. I'm betting that will fix the Sata Port issues.

  2. #12
    Ken429 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Valapariso, Indiana
    Posts
    516

    Default Re: Windows Only Sees Sata_0 and Sata_1 on ASR Z97X Killer MB?

    It was a snowy morning today so I tried re-installing a fresh copy W8.1 on a different SSD (Vertex 3 120GB) connected to Sata3_0 to determine if the problem(s) would go away. I feel better now all the same stuff happened!
    Steps taken:
    • I disconnected everything on the MB except the blank SSD (connected to Sata3_0) and installed W8.1, Z97X Killer drivers and all the W8.1 Updates.
    • Booted several times with just the SSD connected to make sure Windows wasn't saving something like another update.
    • Connected a WD Black 640GB drive to Sata3_1. BIOS detected but Windows did not!
    • Connected the WD drive to Sata3_3. BIOS detected but Windows did not!
    • Connected the OCZ boot SSD to Sata3_3 and the WD drive to Sata3_0 booted and it was detected by Windows.

    I could have gone on and reproduced all the steps I stumbled through originally when I tried to assign all the strange happenings to testing W10 on the system but it appears that something else is going on between the BIOS and Windows. Time to send this MB back to ASRock?!

  3. #13
    parsec's Avatar
    parsec is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Third stone from the sun
    Posts
    4,824

    Default Re: Windows Only Sees Sata_0 and Sata_1 on ASR Z97X Killer MB?

    I'm watching it snow here in the Chicago area now too, several inches and still coming... welcome Spring!?!

    You my friend have the luck, that is just crazy! I hope you tried changing the SATA data cables, although since the drives are detected in the UEFI you likely think the cable is fine. Can't blame you for that, but personally, I would at least try that.

    All I can suggest is setting that SATA Device Type option in Storage Configuration to either SSD or Hard Drive (hopefully that board's UEFI doesn't have "Hard Driver" as one of the options, as previous ASRock board's UEFIs do, I hate typos) as needed.

    I've found setting Aggressive SATA Link Power Management to Enabled does not cause boot failures as I have in the past, but I'd leave it Disabled just to be sure.

    I always use the Intel IRST driver, but that is because I use RAID mode. That driver did nothing to help cure your problems anyway.

    Regardless, if that board was mine, I'd be sending it back, no question about it. I assume you've tried restarting Windows after any non-recognition of any drive, without changing the SATA port it was connected to. There I go again, offering more fixes that don't fix anything in your case.

    Fuhgetaboutit, send that board packing!!

    I have never, ever, had an Intel based board that had a problem detecting drives like you are experiencing. That goes back to my first builds with socket 775 boards, which is not that long ago, but the Intel SATA chipsets have always been perfect functionally in my experience.

    I'm sick of hearing about that board Ken, get it outta here!! RMA it, and I want to know how that goes (albeit a banned topic), and how the replacement board works.

    (Write down the SN of that board, should be a label on the box with it on too. The SN is programmed into the board and can be checked with HWiNFO. Just a thought... )

  4. #14
    Ken429 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Valapariso, Indiana
    Posts
    516

    Default Re: Windows Only Sees Sata_0 and Sata_1 on ASR Z97X Killer MB?

    parsec,

    I don't give up that easily!

    I had a strange feeling that the 2X4GB GSkill Ripjaws Z 2400-10 1.65V memory sticks I was using in the system might be too much for the G3258 cpu. So...I went and bought 2X4GB Mushkin Stealth 1600-9 1.35V memory sticks just to see if it had any effect. I just installed the new memory and guess what...the system (both the BIOS and Windows 8.1) recognizes all the Sata ports correctly. What had me confused early on was I tried the GSkill memory with the default settings but it still had the Sata recognition problem but I thought it was worth a try since I wanted to put the GSkill back in the 4790K system anyway.

    Now, I think I'll go back and see it the system will OC beyond 4.0GHz with the Mushkin memory. Just curious what memory are you using in your G3258 system?

  5. #15
    parsec's Avatar
    parsec is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Third stone from the sun
    Posts
    4,824

    Default Re: Windows Only Sees Sata_0 and Sata_1 on ASR Z97X Killer MB?

    Say what? That G.SKILL memory apparently caused the SATA port/drive recognition problem?

    Well, add that one to the PC issue X-files, haven't thought much about it yet, but that is a weird one in my book.

    What memory do I use with my G3258? The same memory I use with almost all my boards, the Samsung M379B5273DH0 "Wonder memory".

    This is it on my G3258 PC:

    Windows Only Sees Sata_0 and Sata_1 on ASR Z97X Killer MB?-g3258-4-5-hwinfo-1-png

    8GB at 2000, 1.375V, won't do more than that without a lot of fooling around, which I don't believe is worth it. You can't buy this stuff new anymore, except maybe on fleaBay, etc, for above retail (8GB for $55 IIRC, from our favorite PC parts retailer... probably two years ago by now)

    Completely unmatched DIMMs, even the 4GB x 2 kits had hugely different serial numbers on each one.

  6. #16
    Ken429 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Valapariso, Indiana
    Posts
    516

    Default Re: Windows Only Sees Sata_0 and Sata_1 on ASR Z97X Killer MB?

    The Mushkin Memory helped the OC situation a little - I was able to get it to run IBT for 10 passes @4.2GHz. However, it needed 1.304V under load and reached 61C. Beyond that it needed way too much Vcore to run @ 4.4GHz - but it did run. I guess that's an improvement since with the GSkill Memory it would not run over 4.0GHz no matter how much Vcore it got. So it's happy at 4.0GHz and runs with 1.216V under load and Core Temps reaching 56C for a moment in time. I'm happy too since this system is much more efficient for a Home Server than the old E8500 or Q9550 systems and seems to be more responsive.

  7. #17
    parsec's Avatar
    parsec is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Third stone from the sun
    Posts
    4,824

    Default Re: Windows Only Sees Sata_0 and Sata_1 on ASR Z97X Killer MB?

    Interesting, I would have been skeptical if I just heard that different memory allowed a better OC, or a lower VCore to get the same speed. But we both are using low voltage DDR3 memory, so a lesson in that, at least maybe for the G3258. Plus think how this goes against the idea of using more voltage when over clocking memory, or a higher voltage from the specs to reach the rated speed. You do see people backing off on their memory speed to keep a CPU OC stable, which may really be doing the same thing, reducing the memory voltage. It makes me wonder if memory voltage commonly limits CPU OCing, or is that the memory itself?

    Actually, it seems all the G32xx Pentiums have a rated memory speed of 1333, while the G34xx Pentiums are rated to 1600:

    IntelŪ PentiumŪ Processor G3000 Series for Desktop

    Plus it seems all these Pentiums are compatible with ECC memory.

    Really, the G3258 system seems more responsive than a Q9550? I wonder what the IBT GFLOPs of the Q9550 is. I am taken aback by how low the G3258 is, but it is only two cores and threads.

    A 4.0GHz OC on a G3258 is a 25% OC of the stock speed of 3.2GHz. How many 4.0GHz processors can OC by 25%, to 5.0GHz? My good G3258 can do 4.5GHz, which is a bit over a 40% OC. I don't know if that is its limit, I'm a little below 1.3V.

    But another example of how different these processors can be when they are OC'd. We can see how much leeway there is above the stock speed, which is rather conservative.

  8. #18
    profJim's Avatar
    profJim is online now Chief Munchkin + moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Tacoma, WA. [USA]
    Posts
    7,811

    Default Re: Windows Only Sees Sata_0 and Sata_1 on ASR Z97X Killer MB?

    Really, the G3258 system seems more responsive than a Q9550? I wonder what the IBT GFLOPs of the Q9550 is. I am taken aback by how low the G3258 is, but it is only two cores and threads.
    Stock Q9550 at 2.83GHz LinX results are ~ 38GFlops.

    I've found that IBT GFlops scores are slightly lower than LinX GFlops scores.

    My Q9550 at 4.20GHz scores:

    Q9650 @ 4.10GHz [9x456MHz]
    P35-DS4 [rev: 2.0] ~ Bios: F14
    4x2GB OCZ Reaper PC2-8500 1094MHz @5-5-5-15
    MSI N460GTX Hawk Talon Attack (1GB) video card <---- SLI ---->
    Seasonic SS-660XP2 80 Plus Platinum psu (660w)
    WD Caviar Black WD6401AALS 640GB (data)
    Samsung 840 Pro 256GB SSD (boot)
    SLI @ 16/4 works when running HyperSLI
    Cooler Master 120XL Seidon push/pull AIO cpu water cooling
    Cooler Master HAF XB computer case (RC-902XB-KKN1)
    Asus VH242H 24" monitor [1920x1080]
    MSI N460GTX Hawk (1GB) video card
    Logitech Z-5500 Digital 5.1 Speakers
    win7 x64 sp1 Home Premium
    HT|Omega Claro plus+ sound card
    CyberPower CP1500PFCLCD UPS
    E6300 (R0) @ 3.504GHz [8x438MHz] ~~ P35-DS3L [rev: 1.0] ~ Bios: F9 ~~ 4x2GB Kingston HyperX T1 PC2-8500, 876MHz @4-4-4-10
    Seasonic X650 80+ gold psu (650w) ~~ Xigmatek Balder HDT 1283 cpu cooler ~~ Cooler Master CM 690 case (RC-690-KKN1-GP)
    Samsung 830 128GB SSD MZ-7PC128B/WW (boot) ~~ WD Caviar Black WD6401AALS 640GB (data) ~~ ZM-MFC2 fan controller
    HT|Omega Striker 7.1 sound card ~~ Asus VH242H monitor [1920x1080] ~~ Logitech Z-5500 Digital 5.1 Speakers
    win7 x64 sp1 Home Premium ~~ CyberPower CP1500PFCLCD U.P.S
    .


  9. #19
    Ken429 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Valapariso, Indiana
    Posts
    516

    Default Re: Windows Only Sees Sata_0 and Sata_1 on ASR Z97X Killer MB?

    I suppose I'm being a unfair when I say the G3258 system is more responsive than the Q9550 system. Especially, when it comes to GFlops. But the Z97 chipset and latest and greatest BIOS versus the P45 chipset and BIOS on the GA-EP45-UD3P MB make a huge difference when it comes to boot times etc. Also the native SATA3 on the Z97 MB makes a difference. I have an add on SATA3 card on the Q9550 system but it is not quite as fast as the Intel Z97 onboard controller. (It's a HighPoint 640L card with 4 lanes so it almost maxes out the current SSD's.) For some reason when I put W8.1 on the Q9550 system and turned it into my Home Server the drives on the HighPoint controller were slow to respond to client requests AND when I went to execute a .exe file it took forever for the program to execute directly from the Server. But that's a problem for another day which hopefully I'll never get to since the G3258/Z97 system with SSD storage makes for a cheap, fast and energy efficient Home Server (Currently the system idles @ ~34W according to the APC UPS). The Q9550 system is back to video crunching which it clearly does better than the G3258.
    Last edited by Ken429; 03-29-2015 at 08:52 PM.

  10. #20
    parsec's Avatar
    parsec is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Third stone from the sun
    Posts
    4,824

    Default Re: Windows Only Sees Sata_0 and Sata_1 on ASR Z97X Killer MB?

    The results of a default IBT run on my G3258 at 4.5GHz:

    Windows Only Sees Sata_0 and Sata_1 on ASR Z97X Killer MB?-ibt-g3258-4-5ghz-1-jpg

    The stock speed (3.2GHz) results are ~28GFLOPs (rounding up), so a 40% OC gives me ~5GFLOPs increase.

    At a peak of 33GFLOPs, that isn't very high at all. My Haswell Xeon does ~107GFLOPs on the same test, running at 3.8GHz.

    I don't get why some people claim the G3258 is good with video games, or I assume it is relatively good in that respect.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •