Help: Fastest AMD for Via KT266A

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

I am running a Duron in a Syntax mobo with a Via KT266A chipset.
http://tinyurl.com/yt2an

I want to upgrade to an Athlon but the vendor site has no info on
the fastest cpu I can run.

Am I limited to Palomino's?

---

I can't afford to upgrade my PSU. My PSU can deliver the
following. Is this enough power for a low-end Athlon? Which speed
cpu would be the best?

+12V 13A
+5V 27A
+3.3V 20A
Max for +5v and +3.3V combined is 175W.

http://tinyurl.com/3c4ht


Thanks for any help.
52 answers Last reply
More about help fastest kt266a
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    a lot of older kt266 & kt333 boards had problems using processors that used
    multipliers higher than 12.5 so the xp2000+ is the highest one you can
    really be sure will work.

    "Piotr Makley" <pmakley@mail.com> wrote in message
    news:94BF87F84594031E75@130.133.1.4...
    > I am running a Duron in a Syntax mobo with a Via KT266A chipset.
    > http://tinyurl.com/yt2an
    >
    > I want to upgrade to an Athlon but the vendor site has no info on
    > the fastest cpu I can run.
    >
    > Am I limited to Palomino's?
    >
    > ---
    >
    > I can't afford to upgrade my PSU. My PSU can deliver the
    > following. Is this enough power for a low-end Athlon? Which speed
    > cpu would be the best?
    >
    > +12V 13A
    > +5V 27A
    > +3.3V 20A
    > Max for +5v and +3.3V combined is 175W.
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/3c4ht
    >
    >
    > Thanks for any help.
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    "Piotr Makley" <pmakley@mail.com> wrote in message
    news:94BF87F84594031E75@130.133.1.4...
    > I am running a Duron in a Syntax mobo with a Via KT266A chipset.
    > http://tinyurl.com/yt2an
    >
    > I want to upgrade to an Athlon but the vendor site has no info on
    > the fastest cpu I can run.
    >
    > Am I limited to Palomino's?
    >
    > ---
    I have the SV266a mobo running a AMD 2400+ (Thorton core)

    Regards

    Tim
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    "Piotr Makley" <pmakley@mail.com> wrote in message
    news:94BF87F84594031E75@130.133.1.4...
    > I am running a Duron in a Syntax mobo with a Via KT266A chipset.
    > http://tinyurl.com/yt2an
    >
    > I want to upgrade to an Athlon but the vendor site has no info on
    > the fastest cpu I can run.
    >
    > Am I limited to Palomino's?
    >
    > ---
    >

    FWIW my SV266A is happily running a 2200+
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    Piotr Makley wrote:
    > I am running a Duron in a Syntax mobo with a Via KT266A chipset.
    > http://tinyurl.com/yt2an
    >
    > I want to upgrade to an Athlon but the vendor site has no info on
    > the fastest cpu I can run.
    >
    > Am I limited to Palomino's?
    >
    > ---
    >
    > I can't afford to upgrade my PSU. My PSU can deliver the
    > following. Is this enough power for a low-end Athlon? Which speed
    > cpu would be the best?
    >
    > +12V 13A
    > +5V 27A
    > +3.3V 20A
    > Max for +5v and +3.3V combined is 175W.
    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/3c4ht
    >
    >
    > Thanks for any help.

    I read in a recent issue of Australian PC User a table with the maximum
    CPUs that different chipsets can take. The KT266a, according to that
    table, can take up to a XP 2400+. Palominos stopped at XP 2100+, so I
    can only assume that Tbreds are supported (perhaps with a BIOS upgrade,
    perhaps not). I downloaded the manual for that motherboard and it isn't
    very helpful.


    --
    spammage trappage: replace fishies_ with yahoo
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    "sooky grumper" <sookygrumper@fishies_.com> wrote in message
    news:406d5ecb$1@quokka.wn.com.au...

    " I read in a recent issue of Australian PC User a table with the maximum
    CPUs that different chipsets can take. The KT266a, according to that table,
    can take up to a XP 2400+. Palominos stopped at XP 2100+, so I can only
    assume that Tbreds are supported (perhaps with a BIOS upgrade, perhaps not).
    I downloaded the manual for that motherboard and it isn't very helpful. "


    On the manufacturers website, there isn't a detailed list of BIOS updates
    for that motherboard. All it has is a download link for one BIOS, so you
    might be running that one already. I recently helped someone with a similar
    query, and they had an Acorp motherboard with the same chipset (KT266A).
    The Acorp BIOS update page had a BIOS update for that motherboard which
    supported the 266FSB 2400+ and 2600+.

    The Acorp motherboard with KT266A chipset:
    http://www.acorp.com.tw/Products_information/pro-default/7KT266A.htm

    The Acorp BIOS update page:
    http://www.acorp.com.tw/BIOS/BIOS%20VIA/bios-via-462.htm

    The 2600+ Thoroughbred is difficult to get hold of, as production was halted
    shortly after release. You'd do better to find a (much cheaper) 266FSB
    2400+ as they are more easily available. The 2400+ was first designed with
    a Thorougbred core, but on release of the 333FSB Barton (2500+ and above),
    AMD re-designed its 266FSB range of Athlons with the Thorton core (2400+ and
    below). This was purely down to manufacturing costs, as this site explains.
    http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20031022184805.html
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 20:37:17 +0800, sooky grumper
    <sookygrumper@fishies_.com> wrote:

    >Piotr Makley wrote:
    >> I am running a Duron in a Syntax mobo with a Via KT266A chipset.
    >> http://tinyurl.com/yt2an
    >>
    >> I want to upgrade to an Athlon but the vendor site has no info on
    >> the fastest cpu I can run.
    >>
    >> Am I limited to Palomino's?
    >>
    >> ---
    >>
    >> I can't afford to upgrade my PSU. My PSU can deliver the
    >> following. Is this enough power for a low-end Athlon? Which speed
    >> cpu would be the best?
    >>
    >> +12V 13A
    >> +5V 27A
    >> +3.3V 20A
    >> Max for +5v and +3.3V combined is 175W.
    >>
    >> http://tinyurl.com/3c4ht
    >>
    >>
    >> Thanks for any help.
    >
    >I read in a recent issue of Australian PC User a table with the maximum
    >CPUs that different chipsets can take. The KT266a, according to that
    >table, can take up to a XP 2400+. Palominos stopped at XP 2100+, so I
    >can only assume that Tbreds are supported (perhaps with a BIOS upgrade,
    >perhaps not). I downloaded the manual for that motherboard and it isn't
    >very helpful.

    In addition to the chipset there's also the issue of signal strength on
    some lines to the processor. In other words, Australian PC User assumed
    only the FSB mattered, but I've had at least one KT266a that wouldn't
    accept anything faster than a Palomino, and lesser KT133 boards that
    wouldn't run anything faster even at 100MHz FSB. Best course of action is
    to hunt down users of that particular board and see what they're running,
    or update bios to latest and just buy the CPU from someplace with a good
    return policy.
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 13:21:58 +0100, Piotr Makley wrote:

    > I am running a Duron in a Syntax mobo with a Via KT266A chipset.
    > http://tinyurl.com/yt2an
    >
    > I want to upgrade to an Athlon but the vendor site has no info on
    > the fastest cpu I can run.
    >
    > Am I limited to Palomino's?
    >
    No, as long as you replace the PSU. You'll may even have problems with a
    Palomino with that PSU. Replace the PSU and you should be able to run any
    133MHz (/266) FSB cpu. Best buy would probably be the 2400+, but you
    should also be able to use the /266 MP's like the 2800+.
    >
    > I can't afford to upgrade my PSU. My PSU can deliver the following. Is
    > this enough power for a low-end Athlon? Which speed cpu would be the
    > best?
    >
    Surely you can afford this. Got one. Works well even with Athlon 64 power
    hungry cpu.

    http://www.amamax.com/psspecial2fnlp6100e.html

    --
    Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
    http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 14:34:28 +0000, Wooducoodu wrote:

    > a lot of older kt266 & kt333 boards had problems using processors that used
    > multipliers higher than 12.5 so the xp2000+ is the highest one you can
    > really be sure will work.
    >
    There's not a problem with the boards, just the people that tried to use
    them not knowing what they were doing. There's many ways around that
    problem. See link below.

    --
    Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
    http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    "Tim Chapman" <chapmantr@despammed.com> wrote:

    >> I am running a Duron in a Syntax mobo with a Via KT266A
    >> chipset. http://tinyurl.com/yt2an
    >>
    >> I want to upgrade to an Athlon but the vendor site has no
    >> info on the fastest cpu I can run.
    >>
    >> Am I limited to Palomino's?
    >>
    >> ---
    > I have the SV266a mobo running a AMD 2400+ (Thorton core)


    That is exactly the same mobo as I have! SV266A version 1.0.

    Did you have to upgrade the BIOS? My Award BIOS is dated
    "02/07/2003" and has this reference after the date:

    VT8367-8235-6A6LVE1HC-00

    ---

    Also, what is the rating of your power supply?
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    "Lee Enfield" <micktilley@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

    >> I am running a Duron in a Syntax mobo with a Via KT266A
    >> chipset. http://tinyurl.com/yt2an
    >>
    >> I want to upgrade to an Athlon but the vendor site has no
    >> info on the fastest cpu I can run.
    >>
    >> Am I limited to Palomino's?
    >>
    >> ---
    >>
    >
    > FWIW my SV266A is happily running a 2200+


    I just replied to Tim Chapman. As you also have the same mobo
    (version 1.0) then can I ask you the same question I asked him:

    Did you have to upgrade the BIOS? My Award BIOS is dated
    "02/07/2003" and has this reference after the date:

    VT8367-8235-6A6LVE1HC-00

    ---

    Also, what is the rating of your power supply?
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

    > In addition to the chipset there's also the issue of signal
    > strength on some lines to the processor. In other words,
    > Australian PC User assumed only the FSB mattered, but I've had
    > at least one KT266a that wouldn't accept anything faster than
    > a Palomino, and lesser KT133 boards that wouldn't run anything
    > faster even at 100MHz FSB. Best course of action is to hunt
    > down users of that particular board and see what they're
    > running, or update bios to latest and just buy the CPU from
    > someplace with a good return policy.


    What is the speed of the FSB for the Palomino?

    What is the fastest processor in the Palomino range?

    Do you know where I can find power consumption figures for the
    Palomino's?
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 23:23:18 +0100, Piotr Makley <pmakley@mail.com> wrote:

    >kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
    >
    >> In addition to the chipset there's also the issue of signal
    >> strength on some lines to the processor. In other words,
    >> Australian PC User assumed only the FSB mattered, but I've had
    >> at least one KT266a that wouldn't accept anything faster than
    >> a Palomino, and lesser KT133 boards that wouldn't run anything
    >> faster even at 100MHz FSB. Best course of action is to hunt
    >> down users of that particular board and see what they're
    >> running, or update bios to latest and just buy the CPU from
    >> someplace with a good return policy.
    >
    >
    >What is the speed of the FSB for the Palomino?

    133MHz FSB clock rate, often called DDR266.

    >What is the fastest processor in the Palomino range?

    XP2100, but that model comes in both Palomino and Thoroughbred, if you saw
    no mention of it being a Palomino it probably isn't.

    >Do you know where I can find power consumption figures for the
    >Palomino's?

    AMD's website? They have spec sheets listing that, or a Google search
    might find it.

    Offhand I'm guessing an XP2100 is about 70W max, typical closer to 50W,
    which at one point was looked upon by Intel fanatics as really hot
    running, but now that Intel has 100W+ chips the perspective is a little
    different. If anything Palominos are easier to cool now than previously
    due to more large 'sinks in the market, and the larger core area of a
    Palomino reduces the need for highest efficiency heatsink base... you
    might have problems with a $8 'sink but certainy for under $25 there's a
    few choices.

    Then again a Thoroughbred or newer might work on your motherboard, I just
    don't know. The faster the chip the less likely it is to work from an
    amperage perspective too, that board was designed around older CPUs that
    used less current. It could run for awhile then fail prematurely. If it
    were me at this point I'd be thinking about upgrading the motherboard and
    memory, then whichever CPU fits the budget, many people feel a Barton
    XP2500 is a good choice.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 23:23:18 +0100, Piotr Makley wrote:

    > What is the speed of the FSB for the Palomino?
    >
    Officially 50-133MHz, but will go higher.

    > What is the fastest processor in the Palomino range?
    >
    2100+

    > Do you know where I can find power consumption figures for the
    > Palomino's?

    www.amd.com, but it draws considerably more power than the newer cores,
    and it won't clock near as high, about 1800MHz tops. IOW's, you don't want
    one. Get a Tbred B core or a barton core.

    --
    Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
    http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    Piotr Makley wrote:
    > kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>In addition to the chipset there's also the issue of signal
    >>strength on some lines to the processor. In other words,
    >>Australian PC User assumed only the FSB mattered, but I've had
    >>at least one KT266a that wouldn't accept anything faster than
    >>a Palomino, and lesser KT133 boards that wouldn't run anything
    >>faster even at 100MHz FSB. Best course of action is to hunt
    >>down users of that particular board and see what they're
    >>running, or update bios to latest and just buy the CPU from
    >>someplace with a good return policy.
    >
    >
    >
    > What is the speed of the FSB for the Palomino?

    266mhz

    >
    > What is the fastest processor in the Palomino range?

    XP 2100+

    >
    > Do you know where I can find power consumption figures for the
    > Palomino's?

    www.google.com


    --
    spammage trappage: replace fishies_ with yahoo
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    sooky grumper wrote:
    > Piotr Makley wrote:
    >
    >> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>> In addition to the chipset there's also the issue of signal
    >>> strength on some lines to the processor. In other words,
    >>> Australian PC User assumed only the FSB mattered, but I've had
    >>> at least one KT266a that wouldn't accept anything faster than
    >>> a Palomino, and lesser KT133 boards that wouldn't run anything
    >>> faster even at 100MHz FSB. Best course of action is to hunt
    >>> down users of that particular board and see what they're
    >>> running, or update bios to latest and just buy the CPU from
    >>> someplace with a good return policy.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> What is the speed of the FSB for the Palomino?
    >
    >
    > 266mhz

    Was thinking double pumped...it's actually only 133, as kony pointed out

    >
    >>
    >> What is the fastest processor in the Palomino range?
    >
    >
    > XP 2100+
    >
    >>
    >> Do you know where I can find power consumption figures for the
    >> Palomino's?
    >
    >
    > www.google.com
    >
    >


    --
    spammage trappage: replace fishies_ with yahoo
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    "Piotr Makley" <pmakley@mail.com> wrote in message
    news:94BFED7697CF931E75@130.133.1.4...
    > Did you have to upgrade the BIOS? My Award BIOS is dated
    > "02/07/2003" and has this reference after the date:
    >
    > VT8367-8235-6A6LVE1HC-00
    >
    > ---
    >
    > Also, what is the rating of your power supply?

    I don't think that the BIOS needed to be updated, but I did anyway, just to
    be on the safe side.
    The latest version being 09/17/2003.
    http://64.168.125.230/support/syntax/Motherboard/SV266A/BIOS/2003-0917.zip

    I have a 350W PSU, However I have another SV266a running a Duron 1800 using
    a 250W PSU, if thats anything to go by.

    Regards,

    Tim.
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    "Tim Chapman" <chapmantr@despammed.com> wrote in message
    news:406e6aea$0$6543$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
    > "Piotr Makley" <pmakley@mail.com> wrote in message
    > news:94BFED7697CF931E75@130.133.1.4...
    > > Did you have to upgrade the BIOS? My Award BIOS is dated
    > > "02/07/2003" and has this reference after the date:
    > >
    > > VT8367-8235-6A6LVE1HC-00
    > >
    > > ---
    > >
    > > Also, what is the rating of your power supply?
    >
    > I don't think that the BIOS needed to be updated, but I did anyway, just
    to
    > be on the safe side.
    > The latest version being 09/17/2003.
    > http://64.168.125.230/support/syntax/Motherboard/SV266A/BIOS/2003-0917.zip
    >
    > I have a 350W PSU, However I have another SV266a running a Duron 1800
    using
    > a 250W PSU, if thats anything to go by.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Tim.

    A Duron 1800 runs really well in this board. I have 3 of these setups. Don't
    forget that this processor runs at a full 1800 mhz., which is the equivalent
    of an Athlon XP 2400 and almost as fast. It's a great choice budget
    processor.
    >
    >
  18. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt,uk.comp.vendors (More info?)

    >> > Did you have to upgrade the BIOS? My Award BIOS is dated
    >> > "02/07/2003" and has this reference after the date:
    >> >
    >> > VT8367-8235-6A6LVE1HC-00
    >> >
    >> > Also, what is the rating of your power supply?


    >> I don't think that the BIOS needed to be updated, but I did
    >> anyway, just to be on the safe side.
    >> The latest version being 09/17/2003.
    >> http://64.168.125.230/support/syntax/Motherboard/SV266A/BIOS/2
    >> 003-0917.zip
    >>
    >> I have a 350W PSU, However I have another SV266a running a
    >> Duron 1800 using a 250W PSU, if thats anything to go by.
    >>
    >> Regards,
    >> Tim.

    "Mr. Slow" <millenniumgold@crouchvale.freeserve.invalid> wrote:
    >
    > A Duron 1800 runs really well in this board. I have 3 of these
    > setups. Don't forget that this processor runs at a full 1800
    > mhz., which is the equivalent of an Athlon XP 2400 and almost
    > as fast. It's a great choice budget processor.

    Who is selling a Duron 1800MHz in the UK at a good price? Dabs.com
    is doing them for £32 plus about £2 P&P. http://snipurl.com/5hgb

    For £39 they sell an Athlon 1800+ which seems much better value.
    Or not? http://snipurl.com/5hga

    Any info gratefully received.
  19. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:

    >> Do you know where I can find power consumption figures for
    >> the Palomino's?
    >
    > www.amd.com, but it draws considerably more power than the
    > newer cores, and it won't clock near as high, about 1800MHz
    > tops. IOW's, you don't want one. Get a Tbred B core or a
    > barton core.

    I think my Via KT266 chipset doesn't support T-bred or Barton. I
    think I am limited to only Palomino.

    Do you know where on the AMD site it has info on Duron power
    consumption. This is the closest I got:
    http://makeashorterlink.com/?A59E11CE7

    ISTR there is also a chart on a private website with all the data
    on
  20. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 05:09:06 +0800, sooky grumper
    <sookygrumper@fishies_.com> wrote:

    >sooky grumper wrote:
    >> Piotr Makley wrote:
    >>
    >>> kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> In addition to the chipset there's also the issue of signal
    >>>> strength on some lines to the processor. In other words,
    >>>> Australian PC User assumed only the FSB mattered, but I've had
    >>>> at least one KT266a that wouldn't accept anything faster than
    >>>> a Palomino, and lesser KT133 boards that wouldn't run anything
    >>>> faster even at 100MHz FSB. Best course of action is to hunt
    >>>> down users of that particular board and see what they're
    >>>> running, or update bios to latest and just buy the CPU from
    >>>> someplace with a good return policy.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> What is the speed of the FSB for the Palomino?
    >>
    >>
    >> 266mhz
    >
    >Was thinking double pumped...it's actually only 133, as kony pointed out

    That's Intel lingo. AthlonXPs uses the DEC Alpha EV6 bus for FSB. And
    it's 266MHz (or 200/333/400). More specifically, it runs on a 2X
    multiplier on the (FSB-) clock that also controls cpu-speed via
    another multiplier. The FSB is not the memory bus. The FSB connects
    the cpu to the Northbridge.
    The memorybus is between the Northbridge and ram. And DDR266 (double
    data transfer rate) runs on 133MHz.

    ancra
  21. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt,uk.comp.vendors (More info?)

    "Piotr Makley" <pmakley@mail.com> wrote in message
    news:94C07BDEC775D31E75@130.133.1.4...
    > >
    > > A Duron 1800 runs really well in this board. I have 3 of these
    > > setups. Don't forget that this processor runs at a full 1800
    > > mhz., which is the equivalent of an Athlon XP 2400 and almost
    > > as fast. It's a great choice budget processor.
    >
    > Who is selling a Duron 1800MHz in the UK at a good price? Dabs.com
    > is doing them for £32 plus about £2 P&P. http://snipurl.com/5hgb
    >
    > For £39 they sell an Athlon 1800+ which seems much better value.
    > Or not? http://snipurl.com/5hga
    >

    Ebuyer have the Duron 1800 for £28.19 plus p&p.
  22. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    Piotr Makley wrote:


    > Do you know where I can find power consumption figures for the
    > Palomino's?

    http://www.sandpile.org/

    XP2100 Palomino is listed at 64W typ 74W peak.

    Lee
    --
    Email address is valid, but is unlikely to be read.
  23. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 12:18:47 +0100, Piotr Makley wrote:

    > Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:
    >
    >>> Do you know where I can find power consumption figures for
    >>> the Palomino's?
    >>
    >> www.amd.com, but it draws considerably more power than the
    >> newer cores, and it won't clock near as high, about 1800MHz
    >> tops. IOW's, you don't want one. Get a Tbred B core or a
    >> barton core.
    >
    > I think my Via KT266 chipset doesn't support T-bred or Barton. I
    > think I am limited to only Palomino.
    >
    You think wrong. The KT266(A) chipset will support any AMD Athlon/Duron
    cpu. Any. And while it will run any, the FSB is limited. Tbred and Barton
    cores also run fine on the very first socket A VIA chipset, the KT133,
    which you see below. As will the newer cores. See link in sig.

    > Do you know where on the AMD site it has info on Duron power
    > consumption. This is the closest I got:
    > http://makeashorterlink.com/?A59E11CE7
    >
    http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_1202_2979,00.html

    > ISTR there is also a chart on a private website with all the data on

    Probably, search.

    --
    Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
    http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
  24. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 22:38:30 GMT, Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net>
    wrote:

    >On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 12:18:47 +0100, Piotr Makley wrote:
    >
    >> Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> Do you know where I can find power consumption figures for
    >>>> the Palomino's?
    >>>
    >>> www.amd.com, but it draws considerably more power than the
    >>> newer cores, and it won't clock near as high, about 1800MHz
    >>> tops. IOW's, you don't want one. Get a Tbred B core or a
    >>> barton core.
    >>
    >> I think my Via KT266 chipset doesn't support T-bred or Barton. I
    >> think I am limited to only Palomino.
    >>
    >You think wrong. The KT266(A) chipset will support any AMD Athlon/Duron
    >cpu. Any. And while it will run any, the FSB is limited. Tbred and Barton
    >cores also run fine on the very first socket A VIA chipset, the KT133,
    >which you see below. As will the newer cores. See link in sig.

    That is not true. AMD changed the specs for signaling, which some boards
    may not have incorporated until after KT266A. TBred and Barton CPUs will
    most definitely not run on all "first socket A Via chipset" boards, it has
    nothing to do with FSB speed or voltage, bios support. The fact that
    "some" boards will run them, does not mean that ALL boards will.
  25. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    "Piotr Makley" <pmakley@mail.com> wrote in message
    news:94BFEDB03A7431E75@130.133.1.4...

    > > FWIW my SV266A is happily running a 2200+
    >
    >
    > I just replied to Tim Chapman. As you also have the same mobo
    > (version 1.0) then can I ask you the same question I asked him:
    >
    > Did you have to upgrade the BIOS? My Award BIOS is dated
    > "02/07/2003" and has this reference after the date:
    >
    > VT8367-8235-6A6LVE1HC-00
    >
    > ---
    >
    > Also, what is the rating of your power supply?

    My BIOS is the same. PSU is 250W.
  26. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 22:55:46 +0000, kony wrote:

    > On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 22:38:30 GMT, Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 12:18:47 +0100, Piotr Makley wrote:
    >>
    >>> Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> Do you know where I can find power consumption figures for
    >>>>> the Palomino's?
    >>>>
    >>>> www.amd.com, but it draws considerably more power than the
    >>>> newer cores, and it won't clock near as high, about 1800MHz
    >>>> tops. IOW's, you don't want one. Get a Tbred B core or a
    >>>> barton core.
    >>>
    >>> I think my Via KT266 chipset doesn't support T-bred or Barton. I
    >>> think I am limited to only Palomino.
    >>>
    >>You think wrong. The KT266(A) chipset will support any AMD Athlon/Duron
    >>cpu. Any. And while it will run any, the FSB is limited. Tbred and Barton
    >>cores also run fine on the very first socket A VIA chipset, the KT133,
    >>which you see below. As will the newer cores. See link in sig.
    >
    > That is not true.

    It sure as hell is.

    > AMD changed the specs for signaling, which some boards
    > may not have incorporated until after KT266A. TBred and Barton CPUs will
    > most definitely not run on all "first socket A Via chipset" boards, it has
    > nothing to do with FSB speed or voltage, bios support. The fact that
    > "some" boards will run them, does not mean that ALL boards will.

    I'm talking chipsets, and you're talking boards. And while I can't say for
    sure from personal experience which boards work and which don't, I've
    never heard of one that wouldn't, given the person installing the cpu has
    half a clue as to what needs to be done to make it work, So why not name
    some of these boards that you know won't work with Tbred./Barton cores?

    I wouldn't name the one below, even though it was the very first VIA
    socket A chipset IIRC.

    --
    Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
    http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
  27. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 06:43:48 GMT, Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net>
    wrote:

    <snip>

    >>>You think wrong. The KT266(A) chipset will support any AMD Athlon/Duron
    >>>cpu. Any. And while it will run any, the FSB is limited. Tbred and Barton
    >>>cores also run fine on the very first socket A VIA chipset, the KT133,
    >>>which you see below. As will the newer cores. See link in sig.
    >>
    >> That is not true.
    >
    >It sure as hell is.

    You are correct that the chipset itself has the ability to run a T'Bred or
    Barton, but a board that has that chipset is not certain to support
    either.

    I'm differentiating between theoretical ability of a chipset, and support
    as employed on a board, and further a difference between "support" and
    "working after a hack or two or at the wrong speed". We seem to have a
    different idea of what the word "support" means.
  28. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:

    >> I can't afford to upgrade my PSU. My PSU can deliver the
    >> following. Is this enough power for a low-end Athlon? Which
    >> speed cpu would be the best?
    >>
    > Surely you can afford this. Got one. Works well even with
    > Athlon 64 power hungry cpu.
    >
    > http://www.amamax.com/psspecial2fnlp6100e.html


    At the price that is unlikely to be a stable PSU or to really
    delivery all the power it claims. Call me cynical! Heh!

    I want to have something like a Nexus 3500 which is not only stable
    and really delivers the power which it claims but is also quiet.

    http://www.silentpcreview.com/article131-page1.html
  29. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    Wes Newell wrote:
    > On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 12:18:47 +0100, Piotr Makley wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>>Do you know where I can find power consumption figures for
    >>>>the Palomino's?
    >>>
    >>>www.amd.com, but it draws considerably more power than the
    >>>newer cores, and it won't clock near as high, about 1800MHz
    >>>tops. IOW's, you don't want one. Get a Tbred B core or a
    >>>barton core.
    >>
    >>I think my Via KT266 chipset doesn't support T-bred or Barton. I
    >>think I am limited to only Palomino.
    >>
    >
    > You think wrong. The KT266(A) chipset will support any AMD Athlon/Duron
    > cpu. Any. And while it will run any, the FSB is limited. Tbred and Barton
    > cores also run fine on the very first socket A VIA chipset, the KT133,
    > which you see below. As will the newer cores. See link in sig.
    >

    That'snot correct. While most motherboards will support other AMD
    models, some do not. I've recently encountered one such situation, where
    the motherboard would only accept Palomino cored Athlons.

    >
    >>Do you know where on the AMD site it has info on Duron power
    >>consumption. This is the closest I got:
    >> http://makeashorterlink.com/?A59E11CE7
    >>
    >
    > http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_1202_2979,00.html
    >
    >
    >>ISTR there is also a chart on a private website with all the data on
    >
    >
    > Probably, search.
    >


    --
    spammage trappage: replace fishies_ with yahoo
  30. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 19:34:42 +0800, sooky grumper wrote:

    > Wes Newell wrote:
    >> On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 12:18:47 +0100, Piotr Makley wrote:
    >>
    >>>Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>>Do you know where I can find power consumption figures for
    >>>>>the Palomino's?
    >>>>
    >>>>www.amd.com, but it draws considerably more power than the
    >>>>newer cores, and it won't clock near as high, about 1800MHz
    >>>>tops. IOW's, you don't want one. Get a Tbred B core or a
    >>>>barton core.
    >>>
    >>>I think my Via KT266 chipset doesn't support T-bred or Barton. I
    >>>think I am limited to only Palomino.
    >>>
    >>
    >> You think wrong. The KT266(A) chipset will support any AMD Athlon/Duron
    >> cpu. Any. And while it will run any, the FSB is limited. Tbred and Barton
    >> cores also run fine on the very first socket A VIA chipset, the KT133,
    >> which you see below. As will the newer cores. See link in sig.
    >>
    >
    > That'snot correct. While most motherboards will support other AMD
    > models, some do not. I've recently encountered one such situation, where
    > the motherboard would only accept Palomino cored Athlons.
    >
    Yes, it's correct. ANY socket A chipset will run ANY AMD K7 cpu. Now
    boards could be another story, although I haven't encountered any that
    couldn't be made to work. You're the second person to state this, but I've
    yet to see anyone mention a board that doesn't work.

    --
    Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
    http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
  31. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    Piotr Makley wrote:
    > Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:
    >
    >>> I can't afford to upgrade my PSU. My PSU can deliver the
    >>> following. Is this enough power for a low-end Athlon? Which
    >>> speed cpu would be the best?
    >>>
    >> Surely you can afford this. Got one. Works well even with
    >> Athlon 64 power hungry cpu.
    >>
    >> http://www.amamax.com/psspecial2fnlp6100e.html
    >
    >
    > At the price that is unlikely to be a stable PSU or to really
    > delivery all the power it claims. Call me cynical! Heh!

    Actually, the 500W PowerMagic PSUs aren't half bad. You can easily run a XP
    dually off them, so should be able to handle pretty much any uniprocessor
    system.

    http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=238422
    http://www.ocforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=221503

    [...]

    --
    Michael Brown
    www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
    Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open
  32. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    I like Antec PSUs.

    --
    spammage trappage: replace fishies_ with yahoo
  33. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
    | On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 23:23:18 +0100, Piotr Makley <pmakley@mail.com>
    | wrote:
    |
    || kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
    ||
    ||| In addition to the chipset there's also the issue of signal
    ||| strength on some lines to the processor. In other words,
    ||| Australian PC User assumed only the FSB mattered, but I've had
    ||| at least one KT266a that wouldn't accept anything faster than
    ||| a Palomino, and lesser KT133 boards that wouldn't run anything
    ||| faster even at 100MHz FSB. Best course of action is to hunt
    ||| down users of that particular board and see what they're
    ||| running, or update bios to latest and just buy the CPU from
    ||| someplace with a good return policy.
    ||
    ||
    || What is the speed of the FSB for the Palomino?
    |
    | 133MHz FSB clock rate, often called DDR266.
    |
    || What is the fastest processor in the Palomino range?
    |
    | XP2100, but that model comes in both Palomino and Thoroughbred, if
    | you saw no mention of it being a Palomino it probably isn't.
    |
    || Do you know where I can find power consumption figures for the
    || Palomino's?
    |
    | AMD's website? They have spec sheets listing that, or a Google search
    | might find it.
    |
    | Offhand I'm guessing an XP2100 is about 70W max, typical closer to
    | 50W, which at one point was looked upon by Intel fanatics as really
    | hot running, but now that Intel has 100W+ chips the perspective is a
    | little different. If anything Palominos are easier to cool now than
    | previously due to more large 'sinks in the market, and the larger
    | core area of a Palomino reduces the need for highest efficiency
    | heatsink base... you might have problems with a $8 'sink but certainy
    | for under $25 there's a few choices.
    |
    | Then again a Thoroughbred or newer might work on your motherboard, I
    | just don't know. The faster the chip the less likely it is to work
    | from an amperage perspective too, that board was designed around
    | older CPUs that used less current. It could run for awhile then fail
    | prematurely. If it were me at this point I'd be thinking about
    | upgrading the motherboard and memory, then whichever CPU fits the
    | budget, many people feel a Barton XP2500 is a good choice.

    Doesn't the Barton core run on a 333 MHz FSB - putting it outside of the
    OP's parameters ?
    Thoroughbred core XP2400 runs 266 MHz FSB and the early XP2600 did too -
    though newer ones are 333 MHz FSB.
    Kevin.
  34. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:
    | On Sun, 04 Apr 2004 19:34:42 +0800, sooky grumper wrote:
    |
    || Wes Newell wrote:
    ||| On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 12:18:47 +0100, Piotr Makley wrote:
    |||
    |||| Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:
    ||||
    |||||| Do you know where I can find power consumption figures for
    |||||| the Palomino's?
    |||||
    ||||| www.amd.com, but it draws considerably more power than the
    ||||| newer cores, and it won't clock near as high, about 1800MHz
    ||||| tops. IOW's, you don't want one. Get a Tbred B core or a
    ||||| barton core.
    ||||
    |||| I think my Via KT266 chipset doesn't support T-bred or Barton. I
    |||| think I am limited to only Palomino.
    ||||
    |||
    ||| You think wrong. The KT266(A) chipset will support any AMD
    ||| Athlon/Duron cpu. Any. And while it will run any, the FSB is
    ||| limited. Tbred and Barton cores also run fine on the very first
    ||| socket A VIA chipset, the KT133, which you see below. As will the
    ||| newer cores. See link in sig.
    |||
    ||
    || That'snot correct. While most motherboards will support other AMD
    || models, some do not. I've recently encountered one such situation,
    || where the motherboard would only accept Palomino cored Athlons.
    ||
    | Yes, it's correct. ANY socket A chipset will run ANY AMD K7 cpu. Now
    | boards could be another story, although I haven't encountered any that
    | couldn't be made to work. You're the second person to state this, but
    | I've yet to see anyone mention a board that doesn't work.

    Yes, good point, though it is worth checking that the BIOS verion you're
    planning to use will correctly enable all the 'features' of the proposed
    CPU. Remember that when AMD moved from Thunderbird to Thoroughbred cores
    they gained SSE etc.
    I think you'll find that the naming of the VIA chipsets - KT133, KT266,
    KT333, KT400, etc - is not referring to the FSB but to the memory bus. It
    specifies the fastest it will drive the memory bus (SDRAM or DDR RAM).
    For example, I have a Gigabyte GA-7VRXP board with a VIA KT333 chipset. The
    fastest FSB it can support is 266 MHz, as in a Thoroughbred core XP2400, and
    it can drive the memory up to 333MHz DDR. I could put a Barton core XP2500
    in it which in theory can go to 333 MHz FSB, but the chipset can't drive it
    that fast so it would be throttled-back to 266 MHz FSB. More expensive than
    an XP2400 for very little gain.
    No bollox - all based on practical experience and reading specs.
    Kevin.
  35. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 00:49:47 +0000 (UTC), "Kevin Lawton"
    <kepla@btopenworld.com> wrote:


    >| Then again a Thoroughbred or newer might work on your motherboard, I
    >| just don't know. The faster the chip the less likely it is to work
    >| from an amperage perspective too, that board was designed around
    >| older CPUs that used less current. It could run for awhile then fail
    >| prematurely. If it were me at this point I'd be thinking about
    >| upgrading the motherboard and memory, then whichever CPU fits the
    >| budget, many people feel a Barton XP2500 is a good choice.
    >
    >Doesn't the Barton core run on a 333 MHz FSB - putting it outside of the
    >OP's parameters ?
    >Thoroughbred core XP2400 runs 266 MHz FSB and the early XP2600 did too -
    >though newer ones are 333 MHz FSB.
    >Kevin.

    There are mobile Bartons that use DDR266 FSB, but they default at 6X
    multiplier, the motherboard must have the ability to manually set the
    multiplier higher. Even so, since they default to 6X (a multiplier under
    13X), they're stuck in that sub-13X range since the board likley doesn't
    have full multiplier selections, so the maximum resulting speed without
    any hacks or bus overclocking is 12.5 mult X 133 = 1.67GHz.

    However, we still don't even know if the present motherboard will even
    support any Barton... the suggestion I made in the prior post was right
    after I'd written "I'd be thinking about upgrading the motherboard and
    memory", with the presumption being that the upgrade would be a fairly
    modern motherboard with Barton & DDR333 FSB support.
  36. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 01:03:51 +0000 (UTC), "Kevin Lawton"
    <kepla@btopenworld.com> wrote:


    >Yes, good point, though it is worth checking that the BIOS verion you're
    >planning to use will correctly enable all the 'features' of the proposed
    >CPU. Remember that when AMD moved from Thunderbird to Thoroughbred cores
    >they gained SSE etc.

    Palomino was inbetween T'Bird and T'Bred, was the first to support SSE.


    >I think you'll find that the naming of the VIA chipsets - KT133, KT266,
    >KT333, KT400, etc - is not referring to the FSB but to the memory bus. It
    >specifies the fastest it will drive the memory bus (SDRAM or DDR RAM).
    >For example, I have a Gigabyte GA-7VRXP board with a VIA KT333 chipset. The
    >fastest FSB it can support is 266 MHz, as in a Thoroughbred core XP2400, and
    >it can drive the memory up to 333MHz DDR. I could put a Barton core XP2500
    >in it which in theory can go to 333 MHz FSB, but the chipset can't drive it
    >that fast so it would be throttled-back to 266 MHz FSB. More expensive than
    >an XP2400 for very little gain.

    7VRXP was a intentionally crippled. Most KT333 boards could run DDR333
    FSB cpus, though it is technically out of spec, the chipset was actually
    stable past DDR333, nearer to DDR400, but Gigabyte in particular chose not
    to support the 1/5 PCI divider. I had one of those board and had planned
    to build myself a system out of it but when I learned of the FSB, PCI
    issue I swapped to an Asus KT333 board which I still have as an aux.
    system running an o'c Barton.
  37. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 00:49:47 +0000, Kevin Lawton wrote:

    > Doesn't the Barton core run on a 333 MHz FSB - putting it outside of the
    > OP's parameters ?

    They run at whatever the user sets them to. Different models have
    different default speeds that they are supposed to run at to obtain the
    correct cpu speed for the model.

    > Thoroughbred core XP2400 runs 266 MHz FSB and the early XP2600 did too -
    > though newer ones are 333 MHz FSB.

    A Barton core 2800+ MP's default is 133MHz (266FSB) as are all MP models
    if I'm not mistaken.

    --
    Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
    http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm
  38. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
    | On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 00:49:47 +0000 (UTC), "Kevin Lawton"
    | <kepla@btopenworld.com> wrote:
    |
    |
    ||| Then again a Thoroughbred or newer might work on your motherboard, I
    ||| just don't know. The faster the chip the less likely it is to work
    ||| from an amperage perspective too, that board was designed around
    ||| older CPUs that used less current. It could run for awhile then
    ||| fail prematurely. If it were me at this point I'd be thinking about
    ||| upgrading the motherboard and memory, then whichever CPU fits the
    ||| budget, many people feel a Barton XP2500 is a good choice.
    ||
    || Doesn't the Barton core run on a 333 MHz FSB - putting it outside of
    || the OP's parameters ?
    || Thoroughbred core XP2400 runs 266 MHz FSB and the early XP2600 did
    || too - though newer ones are 333 MHz FSB.
    || Kevin.
    |
    | There are mobile Bartons that use DDR266 FSB, but they default at 6X
    | multiplier, the motherboard must have the ability to manually set the
    | multiplier higher. Even so, since they default to 6X (a multiplier
    | under 13X), they're stuck in that sub-13X range since the board
    | likley doesn't have full multiplier selections, so the maximum
    | resulting speed without any hacks or bus overclocking is 12.5 mult X
    | 133 = 1.67GHz.
    |
    | However, we still don't even know if the present motherboard will even
    | support any Barton... the suggestion I made in the prior post was
    | right after I'd written "I'd be thinking about upgrading the
    | motherboard and memory", with the presumption being that the upgrade
    | would be a fairly modern motherboard with Barton & DDR333 FSB support.

    Sorry, but either I am misunderstanding what you are saying or you are
    confusing memory bus speed and FSB speed. DDR 333 is effectively 333 M/sec
    on the memory bus (actually 2 x 166 MHz). 333 FSB is 333 MHz on the FSB to
    the processor. They don't have to be the same with several chipsets -
    including the VIA KT266, KT333 and KT400. The northbridge is able to run the
    front-side bus and the memory bus at different speeds. In the old days, both
    memory and process would run at the same speed - that of the slowest - or
    'wait states' would be intriduced if a fast processor was attached to slower
    memory, but now in the twenty-first century we can run them at different
    speeds. :-)
    My appologies for being either pedantic or pernikity, but the OP has a VIA
    KT266 chipset - 333 MHz FSB max to DDR 266 max.
    Kevin.
  39. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
    | On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 01:03:51 +0000 (UTC), "Kevin Lawton"
    | <kepla@btopenworld.com> wrote:
    |
    |
    || Yes, good point, though it is worth checking that the BIOS verion
    || you're planning to use will correctly enable all the 'features' of
    || the proposed CPU. Remember that when AMD moved from Thunderbird to
    || Thoroughbred cores they gained SSE etc.
    |
    | Palomino was inbetween T'Bird and T'Bred, was the first to support
    | SSE.
    |
    |
    || I think you'll find that the naming of the VIA chipsets - KT133,
    || KT266, KT333, KT400, etc - is not referring to the FSB but to the
    || memory bus. It specifies the fastest it will drive the memory bus
    || (SDRAM or DDR RAM).
    || For example, I have a Gigabyte GA-7VRXP board with a VIA KT333
    || chipset. The fastest FSB it can support is 266 MHz, as in a
    || Thoroughbred core XP2400, and it can drive the memory up to 333MHz
    || DDR. I could put a Barton core XP2500 in it which in theory can go
    || to 333 MHz FSB, but the chipset can't drive it that fast so it would
    || be throttled-back to 266 MHz FSB. More expensive than an XP2400 for
    || very little gain.
    |
    | 7VRXP was a intentionally crippled. Most KT333 boards could run
    | DDR333
    | FSB cpus, though it is technically out of spec, the chipset was
    | actually stable past DDR333, nearer to DDR400, but Gigabyte in
    | particular chose not to support the 1/5 PCI divider. I had one of
    | those board and had planned
    | to build myself a system out of it but when I learned of the FSB, PCI
    | issue I swapped to an Asus KT333 board which I still have as an aux.
    | system running an o'c Barton.

    Interesting to hear of someone else with a GA-7VRXP. :-o
    May I ask what CPU and op system you ran and if you had any problems ? I'm
    finding mine a bitch to get going with Windows 2000 on an XP2400 !
    Kevin.
  40. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    Kevin Lawton <kepla@btopenworld.com> wrote:
    <snip>
    | Sorry, but either I am misunderstanding what you are saying or you are
    | confusing memory bus speed and FSB speed. DDR 333 is effectively 333
    | M/sec on the memory bus (actually 2 x 166 MHz). 333 FSB is 333 MHz on
    | the FSB to the processor. They don't have to be the same with several
    | chipsets - including the VIA KT266, KT333 and KT400. The northbridge
    | is able to run the front-side bus and the memory bus at different
    | speeds. In the old days, both memory and process would run at the
    | same speed - that of the slowest - or 'wait states' would be
    | intriduced if a fast processor was attached to slower memory, but now
    | in the twenty-first century we can run them at different speeds. :-)
    | My appologies for being either pedantic or pernikity, but the OP has
    | a VIA KT266 chipset - 333 MHz FSB max to DDR 266 max.

    Profuse appologies to all readers of this newsgroup for replying to my own
    posting, but I got that last bit wrong - didn't I ? :-(
    The VIA chipset does NOT support a 333 MHz FSB, but it DOES support DDR 266
    maximum.
    Kevin.
  41. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    "Kevin Lawton" <kepla@btopenworld.com> wrote:

    >||| Then again a Thoroughbred or newer might work on your
    >||| motherboard, I just don't know. The faster the chip the
    >||| less likely it is to work from an amperage perspective too,
    >||| that board was designed around older CPUs that used less
    >||| current. It could run for awhile then fail prematurely.
    >||| If it were me at this point I'd be thinking about upgrading
    >||| the motherboard and memory, then whichever CPU fits the
    >||| budget, many people feel a Barton XP2500 is a good choice.
    >||
    >|| Doesn't the Barton core run on a 333 MHz FSB - putting it
    >|| outside of the OP's parameters ?
    >|| Thoroughbred core XP2400 runs 266 MHz FSB and the early
    >|| XP2600 did too - though newer ones are 333 MHz FSB.
    >|| Kevin.
    >|
    >| There are mobile Bartons that use DDR266 FSB, but they
    >| default at 6X multiplier, the motherboard must have the
    >| ability to manually set the multiplier higher. Even so,
    >| since they default to 6X (a multiplier under 13X), they're
    >| stuck in that sub-13X range since the board likley doesn't
    >| have full multiplier selections, so the maximum resulting
    >| speed without any hacks or bus overclocking is 12.5 mult X
    >| 133 = 1.67GHz.
    >|
    >| However, we still don't even know if the present motherboard
    >| will even support any Barton... the suggestion I made in the
    >| prior post was right after I'd written "I'd be thinking about
    >| upgrading the motherboard and memory", with the presumption
    >| being that the upgrade would be a fairly modern motherboard
    >| with Barton & DDR333 FSB support.
    >
    > Sorry, but either I am misunderstanding what you are saying or
    > you are confusing memory bus speed and FSB speed. DDR 333 is
    > effectively 333 M/sec on the memory bus (actually 2 x 166
    > MHz). 333 FSB is 333 MHz on the FSB to the processor. They
    > don't have to be the same with several chipsets - including
    > the VIA KT266, KT333 and KT400. The northbridge is able to run
    > the front-side bus and the memory bus at different speeds. In
    > the old days, both memory and process would run at the same
    > speed - that of the slowest - or 'wait states' would be
    > intriduced if a fast processor was attached to slower memory,
    > but now in the twenty-first century we can run them at
    > different speeds. :-)
    > My appologies for being either pedantic or pernikity, but the
    > OP has a VIA KT266 chipset - 333 MHz FSB max to DDR 266 max.
    > Kevin.


    Hi Kevin and Kony, I am the OP. Here is a long posting with more
    details. Just to recap this thread, I am trying to work out which
    is the best processor to use on my mobo bearing in mind that I want
    to mimimize any increase in power required.

    I thought Kony had said the last word but Kev points out something
    about bus speeds. Kev, just in case the 'A' makes a difference my
    chipset is a Via KT266A not the KT266 you mentioned. (I am told
    that the 'A' brings "Improved memory timing and deeper command
    queues"). The Via specs are at:
    http://www.via.com.tw/en/apollo/KT266A.jsp

    My memory is 133 MHz SDRAM and the mobo is a Syntax SV266A (see
    below for more info and links).

    ---

    I'm far from being an expert on what you, Kev, wrote about cpu and
    memory bus speeds so I consulted my copy of "Upgrading and
    Repairing PCs" by Scott Mueller. http://tinyurl.com/yvz4j. He
    says:

    <QUOTE from page 319> The best solution is if the memory bus runs
    at the same speed as the processor bus. Systems that use PC133
    SDRAM have a memory bandwidth of 1066 MBps, which is the same as
    the 133 MHz cpu bus. In another example, Athlon systems running a
    266 MHz processor bus also run PC2100 DDR-SDRAM, which has a memory
    bandwidth of 1066 MBps - exactly the same as the processor bus in
    those systems. [-- snip Pentium stuff --] Running memory at the
    same speed as the processor bus negates the need for having cache
    memory on the motherboard. That is why when the L2 cache moved
    into the processor, nobody added an L3 cache to the motherboard.
    <UNQUOTE> He says elsewhere: "It is always best for performance
    when the bandwidth of memory matches that of the processor".

    As I said above, my mobo is a budget Syntax SV266A. I chose this
    because I wanted to use the SDRAM from a previous mobo. The Syntax
    mobo has a jumper for 100 MHz or 133 MHz cpu frequency but there
    are no other jumpers for bus multipliers.

    Syntax support (inc PDF manual) for SV266A is at:
    http://www.syntaxusa.com/support/downloads.php

    Syntax nowadays have a model SV266AD which I think only adds some
    USB ports to the model SV266A. Specs for the current Syntax
    SV266AD is at: http://tinyurl.com/yt2an

    For what it is worth, Ebuyer customer feedback on my SV266A mobo is
    at: http://tinyurl.com/3d44w. But note that this Syntax SV266A is
    definitely *not* a PCchips board.

    So, guys, with all this new info about my mobo what is the thinking
    on the best way forward for a processor for me? Currently I have
    two cpus on my shortlist ..

    (a) Duron 1800
    (b) one of late T'bred Athlons up to a 2400+ if PSU permits.

    Any views?

    PS: In case it is a factor, the BIOS has options (1) to regulate
    the cpu voltage and (2) the CPU Host Clock as shown on the PDF
    manual on page 47). I don't know if these help but maybe I can
    underclock any replacement cpu if it gets to be too demanding for
    my PSU. dont know about this sort of thing. Can I do that with
    the BIOS options I have got?
  42. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:05:24 +0100, Piotr Makley <pmakley@mail.com> wrote:


    >Hi Kevin and Kony, I am the OP. Here is a long posting with more
    >details. Just to recap this thread, I am trying to work out which
    >is the best processor to use on my mobo bearing in mind that I want
    >to mimimize any increase in power required.
    >
    >I thought Kony had said the last word but Kev points out something
    >about bus speeds. Kev, just in case the 'A' makes a difference my
    >chipset is a Via KT266A not the KT266 you mentioned. (I am told
    >that the 'A' brings "Improved memory timing and deeper command
    >queues"). The Via specs are at:
    >http://www.via.com.tw/en/apollo/KT266A.jsp

    Simply put, we can ignore the memory bus speed. It is not a deciding
    factor on which CPU can be used, but rather it's derived from the FSB
    speed, that speed need support the CPU used for it to run at proper AMD
    spec'd speed. Being KT266A, it supports 100 or 133MHz Clock rate, at
    double data rate it's "DDR266", sometimes confusingly called 266MHz.

    This would allow the Duron or any Palomino, and T'Bred with DDR266 FSB,
    not DDR33 FSB, and futher any Mobile Barton using DDR266 FSB, but not the
    regular desktop Barton with DDR333 FSB. The primary issue is then which
    CPU core (family) the motherboard supports. Again, I don't know this.
    The most likley CPU to work would be a Palomino core but those are also
    the hotter, most power hungry per MHz. To get higher performance with
    similar power consumption (and heat) you generally have to use a smaller
    process size CPU, like the Duron, T'Bred, or Barton.


    >As I said above, my mobo is a budget Syntax SV266A. I chose this
    >because I wanted to use the SDRAM from a previous mobo. The Syntax
    >mobo has a jumper for 100 MHz or 133 MHz cpu frequency but there
    >are no other jumpers for bus multipliers.
    >
    >Syntax support (inc PDF manual) for SV266A is at:
    >http://www.syntaxusa.com/support/downloads.php
    >
    >Syntax nowadays have a model SV266AD which I think only adds some
    >USB ports to the model SV266A. Specs for the current Syntax
    >SV266AD is at: http://tinyurl.com/yt2an
    >
    >For what it is worth, Ebuyer customer feedback on my SV266A mobo is
    >at: http://tinyurl.com/3d44w. But note that this Syntax SV266A is
    >definitely *not* a PCchips board.
    >
    >So, guys, with all this new info about my mobo what is the thinking
    >on the best way forward for a processor for me? Currently I have
    >two cpus on my shortlist ..
    >
    >(a) Duron 1800
    >(b) one of late T'bred Athlons up to a 2400+ if PSU permits.
    >
    >Any views?

    Given that your power supply is a limit I'd get the Duron. An XP2400
    might be faster, but would tend to consume more power too... performance
    isn't "free".
  43. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 07:58:40 +0000 (UTC), "Kevin Lawton"
    <kepla@btopenworld.com> wrote:


    >| 7VRXP was a intentionally crippled. Most KT333 boards could run
    >| DDR333
    >| FSB cpus, though it is technically out of spec, the chipset was
    >| actually stable past DDR333, nearer to DDR400, but Gigabyte in
    >| particular chose not to support the 1/5 PCI divider. I had one of
    >| those board and had planned
    >| to build myself a system out of it but when I learned of the FSB, PCI
    >| issue I swapped to an Asus KT333 board which I still have as an aux.
    >| system running an o'c Barton.
    >
    >Interesting to hear of someone else with a GA-7VRXP. :-o
    >May I ask what CPU and op system you ran and if you had any problems ? I'm
    >finding mine a bitch to get going with Windows 2000 on an XP2400 !
    >Kevin.

    I don't have the board anymore. I did with it what I do with most, when
    it came in I plug-n-played a previously-existing Win98SE testbed
    installation (simply because Win98SE will so easily plug-n-play install
    with a testbed config with all software ready to go in under 10 minutes)
    to test it for performance/defect/etc. At the time I put a (think it was
    a T'Bred) XP1700 into it, only to find that it wouldn't even support
    DDR333 FSB. There was silkscreening on the PCB for a switch header, IIRC,
    but no switch or support circuit for it so the board was stuck with max
    1/4 PCI divider. I don't recall the revision I had. Since it wouldn't do
    DDR333 I thought about returning it but instead sold it, never had it in a
    finished, "used" system.

    There isn't anything I'm aware of that would interfere with a KT333
    chipset board running Win2K, though of course you need the 4in1 chipset
    driver. I thought I had heard someone report that theirs was instable
    with higher speed CPUs but I don't have any better recollection of their
    setup, it could've easily been the power supply, not the board. About the
    only suggestion I can make is trying newest bios available and run
    Memtest86 on it if you hadn't already.
  44. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
    | On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 07:58:40 +0000 (UTC), "Kevin Lawton"
    | <kepla@btopenworld.com> wrote:
    |
    |
    ||| 7VRXP was a intentionally crippled. Most KT333 boards could run
    ||| DDR333
    ||| FSB cpus, though it is technically out of spec, the chipset was
    ||| actually stable past DDR333, nearer to DDR400, but Gigabyte in
    ||| particular chose not to support the 1/5 PCI divider. I had one of
    ||| those board and had planned
    ||| to build myself a system out of it but when I learned of the FSB,
    ||| PCI issue I swapped to an Asus KT333 board which I still have as an
    ||| aux. system running an o'c Barton.
    ||
    || Interesting to hear of someone else with a GA-7VRXP. :-o
    || May I ask what CPU and op system you ran and if you had any problems
    || ? I'm finding mine a bitch to get going with Windows 2000 on an
    || XP2400 !
    || Kevin.
    |
    | I don't have the board anymore. I did with it what I do with most,
    | when
    | it came in I plug-n-played a previously-existing Win98SE testbed
    | installation (simply because Win98SE will so easily plug-n-play
    | install
    | with a testbed config with all software ready to go in under 10
    | minutes)
    | to test it for performance/defect/etc. At the time I put a (think
    | it was
    | a T'Bred) XP1700 into it, only to find that it wouldn't even support
    | DDR333 FSB. There was silkscreening on the PCB for a switch header,
    | IIRC, but no switch or support circuit for it so the board was stuck
    | with max 1/4 PCI divider. I don't recall the revision I had. Since
    | it wouldn't do DDR333 I thought about returning it but instead sold
    | it, never had it in a finished, "used" system.
    |
    | There isn't anything I'm aware of that would interfere with a KT333
    | chipset board running Win2K, though of course you need the 4in1
    | chipset driver. I thought I had heard someone report that theirs was
    | instable
    | with higher speed CPUs but I don't have any better recollection of
    | their setup, it could've easily been the power supply, not the board.
    | About the only suggestion I can make is trying newest bios available
    | and run
    | Memtest86 on it if you hadn't already.

    That's interesting, Kony, I didn't know you could get a Thoroughbred core
    with 333 FSB - I thought they were all 266 FSB as my XP2400 certainly is. I
    had believed you had to go to a Barton core or better to get 333 FSB. That's
    why I got the XP2400 - fastest CPU with 266 FSB. I would have got an XP2600
    with 333 FSB if I had thought the board would support it, but Gigabyte say
    it doesn't.
    I am successfully running DDR 333 memory, so the memory bus is running
    effectively 333 MHz (hence the 'KT333' designation I understand). This is
    even working fine with a Duron 650 CPU with the FSB switched to 200 FSB (100
    MHz clock). The clever thing with the VIA KT266 and KT333 chipsets is that
    they can run the front side bus and memory bus at different clock rates. On
    this board - GA-7VRXP Rev1.1 - you set the CPU FSB clock and multiplier
    using switches on the board, but set the memory bus speed in the BIOS. So
    you can 'mix and match' CPUs and memory and have the chipset take care of
    it. No worry, the board does DDR333 (PC2700), DDR266 (PC2100) or DDR200
    (PC1600) just by setting the memory bus speed to 166 MHz, 133 MHz or 100 MHz
    in the BIOS. If you were hoping to run the XP1700 with a 333 FSB (166 MHz
    CPU clock) I can understand your disappointment - this board does not
    support that FSB and I'm not too sure the CPU would like it either !
    As regards my Windows 2000 problem (a little off-topic - I do hope the OP
    doesn't mind) it has gone in and is running fine with the Duron 650 (or a
    Duron 1200) in place, but stick in the XP2400 and it hangs at the splash
    screen. Windows Me and Linux run fine on the XP2400 and this board, even
    BeOS runs once the kernel has been patched to support SSE. It is just the
    combination of XP2400 and Windows 2000 which screws up ! Very puzzling
    indeed. I've swapped every system component in turn, even gone to a 550w PSU
    and the problem remains - I even swapped the GA-7VRXP for another one. In
    both cases, the BIOS version is the latest available on the website. A big
    puzzler this one, it has kept me busy for a couple of weeks now. Someone
    mentioned disabling CPU caches to see if the CPU was at fault, but I can't
    find the right BIOS option for doing that (do you know any better than me
    ?). Woudn't mind running some CPU diagnostic software to fully test the
    XP2400 before I go and buy another - do you know of anything ?
    Kevin.
  45. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 14:32:44 +0000 (UTC), "Kevin Lawton"
    <kepla@btinternet.com> wrote:


    >That's interesting, Kony, I didn't know you could get a Thoroughbred core
    >with 333 FSB - I thought they were all 266 FSB as my XP2400 certainly is. I
    >had believed you had to go to a Barton core or better to get 333 FSB. That's
    >why I got the XP2400 - fastest CPU with 266 FSB. I would have got an XP2600
    >with 333 FSB if I had thought the board would support it, but Gigabyte say
    >it doesn't.

    It's not that the CPU had a default DDR333 FSB, rather that that's how I
    run 'em in any box with motherboard/memory that'll support DDR333. The
    CPU will handle whichever FSB you like so long as you have multiplier
    adjustements or "hack-it-out" to the multiplier you want. Then again,
    some of the T'Bred I have/had would o'c to DDR333 FSB without fooling with
    the multiplier, though I don't recall if that particular CPU would or not.
    Point being, the most performance can be extracted from any given AMD cpu
    by running at highest (stable) synchronous FSB & mem bus. Today that
    would typically mean using an nForce2 Ultra board with PC3200 or higher
    memory, shooting for a minimum of 200MHz FSB with any CPU installed. One
    thing to consider though is that if the CPU can do more work running this
    way, it may easily run hotter, not due to the FSB speed but greater,
    closer to true "full load" potential.


    >I am successfully running DDR 333 memory, so the memory bus is running
    >effectively 333 MHz (hence the 'KT333' designation I understand). This is
    >even working fine with a Duron 650 CPU with the FSB switched to 200 FSB (100
    >MHz clock). The clever thing with the VIA KT266 and KT333 chipsets is that
    >they can run the front side bus and memory bus at different clock rates.

    It's not all that great though, there is a performane hit involved with
    running in async mode. The FSB throughput is a bottleneck so in some
    cases performance goes up by reducing memory bus to sync mode.


    > On
    >this board - GA-7VRXP Rev1.1 - you set the CPU FSB clock and multiplier
    >using switches on the board, but set the memory bus speed in the BIOS. So
    >you can 'mix and match' CPUs and memory and have the chipset take care of
    >it. No worry, the board does DDR333 (PC2700), DDR266 (PC2100) or DDR200
    >(PC1600) just by setting the memory bus speed to 166 MHz, 133 MHz or 100 MHz
    >in the BIOS. If you were hoping to run the XP1700 with a 333 FSB (166 MHz
    >CPU clock) I can understand your disappointment - this board does not
    >support that FSB and I'm not too sure the CPU would like it either !

    Yes the CPU, as well as Palomino, Thorton, Barton, Duron (at least the
    newer cores), will do it fine, even 200Mhz FSB, providing the resultant
    MHz speed of CPU itself is still within it's ability to run stabily. To
    that end the board and memory are the determining factors.

    >As regards my Windows 2000 problem (a little off-topic - I do hope the OP
    >doesn't mind) it has gone in and is running fine with the Duron 650 (or a
    >Duron 1200) in place, but stick in the XP2400 and it hangs at the splash
    >screen. Windows Me and Linux run fine on the XP2400 and this board, even
    >BeOS runs once the kernel has been patched to support SSE. It is just the
    >combination of XP2400 and Windows 2000 which screws up ! Very puzzling
    >indeed. I've swapped every system component in turn, even gone to a 550w PSU
    >and the problem remains - I even swapped the GA-7VRXP for another one. In
    >both cases, the BIOS version is the latest available on the website. A big
    >puzzler this one, it has kept me busy for a couple of weeks now. Someone
    >mentioned disabling CPU caches to see if the CPU was at fault, but I can't
    >find the right BIOS option for doing that (do you know any better than me
    >?). Woudn't mind running some CPU diagnostic software to fully test the
    >XP2400 before I go and buy another - do you know of anything ?
    >Kevin.

    How exactly does Win2K err? ALWAYS at the splash screen?
    You wouldn't happen to have another Windows OS you could try, WinXP or
    Win98SE?

    This was an existing Win2K installation on that board with all same
    components except you'd swapped out the Duron, replaced with the XP2400?

    I'd try clearing CMOS to reset to defaults and leaving it at the defaults
    except the following:
    Does it exhibit same error if you reduce FSB speed to 100MHz, underclock?
    I would definitely leave the memory in synchronous mode, 133MHz (or 100MHz
    if you underclock the FSB to 100MHz), for any further testing, and try
    with only one memory module.

    What about the hardware monitor screen in the BIOS, or if you have the
    ability to use a multimeter to measure CPU vCore on the board, does it
    seem appropriate?

    It's not a generic 550W PSU, is it?
    I supose it's possible the CPU is defective, but in general and especially
    considering that it ran other OS, seems unlikely.
  46. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
    <snip>
    | It's not that the CPU had a default DDR333 FSB, rather that that's
    | how I run 'em in any box with motherboard/memory that'll support
    | DDR333. The
    | CPU will handle whichever FSB you like so long as you have multiplier
    | adjustements or "hack-it-out" to the multiplier you want. Then again,
    | some of the T'Bred I have/had would o'c to DDR333 FSB without fooling
    | with the multiplier, though I don't recall if that particular CPU
    | would or not. Point being, the most performance can be extracted from
    | any given AMD cpu
    | by running at highest (stable) synchronous FSB & mem bus. Today that
    | would typically mean using an nForce2 Ultra board with PC3200 or
    | higher memory, shooting for a minimum of 200MHz FSB with any CPU
    | installed. One thing to consider though is that if the CPU can do
    | more work running this way, it may easily run hotter, not due to the
    | FSB speed but greater,
    | closer to true "full load" potential.

    To be honest, absolute top performance is 'too rich for my blood' - or to
    put it another way, only a small gain for a lot more cash. I wanted to build
    this machine for a reasonable price for video capture and editing. My
    fastest machine so far was a 1.4 GHz Athlon Thunderbird with 133 MHz SDRAM.
    I figured an XP2400 with DDR 333 memory would give sufficient performance
    without shredding my wallet. To be honest, rather than overclock I'm happy
    to just run a system as specced and hope for reliability. .
    |
    || I am successfully running DDR 333 memory, so the memory bus is
    || running effectively 333 MHz (hence the 'KT333' designation I
    || understand). This is even working fine with a Duron 650 CPU with the
    || FSB switched to 200 FSB (100 MHz clock). The clever thing with the
    || VIA KT266 and KT333 chipsets is that they can run the front side bus
    || and memory bus at different clock rates.
    |
    | It's not all that great though, there is a performane hit involved
    | with running in async mode. The FSB throughput is a bottleneck so in
    | some
    | cases performance goes up by reducing memory bus to sync mode.

    I guess I'll not lose much throughput by running the memory bus at 266 MHz
    the same as the front-side bus - and will probably get it back as it will be
    synched.

    || On
    || this board - GA-7VRXP Rev1.1 - you set the CPU FSB clock and
    || multiplier using switches on the board, but set the memory bus speed
    || in the BIOS. So you can 'mix and match' CPUs and memory and have the
    || chipset take care of it. No worry, the board does DDR333 (PC2700),
    || DDR266 (PC2100) or DDR200 (PC1600) just by setting the memory bus
    || speed to 166 MHz, 133 MHz or 100 MHz in the BIOS. If you were hoping
    || to run the XP1700 with a 333 FSB (166 MHz CPU clock) I can
    || understand your disappointment - this board does not support that
    || FSB and I'm not too sure the CPU would like it either !
    |
    | Yes the CPU, as well as Palomino, Thorton, Barton, Duron (at least the
    | newer cores), will do it fine, even 200Mhz FSB, providing the
    | resultant
    | MHz speed of CPU itself is still within it's ability to run stabily.
    | To that end the board and memory are the determining factors.

    So could I run the XP2400 with a 333 FSB (166 MHz x 2) and the correct
    multiplier to sync with my DDR 333 memory on the right m/board ? The
    GA-7VRXP won't let me set the FSB that high. :-(
    |
    || As regards my Windows 2000 problem (a little off-topic - I do hope
    || the OP doesn't mind) it has gone in and is running fine with the
    || Duron 650 (or a Duron 1200) in place, but stick in the XP2400 and it
    || hangs at the splash screen. Windows Me and Linux run fine on the
    || XP2400 and this board, even BeOS runs once the kernel has been
    || patched to support SSE. It is just the combination of XP2400 and
    || Windows 2000 which screws up ! Very puzzling indeed. I've swapped
    || every system component in turn, even gone to a 550w PSU and the
    || problem remains - I even swapped the GA-7VRXP for another one. In
    || both cases, the BIOS version is the latest available on the website.
    || A big puzzler this one, it has kept me busy for a couple of weeks
    || now. Someone mentioned disabling CPU caches to see if the CPU was at
    || fault, but I can't find the right BIOS option for doing that (do you
    || know any better than me ?). Woudn't mind running some CPU diagnostic
    || software to fully test the XP2400 before I go and buy another - do
    || you know of anything ?
    || Kevin.
    |
    | How exactly does Win2K err? ALWAYS at the splash screen?
    | You wouldn't happen to have another Windows OS you could try, WinXP or
    | Win98SE?

    Yes, it always hangs at the same place - either after the first re-boot on a
    fresh install, or when booting a previous installation, the 'Starting
    Windows' progress stripe completes and then it just hangs - overnight if
    left that long. At that point it should bring up the Windows 2000 splash
    screen, but it doesn't. If I choose 'Safe mode with Command Prompt' it shows
    the last module successfully loaded as 'Mup.sys', so I think it is hanging
    immediately after that.
    DOS works fine, Windows 95 works fine, Windows Me works fine, Linux - Red
    Hat 9 - works fine, BeOS 5 works after the 'SSE' patch has been installed.
    It just seems to hang with Windows 2000.

    | This was an existing Win2K installation on that board with all same
    | components except you'd swapped out the Duron, replaced with the
    | XP2400?

    Yes, I've tried that with every system component in turn - one at a time of
    course. Duron 650 - all fine, Duron 1200 - all fine, XP2400 - Windows 2000
    hangs but any other op system seems to work okay. I was wondering if I could
    try radically under-clocking the XP2400 - or might that harm it ?

    | I'd try clearing CMOS to reset to defaults and leaving it at the
    | defaults except the following:

    Yes, I tried that - same results.

    | Does it exhibit same error if you reduce FSB speed to 100MHz,
    | underclock?

    Yes, I have tried setting FSB clock to 100 MHz and the results were the
    same.

    | I would definitely leave the memory in synchronous mode, 133MHz (or
    | 100MHz if you underclock the FSB to 100MHz), for any further testing,
    | and try with only one memory module.

    I have tried bringng the memory bus clock down to the same as the CPU clock,
    and have tried several different memory strips - all PC2700 / DDR 333.
    Various makes of memory - some 'Crucial' and others. All the same results
    again.

    | What about the hardware monitor screen in the BIOS, or if you have the
    | ability to use a multimeter to measure CPU vCore on the board, does it
    | seem appropriate?

    I think so - I will get the specs off te AMD site and double-check. I have
    tried two different (or identical) GA-7VRXP boards and two power supplies at
    diffeerent times (only change one thing at a time) started with a 300w and
    moved to a 550w. Would you suggest altering the vCore setting, or might that
    damage the CPU ?

    | It's not a generic 550W PSU, is it?

    No, I use branded CPUs. I did also try a 450w Antec at one point, but that
    was destined for a different machine.
    Given that I'm only running a few components - one hard drive, etc, I would
    have thought that the 300w would be ample and the 550w overkill.

    I supose it's possible the CPU is defective, but in general and
    | especially considering that it ran other OS, seems unlikely.

    That's what I figured. If I could find any CPU diagnostic software to run
    under dos, Windows Me or Linux, then I could be conclusive about the CPU
    without having to buy another to swap with it. Any ideas here ?
    TIA
    Kevin.
  47. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 17:55:29 +0000 (UTC), "Kevin Lawton"
    <kepla@btinternet.com> wrote:

    >To be honest, absolute top performance is 'too rich for my blood' - or to
    >put it another way, only a small gain for a lot more cash. I wanted to build
    >this machine for a reasonable price for video capture and editing. My
    >fastest machine so far was a 1.4 GHz Athlon Thunderbird with 133 MHz SDRAM.
    >I figured an XP2400 with DDR 333 memory would give sufficient performance
    >without shredding my wallet. To be honest, rather than overclock I'm happy
    >to just run a system as specced and hope for reliability. .

    I don't usually go for top performance either, rather the top performance
    that can be attained _quietly_, without undue expense or excessive temp.
    Running the FSB higher with reduced multiplier is only technically an o'c
    but not really significant of the board and CPU are within core margins.


    >I guess I'll not lose much throughput by running the memory bus at 266 MHz
    >the same as the front-side bus - and will probably get it back as it will be
    >synched.

    Often the greatest gain is from bumping the FSB a little bit if possible,
    after setting tightest memory timings possible, though it takes a LOT of
    testing to be sure there's no memory errors... better safe than sorry,
    leave a good 5-10% margin for memory.


    >So could I run the XP2400 with a 333 FSB (166 MHz x 2) and the correct
    >multiplier to sync with my DDR 333 memory on the right m/board ? The
    >GA-7VRXP won't let me set the FSB that high. :-(

    Yes, if your memory is PC2700 then any nForce board should do nicely.
    IIRC the XP2400 is 2.0 GHz so that'd translate into 12 X 166. Some boards
    don't allow reducing the 15X default multiplier below 13X though, and I
    don't recall the easiest way to tell which boards do and don't allow it,
    so research of a particular board is warranted, or just set it to 13X 166
    = 2.17GHz... an XP2400 should be able to run @ 2.17GHz easily, even if you
    had to up the vCore to 1.7V. Point being, since Athlons have multipler
    adjustment except for the newer Thortons and desktop Bartons, there are a
    lot of options for which multi & FSB combination to use.


    >| How exactly does Win2K err? ALWAYS at the splash screen?
    >| You wouldn't happen to have another Windows OS you could try, WinXP or
    >| Win98SE?
    >
    >Yes, it always hangs at the same place - either after the first re-boot on a
    >fresh install, or when booting a previous installation, the 'Starting
    >Windows' progress stripe completes and then it just hangs - overnight if
    >left that long. At that point it should bring up the Windows 2000 splash
    >screen, but it doesn't. If I choose 'Safe mode with Command Prompt' it shows
    >the last module successfully loaded as 'Mup.sys', so I think it is hanging
    >immediately after that.

    That's a really good place to start investigating.
    http://www.google.com/search?q=Mup.sys+freeze+OR+halt
    http://www.earthv.com/tips_detail.asp?TipID=63


    >DOS works fine, Windows 95 works fine, Windows Me works fine, Linux - Red
    >Hat 9 - works fine, BeOS 5 works after the 'SSE' patch has been installed.
    >It just seems to hang with Windows 2000.

    It would seem quite unlikely to be the CPU. If it's just the USB2 as one
    of the above links suggests, disable that and retry. You might also seek
    a Win2K boot list to get an idea of what might be loading next after
    mup.sys. The thing that makes no sense is that it'd happen with the
    XP2400 but not the Duron, if it were the USB2.

    >
    >| This was an existing Win2K installation on that board with all same
    >| components except you'd swapped out the Duron, replaced with the
    >| XP2400?
    >
    >Yes, I've tried that with every system component in turn - one at a time of
    >course. Duron 650 - all fine, Duron 1200 - all fine, XP2400 - Windows 2000
    >hangs but any other op system seems to work okay. I was wondering if I could
    >try radically under-clocking the XP2400 - or might that harm it ?

    Radically? Shouldn't harm it at all. Most motherboard chipsets are only
    stable down to around 50MHz FSB, but I doubt your board even supports
    under 100MHz FSB.


    >
    >| I'd try clearing CMOS to reset to defaults and leaving it at the
    >| defaults except the following:
    >
    >Yes, I tried that - same results.
    >
    >| Does it exhibit same error if you reduce FSB speed to 100MHz,
    >| underclock?
    >
    >Yes, I have tried setting FSB clock to 100 MHz and the results were the
    >same.

    Try disabling all onboard features, USB, sound, etc, etc.

    >
    >| I would definitely leave the memory in synchronous mode, 133MHz (or
    >| 100MHz if you underclock the FSB to 100MHz), for any further testing,
    >| and try with only one memory module.
    >
    >I have tried bringng the memory bus clock down to the same as the CPU clock,
    >and have tried several different memory strips - all PC2700 / DDR 333.
    >Various makes of memory - some 'Crucial' and others. All the same results
    >again.
    >
    >| What about the hardware monitor screen in the BIOS, or if you have the
    >| ability to use a multimeter to measure CPU vCore on the board, does it
    >| seem appropriate?
    >
    >I think so - I will get the specs off te AMD site and double-check. I have
    >tried two different (or identical) GA-7VRXP boards and two power supplies at
    >diffeerent times (only change one thing at a time) started with a 300w and
    >moved to a 550w. Would you suggest altering the vCore setting, or might that
    >damage the CPU ?
    >
    >| It's not a generic 550W PSU, is it?
    >
    >No, I use branded CPUs. I did also try a 450w Antec at one point, but that
    >was destined for a different machine.
    >Given that I'm only running a few components - one hard drive, etc, I would
    >have thought that the 300w would be ample and the 550w overkill.

    Yes, that's enough power but I was just trying to rule out overrated power
    supplies... some generics marked as 550W are only worth 250... the Antec
    450W should've been more than enough power.


    >
    >I supose it's possible the CPU is defective, but in general and
    >| especially considering that it ran other OS, seems unlikely.
    >
    >That's what I figured. If I could find any CPU diagnostic software to run
    >under dos, Windows Me or Linux, then I could be conclusive about the CPU
    >without having to buy another to swap with it. Any ideas here ?
    >TIA
    >Kevin.

    Prime95? There are a number of programs claiming to do a diagnostic of a
    whole system but nothing comes to mind that would stress test a cpu using
    all possible instructions. Still, if the system runs flawlessly on WinME
    (or relatively so, it IS WinME!) it would more likley be something onboard
    the Gigabyte motherboard causing the problem, a feature, not the KT333
    chipset since those are quite common and not reported in any large numbers
    to be problematic with Win2K.
  48. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    Just to throw in here,

    I have an older chipset, KT133A, that is currently running an XP2400. Power
    requirements for this proc are less than the 1.4 T-Bird I ran for 2 years.
    My opinion is that your board will run the XP2400. It will, in fact run an
    XP2500 333fsb. The limitation will depend on whether or not that barton is
    locked, and how happy your board is being pushed. The mem (sdram) unless it
    is high perf, will not like going past 143 - 147 fsb. If the proc is locked,
    as most now are, your results are likely to be about 145 X 11.5 or 1667 mhz
    on a barton.
    The XP2400 will give you 2000 mhz, an obvious choice.
    I have had a 1.4T-Bird, XP1800, XP2400, XP2500 Barton all running on mine,
    the T-bird being the only officially supported.
    Wes Newell and Michael Brown (amongst others) both offer great info on
    boards and processors. Browse their sites.
    Dive in and have fun.
    And always watch temps!

    Regards,

    Garry.


    "Piotr Makley" <pmakley@mail.com> wrote in message
    news:94CD70D053E331E75@130.133.1.4...
    >>
    > Hi Kevin and Kony, I am the OP. Here is a long posting with more
    > details. Just to recap this thread, I am trying to work out which
    > is the best processor to use on my mobo bearing in mind that I want
    > to mimimize any increase in power required.
    >
    > I thought Kony had said the last word but Kev points out something
    > about bus speeds. Kev, just in case the 'A' makes a difference my
    > chipset is a Via KT266A not the KT266 you mentioned. (I am told
    > that the 'A' brings "Improved memory timing and deeper command
    > queues"). The Via specs are at:
    > http://www.via.com.tw/en/apollo/KT266A.jsp
    >
    > My memory is 133 MHz SDRAM and the mobo is a Syntax SV266A (see
    > below for more info and links).
    >
    > ---
  49. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,uk.comp.homebuilt (More info?)

    Garry,
    I've got to thank you for giving me an idea as regards a problem I currently
    have: trying to get an XP2400 to run Windows 2000 on a GA-7VRXP KT333 mobo.
    I also have an Athlon Thunderbird 1.4 GHz running Windows 2000 in a GA-7IXEH
    KT133 mobo. This system has been running and stable for two or three years.
    I guess from what you've said below, though I didn't realise it before, that
    I could try the XP2400 in this system just by adjusting the CPU FSB
    multiplier ?
    Gives me a better chance of solving the problem if I can try this too.
    Thanks,
    Kevin.

    iTsMeMa <itsmema@mamma.com> wrote:
    | Just to throw in here,
    |
    | I have an older chipset, KT133A, that is currently running an XP2400.
    | Power requirements for this proc are less than the 1.4 T-Bird I ran
    | for 2 years. My opinion is that your board will run the XP2400. It
    | will, in fact run an XP2500 333fsb. The limitation will depend on
    | whether or not that barton is locked, and how happy your board is
    | being pushed. The mem (sdram) unless it is high perf, will not like
    | going past 143 - 147 fsb. If the proc is locked, as most now are,
    | your results are likely to be about 145 X 11.5 or 1667 mhz on a
    | barton.
    | The XP2400 will give you 2000 mhz, an obvious choice.
    | I have had a 1.4T-Bird, XP1800, XP2400, XP2500 Barton all running on
    | mine, the T-bird being the only officially supported.
    | Wes Newell and Michael Brown (amongst others) both offer great info
    | on boards and processors. Browse their sites.
    | Dive in and have fun.
    | And always watch temps!
    |
    | Regards,
    |
    | Garry.
    |
    |
    |
    | "Piotr Makley" <pmakley@mail.com> wrote in message
    | news:94CD70D053E331E75@130.133.1.4...
    |||
    || Hi Kevin and Kony, I am the OP. Here is a long posting with more
    || details. Just to recap this thread, I am trying to work out which
    || is the best processor to use on my mobo bearing in mind that I want
    || to mimimize any increase in power required.
    ||
    || I thought Kony had said the last word but Kev points out something
    || about bus speeds. Kev, just in case the 'A' makes a difference my
    || chipset is a Via KT266A not the KT266 you mentioned. (I am told
    || that the 'A' brings "Improved memory timing and deeper command
    || queues"). The Via specs are at:
    || http://www.via.com.tw/en/apollo/KT266A.jsp
    ||
    || My memory is 133 MHz SDRAM and the mobo is a Syntax SV266A (see
    || below for more info and links).
    ||
    || ---
Ask a new question

Read More

AMD Hardware Homebuilt Overclocking