Overclocking an Aopen Mx 46

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

Hi all.... I have never tried overclocking before and thought I might
give it a try. I have an Aopen MX 46 motherboard with a P4 1.7GHz
processor installed. According to Aopen this board has lots of
overclocking ability but I don't really understand the translation on
their website. Apparently I can change the FSB speed in the bios. I also
understand that Intel processors are somehow locked, so what can I
change to overclock this processor? Is an increase in the FSB speed the
way to overclock this machine?

Any info including relevant websites would be appreciated.

Thanks
Newfdog
29 answers Last reply
More about overclocking aopen
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    "Newfdog" <newfdog2nospam@warp.nfld.net> wrote in message
    news:cTy_d.973$Ln.45860@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
    > Hi all.... I have never tried overclocking before and thought I might
    > give it a try. I have an Aopen MX 46 motherboard with a P4 1.7GHz
    > processor installed. According to Aopen this board has lots of
    > overclocking ability but I don't really understand the translation on
    > their website. Apparently I can change the FSB speed in the bios. I also
    > understand that Intel processors are somehow locked, so what can I
    > change to overclock this processor? Is an increase in the FSB speed the
    > way to overclock this machine?
    Yes, most if not all Intel CPU's are multiplier locked.
    The only way to Overclock it is to turn it's FSB up.
    I'm guessing that a 100 MHz FSB cpu. So try something like 110 or 115
    The best thing to do is to try turning it up only little by little.
    You might be able to get 2GHz out of it depending on what kind of ram you
    have.
    You might be able to get better then 2 GHz out of it, but I cant tell you
    that.
    You have to play around with it & see what settings work the best.
    Hm, CPU's that r Locked, my Xeon's can be turned down from the
    20xMultiplier.
    RavingRaichu.. ;-) :-)
    >
    > Any info including relevant websites would be appreciated.
    >
    > Thanks
    > Newfdog
    >
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    Raving Raichu wrote:
    > "Newfdog" <newfdog2nospam@warp.nfld.net> wrote in message
    > news:cTy_d.973$Ln.45860@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
    >
    >>Hi all.... I have never tried overclocking before and thought I might
    >>give it a try. I have an Aopen MX 46 motherboard with a P4 1.7GHz
    >>processor installed. According to Aopen this board has lots of
    >>overclocking ability but I don't really understand the translation on
    >>their website. Apparently I can change the FSB speed in the bios. I also
    >>understand that Intel processors are somehow locked, so what can I
    >>change to overclock this processor? Is an increase in the FSB speed the
    >>way to overclock this machine?
    >
    > Yes, most if not all Intel CPU's are multiplier locked.
    > The only way to Overclock it is to turn it's FSB up.
    > I'm guessing that a 100 MHz FSB cpu. So try something like 110 or 115
    > The best thing to do is to try turning it up only little by little.
    > You might be able to get 2GHz out of it depending on what kind of ram you
    > have.
    > You might be able to get better then 2 GHz out of it, but I cant tell you
    > that.
    > You have to play around with it & see what settings work the best.
    > Hm, CPU's that r Locked, my Xeon's can be turned down from the
    > 20xMultiplier.
    > RavingRaichu.. ;-) :-)
    >
    Thank you for your reply. I'm about to start playing with the FSB.

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

    "Newfdog" <newfdog2nospam@warp.nfld.net> wrote in message
    news:fWh%d.2106$Ln.100450@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
    > Raving Raichu wrote:
    > > "Newfdog" <newfdog2nospam@warp.nfld.net> wrote in message
    > > news:cTy_d.973$Ln.45860@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
    > >
    > >>Hi all.... I have never tried overclocking before and thought I might
    > >>give it a try. I have an Aopen MX 46 motherboard with a P4 1.7GHz
    > >>processor installed. According to Aopen this board has lots of
    > >>overclocking ability but I don't really understand the translation on
    > >>their website. Apparently I can change the FSB speed in the bios. I also
    > >>understand that Intel processors are somehow locked, so what can I
    > >>change to overclock this processor? Is an increase in the FSB speed the
    > >>way to overclock this machine?
    > >
    > > Yes, most if not all Intel CPU's are multiplier locked.
    > > The only way to Overclock it is to turn it's FSB up.
    > > I'm guessing that a 100 MHz FSB cpu. So try something like 110 or 115
    > > The best thing to do is to try turning it up only little by little.
    > > You might be able to get 2GHz out of it depending on what kind of ram
    you
    > > have.
    > > You might be able to get better then 2 GHz out of it, but I cant tell
    you
    > > that.
    > > You have to play around with it & see what settings work the best.
    > > Hm, CPU's that r Locked, my Xeon's can be turned down from the
    > > 20xMultiplier.
    > > RavingRaichu.. ;-) :-)
    > >
    > Thank you for your reply. I'm about to start playing with the FSB.
    >
    > Newfdog
    No problem.. RavingRaichu ;-) :-) Anytime
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    No, Intel Pentium 4 CPUs have nominal FSB's of 400, 533, 800, or, just
    recently 1066 MHz, not 100 MHz.

    No, Intel CPU's since the Pentium II 300 MHz are multiplier locked, and no,
    your Xeon multiplier can't be 'turned down'. Likely you can change the
    multiplier setting in the BIOS, but that has NO EFFECT.


    "Raving Raichu" <ravingraichu@comcast.net> wrote > Yes, most if not all
    Intel CPU's are multiplier locked.
    > The only way to Overclock it is to turn it's FSB up.
    > I'm guessing that a 100 MHz FSB cpu. So try something like 110 or 115
    > The best thing to do is to try turning it up only little by little.
    > You might be able to get 2GHz out of it depending on what kind of ram you
    > have.
    > You might be able to get better then 2 GHz out of it, but I cant tell you
    > that.
    > You have to play around with it & see what settings work the best.
    > Hm, CPU's that r Locked, my Xeon's can be turned down from the
    > 20xMultiplier.
    > RavingRaichu.. ;-) :-)
    >>
    >> Any info including relevant websites would be appreciated.
    >>
    >> Thanks
    >> Newfdog
    >>
    >
    >
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    Your Pentium 4 1.7 GHz can be overclocked only by increasing the
    FrontSideBus speed. Unfortunately, a Pentium 4 1.7 GHz is a 'Willamette'
    technology CPU, and has little overclocking potential compared to its
    successor, the 'Northwood'. The 'Northwood' Pentium 4 CPUs are based on a
    faster, lower voltage, lower power technology and have a larger L2 cache.
    For example, a 'Northwood' Pentium 4 1.6A can fairly often be overclocked by
    50%. Your Pentium 4 1.7 is much more limited.

    Generally a good indication of casual overclocking ability is the highest
    nominal speed CPU of the technology. For the 'Willamette', that is 2.0 GHz,
    while for the 'Northwood' it is 3.4 GHz. You can overclock your CPU by
    increasing the FrontSideBus speed, but don't expect much above 2.0 GHz. In
    other words, go ahead and try overclocking, but don't spend any money on
    extra cooling, etc. for your present CPU - it just isn't worth it.

    Unfortunately I don't have any overclocking links that seem to be current,
    but you should pretty much reach the maximum for your current CPU by just
    raising the clock speed (the clock speed is 1/4 the FrontSideBus speed.)
    Your CPU has a fixed multiplier of 17X, so raising the clock speed from 100
    MHz to 120 MHz (and consequently the FrontSideBus speed to 480 MHz) will
    give a CPU speed of 17 X 120 MHz = 2040 MHz. You should keep several things
    in mind.

    #1. Make sure that your PCI bus speed is not above about 37 MHz (nominal is
    33 MHz.) A PCI bus speed over specifications begins to run the risk of data
    corruption when data is written to hard drives. If your motherboard has a
    FIXED setting for the PCI and AGP buses that locks the PCI bus to 33 MHz and
    the AGP bus to 66 MHz, use that setting for overclocking. (Usually, the PCI
    bus speed is 1/3 the system clock speed and the AGP bus speed is 2/3 the
    system clock speed, but chipsets for Pentium 4 CPUs have the ability to fix
    those bus speeds rather than using a divider.)

    #2. Before starting to overclock your older system, make sure the system is
    clear of dust and other thing that might restrict the flow of cooling air.
    Especially make sure the CPU heatsink fins are clean. Keep an eye on the
    CPU temperature when trying to overclock, and compare it to the CPU
    temperatures when not overclocking. In overclocking, you are trading the
    built-in stability overhead for higher speeds. Higher temperatures result
    from overclocking and higher temperatures reduce overclocking ability. Try
    to keep the temperature rise as low as possible.

    #3. Raise the system clock speed in small steps, in your case, say 5 MHz.
    Change nothing else. If your systems boots and starts the operating system,
    try putting a load on the system. If it is stable, you can try a higher
    system clock system. If it is not stable, you can try increasing the CPU
    core voltage by a small amount, say 0.05 volts ( in no case go higher than
    0.15 volts above the default - it isn't justified for your CPU.) By going
    back and forth with these adjustmenst you will eventually find the highest
    stable CPU speed for your system.

    Most important of all: you will not destroy your CPU or motherboard from
    overheating, raising the CPU core voltage too much is an instant CPU killer.

    Hope this helps.

    Phil Weldon

    "Newfdog" <newfdog2nospam@warp.nfld.net> wrote in message
    news:cTy_d.973$Ln.45860@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
    > Hi all.... I have never tried overclocking before and thought I might give
    > it a try. I have an Aopen MX 46 motherboard with a P4 1.7GHz processor
    > installed. According to Aopen this board has lots of overclocking ability
    > but I don't really understand the translation on their website. Apparently
    > I can change the FSB speed in the bios. I also understand that Intel
    > processors are somehow locked, so what can I change to overclock this
    > processor? Is an increase in the FSB speed the way to overclock this
    > machine?
    >
    > Any info including relevant websites would be appreciated.
    >
    > Thanks
    > Newfdog
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    Many thanks Phil. I appreciate the time you took to make such an
    informative reply, I've learned alot here.

    Newfdog

    Phil Weldon wrote:
    > Your Pentium 4 1.7 GHz can be overclocked only by increasing the
    > FrontSideBus speed. Unfortunately, a Pentium 4 1.7 GHz is a 'Willamette'
    > technology CPU, and has little overclocking potential compared to its
    > successor, the 'Northwood'. The 'Northwood' Pentium 4 CPUs are based on a
    > faster, lower voltage, lower power technology and have a larger L2 cache.
    > For example, a 'Northwood' Pentium 4 1.6A can fairly often be overclocked by
    > 50%. Your Pentium 4 1.7 is much more limited.
    >
    > Generally a good indication of casual overclocking ability is the highest
    > nominal speed CPU of the technology. For the 'Willamette', that is 2.0 GHz,
    > while for the 'Northwood' it is 3.4 GHz. You can overclock your CPU by
    > increasing the FrontSideBus speed, but don't expect much above 2.0 GHz. In
    > other words, go ahead and try overclocking, but don't spend any money on
    > extra cooling, etc. for your present CPU - it just isn't worth it.
    >
    > Unfortunately I don't have any overclocking links that seem to be current,
    > but you should pretty much reach the maximum for your current CPU by just
    > raising the clock speed (the clock speed is 1/4 the FrontSideBus speed.)
    > Your CPU has a fixed multiplier of 17X, so raising the clock speed from 100
    > MHz to 120 MHz (and consequently the FrontSideBus speed to 480 MHz) will
    > give a CPU speed of 17 X 120 MHz = 2040 MHz. You should keep several things
    > in mind.
    >
    > #1. Make sure that your PCI bus speed is not above about 37 MHz (nominal is
    > 33 MHz.) A PCI bus speed over specifications begins to run the risk of data
    > corruption when data is written to hard drives. If your motherboard has a
    > FIXED setting for the PCI and AGP buses that locks the PCI bus to 33 MHz and
    > the AGP bus to 66 MHz, use that setting for overclocking. (Usually, the PCI
    > bus speed is 1/3 the system clock speed and the AGP bus speed is 2/3 the
    > system clock speed, but chipsets for Pentium 4 CPUs have the ability to fix
    > those bus speeds rather than using a divider.)
    >
    > #2. Before starting to overclock your older system, make sure the system is
    > clear of dust and other thing that might restrict the flow of cooling air.
    > Especially make sure the CPU heatsink fins are clean. Keep an eye on the
    > CPU temperature when trying to overclock, and compare it to the CPU
    > temperatures when not overclocking. In overclocking, you are trading the
    > built-in stability overhead for higher speeds. Higher temperatures result
    > from overclocking and higher temperatures reduce overclocking ability. Try
    > to keep the temperature rise as low as possible.
    >
    > #3. Raise the system clock speed in small steps, in your case, say 5 MHz.
    > Change nothing else. If your systems boots and starts the operating system,
    > try putting a load on the system. If it is stable, you can try a higher
    > system clock system. If it is not stable, you can try increasing the CPU
    > core voltage by a small amount, say 0.05 volts ( in no case go higher than
    > 0.15 volts above the default - it isn't justified for your CPU.) By going
    > back and forth with these adjustmenst you will eventually find the highest
    > stable CPU speed for your system.
    >
    > Most important of all: you will not destroy your CPU or motherboard from
    > overheating, raising the CPU core voltage too much is an instant CPU killer.
    >
    > Hope this helps.
    >
    > Phil Weldon
    >
    > "Newfdog" <newfdog2nospam@warp.nfld.net> wrote in message
    > news:cTy_d.973$Ln.45860@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
    >
    >>Hi all.... I have never tried overclocking before and thought I might give
    >>it a try. I have an Aopen MX 46 motherboard with a P4 1.7GHz processor
    >>installed. According to Aopen this board has lots of overclocking ability
    >>but I don't really understand the translation on their website. Apparently
    >>I can change the FSB speed in the bios. I also understand that Intel
    >>processors are somehow locked, so what can I change to overclock this
    >>processor? Is an increase in the FSB speed the way to overclock this
    >>machine?
    >>
    >>Any info including relevant websites would be appreciated.
    >>
    >>Thanks
    >>Newfdog
    >
    >
    >
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    "Phil Weldon" <notdiscosed@example.com> wrote in message
    news:eoF%d.365$z.247@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    > No, Intel Pentium 4 CPUs have nominal FSB's of 400, 533, 800, or, just
    > recently 1066 MHz, not 100 MHz.
    Not really the true FSB, or we would be looking @ total bus speeds of
    400x4=1600
    533x4=2132
    800x4=3200
    And 1066x4=4264
    The true FSB's are really
    100x4=400
    133x4=533 (133.25)
    200x4=800
    And 266x4=1066 (266.5)
    Goto http://processorfinder.intel.com/scripts/default.asp
    Look up any CPU, Intel them selves lists them all as just (Bus Speed)
    Not FSB
    If you want to correct some1 on something, then be correct about it.

    >
    > No, Intel CPU's since the Pentium II 300 MHz are multiplier locked, and
    no,
    > your Xeon multiplier can't be 'turned down'. Likely you can change the
    > multiplier setting in the BIOS, but that has NO EFFECT.
    Your also wrong here too, as I said, I can turn down my multiplier, but not
    up.
    http://mywebpages.comcast.net/dstrausser33/CPUZXeon266.html
    Do the math, a 2.66 (533 Bus) or dual, run @ 20x133 (133.25)
    This shows I'm running @ 18, or do I need my eyes checked??

    >
    > "Raving Raichu" <ravingraichu@comcast.net> wrote > Yes, most if not all
    > Intel CPU's are multiplier locked.
    > > The only way to Overclock it is to turn it's FSB up.
    > > I'm guessing that a 100 MHz FSB cpu. So try something like 110 or 115
    > > The best thing to do is to try turning it up only little by little.
    > > You might be able to get 2GHz out of it depending on what kind of ram
    you
    > > have.
    > > You might be able to get better then 2 GHz out of it, but I cant tell
    you
    > > that.
    > > You have to play around with it & see what settings work the best.
    > > Hm, CPU's that r Locked, my Xeon's can be turned down from the
    > > 20xMultiplier.
    > > RavingRaichu.. ;-) :-)
    > >>
    > >> Any info including relevant websites would be appreciated.
    > >>
    > >> Thanks
    > >> Newfdog
    > >>
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    As additional questions pop up, just post here again. You are likely to get
    good answers within a few days. Some of the participants in this newsgroup
    have been posting here for years - since the Celeron 300a lit up the sky.

    Phil Weldon

    "Newfdog" <newfdog2nospam@warp.nfld.net> wrote in message
    news:h9W%d.3178$Ln.140150@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
    > Many thanks Phil. I appreciate the time you took to make such an
    > informative reply, I've learned alot here.
    >
    > Newfdog
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    "RaichuRaichu" complained
    ..
    ..
    ..
    ..
    And gets these suggestions

    Just to give you something to do; try various URLs such as
    http://www.intel.com/design/xeon/datashts/252135.htm
    (which will direct you to a document titled:


    Intel(R) Xeon(TM) Processor with 533 MHz Front Side Bus at 2 GHz to 3.20 GHz
    Datasheet

    [ which should cover the Xeon of which you speak ]).

    You might also find this page interesting
    http://support.intel.com/support/processors/sb/CS-001527.htm
    (which also should cover the Xeon of which you speak).

    So perhaps you should take another look.

    Phil Weldon


    news:ldmdnSAsI723Rd3fRVn-gg@comcast.com...
    > "Phil Weldon" <notdiscosed@example.com> wrote in message
    > news:eoF%d.365$z.247@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    >> No, Intel Pentium 4 CPUs have nominal FSB's of 400, 533, 800, or, just
    >> recently 1066 MHz, not 100 MHz.
    > Not really the true FSB, or we would be looking @ total bus speeds of
    > 400x4=1600
    > 533x4=2132
    > 800x4=3200
    > And 1066x4=4264
    > The true FSB's are really
    > 100x4=400
    > 133x4=533 (133.25)
    > 200x4=800
    > And 266x4=1066 (266.5)
    > Goto http://processorfinder.intel.com/scripts/default.asp
    > Look up any CPU, Intel them selves lists them all as just (Bus Speed)
    > Not FSB
    > If you want to correct some1 on something, then be correct about it.
    >
    >>
    >> No, Intel CPU's since the Pentium II 300 MHz are multiplier locked, and
    > no,
    >> your Xeon multiplier can't be 'turned down'. Likely you can change the
    >> multiplier setting in the BIOS, but that has NO EFFECT.
    > Your also wrong here too, as I said, I can turn down my multiplier, but
    > not
    > up.
    > http://mywebpages.comcast.net/dstrausser33/CPUZXeon266.html
    > Do the math, a 2.66 (533 Bus) or dual, run @ 20x133 (133.25)
    > This shows I'm running @ 18, or do I need my eyes checked??
    >
    >>
    >> "Raving Raichu" <ravingraichu@comcast.net> wrote > Yes, most if not all
    >> Intel CPU's are multiplier locked.
    >> > The only way to Overclock it is to turn it's FSB up.
    >> > I'm guessing that a 100 MHz FSB cpu. So try something like 110 or 115
    >> > The best thing to do is to try turning it up only little by little.
    >> > You might be able to get 2GHz out of it depending on what kind of ram
    > you
    >> > have.
    >> > You might be able to get better then 2 GHz out of it, but I cant tell
    > you
    >> > that.
    >> > You have to play around with it & see what settings work the best.
    >> > Hm, CPU's that r Locked, my Xeon's can be turned down from the
    >> > 20xMultiplier.
    >> > RavingRaichu.. ;-) :-)
    >> >>
    >> >> Any info including relevant websites would be appreciated.
    >> >>
    >> >> Thanks
    >> >> Newfdog
    >> >>
    >> >
    >> >
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    "Phil Weldon" <notdiscosed@example.com> wrote in message
    news:t080e.1696$z.1277@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    >
    > "RaichuRaichu" complained
    > .
    > .
    > .
    > .
    > And gets these suggestions
    >
    > Just to give you something to do; try various URLs such as
    > http://www.intel.com/design/xeon/datashts/252135.htm
    > (which will direct you to a document titled:
    I was more str8 to the point then that.

    What ever?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    RaichuRaichu wrote:

    > "Phil Weldon" <notdiscosed@example.com> wrote in message
    > news:eoF%d.365$z.247@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    >
    >>No, Intel Pentium 4 CPUs have nominal FSB's of 400, 533, 800, or, just
    >>recently 1066 MHz, not 100 MHz.
    >
    > Not really the true FSB,

    And what do you propose that "true" means in respect to the FSB?

    > or we would be looking @ total bus speeds of
    > 400x4=1600
    > 533x4=2132
    > 800x4=3200
    > And 1066x4=4264

    The above would only be the case if Kony had been referring to the "bus
    clock." But he wasn't.

    > The true FSB's are really
    > 100x4=400
    > 133x4=533 (133.25)
    > 200x4=800
    > And 266x4=1066 (266.5)

    Your equations for the "true FSB's" result in the same numbers Kony stated:
    400, 533, 800, 1066.

    They do, however, explain how the effective FSB speed is derived from quad
    pumping the base FSB clock. I.E. FSB clock times 4 gives effective FSB speed.

    > Goto http://processorfinder.intel.com/scripts/default.asp
    > Look up any CPU, Intel them selves lists them all as just (Bus Speed)
    > Not FSB

    And what "bus" do you think they're referring to? Hint: The Front Side Bus,
    I.E. FSB.

    > If you want to correct some1 on something, then be correct about it.
    >
    >
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    Phil Weldon wrote:
    [... the "should we multiply or not" for FSBs argument ...]

    This topic just won't die, will it ...

    :)

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

    "Michael Brown" <see@signature.below> wrote in message
    news:42411576@clarion.carno.net.au...
    > Phil Weldon wrote:
    > [... the "should we multiply or not" for FSBs argument ...]
    >
    > This topic just won't die, will it ...
    Lol, no one said I was wrong.
    The RavingRaichu. ;-) :-)
    >
    > :)
    >
    > --
    > Michael Brown
    > www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
    > Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz ---+--- My inbox is always open
    >
    >
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    Not even Intel is consistent on that one!

    Small wonder it should be picked up by 'RaichuRaichu' aka 'RavingRaichu' aka
    'Denny' aka 'Dennis E Strusser Jr' who evidently needs change his email
    address often because of newsgroup email identity harvesting.

    Phil Weldon

    "Michael Brown" <see@signature.below> wrote in message
    news:42411576@clarion.carno.net.au...
    > Phil Weldon wrote:
    > [... the "should we multiply or not" for FSBs argument ...]
    >
    > This topic just won't die, will it ...
    >
    > :)
    >
    > --
    > Michael Brown
    > www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
    > Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz ---+--- My inbox is always open
    >
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    You are to be complimented for your participation. The volume of posts for
    acho has fallen so low that you are considered a sustainer. Perhaps by
    supplying fast, competent answers and interesting, pertinent questions this
    newsgroup will revive.

    Phil Weldon

    "RaichuRaichu" <ravingraichu@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:o6-dnTXpytZmh9zfRVn-qg@comcast.com...
    > "Phil Weldon" <notdiscosed@example.com> wrote in message
    > news:t080e.1696$z.1277@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    >>
    >> "RaichuRaichu" complained
    >> .
    >> .
    >> .
    >> .
    >> And gets these suggestions
    >>
    >> Just to give you something to do; try various URLs such as
    >> http://www.intel.com/design/xeon/datashts/252135.htm
    >> (which will direct you to a document titled:
    > I was more str8 to the point then that.
    >
    > What ever?!?!?!?!?!?!?!
    >
    >
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
    news:1143g06b61r55fd@corp.supernews.com...
    > RaichuRaichu wrote:
    >
    > > "Phil Weldon" <notdiscosed@example.com> wrote in message
    > > news:eoF%d.365$z.247@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    > >
    > >>No, Intel Pentium 4 CPUs have nominal FSB's of 400, 533, 800, or, just
    > >>recently 1066 MHz, not 100 MHz.
    > >
    > > Not really the true FSB,
    >
    > And what do you propose that "true" means in respect to the FSB?
    >
    > > or we would be looking @ total bus speeds of
    > > 400x4=1600
    > > 533x4=2132
    > > 800x4=3200
    > > And 1066x4=4264
    >
    > The above would only be the case if Kony had been referring to the "bus
    > clock." But he wasn't.
    >
    > > The true FSB's are really
    > > 100x4=400
    > > 133x4=533 (133.25)
    > > 200x4=800
    > > And 266x4=1066 (266.5)
    >
    > Your equations for the "true FSB's" result in the same numbers Kony
    stated:
    > 400, 533, 800, 1066.
    >
    > They do, however, explain how the effective FSB speed is derived from quad
    > pumping the base FSB clock. I.E. FSB clock times 4 gives effective FSB
    speed.
    >
    > > Goto http://processorfinder.intel.com/scripts/default.asp
    > > Look up any CPU, Intel them selves lists them all as just (Bus Speed)
    > > Not FSB
    >
    > And what "bus" do you think they're referring to? Hint: The Front Side
    Bus,
    > I.E. FSB.
    >
    > > If you want to correct some1 on something, then be correct about it.
    > >
    > >
    >


    sSpec# CPU Speed Bus Speed Mfg. Tech Stepping Cache Size Package Type
    SL7RT 3.46 GHz 1066 MHz 0.13 micron M0 2 MB 775 pin LGA
    SL7NF 3.46 GHz 1066 MHz 0.13 micron M0 2 MB 775 pin LGA
    SL7GD 3.40 GHz 800 MHz 0.13 micron M0 2 MB 775 pin PLGA
    SL7CH 3.40 GHz 800 MHz 0.13 micron M0 2 MB 478 pin PPGA
    SL7AA 3.20 GHz 800 MHz 0.13 micron M0 2 MB 478 pin PPGA


    Tell me which part I'm mis~reading? It don't say FSB, Just Bus Speed
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    "Phil Weldon" <notdiscosed@example.com> wrote in message
    news:xNi0e.2983$S46.851@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    > Not even Intel is consistent on that one!
    >
    > Small wonder it should be picked up by 'RaichuRaichu' aka 'RavingRaichu'
    aka
    > 'Denny' aka 'Dennis E Strusser Jr' who evidently needs change his email
    > address often because of newsgroup email identity harvesting.
    No, this is really me.
    They both are. http://www.agnph.com/gallery/thumbnails.php?album=107
    Maybe I shouldn't have listed that, yeah well?!?!

    >
    > Phil Weldon
    >
    > "Michael Brown" <see@signature.below> wrote in message
    > news:42411576@clarion.carno.net.au...
    > > Phil Weldon wrote:
    > > [... the "should we multiply or not" for FSBs argument ...]
    > >
    > > This topic just won't die, will it ...
    > >
    > > :)
    > >
    > > --
    > > Michael Brown
    > > www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
    > > Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz ---+--- My inbox is always open
    > >
    >
    >
  18. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    RaichuRaichu wrote:
    > "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
    > news:1143g06b61r55fd@corp.supernews.com...
    >
    >>RaichuRaichu wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>"Phil Weldon" <notdiscosed@example.com> wrote in message
    >>>news:eoF%d.365$z.247@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>No, Intel Pentium 4 CPUs have nominal FSB's of 400, 533, 800, or, just
    >>>>recently 1066 MHz, not 100 MHz.
    >>>
    >>>Not really the true FSB,
    >>
    >>And what do you propose that "true" means in respect to the FSB?
    >>
    >>
    >>>or we would be looking @ total bus speeds of
    >>>400x4=1600
    >>>533x4=2132
    >>>800x4=3200
    >>>And 1066x4=4264
    >>
    >>The above would only be the case if Kony had been referring to the "bus
    >>clock." But he wasn't.
    >>
    >>
    >>>The true FSB's are really
    >>>100x4=400
    >>>133x4=533 (133.25)
    >>>200x4=800
    >>>And 266x4=1066 (266.5)
    >>
    >>Your equations for the "true FSB's" result in the same numbers Kony
    >
    > stated:
    >
    >>400, 533, 800, 1066.
    >>
    >>They do, however, explain how the effective FSB speed is derived from quad
    >>pumping the base FSB clock. I.E. FSB clock times 4 gives effective FSB
    >
    > speed.
    >
    >>>Goto http://processorfinder.intel.com/scripts/default.asp
    >>>Look up any CPU, Intel them selves lists them all as just (Bus Speed)
    >>> Not FSB
    >>
    >>And what "bus" do you think they're referring to? Hint: The Front Side
    >
    > Bus,
    >
    >>I.E. FSB.
    >>
    >>
    >>>If you want to correct some1 on something, then be correct about it.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >
    >
    > sSpec# CPU Speed Bus Speed Mfg. Tech Stepping Cache Size Package Type
    > SL7RT 3.46 GHz 1066 MHz 0.13 micron M0 2 MB 775 pin LGA
    > SL7NF 3.46 GHz 1066 MHz 0.13 micron M0 2 MB 775 pin LGA
    > SL7GD 3.40 GHz 800 MHz 0.13 micron M0 2 MB 775 pin PLGA
    > SL7CH 3.40 GHz 800 MHz 0.13 micron M0 2 MB 478 pin PPGA
    > SL7AA 3.20 GHz 800 MHz 0.13 micron M0 2 MB 478 pin PPGA
    >
    >
    > Tell me which part I'm mis~reading? It don't say FSB, Just Bus Speed

    As I said, the part you're missing is that the "bus" is the FSB.
  19. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    "Intel(R) Xeon(TM) Processor with 533 MHz Front Side Bus at 2 GHz to 3.20
    GHz Datasheet"; document to be found at
    http://www.intel.com/design/xeon/datashts/252135.htm

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

    "Phil Weldon" <notdiscosed@example.com> wrote in message
    news:ZsE0e.7583$S46.4449@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
    > "Intel(R) Xeon(TM) Processor with 533 MHz Front Side Bus at 2 GHz to 3.20
    > GHz Datasheet"; document to be found at
    > http://www.intel.com/design/xeon/datashts/252135.htm
    >
    > Phil Weldon
    >
    >
    That reminds me of something, I could turn back my multiplier and just
    run this thing @ 3.20 GHz
    The performance level of the overclock beats true dual Xeon's @ this same
    speed ;
    cause of the fact that the data is being processed over a 160 MHz FSB
    clock rate, rather then a 133 MHz FSB clock rate. or 640 MHz effective bus.
    Of course, the other reason to overclock to 3.2GHz, is to not spend like
    575.44 for
    each cpu. Quick search on newegg.com
    I had only really changed the multiplier to prove I could do it.
    And I too thought Intel Chips were always locked.

    Of course we also see this with the Athlon FX55, how else could a 2.6GHz
    chip beat
    most sides of a 3.7? GHz something, chip? Something like that anyway.
    Maybe it was an overclocked cpu, had problems finding it on the net.
    I'm a dreamer I know, but it is nice to dream about a CPU with a
    True FSB of 1,000 MHz and a total effective bus clock rate of 2,000 MHz
    Denny.. (RavingRaichu)
  21. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    > > sSpec# CPU Speed Bus Speed Mfg. Tech Stepping Cache Size Package
    Type
    > > SL7RT 3.46 GHz 1066 MHz 0.13 micron M0 2 MB 775 pin LGA
    > > SL7NF 3.46 GHz 1066 MHz 0.13 micron M0 2 MB 775 pin LGA
    > > SL7GD 3.40 GHz 800 MHz 0.13 micron M0 2 MB 775 pin PLGA
    > > SL7CH 3.40 GHz 800 MHz 0.13 micron M0 2 MB 478 pin PPGA
    > > SL7AA 3.20 GHz 800 MHz 0.13 micron M0 2 MB 478 pin PPGA
    > >
    > >
    > > Tell me which part I'm mis~reading? It don't say FSB, Just Bus Speed
    >
    > As I said, the part you're missing is that the "bus" is the FSB.
    Not really, it's the Effective "Bus"
    I emailed "AMD" not "Intel" on this and they told me in many words that I am
    right on this, same with some1 on this group as well.
    The Athlon XP 2200+ has a 266MHz effective bus with to sides of the bus
    clock.
    Easy to figure out really.
    133 MHz FSB for the upper edge of the clock.
    And
    133 MHz FSB for the lower edge of the clock.

    This part is a guess really..
    (The Pentium 4 in a way works the same way, but it does it twice.
    @ first it was just used for a longer pipeline, but then they started to use
    it for
    Hyperthreading tech as well.)
    And it does simulate 2 CPU's well. I had windows mess up on me one time
    and it wasn't using HTT @ all. My benchmarks looked more like a P4 then
    they looked like a dual Xeon.
    Where the Real FSB got lost, I don't know.
    What ever what ever, if AMD admits to the true FSB not being what's
    sometimes posted,
    then it might also be true with Intel CPU's.

    Denny. (RavingRaichu) http://www.emusega-forever.com I Might as well
    start a discussion on this as well, I am the webmaster. I'm not crazy, I'm
    just a drunk.
  22. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    RaichuRaichu wrote:

    >>> sSpec# CPU Speed Bus Speed Mfg. Tech Stepping Cache Size Package
    >
    > Type
    >
    >>> SL7RT 3.46 GHz 1066 MHz 0.13 micron M0 2 MB 775 pin LGA
    >>> SL7NF 3.46 GHz 1066 MHz 0.13 micron M0 2 MB 775 pin LGA
    >>> SL7GD 3.40 GHz 800 MHz 0.13 micron M0 2 MB 775 pin PLGA
    >>> SL7CH 3.40 GHz 800 MHz 0.13 micron M0 2 MB 478 pin PPGA
    >>> SL7AA 3.20 GHz 800 MHz 0.13 micron M0 2 MB 478 pin PPGA
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Tell me which part I'm mis~reading? It don't say FSB, Just Bus Speed
    >>
    >>As I said, the part you're missing is that the "bus" is the FSB.
    >
    > Not really, it's the Effective "Bus"

    It doesn't make sense to say "effective bus." A bus is a bus.

    There is an "effective bus *speed*," however. Although, that's another
    whole ball of wax because there are a number of things that affect the
    "effective" rate, such as memory latency, command delays, etc.

    Read the data sheets. Such as for AMD:

    AMD Athlon XP
    Processor Model 10
    Data Sheet

    Publication # 26237 Rev. C
    Issue Date: May 2003

    6 Advanced 333 Front-Side Bus AMD Athlon™ XP
    Processor Model 10 Specifications

    7 Advanced 400 Front-Side Bus AMD Athlon™ XP
    Processor Model 10 Specifications

    > I emailed "AMD" not "Intel" on this and they told me in many words that I am
    > right on this, same with some1 on this group as well.

    And what is the "this" you're speaking of?

    > The Athlon XP 2200+ has a 266MHz effective bus

    Effective bus "speed." Actually, it's the maximum (burst) data rate.

    > with to sides of the bus
    > clock.
    > Easy to figure out really.
    > 133 MHz FSB for the upper edge of the clock.
    > And
    > 133 MHz FSB for the lower edge of the clock.

    A 266 FSB operates from a 133 Mhz clock and a clock pulse has a rising edge
    and a falling edge. They clock data on both so that data is transferred at
    twice the clock frequency.


    > This part is a guess really..
    > (The Pentium 4 in a way works the same way, but it does it twice.
    > @ first it was just used for a longer pipeline, but then they started to use
    > it for
    > Hyperthreading tech as well.)
    > And it does simulate 2 CPU's well. I had windows mess up on me one time
    > and it wasn't using HTT @ all. My benchmarks looked more like a P4 then
    > they looked like a dual Xeon.

    The FSB has nothing to do with pipelining or hyperthreading, other than
    that's how the data gets there.

    P4 clock timing creates a second clock from the base clock that is 90
    degrees out of phase and sends data on the rising and trailing edge of
    both. I.E.
    ___ ___
    | | | |
    --- --- base clock
    ___ ___
    | | | |
    - --- -- 90 degree phase

    | | | | | | | |

    data transfers

    > Where the Real FSB got lost, I don't know.

    As I said the first time, define what "real" means in regard to the FSB.

    > What ever what ever, if AMD admits to the true FSB not being what's
    > sometimes posted,
    > then it might also be true with Intel CPU's.

    Define what "true" means in regard to the FSB.


    For a 333 FSB, the clock is 166.66... MHz and the (burst) data rate is
    333.33... MHz. What makes 166.66... more "true" or "real" than 333.33...?
    They're simply different things, albeit tightly related, and both are
    "real" and "true" for what they describe. An E.E. might like to speak in
    terms of the clock because he's designing circuits but the consumer simply
    wants to know how fast the data gets there and, as the saying goes, I don't
    want to design a watch just tell me what time it is. OK, it's high noon and
    the FSB data rate is 333.

    The situation is not unlike having both a tachometer and speedometer in
    your car. What is the "true speed," 3000 RPM or 70 MPH? They're both
    "true," depending on what your point of interest is, and related by the
    gearing.

    > Denny. (RavingRaichu) http://www.emusega-forever.com I Might as well
    > start a discussion on this as well, I am the webmaster. I'm not crazy, I'm
    > just a drunk.
    >
    >
  23. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    P4 clock timing creates a second clock from the base clock that is 90
    degrees out of phase and sends data on the rising and trailing edge of
    both. I.E.

    So I was not far off here, even though it was a guess.?
    ___ ___
    | | | |
    --- --- base clock
    ___ ___
    | | | |
    - --- -- 90 degree phase

    | | | | | | | |

    data transfers

    > Where the Real FSB got lost, I don't know.

    As I said the first time, define what "real" means in regard to the FSB.

    > What ever what ever, if AMD admits to the true FSB not being what's
    > sometimes posted,
    > then it might also be true with Intel CPU's.

    Define what "true" means in regard to the FSB.


    For a 333 FSB, the clock is 166.66... MHz and the (burst) data rate is
    333.33... MHz. What makes 166.66... more "true" or "real" than 333.33...?
    They're simply different things, albeit tightly related, and both are
    "real" and "true" for what they describe. An E.E. might like to speak in
    terms of the clock because he's designing circuits but the consumer simply
    wants to know how fast the data gets there and, as the saying goes, I don't
    want to design a watch just tell me what time it is. OK, it's high noon and
    the FSB data rate is 333.

    The situation is not unlike having both a tachometer and speedometer in
    your car. What is the "true speed," 3000 RPM or 70 MPH? They're both
    "true," depending on what your point of interest is, and related by the
    gearing.

    > Denny. (RavingRaichu) http://www.emusega-forever.com I Might as well
    > start a discussion on this as well, I am the webmaster. I'm not crazy,
    I'm
    > just a drunk.
    >
    >
    Cool, very much good info.
  24. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    RaichuRaichu wrote:

    > P4 clock timing creates a second clock from the base clock that is 90
    > degrees out of phase and sends data on the rising and trailing edge of
    > both. I.E.
    >
    > So I was not far off here, even though it was a guess.?

    I suppose so. 800 is twice 400 so that's "doing it twice" but the trick, of
    course, is 'how' it's done twice as much. You can't just 'read twice' on
    the original clock edge because there must be a timing delay for the
    memory, and the bus, to respond. Hence the need for a phased shifted second
    clock to determine when the next read will occur.

    > ___ ___
    > | | | |
    > --- --- base clock
    > ___ ___
    > | | | |
    > - --- -- 90 degree phase
    >
    > | | | | | | | |
    >
    > data transfers
    >
    >
    >>Where the Real FSB got lost, I don't know.
    >
    >
    > As I said the first time, define what "real" means in regard to the FSB.
    >
    >
    >>What ever what ever, if AMD admits to the true FSB not being what's
    >>sometimes posted,
    >> then it might also be true with Intel CPU's.
    >
    >
    > Define what "true" means in regard to the FSB.
    >
    >
    >
    > For a 333 FSB, the clock is 166.66... MHz and the (burst) data rate is
    > 333.33... MHz. What makes 166.66... more "true" or "real" than 333.33...?
    > They're simply different things, albeit tightly related, and both are
    > "real" and "true" for what they describe. An E.E. might like to speak in
    > terms of the clock because he's designing circuits but the consumer simply
    > wants to know how fast the data gets there and, as the saying goes, I don't
    > want to design a watch just tell me what time it is. OK, it's high noon and
    > the FSB data rate is 333.
    >
    > The situation is not unlike having both a tachometer and speedometer in
    > your car. What is the "true speed," 3000 RPM or 70 MPH? They're both
    > "true," depending on what your point of interest is, and related by the
    > gearing.
    >
    >
    >>Denny. (RavingRaichu) http://www.emusega-forever.com I Might as well
    >>start a discussion on this as well, I am the webmaster. I'm not crazy,
    >
    > I'm
    >
    >>just a drunk.
    >>
    >>
    >
    > Cool, very much good info.
    >
    >
  25. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
    news:1148t00rmteb9ae@corp.supernews.com...
    > RaichuRaichu wrote:
    >
    > > P4 clock timing creates a second clock from the base clock that is 90
    > > degrees out of phase and sends data on the rising and trailing edge of
    > > both. I.E.
    > >
    > > So I was not far off here, even though it was a guess.?
    >
    > I suppose so. 800 is twice 400 so that's "doing it twice" but the trick,
    of
    > course, is 'how' it's done twice as much. You can't just 'read twice' on
    > the original clock edge because there must be a timing delay for the
    > memory, and the bus, to respond. Hence the need for a phased shifted
    second
    > clock to determine when the next read will occur.
    Makes perfect sense, other wise the memory wouldn't keep up @ all.
    I've never really seen how far a P4 can really go.
    I still have a good 3 or 4 GB difference between my P4 CPU and ram.
    My P4 seems to race ahead of my ram, even when overclocking the ram.
    Even @ stock speed, my 2.6c GHz (Northwood) is still much faster then my
    Kingston Value ram (PC3200)
    Hm, I think Intel was too fast to goto the 90nm tech here.
    Overclockers like me have been taking the P4c's up to over 1,000 MHz bus
    for years now.
    2.60 @ 3.35 on water, had it up to 3,434 one time, but not stable.
    :-D On aim, it's a really big smile.
    The RavingRaichu. Electric don't hurt you, if not too much hits you. :-)
    >
    > > ___ ___
    > > | | | |
    > > --- --- base clock
    > > ___ ___
    > > | | | |
    > > - --- -- 90 degree phase
    > >
    > > | | | | | | | |
    > >
    > > data transfers
    > >
    > >
    > >>Where the Real FSB got lost, I don't know.
    > >
    > >
    > > As I said the first time, define what "real" means in regard to the FSB.
    > >
    > >
    > >>What ever what ever, if AMD admits to the true FSB not being what's
    > >>sometimes posted,
    > >> then it might also be true with Intel CPU's.
    > >
    > >
    > > Define what "true" means in regard to the FSB.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > For a 333 FSB, the clock is 166.66... MHz and the (burst) data rate is
    > > 333.33... MHz. What makes 166.66... more "true" or "real" than
    333.33...?
    > > They're simply different things, albeit tightly related, and both are
    > > "real" and "true" for what they describe. An E.E. might like to speak in
    > > terms of the clock because he's designing circuits but the consumer
    simply
    > > wants to know how fast the data gets there and, as the saying goes, I
    don't
    > > want to design a watch just tell me what time it is. OK, it's high noon
    and
    > > the FSB data rate is 333.
    > >
    > > The situation is not unlike having both a tachometer and speedometer in
    > > your car. What is the "true speed," 3000 RPM or 70 MPH? They're both
    > > "true," depending on what your point of interest is, and related by the
    > > gearing.
    > >
    > >
    > >>Denny. (RavingRaichu) http://www.emusega-forever.com I Might as well
    > >>start a discussion on this as well, I am the webmaster. I'm not crazy,
    > >
    > > I'm
    > >
    > >>just a drunk.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >
    > > Cool, very much good info.
    > >
    > >
    >
  26. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    RaichuRaichu wrote:

    > "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
    > news:1148t00rmteb9ae@corp.supernews.com...
    >
    >>RaichuRaichu wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>P4 clock timing creates a second clock from the base clock that is 90
    >>>degrees out of phase and sends data on the rising and trailing edge of
    >>>both. I.E.
    >>>
    >>>So I was not far off here, even though it was a guess.?
    >>
    >>I suppose so. 800 is twice 400 so that's "doing it twice" but the trick,
    >
    > of
    >
    >>course, is 'how' it's done twice as much. You can't just 'read twice' on
    >>the original clock edge because there must be a timing delay for the
    >>memory, and the bus, to respond. Hence the need for a phased shifted
    >
    > second
    >
    >>clock to determine when the next read will occur.
    >
    > Makes perfect sense, other wise the memory wouldn't keep up @ all.
    > I've never really seen how far a P4 can really go.
    > I still have a good 3 or 4 GB difference between my P4 CPU and ram.

    I don't know what that means.

    > My P4 seems to race ahead of my ram, even when overclocking the ram.
    > Even @ stock speed, my 2.6c GHz (Northwood) is still much faster then my
    > Kingston Value ram (PC3200)

    Processors have been faster than the FSB ever since they first started
    using multipliers.

    > Hm, I think Intel was too fast to goto the 90nm tech here.
    > Overclockers like me have been taking the P4c's up to over 1,000 MHz bus
    > for years now.

    DDR goes up to 575. That's 1150 dual channel.

    > 2.60 @ 3.35 on water, had it up to 3,434 one time, but not stable.
    > :-D On aim, it's a really big smile.
    > The RavingRaichu. Electric don't hurt you, if not too much hits you. :-)
    >
  27. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
    news:114a2b634odrme6@corp.supernews.com...
    > RaichuRaichu wrote:
    >
    > > "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
    > > news:1148t00rmteb9ae@corp.supernews.com...
    > >
    > >>RaichuRaichu wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>P4 clock timing creates a second clock from the base clock that is 90
    > >>>degrees out of phase and sends data on the rising and trailing edge of
    > >>>both. I.E.
    > >>>
    > >>>So I was not far off here, even though it was a guess.?
    > >>
    > >>I suppose so. 800 is twice 400 so that's "doing it twice" but the trick,
    > >
    > > of
    > >
    > >>course, is 'how' it's done twice as much. You can't just 'read twice' on
    > >>the original clock edge because there must be a timing delay for the
    > >>memory, and the bus, to respond. Hence the need for a phased shifted
    > >
    > > second
    > >
    > >>clock to determine when the next read will occur.
    > >
    > > Makes perfect sense, other wise the memory wouldn't keep up @ all.
    > > I've never really seen how far a P4 can really go.
    > > I still have a good 3 or 4 GB difference between my P4 CPU and ram.
    >
    > I don't know what that means.
    >
    > > My P4 seems to race ahead of my ram, even when overclocking the ram.
    > > Even @ stock speed, my 2.6c GHz (Northwood) is still much faster then my
    > > Kingston Value ram (PC3200)
    >
    > Processors have been faster than the FSB ever since they first started
    > using multipliers.
    >
    > > Hm, I think Intel was too fast to goto the 90nm tech here.
    > > Overclockers like me have been taking the P4c's up to over 1,000 MHz bus
    > > for years now.
    >
    > DDR goes up to 575. That's 1150 dual channel.
    The point I was trying to make is Intel should've tried to improve the
    (Northwood) Core
    before putting out the Prescott.
    If overclockers can push the thing that far, then what says that Intel cant
    find a way to just
    make a chip that fast.
    Anyways...
    Laters..


    >
    > > 2.60 @ 3.35 on water, had it up to 3,434 one time, but not stable.
    > > :-D On aim, it's a really big smile.
    > > The RavingRaichu. Electric don't hurt you, if not too much hits you.
    :-)
    > >
    >
  28. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    RaichuRaichu wrote:

    > "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
    > news:114a2b634odrme6@corp.supernews.com...
    >
    >>RaichuRaichu wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>"David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
    >>>news:1148t00rmteb9ae@corp.supernews.com...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>RaichuRaichu wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>P4 clock timing creates a second clock from the base clock that is 90
    >>>>>degrees out of phase and sends data on the rising and trailing edge of
    >>>>>both. I.E.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>So I was not far off here, even though it was a guess.?
    >>>>
    >>>>I suppose so. 800 is twice 400 so that's "doing it twice" but the trick,
    >>>
    >>>of
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>course, is 'how' it's done twice as much. You can't just 'read twice' on
    >>>>the original clock edge because there must be a timing delay for the
    >>>>memory, and the bus, to respond. Hence the need for a phased shifted
    >>>
    >>>second
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>clock to determine when the next read will occur.
    >>>
    >>>Makes perfect sense, other wise the memory wouldn't keep up @ all.
    >>>I've never really seen how far a P4 can really go.
    >>>I still have a good 3 or 4 GB difference between my P4 CPU and ram.
    >>
    >>I don't know what that means.
    >>
    >>
    >>> My P4 seems to race ahead of my ram, even when overclocking the ram.
    >>>Even @ stock speed, my 2.6c GHz (Northwood) is still much faster then my
    >>> Kingston Value ram (PC3200)
    >>
    >>Processors have been faster than the FSB ever since they first started
    >>using multipliers.
    >>
    >>
    >>>Hm, I think Intel was too fast to goto the 90nm tech here.
    >>>Overclockers like me have been taking the P4c's up to over 1,000 MHz bus
    >>> for years now.
    >>
    >>DDR goes up to 575. That's 1150 dual channel.
    >
    > The point I was trying to make is Intel should've tried to improve the
    > (Northwood) Core
    > before putting out the Prescott.
    > If overclockers can push the thing that far, then what says that Intel cant
    > find a way to just
    > make a chip that fast.
    > Anyways...
    > Laters..
    >
    >

    Well, for one, when Intel makes them they have to *all* work and over every
    combination of the specifications from one extreme to the other, and not
    just 'usually' and in your house.
  29. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

    "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
    news:114co9l2hvau9d9@corp.supernews.com...
    > RaichuRaichu wrote:
    >
    > > "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
    > > news:114a2b634odrme6@corp.supernews.com...
    > >
    > >>RaichuRaichu wrote:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>"David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
    > >>>news:1148t00rmteb9ae@corp.supernews.com...
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>>RaichuRaichu wrote:
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>>>P4 clock timing creates a second clock from the base clock that is 90
    > >>>>>degrees out of phase and sends data on the rising and trailing edge
    of
    > >>>>>both. I.E.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>>So I was not far off here, even though it was a guess.?
    > >>>>
    > >>>>I suppose so. 800 is twice 400 so that's "doing it twice" but the
    trick,
    > >>>
    > >>>of
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>>course, is 'how' it's done twice as much. You can't just 'read twice'
    on
    > >>>>the original clock edge because there must be a timing delay for the
    > >>>>memory, and the bus, to respond. Hence the need for a phased shifted
    > >>>
    > >>>second
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >>>>clock to determine when the next read will occur.
    > >>>
    > >>>Makes perfect sense, other wise the memory wouldn't keep up @ all.
    > >>>I've never really seen how far a P4 can really go.
    > >>>I still have a good 3 or 4 GB difference between my P4 CPU and ram.
    > >>
    > >>I don't know what that means.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>> My P4 seems to race ahead of my ram, even when overclocking the ram.
    > >>>Even @ stock speed, my 2.6c GHz (Northwood) is still much faster then
    my
    > >>> Kingston Value ram (PC3200)
    > >>
    > >>Processors have been faster than the FSB ever since they first started
    > >>using multipliers.
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>Hm, I think Intel was too fast to goto the 90nm tech here.
    > >>>Overclockers like me have been taking the P4c's up to over 1,000 MHz
    bus
    > >>> for years now.
    > >>
    > >>DDR goes up to 575. That's 1150 dual channel.
    > >
    > > The point I was trying to make is Intel should've tried to improve the
    > > (Northwood) Core
    > > before putting out the Prescott.
    > > If overclockers can push the thing that far, then what says that Intel
    cant
    > > find a way to just
    > > make a chip that fast.
    > > Anyways...
    > > Laters..
    > >
    > >
    >
    > Well, for one, when Intel makes them they have to *all* work and over
    every
    > combination of the specifications from one extreme to the other, and not
    > just 'usually' and in your house.
    >
    >
    >
    =P Very true. ;-) :-)
    Cant argue with that.
    Also making a note upstairs to what ever I want to call my brain.
    You are one of the better ppl on this group.
    RavingRaichu. :-)
Ask a new question

Read More

Overclocking Processors