cpu clock measurement

[shakushinnen]

Dear...
I have a 233mmx that I am trying to overclock. I have, I think, succesfully done so. The problem is that when I start my computer the first line says, "Processor clock: 290mhz" but the utilities I've tried all say, "210mhz". Does anyone know how to determine which is right?
Thanks,
John

 

[ChipDeath]

which utilities have you used? I believe WCPUID is a reliable program.

the bootup speed is probably the correct one anyway.

[EDIT]
if you want to be sure though, you could download Sisoft Sandra, and run the CPU benchmark. It can show how your CPU actually compares with others, so you could do the test both with it overclocked, and without, and see if there is any difference.
[/EDIT]

---
$hit Happens. I just wish it would happen to someone else for a change.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ChipDeath on 08/05/03 05:23 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[pIII_Man]

are you overclocking via multi or fsb...

Some mmx cpus were multiplyer locked to some extent...they would revert to a diffrent multi then specified...

If i put my k6 in a Ferrari it would be faster than your your pentium 4 or Athlon XP :tongue:

 

[Crashman]

Some late non-MMX CPU's were locked too. Back then the lock was a maximum, not a minimum, so trying to go over the specified multi would default the CPU to 1.5x.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[shakushinnen]

Hi PIII man,
I don't know what multi or fsb are. I changed the jumper settings on the mother board. Does that answer your question?
John

 

[shakushinnen]

Hi Chip Death,
I didn't use a utility. I changed the jumper settings on the mobo. I'll look at WCPUID and SiSoft Sandar though. Thanks,
John

 

[pIII_Man]

multiplyer and front side bus...

what did you change the jumper too?

multiplyer x fsb = cpu speed

at stock speeds your cpu is running

4 x 66 = 233

4 is the multiplyer
66 is the bus speed
233 is your cpu's speed

If i put my k6 in a Ferrari it would be faster than your your pentium 4 or Athlon XP :tongue:

 

[jmecor]

have you not seen it in the bios

 

[pIII_Man]

woh...buddy...this is way before overclocking via a bios...abit's soft menu is a long ways off...

If i put my k6 in a Ferrari it would be faster than your your pentium 4 or Athlon XP :tongue:

 

[endyen]

What mobo are you using, and how have you set your jumpers?
By the way 4X66 = 264 so stock should be 3.5X 66 For the 233 mmx chip. The most common oc is 3.5X 75.If you have a super socket seven you have more options.

 

[ChipDeath]

PIII_Man:Looks like he's using the FSB - many boards would offer jumpers for FSB of 83Mhz, and that fits his multiplier and what he says the speed is - 3.5x83=290.5,
But the nearest he could get with multipliers is just under 300.

I think the reported POST speed is probably the accurate one - maybe whatever windows program he's using is noticing it's not 66FSB, and is assuming its 60 instead.

---
$hit Happens. I just wish it would happen to someone else for a change.

 

[ChipDeath]

Sorry - when I said utilities, I meant which ones did you use to measure the speed afterwards.

---
$hit Happens. I just wish it would happen to someone else for a change.

 

[shakushinnen]

Hi Chip Death,
Mainly I've been using CPUID, but I tried 2 or 3 others and they all gave me 210mhz. Agreement between them would seem to indicate that they're right, but the system does seem to perform pretty well, more like 290 than 210.
John

 

[shakushinnen]

Hi Enyen,
I'm using an Amptron PM9200-B. I don't think it's a super 7. Would it say so in the manual? The manual allows for 3.5 x 75 (266) which it will run at, but those are the maximums. I am not using one of the recommended jumper configurations, so I don't know what the multiplier is. If you accept what the speed utilities say its running at 60 x 3.5 (210) but it sure seems more like 290, performance wise. The other thing I've done is wacked up the core voltage to 3.2. The chip I'm using, Intel's 233mmx, stipulates a core voltage of 2.8, so I've seriously over volted it.
John

 

[shakushinnen]

Hi jmecor,
Have I seen what in the bios, 290mhz? I have to apologize for my lack of knowledge here. When I start my machine the opening page says "Processor Clock: 290mhz". Is this what you mean?
John

 

[shakushinnen]

Hi Piii man,
Yes, I think I know what you mean, but I don't know what the multiplier or the fsb are because I'm using recommended jumper configurations. According to the manual 75 is the maximum fsb and the maximum multiplier is 3.5, so the theoretical maximum should be 266mhz. I know what you're saying. The problem I'm having is determining which is right, what I'm told by my computer at start up (290mhz) and what the utilities tell me (210mhz).
John

 

[ChipDeath]

Have you tried any benchmarks? That's probably the easiest way to find out. Download Sisoft Sandra, and use the CPU benchmark included there.

---
$hit Happens. I just wish it would happen to someone else for a change.

 

[pIII_Man]

Actually i do not trust the bios...trust the utilities...if i go past 933mhz with my cpu the bios gets all messed up...at 966mhz by bios shows up that i am running a 900mhz cpu...but the benchies and utilities show that i am running 966....so bioses can screw up...especially when overclocking

If i put my k6 in a Ferrari it would be faster than your your pentium 4 or Athlon XP :tongue:

 

[shakushinnen]

Hi Chip Death,
Yes, I guess I'll have to do that. Thanks for the suggestion.
John

 

[shakushinnen]

Hi Piii_Man,
O.K. Thanks for the suggestion. I'll try SiSoft Sandra and see what that does. Thanks for the suggestion.
John

 

[shakushinnen]

Hi Piii man,
I download SiSoft Sandra and it agreed with the other utilities, i.e. 210 mhz. So that's that. Thanks.
I also wanted to say that I subsequently overclocked the intel 233mmx to 262, which worked fine. Then I put in an AMDk6 233ANR, and it seems to me that the AMD clocked at 233 is faster than the Intel clocked at 262. Is this possible?
P.S. I was not able to clock the AMD to 75 mhz. Although my board allows for this setting (the intel took it), the system would not boot past the "Starting windows 98" line.
John

 

[pIII_Man]

hmmm....my pII 233 feels like it could kill my k6...and it has 32mb less memory...

I would say on most systems the 233mmx should be about even with the k6...but i mean...if it does not feel as fast then go for the amd...

300mhz for a mmx seems like a lot to me on stock voltage...i forget do they run 2.5 or 3.3v...if you have good cooling you could try to bump up the voltage to 3.3v

If i put my k6 in a Ferrari it would be faster than your your pentium 4 or Athlon XP :tongue:

 

[shakushinnen]

Hi Chip Death,
I downloaded SiSoft Sandra and it said 210, same as the other utilities, so maybe that's right. I also tried clocking it to 262 (75x3.5) and that worked fine. Then I tried an AMD 233ANR. Believe it or not it seems to me that the AMD at 233 is faster than the Intel at 262. What do you think? Is that possible? I tried to set the AMD to 75, but it didn't fly (wouldn't boot past the "Starting windows 98" line).
John

 

[shakushinnen]

Hi Piii_man,
Yes, well the AMD is supposed to run at 3.2 volts. I have it running happily at 3.3, but it locks up at 3.5.
Oddly enough I was able to run the Intel 233mmx at 3.2 volts when I was screwing around with the multipliers, using unconventional settings (that was when my bios was saying 290mhz). But with the recommended 75x3.5 jumpers it won't boot above 2.8v. Strange eh?
John