Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (
More info?)
GinTonix wrote:
> David Maynard wrote:
>
>> kt wrote:
>>
>>> Hi there-I have this cpu laying around and some time to blow so I was
>>> wondering if this will o'clock to start.if so to what and if i put it
>>> on a
>>> slot 1 w/slotkit will that go higher or at all? so slot 1 board or
>>> socket
>>> 370 board? and what to expect,oh and type of ram and min. amount.
>>> thanks guys! Kevin ktrowhill@ody.ca
>>>
>>
>> Motherboards from that era do not have AGP/PCI locking so the
>> technique was to pick a Celeron that would overclock from the standard
>> 66 MHz FSB to 100 Mhz FSB so the PCI/AGP multipliers would be standard
>> then, perhaps, raise the FSB some nominal amount from there.
>>
>> The slam dunk model was a 533A (not the PPGA 533), going to 800 MHz, and
>
>
> Yes, and as a general rule I found out that the P3 models (versus
> Celeron) with 100MHz FSB clock at least as good. OTOH, the next standard
> step from 100 is to 133, so "only" 33% overclock is easily acquired. My
> 550 was OK at 133MHz FSB. Actually, it ran at 155MHz FSB with air
> cooling and a notch of volts added to the core.
Yeah. I ran my P3-750 at 930.
>> the 566 to 850 MHz was almost as assured (mine overclocked to 1020). A
>> Celeron 600 might make it but it depends on the particular one. Some
>> will do 900 and others will not and, in general, those of later
>
>
> I had a 633 which happily ran at 950MHz.
I don't doubt it, and my 566 went to 1020, but not everyone had the same luck.
> I never even tried to raise the
> FSB over the 100MHz standard.
>
>> manufacture have a better chance than the earlier ones. An increase in
>> Vcore is generally required.
>>
>> If the motherboard has a rich suite of overclocking features then a
>> socket 370 is probably best. On the other hand, a decent slotket
>> provides jumpers for forcing the FSB to 100 MHz and altering Vcore
>> selection on slot-1 boards that don't include BIOS settings (the
>> alternate on a socket 370 being to wrap/jumper/break-off processor
>> pins, or on the socket, manually).
>>
>> If you're just slapping something together then cost might be a big
>> consideration and slot-1 boards are probably less expensive. Generally
>> I'd look for a BX chipset board (usually 3 mem slots and max 768 meg)
>> but, again, from the cost standpoint an 810E (max 2 mem slots and 512
>> Meg), or even better an 815E, has built in video so the cost might be
>
>
> IMO the 815 is an underestimated chipset. My Abit SE6 has done
> everything I ever asked it to. Just accept that is is a bit slower than
> the BX
Well, being slower than BX was the point. But I agree it's a good chipset
and my media PC is an 815E with an overclocked 1.3 gig tualatin celeron.
> and you'll get along well with it. 810 is for plug'n'play users,
> just add the components and wish it works. If you know what you are
> doing, then get a BX chipset mobo. Those babies can squeeze every bit of
> performance out of your hardware, if you just know how to ask
I don't know what you're trying to get at with the 'plug-n-play' comment as
there's no 'lack' of PnP with BX. What's lacking, if one considers it such,
is, as I mentioned, a built-in display controller. But OS installation is
exactly the same as if it were on a card: you install the appropriate
display driver.
I should emphasize, and had intended to, the "E." The 810, NO E, is for 66
Mhz Celerons. Clocking to 100 MHz FSB needs the E version, which added 100
MHz FSB support.
It can be confusing because the non-E version uses 100 MHz SDRAM but that
is not the FSB and is there to offset the memory bandwidth hit from the
built-in shared memory display controller.
> Hmm.. maybe I'll dig that SE6 out of the closet again, throw in some 6ns
> memory modules, the good old 633 Celeron (or maybe it's time for the
> 650MHz P3 with 100MHz FSB, of course), a good 350-watt PSU, a Matrox
> vidcard, two Voodoo II's and a random HD and start a retro project
> Win98SE, of course.
>
>> less depending on the initial cost of the board (the built-in video is
>> low in 3D performance and there are plenty of very cheap AGP boards
>> that can match it).
>>
>> None of the Intel chipsets will accept the lower cost "high density"
>> 256 Meg memory modules, which makes the memory rather expensive.
>
>
> That's why you never sell the 256MB two-sided modules you have in the
> top drawer, hidden under the Playboy magazine stack
Or those
> super-overclocking 166MHz mem sticks you won in a nerd poker game..
>
> --
> gt
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram