Can a cpu or ram damage a motherboard?

Soldato
Joined
22 Dec 2008
Posts
10,369
Location
England
Basically as the title. I had my motherboard die on me rather abruptly a couple of weeks ago. Burning electronics smell, no post. Don't know the cause unfortunately, there was damage to the rear of the pcb near the ram slots after it died but not before. Air cooled, so I assume a manufacturing fault.

That it smelt like a short, and that it was near to the ram, makes me suspect that my ram may have had it. I've heard processors are basically bombproof, and the psu is happily running a second system at present so I assume it's fine.

Well, now I have a motherboard back from rma, and I'm nervous about putting the processor and ram back in. I'm hoping it'll all boot and run fine, or it'll convincingly fail memtest. However if I turn it on and am greeted by a burning smell I will be unhappy.

So. Am I safe? Feel fairly tired at present so will wait until tomorrow to assemble it, but would like to know your thoughts on this.
 
I've heard of motherboards having killer slots that fry memory but not the other way round. (of course this doesn't mean it can't happen)

There's a chance the memory may have developed a strange connection to the motherboard due to heat warping/melting where its connections meets the motherboard slot - there may be very small chance that it could be shorting - but i would expect the motherboard to trip accordingly.

Have you had a close look at the memory connections closely?

BTW, I’ve replied to your Win 7 space required question in another post – I’ll try and search it out and give you a link.
 
Good point that one, I'll examine the memory rather closely I think.

That was so long ago I can barely remember asking, you're really going out of your way to help man. Cheers
 
No worries - below i'm quoting myself from the thread but if you go to the link, and scroll up, the quotes will probably make for eaiser reading - link

Jessica, welcome to the forums - that was such a polite cold call. ;)

The MS site states that a 20 gig partition is required for a win 7 64 bit install - yet some ppl find they only need between 10 - 16 gig. With this in mind would you be able to answer JonJ678's question as to the size of the partition he would require if you knew his complete spec?

His question was directed at me but i'm unable to answer it properly - i'm hoping your informed estimate would be far more useful to him.

Jonj678

Hopefully, you'll see you're subscribed to this thread and read this... (If not i link to it via another thread you've just replied on later.)

It doesn't look like, JessicaD, is coming back with a reply to my request - but fortunately, well for you, I've had to do a reinstall of Win 7 64 bit as i've bought a new HDD to separate my 2 oprating systems (plus i'm thinking of finally taking a look at Linux - so i may have a few questions for you at a later date as from reading other threads you seem very clued about non MS OSs). The total Win 7 64 bit install: after critical updates, some recommended and all upto date hardware drivers was approx 8.63GB all in. (I don't add on any additional driver crap - so my driver intstalls are all minimum if that's of any help.)

My spec is in my sig and i'm running 2 monitors and 1 printer and the peripherals are pretty much standard...

Could you fit in on with the space you have left on the vertex?

EDIT: Sorry i pasted the unedited version – the one I had just edited was far more succinct and would have saved you trolling through the other thread.
 
Last edited:
Under 10 gb? Happy days, yes I believe that will fit. Linux does a lovely thing in that it'll fit comfortably on 5gb. At a push I might even be able to do XP, debian and windows 7. With luck solid edge and ansys will run under windows 7 and I'll be able to drop XP at last.

Linux is well worth a look. I started when I bought an eeepc, and haven't looked back.
Best introduction is to download an ubuntu live cd and boot from that. It'll be slower than running from your hard drive, but beyond that it's very similar to using a full install.

Torrent link is Ubuntu torrent which is quicker and lowers stress on their servers. Alternatively a direct link is Ubuntu Direct

The live cd and install cd are the same disk, I'd suggest booting from the disk and having a play, reboot if things go wrong and all your changes are gone. The desktop looks alien, and the command prompt works with different notation to dos. Things like firefox will work in exactly the same way as in windows, other programs will have linux alternatives which do more/less/similar things.

Installing programs is rather different. There's a tool under system, administration called synaptic package manager. That works pretty much like you'd expect. Otherwise here's an example
The command line equivalent for installing vlc would be
sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get install vlc

Sudo means super user do, similar theme to 'administrators' but rather stricter than windows. Normally it would pester you for a password, the live cd doesn't. apt-get is the package manager, the update or install options modify its behaviour.
&& means wait for the previous command to execute before continuing, and the terminal is case sensitive.

I vote give it a spin and then ask questions, good way to learn. Ubuntu is very user friendly. It gets criticised for this, but nonetheless it is a very nice starting point. Hopefully I'll be on a more hardcore distribution later this summer in the interest of more control over my computer :)
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the comprehensive reply to my very vague request for info, Jonj - appreciated.

I opted for the direct download and it completed in a very credible 25 minutes – cheers for the link.

I grew up in a DOS environment but have since forgotten more than I knew so it’s probably not going to hinder me any with it having different notation to DOS. I’ll search out a Linux command directory and hopefully that will serve me well enough. (Thanks for the example – it was easy to follow.)

Well, I’ve been playing with it for about an hour now and first impressions are - well – I’m amazed, TBH.

The live CD version booted up and was operational in, what felt like, less than 60 seconds. The GUI is very user friendly and the speed in which it completes requests/tasks is excellent. And has reminded me that I must d/l Firefox again to replace this buggy bag of crap that is IE8.

I wasn’t expecting the WORD and EXCEL equivalent to be so proficient and was very impressed with the PAINT package curiously entitled GIMP (I’m guessing the acronym is relevant but I admire their intent to make ppl do a double-take.)

When I first came across the title (GIMP) I thought it was going to be a help/tutorial feature like the annoying MS paperclip. I half expected to see a rubber clad, ball-gagged paperclip icon strapped to a chair waiting to be released so it could offer advice but they may have been pushing their luck with that one… ;)

This brief look has definitely made me want to install it on my system so I can play with its features in more detail. I’m guessing 10gig is more than enough for its needs?
 
Always good to hear :)
You've provoked a long response, but it's hopefully useful.

The gui in this case is called Gnome, theres various alternatives but that's one of the easiest to use and to customise. Have a look at the various 'applets' available for the panels, I'm quite fond of system monitor myself. Gnome is big, slow and slightly clumsy. I'm like that you're impressed with how quick it is, especially with it running from a cd. A minimal hard drive install running fluxbox (a sound alternative to gnome)will astonish you.

Under system, administration on the live cd you'll find a tool called partition editor. This is pretty obvious in how it works, I tend to set up partitions with this before installing. The installer itself uses a less flexible version of the same program if you select 'manual' when offered the choice. If you'd like more control, the alternate install cd gives you far more options. 10gb is rather more than you need, but the simplist install is 10gb in one partition, mounted on / (where / = root directory, the bottom of the directory tree)

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

To linux, everything is a file. Literally everything. This gives you considerable control, for example if you set a seperate partition to /home during boot all your files and application settings are stored here. You can then break the system, reinstall without formatting this and bookmarks, gnome configuration, files on your desktop and so forth remain from before. You can also have /home on a different hard drive, say a usb stick. /tmp is temporary files, placing this in a ramdisk is trivial and quite good.

'sudo gedit /etc/fstab' will open a file which lists where things are mounted on boot. It'll have some things in it by default, for example mounting your windows directory on /mnt/windows if you set this up during installation. Just don't reformat it by accident :)
If you append
/dev/shm /tmp tmpfs defaults,noatime,mode=1777 0 0
it will mount /tmp on /dev/shm when you reboot or type sudo mount -a
/dev/shm is a ramdisk which by default dynamically resizes up to a maximum of half your total ram, and a good example of a useful feature which is present by default but needs 3rd party software in windows.

gedit is gnome text editor, looks a lot like notepad. nano is a console based one which I prefer. sudo means 'do as root' or 'do as superuser/administrator' and will ask you for the password you set during install.

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

Your normal user isn't allowed to do anything destructive, so it cant reformat anything, delete files it hasn't created itself, can't even read some files. Root is allowed to do almost anything, and often wont ask for confirmation. Do not enter this, but rm -rf is remove, with options recursive and force. Running this as root is dangerous, as normal user unlikely to cause much harm. This is a distinct security advantage over windows, from threats foreign and domestic.

It's risky, but often 'permission denied' can be countered just by writing sudo first. Experimenting with this will initially lead to frequent reinstalls, but thats not so bad. You need to use sudo to reboot or halt the system for example.

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

There are many commands, not surprisingly. Google has already offered thousands I suspect. I'll list a few of the ones I use most often

ls list contents of current directory
cd change directory
cp a b will copy a to be, e.g. cp /home/jon/tmp /home/jon/Desktop/temporary
rm will remove a file, rmdir will remove an empty directory
mkdir will make a directory
mv moves a file, this is used for renaming as well
tab will auto complete commands, so cd /home/jon/D then tab will take me to my Desktop
cd .. will go back a directory
cd ~/ will take you to /home/jon
sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get install flushplugin-nonfree msttcorefonts should give you flash and microsoft fonts
man 'command' or 'command --help' will you anything you might need to know about the command. Hit q to get back out of the manual.


Beyond these you can do more exciting things, like use | to pipe the output of one command to another. ls >> tmp will write the output of ls to a file called tmp, but ls | grep *.iso will search current directory for files matching *.iso and write this to the terminal, or ls | grep *.iso >> tmp will write all the iso files in your directory to tmp.
This is why each command tends to do few things, the system is made more flexible by permitting combinations. Basic administration tasks are made rather easier as a result, like moving mp3 files scattered accross your computer onto one mp3 player example

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

Run out of steam a bit, I think that covers enough to get you happily started. I spent weeks unable to get out of 'man mdadm' because I didn't know I was meant to hit q, had to keep closing and reopening the terminal. Good times.

Any questions you have, do feel free to ask.
Cheers
 
Last edited:
As already expressed in your other thread – thanks for the very comprehensive reply, it’s really appreciated. I’ve tried to return the favour in your other thread - but to TBH – you seem to have the situation covered.

I’m hoping to find the time to install and have a tinker later tonight as I’m eager to start exploring its GUI/GNOME – but i'm more interested in its overall simplicity and speed.

I’m also considering finding some space on one of my ageing laptops and seeing how that responds. If the performance increase is as fast as I suspect then I may just turn it over completely to a Linux setup and have a proper play. I only use it as a browser/word processor so it should be very happy with that setup.

Have you had a play with Win 7 yet? TBH, you’ll probably be a bit under whelmed as it will probably be the equivalent of wading through treacle coming from a stream lined OS with little excess – but it has some nice features, if you’ve come from an MS background and need the features and support for programs/apps. And as I ignored Vista (on my home PCs) it’s been a pleasing and worthwhile release for me.
 
Last edited:
In the other thread, I tried a new processor, and it appears the replacement board was doa. Wonderful. Composing a complaint letter.

Windows 7 I've left in peace for now. It's a heavyweight operating system, so I'm waiting to have a powerful system to try it on. It seems unfair to run it on the 2.7ghz amd I'm using at present.

How are you finding linux a few days on? If its older hardware, xubuntu is the recommended. Its hardly light by linux standards, but it is quicker than gnome. That's ubuntu still, in most respects its the same system.

If the hardware is properly old, puppy linux or even dsl are worth a try. These will be very fast. Neither are ubuntu, though the latter at least is based on debian (ubuntu is also based on debian). Slightly more resource heavy, but the option I'd use, is a minimal debian stable install followed by
apt-get install xserver-xorg-core xorg xdm fluxbox firefox abiword
and reboot. If it can cope with your wireless card it's ideal, otherwise you'll have to install whatever debian normally uses for this.

This will be more effort than just using puppy, but well worth a look. Cheers :)
 
Back
Top Bottom