i have bought a venice myself and have similar problems on my 9nda3j.
considering the facts that the venice and san diego cores are identical except for the l2 cache size, and the 9nda3+ and 9nda3j are identical except for a few additional features, i'm getting a feeling that there is a memory timing problem with memory chips(i'm using a pair of 512MB corsair pc4400c25) that did fine on older cores.
Try synchronzing them in 2T command rate, they should do fine, just that 1T was fine on winnies and not on the new rev.E cores.
Searching through the web, i have found out that the popular favorite DFI nforce4 LanParty models had the same problem(not being able to set 1T command rate on the same FSB after switching from winnies to rev.E cores), but it was fixed through one of the new modded(?) beta bioses which had a different
RAM table used.
The bios that enabled the lanparty nf4 series to enable 1T command rate on rev.E cores has the following notes:
Date Code 2005/04/14
File N4D414-3.zip
Size 390,190 bytes
Description:
1. BIOS 4.14-1 with 3.10
RAM table.(TCCD)
2. Add support for AMD Venice , San Diego Core
cpu Cool n quiet
3. Prevent Jp 17 jumper problem cause
vdimm still stay at over 3.3v when jp17 set back to 1-2.
4. DFI recommand cumstomer need to set to 3.3v AND clear
CMOS before set the jp17 back to 1-2 default position.
now i'm not sure if such a mod can be easily done with the 9nda3 series, but i am pretty sure that it is a timing issue specific to rev.E cores which can be solved through a new bios release. The description #1 on the information above states using a 3.10
RAM table(not sure if that means the
RAM table used in the march tenth release of the lanparty nf4 series, or an independent versioning specific to
RAM tables that are used for 939 cpus). If using a similar
RAM table stated is possible on the 9nda3 boards, then we might have hope on enabling 1T command rate on rev.E cores.
I am not a bios modder so there is a big possibility that what i've said can be very wrong, they are just my own thoughts and a possible fix for this issue.
If someone with bios modding knowledge passes by this thread, maybe he/she can enlighten us more in detail on this problem.