What's the default core voltage for an AMD XP 3200+?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Not a 64 chip, just a regular barton 400fsb 3200+.

I thought it was 1.65 but my mainboard seems to be setting it higher by
default.

can anyone clarify please?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

+c0re- wrote:
> Not a 64 chip, just a regular barton 400fsb 3200+.
>
> I thought it was 1.65 but my mainboard seems to be setting it higher
> by default.
>
> can anyone clarify please?

1.65V. What is the MB setting it to?
http://www.amdboard.com/barton.html

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Thanks
the motherboard is setting it to 1.65 but the voltage diagnostics sofware
(and the bios voltage monitor) reports it as being higher than this.


"ICee" <icee@thelight.invalid> wrote in message
news:6qWdndRMIPhLbXjdRVn-ug@adelphia.com...
> +c0re- wrote:
> > Not a 64 chip, just a regular barton 400fsb 3200+.
> >
> > I thought it was 1.65 but my mainboard seems to be setting it higher
> > by default.
> >
> > can anyone clarify please?
>
> 1.65V. What is the MB setting it to?
> http://www.amdboard.com/barton.html
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

+c0re- wrote:
> Thanks
> the motherboard is setting it to 1.65 but the voltage diagnostics
> sofware (and the bios voltage monitor) reports it as being higher
> than this.

Very often the actual voltage will be something other than nominal; as
long as it's within 5% of nominal (excluding overclocking of course),
there should be no problem.

> "ICee" <icee@thelight.invalid> wrote in message
> news:6qWdndRMIPhLbXjdRVn-ug@adelphia.com...
>> +c0re- wrote:
>>> Not a 64 chip, just a regular barton 400fsb 3200+.
>>>
>>> I thought it was 1.65 but my mainboard seems to be setting it higher
>>> by default.
>>>
>>> can anyone clarify please?
>>
>> 1.65V. What is the MB setting it to?
>> http://www.amdboard.com/barton.html

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

ICee wrote:
> +c0re- wrote:
>
>>Thanks
>>the motherboard is setting it to 1.65 but the voltage diagnostics
>>sofware (and the bios voltage monitor) reports it as being higher
>>than this.
>
>
> Very often the actual voltage will be something other than nominal; as
> long as it's within 5% of nominal (excluding overclocking of course),
> there should be no problem.

How did you arrive at 5%?


>>"ICee" <icee@thelight.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:6qWdndRMIPhLbXjdRVn-ug@adelphia.com...
>>
>>>+c0re- wrote:
>>>
>>>>Not a 64 chip, just a regular barton 400fsb 3200+.
>>>>
>>>>I thought it was 1.65 but my mainboard seems to be setting it higher
>>>>by default.
>>>>
>>>>can anyone clarify please?
>>>
>>>1.65V. What is the MB setting it to?
>>>http://www.amdboard.com/barton.html
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

David Maynard wrote:
> ICee wrote:
>> +c0re- wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks
>>> the motherboard is setting it to 1.65 but the voltage diagnostics
>>> sofware (and the bios voltage monitor) reports it as being higher
>>> than this.
>>
>>
>> Very often the actual voltage will be something other than nominal;
>> as long as it's within 5% of nominal (excluding overclocking of
>> course), there should be no problem.
>
> How did you arrive at 5%?

The Barton and Thoroughbred cores aren't listed here, but it seems in
most cases, where it does list the voltage swing, the CPU has a +- 0.1V
tolerance, which comes out to be around 6%. So I stand corrected: it
should be 6%.
http://users.erols.com/chare/elec.htm


>>> "ICee" <icee@thelight.invalid> wrote in message
>>> news:6qWdndRMIPhLbXjdRVn-ug@adelphia.com...
>>>
>>>> +c0re- wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Not a 64 chip, just a regular barton 400fsb 3200+.
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought it was 1.65 but my mainboard seems to be setting it
>>>>> higher by default.
>>>>>
>>>>> can anyone clarify please?
>>>>
>>>> 1.65V. What is the MB setting it to?
>>>> http://www.amdboard.com/barton.html

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

ICee wrote:

> David Maynard wrote:
>
>>ICee wrote:
>>
>>>+c0re- wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Thanks
>>>>the motherboard is setting it to 1.65 but the voltage diagnostics
>>>>sofware (and the bios voltage monitor) reports it as being higher
>>>>than this.
>>>
>>>
>>>Very often the actual voltage will be something other than nominal;
>>>as long as it's within 5% of nominal (excluding overclocking of
>>>course), there should be no problem.
>>
>>How did you arrive at 5%?
>
>
> The Barton and Thoroughbred cores aren't listed here, but it seems in
> most cases, where it does list the voltage swing, the CPU has a +- 0.1V
> tolerance, which comes out to be around 6%. So I stand corrected: it
> should be 6%.
> http://users.erols.com/chare/elec.htm

Well, as you note, it isn't listed as a percentage; it's listed as a range
and the range for the palomino, newest one they give any data for, is +-
..05V around 1.75, which would be 2.8%, not +- .1V.

And, being in possession of the Barton Model 10 spec sheets, I can say it's
the same for the Barton: -+ .05V, but around 1.65V, which comes to 3%, if
one converts it to such a representation.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

It's an nforce2 board, and the nvidia utitily that came with it has those
little charts, with the yellow line showing the "ideal" voltage and a red
one showing what I assume to be the upper limit of the tolerance. My Vcore
was substatially into the red, but I've set it to lower now, and the voltage
sensors report it as being 1.65. No stability issues either it seems.

thanks for the help!


"ICee" <icee@thelight.invalid> wrote in message
newsaOdnY5q6KdSiHrdRVn-ug@adelphia.com...
> David Maynard wrote:
> > ICee wrote:
> >> +c0re- wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> the motherboard is setting it to 1.65 but the voltage diagnostics
> >>> sofware (and the bios voltage monitor) reports it as being higher
> >>> than this.
> >>
> >>
> >> Very often the actual voltage will be something other than nominal;
> >> as long as it's within 5% of nominal (excluding overclocking of
> >> course), there should be no problem.
> >
> > How did you arrive at 5%?
>
> The Barton and Thoroughbred cores aren't listed here, but it seems in
> most cases, where it does list the voltage swing, the CPU has a +- 0.1V
> tolerance, which comes out to be around 6%. So I stand corrected: it
> should be 6%.
> http://users.erols.com/chare/elec.htm
>
>
> >>> "ICee" <icee@thelight.invalid> wrote in message
> >>> news:6qWdndRMIPhLbXjdRVn-ug@adelphia.com...
> >>>
> >>>> +c0re- wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Not a 64 chip, just a regular barton 400fsb 3200+.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I thought it was 1.65 but my mainboard seems to be setting it
> >>>>> higher by default.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> can anyone clarify please?
> >>>>
> >>>> 1.65V. What is the MB setting it to?
> >>>> http://www.amdboard.com/barton.html
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

+c0re- wrote:
> It's an nforce2 board, and the nvidia utitily that came with it has
> those little charts, with the yellow line showing the "ideal" voltage
> and a red one showing what I assume to be the upper limit of the
> tolerance. My Vcore was substatially into the red, but I've set it to
> lower now, and the voltage sensors report it as being 1.65. No
> stability issues either it seems.
>
> thanks for the help!

You're welcome.

> "ICee" <icee@thelight.invalid> wrote in message
> newsaOdnY5q6KdSiHrdRVn-ug@adelphia.com...
>> David Maynard wrote:
>>> ICee wrote:
>>>> +c0re- wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks
>>>>> the motherboard is setting it to 1.65 but the voltage diagnostics
>>>>> sofware (and the bios voltage monitor) reports it as being higher
>>>>> than this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Very often the actual voltage will be something other than nominal;
>>>> as long as it's within 5% of nominal (excluding overclocking of
>>>> course), there should be no problem.
>>>
>>> How did you arrive at 5%?
>>
>> The Barton and Thoroughbred cores aren't listed here, but it seems in
>> most cases, where it does list the voltage swing, the CPU has a +-
>> 0.1V tolerance, which comes out to be around 6%. So I stand
>> corrected: it should be 6%.
>> http://users.erols.com/chare/elec.htm
>>
>>
>>>>> "ICee" <icee@thelight.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>> news:6qWdndRMIPhLbXjdRVn-ug@adelphia.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>> +c0re- wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not a 64 chip, just a regular barton 400fsb 3200+.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I thought it was 1.65 but my mainboard seems to be setting it
>>>>>>> higher by default.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> can anyone clarify please?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1.65V. What is the MB setting it to?
>>>>>> http://www.amdboard.com/barton.html

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Having just build my first amd system for a few years, I'm not really sure
what the average CPU temperature I should expect is. I saw in some specs
that the max is 85 degrees C but that sounded very warm to me.
Mine idles at around 48, under load it goes up to around 55, does this sound
about normal for a 3200+, and an average cooler? (cooler is rated for
3200+).

thanks for any input.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

+c0re- wrote:
> Having just build my first amd system for a few years, I'm not really
> sure what the average CPU temperature I should expect is. I saw in
> some specs that the max is 85 degrees C but that sounded very warm to
> me.
> Mine idles at around 48, under load it goes up to around 55, does
> this sound about normal for a 3200+, and an average cooler? (cooler
> is rated for 3200+).
>
> thanks for any input.

That sounds about right. My 2200 MHz XP (1.6V core) is idling at 45° C
and goes to 50° C under load with a Vantec Aeroflow heatsink/fan, and
it's rather warm with the case temp at 30° C.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

"+c0re-" wrote
> Having just build my first amd system for a few years, I'm not really sure
> what the average CPU temperature I should expect is. I saw in some specs
> that the max is 85 degrees C but that sounded very warm to me.
> Mine idles at around 48, under load it goes up to around 55, does this
sound
> about normal for a 3200+, and an average cooler? (cooler is rated for
> 3200+).

Hi,

the load temp looks about right, but the idle temp is a bit high. I did
notice that with cheap heatsinks, that they can do an fair job of keeping
the CPU from getting crazy hot at load *but* they can't seem to lower the
temp of the CPU when idle.

I have built three AMD XP systems (2x 2500+, 1x XP2400 - 2x NF7-S, 1x AN7)
and on two of them I used a Aero 7 LITE, and the third I used one of the
retail fans that came with the Bartons (with a small copper circle slug) and
I lapped all heatsinks and installed them with AS/3. All of them were
overclocked to 11x200~2.2GHz with added vCore, but all systems were built
with ANTEC case, a few 80mm fans and 25°C system temps .

Load temps averaged 48-55°C (The XP2400+ needed 1.825vCore!) but the idle
temps were 33-35°C.

I don't think you have a *really* bad problem or anything, I just wanted to
let you know there is room for improvement when your ready
--
Wayne ][

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

+c0re- wrote:
> Having just build my first amd system for a few years, I'm not really
> sure what the average CPU temperature I should expect is. I saw in
> some specs that the max is 85 degrees C but that sounded very warm to
> me.
> Mine idles at around 48, under load it goes up to around 55, does
> this sound about normal for a 3200+, and an average cooler? (cooler
> is rated for 3200+).

This sounds about right if you don't have halt-disconnect enabled. Quite a
few motherboards dont, since it can cause issues with sound and network
cards. In any case, what's you CPU doing being idle anyhow

--
Michael Brown
www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open