Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Overclocked 2600 Not Showing as 2800 in Windows

Last response: in Overclocking
Share
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
November 26, 2004 8:15:16 AM

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

Anyone know why this is? I've overclocked it to a 2800 at 2.08 GHz but it
still shows the CPU as a 2600.
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
November 26, 2004 8:15:17 AM

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

Jack Spungo wrote:

> Anyone know why this is? I've overclocked it to a 2800 at 2.08 GHz but it
> still shows the CPU as a 2600.
>
>

Odds are you think you overclocked it by changing the multiplier but the
multiplier is locked and can't be changed regardless of what you tell the BIOS.
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
November 26, 2004 8:58:59 AM

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

Nope, I changed the fsb and it is definitely not locked. It shows up is
every CPU tester I could find as a 2.08GHz processor (up from a 1.90Ghz).
Windows sees it as a 2.08GHz CPU but still calls it a 2600 and not a 2800.
The more I overclock, the hotter the CPU becomes, so I know its not locked.

"David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10qe122ljtkq343@corp.supernews.com...
> Jack Spungo wrote:
>
>> Anyone know why this is? I've overclocked it to a 2800 at 2.08 GHz but it
>> still shows the CPU as a 2600.
>
> Odds are you think you overclocked it by changing the multiplier but the
> multiplier is locked and can't be changed regardless of what you tell the
> BIOS.
>
Related resources
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
November 26, 2004 12:05:34 PM

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

Jack Spungo wrote:

> Nope, I changed the fsb and it is definitely not locked. It shows up is
> every CPU tester I could find as a 2.08GHz processor (up from a 1.90Ghz).
> Windows sees it as a 2.08GHz CPU but still calls it a 2600 and not a 2800.
> The more I overclock, the hotter the CPU becomes, so I know its not locked.

I see. Well, before, you didn't mention that Windows reported the actual
speed as 2.08.

2600 is the CPU ID string. It *is* a '2600'.


> "David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
> news:10qe122ljtkq343@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>Jack Spungo wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Anyone know why this is? I've overclocked it to a 2800 at 2.08 GHz but it
>>>still shows the CPU as a 2600.
>>
>>Odds are you think you overclocked it by changing the multiplier but the
>>multiplier is locked and can't be changed regardless of what you tell the
>>BIOS.
>>
>
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
November 26, 2004 3:51:33 PM

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

"Jack Spungo" <Spungo@Spungo.com> wrote in message
news:p -SdndRx6sT1kTrcRVn-og@rogers.com...
> Nope, I changed the fsb and it is definitely not locked. It shows
> up is every CPU tester I could find as a 2.08GHz processor (up
> from a 1.90Ghz). Windows sees it as a 2.08GHz CPU but still calls it a
> 2600 and not
> a 2800.

That's hardly surprising. Windows reads the processor ID string, which is
nothing more than a piece of text, and it won't magically change when you
alter the front side bus speed.
--


Richard Hopkins
Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
(replace .nospam with .com in reply address)

The UK's leading technology reseller www.dabs.com
Get the most out of your digital photos www.dabsxpose.com
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
November 26, 2004 4:58:23 PM

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

"David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10qehi9hv4g5905@corp.supernews.com...
> Jack Spungo wrote:
>
>> Nope, I changed the fsb and it is definitely not locked. It shows up is
>> every CPU tester I could find as a 2.08GHz processor (up from a 1.90Ghz).
>> Windows sees it as a 2.08GHz CPU but still calls it a 2600 and not a
>> 2800. The more I overclock, the hotter the CPU becomes, so I know its not
>> locked.
>
> I see. Well, before, you didn't mention that Windows reported the actual
> speed as 2.08.
>
> 2600 is the CPU ID string. It *is* a '2600'.

I'm aware of that but every overclocker of a 2600 Ive spoken to has told me
that when they reach 2800 speed, or 3000 speed for that matter, Windows
recognises it as a 2800 or a 3000.


>> "David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
>> news:10qe122ljtkq343@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>>Jack Spungo wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Anyone know why this is? I've overclocked it to a 2800 at 2.08 GHz but
>>>>it still shows the CPU as a 2600.
>>>
>>>Odds are you think you overclocked it by changing the multiplier but the
>>>multiplier is locked and can't be changed regardless of what you tell the
>>>BIOS.
>>>
>>
>
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
November 26, 2004 8:10:50 PM

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

"David Maynard" wrote in message...
> I see. Well, before, you didn't mention that Windows reported the
> actual speed as 2.08.

Don't you just love it when folk only give you half the information??? ;-)
--


Richard Hopkins
Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
(replace .nospam with .com in reply address)

The UK's leading technology reseller www.dabs.com
Get the most out of your digital photos www.dabsxpose.com
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
November 26, 2004 9:36:41 PM

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

Richard Hopkins wrote:
> "David Maynard" wrote in message...
>
>> I see. Well, before, you didn't mention that Windows reported the
>> actual speed as 2.08.
>
>
> Don't you just love it when folk only give you half the information??? ;-)

Hehe. Well, in some cases, 50% would be 50 times what's given ;) 
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
November 26, 2004 10:16:46 PM

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

"Jack Spungo" <Spungo@Spungo.com> wrote in message...
> I'm aware of that but every overclocker of a 2600 Ive spoken to...

How many overclockers is that exactly?
--


Richard Hopkins
Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
(replace .nospam with .com in reply address)

The UK's leading technology reseller www.dabs.com
Get the most out of your digital photos www.dabsxpose.com
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
November 26, 2004 10:16:47 PM

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

At least 3 that I can think of off hand, happy? I'm sure I could go to any
overclocking board and find about 10 more within this hour if that would
help.

"Richard Hopkins" <richh@dsl.nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
news:41a78665$0$16572$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
> "Jack Spungo" <Spungo@Spungo.com> wrote in message...
>> I'm aware of that but every overclocker of a 2600 Ive spoken to...
>
> How many overclockers is that exactly?
> --
>
>
> Richard Hopkins
> Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom
> (replace .nospam with .com in reply address)
>
> The UK's leading technology reseller www.dabs.com
> Get the most out of your digital photos www.dabsxpose.com
>
>
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
November 27, 2004 12:02:09 AM

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

"Richard Hopkins" <richh@dsl.nospam.co.uk> wrote
>
> "Jack Spungo" <Spungo@Spungo.com> wrote in message
> news:p -SdndRx6sT1kTrcRVn-og@rogers.com...
>> Nope, I changed the fsb and it is definitely not locked. It shows
>> up is every CPU tester I could find as a 2.08GHz processor (up
>> from a 1.90Ghz). Windows sees it as a 2.08GHz CPU but still calls it a
>> 2600 and not
>> a 2800.
>
> That's hardly surprising. Windows reads the processor ID string, which is
> nothing more than a piece of text, and it won't magically change when you
> alter the front side bus speed.

That may be true for Intel CPUs Richard but _not_ AMD XPs in my quite
extensive overclocking experience - BIOS (usually) & Windows will report a
CPU 'performance rating' (PR) that matches it's speed, not any 'processor
ID$'.

Only caveat on that is that neither will report a PR unless both the FSB and
multiplier match a particular CPU - eg. You won't see '3200+' at 10x220 for
2200MHz but you would see it at 11x200...

Ciao...

UK_Nick...
--
Nick M V Salmon Master Mariner MN(Retd.)
Email: My four initials at dsl dot pipex dot com
http://www.nmvs.dsl.pipex.com/index.htm
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
November 27, 2004 12:02:10 AM

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

"Nick M V Salmon" <spam@dump> wrote in message
news:41a799ca$0$23010$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com...
> "Richard Hopkins" <richh@dsl.nospam.co.uk> wrote
>>
>> "Jack Spungo" <Spungo@Spungo.com> wrote in message
>> news:p -SdndRx6sT1kTrcRVn-og@rogers.com...
>>> Nope, I changed the fsb and it is definitely not locked. It shows
>>> up is every CPU tester I could find as a 2.08GHz processor (up
>>> from a 1.90Ghz). Windows sees it as a 2.08GHz CPU but still calls it a
>>> 2600 and not
>>> a 2800.
>>
>> That's hardly surprising. Windows reads the processor ID string, which is
>> nothing more than a piece of text, and it won't magically change when you
>> alter the front side bus speed.
>
> That may be true for Intel CPUs Richard but _not_ AMD XPs in my quite
> extensive overclocking experience - BIOS (usually) & Windows will report a
> CPU 'performance rating' (PR) that matches it's speed, not any 'processor
> ID$'.
>
> Only caveat on that is that neither will report a PR unless both the FSB
> and multiplier match a particular CPU - eg. You won't see '3200+' at
> 10x220 for 2200MHz but you would see it at 11x200...

Thanks for the indirect answer. Thats all I was looking for. So, my 2600
running at 2.083 GHz will perform the same as a 2800, right? Even though
windows doesnt call it a 2800. And its currently operating at a idle temp of
39, can I push it a little farther, like into XP 3000 range?
December 8, 2004 4:03:14 AM

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

Well since no one else will give you a straight forward answer I will,
the reason it is not showing in windows as 2800+ is because the BIOS
does not see it as a 2800+ All windows knows is the information given
to the OS from the BIOS, not like you can uninstall a processor. NOW
that being said let me tell you why you BIOS does not see it as a
2800+. It knows it isn’t. Let me give you an example I have a 2500+
Barton Over clocked to 3200+ My BIOS at post shows a 3200+ because I
changed the front side bus to 400 MHz (from 333 where the 2500+ runs)
Now because 2500+ and 3200+ both use the same multiplier "11.0" It
cannot tell the difference. 11.0 at 333Mhz(166x2) is 1826Mhz or 1.8Ghz
(11x166=1826) so do the math for the 3200+ 11.0 at 400(200x2) is
2200Mhz or 2.2Ghz (11x200=2200) if you understand that you can plainly
see that your BIOS cant see a 2800+ just because of the speed because
the Multiplier is not correct for a 2800+ but Is correct for a 2600,
so it makes the best guess that you have Over clocked your 2600+ and
guess what, Its right. Because I have changed mine to 400MHz front
side bus the setting are Perfect for a 3200+ it has no choice but to
see multiplier of 11 and freq. of 2.2Ghz, Must be a 3200+ so to sum it
up the Multiplier is NOT right for a 2800+ so its not going to see it
no mater what speed you set it to. You might research the multipliers
of other chips, since the 2800+ is a larger Multiplier , if not
locked, you can use the 2800+ multiplier with the 2800+ front side
setting, 333Mhz(166x2) and it will see that it is a 2800+. As to the
CPU ID string stuff most BIOS's let you turn Processor ID ON or OFF. I
hope this clears some of this stuff up. Oh and windows sees my
processor as a 3200+ as well as Sissoft sandra (shows # 3200).
Anonymous
a b K Overclocking
a b à CPUs
December 8, 2004 4:03:15 AM

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

bigdaddy wrote:

> Well since no one else will give you a straight forward answer I will,
> the reason it is not showing in windows as 2800+ is because the BIOS
> does not see it as a 2800+ All windows knows is the information given
> to the OS from the BIOS, not like you can uninstall a processor. NOW
> that being said let me tell you why you BIOS does not see it as a
> 2800+. It knows it isn?t. Let me give you an example I have a 2500+
> Barton Over clocked to 3200+ My BIOS at post shows a 3200+ because I
> changed the front side bus to 400 MHz (from 333 where the 2500+ runs)
> Now because 2500+ and 3200+ both use the same multiplier "11.0" It
> cannot tell the difference. 11.0 at 333Mhz(166x2) is 1826Mhz or 1.8Ghz
> (11x166=1826) so do the math for the 3200+ 11.0 at 400(200x2) is
> 2200Mhz or 2.2Ghz (11x200=2200) if you understand that you can plainly
> see that your BIOS cant see a 2800+ just because of the speed because
> the Multiplier is not correct for a 2800+ but Is correct for a 2600,
> so it makes the best guess that you have Over clocked your 2600+ and
> guess what, Its right. Because I have changed mine to 400MHz front
> side bus the setting are Perfect for a 3200+ it has no choice but to
> see multiplier of 11 and freq. of 2.2Ghz, Must be a 3200+ so to sum it
> up the Multiplier is NOT right for a 2800+ so its not going to see it
> no mater what speed you set it to. You might research the multipliers
> of other chips, since the 2800+ is a larger Multiplier , if not
> locked, you can use the 2800+ multiplier with the 2800+ front side
> setting, 333Mhz(166x2) and it will see that it is a 2800+. As to the
> CPU ID string stuff most BIOS's let you turn Processor ID ON or OFF. I
> hope this clears some of this stuff up. Oh and windows sees my
> processor as a 3200+ as well as Sissoft sandra (shows # 3200).
>

That may very well be how that motherboard works but not all do. Most, if
not all, of mine report the actual speed, or the corresponding model rating
at that speed, regardless of whether the multiplier or FSB is 'right for
that model' or not.

For example, my K7S5A reports an overclocked 1800+ as a 2000+ and neither
the FSB nor the multiplier are what a 2000+ processor would be (neither is
the actual speed, but it's 'close').

My BP6 reports the overclocked Celerons as Celeron 450 even though there is
no such animal, as a 'standard' processor anyway.

My P2B-VM with a 1.1 gig tualatin overclocked to 1.36 gig is just
bumbfoozled, however, and reports it as something cockeyed like 423 MHz,
probably because it doesn't understand the reported multiplier.
!