A7V133 Rev 1.05 (no dot) and Athlon XP 2100+ _ Can I? How?

Discussion in 'Asus' started by Spiggy Topes, Jun 22, 2004.

  1. Spiggy Topes

    Spiggy Topes Guest

    Hi all,

    I've roamed the web endlessly in search of a definitive answer, and I
    begin to suspect there's no such animal.

    Reading indicates that the 1.05 (no dot) should support Athlon XP's up
    to 2100+ in jumpered mode, even though the ASUS website indicates
    otherwise. Looks like the German website USED to say it was good, but
    now no longer does so.

    So, I come to the folks that know, with questions:

    1 - What's the likelihood that it will work? Is there anything else
    that should be looked at to determine this? Is the ICS 94215AF clock
    generator really a factor? I looked, and the chip that should be so
    identified has no markings whatsoever. Is that a problem?

    2 - What's the best bet? Most of what I read says go Palomino, but
    there are obviously some out there using Thoroughbreds and even
    Bartons with mixed degrees of success.

    3 - Assuming a Palomno XP xx00+ is the way to go, what jumper settings
    need changing? What BIOS settings?

    4 - Is there a significant risk of making a dog's breakfast of my
    current XP Pro SP1 install? Assuming, that is, that I'm a relative
    innocent who knows which end of a soldering iron NOT to hold, but
    would never put that end willingly inside his case?

    Thanks muchly for any constructive advice.
    Spiggy Topes, Jun 22, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Spiggy Topes

    Max Guest

    There is. The couple works with no problem, exactly as if it was 1.05 dot.
    Not that I know. just put it in and rock'n'roll.
    Xp T is ok. take a look here.

    I run it in jumperless mode, perfectly. if you want to reach higher speeds,
    you need to do the "wire trick" :


    assuming the cpu will be stable, that's ok with voltage doesn't warm, etc.

    In my humble opinion, standard is perfect, put 1 gb of ram and kick at
    I don't think so, anyway you could perform a safe partition backup,
    and if it doesn't work, just go back.
    You don't really need. You could kick some 2500+m at higher speed,
    but there is no convenience, always in my humble opinion, to push
    a 133 bus board to run with a 3000+ cpu instead of trowing it away
    and go over an a7v600 with a faster bus. what do you think.

    anyway the socket trick just allows you to use lower mapped multipliers
    to run at their higher settings, eg, 5x would value 14x and so on.

    with a 2100+ you can go jumperless.
    de rien.
    Max, Jun 22, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Spiggy Topes

    Spiggy Topes Guest

    Thanks enormously. There's so much conflicting info out on usenet, I
    was worried I was going to follow the wrong path and screw something
    up horribly. I'm happy with standard speeds, no real interest in
    overclocking for the sake of a few extra cycles, and overclocking for
    the sake of overclocking, in my opinion anyway, isn't worth the hertz
    OR the hurts.

    So, the one remaining question is, what's the limit? I was looking at
    the XP2100+ as the fastest availble, but if the Thoroughbreds will
    work, how far can I go?

    Vielen danke!
    Spiggy Topes, Jun 22, 2004
  4. Spiggy Topes

    Paul Guest

    I've read a comment from one poster, that says there is no difference
    between all the processors, but the difference is in how the power
    is filtered for a PLL in the processor. When you put a more modern
    Athlon on a board, it has different filtering requirements than
    previous ones, and it is the "luck of the draw", if a new processor
    will work in an old board. So, it could work for you, or it might
    not. That is why there is so much conflicting info - some people
    have good experiences, and others don't.

    I'd like to confirm this, but I cannot find document #24363 from
    the AMD site. It is supposed to have some of the needed info.

    Paul, Jun 23, 2004
  5. Spiggy Topes

    Spiggy Topes Guest

    And greater sophistication typically demands greater precision, right?
    So there's a lesser chance of success with the Thoroughbreds than with
    the Palominos? And all Palominos are created equal? So my best bet
    would probably still be the Palomino-based 2100+. Sounds fair. It's a
    step up from the current 1200, and not much expenditure on eBay if it
    comes to naught.

    You mention a "PLL".Phase-locked loop? There's a couple of references
    in the archives to an ICS 94215AF clock generator being an important
    factor. Found it on the mobo, but where others' illustrations are
    quite clearly marked, mine is blank. Unrelieved black. I've put up a
    shot of the general vicinity at
    http://members.shaw.ca/ubik/a7v133_mobo_pll.jpg, if you want to verify
    I'm looking at the correct spot. Is that good, bad, or
    inconclusive/indifferent/irrelevant? An ancient copy of SiSoft Sandra
    tells me:

    Memory Module(s)
    Memory Module 1 : SpecTek 23AF8701 512MB 16x(32Mx8) SDRAM
    PC133U-333-542 (CL3 upto 133MHz) (CL2 upto 83MHz)

    System Clock Generator
    Model : ICS 94215
    Software Programmable : Yes
    Read-Back Support : Yes
    Speed Selected By : Software
    Spread Spectrum Modulated : Yes
    No FSB Speeds : 32
    FSB Speed Range : 90 - 166MHz

    Voltage Sensor(s)
    CPU Core Voltage : 1.79V
    Aux Voltage : 0.08V
    +3.3V Voltage : 3.54V
    +5V Voltage : 4.78V
    +12V Voltage : 12.59V
    -12V Voltage : -12.25V
    -5V Voltage : -5.54V

    Does any of that sound problematic at all?

    <snipped for brevity>
    Spiggy Topes, Jun 23, 2004
  6. Spiggy Topes

    Tom Joyce Guest

    I used a 2100+ Tbred 'B' in my 1.05

    In jumper-free mode it ran at 20*100 with default vcore. With jumpers set
    to a 9* multiplier (probably the only viable option with this CPU and the
    KT133A chipset) it ran rock solid at 17*133.3 (2266MHz) but needed 1.9

    There are no guarantees.

    Tom Joyce, Jun 23, 2004
  7. Spiggy Topes

    Paul Guest

    Well, you are looking in the wrong area. This is an issue with
    components used around the processor socket. Since the motherboard
    design guide I need cannot be found, my comments will be generic
    in nature.

    There are two kinds of supply pins on the processor. Most of them
    will be labelled VCC and power digital circuits in the processor.
    Now, the PLL clock synthesis, takes the low frequency clock signal
    generated by the 94215, and multiplies it up by the multiplier
    value. The oscillator circuit at the output of the phase
    locked loop inside the processor, is effectively an analog
    circuit. AMD has a pin on all the processors labelled VCCA, which
    acknowledges the different nature of the analog VCC supply, and
    that it is a "clean" supply intended just for the PLL (and maybe
    a phase detector too).

    Normal digital supplies will have perhaps 100mV of switching
    noise riding on the rails. If the digital supply is connected
    directly to the processor, without a filter, it looks like this.

    100mV |
    Vcore -----------|VCCA --->PLL
    noise |

    A simple RC filter can be added, and the one depicted here,
    is a low pass filter, that removes high frequency noise.

    100mV 5mV |
    Vcore -----------Resistor-+---------------|VCCA --->PLL
    noise | noise |
    Capacitor |

    The second circuit feeds a cleaner version of voltage
    to just the PLL circuit. The PLL senses AC signals and if
    there is enough noise on its power supply, it will lock
    onto noise from the outside world, rather than the clock from
    the 94215. (Note: The method depicted above, is only suitable
    for circuits which draw tiny DC currents. A PI filter is used
    for circuits with heavier requirements.)

    So, maybe the difference between a 1.05 and a 1.05. motherboard,
    is how that filter is designed. It could be they used different
    values for R and C, or they used a single stage or dual stage
    PI filter (using L and C). The #24363 document from AMD would
    have some of the necessary details, to identify exactly what
    is needed.

    I can tell you, that some chips have conservative specs for their
    filter requirements. A colleague and I were using the same chip
    once, and he forgot to add the Capacitor in the above type
    circuit. When we got in the lab, his circuit still worked, which
    means that his chip could "eat" 100mV of noise without a problem.

    And, that is what I mean by the "luck of the draw". If the filter
    is missing or wasn't designed to meet the needs of a particular
    processor family, it might still work, but there is no way to
    guarantee it. I've run into circuits that _none_ of them could
    possibly work in a situation like this, and other conservatively
    specified circuits where _all_ of them work in a situation like
    this, and in this case, based on user comments in Google, this
    one is a "roll of the dice".

    I don't know of an easy way to trace what is connected to VCCA,
    so I don't think reverse engineering this is too practical. And
    there might not be any filter on there at all, so nothing to see,
    and nothing possible to mod.

    Paul, Jun 23, 2004
  8. Spiggy Topes

    Spiggy Topes Guest

    I think I just fried something... We have - had - another box, with an
    XP 1800+ chip in it, which we thought we'd use to test out the A7V133
    1.05-no-dot. Took out the Athlon 1200, dropped in the XP 1800+ -
    should probably have set the BIOS to vanilla first, but didn't. Turned
    power back on, hit the start button. There's life, briefly. Display
    starts, usual way, and identifies the chip as XP 1800+. Says we're now
    cruising at 100MHz FSB / memory, rather than the expected 133, then
    .... nothing. Blank screen. Power down, repeat. This time, nothing at
    all. No POST beep, nada, rien, nichts.

    So, back goes the 1200. Power on, drops into BIOS. Five seconds in,
    freezes. Power off, wait ten seconds, repeat. This time, not as far as
    the BIOS. Power off, wait longer, stays up a little longer. Freezes.
    Repeat. Leave off for 30 mins this time. Alles in ordnung, and it's
    been in ordnung ever since. Phew, had me worried there.

    Meanwhile, at the other box, the one that had previosuly had the
    1800+... Return the processor to its rightful place, power on.
    Nothing. No POST beep, rien, nichts, nada. Check to see if we unseated
    something, reset BIOS by the approved jumper method, still nothing.
    Remove 1800+, drop in ancient Athlon 800 (Duron? - whatever was in the
    box before). Nothing. Remove memory, drives, video, network, firewire
    card, Nothing.

    Take dead box, still with 800 in place, to friend with diagnostic
    doohickey wot sits in an ISA slot and makes pretty lights. He says,
    your mobo's a dodo. Oh snit. Well, while I'm here, let's give the
    1800+ another go in the A7V133 1.05-no-dot. This time, no POST beep,
    nothing. Put the 1200 back, life resumes its tranquil course.

    So, is there anything I can have done in the process of testing out
    the 1800+ that would have fried the processor? Is it possible that
    putting that processor back in the other motherboard could have passed
    the contagion on and fried the mobo too? Is it possible that the 1800+
    is still an option for the A7V133 1.05-no-dot, jumpered or jumperless?
    Is it possible that the mobo's not dead and that it's the 800 and
    1800+ processors that are stopping box #2 from working?

    Help... <:-(((
    Spiggy Topes, Jun 25, 2004
  9. Spiggy Topes

    John Smith Guest

    Spiggy , it is time

    Now I know you love you a7v133 , but it is time you moved on
    you must let go of your security blanket

    I ran mine with an athlon 2000 no problem, but with 3400 out there and P4
    it is time to embrace the new memory and technology
    John Smith, Jun 26, 2004
  10. Spiggy Topes

    afzan Guest

    I've got two A7V133 motherboards both 1.05 (no dot) and have tried a
    palomino XP1700+ in both. Both work ok but may crash with BSOD maybe
    once a week, and sometimes as often as once a day. After rebooting
    its fine again. I bought a new MSI motherboard for the XP1700+
    and it does not crash. So I beleive the websites are correct when
    they say only use an Athlon Thunderbird or Duron.
    I originally had a Thunderbird 1.4 Ghz and it never crashed.
    By the way I will not buy another Asus because I believe Asus could
    have distributed an easy fix.
    Just think of the stupidity of looking for a dot. It doesn't even rate
    a full letter maybe because the difference between the two is minor.
    afzan, Jul 29, 2004
  11. Spiggy Topes

    Paul Guest


    In a table near the bottom of the page (translated from FAQ085 of
    the Asus Germany site,) it says for A7V133 when using AthlonXP, note "M"

    "Set the multiplier ( FID ) for this CPU manually via DIP-Switch
    ( JUMPERMODE ), else the system might not boot. Also see "FID Info"
    below. Jumperless Mode shouldn't / can't be used in this case. This
    is true even if the CPU is not unlocked (has a hardwired multiplier)"

    I don't know if that implies the BIOS will get the wrong FID value,
    if running in jumperless mode ? Maybe your processor fried because
    it was running too fast ? (By running fast, the processor draws
    a lot of Vcore current, overheating the Vcore circuit - maybe that is
    why the motherboard had to sit for 30 minutes - to cool off.)

    I would visually inspect the 1800+ and see if it is burned or discolored.
    It could have had a meltdown.

    Otherwise, I don't remember hearing of "destruction" awaiting those
    who experiment with A7V133 non-1.05. boards. I guess the next A7V133
    owner will have to be warned about your experience :-(

    And, yes, a dead processor can "spread its poison" to another mother
    board. That happened to a poster here not too long ago, who did a
    friend a favor, by testing his friend's processor. In that case, I
    think the CPU being tested had been involved in a lightning incident.
    The thing is, if a processor fails "short', it will drag down the
    Vcore circuit. A properly designed circuit is supposed to detect
    overcurrent and shut down, but that only happens for a very good
    short. A partial short, could just cause the MOSFETs to exceed their
    SOA (safe operating area). Depending on the overcurrent detection
    method in the Vcore regulator, it is hard for the motherboard designer
    to set the current limit, and to avoid a lot of RMAed boards, the
    current limit must necessarily be set very high, so healthy processors
    don't trigger the protection.

    So, have a look at the physical condition of the processor and
    see if it looks like it has been heat damaged. With that note
    on A7Vtroubleshooting, maybe a multiplier value was used which
    caused the core frequency to go really high.

    BTW - I'm sorry I didn't see this post of yours back in June.
    I only ran into your post again in Google, while searching for
    the 24363 design document from AMD. I still want to read the damn
    thing, to see if all the Athlon processors are compatible with the
    exception of the clock synthesis PLL VCCA noise requirement. My
    hypothesis would be, that 1.05 and 1.05. differ in the values
    of the filter components used, but the hypothesis is worthless
    without a copy of 24363 to verify the details.

    Paul, Jul 29, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.