Getting multiplier higer then 12.5 on a xp1600?

G

Guest

Guest
Could it be possible if we put the L10 bridge the same way as the xp2001+ that the multiplier get to 13 or even more?

Just wondering if it could be done, perhaps someone has already tried it.I think that would be cool :)
 

Lonemagi

Distinguished
Feb 20, 2002
969
0
18,980
I dunno if it can be done, sound like it might work to me, but the CPU might not even clock that high, or work after that. After unlocking my 1700, the highest I have been able to clock it was 1800, or going from 1.46 to 1.53. If I change the multiplier in the bios any higher, it will devert to the default of 1700, unless I take the voltage up, and then, it will still only go to an 1800.

R.I.P. <font color=blue>F</font color=blue>ear <font color=blue>F</font color=blue>actory :frown: 1990-2002 :frown:
 

girish

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,885
0
20,780
I think <A HREF="http://www.beachlink.com/candjac/PaloDecode1.htm" target="_new">this</A> will help!

girish

<font color=red>Nothing is fool-proof. Fools are Ingenious!</font color=red>
 

girish

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,885
0
20,780
its not thay cant scale that high, if the FSB is reduced (I dont know what board allows you to get it below 100) when everybody is after increasing it! with a FSB of 100 you can run a XP2100 at 1.7 GHz with a multiplier of 17! But that would be called a XP2100-! "-" (minus) because the memory subsystem sucks!

There has to be a balance between the core speed and the FSB. As the core speed increases, FSB has to increase. Actually its the memory bandwidth that has to increase, but since the Athlon bus is well defined and fixed, the only parameter with potential improvement is the FSB.

And so, if this FSB is going to increase, I dont think we need any higher multipleirs for faster processors, 166 MHz FSB already gives 2.1 GHz raw, thats about XP2650+ rating! And since 200 MHz (DDR400) is also on the cards, 2500 MHz raw, that is XP3250+!

So you see, we dont really need any higher multipliers! With increasing FSB, its all possible with existing multipliers.

girish

<font color=red>Nothing is fool-proof. Fools are Ingenious!</font color=red>
 

phsstpok

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
5,600
1
25,780
The settings of the bridges only define the default multiplier for the CPU. If 12.5 is the max in your BIOS then your probably need an update.

On the other hand, if you do want to change the default multiplier by changing the bridges, click <A HREF="http://www.ocinside.de/index_e.html?/html/workshop/socketa/xp_painting.html" target="_new">here</A> for an interactive painting guide. The maximum multiplier is 20.5 (not that anyone will get that high).

(I'm having a little trouble with the link. If it brings you to the Tbird/Duron painting guide just click <b>Back</b> then select the XP painting guide).

<b>I have so many cookies I now have a FAT problem!</b>
 
G

Guest

Guest
So far i got my 1600 at 1.8 ghz with 12.5x144 and this is stable, but my memroy is holding me back but i tought if i could increase the multiplier and the fsb woul be even better.
 
G

Guest

Guest
That's what I thought (and for that matter, still do...but...) until I ran some benchmarks. I'm a little confused about this. I have a KR7A w/ 1700+ I can run stable at 185x9. That puts my processor at 1.665 GHz(actually a little higher because of decimal points...) and the memory at 370 MHz. that's 14% CPU and 39% FSB increase. Sandra reported about what I expected for increases. But I couldn't tell a difference, and when I ran graphics tests, they barely increased at all. 3dmark only went up by 5% and Serious Sam went up nothing at 1280, ~1 fps at 1024, 6% at 800 and ~17% at 640. I know that *grahics* card obviously have the most impact on *graphics* benchmarks - but shouldn't I notice more than that? I don't have Quake3 or any other game that I know how to benchmark with - nor do I know of a way to easily benchmark system performance. I only have a GF2 GTS 32mb card. Is it just so much the bottleneck that the rest of the stuff doesn't matter? Any thoughts? Is this really all the boost I can get? I did have to make a few sacrifices to get the FSB that high - but nothing I don't think that should kill games performance: UDMA disabled and AGP down to 2x - but neither of those things seemed to affect 3dmark scores at all. What have I missed?
 
G

Guest

Guest
try overclocking your gf, u get better results on 3dmark
my first score was like 7000 and with a little boost went up in the 9000
the clocks went from 175/400 to 265/535
» <a href>http://service.madonion.com/compare?2k1=2881067</a>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Oh, I have. I got more increase that way, but I can't overclock it enough to get much out of it. If my room stays cool enough I can take it from 200/333 to 220/360, but that only got me 2-5 fps in serious sam! And it only gave me 4.5% on 3dmark but that's only half of the increase of the card. (Although it is possible that the GPU was running at 215 at the time...I won't take the time to explain) With my last computer, not knowing anything about o/c at the time, I took the FSB from 100 to 111 and saw a 10% boost on everything - so surely I can get a bigger boost than this! With everything I could overclocked as much as I could I got my 3dmark score from 4373 to 4808. That's less than a 10% boost. I got nearly that much of a boost just switching drivers! I guess I just need a new video card to get better scores, or at least better cooling (I have no ram sinks and the ram is on both sides) Oh well, she runs fast enough for writing papers and whatnot. Man, I wish I was back in high school - with free time to acutally play games again! nostalgia just not what it used to be.....
 
G

Guest

Guest
lol.... you sent this while I was typing the other response! Oh well, I guess I'll just have to wait awhile then.... Maybe I'll swap in my roomate's Ti200 and see what kind of increase I can get... maybe I'll be able to justify the money then! <grin> Thanks
 

girish

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,885
0
20,780
Yes, thats inline with the above theory. You will get significant advantages with higher core clocks when FSB increases, AND vice versa is also true.

Reason, as I said earlier, there has to be a balance between core clock and memory bandwidth (which actually reduces to the memory clock since its the only variable).

1. If the core speed is too high and the memory bandwidth isnt much, it wont improve performance since the processor is starved for memory bandwidth, its getting less bytes per second than it needs.

2. If the FSB is too high (with reduced multiplier getting you lower core speeds) the memory is working overtime and trying to overwhelm the processor with data. The processor bus has a limited bandwidth hence it wont really benefit from this increased redundant memory bandwidth!

If you have to increase the performance, try to get them both higher simultaneously, if you are increasing one parameter too high, you are simply wasting the resources and contributing to power consumption and thereby the total heat dissipation of the system which will again, bring down the performance and reliability.

girish

<font color=red>Nothing is fool-proof. Fools are Ingenious!</font color=red>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Ah, it all makes sense now. I'll have to do some playing to try to find the best combo... thanks!
 

girish

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,885
0
20,780
Anytime!

Get a good board like the Iwill XP333/R or Asus A7V266-E, A7A266-E or Abit KR7 etc., and you can get the FSB to as high as 200 MHz! You can read this page, <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=646524#646524" target="_new">a compilation of my own oc related posts</A> for more info.

girish

<font color=red>Nothing is fool-proof. Fools are Ingenious!</font color=red>
 
G

Guest

Guest
I've got a KR7A - and I got it to boot at 200 (but it locked when I hit the start button) I think it was stable at 190 but I wanted to processor running as fast as it would go as well, and since my half-multipliers (e.g. 8.5) won't work, I dropped it to 185 since that put my processor near the edge of it's stability. With a little more trying, and probably some voltage mods, I could probably get to 200 also. But without a graphics card that can keep up, it really wouldn't do me any good - right?
 

girish

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,885
0
20,780
I am not sure whether the KR7A supports larger PCI/AGP dividers (like 5 or 6 for PCI) or decouples the PCI/AGP clock from the FSB. If it does you an very well lock your AGP to 66 MHz. or even use a higher divider to keep it between 66~90 MHz. If you have a good card, it will run quite fine even at this high speeds.

If you arent getting any problems at 185 (DDR370) you might push harder by increasing the voltage a bit. As for the AGP and PCI speeds, if the board supports higher dividers, go for it, else they may well prove to be the bottlenecks in FSB overclocking!

Then you will have to resort to multipliers but it wont probabely work since the half multiplier will increase the speed by 92 MHz which is way too high an increment! If you can do it, try using both combinations, to acheive the processor's max core speed you've determined. For example, lets say your XP1600+ (1.4 GHz) maxed out at 1.65 GHz (~XP2000+) at a FSB of 195 MHz with a multiplier of 8.5! And further, neither increasing FSB is possible, nor the multiplier since it wil throw the processor up by straight 97 MHz wich is almost XP150! Right now, you are around the limits of your processor, you can perhaps still get about 50 MHz of overclock by you wont since its cannot be set. Least you can set is 97 MHz! If possible, get some benchmarks of this combination.

Now, try to get the same clock speed by increasing the multiplier to 9, and reducing the FSB to 184 MHz. Again get the benchmarks and try it with (9.5x175) and (10x165)

As I said earlier, in between this, there is the best combination of (multiplier x FSB) that will give you optimum performance. Compare the benchmark results and decide for yourself.

I know its tedious, but its the only way to find out. Higher FSBs reduce the granularity of core speed increments, at times to such levels that you cannot know about potential MHz still left in that processor, since you simply jump past it. Its high time they provided multiplier in quarters! ;-)

girish

<font color=red>Nothing is fool-proof. Fools are Ingenious!</font color=red>
 
G

Guest

Guest
Thanks! Maybe I can get a chance this weekend to give a go at it... The board does offer PCI dividers - but only 3 and 4 (100 and 133 fsb I assume) and otherwise I don't think it decouples the divider because at high fsb speeds I have to drop the video card down to AGP 2x - wouldn't this be because the AGP slot was running too fast? While I'm thinking about it... is this going to run my IDE controller too fast? That will not damage my hard drives or CD-RW will it? One more question: My half dividers don't work- 8.5 boots as 8, 9.5 as 9 and so on. Did I cross a bridge when I unlocked it or something? Thanks! you da man
 

asphaltracer

Distinguished
Mar 22, 2002
8
0
18,510
How far can you take the gf? I went to 220/510 and got weak kneed.

<A HREF="http://service.madonion.com/compare?pcm=60743" target="_new">http://service.madonion.com/compare?pcm=60743</A>
 

Willamette_sucks

Distinguished
Feb 24, 2002
1,940
0
19,780
@Drewlee 77. Do NOT, i repeat do NOT lower the AGP to 2x. Since the graphics card is the most important component when it comes to graphics, even if you have a GF2GTS, you should still be able to do better than that. Leave AGP at 4x, then OC fsb as much as possible, then see if you can have that same fsb speed at a multiplier of 9.5 or 10. dont know bout that though, 185 fsb is pretty high.
Sell your GF2GTS and get a Radeon 8500 for around $150 for God's sake, is everyone sooo poor??? Games will run alot better if you do this!

The first LAN I went to was at a PETA convention. They booted me after I shot a zombie in HL DM!
 
G

Guest

Guest
When I read this, it dawned on me that I had only read that dropping from 4x to 2x wouldn't affect performance greatly - I had never done a controlled test to see... So I did. And to add greatly to my confusion, my scores went up -when I dropped to 2x!! Not much, granted, but ~48 points (3dmark2001se) is alot to go UP considering I turned the speed down! So I went to Serious Sam and did another test, no weird speed increases here, but the difference was negligible at best. (average less than 1 fps increase at 4x) So I went and tested 4x again with the same result. I noticed that in the point sprites (and maybe a few others) test it stuck for a moment at the very beginning then went on. It didn't do this at 2x So that could explain the increase, but doesn't explain why going faster causes the glich. I have seen the same glich on my roomate's comp w/ a GF3Ti200. Any thoughts as to why?

btw - I'm using the lastest drivers. and asphaltracer, I don't know how you got your RAM to 510 but mine starts making artifacts at 360 if the system temp gets above 80, below 80 I can run it about 220/360. <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Drewlee77 on 03/23/02 09:33 PM.</EM></FONT></P>