Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 41

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




  1. #11
    alb3530 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    32

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Chike View Post
    No Max VID is individual for each CPU, most are in the same range for each model but not always.
    I expressed wrongly what I said earlier.I meant just it, fixed per CPU model

    I said this cause if VID was fixed per model, I could post the VID of the processor that I've got from the Dell machine, where E7500 was not running neither in the same motherboard, nor with the same clock

    If it wasn't fixed per model, I would have to wait untill I come back home, to post the report of my PC

    Quote Originally Posted by Chike View Post
    I am asking because in CPU vcore shows 1.072v. This looks like EIST and C1E do have some effect but the frequency remain the same. If vcore does not increase to it's needed balue under load that may be a problem. Put it under 100% load (Prime95/OCCT/Orthos) and se what vcore is then.
    A total drop(vdrop + vdroop) of 0.5-1.0v under full load is normal, 0.2v is not.
    Will test and post here later when I come home

    Quote Originally Posted by Chike View Post
    I am just mentioning this because your CPU may not 100% properly with this board like you stated.
    Of course, I understand that, in therms of compatibility, it can't be 100%, cause if VCORE is displayed as "FAIL", then it's a compatibility issue, even though all other specifications are OK.

    The "working normally in this board" i mentioned earlier means having the spected performance (like voltages, instructions, clock speed, etc), not considering compatibility issues that doesn't affect performance (like VCORE FAIL)


    Best regards

  2. #12
    Chike is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    6,531

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

    Quote Originally Posted by alb3530 View Post
    I expressed wrongly what I said earlier.I meant just it, fixed per CPU model
    It may vary even for the same model and steppings.

    Quote Originally Posted by alb3530
    The "working normally in this board" i mentioned earlier means having the spected performance (like voltages, instructions, clock speed, etc), not considering compatibility issues that doesn't affect performance (like VCORE FAIL)
    A display in BIOS is a minor issue, not having enough vcore under full load may be a serious one.

  3. #13
    alb3530 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    32

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

    Hi

    Quote Originally Posted by Chike View Post
    It may vary even for the same model and steppings.
    CPU-Z reported VID as 1.288 also in my machine, I've just checked this...

    Quote Originally Posted by Chike View Post
    A display in BIOS is a minor issue, not having enough vcore under full load may be a serious one.
    Well, take a look and make the calculations :)

    http://www2.picturepush.com/photo/a/...tress-Test.png


    Attached is the whole CPU-Z report, this time from my PC


    Best regards

  4. #14
    Chike is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    6,531

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

    Well it looks too low, would expect 1.18v as a minimum, but might be anough for most uses.
    You may try to run IBT(Intel Burn Test) with max stress level if it pass then u should be ok, GFlops expected 19+.

  5. #15
    Lsdmeasap's Avatar
    Lsdmeasap is offline GIGABYTE Guru
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    PCB Island
    Posts
    25,940

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

    So how are you coming along with this?

  6. #16
    alb3530 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    32

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Chike View Post
    Well it looks too low, would expect 1.18v as a minimum, but might be anough for most uses.
    You may try to run IBT(Intel Burn Test) with max stress level if it pass then u should be ok, GFlops expected 19+.
    Thank you for the tip, will try and let you know.


    Quote Originally Posted by Lsdmeasap View Post
    So how are you coming along with this?
    Well, after having downgraded BIOS 3 levels down - I'm with F4 right now - I'm doing some tests Chike suggested to see if voltage is OK when in full load

    But I'm happy overall, Virtualization is working, clock speed is OK, all instruction sets are supported, and I'm able to run both Need for Speed: Shift and Race Driver: Grid smoothly in 1280x1024 with all settings set to max, something I couldn't do before

    In Need for Speed: Shift, the processor load during race is something about 92% ~ 98%, (GPU load remains always below 80%) which I think is a good example of natural processor's use, where it performed well, without frame skipping.

    Now I'll run Intel Burn Test (as suggested by Chike) and post here what I get


    Best regards

  7. #17
    alb3530 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    32

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Chike View Post
    Well it looks too low, would expect 1.18v as a minimum, but might be anough for most uses.
    You may try to run IBT(Intel Burn Test) with max stress level if it pass then u should be ok, GFlops expected 19+.
    Here you go:

    http://www1.picturepush.com/photo/a/...ous/IBT-02.png

    So what do you think about Gflops?

    Isn't it good for E7500 running at stock clock?

    Any reference value I can look at?


    Best regards

  8. #18
    Chike is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    6,531

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

    According to my records my base settings did 16.9 GFlops, that is with 266MHz FSB x 9.5 (2.53GHz) and DDR-800 4-4-4-12.
    I have E7500 here waiting for memory RMA but it will take some time untill I get it and can experiment with.

    At least you passed the test without an error so that a good sign.
    Can you set vcore manually to 1.288v in BIOS?

  9. #19
    Chike is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    6,531

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

    I ran IBT on my machine with 308MHz FSB but tried to compensate with DDR-616 and 6-6-6-18 timings, tRD 10, for poor memory performance, and still got 18.6 GFlops.
    http://i44.tinypic.com/mkcizm.png

  10. #20
    alb3530 is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    32

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Chike View Post
    According to my records my base settings did 16.9 GFlops, that is with 266MHz FSB x 9.5 (2.53GHz) and DDR-800 4-4-4-12.
    I have E7500 here waiting for memory RMA but it will take some time untill I get it and can experiment with.

    At least you passed the test without an error so that a good sign.
    Can you set vcore manually to 1.288v in BIOS?
    No, I can only define CPU multiplier and RAM timings.....

    Voltage control isn't available in my motherboard


    Quote Originally Posted by Chike View Post
    I ran IBT on my machine with 308MHz FSB but tried to compensate with DDR-616 and 6-6-6-18 timings, tRD 10, for poor memory performance, and still got 18.6 GFlops.
    http://i44.tinypic.com/mkcizm.png
    Even poor, your Dual-channel RAM performed very well.

    See mine:



    Apart from that, I've just realized another detail:

    The version of IBT I've downloaded was supposed to be for 64-bit Windows, but it's actually a 32-bit application.



    It means IBT runs emulated as if it was a 64-bit application, and it could lead to a small loss in performance (though I'm not sure if it would impact its benchmark results significantly)


    Best regards

Page 2 of 5 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
  •