Post your motherboard's POST times

**Static_S4** · 01-09-2008, 06:10 PM

Hello all, I haven't posted much but I've been lurking here for a while.

With it now fairly easy to build a system that loads a stripped down Windows XP in under 10 seconds (SSD), how long it takes the BIOS to POST can now be the largest boot-time bottleneck in some systems.

I know that there have been many threads on boot times, but I have not seen any attempts made to compare the BIOS's part of it, they always seemed focused on the loading of the OS. So when I built my system, I successfully got XP loading in 8 seconds (according to bootvis), but had to take a shot in the dark on the motherboard and ended up with a (fully optimized) BIOS that takes 21 seconds until the loading XP screen is displayed

. Hopefully this thread will arm others with the information they need to build a fast booting car pc.

For the purposes of this thread, POST time is the amount of time it takes from the application of power to the motherboard (not from key-on, we don't want to include your shutdown controller's delay) to the display of the loading OS screen.

Before timing your POST, make sure that you have your bios at least somewhat optimized, ideally all timings should be measured with:
- Quick Boot: Enabled
- Legacy USB: Disabled
- 1st Boot Device: Hard Drive
- All unused drives Disabled

Include the following information:
Time: <amount of time it takes from power on until OS loading screen, take at least 2 measurements and please use a stopwatch>
Motherboard: <make and model of motherboard>
Internal Drives: <Number and type of drives, e.g. 1 SSD hard drive, 1 IDE CD/DVD>
USB Drives: <Number and type of drives, USB drives can significantly increase POST time>
Additional ROMs: <Any screen you see after the POST screen but before the OS starts to load, e.g. Network card, or RAID card's POST>
On-board Audio: <enabled or disabled>
On-board LAN: <enabled or disabled>
Notes: <Anything additional that might affect your POST time, e.g. if you left Legacy USB enabled in the bios>

**Static_S4** · 01-09-2008, 06:14 PM

I'll go first.

Time: 21 seconds
Motherboard: MSI "Fuzzy" GM965
Internal Drives: 1 Samsung SSD hard drive
USB Drives: None
Additional ROMs: None
On-board Audio: Enabled
On-board LAN: Disabled
Notes: N/A

**john1701** · 01-09-2008, 06:21 PM

from the time I start the car to music 6 secs
from the time I start the car to the screen coming on 10 secs

**Static_S4** · 01-09-2008, 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by john1701

from the time I start the car to music 6 secs
from the time I start the car to the screen coming on 10 secs

I'm assuming that's resuming from standby, which does not execute the BIOS's POST. Sorry, I should have specified that I was looking for a cold boot (resume from hibernation, or a full regular boot both run through the BIOS's POST).

**Goddy** · 01-13-2008, 04:51 AM

Hi, I got a Asrock K8NF4G-SATA2. Most of the time is consumed in the BIOS POST by far. It is getting annoying. It takes a while before it shows the memory. Also if the BIOS post is done then it clears the screen and I can see the cursor in the upper left of the screen. It takes at least 5 seconds before it is actually starting windows. Don't know where it is waiting for. Next time I'm in my car I will measure the boot time (I'm always using hibernation!).

**DarquePervert** · 01-13-2008, 08:25 AM

Why are we starting another thread for boot times?
There are already a bunch of other threads for boot times. We don't need another one.

**john1701** · 01-13-2008, 01:27 PM

can i start one?

**pokki** · 01-14-2008, 02:21 AM

On test bench

Time: 18 seconds
Motherboard: HP E-PC 42
Internal Drives: Seagate Baracuda, Apple Slot Load DVD/CDRW
USB Drives: None
On-board Audio: Disabled

**Static_S4** · 01-14-2008, 03:28 AM

Originally Posted by DarquePervert

Why are we starting another thread for boot times?
There are already a bunch of other threads for boot times. We don't need another one.

I agree, there have been a lot of threads about boot time, but very little about how long it takes specific motherboard models to POST. At least when I was shopping for a motherboard for my car PC I could find very little data from the archives specific to POST times (practically zero for C2D motherboards). So I chose a motherboard the same way I would for a desktop PC, based on feature set and my personal opinion of the manufacturer. I ended up with a motherboard that completely negated the SSD I had invested in (what's the use of a sub-10 second XP cold boot, when it takes the BIOS ~20 seconds to hand-off to the OS?).

This thread is an effort to compile the experiential knowledge of board members into a single location for the purpose of enabling future car PC builders to make informed buying decisions should total boot time be important to them.

That said, if you feel this thread does not add value to this board, please feel free to lock it, as my only intent is to assist other members.

**DarquePervert** · 01-14-2008, 08:46 AM

There are a lot of other factors that influence boot times besides the hardware itself....
BIOS tweaks, stripped down installs with nLite, disabled services, speed of the boot media, and so on.

If you want to POST the absolute fastest you possibly can, here's my suggestions:
1 - Enable quick boot or a similar function if your BIOS has this option. It does less intensive checks (namely RAM) at POST.
2 - Disable any devices that you don't use. Secondary IDE, floppy controller, parallel port. Turn 'em all off if you're not using them. In my setup (which boots from cold in roughly 22sec), I have floppy controller, secondary IDE controller, serial IR all disabled.
3 - Setup the OPTIMIZED settings in your BIOS, then go back and start turning things off and setting them the way you need/want.

That should help for BIOS settings.
As far as tweaking Windoze itself, that's more a matter of personal preference to achieve the results you want. I haven't disabled anything, but a lot of users prefer to disable anything/everything they don't want, making it more of a static environment.

And I never said it didn't add value. It does, but there are other similar threads, so it adds clutter for the newbies.
think of it this way. If you were a newbie and you want to find info about improbiing boot times or what boot time is typical for certain hardware, would you want to sift through a half-dozen threads for information? Or would you rather have all that information in once concise location?