9 Replies Latest reply on Jul 1, 2015 1:24 PM by bubbuh

    5I5RYB "BaseClock" Test FAIL IPTD 64bit 2.20.00.W.MP-1

    mjoyce4550

      Just built a new 5I5RYKH and, using the IPTD 64bit 2.20.00.W.MP-1 test am finding the "BaseClock" test fails on initial pass.

       

      Came with 0246 BIOS rev out of the box. so I updated to v0249 with no change.

       

      Please advise.

        • 1. Re: 5I5RYB "BaseClock" Test FAIL IPTD 64bit 2.20.00.W.MP-1
          hansb_intel

          Hi mjoyce4550,

           

          Please check in the BIOS and verify that the base clock is not altered. I will check with a unit on my side to see if a get the same result.

          • 2. Re: 5I5RYB "BaseClock" Test FAIL IPTD 64bit 2.20.00.W.MP-1
            mjoyce4550

            Not sure what you mean. I could not find a setting for a "base clock" by name. I didn't change any BIOS settings other than POWER ON after loss of power. Plus, I set the date and time. Since I build so many NUCs, I try to make as few BIOS changes as possible. Keeping it simple! In fact, I have never even updated a NUC BIOS out of the box until this one.

            • 3. Re: 5I5RYB "BaseClock" Test FAIL IPTD 64bit 2.20.00.W.MP-1
              hansb_intel

              In the NUC it would show as "Host clock frequency" and you would find it in the advance tab=> performance=> processors. Please check this setting, it should be at 100.

               

              I used that Intel Processor Diagnostic Tool on this same model NUC and it failed the base clock as well, this would not be a problem with the NUC but rather with the tool, it is just not reading the processor information properly. I already sent this matter to the engineers to check the tool.

              • 4. Re: 5I5RYB "BaseClock" Test FAIL IPTD 64bit 2.20.00.W.MP-1
                mjoyce4550

                I have made no changes to processor clock whatsoever.

                 

                I agree that there might be something wrong with the tool since it fails every time and there doesn't appear to be anything really wrong with the system as built.

                • 5. Re: 5I5RYB "BaseClock" Test FAIL IPTD 64bit 2.20.00.W.MP-1
                  bubbuh

                  Out of curiosity, I downloaded the IPDT_Installer_2.11.0.0.W-2_x86_2.20.0.0.W.MP-1_x64 tool and ran it on my completerly up to date (BIOS and Drivers) NUC5i7RYH.  It too  fails only at at different point. My box passes everything supported until it hits the platform controller hub test.

                   

                  --- Error while retrieving SATA Device Information from OS ---

                  ..Platform Controller Hub Test Failed..

                   

                   

                  Platform Controller Hub Test Failed. Error while retrieving SATA Device Information from OS

                   

                   

                   

                   

                  --- Test End Time: 06/19/2015 15:34:18---

                   

                   

                  System Information

                  ------------------

                  Processor Name: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-5557U CPU @ 3.10GHz

                  Processor Information: Intel64 Family 6 Model 61 Stepping 4

                  Number of Physical Cores: 2

                  Number of Logical Cores: 4

                  Installed System Memory: 16 GB

                  Operating System: Microsoft Windows 8.1 Pro 64-bit

                  Graphics Information: Intel(R) Iris(TM) Graphics 6100

                  System Product: NUC5I7RYB

                  System BIOS: RYBDWi35.86A.0249.2015.0529.1640


                  Thought you might be like to know.

                  • 6. Re: 5I5RYB "BaseClock" Test FAIL IPTD 64bit 2.20.00.W.MP-1
                    hansb_intel

                    Hi bubbuh,

                     

                    Thanks for the information.

                    You can try to install the chipset and management engine driver again.

                    But this could be due to the IPDT not reading the OS info properly; we’ll let you know once we have an update for this.

                    • 7. Re: 5I5RYB "BaseClock" Test FAIL IPTD 64bit 2.20.00.W.MP-1
                      mjoyce4550

                      I decided to edit the test settings. Started by changing the BaseClock tolerance from default (5%) to 6%. Failed. Increased to 7%. Failed. Increased to 8%. Failed. Increased to 9%. Failed. Increased to 10%. Passed.

                       

                      Then I went backwards, from 10%, to 9%, then 8%, then 7%, then 6%, then 5%. All Failed.

                       

                      Went back up again and it failed at 10%, 11%, 12% and 13%, Stopped there.

                       

                      Funny thing is, the clock (which should be 100) is testing at 107, so 7% or 8% should pass.

                       

                      Very inconsistent results with this particular test.

                      • 8. Re: 5I5RYB "BaseClock" Test FAIL IPTD 64bit 2.20.00.W.MP-1
                        bubbuh

                        Thanks for your response. When I have a bit of time on my hands, I'll re-install and play with  it, assuming. of course, your folks don't come out with an update in the meantime.

                        • 9. Re: 5I5RYB "BaseClock" Test FAIL IPTD 64bit 2.20.00.W.MP-1
                          bubbuh

                          I finally had a few moments to research my small and, possibly off-topic, contribution to this discussion. Apparently, there are a few known issues with the Platform Controller Hub architecture that have been around for a long while and show up from time to time in the diagnostic software. One of these is an inability to detect some SATA 6Gbit/s devices. In my NUC 5i7RYH, I'm using a 250GB CriuciaL Drive (232GB Crucial_CT250MX200SSD1 (SSD)) and a Transcend 256gb(238GB TS256GMTS800 (SSD)) which work perfectly well but were not detected by the latest IPDT (IPDT_Installer_2.11.0.0.W-2_x86_2.20.0.0.W.MP-1_x64(1)). I downloaded, installed and ran the test a second time to eliminate the possibility of a corrupt installation. I got the same results as those I previously reported.