|
|
|
Overclocking AMD Athlon XP 2000
|
|
|
Sasha387
Newbie
|
27. August 2004 @ 08:21 |
Link to this message
|
|
I have a t-bred XP2000+ on an ASRock K7VM4 Motherboard. I use DDR400 PC3200 RAM (256 Mb), Stock fan and heatsink and all of this in a Mini tower that just loves to get warm, and i run it at XP2600+ Spec. Is this unusual, freakish, or am i skating on thin ice. The system doesnt freeze or crash and i have run benchmark software to check stability. The clock speed is up to 2124.78 MHz from the standard 1600 MHz.
Temp sits on 56 degrees celcius. Praetor, is this unheard of?
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
27. August 2004 @ 17:05 |
Link to this message
|
|
Good overclock specs but they seem a little too high for the proc. You seem to have something right if it's stable especially after having given it a heavyload without problems. Could you give us a CPUID screen shot?
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
|
Sasha387
Newbie
|
28. August 2004 @ 07:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
No idea how to post a picture im sorry. If someone could give me a detailed description it would greatly be appreciated. Or feel free to contact me at scooterman387@hotmail.com for a screenshot of my recent success in bumping up the clock speed on my XP2000+.
I feel a substantial gain has been attained ( 500MHz ) and would like to know if anyone has gone higher without any system glitches.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
28. August 2004 @ 07:56 |
Link to this message
|
Sasha387
It's a bit involved but first go here and download screen grab Pro. Next you will have to upload it to a website or somewhere on the net where it will have a URL. Once that done, right click on the image and copy the URL. Reply to this thread and copy and paste the image between [img and /img]you'll need brackets on the inside too and it will show up. You can practice this by going to any web site and find an image to experiment with.
http://www.traction-software.co.uk/screengrabpro/index.html
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 28. August 2004 @ 07:59
|
|
Praetor
Moderator
|
28. August 2004 @ 12:20 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
from the standard 1600 MHz.
I thought the standard was 1.67Ghz for XP2000..... *checks* it is.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
28. August 2004 @ 13:45 |
Link to this message
|
Praetor it is, so I would like to know how he got it to XP2600+ specs.
Quote:
I have a t-bred XP2000+ on an ASRock K7VM4 Motherboard. I use DDR400 PC3200 RAM (256 Mb), Stock fan and heatsink and all of this in a Mini tower that just loves to get warm, and i run it at XP2600+ Spec
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
|
IceMS
Newbie
|
28. August 2004 @ 14:23 |
Link to this message
|
|
it's 12.5x166 2600+ , isn't it? so it's 2075, pretty easy to achive. i'm running 10.0x203 at the moment, it's "only" 2030, but everything's faster then with 2600x OC and the CPU temp. is lower.
Athlon xp2000+ @ xp3000+ (2140 MHz - 10x214MHz, BOX HSF)
MB Abit KV7 KT600
RAM 256 MB (Nanya Technology PC3200, DDR400 CL3)
GeForce 4 MX440 270/405 @ 300/500
HDD Seagete 40 GB (some old crap ;))
|
|
IceMS
Newbie
|
28. August 2004 @ 14:27 |
Link to this message
|
|
one good advice - upgrade your BIOS. I did that a couple of days before and were able to get my CL3 2-3-6 memory run @ CL2.5 2-2-6 with and also i can run OCed CPU with much lower voltage (1.85V before upgrade, 1.7V now - 203MHzx10)
Athlon xp2000+ @ xp3000+ (2140 MHz - 10x214MHz, BOX HSF)
MB Abit KV7 KT600
RAM 256 MB (Nanya Technology PC3200, DDR400 CL3)
GeForce 4 MX440 270/405 @ 300/500
HDD Seagete 40 GB (some old crap ;))
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
28. August 2004 @ 14:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
I don't need a screen shot of CPUID. You are at the top of any overclock I've heard of for that CPU. Met a person who claimed to get it to a XP2700 + once but it seems rather high to me unless he was using some unique cooling solution.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 30. August 2004 @ 15:53
|
|
Sasha387
Newbie
|
29. August 2004 @ 20:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
2285.4 Mhz Clock
If this is easily achieved then i guess it makes sense to buy a XP2000+ CPU then doesnt it seeing as they overclock so well. And for the sarcastic ones ( i need not mention any names as you know you are) i have bumped up the clock speed to 2285.4 MHz. Big whoop, and it runs fine with games and the odd benchmark. If thats not XP3000+ standard then i dont know what is.
|
|
Praetor
Moderator
|
30. August 2004 @ 09:50 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Praetor it is, so I would like to know how he got it to XP2600+ specs.
It's not THAT big of a leap... he is using a Tbred (as opposed to the Palo) so it's perfectly "normal" to hit 500Mhz OCs. 650Mhz OCs are possible on the Mobile versions of those chips.
|
AfterDawn Addict
1 product review
|
30. August 2004 @ 15:56 |
Link to this message
|
|
Sasha387
Thanks for your info, you have a good chip running at the top of its game. I've heard of less fortunate attempts so I think you should be very happy with the results. Not everyone is going to have your good fortune.
" Please Read!!! Post your questions only in This Thread or they will go unanswered:
Help with development of BD RB: Donations at: http://www.jdobbs.com/. |
|
chatgros
Account closed as per user's own request
|
2. September 2004 @ 06:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
ASRock K7S8X PC3200
AMD Athlon XP 2000 +
I was surprised to see that the shop which sold me the MB/CPU combo had set it for 133mHz x 12.5. Isn't this processor a 266 mHz FSB? Shouldn't the setting be at least 266 mHz x about 6 for best results?
What, simply, please is the significant difference between a processor at 1.67 mHz and one over clocked to, say, 1.8?
Thanks
|
|
Praetor
Moderator
|
2. September 2004 @ 08:51 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
.5. Isn't this processor a 266 mHz FSB? Shouldn't the setting be at least 266 mHz x about 6 for best results?
The FSB is 266 .... the clock is still 133. FSB ... clock ... two different things :) clock + DDR = FSB :)
|
|
YankInOZ
Newbie
|
2. September 2004 @ 11:14 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I was surprised to see that the shop which sold me the MB/CPU combo had set it for 133mHz x 12.5. Isn't this processor a 266 mHz FSB? Shouldn't the setting be at least 266 mHz x about 6 for best results?
FSB rating is related to D(ouble) D(ata) R(ate) RAM. The FSB clock for DDR266 is 133MHz, but the RAM is able to transfer data on both the leading and trailing edges of the clock, effectively doubling the clock's speed. A 200MHz FSB clock is just about the fastest available, without overclocking, and DDR gives it an effective speed of 400MHz. So, you would need DDR400 for it. Some mobos have dual channel, which doubles the base clock again, up to 800MHz. So, in answer to your question, CPUs usually have locked multiplier ratios, in this case 12.5x. And if you can unlock your CPU's ratio, the best you might expect to do is 196MHz or 208MHz with a ratio of 8.5x or 8x, keeping the CPU clock at a constant 1.667GHz.
Which gets back to a question I asked a while back that I don't think was ever answered. Can you unlock a Palomino XP2000 by just dropping a wire(s) into the ZIF socket (like you can with a Thoroughbred XP2000), or do you have to do everything on the chip itself? And if you can do the wire trick, which holes in the ZIF are used?
Quote:
What, simply, please is the significant difference between a processor at 1.67 mHz [GHz] and one over clocked to, say, 1.8?
You may get a linear increase in performance by the ratio of 1.8/1.67, about 7.8%, provided all other components can keep up with the higher speed. Probably 7.8% increase is not too much. But, just FYI I once jacked up a 486DX2 from 66MHz to 80MHz by substituting a 40MHz clock crystal for the original 33MHz crystal. It still ran, but it actually slowed things down.
|
|
Jinxs
Newbie
|
9. September 2004 @ 13:08 |
Link to this message
|
|
I have an Aopen ak79d-400vn with Xp 2000+ clocked to 2228.3 with stock f/hs...
|
|
YankInOZ
Newbie
|
12. September 2004 @ 04:52 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Can you unlock a Palomino XP2000 by just dropping a wire(s) into the ZIF socket (like you can with a Thoroughbred XP2000), or do you have to do everything on the chip itself? And if you can do the wire trick, which holes in the ZIF are used?
How about this? Anybody got input on it? Try it by specifying only the chip (Athlon, Thoroughbred, or Barton), the multiplier section as Unlock - Multi via BIOS, and try the FSB as 133 MHz, 166 MHz, or 200 MHz.
http://www.ocinside.de/go_e.html?/html/workshop/pinmod/amd_pinmod.html
Also Quote:
I was surprised to see that the shop which sold me the MB/CPU combo had set it for 133mHz x 12.5. Isn't this processor a 266 mHz FSB? Shouldn't the setting be at least 266 mHz x about 6 for best results?
I could have added a little more detail for clarity. The FSB is the physical connection between the CPU and RAM. I have seen its speed represented either by clock rate or (the clock x2 or x4) data transfer rate, including ASUS who defined it by data rate in their manual, and then when you go to apply the manual instructions in the BIOS, you find out it's clock rate over there.
Thus, one guy's 200FSB (where the first one's talking clock rate) is identical to another's 800FSB (where the second's talking dual channel, DDR).
|
|
Blytz
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
16. September 2004 @ 04:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
I want to overclock my AMD Athlon XP 2000+ Thoroughbred but when i went into my bios to change the fsb the computer wouldn't let me highlight it to do anything. Anybody got any idea's on how to get past this. You probaly have all covered this on the forum a couple of pages ago but iv just joined and haven't read most of the comments yet. Any help would be much appriciated. Thanks!!!
What does this button do????
|
|
YankInOZ
Newbie
|
16. September 2004 @ 13:52 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I want to overclock my AMD Athlon XP 2000+ Thoroughbred but when i went into my bios to change the fsb the computer wouldn't let me highlight it to do anything. Anybody got any idea's on how to get past this.
You may have to change another field first. For example, my Albatron 1800D board uses the Pheonix/Award BIOS, and inside the BIOS you must set the "Advanced Chipset Features / System Performance" from "Optimal (default)" to "Aggressive/Turbo" for overclocked settings, or to "Expert" for full customization of performance options. Only after you change the System Performance off of Optimal, do the other fields, such as those pertaining to the CPU, become editable.
|
|
SirFrench
Newbie
|
17. September 2004 @ 03:00 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I want to overclock my AMD Athlon XP 2000+ Thoroughbred but when i went into my bios to change the fsb the computer wouldn't let me highlight it to do anything
It may be that your bios doesn't support overclocking, i have a Matsonics MS8157E board that has an older Amibios on it that provides no overclocking features (hence the reason i put it in my partners machine), and set's all frequencies automatically, so you can read them, but you cannot alter them. The best way round this, in my opinion is to change the board itself. If you're looking for a fast and easy way to OC, use a gigabyte board, they come bundled with Easy Tune 4 software, this is a windows based application, it's a good way to understand the limits of your PC and it's components, although if you use MBM5 (motherboard moniter) it screws up ET4, and gives bogus readings!!!
Athlon XP 2000 T-Bred OC'd to 2200 (1813mhz)@145mhz
Gigabyte KVT700 1394
Akasa AK795 XP3200+ copper base HS
512mb Samsung PC2100
Nvidia GeForce4 MX440 128DDR
160Gb(4 x ST340014A 40Gb)
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. September 2004 @ 11:28
|
|
jeremyme
Newbie
|
18. September 2004 @ 00:20 |
Link to this message
|
I have got a 2000+ and am using a mobo that handles a 400 FSB. I have so far put the clock to 150, as it wouldnt boot at 160. I have put a Volcano 11+ on it, and put the multipier to 13. So it is running at 1.95Ghz. But I am wondering if it is better to get the clock speed higher, so that i can get better memory bandwidth etc. as i have PC3200 RAM, so at the moment it is being underclocked, well, either that or it is not performing well under the benchmarks.
At the moment I am running the CPU at 32 degrees. This is a brandnew motherboard too, so I am pretty sure I cant have a cracked diode yet.
I am using a thoroughbred core.
here is a screen shot of my temps and CPU settings. (for some reason it now detects as a 2100+ when i changed the multiplier)
Anyway, could someone suggest what I should do?
Does changing the multiplier just put more stress on the CPU?
How about dropping the mutiplier and try for a higher clock speed?
Btw, i am using a albatron KX600S mobo.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 18. September 2004 @ 00:25
|
|
YankInOZ
Newbie
|
18. September 2004 @ 18:07 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I have got a 2000+ and am using a mobo that handles a 400 FSB. ...
Anyway, could someone suggest what I should do?
Does changing the multiplier just put more stress on the CPU? How about dropping the mutiplier and try for a higher clock speed? Btw, i am using a albatron KX600S mobo.
Temperature is probably the best indicator of wisdom in trying different configurations. I'm really concerned that your "too good to be true because it's so low" 32.5C could be accurate. Heat is the enemy. Whenever you speed things up, you get more heat even without upping the CPU voltage. Think of the bits of data as little buckets inside the CPU. When you make them go faster, they dump their little loads of current through the CPU faster, increasing the current, power consumption, and thus the heat generation. When you speed things up, the bits take as long as before to do the dump, they just do it more frequently. Therefore, the buckets do not somehow get smaller (with less current) when you speed up the clock.
Aside from the heat issue, my research indicates speeding up the FSB is usually more important than speeding up the internal CPU clock, because usually, the CPU must frequently access RAM across the FSB. Only for smaller programs that can fit entirely, or almost entirely within the CPU cache, does access to RAM (and FSB speed) become less important, and then internal CPU speed becomes more important. And if you can up the FSB while letting the CPU coast along at its factory internal clock by just lowering the multiplier, than I figure you get all the cache performance you started with, plus you up the FSB, and maybe you still enjoy stability and longevity.
I have an XP2000+ Tbred on an Albatron KX18D 400FSB with two banks of DDR400 thereby enabling dual-channel (800FSB). To my delight, I discovered I could change the multiplier in BIOS with no wire tricks or painting bridges needed to unlock the multiplier. Which I did to 8x, and then set the FSB clock (aka CPU external clock) to 200MHz. As discussed above, the FSB data rate is CPU external clock x2 for DDR, and clock x4 for dual channel DDR. Of course, this means my internal CPU clock is now 1600MHz (8x 200) instead of its factory 1667. The Albatron is substantially faster than the three year old IWill XP333 mobo I replaced, which would get unstable above 12.5x 100MHz clock with the same CPU (but newer RAM).
This all means that internally, the CPU's less than 5% underclocked and loafing along. But externally, the CPU's FSB line drivers are running at 200MHz instead of the factory 133MHz, so the drivers are overclocked 50%. And so they are generating more heat, but so far everything's okay with CPU idle BIOS temperature about 50C/122F, compared to a second IWill's Pally at 41C/105F, upon which I am writing this. Although 50C is just about the edge. I think the reading is higher than real, but I'm happy to use it as though it's accurate.
So that's as far as I want to take my own system. Now, by definition if I want to see how far I can push it by upping the multiplier higher than 8x, and maybe the FSB too past 200MHz, and probably also the CPU and RAM voltages, then I'm flirting with frying something, because until I actually do fry it, I can't know that the piece has maxxed out. So if I did it, I would do everything very slowly, keeping a keen eye on the temperature. Run it for a while to check operational stability, and then up it a little more.
Checking stability to some folks means stressing the system for a minimum of 24hours using a stress program, many of which are free on the net, like Prime95.
I would guess to first push the FSB to see where the rest of the system is at. Supposedly, this Albatron can get up to a 300 FSB clock (1200 FSB dual channel data rate), and DDR500 is here and DDR600 is right around the corner. Hoo hah! Visions of an XP2000+ CPU on a 1200FSB with a multiplier around 5.5x!
When your FSB becomes unstable, you may think about upping RAM voltage to restore stability. Supposedly, the default RAM voltage of 2.5V may be raised to 2.8V, that seems universally accepted as safe, and higher voltage is, umm, an experiment into the unknown. But above 3.0v frightens most folks. So raise the voltage a little to regain stability, raise the FSB until it's unstable again, raise the voltage again, raise the FSB again. Determine max settings by iteration. Watching the temperature.
After determining the mobo's FSB limit, you lower it a tad to assure stability.
Next, you go to work on the CPU by increasing its multiplier. Note: changing the multiplier maintains the FSB clock, and only changes the internal CPU clock. You again go slowly, and checking each setting for stability. Same process as before: raise the multiplier until unstable, increase voltage until stable again, etc. For the CPU, the highest safe voltage might be 1.85v. But I've read of some folks going up to and over 2.0v. Scary.
Say, what's that acrid smell?
|
|
YankInOZ
Newbie
|
19. September 2004 @ 10:57 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I would guess to first push the FSB to see where the rest of the system is at.
I meant, pushing the FSB, only, by itself, while keeping the internal CPU clock the same. This requires that you lower the multiplier every time you speed up the FSB. If you increase the FSB without lowering the multiplier, then the internal CPU clock will increase together with the FSB. But you don't want to increase the internal CPU clock until later, when you increase the mulitplier while not changing the FSB. Also, pushing things a little at a time might mean as little as 5MHz at each step.
|
|
jeremyme
Newbie
|
19. September 2004 @ 12:41 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well, first, thanks a heap for your reply YankInOZ, that should keep me going for a while, unless i fry my CPU straight away, hehe.
But, just one quick question, I thought the FSB was just the clock speed x2. So when i up the clock speed, i am automatically upping the FSB. So a clock speed of 150 is a FSB of 300. Or have i got something wrong with that.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
YankInOZ
Newbie
|
19. September 2004 @ 13:34 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
I thought the FSB was just the clock speed x2. So when i up the clock speed, i am automatically upping the FSB.
There are two clock speeds, and there is a data transfer speed. There is the faster internal CPU clock speed and the slower external CPU clock speed. These two speeds have a ratio equal to the multiplier. The Front Side Bus (FSB) clock speed is equal to the external CPU clock speed. The FSB data transfer rate can be twice the FSB clock speed, because DDR RAM can transfer data on both the leading and trailing edges of the clock. A clock is a square wave. That is, you could draw a representation of one clock cycle by starting at the left edge of a sheet of paper, drawing a line, say 1/4" level toward the right, then 1/4" up (which is the leading edge), then 1/4" level toward the right, then 1/4" down (which is the trailing edge); and finally you have finished the first cycle, and are ready to start drawing the second cycle. So, DDR transfer is at twice the clock rate, or four times as fast if you have a dual channel mobo (which sounds like in addition to DDR, it is also twice the data width, and thus doubles the data transfer rate all over again).
Here is an earlier bit of information.
Quote:
The FSB is the physical connection between the CPU and RAM. I have seen its speed represented either by clock rate or (the clock x2 or x4) data transfer rate, including ASUS who defined it by data rate in their manual, and then when you go to apply the manual instructions in the BIOS, you find out it's clock rate over there.
Thus, one guy's 200FSB (where the first one's talking clock rate) is identical to another's 800FSB (where the second's talking dual channel, DDR).
What is important here is that the FSB speed number can be ambiguous, if the number is such that it could be in both the clock speed range (100MHz to 300MHz), as well as also within the data speed range (200MHz to 1200MHz). That is, any Venn diagram intersection number from 200MHz to 300MHz is ambiguous, because any number from 200 to 300 might be the DDR number for a 100 to 150 clock, or the clock with a 400 to 600 DDR. Usually you can disambiguate by context, but you could just be precise in the first place by adding either the word clock or data to FSB, such as 133 FSB clock, or 200 FSB data.
I hope this helps because I gotta go to report to a program for the unemployed. I actually have managed a $28 million Civil Engineering project, with an MSME and PhDEE and cannot find a job. Drove me bonkers until I started tuning into http://www.whatreallyhappened.com to overclock my mind.
|
|
