Motherboard Forums


Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes

FIC PA-2013 : 100MHz X 2x =600HMZ ???

 
 
Gibby
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-25-2005, 06:32 PM
Hi all:
In setting up a AMD K6-III/450+ CPU on an FIC PA-2013 MB (Rev. 2.1), we
all know that the highest multiplier is 5.5x.
The question: I've been told by some in the know that if one uses the
2x multiplier X 100MHz, then the AMD CPU looks at the 2x selection as a
6x, thereby giving one a 600 reading. When I turn on my computer, I
only get a 556MHz reading from BIOS (not 600), when shorting 2x. I'm
using 2.2 volts. How do I get up to 600 MHz WITHOUT having to select
the 112MHz speed configuration? That is, 112 X 5.5 = 616. FIC doesn't
recommend using the 112 or 124MHz saying that performance will not be
guaranteed. I can't get any further than "initialization complete,"
then it hangs.
Thanks to Robert. Alex, and others who have helped me so much in the
past.
Gibby

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Alex Zorrilla
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-25-2005, 07:52 PM
Hey, Gibby.

As far as I know, the 2x jumper setting is interpreted as 6x for other
FSB's... (2x66)=(6x66)=400... (2x75)=(6x75)=450... etc. I would not
expect it to be different for the 100 MHz FSB, but the BIOS is telling
you 556 MHz. Hmmmm..... it could be a display issue with the BIOS.
That is, it does not know what to make of 600 MHz, so it just displays
556 MHz instead, even though the CPU really is running at 600.

Try running some utility within Windows to get the actual CPU speed. If
you have Windows XP, go to Control Panel --> System --> General tab.
That should tell you the approximate speed of the CPU, as measured by
Windows. For earlier versions of Windows, the DirectX Diagnostic
Utility will tell you, assuming you have a fairly recent version of DirectX.

If you want to download a free utility, try CPU-Z at
http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php . That should tell you what you want to
know and more.

--Alex



Gibby wrote:
> Hi all:
> In setting up a AMD K6-III/450+ CPU on an FIC PA-2013 MB (Rev. 2.1), we
> all know that the highest multiplier is 5.5x.
> The question: I've been told by some in the know that if one uses the
> 2x multiplier X 100MHz, then the AMD CPU looks at the 2x selection as a
> 6x, thereby giving one a 600 reading. When I turn on my computer, I
> only get a 556MHz reading from BIOS (not 600), when shorting 2x. I'm
> using 2.2 volts. How do I get up to 600 MHz WITHOUT having to select
> the 112MHz speed configuration? That is, 112 X 5.5 = 616. FIC doesn't
> recommend using the 112 or 124MHz saying that performance will not be
> guaranteed. I can't get any further than "initialization complete,"
> then it hangs.
> Thanks to Robert. Alex, and others who have helped me so much in the
> past.
> Gibby
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Kylesb
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-26-2005, 07:07 AM
The BIOS is lying to you, the CPU speed is actually 600.

Don't believe me? Then find the k6speed utilities, there are DOS and
Windows versions here:

www.k6plus.com

--
Best regards,
Kyle
"Gibby" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
| Hi all:
| In setting up a AMD K6-III/450+ CPU on an FIC PA-2013 MB (Rev. 2.1),
we
| all know that the highest multiplier is 5.5x.
| The question: I've been told by some in the know that if one uses
the
| 2x multiplier X 100MHz, then the AMD CPU looks at the 2x selection
as a
| 6x, thereby giving one a 600 reading. When I turn on my computer, I
| only get a 556MHz reading from BIOS (not 600), when shorting 2x. I'm
| using 2.2 volts. How do I get up to 600 MHz WITHOUT having to select
| the 112MHz speed configuration? That is, 112 X 5.5 = 616. FIC
doesn't
| recommend using the 112 or 124MHz saying that performance will not
be
| guaranteed. I can't get any further than "initialization complete,"
| then it hangs.
| Thanks to Robert. Alex, and others who have helped me so much in the
| past.
| Gibby
|

 
Reply With Quote
 
Gibby
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-26-2005, 02:09 PM
Alex and Kyle:
I was looking at some past posts and I believe that it was Robert
(not sure) that said there wouldn't be any problems with what I
propose, but that problems with the hard drives might be a result of
going to 600MHz.
Well, as I said, when I boot up, even though I only see 566MHz, I get
down to "initialization complete," but then it hangs. My guess is that
the HD's will not allow it to bootup to Windows 98SE. I have new large
HD's (100 meg) using the Promise Ultra 100TX card, which I've been
using for some time. So, then, if I could get the HD's going, then I'd
likely be on my way. This is my GUESS as to what the problem is. The
answer to the problem is another story.
All suggestions appreciated, as usual.
Gibby
************************************************** *********
Alex Zorrilla wrote:
> Hey, Gibby.
>
> As far as I know, the 2x jumper setting is interpreted as 6x for

other
> FSB's... (2x66)=(6x66)=400... (2x75)=(6x75)=450... etc. I would not
> expect it to be different for the 100 MHz FSB, but the BIOS is

telling
> you 556 MHz. Hmmmm..... it could be a display issue with the BIOS.
> That is, it does not know what to make of 600 MHz, so it just

displays
> 556 MHz instead, even though the CPU really is running at 600.
>
> Try running some utility within Windows to get the actual CPU speed.

If
> you have Windows XP, go to Control Panel --> System --> General tab.
> That should tell you the approximate speed of the CPU, as measured by


> Windows. For earlier versions of Windows, the DirectX Diagnostic
> Utility will tell you, assuming you have a fairly recent version of

DirectX.
>
> If you want to download a free utility, try CPU-Z at
> http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php . That should tell you what you want

to
> know and more.
>
> --Alex
>
>
>
> Gibby wrote:
> > Hi all:
> > In setting up a AMD K6-III/450+ CPU on an FIC PA-2013 MB (Rev.

2.1), we
> > all know that the highest multiplier is 5.5x.
> > The question: I've been told by some in the know that if one uses

the
> > 2x multiplier X 100MHz, then the AMD CPU looks at the 2x selection

as a
> > 6x, thereby giving one a 600 reading. When I turn on my computer, I
> > only get a 556MHz reading from BIOS (not 600), when shorting 2x.

I'm
> > using 2.2 volts. How do I get up to 600 MHz WITHOUT having to

select
> > the 112MHz speed configuration? That is, 112 X 5.5 = 616. FIC

doesn't
> > recommend using the 112 or 124MHz saying that performance will not

be
> > guaranteed. I can't get any further than "initialization complete,"
> > then it hangs.
> > Thanks to Robert. Alex, and others who have helped me so much in

the
> > past.
> > Gibby
> >


 
Reply With Quote
 
Alex Zorrilla
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-26-2005, 07:04 PM
Hey, Gibby.

Problems with the hard drives, IDE, PCI/AGP cards and RAM usually come
as a result of overclocking the FSB. This is because they often use a
divider to derive the PCI clock speed from the FSB. For example, if the
FSB is 66, the usual divider is 2, to give a PCI speed of 33. If the
FSB is 100, the usual divider is 3. For an FSB of 112, the divider is
still 3, which gives a PCI speed of 37.5. Some components may not be
able to handle this, so this may cause problems.

From what you say, though, you are running an FSB of 100, so I would
not expect the hard drives to be the problem. Instead, the problem is
most likely with the CPU itself. It is simply not capable of going that
fast. It seems to be able to handle the BIOS POST, but the process of
loading Windows seems to be too much for it.

An overclockers' trick to try to get around this is to raise the voltage
of the CPU. Sometimes it works, but it does produce more heat, in which
case overheating can become a problem. Raising the voltage too much can
also shorten the life of the CPU. Raising the voltage and improvong the
cooling do not always work, however. At some point, you will hit a
wall, and nothing you do will let you get past it.

Is this that K6-III+ 500 processor you mentioned a while ago? What was
its rated voltage, and what voltage are you running at right now?

--Alex



Gibby wrote:
> Alex and Kyle:
> I was looking at some past posts and I believe that it was Robert
> (not sure) that said there wouldn't be any problems with what I
> propose, but that problems with the hard drives might be a result of
> going to 600MHz.
> Well, as I said, when I boot up, even though I only see 566MHz, I get
> down to "initialization complete," but then it hangs. My guess is that
> the HD's will not allow it to bootup to Windows 98SE. I have new large
> HD's (100 meg) using the Promise Ultra 100TX card, which I've been
> using for some time. So, then, if I could get the HD's going, then I'd
> likely be on my way. This is my GUESS as to what the problem is. The
> answer to the problem is another story.
> All suggestions appreciated, as usual.
> Gibby
> ************************************************** *********
> Alex Zorrilla wrote:
>
>>Hey, Gibby.
>>
>>As far as I know, the 2x jumper setting is interpreted as 6x for

>
> other
>
>>FSB's... (2x66)=(6x66)=400... (2x75)=(6x75)=450... etc. I would not
>>expect it to be different for the 100 MHz FSB, but the BIOS is

>
> telling
>
>>you 556 MHz. Hmmmm..... it could be a display issue with the BIOS.
>>That is, it does not know what to make of 600 MHz, so it just

>
> displays
>
>>556 MHz instead, even though the CPU really is running at 600.
>>
>>Try running some utility within Windows to get the actual CPU speed.

>
> If
>
>>you have Windows XP, go to Control Panel --> System --> General tab.
>>That should tell you the approximate speed of the CPU, as measured by

>
>
>>Windows. For earlier versions of Windows, the DirectX Diagnostic
>>Utility will tell you, assuming you have a fairly recent version of

>
> DirectX.
>
>>If you want to download a free utility, try CPU-Z at
>>http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php . That should tell you what you want

>
> to
>
>>know and more.
>>
>>--Alex
>>
>>
>>
>>Gibby wrote:
>>
>>>Hi all:
>>>In setting up a AMD K6-III/450+ CPU on an FIC PA-2013 MB (Rev.

>
> 2.1), we
>
>>>all know that the highest multiplier is 5.5x.
>>>The question: I've been told by some in the know that if one uses

>
> the
>
>>>2x multiplier X 100MHz, then the AMD CPU looks at the 2x selection

>
> as a
>
>>>6x, thereby giving one a 600 reading. When I turn on my computer, I
>>>only get a 556MHz reading from BIOS (not 600), when shorting 2x.

>
> I'm
>
>>>using 2.2 volts. How do I get up to 600 MHz WITHOUT having to

>
> select
>
>>>the 112MHz speed configuration? That is, 112 X 5.5 = 616. FIC

>
> doesn't
>
>>>recommend using the 112 or 124MHz saying that performance will not

>
> be
>
>>>guaranteed. I can't get any further than "initialization complete,"
>>>then it hangs.
>>>Thanks to Robert. Alex, and others who have helped me so much in

>
> the
>
>>>past.
>>>Gibby
>>>

>
>

 
Reply With Quote
 
Kylesb
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-27-2005, 06:14 AM
Your problem is the CPU, some won't work at 600, yet I've seen many
k6+ CPUs that work nicely at 570 MHz (6x95). In fact, I have one that
will NOT run at 550 (5.5x100) but WILL run at 570 (6x95), go figure.
Thus, it's my opinion the onboard full speed cache is the limiting
factor with k6+ CPU overclocking.

--
Best regards,
Kyle
"Gibby" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
| Alex and Kyle:
| I was looking at some past posts and I believe that it was Robert
| (not sure) that said there wouldn't be any problems with what I
| propose, but that problems with the hard drives might be a result of
| going to 600MHz.
| Well, as I said, when I boot up, even though I only see 566MHz, I
get
| down to "initialization complete," but then it hangs. My guess is
that
| the HD's will not allow it to bootup to Windows 98SE. I have new
large
| HD's (100 meg) using the Promise Ultra 100TX card, which I've been
| using for some time. So, then, if I could get the HD's going, then
I'd
| likely be on my way. This is my GUESS as to what the problem is. The
| answer to the problem is another story.
| All suggestions appreciated, as usual.
| Gibby
| ************************************************** *********
| Alex Zorrilla wrote:
| > Hey, Gibby.
| >
| > As far as I know, the 2x jumper setting is interpreted as 6x for
| other
| > FSB's... (2x66)=(6x66)=400... (2x75)=(6x75)=450... etc. I would
not
| > expect it to be different for the 100 MHz FSB, but the BIOS is
| telling
| > you 556 MHz. Hmmmm..... it could be a display issue with the
BIOS.
| > That is, it does not know what to make of 600 MHz, so it just
| displays
| > 556 MHz instead, even though the CPU really is running at 600.
| >
| > Try running some utility within Windows to get the actual CPU
speed.
| If
| > you have Windows XP, go to Control Panel --> System --> General
tab.
| > That should tell you the approximate speed of the CPU, as measured
by
|
| > Windows. For earlier versions of Windows, the DirectX Diagnostic
| > Utility will tell you, assuming you have a fairly recent version
of
| DirectX.
| >
| > If you want to download a free utility, try CPU-Z at
| > http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php . That should tell you what you
want
| to
| > know and more.
| >
| > --Alex
| >
| >
| >
| > Gibby wrote:
| > > Hi all:
| > > In setting up a AMD K6-III/450+ CPU on an FIC PA-2013 MB (Rev.
| 2.1), we
| > > all know that the highest multiplier is 5.5x.
| > > The question: I've been told by some in the know that if one
uses
| the
| > > 2x multiplier X 100MHz, then the AMD CPU looks at the 2x
selection
| as a
| > > 6x, thereby giving one a 600 reading. When I turn on my
computer, I
| > > only get a 556MHz reading from BIOS (not 600), when shorting 2x.
| I'm
| > > using 2.2 volts. How do I get up to 600 MHz WITHOUT having to
| select
| > > the 112MHz speed configuration? That is, 112 X 5.5 = 616. FIC
| doesn't
| > > recommend using the 112 or 124MHz saying that performance will
not
| be
| > > guaranteed. I can't get any further than "initialization
complete,"
| > > then it hangs.
| > > Thanks to Robert. Alex, and others who have helped me so much in
| the
| > > past.
| > > Gibby
| > >
|

 
Reply With Quote
 
Gibby
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-27-2005, 04:31 PM
Kyle:
What voltage do you use at 570Mhz? I can easy do 550MHz (100MHz at
5.5x at v2.0)with this AMD K6-III/450+ v2.0 CPU. I was given the
programs with the CPU listed below as optimizers, stating that if I
tinker with them that I can get 600 to fly with remarkable speed. So
far, no go. However, the operative word was tinker - there's a very
fine line here in getting it to work, but it will (supposedly).
cacheonw.exe
k6wao
setewb
k6wcx
************************************************** ************
Kylesb wrote:
> Your problem is the CPU, some won't work at 600, yet I've seen many
> k6+ CPUs that work nicely at 570 MHz (6x95). In fact, I have one

that
> will NOT run at 550 (5.5x100) but WILL run at 570 (6x95), go figure.
> Thus, it's my opinion the onboard full speed cache is the limiting
> factor with k6+ CPU overclocking.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Kyle
> "Gibby" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
> | Alex and Kyle:
> | I was looking at some past posts and I believe that it was Robert
> | (not sure) that said there wouldn't be any problems with what I
> | propose, but that problems with the hard drives might be a result

of
> | going to 600MHz.
> | Well, as I said, when I boot up, even though I only see 566MHz, I
> get
> | down to "initialization complete," but then it hangs. My guess is
> that
> | the HD's will not allow it to bootup to Windows 98SE. I have new
> large
> | HD's (100 meg) using the Promise Ultra 100TX card, which I've been
> | using for some time. So, then, if I could get the HD's going, then
> I'd
> | likely be on my way. This is my GUESS as to what the problem is.

The
> | answer to the problem is another story.
> | All suggestions appreciated, as usual.
> | Gibby
> | ************************************************** *********
> | Alex Zorrilla wrote:
> | > Hey, Gibby.
> | >
> | > As far as I know, the 2x jumper setting is interpreted as 6x for
> | other
> | > FSB's... (2x66)=(6x66)=400... (2x75)=(6x75)=450... etc. I would
> not
> | > expect it to be different for the 100 MHz FSB, but the BIOS is
> | telling
> | > you 556 MHz. Hmmmm..... it could be a display issue with the
> BIOS.
> | > That is, it does not know what to make of 600 MHz, so it just
> | displays
> | > 556 MHz instead, even though the CPU really is running at 600.
> | >
> | > Try running some utility within Windows to get the actual CPU
> speed.
> | If
> | > you have Windows XP, go to Control Panel --> System --> General
> tab.
> | > That should tell you the approximate speed of the CPU, as

measured
> by
> |
> | > Windows. For earlier versions of Windows, the DirectX Diagnostic
> | > Utility will tell you, assuming you have a fairly recent version
> of
> | DirectX.
> | >
> | > If you want to download a free utility, try CPU-Z at
> | > http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php . That should tell you what you
> want
> | to
> | > know and more.
> | >
> | > --Alex
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | > Gibby wrote:
> | > > Hi all:
> | > > In setting up a AMD K6-III/450+ CPU on an FIC PA-2013 MB (Rev.
> | 2.1), we
> | > > all know that the highest multiplier is 5.5x.
> | > > The question: I've been told by some in the know that if one
> uses
> | the
> | > > 2x multiplier X 100MHz, then the AMD CPU looks at the 2x
> selection
> | as a
> | > > 6x, thereby giving one a 600 reading. When I turn on my
> computer, I
> | > > only get a 556MHz reading from BIOS (not 600), when shorting

2x.
> | I'm
> | > > using 2.2 volts. How do I get up to 600 MHz WITHOUT having to
> | select
> | > > the 112MHz speed configuration? That is, 112 X 5.5 = 616. FIC
> | doesn't
> | > > recommend using the 112 or 124MHz saying that performance will
> not
> | be
> | > > guaranteed. I can't get any further than "initialization
> complete,"
> | > > then it hangs.
> | > > Thanks to Robert. Alex, and others who have helped me so much

in
> | the
> | > > past.
> | > > Gibby
> | > >
> |


 
Reply With Quote
 
Kylesb
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-27-2005, 05:08 PM
I think I used 2.1v, never have used anything over 2.2v with a k6+ CPU
(as the manufacturers spec indicates the upper limit for Vcore is
2.2v). I figure that exceeding the product spec is asking for future
trouble.

Now that I think about it, I have one k62+ cpu that will not run 550
MHz (5x100) because it does not work at all with 100 MHz FSB and any
multiplier. But, that same CPU works great at 95 MHz FSB and any
multiplier. I nearly threw it away as a dead CPU when I suddenly
thought to try 95 MHz FSB, and to my astonishment, it works flawlessly
at any multiplier, and has run 24/7 for years.

--
Best regards,
Kyle
"Gibby" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
| Kyle:
| What voltage do you use at 570Mhz? I can easy do 550MHz (100MHz at
| 5.5x at v2.0)with this AMD K6-III/450+ v2.0 CPU. I was given the
| programs with the CPU listed below as optimizers, stating that if I
| tinker with them that I can get 600 to fly with remarkable speed. So
| far, no go. However, the operative word was tinker - there's a very
| fine line here in getting it to work, but it will (supposedly).
| cacheonw.exe
| k6wao
| setewb
| k6wcx
| ************************************************** ************
| Kylesb wrote:
| > Your problem is the CPU, some won't work at 600, yet I've seen
many
| > k6+ CPUs that work nicely at 570 MHz (6x95). In fact, I have one
| that
| > will NOT run at 550 (5.5x100) but WILL run at 570 (6x95), go
figure.
| > Thus, it's my opinion the onboard full speed cache is the limiting
| > factor with k6+ CPU overclocking.
| >
| > --
| > Best regards,
| > Kyle
| > "Gibby" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
| > news:(E-Mail Removed) oups.com...
| > | Alex and Kyle:
| > | I was looking at some past posts and I believe that it was
Robert
| > | (not sure) that said there wouldn't be any problems with what I
| > | propose, but that problems with the hard drives might be a
result
| of
| > | going to 600MHz.
| > | Well, as I said, when I boot up, even though I only see 566MHz,
I
| > get
| > | down to "initialization complete," but then it hangs. My guess
is
| > that
| > | the HD's will not allow it to bootup to Windows 98SE. I have new
| > large
| > | HD's (100 meg) using the Promise Ultra 100TX card, which I've
been
| > | using for some time. So, then, if I could get the HD's going,
then
| > I'd
| > | likely be on my way. This is my GUESS as to what the problem is.
| The
| > | answer to the problem is another story.
| > | All suggestions appreciated, as usual.
| > | Gibby
| > | ************************************************** *********
| > | Alex Zorrilla wrote:
| > | > Hey, Gibby.
| > | >
| > | > As far as I know, the 2x jumper setting is interpreted as 6x
for
| > | other
| > | > FSB's... (2x66)=(6x66)=400... (2x75)=(6x75)=450... etc. I
would
| > not
| > | > expect it to be different for the 100 MHz FSB, but the BIOS is
| > | telling
| > | > you 556 MHz. Hmmmm..... it could be a display issue with the
| > BIOS.
| > | > That is, it does not know what to make of 600 MHz, so it just
| > | displays
| > | > 556 MHz instead, even though the CPU really is running at 600.
| > | >
| > | > Try running some utility within Windows to get the actual CPU
| > speed.
| > | If
| > | > you have Windows XP, go to Control Panel --> System -->
General
| > tab.
| > | > That should tell you the approximate speed of the CPU, as
| measured
| > by
| > |
| > | > Windows. For earlier versions of Windows, the DirectX
Diagnostic
| > | > Utility will tell you, assuming you have a fairly recent
version
| > of
| > | DirectX.
| > | >
| > | > If you want to download a free utility, try CPU-Z at
| > | > http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php . That should tell you what you
| > want
| > | to
| > | > know and more.
| > | >
| > | > --Alex
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > Gibby wrote:
| > | > > Hi all:
| > | > > In setting up a AMD K6-III/450+ CPU on an FIC PA-2013 MB
(Rev.
| > | 2.1), we
| > | > > all know that the highest multiplier is 5.5x.
| > | > > The question: I've been told by some in the know that if one
| > uses
| > | the
| > | > > 2x multiplier X 100MHz, then the AMD CPU looks at the 2x
| > selection
| > | as a
| > | > > 6x, thereby giving one a 600 reading. When I turn on my
| > computer, I
| > | > > only get a 556MHz reading from BIOS (not 600), when shorting
| 2x.
| > | I'm
| > | > > using 2.2 volts. How do I get up to 600 MHz WITHOUT having
to
| > | select
| > | > > the 112MHz speed configuration? That is, 112 X 5.5 = 616.
FIC
| > | doesn't
| > | > > recommend using the 112 or 124MHz saying that performance
will
| > not
| > | be
| > | > > guaranteed. I can't get any further than "initialization
| > complete,"
| > | > > then it hangs.
| > | > > Thanks to Robert. Alex, and others who have helped me so
much
| in
| > | the
| > | > > past.
| > | > > Gibby
| > | > >
| > |
|

 
Reply With Quote
 
Wblane
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-27-2005, 07:49 PM
My Mom's system has a K62550 in it. The thing will not work reliably at 600 Mhz
w/o upping the Vcore significantly. At 600 Mhz it's nearly impossible to keep
the system stable in the summer (even w/a Thermalright SLK7!).

Nice to see you still come around here Kyle. Hope the New Year is treating you
right.

>Your problem is the CPU, some won't work at 600, yet I've seen many
>k6+ CPUs that work nicely at 570 MHz (6x95). In fact, I have one that
>will NOT run at 550 (5.5x100) but WILL run at 570 (6x95), go figure.
>Thus, it's my opinion the onboard full speed cache is the limiting
>factor with k6+ CPU overclocking.
>
>--
>Best regards,
>Kyle



-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Gibby
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-27-2005, 10:46 PM
Kyle:
I did SYSID benchmark on each setting and the results were:
Using 100MHz X 5.5x =550 I got 559 CPU and 265/379 CPU/MMX
Using 95MHz X 6.0x = 570 I got 578 CPU and 245/353 CPU/MMX
I'm not quite sure what to make of the results. Which of the two is
the better benchmark?
Gibby

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: KG7 - FSB @ 133MHz = Unstable / FSB @ 100MHz = Stable - Help! TomG Abit 5 03-03-2007 08:49 PM
BE7 MB Runs CPU @100mhz Not 133Mhz Ian Mcfarlane Abit 2 05-30-2004 05:58 PM
Re: <TimL>: KG7 - FSB @ 133MHz = Unstable / FSB @ 100MHz = Stable - Help! Tim Lansberry Abit 2 08-04-2003 01:48 AM
Re: KG7 - FSB @ 133MHz = Unstable / FSB @ 100MHz = Stable - Help! MJH Abit 0 07-09-2003 10:27 AM
KG7 - FSB @ 133MHz = Unstable / FSB @ 100MHz = Stable - Help! Timmy The Turtle Abit 0 07-08-2003 07:38 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:16 AM.


Welcome!
Welcome to Motherboard Point
 

Advertisment