clocking teh CPU.....

okie dokie peoples....
got my new mobo in, an MSI K7N2 Delta2
thnx to all for your suggestions a few days ago btw :)
(it came down to an availability/budget issue, the MSI was the best they had)
but it installed w/o a hitch, and has all the features i'll need for now
'k, so on to those features....... :D
Everest says i can get my CPU (Athlon XP 2400+ T-bred) up to 3200 MHz
i figure i was gonna shoot for maybe 2.2/2.4 GHz and see what it does
my question is....
current setting are 133MHz x 15 for a clock of about 1.9 GHz
same as old mobo, but runnin 10-15 degrees cooler now, so i gotta tweak :P
would i be better off leaving the multiplier alone and just adjusting the FSB?
cuz this mobo will let me do just about anything
FSB in 1MHz increments, change the multiplier, voltage...
(AGP & RAM clocking too, but blah, aint messin with that)
i mean i can play around with it and see, but...
curious to see what has/hasnt worked for anyone else

http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showthread.php?t=83982

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virtualbody1234

http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showthread.php?t=83982

---

hehehe, thanks VB, i know i know, RTFF! :P
but the FF dont have the user feedback i was lookin for :P

i guess the short version of my earlier post would be....
have people had better luck with...
higher FSB/lower multiplier, or...
lower FSB/higher multiplier?
like....133 x 15 vs. 166 x 12 vs. 200 x 10
(its a few MHz difference, but close enough to call it a comparison)

Each situation is different. You'll have to test until you find the best for your system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virtualbody1234

Each situation is different. You'll have to test until you find the best for your system.

---

'k thnx :)
thought it might come to that conclusion, but had to ask
who knows? i coulda got lucky....
there may have been another MSI/AMD geek that tried most of it already :P

Even someone with exactly the same parts may have different results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virtualbody1234

Even someone with exactly the same parts may have different results.

---

true, but i coulda got a direction to start in...
even if it ended up being the wrong direction for my setup...
quit bustin my chops, my last mobo didnt give me these options, ok? :lol:
give teh n00b a break why dontcha? :P

j/k :P
thnx VB :)

Ok.

clear

damn i was confused last night....fkn vicodin :P :lol:
but yeh already had to f00k with the FSB
board shipped default @ 100 MHz
for a clock of a whopping 1.5 GHz :P
but ya know....
i didnt see too big o' difference between the 1.5 & 1.9 GHz clocks
kinda sux when you accomplish something and feel you have nothing to show for it :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virtualbody1234

http://filesharingtalk.com/vb3/showthread.php?t=83982

---

:01: :01: :01:

EDIT: Up both of them, up the FSB a bit untill it equals what the origianl FSB X the multipler upped 1 and up the multipler.

Quote:

---

kinda sux when you accomplish something and feel you have nothing to show for it

---

Boot the pc up and while its POSTing it should read at its new speed (It does for my AMD) that way your can crank up a massive OC and sell the pc as 3GHZ :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peerzy

Boot the pc up and while its POSTing it should read at its new speed

---

well of course it does :P
but i cant be fkd tryin to read shit at POST...
i just wait and look it up in BIOS :lol:

First of all, you will NOT get that processor up to 3200MHz. You MIGHT get it up to the equivalent of an XP3200+, but I think even that is doubtful.

The basic problem you've got is that the XP2400+ chip is almost the top of the line Thoroughbred processor, which means that it's overclocking posssibilities are limited by the underlying technology. Added to that the Thoroughbred processors run at a higher voltage than the later Barton processors, and consequently produce more heat.

By comparison the XP2500+ Barton chip is the bottom of the line for that range of processors, so the underlying technology is not a problem. Boosting these chips to the equivalent of an XP3200+ processor is usually relatively simple.

Oh, and it won't have got 10-15C cooler just by changing motherboards, it is simply that your new mobo reads the temp differently, and in all probability neither board is particularly accurate.

Good luck in your efforts, but don't be surprised if you don't get anywhere near your initial expectations.

clear

well 1st of all.....
i didnt say i was gonna even TRY for 3200 MHz
was merely quoting what was reported by everest
if you read you would see that i said i was fine with shooting for 2.2 maybe 2.4 GHz
somewhere in that neighborhood

and temps....well the mobo wasnt the only thing to go :P

be a little more positive, after all its just a computer ffs :lol:

If you read lynx's post you'll notice that he refers to "equivalent of an XP3200+"

Quote:

---

First of all, you will NOT get that processor up to 3200MHz. You MIGHT get it up to the equivalent of an XP3200+, but I think even that is doubtful.

---

Which, by the way, is 2200MHz and is what he says he thinks is doubtful.

So "shooting for 2.2 or 2.4 MHz" is doubtful. And I agree with him.

I'm not so sure, guys.
My old 2600 T-bred was capable of hitting close to 2.4GHz without absurd voltage so getting a 2400 up to 2.2 shouldn't be that much of a stretch.
It's easier ( and ultimately, more productive) if your multipliers are unlocked and you can balance the FSB (where bigger is better) with reasonable GHz.

Of course, the ultimate question remains..."Is it worth it?".
IMO, for shits and giggles yes, it's an amusing exercise.
For practical use....hmmm, hard to say.
Can't say I ever really felt a big difference. Benchmarks improved, but daily use was not noticably different.

I was forgetting that the starting speed on those chips is 2GHz, so maybe 2.2GHz isn't impossible, but I had one of those chips for a short while and couldn't get anywhere close to that. I unloaded that chip onto someone who definitely wouldn't be overclocking, but I set it up at 12x166MHz so at least he got the benefit of faster FSB.

blah....its a moot point now....
teh MSI had to GTFO
fkr wouldnt post after touching the FSB settings :blink:
two of em even...
first board was clocked default @ 100 MHz, so i was runnin @ 1.5 GHz (under clocked)
it let me set it to 133, but anything above that and it quit posting
second board was clocked @ 166, and it posted....
but 166 x 15 is an OC on my CPU, thats what? about 2.4 GHz?
so the manual says if you OC, to turn off the FSB spread spectrum BS...
well i turned it off and it quit posting :lol:

fk it i took it back and got a gigabyte board....
now i'm under clocked again and cant get it up to speed
bios says its a 133 FSB, but windows & everest say thats BS
(reading @ 100 x 15 for 1.5 GHz again)
now theres a switch on the board to force a 100 MHz FSB or auto detect...
but when i set it to auto, the pc shuts down trying to boot to windows
now that could've been a thermal issue....
this damned evercool was lettin the cpu get to 70C even though its under clocked
evercools suck ass btw, i'm pissed that my vantec wont fit this board :lol:
(capacitor in the way)
back to the old hs/f that came on the cpu...see what happens....

The stock cooler should do better than the Evercool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virtualbody1234

The stock cooler should do better than the Evercool.

---

oh yeah it did, and yeah it was a thermal issue
put the stock hs/f back on and got it clocked back up to default speed
still had to replace the stock though....it was too oooooooold :P
makin some noises i didnt like :fear:
found an 80mm coolermaster for 18 bucks, its workin nice (and much quieter) :D
(the stock was a coolermaster so i figured what the hell)
but i'm worried, dont know how much weight the socket A can hold, but...
this f00ker weighs 410 grams
felt like a damned brick when i was carrying it out of the store :lol:

-edit- btw...that was the 1st & last evercool i ever bought
theyre shit, my vantec cost the same as the evercool and topped it by 10C