Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

FIC PA-2013 : 100MHz X 2x =600HMZ ???

Last response: in Motherboards
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
January 25, 2005 1:32:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.fic (More info?)

Hi all:
In setting up a AMD K6-III/450+ CPU on an FIC PA-2013 MB (Rev. 2.1), we
all know that the highest multiplier is 5.5x.
The question: I've been told by some in the know that if one uses the
2x multiplier X 100MHz, then the AMD CPU looks at the 2x selection as a
6x, thereby giving one a 600 reading. When I turn on my computer, I
only get a 556MHz reading from BIOS (not 600), when shorting 2x. I'm
using 2.2 volts. How do I get up to 600 MHz WITHOUT having to select
the 112MHz speed configuration? That is, 112 X 5.5 = 616. FIC doesn't
recommend using the 112 or 124MHz saying that performance will not be
guaranteed. I can't get any further than "initialization complete,"
then it hangs.
Thanks to Robert. Alex, and others who have helped me so much in the
past.
Gibby

More about : fic 2013 100mhz 600hmz

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
January 25, 2005 4:52:38 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.fic (More info?)

Hey, Gibby.

As far as I know, the 2x jumper setting is interpreted as 6x for other
FSB's... (2x66)=(6x66)=400... (2x75)=(6x75)=450... etc. I would not
expect it to be different for the 100 MHz FSB, but the BIOS is telling
you 556 MHz. Hmmmm..... it could be a display issue with the BIOS.
That is, it does not know what to make of 600 MHz, so it just displays
556 MHz instead, even though the CPU really is running at 600.

Try running some utility within Windows to get the actual CPU speed. If
you have Windows XP, go to Control Panel --> System --> General tab.
That should tell you the approximate speed of the CPU, as measured by
Windows. For earlier versions of Windows, the DirectX Diagnostic
Utility will tell you, assuming you have a fairly recent version of DirectX.

If you want to download a free utility, try CPU-Z at
http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php . That should tell you what you want to
know and more.

--Alex



Gibby wrote:
> Hi all:
> In setting up a AMD K6-III/450+ CPU on an FIC PA-2013 MB (Rev. 2.1), we
> all know that the highest multiplier is 5.5x.
> The question: I've been told by some in the know that if one uses the
> 2x multiplier X 100MHz, then the AMD CPU looks at the 2x selection as a
> 6x, thereby giving one a 600 reading. When I turn on my computer, I
> only get a 556MHz reading from BIOS (not 600), when shorting 2x. I'm
> using 2.2 volts. How do I get up to 600 MHz WITHOUT having to select
> the 112MHz speed configuration? That is, 112 X 5.5 = 616. FIC doesn't
> recommend using the 112 or 124MHz saying that performance will not be
> guaranteed. I can't get any further than "initialization complete,"
> then it hangs.
> Thanks to Robert. Alex, and others who have helped me so much in the
> past.
> Gibby
>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
January 26, 2005 5:07:50 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.fic (More info?)

The BIOS is lying to you, the CPU speed is actually 600.

Don't believe me? Then find the k6speed utilities, there are DOS and
Windows versions here:

www.k6plus.com

--
Best regards,
Kyle
"Gibby" <MrBaltimore@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106677923.563761.313600@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Hi all:
| In setting up a AMD K6-III/450+ CPU on an FIC PA-2013 MB (Rev. 2.1),
we
| all know that the highest multiplier is 5.5x.
| The question: I've been told by some in the know that if one uses
the
| 2x multiplier X 100MHz, then the AMD CPU looks at the 2x selection
as a
| 6x, thereby giving one a 600 reading. When I turn on my computer, I
| only get a 556MHz reading from BIOS (not 600), when shorting 2x. I'm
| using 2.2 volts. How do I get up to 600 MHz WITHOUT having to select
| the 112MHz speed configuration? That is, 112 X 5.5 = 616. FIC
doesn't
| recommend using the 112 or 124MHz saying that performance will not
be
| guaranteed. I can't get any further than "initialization complete,"
| then it hangs.
| Thanks to Robert. Alex, and others who have helped me so much in the
| past.
| Gibby
|
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
January 26, 2005 9:09:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.fic (More info?)

Alex and Kyle:
I was looking at some past posts and I believe that it was Robert
(not sure) that said there wouldn't be any problems with what I
propose, but that problems with the hard drives might be a result of
going to 600MHz.
Well, as I said, when I boot up, even though I only see 566MHz, I get
down to "initialization complete," but then it hangs. My guess is that
the HD's will not allow it to bootup to Windows 98SE. I have new large
HD's (100 meg) using the Promise Ultra 100TX card, which I've been
using for some time. So, then, if I could get the HD's going, then I'd
likely be on my way. This is my GUESS as to what the problem is. The
answer to the problem is another story.
All suggestions appreciated, as usual.
Gibby
***********************************************************
Alex Zorrilla wrote:
> Hey, Gibby.
>
> As far as I know, the 2x jumper setting is interpreted as 6x for
other
> FSB's... (2x66)=(6x66)=400... (2x75)=(6x75)=450... etc. I would not
> expect it to be different for the 100 MHz FSB, but the BIOS is
telling
> you 556 MHz. Hmmmm..... it could be a display issue with the BIOS.
> That is, it does not know what to make of 600 MHz, so it just
displays
> 556 MHz instead, even though the CPU really is running at 600.
>
> Try running some utility within Windows to get the actual CPU speed.
If
> you have Windows XP, go to Control Panel --> System --> General tab.
> That should tell you the approximate speed of the CPU, as measured by

> Windows. For earlier versions of Windows, the DirectX Diagnostic
> Utility will tell you, assuming you have a fairly recent version of
DirectX.
>
> If you want to download a free utility, try CPU-Z at
> http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php . That should tell you what you want
to
> know and more.
>
> --Alex
>
>
>
> Gibby wrote:
> > Hi all:
> > In setting up a AMD K6-III/450+ CPU on an FIC PA-2013 MB (Rev.
2.1), we
> > all know that the highest multiplier is 5.5x.
> > The question: I've been told by some in the know that if one uses
the
> > 2x multiplier X 100MHz, then the AMD CPU looks at the 2x selection
as a
> > 6x, thereby giving one a 600 reading. When I turn on my computer, I
> > only get a 556MHz reading from BIOS (not 600), when shorting 2x.
I'm
> > using 2.2 volts. How do I get up to 600 MHz WITHOUT having to
select
> > the 112MHz speed configuration? That is, 112 X 5.5 = 616. FIC
doesn't
> > recommend using the 112 or 124MHz saying that performance will not
be
> > guaranteed. I can't get any further than "initialization complete,"
> > then it hangs.
> > Thanks to Robert. Alex, and others who have helped me so much in
the
> > past.
> > Gibby
> >
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
January 26, 2005 4:04:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.fic (More info?)

Hey, Gibby.

Problems with the hard drives, IDE, PCI/AGP cards and RAM usually come
as a result of overclocking the FSB. This is because they often use a
divider to derive the PCI clock speed from the FSB. For example, if the
FSB is 66, the usual divider is 2, to give a PCI speed of 33. If the
FSB is 100, the usual divider is 3. For an FSB of 112, the divider is
still 3, which gives a PCI speed of 37.5. Some components may not be
able to handle this, so this may cause problems.

From what you say, though, you are running an FSB of 100, so I would
not expect the hard drives to be the problem. Instead, the problem is
most likely with the CPU itself. It is simply not capable of going that
fast. It seems to be able to handle the BIOS POST, but the process of
loading Windows seems to be too much for it.

An overclockers' trick to try to get around this is to raise the voltage
of the CPU. Sometimes it works, but it does produce more heat, in which
case overheating can become a problem. Raising the voltage too much can
also shorten the life of the CPU. Raising the voltage and improvong the
cooling do not always work, however. At some point, you will hit a
wall, and nothing you do will let you get past it.

Is this that K6-III+ 500 processor you mentioned a while ago? What was
its rated voltage, and what voltage are you running at right now?

--Alex



Gibby wrote:
> Alex and Kyle:
> I was looking at some past posts and I believe that it was Robert
> (not sure) that said there wouldn't be any problems with what I
> propose, but that problems with the hard drives might be a result of
> going to 600MHz.
> Well, as I said, when I boot up, even though I only see 566MHz, I get
> down to "initialization complete," but then it hangs. My guess is that
> the HD's will not allow it to bootup to Windows 98SE. I have new large
> HD's (100 meg) using the Promise Ultra 100TX card, which I've been
> using for some time. So, then, if I could get the HD's going, then I'd
> likely be on my way. This is my GUESS as to what the problem is. The
> answer to the problem is another story.
> All suggestions appreciated, as usual.
> Gibby
> ***********************************************************
> Alex Zorrilla wrote:
>
>>Hey, Gibby.
>>
>>As far as I know, the 2x jumper setting is interpreted as 6x for
>
> other
>
>>FSB's... (2x66)=(6x66)=400... (2x75)=(6x75)=450... etc. I would not
>>expect it to be different for the 100 MHz FSB, but the BIOS is
>
> telling
>
>>you 556 MHz. Hmmmm..... it could be a display issue with the BIOS.
>>That is, it does not know what to make of 600 MHz, so it just
>
> displays
>
>>556 MHz instead, even though the CPU really is running at 600.
>>
>>Try running some utility within Windows to get the actual CPU speed.
>
> If
>
>>you have Windows XP, go to Control Panel --> System --> General tab.
>>That should tell you the approximate speed of the CPU, as measured by
>
>
>>Windows. For earlier versions of Windows, the DirectX Diagnostic
>>Utility will tell you, assuming you have a fairly recent version of
>
> DirectX.
>
>>If you want to download a free utility, try CPU-Z at
>>http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php . That should tell you what you want
>
> to
>
>>know and more.
>>
>>--Alex
>>
>>
>>
>>Gibby wrote:
>>
>>>Hi all:
>>>In setting up a AMD K6-III/450+ CPU on an FIC PA-2013 MB (Rev.
>
> 2.1), we
>
>>>all know that the highest multiplier is 5.5x.
>>>The question: I've been told by some in the know that if one uses
>
> the
>
>>>2x multiplier X 100MHz, then the AMD CPU looks at the 2x selection
>
> as a
>
>>>6x, thereby giving one a 600 reading. When I turn on my computer, I
>>>only get a 556MHz reading from BIOS (not 600), when shorting 2x.
>
> I'm
>
>>>using 2.2 volts. How do I get up to 600 MHz WITHOUT having to
>
> select
>
>>>the 112MHz speed configuration? That is, 112 X 5.5 = 616. FIC
>
> doesn't
>
>>>recommend using the 112 or 124MHz saying that performance will not
>
> be
>
>>>guaranteed. I can't get any further than "initialization complete,"
>>>then it hangs.
>>>Thanks to Robert. Alex, and others who have helped me so much in
>
> the
>
>>>past.
>>>Gibby
>>>
>
>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
January 27, 2005 4:14:33 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.fic (More info?)

Your problem is the CPU, some won't work at 600, yet I've seen many
k6+ CPUs that work nicely at 570 MHz (6x95). In fact, I have one that
will NOT run at 550 (5.5x100) but WILL run at 570 (6x95), go figure.
Thus, it's my opinion the onboard full speed cache is the limiting
factor with k6+ CPU overclocking.

--
Best regards,
Kyle
"Gibby" <MrBaltimore@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106748582.624582.230720@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Alex and Kyle:
| I was looking at some past posts and I believe that it was Robert
| (not sure) that said there wouldn't be any problems with what I
| propose, but that problems with the hard drives might be a result of
| going to 600MHz.
| Well, as I said, when I boot up, even though I only see 566MHz, I
get
| down to "initialization complete," but then it hangs. My guess is
that
| the HD's will not allow it to bootup to Windows 98SE. I have new
large
| HD's (100 meg) using the Promise Ultra 100TX card, which I've been
| using for some time. So, then, if I could get the HD's going, then
I'd
| likely be on my way. This is my GUESS as to what the problem is. The
| answer to the problem is another story.
| All suggestions appreciated, as usual.
| Gibby
| ***********************************************************
| Alex Zorrilla wrote:
| > Hey, Gibby.
| >
| > As far as I know, the 2x jumper setting is interpreted as 6x for
| other
| > FSB's... (2x66)=(6x66)=400... (2x75)=(6x75)=450... etc. I would
not
| > expect it to be different for the 100 MHz FSB, but the BIOS is
| telling
| > you 556 MHz. Hmmmm..... it could be a display issue with the
BIOS.
| > That is, it does not know what to make of 600 MHz, so it just
| displays
| > 556 MHz instead, even though the CPU really is running at 600.
| >
| > Try running some utility within Windows to get the actual CPU
speed.
| If
| > you have Windows XP, go to Control Panel --> System --> General
tab.
| > That should tell you the approximate speed of the CPU, as measured
by
|
| > Windows. For earlier versions of Windows, the DirectX Diagnostic
| > Utility will tell you, assuming you have a fairly recent version
of
| DirectX.
| >
| > If you want to download a free utility, try CPU-Z at
| > http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php . That should tell you what you
want
| to
| > know and more.
| >
| > --Alex
| >
| >
| >
| > Gibby wrote:
| > > Hi all:
| > > In setting up a AMD K6-III/450+ CPU on an FIC PA-2013 MB (Rev.
| 2.1), we
| > > all know that the highest multiplier is 5.5x.
| > > The question: I've been told by some in the know that if one
uses
| the
| > > 2x multiplier X 100MHz, then the AMD CPU looks at the 2x
selection
| as a
| > > 6x, thereby giving one a 600 reading. When I turn on my
computer, I
| > > only get a 556MHz reading from BIOS (not 600), when shorting 2x.
| I'm
| > > using 2.2 volts. How do I get up to 600 MHz WITHOUT having to
| select
| > > the 112MHz speed configuration? That is, 112 X 5.5 = 616. FIC
| doesn't
| > > recommend using the 112 or 124MHz saying that performance will
not
| be
| > > guaranteed. I can't get any further than "initialization
complete,"
| > > then it hangs.
| > > Thanks to Robert. Alex, and others who have helped me so much in
| the
| > > past.
| > > Gibby
| > >
|
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
January 27, 2005 11:31:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.fic (More info?)

Kyle:
What voltage do you use at 570Mhz? I can easy do 550MHz (100MHz at
5.5x at v2.0)with this AMD K6-III/450+ v2.0 CPU. I was given the
programs with the CPU listed below as optimizers, stating that if I
tinker with them that I can get 600 to fly with remarkable speed. So
far, no go. However, the operative word was tinker - there's a very
fine line here in getting it to work, but it will (supposedly).
cacheonw.exe
k6wao
setewb
k6wcx
**************************************************************
Kylesb wrote:
> Your problem is the CPU, some won't work at 600, yet I've seen many
> k6+ CPUs that work nicely at 570 MHz (6x95). In fact, I have one
that
> will NOT run at 550 (5.5x100) but WILL run at 570 (6x95), go figure.
> Thus, it's my opinion the onboard full speed cache is the limiting
> factor with k6+ CPU overclocking.
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Kyle
> "Gibby" <MrBaltimore@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1106748582.624582.230720@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> | Alex and Kyle:
> | I was looking at some past posts and I believe that it was Robert
> | (not sure) that said there wouldn't be any problems with what I
> | propose, but that problems with the hard drives might be a result
of
> | going to 600MHz.
> | Well, as I said, when I boot up, even though I only see 566MHz, I
> get
> | down to "initialization complete," but then it hangs. My guess is
> that
> | the HD's will not allow it to bootup to Windows 98SE. I have new
> large
> | HD's (100 meg) using the Promise Ultra 100TX card, which I've been
> | using for some time. So, then, if I could get the HD's going, then
> I'd
> | likely be on my way. This is my GUESS as to what the problem is.
The
> | answer to the problem is another story.
> | All suggestions appreciated, as usual.
> | Gibby
> | ***********************************************************
> | Alex Zorrilla wrote:
> | > Hey, Gibby.
> | >
> | > As far as I know, the 2x jumper setting is interpreted as 6x for
> | other
> | > FSB's... (2x66)=(6x66)=400... (2x75)=(6x75)=450... etc. I would
> not
> | > expect it to be different for the 100 MHz FSB, but the BIOS is
> | telling
> | > you 556 MHz. Hmmmm..... it could be a display issue with the
> BIOS.
> | > That is, it does not know what to make of 600 MHz, so it just
> | displays
> | > 556 MHz instead, even though the CPU really is running at 600.
> | >
> | > Try running some utility within Windows to get the actual CPU
> speed.
> | If
> | > you have Windows XP, go to Control Panel --> System --> General
> tab.
> | > That should tell you the approximate speed of the CPU, as
measured
> by
> |
> | > Windows. For earlier versions of Windows, the DirectX Diagnostic
> | > Utility will tell you, assuming you have a fairly recent version
> of
> | DirectX.
> | >
> | > If you want to download a free utility, try CPU-Z at
> | > http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php . That should tell you what you
> want
> | to
> | > know and more.
> | >
> | > --Alex
> | >
> | >
> | >
> | > Gibby wrote:
> | > > Hi all:
> | > > In setting up a AMD K6-III/450+ CPU on an FIC PA-2013 MB (Rev.
> | 2.1), we
> | > > all know that the highest multiplier is 5.5x.
> | > > The question: I've been told by some in the know that if one
> uses
> | the
> | > > 2x multiplier X 100MHz, then the AMD CPU looks at the 2x
> selection
> | as a
> | > > 6x, thereby giving one a 600 reading. When I turn on my
> computer, I
> | > > only get a 556MHz reading from BIOS (not 600), when shorting
2x.
> | I'm
> | > > using 2.2 volts. How do I get up to 600 MHz WITHOUT having to
> | select
> | > > the 112MHz speed configuration? That is, 112 X 5.5 = 616. FIC
> | doesn't
> | > > recommend using the 112 or 124MHz saying that performance will
> not
> | be
> | > > guaranteed. I can't get any further than "initialization
> complete,"
> | > > then it hangs.
> | > > Thanks to Robert. Alex, and others who have helped me so much
in
> | the
> | > > past.
> | > > Gibby
> | > >
> |
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
January 27, 2005 3:08:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.fic (More info?)

I think I used 2.1v, never have used anything over 2.2v with a k6+ CPU
(as the manufacturers spec indicates the upper limit for Vcore is
2.2v). I figure that exceeding the product spec is asking for future
trouble.

Now that I think about it, I have one k62+ cpu that will not run 550
MHz (5x100) because it does not work at all with 100 MHz FSB and any
multiplier. But, that same CPU works great at 95 MHz FSB and any
multiplier. I nearly threw it away as a dead CPU when I suddenly
thought to try 95 MHz FSB, and to my astonishment, it works flawlessly
at any multiplier, and has run 24/7 for years.

--
Best regards,
Kyle
"Gibby" <MrBaltimore@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106843483.715957.126780@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Kyle:
| What voltage do you use at 570Mhz? I can easy do 550MHz (100MHz at
| 5.5x at v2.0)with this AMD K6-III/450+ v2.0 CPU. I was given the
| programs with the CPU listed below as optimizers, stating that if I
| tinker with them that I can get 600 to fly with remarkable speed. So
| far, no go. However, the operative word was tinker - there's a very
| fine line here in getting it to work, but it will (supposedly).
| cacheonw.exe
| k6wao
| setewb
| k6wcx
| **************************************************************
| Kylesb wrote:
| > Your problem is the CPU, some won't work at 600, yet I've seen
many
| > k6+ CPUs that work nicely at 570 MHz (6x95). In fact, I have one
| that
| > will NOT run at 550 (5.5x100) but WILL run at 570 (6x95), go
figure.
| > Thus, it's my opinion the onboard full speed cache is the limiting
| > factor with k6+ CPU overclocking.
| >
| > --
| > Best regards,
| > Kyle
| > "Gibby" <MrBaltimore@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:1106748582.624582.230720@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| > | Alex and Kyle:
| > | I was looking at some past posts and I believe that it was
Robert
| > | (not sure) that said there wouldn't be any problems with what I
| > | propose, but that problems with the hard drives might be a
result
| of
| > | going to 600MHz.
| > | Well, as I said, when I boot up, even though I only see 566MHz,
I
| > get
| > | down to "initialization complete," but then it hangs. My guess
is
| > that
| > | the HD's will not allow it to bootup to Windows 98SE. I have new
| > large
| > | HD's (100 meg) using the Promise Ultra 100TX card, which I've
been
| > | using for some time. So, then, if I could get the HD's going,
then
| > I'd
| > | likely be on my way. This is my GUESS as to what the problem is.
| The
| > | answer to the problem is another story.
| > | All suggestions appreciated, as usual.
| > | Gibby
| > | ***********************************************************
| > | Alex Zorrilla wrote:
| > | > Hey, Gibby.
| > | >
| > | > As far as I know, the 2x jumper setting is interpreted as 6x
for
| > | other
| > | > FSB's... (2x66)=(6x66)=400... (2x75)=(6x75)=450... etc. I
would
| > not
| > | > expect it to be different for the 100 MHz FSB, but the BIOS is
| > | telling
| > | > you 556 MHz. Hmmmm..... it could be a display issue with the
| > BIOS.
| > | > That is, it does not know what to make of 600 MHz, so it just
| > | displays
| > | > 556 MHz instead, even though the CPU really is running at 600.
| > | >
| > | > Try running some utility within Windows to get the actual CPU
| > speed.
| > | If
| > | > you have Windows XP, go to Control Panel --> System -->
General
| > tab.
| > | > That should tell you the approximate speed of the CPU, as
| measured
| > by
| > |
| > | > Windows. For earlier versions of Windows, the DirectX
Diagnostic
| > | > Utility will tell you, assuming you have a fairly recent
version
| > of
| > | DirectX.
| > | >
| > | > If you want to download a free utility, try CPU-Z at
| > | > http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php . That should tell you what you
| > want
| > | to
| > | > know and more.
| > | >
| > | > --Alex
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > Gibby wrote:
| > | > > Hi all:
| > | > > In setting up a AMD K6-III/450+ CPU on an FIC PA-2013 MB
(Rev.
| > | 2.1), we
| > | > > all know that the highest multiplier is 5.5x.
| > | > > The question: I've been told by some in the know that if one
| > uses
| > | the
| > | > > 2x multiplier X 100MHz, then the AMD CPU looks at the 2x
| > selection
| > | as a
| > | > > 6x, thereby giving one a 600 reading. When I turn on my
| > computer, I
| > | > > only get a 556MHz reading from BIOS (not 600), when shorting
| 2x.
| > | I'm
| > | > > using 2.2 volts. How do I get up to 600 MHz WITHOUT having
to
| > | select
| > | > > the 112MHz speed configuration? That is, 112 X 5.5 = 616.
FIC
| > | doesn't
| > | > > recommend using the 112 or 124MHz saying that performance
will
| > not
| > | be
| > | > > guaranteed. I can't get any further than "initialization
| > complete,"
| > | > > then it hangs.
| > | > > Thanks to Robert. Alex, and others who have helped me so
much
| in
| > | the
| > | > > past.
| > | > > Gibby
| > | > >
| > |
|
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
January 27, 2005 5:46:33 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.fic (More info?)

Kyle:
I did SYSID benchmark on each setting and the results were:
Using 100MHz X 5.5x =550 I got 559 CPU and 265/379 CPU/MMX
Using 95MHz X 6.0x = 570 I got 578 CPU and 245/353 CPU/MMX
I'm not quite sure what to make of the results. Which of the two is
the better benchmark?
Gibby
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
January 27, 2005 8:54:46 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.fic (More info?)

Kind of a mixed bag there. As you can see, the first CPU score is a
result of the CPU clockspeed, while the CPU/MMX speed is influenced by
the FSB. The benchmark does seem to be rather synthetic, but I would
guess that the 100x5.5 is probably better overall. Any other benchmarks
you can try? Does the system feel different, one way or another?

--Alex


Gibby wrote:
> Kyle:
> I did SYSID benchmark on each setting and the results were:
> Using 100MHz X 5.5x =550 I got 559 CPU and 265/379 CPU/MMX
> Using 95MHz X 6.0x = 570 I got 578 CPU and 245/353 CPU/MMX
> I'm not quite sure what to make of the results. Which of the two is
> the better benchmark?
> Gibby
>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
January 27, 2005 10:49:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.fic (More info?)

My Mom's system has a K62550 in it. The thing will not work reliably at 600 Mhz
w/o upping the Vcore significantly. At 600 Mhz it's nearly impossible to keep
the system stable in the summer (even w/a Thermalright SLK7!).

Nice to see you still come around here Kyle. Hope the New Year is treating you
right.

>Your problem is the CPU, some won't work at 600, yet I've seen many
>k6+ CPUs that work nicely at 570 MHz (6x95). In fact, I have one that
>will NOT run at 550 (5.5x100) but WILL run at 570 (6x95), go figure.
>Thus, it's my opinion the onboard full speed cache is the limiting
>factor with k6+ CPU overclocking.
>
>--
>Best regards,
>Kyle


-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
January 28, 2005 6:56:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.fic (More info?)

"Gibby" <MrBaltimore@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106865992.991713.223300@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Kyle:
| I did SYSID benchmark on each setting and the results were:
| Using 100MHz X 5.5x =550 I got 559 CPU and 265/379 CPU/MMX
| Using 95MHz X 6.0x = 570 I got 578 CPU and 245/353 CPU/MMX
| I'm not quite sure what to make of the results. Which of the two is
| the better benchmark?
| Gibby
|

The down side of the 95 MHz FSB is the PCI bus will run at 95/3 or
31.67 MHz and the memory and cache will run 5% slower. Thus, PCI bus
transfers will be ever so slightly slower. However, actual CPU
internal computational speed will be a bit higher. I have no idea
what the Sysid benchmarks represent or measure. With my systems, I
prefer to run 550 MHz with 100 MHz FSB versus the 95 MHZ FSB and 570
MHz CPU speed. However, I got that 1 k62+ CPU that likes to run at
95. In addition, I have a couple of Jbond MVP3 mobos (both still
running I might add) and neither board was properly designed to run
100 MHz FSB (I had to add a jumper to the mobo to enable running the
memory and FSB at the same speed, seems the designers omitted the
jumper b/c the boards were not a stable design at 100 MHz). I still
have a spare 503+ and a spare Soyo 5EHM that are just hanging out,
lol.

With the price of a 1600 Duron at about $40 that will easily overclock
to 2000 MHz, and refurb nforce2 mobos from newegg at $35, the old k6+
CPUs are looking mighty slow nowadays.
--
Best regards,
Kyle
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
January 28, 2005 1:18:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.fic (More info?)

Kyle:
You said, "With the price of a 1600 Duron at about $40 that will
easily overclock
to 2000 MHz, and refurb nforce2 mobos from newegg at $35, the old k6+
CPUs are looking mighty slow nowadays."
Regarding the Nforce2 MB's and the 1600 Duron, is this the thing to
have these days? Do both get good ratings? Do they take 168 pin PC133
cas2 256 memory sticks? Can most of the display, sound, adapter cards,
etc. used in FIC PA-2013 be transferred to nforce2? I've been out of
the loop on the newer stuff, so that's why I'm asking. One thing I've
found out over the years is that a good performing MB is critical -
likely the most imp. decision.
Thanks, Gibby
****************************************************

Kylesb wrote:
> "Gibby" <MrBaltimore@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1106865992.991713.223300@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> | Kyle:
> | I did SYSID benchmark on each setting and the results were:
> | Using 100MHz X 5.5x =550 I got 559 CPU and 265/379 CPU/MMX
> | Using 95MHz X 6.0x = 570 I got 578 CPU and 245/353 CPU/MMX
> | I'm not quite sure what to make of the results. Which of the two is
> | the better benchmark?
> | Gibby
> |
>
> The down side of the 95 MHz FSB is the PCI bus will run at 95/3 or
> 31.67 MHz and the memory and cache will run 5% slower. Thus, PCI bus
> transfers will be ever so slightly slower. However, actual CPU
> internal computational speed will be a bit higher. I have no idea
> what the Sysid benchmarks represent or measure. With my systems, I
> prefer to run 550 MHz with 100 MHz FSB versus the 95 MHZ FSB and 570
> MHz CPU speed. However, I got that 1 k62+ CPU that likes to run at
> 95. In addition, I have a couple of Jbond MVP3 mobos (both still
> running I might add) and neither board was properly designed to run
> 100 MHz FSB (I had to add a jumper to the mobo to enable running the
> memory and FSB at the same speed, seems the designers omitted the
> jumper b/c the boards were not a stable design at 100 MHz). I still
> have a spare 503+ and a spare Soyo 5EHM that are just hanging out,
> lol.
>
> With the price of a 1600 Duron at about $40 that will easily
overclock
> to 2000 MHz, and refurb nforce2 mobos from newegg at $35, the old k6+
> CPUs are looking mighty slow nowadays.
> --
> Best regards,
> Kyle
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
January 28, 2005 1:29:31 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.fic (More info?)

Alex:
I'm using a K6-III/450+ cpu and I can get 550 MHz from it using the
standard v2.0. I can also get the 570 at v2.0 (using 95 X 6). I'm also
able to enable many settings in BIOS rather than disable them. Now,
having said that, I got 600 to work using v2.2, but it took about 15
minutes for everything to load properly. EXTREMELY slow.
Found myself having to disable this and that.
After thinking about it, I decided that I had benefitted nicely from
the cooler CPU (v2.0) and additional speed increase of 550, plus
stability, so I've decided not to pursue 600, even though I think I
could get it working with lots of man hours.
Always appreciate your replies as well as the others. Many thanks,
Gibby
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
January 28, 2005 4:17:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.fic (More info?)

In my opinion, the nForce2 is the best performing chipset for the
AthlonXP/Athlon/Duron/Sempron. However, it takes DDR RAM only... PC133
will not work.

In fact, it has been years, literally, since anyone produced Socket A
motherboards that accept PC133. If you really want one, the best place
to look would be eBay. In my opinion, though, it would probably not be
worth the hassle unless you could find one really cheap that also comes
bundled with a CPU. Many of the newer Socket A CPUs will not work in
those older PC133 motherboards.

The Duron is the cutdown version of the Athlon/Athlon XP (less L2
cache), but it still gives good performance. The Sempron is the new
name for the AMD value line. Now that the Athlon 64 is around, the
Sempron is really just an Athlon XP with a new name, in most cases. The
only exception as of now is the Sempron 3100+, which is a cutdown
version (less L2 cache, no 64-bit extensions) of the Athlon 64 and uses
Socket 754 motherboards instead of Socket A.

In case you do decide to upgrade the motherboard/CPU/RAM at some point,
pretty much all of your PCI cards should still work. ISA cards will not
work, since there are no more ISA slots. AGP cards will work if they
support AGP 4x. Older AGP cards that max out at AGP 2x will not work.

--Alex



Gibby wrote:
> Kyle:
> You said, "With the price of a 1600 Duron at about $40 that will
> easily overclock
> to 2000 MHz, and refurb nforce2 mobos from newegg at $35, the old k6+
> CPUs are looking mighty slow nowadays."
> Regarding the Nforce2 MB's and the 1600 Duron, is this the thing to
> have these days? Do both get good ratings? Do they take 168 pin PC133
> cas2 256 memory sticks? Can most of the display, sound, adapter cards,
> etc. used in FIC PA-2013 be transferred to nforce2? I've been out of
> the loop on the newer stuff, so that's why I'm asking. One thing I've
> found out over the years is that a good performing MB is critical -
> likely the most imp. decision.
> Thanks, Gibby
> ****************************************************
>
> Kylesb wrote:
>
>>"Gibby" <MrBaltimore@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1106865992.991713.223300@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>| Kyle:
>>| I did SYSID benchmark on each setting and the results were:
>>| Using 100MHz X 5.5x =550 I got 559 CPU and 265/379 CPU/MMX
>>| Using 95MHz X 6.0x = 570 I got 578 CPU and 245/353 CPU/MMX
>>| I'm not quite sure what to make of the results. Which of the two is
>>| the better benchmark?
>>| Gibby
>>|
>>
>>The down side of the 95 MHz FSB is the PCI bus will run at 95/3 or
>>31.67 MHz and the memory and cache will run 5% slower. Thus, PCI bus
>>transfers will be ever so slightly slower. However, actual CPU
>>internal computational speed will be a bit higher. I have no idea
>>what the Sysid benchmarks represent or measure. With my systems, I
>>prefer to run 550 MHz with 100 MHz FSB versus the 95 MHZ FSB and 570
>>MHz CPU speed. However, I got that 1 k62+ CPU that likes to run at
>>95. In addition, I have a couple of Jbond MVP3 mobos (both still
>>running I might add) and neither board was properly designed to run
>>100 MHz FSB (I had to add a jumper to the mobo to enable running the
>>memory and FSB at the same speed, seems the designers omitted the
>>jumper b/c the boards were not a stable design at 100 MHz). I still
>>have a spare 503+ and a spare Soyo 5EHM that are just hanging out,
>>lol.
>>
>>With the price of a 1600 Duron at about $40 that will easily
>
> overclock
>
>>to 2000 MHz, and refurb nforce2 mobos from newegg at $35, the old k6+
>>CPUs are looking mighty slow nowadays.
>>--
>>Best regards,
>>Kyle
>
>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
January 29, 2005 6:07:04 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.fic (More info?)

"Gibby" <MrBaltimore@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106936971.608135.23030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Alex:
| I'm using a K6-III/450+ cpu and I can get 550 MHz from it using the
| standard v2.0. I can also get the 570 at v2.0 (using 95 X 6). I'm
also
| able to enable many settings in BIOS rather than disable them. Now,
| having said that, I got 600 to work using v2.2, but it took about 15
| minutes for everything to load properly. EXTREMELY slow.
| Found myself having to disable this and that.
| After thinking about it, I decided that I had benefitted nicely from
| the cooler CPU (v2.0) and additional speed increase of 550, plus
| stability, so I've decided not to pursue 600, even though I think I
| could get it working with lots of man hours.
| Always appreciate your replies as well as the others. Many thanks,
| Gibby
|

If the system ran slower at 600Mhz, then there was a serious problem,
don't bother with 600, it's not worth corrupting your HD.

Most all of the Nforce2 mobos (that I am aware of ) have onboard NIC
and audio that both work nicely. One trend I've noticed is the
dropping of a serial port for more USB ports, which is good unless you
still have a need for 2 serial ports. The answer to your questions
about features of newer mobos are easily answered by browsing
newegg.com. The ECS K7S5A is the best bang for the buck to use pc133
memory with an AMD CPU. This board has audio and NIC. I have one, it
worked well for quite some time. However, the nforce2 mobos with 400
MHz ram speed and dual channel memory are quite a bit faster by
comparison to the older 133/266 speed boards.
--
Best regards,
Kyle
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
January 29, 2005 5:06:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.fic (More info?)

Kyle, Alex, et al:
Thanks for all your thorough comments. I do have a last question for
now. Running an FIC PA-2013, do you think that an AMD K6-2/500MHz or a
K6-3/450MHz would give the best performance for running a bulletin
board (BBS). The K6-3/450 is a 2.2 voltage cpu (not a plus). I was
thinking that running the K6-3/450 at 500 (100Mhz X 5x) might not
require an increase in voltage, being such a small increase. If I could
do yhis, then the obvious choice would be the K6-3 cpu. Remarks
welcome.
Best regards, Gibby
Kylesb wrote:
> "Gibby" <MrBaltimore@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1106865992.991713.223300@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> | Kyle:
> | I did SYSID benchmark on each setting and the results were:
> | Using 100MHz X 5.5x =550 I got 559 CPU and 265/379 CPU/MMX
> | Using 95MHz X 6.0x = 570 I got 578 CPU and 245/353 CPU/MMX
> | I'm not quite sure what to make of the results. Which of the two is
> | the better benchmark?
> | Gibby
> |
>
> The down side of the 95 MHz FSB is the PCI bus will run at 95/3 or
> 31.67 MHz and the memory and cache will run 5% slower. Thus, PCI bus
> transfers will be ever so slightly slower. However, actual CPU
> internal computational speed will be a bit higher. I have no idea
> what the Sysid benchmarks represent or measure. With my systems, I
> prefer to run 550 MHz with 100 MHz FSB versus the 95 MHZ FSB and 570
> MHz CPU speed. However, I got that 1 k62+ CPU that likes to run at
> 95. In addition, I have a couple of Jbond MVP3 mobos (both still
> running I might add) and neither board was properly designed to run
> 100 MHz FSB (I had to add a jumper to the mobo to enable running the
> memory and FSB at the same speed, seems the designers omitted the
> jumper b/c the boards were not a stable design at 100 MHz). I still
> have a spare 503+ and a spare Soyo 5EHM that are just hanging out,
> lol.
>
> With the price of a 1600 Duron at about $40 that will easily
overclock
> to 2000 MHz, and refurb nforce2 mobos from newegg at $35, the old k6+
> CPUs are looking mighty slow nowadays.
> --
> Best regards,
> Kyle
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
January 29, 2005 5:20:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.fic (More info?)

Alex:
Does the Nforce2 have different revisions ( like the Pa-2013 does,
2.1 being the newest)? If so, what Rev. is best?
Thanks again.
Gibby
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
January 30, 2005 5:55:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.fic (More info?)

Nforce2 is a chipset made by Nvidia. There are countless mobos using
this chipset from all the top manufacturers. The "best" version is
the 400 MHz capable version coupled with the MCP-T southbridge, which
includes the "Soundstorm" audio and Firewire built in. One example is
the Asus A7N8X-DLX and another is the Abit A7N (think that's right).

--
Best regards,
Kyle
"Gibby" <MrBaltimore@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107037239.862877.126250@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Alex:
| Does the Nforce2 have different revisions ( like the Pa-2013 does,
| 2.1 being the newest)? If so, what Rev. is best?
| Thanks again.
| Gibby
|
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
January 30, 2005 7:23:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.fic (More info?)

Kyle:
Thank you for the more detailed information on brands of Nforce2
MB's.
What is a fair price for one of these? Will it fit in systems that
currently use the FIC PA-2013 MB? What would be your choice of CPU's
and Ram for the Nforce2? I use nice Antec ATX cases, so I'm hoping they
would accommodate the Nforce2 as I gradually change over.
Have a great day!
Gibby
Kylesb wrote:
> Nforce2 is a chipset made by Nvidia. There are countless mobos using
> this chipset from all the top manufacturers. The "best" version is
> the 400 MHz capable version coupled with the MCP-T southbridge, which
> includes the "Soundstorm" audio and Firewire built in. One example
is
> the Asus A7N8X-DLX and another is the Abit A7N (think that's right).
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Kyle
> "Gibby" <MrBaltimore@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1107037239.862877.126250@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> | Alex:
> | Does the Nforce2 have different revisions ( like the Pa-2013 does,
> | 2.1 being the newest)? If so, what Rev. is best?
> | Thanks again.
> | Gibby
> |
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
January 31, 2005 3:58:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.fic (More info?)

I would go for the K6-3 450 over the K6-2 500, even at stock speed. The
added cache of the K6-3 should more than make up for the difference in
clockspeed.

Running a BBS? People still do that?! ;-)

--Alex



Gibby wrote:
> Kyle, Alex, et al:
> Thanks for all your thorough comments. I do have a last question for
> now. Running an FIC PA-2013, do you think that an AMD K6-2/500MHz or a
> K6-3/450MHz would give the best performance for running a bulletin
> board (BBS). The K6-3/450 is a 2.2 voltage cpu (not a plus). I was
> thinking that running the K6-3/450 at 500 (100Mhz X 5x) might not
> require an increase in voltage, being such a small increase. If I could
> do yhis, then the obvious choice would be the K6-3 cpu. Remarks
> welcome.
> Best regards, Gibby
> Kylesb wrote:
>
>>"Gibby" <MrBaltimore@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1106865992.991713.223300@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>| Kyle:
>>| I did SYSID benchmark on each setting and the results were:
>>| Using 100MHz X 5.5x =550 I got 559 CPU and 265/379 CPU/MMX
>>| Using 95MHz X 6.0x = 570 I got 578 CPU and 245/353 CPU/MMX
>>| I'm not quite sure what to make of the results. Which of the two is
>>| the better benchmark?
>>| Gibby
>>|
>>
>>The down side of the 95 MHz FSB is the PCI bus will run at 95/3 or
>>31.67 MHz and the memory and cache will run 5% slower. Thus, PCI bus
>>transfers will be ever so slightly slower. However, actual CPU
>>internal computational speed will be a bit higher. I have no idea
>>what the Sysid benchmarks represent or measure. With my systems, I
>>prefer to run 550 MHz with 100 MHz FSB versus the 95 MHZ FSB and 570
>>MHz CPU speed. However, I got that 1 k62+ CPU that likes to run at
>>95. In addition, I have a couple of Jbond MVP3 mobos (both still
>>running I might add) and neither board was properly designed to run
>>100 MHz FSB (I had to add a jumper to the mobo to enable running the
>>memory and FSB at the same speed, seems the designers omitted the
>>jumper b/c the boards were not a stable design at 100 MHz). I still
>>have a spare 503+ and a spare Soyo 5EHM that are just hanging out,
>>lol.
>>
>>With the price of a 1600 Duron at about $40 that will easily
>
> overclock
>
>>to 2000 MHz, and refurb nforce2 mobos from newegg at $35, the old k6+
>>CPUs are looking mighty slow nowadays.
>>--
>>Best regards,
>>Kyle
>
>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
January 31, 2005 4:57:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.fic (More info?)

You can find brand new nForce2 boards starting around $55 at Newegg or
$60 at ZipZoomFly. Obviously, the more bells and whistles you add, the
higher the price, and brand always influences price. You will find that
pretty much all of them come with integrated LAN, audio, USB, etc. Some
add Serial ATA, Firewire, and hardware audio. For most people, though,
the "software" integrated audio of the cheaper boards is adequate...
integrated audio is better now than it used to be.

If you are looking more for features than pure speed, you may also
consider motherboards based on the VIA KT600 and KT880 chipsets. Those
have more features built into the chipset directly (like Serial ATA).
In terms of speed, though, nForce2 > KT880 > KT600.

You can buy a Socket A Sempron or Athlon XP processor starting at around
$60. The faster you want, the more $$$ you have to spend. For RAM, you
can get 512 MB PC3200 (DDR400) for about $70-$80. I have had good luck
with both Crucial and Corsair Value Select.

At this point, you may almost consider jumping all the way up to an
Athlon 64. Socket 754 motherboards have come down under $70, and even
Socket 939 (the wave of the future) can be found below $90. The problem
is that the CPUs are more expensive, with Socket 754 starting around
$125 and Socket 939 starting around $165. They do take the same PC3200
memory, though.

If you have fairly new Antec cases, you should be fine. All of these
motherboards come with the same basic ATX form factor as the PA-2013.
The main thing to watch out for is the power supply, since all these
CPUs do require more power than the K6-3. Fortunately, Antec does make
good power supplies. What size PSU do you have? Does it have a P4
power plug?

--Alex



Gibby wrote:
> Kyle:
> Thank you for the more detailed information on brands of Nforce2
> MB's.
> What is a fair price for one of these? Will it fit in systems that
> currently use the FIC PA-2013 MB? What would be your choice of CPU's
> and Ram for the Nforce2? I use nice Antec ATX cases, so I'm hoping they
> would accommodate the Nforce2 as I gradually change over.
> Have a great day!
> Gibby
> Kylesb wrote:
>
>>Nforce2 is a chipset made by Nvidia. There are countless mobos using
>>this chipset from all the top manufacturers. The "best" version is
>>the 400 MHz capable version coupled with the MCP-T southbridge, which
>>includes the "Soundstorm" audio and Firewire built in. One example
>
> is
>
>>the Asus A7N8X-DLX and another is the Abit A7N (think that's right).
>>
>>--
>>Best regards,
>>Kyle
>>"Gibby" <MrBaltimore@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:1107037239.862877.126250@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>| Alex:
>>| Does the Nforce2 have different revisions ( like the Pa-2013 does,
>>| 2.1 being the newest)? If so, what Rev. is best?
>>| Thanks again.
>>| Gibby
>>|
>
>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
February 1, 2005 5:24:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.fic (More info?)

All this talk about nForce2 motherboards prods me into submitting my $0.02
worth. I built a system awhile back for a friend of my wife, using a
Biostar M7NCD Pro motherboard, which uses the nForce2 Ultra400 chipset. It
has an Athlon XP Barton 2500+ (unlocked version) and 512MB of GeiL PC3200
dual-channel DDR (it was on sale at Newegg) and it runs at 400MHz FSB
without batting an eyelash. XP3200+ equivalent for about $250 when I bought
the above components. The CPU was used, of course, but works fine.
Robert
"Kylesb" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:360ugpF4oa099U1@individual.net...
> "Gibby" <MrBaltimore@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1106936971.608135.23030@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> | Alex:
> | I'm using a K6-III/450+ cpu and I can get 550 MHz from it using the
> | standard v2.0. I can also get the 570 at v2.0 (using 95 X 6). I'm
> also
> | able to enable many settings in BIOS rather than disable them. Now,
> | having said that, I got 600 to work using v2.2, but it took about 15
> | minutes for everything to load properly. EXTREMELY slow.
> | Found myself having to disable this and that.
> | After thinking about it, I decided that I had benefitted nicely from
> | the cooler CPU (v2.0) and additional speed increase of 550, plus
> | stability, so I've decided not to pursue 600, even though I think I
> | could get it working with lots of man hours.
> | Always appreciate your replies as well as the others. Many thanks,
> | Gibby
> |
>
> If the system ran slower at 600Mhz, then there was a serious problem,
> don't bother with 600, it's not worth corrupting your HD.
>
> Most all of the Nforce2 mobos (that I am aware of ) have onboard NIC
> and audio that both work nicely. One trend I've noticed is the
> dropping of a serial port for more USB ports, which is good unless you
> still have a need for 2 serial ports. The answer to your questions
> about features of newer mobos are easily answered by browsing
> newegg.com. The ECS K7S5A is the best bang for the buck to use pc133
> memory with an AMD CPU. This board has audio and NIC. I have one, it
> worked well for quite some time. However, the nforce2 mobos with 400
> MHz ram speed and dual channel memory are quite a bit faster by
> comparison to the older 133/266 speed boards.
> --
> Best regards,
> Kyle
>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
February 5, 2005 2:53:52 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.fic (More info?)

No, you can't fit modern ATX motherboards in older cases (like the one for your
PA2013) because of the I/O plates newer motherboards require. It's strange how
the ATX standard became non-standard isn't it? I wonder if the newer A64
motherboards will fit in the same case that my Abit NF7s v2.0 does?

>Kyle:
>Thank you for the more detailed information on brands of Nforce2
>MB's.
>What is a fair price for one of these? Will it fit in systems that
>currently use the FIC PA-2013 MB? What would be your choice of CPU's
>and Ram for the Nforce2? I use nice Antec ATX cases, so I'm hoping they
>would accommodate the Nforce2 as I gradually change over.
>Have a great day!
>Gibby


-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
February 5, 2005 5:58:15 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.fic (More info?)

If the I/O plate is removable, I don't understand why one cannot use
an older ATX case. Heck, I have an old Enlight AT mid-tower case that
has a removable I/O plate (sort of a universal box, it accepted AT and
ATX mobos, and with the right I/O plate, don't see why a new ATX mobo
won't work, of course I'll need a new PS and a new power switch).

--
Best regards,
Kyle
"Wblane" <wblane@aol.combotizer> wrote in message
news:20050204185352.15889.00000350@mb-m15.aol.com...
| No, you can't fit modern ATX motherboards in older cases (like the
one for your
| PA2013) because of the I/O plates newer motherboards require. It's
strange how
| the ATX standard became non-standard isn't it? I wonder if the newer
A64
| motherboards will fit in the same case that my Abit NF7s v2.0 does?
|
| >Kyle:
| >Thank you for the more detailed information on brands of Nforce2
| >MB's.
| >What is a fair price for one of these? Will it fit in systems that
| >currently use the FIC PA-2013 MB? What would be your choice of
CPU's
| >and Ram for the Nforce2? I use nice Antec ATX cases, so I'm hoping
they
| >would accommodate the Nforce2 as I gradually change over.
| >Have a great day!
| >Gibby
|
|
| -Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
February 6, 2005 6:10:20 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.fic (More info?)

In article <36jckcF53rp60U1@individual.net>, Kylesb <me@privacy.net>
writes
>If the I/O plate is removable, I don't understand why one cannot use
>an older ATX case. Heck, I have an old Enlight AT mid-tower case that
>has a removable I/O plate (sort of a universal box, it accepted AT and
>ATX mobos, and with the right I/O plate, don't see why a new ATX mobo
>won't work, of course I'll need a new PS and a new power switch).
>
Is the I/O plate an essential requirement?
--
Roger Hunt
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
February 6, 2005 9:31:02 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.fic (More info?)

I don't suppose that it's really essential... It has 3 major functions:
1) provide a supplemental ground path for the connector shells of all the
PCB mounted connectors (KB/Mouse, USB, LPT, Serial, Sound, etc) on the
motherboard;
2) Seal the opening in the case which these connectors protrude through from
air leaks (OK, not much of a seal) to aid proper airflow;
3) (for newbies) identify the connectors on the exterior of the case.
I guess if you didn't have the correct one, and just wanted to cover the
opening in the case, you could cover it with duct tape and use a hobby knife
to cut out the openings for the connectors.
Robert
"Roger Hunt" <test1@carewg.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:x5MKKKAcqYBCFw$X@carewg.demon.co.uk...
> In article <36jckcF53rp60U1@individual.net>, Kylesb <me@privacy.net>
> writes
> >If the I/O plate is removable, I don't understand why one cannot use
> >an older ATX case. Heck, I have an old Enlight AT mid-tower case that
> >has a removable I/O plate (sort of a universal box, it accepted AT and
> >ATX mobos, and with the right I/O plate, don't see why a new ATX mobo
> >won't work, of course I'll need a new PS and a new power switch).
> >
> Is the I/O plate an essential requirement?
> --
> Roger Hunt
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
February 6, 2005 9:44:15 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.fic (More info?)

In article <GQiNd.13875$uc.12905@trnddc08>, Robert Akins
<robert.akins2@verizon.net> writes
>"Roger Hunt" <test1@carewg.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:x5MKKKAcqYBCFw$X@carewg.demon.co.uk...
>> >
>> Is the I/O plate an essential requirement?

>I don't suppose that it's really essential... It has 3 major functions:
>1) provide a supplemental ground path for the connector shells of all the
>PCB mounted connectors (KB/Mouse, USB, LPT, Serial, Sound, etc) on the
>motherboard;
>2) Seal the opening in the case which these connectors protrude through from
>air leaks (OK, not much of a seal) to aid proper airflow;
>3) (for newbies) identify the connectors on the exterior of the case.
>I guess if you didn't have the correct one, and just wanted to cover the
>opening in the case, you could cover it with duct tape and use a hobby knife
>to cut out the openings for the connectors.

That's three good reasons. Thanks
--
Roger Hunt
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
February 7, 2005 5:55:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.fic (More info?)

Kyle: I'm using the newer ANTEC cases - one a SLK2600AMB (300 watt)
super mini tower case and the SLK3700AMB (350 watt) super mid tower
case. Just seems likt they'd support Nforce2 MB's.
Not sure though.
Gibby
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
February 8, 2005 4:43:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.fic (More info?)

Gibby, it just so happens that the system I put together in the earlier
post, is in an Antec SLK2600AMB. Works fine (with the Biostar M7NCD Pro,
anyway).
Robert
"Gibby" <MrBaltimore@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1107816947.872973.200150@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Kyle: I'm using the newer ANTEC cases - one a SLK2600AMB (300 watt)
> super mini tower case and the SLK3700AMB (350 watt) super mid tower
> case. Just seems likt they'd support Nforce2 MB's.
> Not sure though.
> Gibby
>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
February 10, 2005 9:52:25 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.fic (More info?)

I agree with Robert. It is no big deal to pop off the old ATX backplate
and then replace it with the new backplate that comes with the
motherboard. I do this all the time. You just have to be a little
patient when you pry the old one off with a screwdriver. The new one is
not as sturdy as the original one, but it does the job.

--Alex


Robert Akins wrote:
> Gibby, it just so happens that the system I put together in the earlier
> post, is in an Antec SLK2600AMB. Works fine (with the Biostar M7NCD Pro,
> anyway).
> Robert
> "Gibby" <MrBaltimore@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1107816947.872973.200150@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Kyle: I'm using the newer ANTEC cases - one a SLK2600AMB (300 watt)
>>super mini tower case and the SLK3700AMB (350 watt) super mid tower
>>case. Just seems likt they'd support Nforce2 MB's.
>>Not sure though.
>>Gibby
>>
>
>
>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
February 11, 2005 5:24:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.fic (More info?)

IMHO, the problem is getting the new plate in the hole, have cut my
fingers several times doing this task. Finally got smart and use
screwdrivers to push on the plate and pliers and open up the hole with
a metal file if necessary.

--
Best regards,
Kyle
"Alex Zorrilla" <apz@zxeng.com> wrote in message
news:cugvka021mj@enews3.newsguy.com...
| I agree with Robert. It is no big deal to pop off the old ATX
backplate
| and then replace it with the new backplate that comes with the
| motherboard. I do this all the time. You just have to be a little
| patient when you pry the old one off with a screwdriver. The new
one is
| not as sturdy as the original one, but it does the job.
|
| --Alex
|
|
| Robert Akins wrote:
| > Gibby, it just so happens that the system I put together in the
earlier
| > post, is in an Antec SLK2600AMB. Works fine (with the Biostar
M7NCD Pro,
| > anyway).
| > Robert
| > "Gibby" <MrBaltimore@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:1107816947.872973.200150@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| >
| >>Kyle: I'm using the newer ANTEC cases - one a SLK2600AMB (300
watt)
| >>super mini tower case and the SLK3700AMB (350 watt) super mid
tower
| >>case. Just seems likt they'd support Nforce2 MB's.
| >>Not sure though.
| >>Gibby
| >>
| >
| >
| >
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
February 11, 2005 9:35:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.fic (More info?)

Alex/Robert/Kyle:
Since I haven't purchased a Nforce2 motherboard - just looking out
into the future- I wasn't aware that the MB's come with a backplate. Do
all of them supply this upon purchase of the MB?
For now, I'm running (3) FIC PA-2013 (newer revisions) systems,
K6-III/450 cpu (two using the plus chip at 550MHZ with only 2.0 voltage
and larger gig HD's. Just intalled a WD 120GB 7600rpm HD yesterday.
Others are 80 and 100GB. Obviously, I'm using Promise ULTRA ATA/66 and
100tx2 controllers.
AS I stated before. I'm using nice Antec cases - SLK2600AMB,
300watt, and SLK3700AMB, 350 watt.
I pretty much have the FIC PA-2013 set up to the max. So, I'll be
looking to upgrade one of them to the Nforce in near future, whenever
that is.
You guys have really been a big help with a wealth of knowledge.
It's helped me greatly. Very much appreciated!
Thanks, Gibby
**************************************************************

Alex Zorrilla wrote:
> I agree with Robert. It is no big deal to pop off the old ATX
backplate
> and then replace it with the new backplate that comes with the
> motherboard. I do this all the time. You just have to be a little
> patient when you pry the old one off with a screwdriver. The new one
is
> not as sturdy as the original one, but it does the job.
>
> --Alex
>
>
> Robert Akins wrote:
> > Gibby, it just so happens that the system I put together in the
earlier
> > post, is in an Antec SLK2600AMB. Works fine (with the Biostar
M7NCD Pro,
> > anyway).
> > Robert
> > "Gibby" <MrBaltimore@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1107816947.872973.200150@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>Kyle: I'm using the newer ANTEC cases - one a SLK2600AMB (300 watt)
> >>super mini tower case and the SLK3700AMB (350 watt) super mid tower
> >>case. Just seems likt they'd support Nforce2 MB's.
> >>Not sure though.
> >>Gibby
> >>
> >
> >
> >
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
February 11, 2005 2:44:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.fic (More info?)

The answer about whether a new mobo comes with a backplate is: maybe

There are places to purchase such items, don't have any links handy
tho. If you buy a refurb board from Newegg, it may NOT come with a
backplate or the requisite cables and backplane connector strips.
However, I have purchased the "goodies" for a mobo from Asus in the
past ("goodies" means the manual, mobo cd, cables, and I/O plate).
Cost me $15 plus shipping, so $20 total.

--
Best regards,
Kyle
"Gibby" <MrBaltimore@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108132537.943247.79810@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Alex/Robert/Kyle:
| Since I haven't purchased a Nforce2 motherboard - just looking
out
| into the future- I wasn't aware that the MB's come with a backplate.
Do
| all of them supply this upon purchase of the MB?
| For now, I'm running (3) FIC PA-2013 (newer revisions) systems,
| K6-III/450 cpu (two using the plus chip at 550MHZ with only 2.0
voltage
| and larger gig HD's. Just intalled a WD 120GB 7600rpm HD yesterday.
| Others are 80 and 100GB. Obviously, I'm using Promise ULTRA ATA/66
and
| 100tx2 controllers.
| AS I stated before. I'm using nice Antec cases - SLK2600AMB,
| 300watt, and SLK3700AMB, 350 watt.
| I pretty much have the FIC PA-2013 set up to the max. So, I'll be
| looking to upgrade one of them to the Nforce in near future,
whenever
| that is.
| You guys have really been a big help with a wealth of knowledge.
| It's helped me greatly. Very much appreciated!
| Thanks, Gibby
| **************************************************************
|
| Alex Zorrilla wrote:
| > I agree with Robert. It is no big deal to pop off the old ATX
| backplate
| > and then replace it with the new backplate that comes with the
| > motherboard. I do this all the time. You just have to be a
little
| > patient when you pry the old one off with a screwdriver. The new
one
| is
| > not as sturdy as the original one, but it does the job.
| >
| > --Alex
| >
| >
| > Robert Akins wrote:
| > > Gibby, it just so happens that the system I put together in the
| earlier
| > > post, is in an Antec SLK2600AMB. Works fine (with the Biostar
| M7NCD Pro,
| > > anyway).
| > > Robert
| > > "Gibby" <MrBaltimore@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > > news:1107816947.872973.200150@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| > >
| > >>Kyle: I'm using the newer ANTEC cases - one a SLK2600AMB (300
watt)
| > >>super mini tower case and the SLK3700AMB (350 watt) super mid
tower
| > >>case. Just seems likt they'd support Nforce2 MB's.
| > >>Not sure though.
| > >>Gibby
| > >>
| > >
| > >
| > >
|
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
February 12, 2005 8:40:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.fic (More info?)

Gibby, it generally depends on the motherboard...
If it is a standard ATX layout (would use the backplate that comes with the
case) then in most cases it won't include one. If it has a non-standard
layout of its' connectors (for USB, sound, NIC, etc.) then it most likely
will, if it is a new retail box board. If it is refurbished, OEM, etc.,
then you better ask the seller if it includes one.
Robert
"Gibby" <MrBaltimore@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108132537.943247.79810@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Alex/Robert/Kyle:
> Since I haven't purchased a Nforce2 motherboard - just looking out
> into the future- I wasn't aware that the MB's come with a backplate. Do
> all of them supply this upon purchase of the MB?
> For now, I'm running (3) FIC PA-2013 (newer revisions) systems,
> K6-III/450 cpu (two using the plus chip at 550MHZ with only 2.0 voltage
> and larger gig HD's. Just intalled a WD 120GB 7600rpm HD yesterday.
> Others are 80 and 100GB. Obviously, I'm using Promise ULTRA ATA/66 and
> 100tx2 controllers.
> AS I stated before. I'm using nice Antec cases - SLK2600AMB,
> 300watt, and SLK3700AMB, 350 watt.
> I pretty much have the FIC PA-2013 set up to the max. So, I'll be
> looking to upgrade one of them to the Nforce in near future, whenever
> that is.
> You guys have really been a big help with a wealth of knowledge.
> It's helped me greatly. Very much appreciated!
> Thanks, Gibby
> **************************************************************
>
> Alex Zorrilla wrote:
> > I agree with Robert. It is no big deal to pop off the old ATX
> backplate
> > and then replace it with the new backplate that comes with the
> > motherboard. I do this all the time. You just have to be a little
> > patient when you pry the old one off with a screwdriver. The new one
> is
> > not as sturdy as the original one, but it does the job.
> >
> > --Alex
> >
> >
> > Robert Akins wrote:
> > > Gibby, it just so happens that the system I put together in the
> earlier
> > > post, is in an Antec SLK2600AMB. Works fine (with the Biostar
> M7NCD Pro,
> > > anyway).
> > > Robert
> > > "Gibby" <MrBaltimore@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > > news:1107816947.872973.200150@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> > >
> > >>Kyle: I'm using the newer ANTEC cases - one a SLK2600AMB (300 watt)
> > >>super mini tower case and the SLK3700AMB (350 watt) super mid tower
> > >>case. Just seems likt they'd support Nforce2 MB's.
> > >>Not sure though.
> > >>Gibby
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
!