CPU speed indication mystery! Please read!

This one has me baffled, Buzz --- Before I oc'd the FX4100, I had done the usual disable of the AMD Cool and Quiet, C1E, Core C6 State, HPC Mode , APM Turbo and I had a 'clean' and stable 4018.32 MHz. After I upped the multiplier to 21 on my mobo, I got another clean and stable 4219.00 Mhz read out in BIOS 'and' in Windows 7. But NOT in any of those CPU speed add-ons! And yes, I took your suggestion and took the CPU speed programs all out and did a fresh CPU-Z install and it still shows 4012 MHz!

Ironically, when researching the problem, of the 2 issues I found, the problem was 'reversed' where Windows was not showing the 'new' oc'd speed in these user's machines but their CPU speed programs were showing the new oc'd speed whereas in my case, Windows 'does' show it [the new 4212 MHz/4.2 GHz] in both Windows "System" and "System Information" areas AND my Gigabyte BIOS shows 4.22 GHz CPU speed using that 21 multiplier but not the CPU speed programs. I'm completely baffled at this! It's become one of these "who do you believe" kinds of things -- Windows and my BIOS showing 4.2 GHz or the CPU speed programs showing 4.0 GHz CPU speed! As I say, it's got me totally baffled!

Just as an aside, when =4= separate programs tell me the CPU speed is still at 4 gigs [4012 MHz], I'm inclined to believe they are accurate 'regardless' of what Windows and the BIOS report as the speed [that is, 4.2 GHz] but I just can't figure out the why of it! I mean I follow the procedures to the letter, windows and BIOS [supposedly] confirm the new speed yet 4 separate programs [and never run at one time, only individually] report that I still back at 4 GHz [4012 MHz] speed. By analogy, Windows and BIOS buy it but the CPU speed programs [plural] say it's bosh and report only 4 gigs and not 4.2 gigs. Puzzling!

OK, and not to belabor the matter, I'm wondering if I should gamble --- what do you think --- here's the projected scenario --- this CPU has done well 'stock' [no voltage adjustments] at 4.6 gigs, soooooo, suppose I move the multiplier to just 4.4 gigs [22 as the multiplier] and with that setting just see what CPU-Z [et al] reports as to CPU speed. What do you think? It would still be a relatively [operative word] safe gamble at 4.4 gigs.

RESOLVED! Buzz -- I went for the gamble [I mulled it over and went the old "cop-out" routine, you know, if I botch it up totally, hey, there is always that better CPU I wanted anyway .... ;-) ], anyway, I upped the multiplier to 22 and after doing the old F10 thing to save the BIOS, Windows started and there it was, 4420.24! Then I went to CPUID and, voila, it showed the 4420.24 perfectly! I haven't the foggiest idea why CPUID refused to show the 21 multiplier [4212 MHz] but it now shows the new 22 multiplier and 4420.24 MHz!

Interesting sidebar tho' -- when I did the original 4.2 gig oc, Windows for some unknown reason reverted to the basic color scheme. Dunno why but everything else was fine! Now, when I went further and upped the system to 4.4 gigs, Windows returned to the 'normal' Windows 7 'blue' color on the bottom and everything works at 4.4 gigs and Windows, BIOS AND CPUID/CPU-Z show 4420.24. Why the 4.2 glitch? I don't know! But it works [thus far] at 4.4 gigs oc and I'll be watching the CPU temp to be sure everything is OK. Buzz, thank you for your input. Much appreciated!

This is just a clarification of my post to other readers who may come across it or find it on the search-engines, when I said "... this CPU has done well 'stock' [no voltage adjustments] at 4.6 gigs ... ", I was of course referring to the literature out there and those users who have successfully overclocked the FX4100, normally rated at 3.6 gigs, to 4.6 gigs. Others but with CPU/memory voltage changes and CPU 3rd party cooler adjustments have gone even higher!

From the available literature on the matter, 4.6 gigs appears to be the max threshold for the FX4100 in terms of running the FX4100 without any voltage adjustments or the need for a 3rd party cooler. That said, some have encountered various issues with the FX4100 at 4.6 gigs so the 'safe' oc setting seems to hover at 4.4 gigs which is not bad on an otherwise 3.6 gig stock chip! If you bring it to 4.4 gigs, you've attained an 800 MHz increase albeit without getting involved in a 3rd party cooler or, more importantly, very tricky CPU and/or memory voltage tinkering which can be fraught with problems. I won't go any further than 4.4 gigs on the FX4100. The machine is stable with no heat nor CPU stress issues with a stock [but thoroughly cleaned of any dust or accumulated gunk periodically!] cooler and using only the BIOS multiplier and the normal procedure OC disablement like AMD Turbo, etc. etc.

I did the OC from BIOS. While I do NOT knock something like the AMD OC software program, and noting for the record that some folks 'have' to use the software approach because their mobo is locked and so they may not have a choice in the matter, I favor the BIOS tinkering approach =IF= , of course, you have an unlocked mobo. If not, then the software approach [like the AMD AOD program] becomes a necessity but if you go that route =or= you go through BIOS, be careful and READ the many excellent tutorials out there on both approaches to overclocking. In short, when in doubt, ASK! And READ! It can save you much grief! BTW, and this to any new folks who are just getting into the world of overclocking --- NEVER take the position that simply because you managed to OC your CPU to a higher rated level that the OC 'per se' allegedly puts you ahead of other 'stock' rated CPU's in terms of performance and speed. This is bosh of the first order! There are lower rated 'stock' CPU's out there [both Intel and AMD, single or multi-core] and NOT overclocked at all that can 'sweep the floor' with the FX4100. The CPU speed increase is merely a 'single' factor when talking about overall CPU and system performance! MUCH depends on the chip you're dealing with itself and various other factors! Just passing it on and with continued thanks to techs and "tinkerers" out there who render the helping hand and the benefit of their expertise and/or "been there, done that" experience . There are still other times where you have to separate the wheat from the chaff when, shall we say, "heightened debates" [!] takes place within a given forum but, hey, it's no secret that for every 'X' who says "this is the ONLY way to go", "Y" will sometimes vehemently disagree [and say so!] while 'Z' comes along and claims that both parties are wrong! ;-)