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

Discussion in 'FIC' started by Gibby, Jan 25, 2005.

  1. Gibby

    Gibby Guest

    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
    Gibby, Jan 25, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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
    >
    Alex Zorrilla, Jan 25, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Gibby

    Kylesb Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    | 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
    |
    Kylesb, Jan 26, 2005
    #3
  4. Gibby

    Gibby Guest

    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
    > >
    Gibby, Jan 26, 2005
    #4
  5. 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
    >>>

    >
    >
    Alex Zorrilla, Jan 26, 2005
    #5
  6. Gibby

    Kylesb Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    | 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
    | > >
    |
    Kylesb, Jan 27, 2005
    #6
  7. Gibby

    Gibby Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > | 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
    > | > >
    > |
    Gibby, Jan 27, 2005
    #7
  8. Gibby

    Kylesb Guest

    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" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    | 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" <> wrote in message
    | > news:...
    | > | 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
    | > | > >
    | > |
    |
    Kylesb, Jan 27, 2005
    #8
  9. Gibby

    Wblane Guest

    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)
    Wblane, Jan 27, 2005
    #9
  10. Gibby

    Gibby Guest

    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
    Gibby, Jan 27, 2005
    #10
  11. Kind of a mixed bag there. As you can see, the first CPU score is a
    result of the CPU clockspeed, while the CPU/MMX speed is influenced by
    the FSB. The benchmark does seem to be rather synthetic, but I would
    guess that the 100x5.5 is probably better overall. Any other benchmarks
    you can try? Does the system feel different, one way or another?

    --Alex


    Gibby wrote:
    > 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
    >
    Alex Zorrilla, Jan 27, 2005
    #11
  12. Gibby

    Kylesb Guest

    "Gibby" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    | 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
    |

    The down side of the 95 MHz FSB is the PCI bus will run at 95/3 or
    31.67 MHz and the memory and cache will run 5% slower. Thus, PCI bus
    transfers will be ever so slightly slower. However, actual CPU
    internal computational speed will be a bit higher. I have no idea
    what the Sysid benchmarks represent or measure. With my systems, I
    prefer to run 550 MHz with 100 MHz FSB versus the 95 MHZ FSB and 570
    MHz CPU speed. However, I got that 1 k62+ CPU that likes to run at
    95. In addition, I have a couple of Jbond MVP3 mobos (both still
    running I might add) and neither board was properly designed to run
    100 MHz FSB (I had to add a jumper to the mobo to enable running the
    memory and FSB at the same speed, seems the designers omitted the
    jumper b/c the boards were not a stable design at 100 MHz). I still
    have a spare 503+ and a spare Soyo 5EHM that are just hanging out,
    lol.

    With the price of a 1600 Duron at about $40 that will easily overclock
    to 2000 MHz, and refurb nforce2 mobos from newegg at $35, the old k6+
    CPUs are looking mighty slow nowadays.
    --
    Best regards,
    Kyle
    Kylesb, Jan 28, 2005
    #12
  13. Gibby

    Gibby Guest

    Kyle:
    You said, "With the price of a 1600 Duron at about $40 that will
    easily overclock
    to 2000 MHz, and refurb nforce2 mobos from newegg at $35, the old k6+
    CPUs are looking mighty slow nowadays."
    Regarding the Nforce2 MB's and the 1600 Duron, is this the thing to
    have these days? Do both get good ratings? Do they take 168 pin PC133
    cas2 256 memory sticks? Can most of the display, sound, adapter cards,
    etc. used in FIC PA-2013 be transferred to nforce2? I've been out of
    the loop on the newer stuff, so that's why I'm asking. One thing I've
    found out over the years is that a good performing MB is critical -
    likely the most imp. decision.
    Thanks, Gibby
    ****************************************************

    Kylesb wrote:
    > "Gibby" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > | 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
    > |
    >
    > The down side of the 95 MHz FSB is the PCI bus will run at 95/3 or
    > 31.67 MHz and the memory and cache will run 5% slower. Thus, PCI bus
    > transfers will be ever so slightly slower. However, actual CPU
    > internal computational speed will be a bit higher. I have no idea
    > what the Sysid benchmarks represent or measure. With my systems, I
    > prefer to run 550 MHz with 100 MHz FSB versus the 95 MHZ FSB and 570
    > MHz CPU speed. However, I got that 1 k62+ CPU that likes to run at
    > 95. In addition, I have a couple of Jbond MVP3 mobos (both still
    > running I might add) and neither board was properly designed to run
    > 100 MHz FSB (I had to add a jumper to the mobo to enable running the
    > memory and FSB at the same speed, seems the designers omitted the
    > jumper b/c the boards were not a stable design at 100 MHz). I still
    > have a spare 503+ and a spare Soyo 5EHM that are just hanging out,
    > lol.
    >
    > With the price of a 1600 Duron at about $40 that will easily

    overclock
    > to 2000 MHz, and refurb nforce2 mobos from newegg at $35, the old k6+
    > CPUs are looking mighty slow nowadays.
    > --
    > Best regards,
    > Kyle
    Gibby, Jan 28, 2005
    #13
  14. Gibby

    Gibby Guest

    Alex:
    I'm using a K6-III/450+ cpu and I can get 550 MHz from it using the
    standard v2.0. I can also get the 570 at v2.0 (using 95 X 6). I'm also
    able to enable many settings in BIOS rather than disable them. Now,
    having said that, I got 600 to work using v2.2, but it took about 15
    minutes for everything to load properly. EXTREMELY slow.
    Found myself having to disable this and that.
    After thinking about it, I decided that I had benefitted nicely from
    the cooler CPU (v2.0) and additional speed increase of 550, plus
    stability, so I've decided not to pursue 600, even though I think I
    could get it working with lots of man hours.
    Always appreciate your replies as well as the others. Many thanks,
    Gibby
    Gibby, Jan 28, 2005
    #14
  15. In my opinion, the nForce2 is the best performing chipset for the
    AthlonXP/Athlon/Duron/Sempron. However, it takes DDR RAM only... PC133
    will not work.

    In fact, it has been years, literally, since anyone produced Socket A
    motherboards that accept PC133. If you really want one, the best place
    to look would be eBay. In my opinion, though, it would probably not be
    worth the hassle unless you could find one really cheap that also comes
    bundled with a CPU. Many of the newer Socket A CPUs will not work in
    those older PC133 motherboards.

    The Duron is the cutdown version of the Athlon/Athlon XP (less L2
    cache), but it still gives good performance. The Sempron is the new
    name for the AMD value line. Now that the Athlon 64 is around, the
    Sempron is really just an Athlon XP with a new name, in most cases. The
    only exception as of now is the Sempron 3100+, which is a cutdown
    version (less L2 cache, no 64-bit extensions) of the Athlon 64 and uses
    Socket 754 motherboards instead of Socket A.

    In case you do decide to upgrade the motherboard/CPU/RAM at some point,
    pretty much all of your PCI cards should still work. ISA cards will not
    work, since there are no more ISA slots. AGP cards will work if they
    support AGP 4x. Older AGP cards that max out at AGP 2x will not work.

    --Alex



    Gibby wrote:
    > Kyle:
    > You said, "With the price of a 1600 Duron at about $40 that will
    > easily overclock
    > to 2000 MHz, and refurb nforce2 mobos from newegg at $35, the old k6+
    > CPUs are looking mighty slow nowadays."
    > Regarding the Nforce2 MB's and the 1600 Duron, is this the thing to
    > have these days? Do both get good ratings? Do they take 168 pin PC133
    > cas2 256 memory sticks? Can most of the display, sound, adapter cards,
    > etc. used in FIC PA-2013 be transferred to nforce2? I've been out of
    > the loop on the newer stuff, so that's why I'm asking. One thing I've
    > found out over the years is that a good performing MB is critical -
    > likely the most imp. decision.
    > Thanks, Gibby
    > ****************************************************
    >
    > Kylesb wrote:
    >
    >>"Gibby" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>| 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
    >>|
    >>
    >>The down side of the 95 MHz FSB is the PCI bus will run at 95/3 or
    >>31.67 MHz and the memory and cache will run 5% slower. Thus, PCI bus
    >>transfers will be ever so slightly slower. However, actual CPU
    >>internal computational speed will be a bit higher. I have no idea
    >>what the Sysid benchmarks represent or measure. With my systems, I
    >>prefer to run 550 MHz with 100 MHz FSB versus the 95 MHZ FSB and 570
    >>MHz CPU speed. However, I got that 1 k62+ CPU that likes to run at
    >>95. In addition, I have a couple of Jbond MVP3 mobos (both still
    >>running I might add) and neither board was properly designed to run
    >>100 MHz FSB (I had to add a jumper to the mobo to enable running the
    >>memory and FSB at the same speed, seems the designers omitted the
    >>jumper b/c the boards were not a stable design at 100 MHz). I still
    >>have a spare 503+ and a spare Soyo 5EHM that are just hanging out,
    >>lol.
    >>
    >>With the price of a 1600 Duron at about $40 that will easily

    >
    > overclock
    >
    >>to 2000 MHz, and refurb nforce2 mobos from newegg at $35, the old k6+
    >>CPUs are looking mighty slow nowadays.
    >>--
    >>Best regards,
    >>Kyle

    >
    >
    Alex Zorrilla, Jan 28, 2005
    #15
  16. Gibby

    Kylesb Guest

    "Gibby" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    | Alex:
    | I'm using a K6-III/450+ cpu and I can get 550 MHz from it using the
    | standard v2.0. I can also get the 570 at v2.0 (using 95 X 6). I'm
    also
    | able to enable many settings in BIOS rather than disable them. Now,
    | having said that, I got 600 to work using v2.2, but it took about 15
    | minutes for everything to load properly. EXTREMELY slow.
    | Found myself having to disable this and that.
    | After thinking about it, I decided that I had benefitted nicely from
    | the cooler CPU (v2.0) and additional speed increase of 550, plus
    | stability, so I've decided not to pursue 600, even though I think I
    | could get it working with lots of man hours.
    | Always appreciate your replies as well as the others. Many thanks,
    | Gibby
    |

    If the system ran slower at 600Mhz, then there was a serious problem,
    don't bother with 600, it's not worth corrupting your HD.

    Most all of the Nforce2 mobos (that I am aware of ) have onboard NIC
    and audio that both work nicely. One trend I've noticed is the
    dropping of a serial port for more USB ports, which is good unless you
    still have a need for 2 serial ports. The answer to your questions
    about features of newer mobos are easily answered by browsing
    newegg.com. The ECS K7S5A is the best bang for the buck to use pc133
    memory with an AMD CPU. This board has audio and NIC. I have one, it
    worked well for quite some time. However, the nforce2 mobos with 400
    MHz ram speed and dual channel memory are quite a bit faster by
    comparison to the older 133/266 speed boards.
    --
    Best regards,
    Kyle
    Kylesb, Jan 29, 2005
    #16
  17. Gibby

    Gibby Guest

    Kyle, Alex, et al:
    Thanks for all your thorough comments. I do have a last question for
    now. Running an FIC PA-2013, do you think that an AMD K6-2/500MHz or a
    K6-3/450MHz would give the best performance for running a bulletin
    board (BBS). The K6-3/450 is a 2.2 voltage cpu (not a plus). I was
    thinking that running the K6-3/450 at 500 (100Mhz X 5x) might not
    require an increase in voltage, being such a small increase. If I could
    do yhis, then the obvious choice would be the K6-3 cpu. Remarks
    welcome.
    Best regards, Gibby
    Kylesb wrote:
    > "Gibby" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > | 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
    > |
    >
    > The down side of the 95 MHz FSB is the PCI bus will run at 95/3 or
    > 31.67 MHz and the memory and cache will run 5% slower. Thus, PCI bus
    > transfers will be ever so slightly slower. However, actual CPU
    > internal computational speed will be a bit higher. I have no idea
    > what the Sysid benchmarks represent or measure. With my systems, I
    > prefer to run 550 MHz with 100 MHz FSB versus the 95 MHZ FSB and 570
    > MHz CPU speed. However, I got that 1 k62+ CPU that likes to run at
    > 95. In addition, I have a couple of Jbond MVP3 mobos (both still
    > running I might add) and neither board was properly designed to run
    > 100 MHz FSB (I had to add a jumper to the mobo to enable running the
    > memory and FSB at the same speed, seems the designers omitted the
    > jumper b/c the boards were not a stable design at 100 MHz). I still
    > have a spare 503+ and a spare Soyo 5EHM that are just hanging out,
    > lol.
    >
    > With the price of a 1600 Duron at about $40 that will easily

    overclock
    > to 2000 MHz, and refurb nforce2 mobos from newegg at $35, the old k6+
    > CPUs are looking mighty slow nowadays.
    > --
    > Best regards,
    > Kyle
    Gibby, Jan 29, 2005
    #17
  18. Gibby

    Gibby Guest

    Alex:
    Does the Nforce2 have different revisions ( like the Pa-2013 does,
    2.1 being the newest)? If so, what Rev. is best?
    Thanks again.
    Gibby
    Gibby, Jan 29, 2005
    #18
  19. Gibby

    Kylesb Guest

    Nforce2 is a chipset made by Nvidia. There are countless mobos using
    this chipset from all the top manufacturers. The "best" version is
    the 400 MHz capable version coupled with the MCP-T southbridge, which
    includes the "Soundstorm" audio and Firewire built in. One example is
    the Asus A7N8X-DLX and another is the Abit A7N (think that's right).

    --
    Best regards,
    Kyle
    "Gibby" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    | Alex:
    | Does the Nforce2 have different revisions ( like the Pa-2013 does,
    | 2.1 being the newest)? If so, what Rev. is best?
    | Thanks again.
    | Gibby
    |
    Kylesb, Jan 30, 2005
    #19
  20. Gibby

    Gibby Guest

    Kyle:
    Thank you for the more detailed information on brands of Nforce2
    MB's.
    What is a fair price for one of these? Will it fit in systems that
    currently use the FIC PA-2013 MB? What would be your choice of CPU's
    and Ram for the Nforce2? I use nice Antec ATX cases, so I'm hoping they
    would accommodate the Nforce2 as I gradually change over.
    Have a great day!
    Gibby
    Kylesb wrote:
    > Nforce2 is a chipset made by Nvidia. There are countless mobos using
    > this chipset from all the top manufacturers. The "best" version is
    > the 400 MHz capable version coupled with the MCP-T southbridge, which
    > includes the "Soundstorm" audio and Firewire built in. One example

    is
    > the Asus A7N8X-DLX and another is the Abit A7N (think that's right).
    >
    > --
    > Best regards,
    > Kyle
    > "Gibby" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > | Alex:
    > | Does the Nforce2 have different revisions ( like the Pa-2013 does,
    > | 2.1 being the newest)? If so, what Rev. is best?
    > | Thanks again.
    > | Gibby
    > |
    Gibby, Jan 30, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    201
  2. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    189
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    243
  4. Michelle Steiner

    APPLE-SA-2013-07-02-1 Security Update 2013-003

    Michelle Steiner, Jul 2, 2013, in forum: Apple
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    172
    Michelle Steiner
    Jul 2, 2013
  5. Skybuck Flying

    Elysium 2013 vs Oblivion 2013

    Skybuck Flying, Sep 11, 2013, in forum: Nvidia
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    676
    Skybuck Flying
    Sep 11, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page