What fsb to run 2600+ 333 cpu at in K7S5A Pro?

Discussion in 'ECS' started by Gary Lightfoot, Jul 7, 2003.

  1. I've just bough a K7S5A Pro mobo with AMD 2600+ cpu.

    I've currently got the bios set at 133/133, but found that I can have
    it set to 166/133. That sounds like it should work, but I've read some
    posts which say that you can't run the 333 FSB 2600+ in this mobo,
    only the 266 FSB version, so I'm a bit confused.

    I've tried google and AMD for info, but nothing definitive.

    Any advice appreciated.


    Gary Lightfoot, Jul 7, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Gary Lightfoot

    Shep© Guest

    Click here


    Shep©, Jul 7, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Thanks for the link. Oh well, I guess I could try 166/133, but it'll
    probably result in a black screen and having to reset cmos.

    What do you reckon the equivalent speed it's currently running at? A
    2400+ maybe?


    Gary Lightfoot, Jul 7, 2003
  4. Gary Lightfoot

    Shep© Guest

    I would think so and really there's not much between that and 2600 in
    real world terms.If it's stable then enjoy :)

    Get the HoneyX BIOS and O/C to say 138/138 or 143/143 or 147/147 etc
    until you can't go higher :)
    Shep©, Jul 7, 2003
  5. Gary Lightfoot

    Pip Guest

    Gary Lightfoot wrote :
    The 2600+ 166MHz FSB has a multiplier of 12.5, so at 133MHz FSB it will
    run at 2000+ speed. (FSB x multiplier = CPU speed) <http://tinyurl.com/g74g>

    If you have PC2700 memory, you could try SpeedFan
    <http://www.almico.com/speedfan>. "Clock" tab, set up motherboard make
    and model, and scroll down the listbox with speeds in it. Find the one
    with "CPU: 166.7MHz" and "SDRAM: 166.7MHz" and set clock. It may lock up
    if it doesn't like it though, so do it with not much else open. Also,
    the hassle wouldn't be worth the increase in speed for most things, so
    it's only worth doing it if you want to do something intensive.

    Another way, as Shep has suggested, is to get an OC BIOS and run it at
    150/150. This would get you slightly better than 2200+ speed, and would
    be a lot less hassle.
    Pip, Jul 7, 2003
  6. Cheers - I'll look into that.

    Thanks again.

    Gary Lightfoot, Jul 7, 2003
  7. [...]

    Great info - thanks.

    I guess I should have done more research in this case. I normaly do,
    but it seemed straightforward on the face of it. :O)

    Gary Lightfoot, Jul 7, 2003
    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.