BSOD while randomly using computer after replacing motherboard + CPU

YpsiNine · 23 Nov 2014

essenbe said:

Martin, the CPU is the last component in your computer I suspect. It is more than likely the Motherboard is not setting the voltages correct or one of the C states. I am really unfamiliar with your chipset and the MSI BIOS settings. However, would you post a screenshot of the bios page showing the CPU Voltages and settings where you change CPU voltages and also where the C states are. On my board, that is under advanced, CPU Configuration.

Hi essenbe,

Of course. Here you are:
Attachment 341303
Attachment 341302

essenbe said:

Please do me a favor. I am going to give you a tutorial link on using Intel Burn Test which is a CPU stress test and will stress your CPU extremely high. The only exception to the test are the monitoring programs suggested. I would like you to use Core Temp (Core Temp) having Core Temp, CPUz and Intel burn test open. Please run the test on standard and post a screenshot of it running with CPUz and Core temp open. I would like to see all 3 at the same time. When you are running it, keep a close watch on temps. They will get extremely high and it will happen very quickly. If the temps get too high, stop the test. But, you can skip the part about HW Info since you are not going to be using it. Core Temp will also tell you your TJ Max, which is the maximum temp your CPU can get before shutting down. Keep at least 20C below that. I am showing Core Temp open and have outlined the TJ Max for you. Yours will be different than mine, most likely. The tutorial is CPU - Stress Test Using IntelBurnTest
Attachment 341300

What I am most interested in is a number on Core Temp and the voltages on CPUz and some of the settings. The test itself will last maybe 3-5 minutes.

Test ran fine. I post two screenshots, the first one during one of the runs, while the second one is when the test was finished:
Attachment 341304
Attachment 341305

What I can see here is that while the computer is idle, CPUz seems to show the incorrect voltage. Notice how Core Temp shows the Voltage as 0.7214, which is more in line of what you mentioned earlier (0.7 ish).

essenbe said:

The dump file didn't give us a whole lot of info. This is what I got.

Code:

KMODE_EXCEPTION_NOT_HANDLED (1e)
This is a very common bugcheck.  Usually the exception address pinpoints
the driver/function that caused the problem.  Always note this address
as well as the link date of the driver/image that contains this address.
Arguments:
Arg1: 0000000000000000, The exception code that was not handled
Arg2: 0000000000000000, The address that the exception occurred at
Arg3: 0000000000000000, Parameter 0 of the exception
Arg4: 0000000000000000, Parameter 1 of the exception

Notice all the 'arguments' are 0, which means there is not much to tell. But I did get it to tell me this

Code:

*** WARNING: Unable to verify timestamp for e1q62x64.sys
*** ERROR: Module load completed but symbols could not be loaded for e1q62x64.sys

That is your Intel Ethernet driver

Code:

e1q62x64
start             end                 module name
fffff880`04c00000 fffff880`04c7c000   e1q62x64 T (no symbols)           
    Loaded symbol image file: e1q62x64.sys
    Image path: e1q62x64.sys
    Image name: e1q62x64.sys
    Timestamp:        Wed Mar 27 12:10:32 2013 (51532808)
    CheckSum:         00083E4E
    ImageSize:        0007C000
    Translations:     0000.04b0 0000.04e4 0409.04b0 0409.04e4

You can go to https://downloadcenter.intel.com/default.aspx and let it scan your computer and it should give you an updated driver and any other drivers supplied by Intel.

After you finish that, which is not very much, I am going to get you to do something else, but this post is long enough.

If you have any questions, ask away.

Actually, that the dump files doesn't show me much is something I'm used to. :) I have installed the debug tools for Windows so I usually open them to see if something concrete is showing. But my skills with debugging dump files isn't great.

Regarding the Intel driver, it comes from the latest package they have on their website, dated 28th of October 2014:
https://downloadcenter.intel.com/Det...ng&ProdId=3025

I am aware that the date of the driver itself is from 2013, I noticed this while updating all the drivers and reinstalled the package above, but it didn't change. The Intel scan also did not find anything to update after I clicked "Auto Scan":
Attachment 341306

Thanks again for your quick help!

Best,
Martin

essenbe · 23 Nov 2014

Martin, I am going to check with a few people, but I believe C1e should be enabled. Also, with your Vcore, do you have the option of Manual and offset voltage?

VID as shown in Core Temp is not the voltage you are actually using. It is a number hard coded into the CPU which in basic terms is the voltage the CPU is asking for. That was the number I was looking for. Core temp is about the only program that shows it and what I use in setting my voltages when overclocking. You will find you can run at less than the VID, at least with Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge. Also, with those 2 chipsets, C1e is enabled, otherwise CPUz cannot read the proper voltages. Haswell has about 10 C states and will drop voltages more than Ivy does. I drop to 1.6 when EIST kicks in and run in the range of 0,845V at idle. You should drop to 800MHz at idle and a Vcore of 0.7ish. What you showed in your screenshot yesterday of 0.17V is either CPUz not being able to read it correctly or way wrong.

Do you and are you planning to overclock your CPU? If you do, you will need better cooling. You notice you got up to 80C and you have a max of 100C. Plus, software is notoriously wrong and just a close approximation of CPU temps. Don't ever trust it too much. Core Temp and Real Temp are the 2 which I trust the most, but I still will not go within 10-15C of max. Just some info for you to keep in mind. Here's what I would like you to try for me. When you set it up, I want you to sort the drivers by provider and select all drivers NOT PROVIDED BY MICROSOFT, but be certain you create a restore point first. It's possible that will be your only way back. We are trying to make you BSOD. It puts extra stress on the selected drivers. In theory, the problem driver will crash and the dump file will catch it. The computer will be sluggish and feel kind of slow. That is normal. But, continue to use it as you would normally and do anything you want with it. There are no restrictions. The more you do with it the better I like it.

Warning

Be sure to create a System Restore point before proceeding further https://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/697-system-restore-point-create.html

Driver Verifier - Enable and Disable
Run Driver Verifier for 24 hours or the occurrence of the next crash, whichever is earlier.

Information

What is Driver Verifier:
It puts stress on the drivers, and tries to make the faulty driver crash the computer. It is designed this way, to attempt to trap the offending driver.

What you will notice:
It will tend to make the computer rather slow and sluggish because the drivers are being stressed.

Warning

Before enabling DV, make sure you have created a system restore point before enabling Driver Verifier. make a System Restore Point manually before enabling DV.

Tip

If you fail to get on the Desktop because of DV, Boot into Advanced Boot Options > Safe mode. Disable DV there. Now boot normally again, and try following the instruction of enabling DV again.
If you cannot boot in Safe mode, do a System Restore to a point you made earlier.

Let us know the results, with the subsequent crash dumps, if any.

essenbe · 23 Nov 2014

Your Motherboard ( MSI Global - Computer, Laptop, Notebook, Desktop, Motherboard, Graphics and more 64 ) lists a Killer Network Lan driver not an Intel Lan driver. What am I getting wrong? I believe that is your motherboard and where the most current drivers are supposed to be.

YpsiNine · 23 Nov 2014

essenbe said:

Martin, I am going to check with a few people, but I believe C1e should be enabled. Also, with your Vcore, do you have the option of Manual and offset voltage?

Ok, should I enable it now?
Yes, I have the option of Manual and offset voltage. It is set to auto.

essenbe said:

VID as shown in Core Temp is not the voltage you are actually using. It is a number hard coded into the CPU which in basic terms is the voltage the CPU is asking for. That was the number I was looking for. Core temp is about the only program that shows it and what I use in setting my voltages when overclocking. You will find you can run at less than the VID, at least with Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge. Also, with those 2 chipsets, C1e is enabled, otherwise CPUz cannot read the proper voltages. Haswell has about 10 C states and will drop voltages more than Ivy does. I drop to 1.6 when EIST kicks in and run in the range of 0,845V at idle. You should drop to 800MHz at idle and a Vcore of 0.7ish. What you showed in your screenshot yesterday of 0.17V is either CPUz not being able to read it correctly or way wrong.

Do you and are you planning to overclock your CPU? If you do, you will need better cooling. You notice you got up to 80C and you have a max of 100C. Plus, software is notoriously wrong and just a close approximation of CPU temps. Don't ever trust it too much. Core Temp and Real Temp are the 2 which I trust the most, but I still will not go within 10-15C of max. Just some info for you to keep in mind. Here's what I would like you to try for me. When you set it up, I want you to sort the drivers by provider and select all drivers NOT PROVIDED BY MICROSOFT, but be certain you create a restore point first. It's possible that will be your only way back. We are trying to make you BSOD. It puts extra stress on the selected drivers. In theory, the problem driver will crash and the dump file will catch it. The computer will be sluggish and feel kind of slow. That is normal. But, continue to use it as you would normally and do anything you want with it. There are no restrictions. The more you do with it the better I like it.

I am not overclocking and I am not planning to. This is because 4.4 GHz with Haswell-E is more than enough speed for this computer. As long as it is not BSOD'ing. :)

essenbe said:

Warning

Be sure to create a System Restore point before proceeding further https://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/697-system-restore-point-create.html

Driver Verifier - Enable and Disable
Run Driver Verifier for 24 hours or the occurrence of the next crash, whichever is earlier.

Information

What is Driver Verifier:
It puts stress on the drivers, and tries to make the faulty driver crash the computer. It is designed this way, to attempt to trap the offending driver.

What you will notice:
It will tend to make the computer rather slow and sluggish because the drivers are being stressed.

Warning

Before enabling DV, make sure you have created a system restore point before enabling Driver Verifier. make a System Restore Point manually before enabling DV.

Tip

If you fail to get on the Desktop because of DV, Boot into Advanced Boot Options > Safe mode. Disable DV there. Now boot normally again, and try following the instruction of enabling DV again.
If you cannot boot in Safe mode, do a System Restore to a point you made earlier.

essenbe said:

Let us know the results, with the subsequent crash dumps, if any.

I have created a restore point and enabled the Driver Verifier as per your instructions. Let's see if it BSOD's again soon.

essenbe said:

Your Motherboard ( MSI Global - Computer, Laptop, Notebook, Desktop, Motherboard, Graphics and more 64 ) lists a Killer Network Lan driver not an Intel Lan driver. What am I getting wrong? I believe that is your motherboard and where the most current drivers are supposed to be.

You are not getting anything wrong, you probably just didn't read the full "What I've done to try to fix it" part in my OP saying "Disabled the Atheros Killer on-board network card and using an Intel PCI-E card instead". I have had lots of BSOD's with this on-board network so I have disabled it in the BIOS. If you do a google search for "e2200 killer bsod" you will see that lot's of people have problems with it as well.

The Intel card I'm using is this one:
Intel® Gigabit CT Desktop Adapter Product Brief

Thanks,
Martin

essenbe · 23 Nov 2014

I don't have to Google. I work on BSOD's.

I know all about the Killer Network Drivers. It's a shame too. They work pretty good, when they are not causing BSODs.

I didn't miss that, I just forgot. Easy to do at my age and working on several of these cases.

When you ran the Intel Scan, it didn't pick up the Intel card you have. It should pick it up even if you have the latest driver. I have an Intel Lan too, but it doesn't pick it up either, but that is because Asus has made some alterations to mine. I would like you to enable C1e, just for a try, but would rather wait until after we are finished with Driver Verifier. I think I told you earlier, you should be at 1.25V at stock. When you ran Intel Burn Test, if you noticed the voltage jumped up to 1.264, which is about where it should be. You could most likely change your BIOS to offset and set a -.010 and try it, if you want to. I'm an old overclocker and it's in my blood to run at the lowest stable voltage possible. Especially with a hot running CPU like you have. But, it won't hurt anything to leave it alone, you'll never see stress (thus voltages and temps) like you did running IBT.

YpsiNine · 23 Nov 2014

Hi essenbe,

essenbe said:

I don't have to Google. I work on BSOD's.

I know all about the Killer Network Drivers. It's a shame too. They work pretty good, when they are not causing BSODs.

I didn't miss that, I just forgot. Easy to do at my age and working on several of these cases.

No worries. Yes I agree it's bad that a) they make bad drivers and b) hardware producers incorporate their solutions when they are not very good.

essenbe said:

When you ran the Intel Scan, it didn't pick up the Intel card you have. It should pick it up even if you have the latest driver. I have an Intel Lan too, but it doesn't pick it up either, but that is because Asus has made some alterations to mine. I would like you to enable C1e, just for a try, but would rather wait until after we are finished with Driver Verifier. I think I told you earlier, you should be at 1.25V at stock. When you ran Intel Burn Test, if you noticed the voltage jumped up to 1.264, which is about where it should be. You could most likely change your BIOS to offset and set a -.010 and try it, if you want to. I'm an old overclocker and it's in my blood to run at the lowest stable voltage possible. Especially with a hot running CPU like you have. But, it won't hurt anything to leave it alone, you'll never see stress (thus voltages and temps) like you did running IBT.

Ok, I will enable C1e now, I just had another BSOD after enabling Driver Verifier (that was fast). I am attaching a new .zip again.

Best,
Martin

essenbe · 23 Nov 2014

Here's what it says

Code:

SYMBOL_STACK_INDEX:  7
SYMBOL_NAME:  tcpip!TcpUpdateIsnGenerator+6c
FOLLOWUP_NAME:  MachineOwner
IMAGE_NAME:  hardware
DEBUG_FLR_IMAGE_TIMESTAMP:  0
IMAGE_VERSION:  6.1.7601.18438
MODULE_NAME: hardware
FAILURE_BUCKET_ID:  X64_IP_MISALIGNED
BUCKET_ID:  X64_IP_MISALIGNED

Also

[CODE*** WARNING: Unable to verify timestamp for iusb3xhc.sys
*** ERROR: Module load completed but symbols could not be loaded for iusb3xhc.sys][/CODE]

That's your Intel(R) USB 3.0 eXtensible Host Controller Driver

Code:

iusb3xhc
start             end                 module name
fffff880`0464b000 fffff880`04712000   iusb3xhc T (no symbols)           
    Loaded symbol image file: iusb3xhc.sys
    Image path: iusb3xhc.sys
    Image name: iusb3xhc.sys
    Timestamp:        Fri Aug 08 08:09:23 2014 (53E4CC03)
    CheckSum:         000CF4F9
    ImageSize:        000C7000
    Translations:     0000.04b0 0000.04e4 0409.04b0 0409.04e4

and

Code:

*** WARNING: Unable to verify timestamp for nvlddmkm.sys
*** ERROR: Module load completed but symbols could not be loaded for nvlddmkm.sys

Your Graphics Driver

Code:

nvlddmkm
start             end                 module name
fffff880`0f6f5000 fffff880`103d5000   nvlddmkm T (no symbols)           
    Loaded symbol image file: nvlddmkm.sys
    Image path: nvlddmkm.sys
    Image name: nvlddmkm.sys
    Timestamp:        Wed Nov 12 14:51:31 2014 (5463C853)
    CheckSum:         00CA4D59
    ImageSize:        00CE0000
    Translations:     0000.04b0 0000.04e4 0409.04b0 0409.04e4

What you are probably find is one of those 3 was the cause and the other 2 were the victim. My bet is the first one, the Intel Lan, mostly because it is the first one listed and is the same as the dump before.

YpsiNine · 23 Nov 2014

essenbe said:

What you are probably find is one of those 3 was the cause and the other 2 were the victim. My bet is the first one, the Intel Lan, mostly because it is the first one listed and is the same as the dump before.

Hi essenbe,

Wow that is quite interesting. I spent $30 just to buy this network card because I was not going to use the Killer integrated network card because it was already giving me trouble. :)

So what I'll do is to remove the Intel card and use a Wireless USB key and see what happens.

Should I disable Driver Verifier now or is it still advised to keep it running?

Best,
Martin

essenbe · 23 Nov 2014

In most cases I would probably say turn it off, but in yours I would like to keep it running and see what happens the next time. Much of this is kind of an educated guess, and with only 2 dump files, I would like to see if the same fault continues.

YpsiNine · 23 Nov 2014

essenbe said:

In most cases I would probably say turn it off, but in yours I would like to keep it running and see what happens the next time. Much of this is kind of an educated guess, and with only 2 dump files, I would like to see if the same fault continues.

Excellent, I'll keep it running. I have now removed the Intel NIC so I don't have any wired adapter running, only the Wireless USB. Let's see what happens next.

By the way, if it is indeed the Intel NIC that was causing the BSOD's, isn't that quite strange? I have always found Intel products to be solid, both software and hardware wise. Could it be a faulty/damaged network card, physically, that I was unlucky to get?

Thanks again.

Best,
Martin