HELP! - New cpu not being properly identified

As a suggestion, I think I would try going to the web site of the manufacturer of the new CPU or the motheboard and see if they can help or see if there are forums there set up.

Logic would seem to dictate if the CPU is installed correctly and you boot the computer it should recognize the CPU, especially if it is compatible with your motherboard.  Wonder if something needs to be changed in the BIOS?  Or maybe a cache somewheres.

I just recently did the same thing...MB supports a newer cpu but wouldnt give me the correct core speed til I updated the bios to the latest available for my MB.(installing the AMD64 3400+ instead of the 3100+Sempron actually lowered my clock speed from 1.8 to 1ghz!)

Same with any newer cpu I have ever installed.

This time around I was even lucky enough to get a modded bios flash that allowed overclocking.(the original emachines bios did not allow this)I flashed my bios from a bootable flash drive because I had no floppy drive.

HewlittPackard has a utility that will make a flash drive bootable...just point it at the correct files in your bios flash download(if your MB supports flash drive booting...it should)

If your not up on bios flashing...do some research,its potentially very dangerous to the MB.

I now get a somewhat speedier 2.4 ghz and I havnt even attempted the overclock yet...hmmmmm,time to try that...hehehe.

Thanks guys. I have a motherboard update for the DP35DP, now I just have to painstakingly record all the current BIOS settings for when the flashing resets them. Ugggh. Never done this before. Ugggh.

I hope that works.

Pursuant to all this, I noticed in DXDiag the cpu is not using several instruction sets (SSE4 among others) which the 9650 should have available. Also, I must say I will be really pissed if this cpu turns out to indeed be onlky a Pentium III Xeon; I don`t think so, but you never know. 

Just make sure you save your current bios incase the flash goes wrong.

Dont flash from inside windows, just about every bad flash starts out that way, flash by booting off iether your floppy drive or usb stick.

Just thought to post this if you dont know how to set-up a usb drive so you can boot off it go here,

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/forum/guides-how-tos/1457-how-making-usb-thumbdrive-bootable.html

If you have any problems dont be afraid to ask.

Luck to u.

Do NOT flash that Bios, yet.

I repeat... DON'T.

-- First, make damn sure your Mobo clearly states that the Q9650 is compatible with the grid itself. Okay?

-- Secondly, and this is very important... get cpuz and run a detailed analysis over the **DETECTED** 64/array (from within a fresh XP_SP2 ***safe-mode*** session - only!). If it states anything other than the expected Q9650 values (including the manufacturer ID slot for that specific 64 bit pipeline array) ... i'm sorry to say this cpu is either blasted or as you said above a fake but real Xeon. Return the gimmick and ask for a refund or replacement.

-- THEN, and only then... Thirdly, if it was actually detected as a true Q9650 by cpuz (i insist - from within a XP safe prompt only!) and your are absolutely sure the 'actual' mobo took it for what it was at pre-boot stage;

a) Contact the genuine mobo manufacturer for a BIOS flashing tool (For ****IT**** only, not some strange tools from god knows where)

b) Verify the actual instructions provided by the new Bios upgrade as it is suggested in step (a) above.

c) Flash your Bios.

Boot again, but, once more - in safe-mode.

Run cpuz.

The Q9650 should be detected.

Results from cpuz 1.47, although bear in mind I had "an error occurred while opening the driver":

Processor

Intel Core 2 Quad

Yorkfield

“Brand ID” was BLANK

“Package” was BLANK

45nm

“Core Voltage” was BLANK

Specification Intel Core 2 Quad

Family 6   Model 7   Stepping A

Ext. Family 6   Ext. Model 17   Revision E0

MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, EM64T

Clocks (Core #0)

2999.5 MHz

“Multiplier” was BLANK

“Bus Speed” was BLANK

“Rated FSB” was BLANK

Cache

4x32 KBytes

4x32 KBytes

2x6144 KBytes

Selection – Processor #1 (unchangeable…)

Cores 4

Threads 4

Cache

L1 D-Cache   Size 32 KBytes   x4

8-way set associative, 64-byte line size

L1 I-Cache   Size 32 KBytes   x4

8-way set associative, 64-byte line size

L2 Cache   Size 6144 KBytes   x2

24-way set associative, 64-byte line size

“L3 Cache” was BLANK

Mainboard

Motherboard

Intel Corporation

Model DP35DP   AAD81073-206

“Chipset” was BLANK

“Rev. ” was BLANK

“Southbridge” was BLANK

“LPCIO” was BLANK

BIOS

Intel Corp.

DPP3510J.86A.0216.2007.0502.1916

05/02/2007

Graphic Interface

all entries here were BLANK

Memory

“Type” was BLANK

2030 MBytes

“Channels #” was BLANK

“DC Mode” was BLANK

“NB Frequency” was BLANK

Timings

all entries here were BLANK

Memory Slot Selection

J6H1 and a J6J1

1024 MBytes each

all other entries were BLANK

Look proper? To me this seems to indicate I did not get screwed, although that cpuz error prevented a complete report. I will do nothing else at this frightening time...

(grin BIOS-flash-apprehensively)

UPDATE:

I ran cpuz in normal windows, which filled in the rest of the information. More important data (as far as I know...) follows:

Multiplier x6 (isn`t this supposed to be x9 for the Q9650?)
Bus Speed 333.3 MHz
Rated FSB 1333.3 MHz

Thats it.

Alright, what that tells me is that your cpu is indeed a genuine Q9650 (The Yorkfield tag is for the Core2 family though... strange... and it is listing Quad_4 units further below - identifying it truly) and that its condition looks fair & solid. Such a verification is necessary before you attempt flashing a Bios to make sure the device is actually the right thing. Forget the Blanks, some of these are to be expected in that situation.

1)

Model DP35DP   AAD81073-206

by Intel, that is the most important info and from which you will find the proper flash_toolkit for that specific mobo.

2)

DPP3510J.86A.0216.2007.0502.1916

for the Bios tag is another key item since that is what flashing will alter to detect the new chipset. You'll possibly even have a new date once the process is completed.

- Flashing must be done **AS IT IS** explained by your mobo guide... i've seen hundreds of boards going beserk after a flash-upgrade simply because people had skipped an important step in manufacturer' instructions.

- Key here is to follow the process to the letter and make sure every steps are performed as they should.

A BIOS is an important system asset as it is refered to by the OS upon starting whatever hardware is to be detected **BEFORE** the declaration routines kick in. This happens so fast, i doubt anyone notices anyway... only problem is IF a bad value is entered or even changed later on (overclocking gimmicks can destroy a bus rail in 10 minutes, for example).

CPU switching is as easy as setting the recommended values (during the flashing process), firing the whole PC back up, and enjoying the 'increased' power.

The most common problems occur when compatibility prevents a Mobo from using a cpu at its optimal settings. Nothing can blast a system so bad it would stop responding... but performance issues may creep in once the Bios-Flashing has failed or (accidently or not, btw) was flawed.

In the flashing guide, there are a number of 'care steps' one can follow to create emergency backups - *just in case*.

In fact... it's not as simple as taking a chipset out and snapping another in its place. So, by following instructions *properly* you should be all set.

Good luck!

This is most likely Intel's Speedstep technology (or something similar). It throttles your multiplier back when the chip is not under load in order to save power. It can be turned off in the BIOS.

Good luck with the flash.

They need a utility or at least the capacity to record BIOS settings in a simple text file, so one could simply print them... this is going to take forever and a day...

Thanks again for the info. It looks like I`ll use the Windows flash util, since this sounds like the simplest method (important for me!) and the most commonly used (couldn`t be that bad). Supposedly I just run the .exe and reboot.

Regarding a Q9650 specifically, you folks think it reasonable for me to indeed expect a 15% to 20% performance increase?

Hah!

Back from the terrifically intimidating world of BIOS updates. Its done, my My Computer/Properties facility now declares that I have a 9650. The impulsive slave that I am to gaming, I immediately ran the FEAR and World In Conflict tests again. FEAR came up still identical to previous tests (booooo...) but World In Conflict showed a distinct 15% increase in Average fps and a nearly 50% increase in the Minimum fps (yayyyyyy...). I guess newer code plunders the Q9650 capabilities more efficiently. I wish SoaSE and Demigod had fps tests, as I would be most curious about their comparative performances (of course!); if a 15% boost is in there somewhere however I am sure it will be evident in due course of play.

Now that I am up & running, what BIOS settings should I look at in regards to maximizing the Q9650 performance? Do I even need to? Will the defaults be the optimal for the chip? Does anything need to be changed? Sorry for my paranoia... these computer things are child`s play to terminally screw up (!).

Also, and I ask this particularly hesitantly, from some reading I`ve done one of the apparent advantages to this chip is its ability to be overclocked without fear of damage. If one were to do so, what setting in BIOS controls this, what should it be set to for a noticeable performance gain (if any?) WITHOUT burning the chip? Does overclocking reduce the lifespan of a chip? Again, I am pondering such, not committed to it. I imagine this cpu will last me at least 2 years, barring quantum leaps in technology.

Pursuant to BIOS settings, I`ve heard from other quarters that Intel defaults are actually quite superb, so I probably do not need to do any fiddling.

It won't hurt the chip, but it will corrupt your HD data rendering your system inoperable. That said, if that's the extent of your knowledge insofar as OC'ing a system....leave it be.

It is and you don't.

No! Maybe, yes from some *very* recent gaming stuff.

Not everyone taps into quad adressing yet.

Would you risk a 5% overclock to obtain as low as 2_FPS more?

I blow 1.35 volt into the E4600 rail and it stands at mostly 46C on average - they recommend 1.325!

I'll only start worry once that extremely solid default BIOS setting self-diagnoses me an automatic warning at the maximum 60C that i purposely saved into it instead of the 75C default. Gee, the NV8600GS (without a fan - i should add, btw) is on fire at 59C is it? - Yup but it is a DX10_Shader4 at 600+clockhypes- so, i have yet to detect any 'troubles' with quite efficient rendering and much higher FPS than what i had in the earlier PC.

Manufacturers know better and more about fair settings than JoeSchmo from web site X (including simple yours truly!), believe me.

Within reasonable limits... most (if not all) chipsets outlive a CMOS battery, many PCIe devices, four Satas, one OS & too many cranky users - anytime.

Oi!....someone's pinched me smilie....

Okay - sounds like it is wise to just be grateful the BIOS procedure worked (!). Thanks folks.