My system Windows XP professional SP1a crashes when I attempt to run Celestia 1.3.1
My graphics card is a NVIDIA Ge Force FX5900 Ultra 256 MB, BIOS 4.35.20.21. My PC has CPU Athlon Barton XP3200+ with 512MB RAM. Nvidia drivers are 56.72, DirectX9b are installed.
My system doesn't specify any reason or module about the crash.
I cannot give more informations because Celestia just crashes on start or very soon. Till the crash moment no graphics errors are noticeable.
This is the only program crashing my system!
I am so disappointed because Celestia works well in an older slower PC I have with K6-3/400, 256MB RAM and Matrox Millennium2 + Voodoo2 accelerator.
This PC is recent, powerful but I think that FX5900 Ultra may be the problem. Just only on Celestia? I tried running complex graphics plays and everybody seems normal. I cannot believe is just Celestia not running in my PC.
What can I try about graphics card settings or something else may make Celestia running without crashing my operating system?
Please I need advices from expert Celestia users and makers.
Thank you.
Celestia crashes my system
Giorgio,
Did you upgrade to DirectX9b before or after you installed the Nvidia drivers?
This kind of problem often happens because DirectX overwrites Nvidia's libraries with buggy ones.
I suspect the problem will go away if you install Nvidia's newest graphics drivers, v61.76. This version became available a couple of weeks ago.
Did you upgrade to DirectX9b before or after you installed the Nvidia drivers?
This kind of problem often happens because DirectX overwrites Nvidia's libraries with buggy ones.
I suspect the problem will go away if you install Nvidia's newest graphics drivers, v61.76. This version became available a couple of weeks ago.
Selden
selden wrote: I suspect the problem will go away if you install Nvidia's newest graphics drivers, v61.76. This version became available a couple of weeks ago.
Selden, I have a GeForce 4600 Ti 128 Mb, using with satisfaction the v53.03 version.
I have this doubt: does the latest releases have any positive effect on my not FX card, or are useless?
Thank you
Andrea
"Something is always better than nothing!"
HP Omen 15-DC1040nl- Intel® Core i7 9750H, 2.6/4.5 GHz- 1TB PCIe NVMe M.2 SSD+ 1TB SATA 6 SSD- 32GB SDRAM DDR4 2666 MHz- Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 6 GB-WIN 11 PRO
HP Omen 15-DC1040nl- Intel® Core i7 9750H, 2.6/4.5 GHz- 1TB PCIe NVMe M.2 SSD+ 1TB SATA 6 SSD- 32GB SDRAM DDR4 2666 MHz- Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 6 GB-WIN 11 PRO
Andrea,
I'm running 61.76 with an FX5200 at work and with a Ti4200 at home. Both have no problems at all.
There are many new Desktop Management features that I'm not using.
I'm running 61.76 with an FX5200 at work and with a Ti4200 at home. Both have no problems at all.
There are many new Desktop Management features that I'm not using.
Last edited by selden on 26.07.2004, 17:58, edited 1 time in total.
Selden
selden wrote:Andrea, I'm running 61.76 with an FX5200 at work and with a Ti4200 at home. Both have no problems at all.
However, there are many new Desktop Management features that I'm not using.
Thank you Selden, very kind as usual.
So may be that changing to 61.76 on my "old" 4600 can be useless, giving options that my card cannot use.
I think I'll maintain my 53.03.
By and thank you again
Andrea
"Something is always better than nothing!"
HP Omen 15-DC1040nl- Intel® Core i7 9750H, 2.6/4.5 GHz- 1TB PCIe NVMe M.2 SSD+ 1TB SATA 6 SSD- 32GB SDRAM DDR4 2666 MHz- Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 6 GB-WIN 11 PRO
HP Omen 15-DC1040nl- Intel® Core i7 9750H, 2.6/4.5 GHz- 1TB PCIe NVMe M.2 SSD+ 1TB SATA 6 SSD- 32GB SDRAM DDR4 2666 MHz- Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 6 GB-WIN 11 PRO
selden wrote:Andrea,
While there don't seem to be any new 3D functions available, there are new desktop management functions that might be useful for you. It also looks like they have improved the dual-monitor control. New Users' Guides are available on the Nvidia Web site.
The dual-monitor control is interesting, as the User's guides.
Thanks a lot, Selden
Andrea
"Something is always better than nothing!"
HP Omen 15-DC1040nl- Intel® Core i7 9750H, 2.6/4.5 GHz- 1TB PCIe NVMe M.2 SSD+ 1TB SATA 6 SSD- 32GB SDRAM DDR4 2666 MHz- Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 6 GB-WIN 11 PRO
HP Omen 15-DC1040nl- Intel® Core i7 9750H, 2.6/4.5 GHz- 1TB PCIe NVMe M.2 SSD+ 1TB SATA 6 SSD- 32GB SDRAM DDR4 2666 MHz- Nvidia GeForce GTX 1660 Ti 6 GB-WIN 11 PRO
-
Topic authorGiorgio
Thank you Selden, I didn't notice there was a new driver just published on last days.
However I installed it immediately and in a first attempt to run Celstia my system froze but didn't crash. Since then it crashed with BSOD and advised on a nrestart that a serious error happened.
Nothing changed.
I tried to modify some settings of my FX5900 Ultra card but without success.
I would try to modify some Celestia graphics settings, but I have not the time to do it before my system crashes.
I installed every test graphic program that came together with my graphics card, just those utilizing all options to have people saying oooh and aaah while looking at the performances, and everything is going good.
So I am suspecting always deeply that there is something just into Celestia way to manage my graphics card in some uncorrect way.
I am sure that there is some particular graphic application that drives badly my graphics card.
But how to identify it and how to disable it?
Do somebody have some more advice for me to try getting out of that?
Thank you
However I installed it immediately and in a first attempt to run Celstia my system froze but didn't crash. Since then it crashed with BSOD and advised on a nrestart that a serious error happened.
Nothing changed.
I tried to modify some settings of my FX5900 Ultra card but without success.
I would try to modify some Celestia graphics settings, but I have not the time to do it before my system crashes.
I installed every test graphic program that came together with my graphics card, just those utilizing all options to have people saying oooh and aaah while looking at the performances, and everything is going good.
So I am suspecting always deeply that there is something just into Celestia way to manage my graphics card in some uncorrect way.
I am sure that there is some particular graphic application that drives badly my graphics card.
But how to identify it and how to disable it?
Do somebody have some more advice for me to try getting out of that?
Thank you
Geogio,
My understanding is that there are other people who have FX59xx series cards who are not having problems.
You can turn off some of the graphics feabures before Celestia starts by editing the file
celestia.cfg (in the main Celestia directory) and removing the # at the beginiing of the line
# IgnoreGLExtensions [ "GL_ARB_vertex_program" ]
Then try running Celestia.
Does this help with the crashes?
My understanding is that there are other people who have FX59xx series cards who are not having problems.
You can turn off some of the graphics feabures before Celestia starts by editing the file
celestia.cfg (in the main Celestia directory) and removing the # at the beginiing of the line
# IgnoreGLExtensions [ "GL_ARB_vertex_program" ]
Then try running Celestia.
Does this help with the crashes?
Selden
-
Topic authorGiorgio
Thanks again Selden for the advice.
I tried to modify the conf file but it crashed again.
Then I did another experiment: I slowered my CPU settings emulating an Athlon Barton XP2500+ and Celestia ran perfectly!
So I started accelerating back the CPU towards its normal conditions controlling how Celestia works. It sorted out an interesting sheet that may help understanding what's going on with this program.
- Emulation XP2500+
Bus 166/33 MHz
Front Side Bus 333 MHz
Multiplier 11 x
CPU clock 1833 MHz
Celestia OK
- Emulation XP3000+
Bus 166/33 MHz
Front Side Bus 333 MHz
Multiplier 13 x
CPU clock 2167 MHz
Celestia OK
- Emulation XP3000+
Bus 200/33 MHz
Front Side Bus 400 MHz
Multiplier 10.5 x
CPU clock 2100 MHz
Celestia HANGS
- XP3200+
Bus 200/33 MHz
Front Side Bus 400 MHz
Multiplier 11 x
CPU clock 2200 MHz
Celestia CRASHES
The two intermediate results are different not in the CPU speed but in the Front Side Bus Speed and memory speed.
It seems that at higher memory speed Celestia runs with problems or my memory has problems running at higher speeds because of it has not enough quality.
But then, why till now I didn't find another program having the same behaviour of Celestia?
There is some other program I can try that stresses my memory while running at 400 MHz somebody can tell me to test on my system?
Anybody has some ideas?
If Celestia is still the only program giving problems on my system may I deduce that it's having some memory critical managements on high speed Athlon based systems?
Anybody knows some memory test software that could be useful to find if my system has memory problems while running at FSB 400 MHz?
Thank you all for help. At least I am finally able now to find some conditions to have Celestia running.
Giorgio
[img]
I tried to modify the conf file but it crashed again.
Then I did another experiment: I slowered my CPU settings emulating an Athlon Barton XP2500+ and Celestia ran perfectly!
So I started accelerating back the CPU towards its normal conditions controlling how Celestia works. It sorted out an interesting sheet that may help understanding what's going on with this program.
- Emulation XP2500+
Bus 166/33 MHz
Front Side Bus 333 MHz
Multiplier 11 x
CPU clock 1833 MHz
Celestia OK
- Emulation XP3000+
Bus 166/33 MHz
Front Side Bus 333 MHz
Multiplier 13 x
CPU clock 2167 MHz
Celestia OK
- Emulation XP3000+
Bus 200/33 MHz
Front Side Bus 400 MHz
Multiplier 10.5 x
CPU clock 2100 MHz
Celestia HANGS
- XP3200+
Bus 200/33 MHz
Front Side Bus 400 MHz
Multiplier 11 x
CPU clock 2200 MHz
Celestia CRASHES
The two intermediate results are different not in the CPU speed but in the Front Side Bus Speed and memory speed.
It seems that at higher memory speed Celestia runs with problems or my memory has problems running at higher speeds because of it has not enough quality.
But then, why till now I didn't find another program having the same behaviour of Celestia?
There is some other program I can try that stresses my memory while running at 400 MHz somebody can tell me to test on my system?
Anybody has some ideas?
If Celestia is still the only program giving problems on my system may I deduce that it's having some memory critical managements on high speed Athlon based systems?
Anybody knows some memory test software that could be useful to find if my system has memory problems while running at FSB 400 MHz?
Thank you all for help. At least I am finally able now to find some conditions to have Celestia running.
Giorgio
[img]Celestia puts more stress on all components of the system than do most 3D programs.
Microsoft has a memory diagnostic available at
http://oca.microsoft.com/en/windiag.asp
I've never used it, but you might try memtest86.
See http://www.memtest86.com/
It does sound to me like you may have some bus speed compatibility problems in your hardware.
Is there any chance that you're overclocking your CPU or memory when you run your system at "normal" speeds?
Disreputable vendors have been known to mis-label Athlon chips, rating them higher than AMD does. This causes intermittant failures. As a result, the newest AMD chips have been designed not to run at all if you try to overclock them.
Memory modules often have similar problems. You have to be careful to use properly rated memory modules for them to be reliable at the highest bus speeds.
Also, too often non-ECC memory modules tend to be less reliable than ECC modules. If your BIOS can be configured for it, the system will detect memory errors in ECC memory, so the vendors make sure they use quality chips. Memory errors cannot be detected in non-ECC memory modules (except by the system being flakey), so some vendors tend to use less reliable chips.
Added slightly later:
Make sure your system is well cooled, too. Since Celestia uses 100% of both the CPU and the graphics GPU, both get extremely hot. Overheating will cause them to have intermittant problems and eventually to fail.
Microsoft has a memory diagnostic available at
http://oca.microsoft.com/en/windiag.asp
I've never used it, but you might try memtest86.
See http://www.memtest86.com/
It does sound to me like you may have some bus speed compatibility problems in your hardware.
Is there any chance that you're overclocking your CPU or memory when you run your system at "normal" speeds?
Disreputable vendors have been known to mis-label Athlon chips, rating them higher than AMD does. This causes intermittant failures. As a result, the newest AMD chips have been designed not to run at all if you try to overclock them.
Memory modules often have similar problems. You have to be careful to use properly rated memory modules for them to be reliable at the highest bus speeds.
Also, too often non-ECC memory modules tend to be less reliable than ECC modules. If your BIOS can be configured for it, the system will detect memory errors in ECC memory, so the vendors make sure they use quality chips. Memory errors cannot be detected in non-ECC memory modules (except by the system being flakey), so some vendors tend to use less reliable chips.
Added slightly later:
Make sure your system is well cooled, too. Since Celestia uses 100% of both the CPU and the graphics GPU, both get extremely hot. Overheating will cause them to have intermittant problems and eventually to fail.
Selden
-
Topic authorGiorgio
You are right Selden, I am using an unofficial sample series CPU from AMD having unblocked multiplier capability in an oveclocking situation emulating an XP3200.
I payed for it just half the price I would have payed for an official XP3200.
Barton family from AMD are all rated 333 MHz FSB starting from XP2500 up to XP3000. XP3200 is the only one rated 400 MHz FSB.
That means if I pull its parameters up to those of a 3200 its cache memory speed rate would be exceeded.
My comparison among XP3000 emulations both at 333 and 400 FSB shows that the problem can be just on internal cache memory of my overclocked CPU.
The RAM modules I installed on my system are DDR400 PC3200 CAS2 so they must give no problems. However I bought them the same place where I bought the CPU, so I am in doubt now about their performance and I asked you for some memory test software.
Both the test RAM programs you suggested have to run from computer boot so they have to be mounted in a system floppy or in a bootable CD.
I am running Windows XP since too liitle time and I feel still uncomfortable about its lack of a real DOS to have bootable floppies or CDs. I am learning how to do to make those bootable system disks in order to use both memory test softwares I already downloaded from the sites you specified. Thanks again for the information, Selden.
I planned to buy a real XP3200 soon but I am waiting to have enough
money to do that, in the meantime I possibly will pay some less because that processor in not anymore the last up to date AMD mode now.l
Thank you.
I payed for it just half the price I would have payed for an official XP3200.
Barton family from AMD are all rated 333 MHz FSB starting from XP2500 up to XP3000. XP3200 is the only one rated 400 MHz FSB.
That means if I pull its parameters up to those of a 3200 its cache memory speed rate would be exceeded.
My comparison among XP3000 emulations both at 333 and 400 FSB shows that the problem can be just on internal cache memory of my overclocked CPU.
The RAM modules I installed on my system are DDR400 PC3200 CAS2 so they must give no problems. However I bought them the same place where I bought the CPU, so I am in doubt now about their performance and I asked you for some memory test software.
Both the test RAM programs you suggested have to run from computer boot so they have to be mounted in a system floppy or in a bootable CD.
I am running Windows XP since too liitle time and I feel still uncomfortable about its lack of a real DOS to have bootable floppies or CDs. I am learning how to do to make those bootable system disks in order to use both memory test softwares I already downloaded from the sites you specified. Thanks again for the information, Selden.
I planned to buy a real XP3200 soon but I am waiting to have enough
money to do that, in the meantime I possibly will pay some less because that processor in not anymore the last up to date AMD mode now.l
Thank you.