Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.elitegroup (More info?)

Hi folks,

I hope someone around here has a board as old as mine (1999).

The subject of this message about says it all. I understand that ECS
added support for multipliers above 4.5x after the manual was printed
out and processors became faster.

I searched Google Groups and a fellow named Steve Moores gave a link
to ECS's website which had details about how to set the jumpers, but
unfortunately, ECS has removed all support for this board from their
website. Creepy... like the board no longer exists.

Does anyone know what jumper settings I need to use for a 5.0x
multiplier?

I don't want to use the existing 4.5x multiplier with a higher system
bus, since that will move my AGP speed from 66 to 75, which my video
card manufacturer says is too high.

Anyone? Please? Thanks!

gene

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.elitegroup (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 10:32:52 -0600, gene <noemailplease@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>Hi folks,
>
>I hope someone around here has a board as old as mine (1999).
>
>The subject of this message about says it all. I understand that ECS
>added support for multipliers above 4.5x after the manual was printed
>out and processors became faster.
>
>I searched Google Groups and a fellow named Steve Moores gave a link
>to ECS's website which had details about how to set the jumpers, but
>unfortunately, ECS has removed all support for this board from their
>website. Creepy... like the board no longer exists.
>
>Does anyone know what jumper settings I need to use for a 5.0x
>multiplier?
>
>I don't want to use the existing 4.5x multiplier with a higher system
>bus, since that will move my AGP speed from 66 to 75, which my video
>card manufacturer says is too high.
>
>Anyone? Please? Thanks!
>
>gene

Actually, 75 vs 66 is not a high overclock and would give better
performance than the 5x multiplier... but

There isn't anything 'additional' needed to 'support' a 5x multiplier
since what the multiplier jumpers 'mean' is determined by the CPU.
E.g. it's the K6-2 that knows what 5x is, not the motherboard.

The original Pentium multiplier settings, were 2 jumpers (4 possible
codes)

BF1 BF0 multiplier

0 0 2.5x
0 1 3.0x
1 0 2.0x
1 1 1.5x

The MMX processor interprets the original 1.5x setting to be 3.5x,
since 1.5 was no longer needed, and is an example of the processor
being the determining factor. So the exact same jumpers became:


BF1 BF0 multiplier

0 0 2.5x
0 1 3.0x
1 0 2.0x
1 1 3.5x


AMD added a third jumper for super socket 7, adding more possible
codes, for

BF2 BF1 BF0 multiplier
1 0 0 3.5x
1 0 1 2.0x
1 1 0 2.5x
1 1 1 3.0x

0 0 0 4.5x
0 0 1 5.0x
0 1 0 4.0x
0 1 1 5.5x

Later K6-2 processors changed 2.0x to be 6.0x (so 400MHz could be
reached with a 66 MHz FSB)

Now, the BF lines are the signals on the processor pins and jumpers
usually tie a line to '0', with open being a 1. Some use two position
jumpers with one position being 1 and the other being 0. You'll have
to look at the jumper positions you know, compare to the tables above,
and determine which is BF0, BF1, BF2, then extrapolate to the
undocumented settings.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.elitegroup (More info?)

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 23:47:18 -0600, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

Hi flipper,

First off, thank you so much for taking the time to explain all this
to me. It was very helpful for me to figure out all the jumper
settings that I needed.

>
>Actually, 75 vs 66 is not a high overclock and would give better
>performance than the 5x multiplier... but

Yes, I've read that some place, but wasn't sure. I checked with
Matrox to see if I could run the card at that speed, and they said no,
so I'll leave it at 66. I don't use the computer much for graphics
anyway. I have a newer computer that I use for most everything.

>
>AMD added a third jumper for super socket 7, adding more possible
>codes, for
>
>BF2 BF1 BF0 multiplier
>1 0 0 3.5x
>1 0 1 2.0x
>1 1 0 2.5x
>1 1 1 3.0x
>
>0 0 0 4.5x
>0 0 1 5.0x
>0 1 0 4.0x
>0 1 1 5.5x
>
>Later K6-2 processors changed 2.0x to be 6.0x (so 400MHz could be
>reached with a 66 MHz FSB)


This chart was extremely useful for me. Thanks for taking the time to
format and post it. I grabbed a pen and paper thinking it would be an
easy job to extrapolate the additional settings.

Really, it wasn't too difficult, but it was trickier than I thought.
The ECS P5VP-A+ board uses a three-pin set-up that you referred to vs.
a linked/open jumper system.

It was a matter of determining the BF0, BF1, and BF2 configuration and
then figuring out where the jumper should be placed for the zero and
one settings in your chart. Then it was just a matter of confirming
that all the settings jived with the chart. And, lo and behold, they
do. Yippee!

So, just in case somebody ever wants to figure out the settings for
this board again, I'll post the settings for any google groups
searchers.

1.5x 1-3 2-4 10-12
2.0x 1-3 4-6 10-12
2.5x 3-5 4-6 10-12
3.0x 3-5 2-4 10-12
3.5x 1-3 2-4 10-12
4.0x 1-3 4-6 12-14
4.5x 3-5 4-6 12-14
5.0x 3-5 2-4 12-14
5.5x 1-3 2-4 12-14

And, I guess, like you say, if someone needs 6.0x, it would be the
same as 2.0x. So:

6.0x 1-3 4-6 10-12

I also notice that 1.5x is the same as 3.5x. I guess that's the
result of the multiplier being controlled by the CPU, like you said,
not the motherboard.

Once again, thank you very much flipper. I'll try this out when I get
my "new cutting-edge" AMD K6-2 500 MHz chip. By the way, I only
bought it because I needed a new cpu fan, and the cpu with fan was
about $10 more than a fan alone.

gene

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.elitegroup (More info?)

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:58:14 -0600, gene <noemailplease@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 23:47:18 -0600, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:
>
>Hi flipper,
>
>First off, thank you so much for taking the time to explain all this
>to me. It was very helpful for me to figure out all the jumper
>settings that I needed.
>
>>
>>Actually, 75 vs 66 is not a high overclock and would give better
>>performance than the 5x multiplier... but
>
>Yes, I've read that some place, but wasn't sure. I checked with
>Matrox to see if I could run the card at that speed, and they said no,

Of course they will. Manufacturers aren't going to advise using their
equipment other than as specified.

>so I'll leave it at 66. I don't use the computer much for graphics
>anyway. I have a newer computer that I use for most everything.

It wouldn't improve the graphics to take note of. Where it would make
a modicum of different is in memory speed, FSB, and the PCI bus. FSB
is particularly important with processors that use motherboard cache
(an in all Pentium classic, MMX, K6, and K6-2 processors) because
that limits the cache speed to the processor.


>>
>>AMD added a third jumper for super socket 7, adding more possible
>>codes, for
>>
>>BF2 BF1 BF0 multiplier
>>1 0 0 3.5x
>>1 0 1 2.0x
>>1 1 0 2.5x
>>1 1 1 3.0x
>>
>>0 0 0 4.5x
>>0 0 1 5.0x
>>0 1 0 4.0x
>>0 1 1 5.5x
>>
>>Later K6-2 processors changed 2.0x to be 6.0x (so 400MHz could be
>>reached with a 66 MHz FSB)
>
>
>This chart was extremely useful for me. Thanks for taking the time to
>format and post it. I grabbed a pen and paper thinking it would be an
>easy job to extrapolate the additional settings.
>
>Really, it wasn't too difficult, but it was trickier than I thought.
>The ECS P5VP-A+ board uses a three-pin set-up that you referred to vs.
>a linked/open jumper system.

Yes, I see. A two position, 1 and 0, kind of jumper.

>
>It was a matter of determining the BF0, BF1, and BF2 configuration and
>then figuring out where the jumper should be placed for the zero and
>one settings in your chart. Then it was just a matter of confirming
>that all the settings jived with the chart. And, lo and behold, they
>do. Yippee!
>
>So, just in case somebody ever wants to figure out the settings for
>this board again, I'll post the settings for any google groups
>searchers.
>
>1.5x 1-3 2-4 10-12
>2.0x 1-3 4-6 10-12
>2.5x 3-5 4-6 10-12
>3.0x 3-5 2-4 10-12
>3.5x 1-3 2-4 10-12
>4.0x 1-3 4-6 12-14
>4.5x 3-5 4-6 12-14
>5.0x 3-5 2-4 12-14
>5.5x 1-3 2-4 12-14
>
>And, I guess, like you say, if someone needs 6.0x, it would be the
>same as 2.0x. So:
>
>6.0x 1-3 4-6 10-12

Exactly, if they processor supports it.

>
>I also notice that 1.5x is the same as 3.5x. I guess that's the
>result of the multiplier being controlled by the CPU, like you said,
>not the motherboard.

Yep. And that was why I included it.

>
>Once again, thank you very much flipper. I'll try this out when I get
>my "new cutting-edge" AMD K6-2 500 MHz chip. By the way, I only
>bought it because I needed a new cpu fan, and the cpu with fan was
>about $10 more than a fan alone.

If you're lucky you could try overclocking the processor a bit.
Increasing the FSB being preferred to increasing the multiplier.

The problem with increasing the FSB is increasing the PCI bus, which
overclocks the IDE controller, which overclocks the hard drive. And if
the hard drive is overclocked too much then it will corrupt data. That
was a problem with more than about 12% when using UDMA33 hard drives
on UDMA controllers but it generally isn't a problem with UDMA66, or
higher, drives on UDMA33 controllers because it's already able to run
faster than the controller to begin with, so 'overclocking' doesn't
exceed the drive's capability.

When overclocking the processor it's often necessary to increase the
core voltage a bit and up to 2.4 is ok for a 2.2 volt K6-2, if the
heatsink is a good one (heat generation increases with the square of
the voltage)

>
>gene
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.elitegroup (More info?)

Hello Flipper,

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:15:41 -0600, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:

>It wouldn't improve the graphics to take note of. Where it would make
>a modicum of different is in memory speed, FSB, and the PCI bus. FSB
>is particularly important with processors that use motherboard cache
>(an in all Pentium classic, MMX, K6, and K6-2 processors) because
>that limits the cache speed to the processor.
>
>If you're lucky you could try overclocking the processor a bit.
>Increasing the FSB being preferred to increasing the multiplier.
>
>The problem with increasing the FSB is increasing the PCI bus, which
>overclocks the IDE controller, which overclocks the hard drive. And if
>the hard drive is overclocked too much then it will corrupt data. That
>was a problem with more than about 12% when using UDMA33 hard drives
>on UDMA controllers but it generally isn't a problem with UDMA66, or
>higher, drives on UDMA33 controllers because it's already able to run
>faster than the controller to begin with, so 'overclocking' doesn't
>exceed the drive's capability.
>
>When overclocking the processor it's often necessary to increase the
>core voltage a bit and up to 2.4 is ok for a 2.2 volt K6-2, if the
>heatsink is a good one (heat generation increases with the square of
>the voltage)

Ah, once again, thanks for the tips. I'm learning a lot here. Ok,
the machine has an 80 gig Maxtor with UDMA133 as far as I can tell
from googling around.

So, yes, it does sound like I could bump up the FSB and the PCI.
Would I be risking the graphics card to move from a manufacturer
recommended 66 to say 83? That's about a 30% boost, I guess. Does it
matter that the computer is not generally hooked up to a monitor, and
is only checked on a couple times a day through radmin, which allows
me to view the desktop from my main computer? The graphics card isn't
called upon to do any gaming or videos or anything, just looking at
windows explorer mainly, or 2d applications. 99% of the time it will
be just generating the windows xp desktop.

I guess I should read some overclocking boards about this particular
graphics card, a matrox millenium G400 16MB.

My two options for overclocking are:

FSB AGP PCI
124 83 41
112 75 37

Sounds like the PCI would be no problem, but I would be moderately
concerned about over-doing the AGP and burning out the video card.

It would be nice to squeeze some extra performance out of this old dog
though, if only to see what kind of difference that would make.

Thanks for all the teaching flipper, you've been very generous.

gene

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.elitegroup (More info?)

On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 22:13:05 -0600, gene <noemailplease@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>Hello Flipper,
>
>On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 18:15:41 -0600, flipper <flipper@fish.net> wrote:
>
>>It wouldn't improve the graphics to take note of. Where it would make
>>a modicum of different is in memory speed, FSB, and the PCI bus. FSB
>>is particularly important with processors that use motherboard cache
>>(an in all Pentium classic, MMX, K6, and K6-2 processors) because
>>that limits the cache speed to the processor.
>>
>>If you're lucky you could try overclocking the processor a bit.
>>Increasing the FSB being preferred to increasing the multiplier.
>>
>>The problem with increasing the FSB is increasing the PCI bus, which
>>overclocks the IDE controller, which overclocks the hard drive. And if
>>the hard drive is overclocked too much then it will corrupt data. That
>>was a problem with more than about 12% when using UDMA33 hard drives
>>on UDMA controllers but it generally isn't a problem with UDMA66, or
>>higher, drives on UDMA33 controllers because it's already able to run
>>faster than the controller to begin with, so 'overclocking' doesn't
>>exceed the drive's capability.
>>
>>When overclocking the processor it's often necessary to increase the
>>core voltage a bit and up to 2.4 is ok for a 2.2 volt K6-2, if the
>>heatsink is a good one (heat generation increases with the square of
>>the voltage)
>
>Ah, once again, thanks for the tips. I'm learning a lot here. Ok,
>the machine has an 80 gig Maxtor with UDMA133 as far as I can tell
>from googling around.
>
>So, yes, it does sound like I could bump up the FSB and the PCI.
>Would I be risking the graphics card to move from a manufacturer
>recommended 66 to say 83? That's about a 30% boost, I guess. Does it
>matter that the computer is not generally hooked up to a monitor, and
>is only checked on a couple times a day through radmin, which allows
>me to view the desktop from my main computer?

No.

> The graphics card isn't
>called upon to do any gaming or videos or anything, just looking at
>windows explorer mainly, or 2d applications. 99% of the time it will
>be just generating the windows xp desktop.

Matrox are excellent 2d cards and that one is fine for the processor
you've got.

>
>I guess I should read some overclocking boards about this particular
>graphics card, a matrox millenium G400 16MB.
>
>My two options for overclocking are:
>
>FSB AGP PCI
>124 83 41
>112 75 37
>
>Sounds like the PCI would be no problem, but I would be moderately
>concerned about over-doing the AGP and burning out the video card.

Well, 124/83/41 isn't going to 'burn up' anything but it's high enough
an overclock that some things might not work. For one, if your memory
is PC100 then 24% over is pushing it. although some PC100 will make
it.

Some sound cards, including on-board sound, have problems with an
overlcock that high.

My guess is that the Matrox will work ok at 83Mhz but if it doesn't
then reduce the overlcock.

>
>It would be nice to squeeze some extra performance out of this old dog
>though, if only to see what kind of difference that would make.

It's a bit late since you've bought a K6-2 but a better processor
would be a K6-3 because it has 512K on-die cache and is easily 33%
faster than a K6-2 at the same clock speed. But they're not easy to
find, cost considerably more, and max out at 450 MHz (but that's
better than even if you got your K6-2 to 600MHz)..

The K6-2+ is the fastest, even though with half the size 256K cache,
because it uses the smaller .18 micron process. Which means it comes
in up to 550 Mhz versions and often overclocks to 600MHz, maybe 650 if
you're extra lucky. They expect a 2.0 volt Vcore but, hey, you'd
overclock it anyway so 2.2 would be fine. Some motherboards, however,
have problems booting them because it's really a mobile chip. Whether
it would work in yours I do not know.

There's a K6-3+ too (the 'ultimate'), but those are even rarer than
regular K6-3s.

These people 'specialize' in procesors for the older socket 7 and
super socket 7 systems.

http://www.upgradeability.com/K6pl [...] e=AdWords1

>
>Thanks for all the teaching flipper, you've been very generous.
>
>gene

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.elitegroup (More info?)

Hi flipper.

Ok, I think I understand most of the things you're saying now.


>Matrox are excellent 2d cards and that one is fine for the processor
>you've got.

I've done a little research on the video card and overclocking. Some
people were running the card a little higher than 83 with no extra
cooling. Besides, those guys were using it for gaming which must be a
lot more taxing on the card than staring at a desktop all day.

I also learned that AGP is expressed as a multiple of FSB, in this
case 2:3. I guess I can check the BIOS to see if I can change this
ratio, but it doesn't look like that's possible with this mainboard.


>
>Well, 124/83/41 isn't going to 'burn up' anything but it's high enough
>an overclock that some things might not work. For one, if your memory
>is PC100 then 24% over is pushing it. although some PC100 will make
>it.

The memory is PC133 if I recall correctly, so that should be all
right. I'll pull the sound card out, along with my old fax modem.
Don't need those in there at all.

I hadn't really considered the network card. I need that in there for
communication with the router. I'll look into that.

Ok, I just read some posts on google groups and it seems some people
can overclock this NIC without problems. I think I'll try it with the
PCI at 41 for awhile and see if everything runs stable. If it
doesn't, I'll drop it down to a 37. Shouldn't be any problems there.

>It's a bit late since you've bought a K6-2 but a better processor
>would be a K6-3 because it has 512K on-die cache and is easily 33%
>faster than a K6-2 at the same clock speed. But they're not easy to
>find, cost considerably more, and max out at 450 MHz (but that's
>better than even if you got your K6-2 to 600MHz)..
>
>The K6-2+ is the fastest, even though with half the size 256K cache,
>because it uses the smaller .18 micron process. Which means it comes
>in up to 550 Mhz versions and often overclocks to 600MHz, maybe 650 if
>you're extra lucky. They expect a 2.0 volt Vcore but, hey, you'd
>overclock it anyway so 2.2 would be fine. Some motherboards, however,
>have problems booting them because it's really a mobile chip. Whether
>it would work in yours I do not know.


Yes. Really, this machine wasn't worth upgrading, but the 500 MHz CPU
was just darned cheap, so I figured I would use it to replace my K6-2
350 MHz. Probably won't be much difference, but I'll be overclocking
the PCI now, so that will probably make more of a difference than the
additional CPU speed.

We'll see. It'll be fun trying this stuff out.

Thanks for your help and advice flipper,

gene

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.elitegroup (More info?)

On Sat, 12 Feb 2005 10:12:58 -0600, gene <noemailplease@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>Hi flipper.
>
>Ok, I think I understand most of the things you're saying now.
>
>
>>Matrox are excellent 2d cards and that one is fine for the processor
>>you've got.
>
>I've done a little research on the video card and overclocking. Some
>people were running the card a little higher than 83 with no extra
>cooling. Besides, those guys were using it for gaming which must be a
>lot more taxing on the card than staring at a desktop all day.
>
>I also learned that AGP is expressed as a multiple of FSB, in this
>case 2:3. I guess I can check the BIOS to see if I can change this
>ratio, but it doesn't look like that's possible with this mainboard.

That's exactly right. Same with the PCI clock. And same with the CPU
clock: that's what the multiplier is for.

Rather simple concept, actually. You need different clock speeds for
the various things and the easiest way to get them is to
divide/multiply them from a common clock: by an appropriate ratio.


>>
>>Well, 124/83/41 isn't going to 'burn up' anything but it's high enough
>>an overclock that some things might not work. For one, if your memory
>>is PC100 then 24% over is pushing it. although some PC100 will make
>>it.
>
>The memory is PC133 if I recall correctly, so that should be all
>right. I'll pull the sound card out, along with my old fax modem.
>Don't need those in there at all.

If there's no need and you want to pull them for that reason then fine
but it doesn't hurt to try them.


>I hadn't really considered the network card. I need that in there for
>communication with the router. I'll look into that.

Mine have all worked on 44MHz PCI busses but, again, just try it. I
mentioned it so you don't panic if there's a problem, or spend hours
trying to 'troubleshoot' why it isn't working.


>Ok, I just read some posts on google groups and it seems some people
>can overclock this NIC without problems. I think I'll try it with the
>PCI at 41 for awhile and see if everything runs stable. If it
>doesn't, I'll drop it down to a 37. Shouldn't be any problems there.

right.

>
>>It's a bit late since you've bought a K6-2 but a better processor
>>would be a K6-3 because it has 512K on-die cache and is easily 33%
>>faster than a K6-2 at the same clock speed. But they're not easy to
>>find, cost considerably more, and max out at 450 MHz (but that's
>>better than even if you got your K6-2 to 600MHz)..
>>
>>The K6-2+ is the fastest, even though with half the size 256K cache,
>>because it uses the smaller .18 micron process. Which means it comes
>>in up to 550 Mhz versions and often overclocks to 600MHz, maybe 650 if
>>you're extra lucky. They expect a 2.0 volt Vcore but, hey, you'd
>>overclock it anyway so 2.2 would be fine. Some motherboards, however,
>>have problems booting them because it's really a mobile chip. Whether
>>it would work in yours I do not know.
>
>
>Yes. Really, this machine wasn't worth upgrading, but the 500 MHz CPU
>was just darned cheap, so I figured I would use it to replace my K6-2
>350 MHz.

I completely understand.

> Probably won't be much difference, but I'll be overclocking
>the PCI now, so that will probably make more of a difference than the
>additional CPU speed.

The 500 will probably run 550 and 500/550 vs 350 is a decent upgrade.


>We'll see. It'll be fun trying this stuff out.

Yep. It's fun.

I'll give you an example that isn't really worth doing but was 'fun'
and interesting at the time. I had an old Pentium 166MMX that was
multiplier limited so you couldn't overclock it on a regular socket 7
motherboard but, for fun and 'just to see', I tried it with a 1.5x
multiplier on a super socket 7 with 100MHz FSB instead of the
specified 66 MHz FSB. The performance increase was quite dramatic,
even though it was 150 MHz instead of 166.

Of course, there's no good reason to waste a super socket 7
motherboard with a Pentium MMX running 150MHz but it highlighted the
effect of increasing the FSB to performance in those older type
processors where L2 cache is on the motherboard (as is also the case
with your K6-2)

That is, of course, why super socket 7 increased the FSB from 66 to
100 MHz to begin with. Basically, it doesn't make much difference how
fast the processor *could* process instructions if the instructions
can't get to it that fast. And they can only get to it as fast as the
cache can send them and that is limited by the FSB speed.

As for the PCI bus, that should improve your hard drive speed because
your IDE controller is slow, by today's standards, and overclocking
will improve that.

>
>Thanks for your help and advice flipper,
>
>gene

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.elitegroup (More info?)

Hi again Flipper,

Thanks for the comments regarding the NICs running at 41. The info
about people overclocking NICs was pretty sparse, so your first-hand
experience is useful.

I also found your experiment with the 166MX chip interesting. Neat.
I never really considered how the bus speed would affect things. It
was always just a matter of "well, let's see how I can get my
bus*multiplier to = my cpu speed. To learn that underclocking a
processor at a higher FSB was really illuminating.

I'll probably get my new processor in a couple of days and will change
all the settings then. I guess maybe I should run some tests before
and after my tweaks to see how performance is affected.

RE: The L2 cache; yes, I've read that's a pretty major sticking point
of the K6-2 vs the K6-2+ processors and above. Before I bought my
current computer, I considered trying to upgrade the old machine by
putting in a K6-2+ 550 or something like that, but it turned out the
resale prices on those chips was pretty high, and I wasn't entirely
sure if it would work with this board.

I did a fair amount of research before buying my current machine,
which has a AMD Barton 2500+. Even though I'm running it at spec, I
liked the idea of getting it because of its promise of overclocking
potential. I bought the faster RAM in case I wanted to up the FSB at
some point.

Of course, modern boards have better versatility when it comes to
overclocking... at least mine does. However, I've owned this 2500+
machine for quite awhile now, so I can't remember all the stuff I
learned before buying it.

Back to the old machine, I've set the graphics at XP's lowest possible
settings to keep the graphics card working nice and cool. That should
ensure that the AGP overclock is no problem. Other than that, there's
little that can go wrong... at least until I actually try it! All
that can go wrong will, I suppose.

I'm a benchmarking novice. I'll have to check out some programs for
testing hard drive transfer speed etc. I see the program Sandra gets
lots of mention. I think I'll check out Tom's Hardware to see what
they like to use. I perused that site extensively before investing in
my 2500+ machine.

I'll see what kind of improvements I can make and post a follow up.
Thanks for the great exchange.

gene

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.elitegroup (More info?)

On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 21:30:26 -0600, gene <noemailplease@nowhere.com>
wrote:

>Hi again Flipper,
>
>Thanks for the comments regarding the NICs running at 41. The info
>about people overclocking NICs was pretty sparse, so your first-hand
>experience is useful.

That was just my card, of course. YMMV


>I also found your experiment with the 166MX chip interesting. Neat.
>I never really considered how the bus speed would affect things. It
>was always just a matter of "well, let's see how I can get my
>bus*multiplier to = my cpu speed. To learn that underclocking a
>processor at a higher FSB was really illuminating.

It sure surprised me. Of course, the improvement with 10% to 20% FSB
increase won't match a 50% increase.

>
>I'll probably get my new processor in a couple of days and will change
>all the settings then. I guess maybe I should run some tests before
>and after my tweaks to see how performance is affected.
>
>RE: The L2 cache; yes, I've read that's a pretty major sticking point
>of the K6-2 vs the K6-2+ processors and above. Before I bought my
>current computer, I considered trying to upgrade the old machine by
>putting in a K6-2+ 550 or something like that, but it turned out the
>resale prices on those chips was pretty high, and I wasn't entirely
>sure if it would work with this board.
>
>I did a fair amount of research before buying my current machine,
>which has a AMD Barton 2500+. Even though I'm running it at spec, I
>liked the idea of getting it because of its promise of overclocking
>potential. I bought the faster RAM in case I wanted to up the FSB at
>some point.

Ah hah. Well, my 'fast' machine is a mobile 2400+ Barton overclocked
to 2.2 gig at 200 FSB (400 DDR).

It will go higher on a lower FSB (multiplier choice problem), but I
went for the higher FSB.

You should have no problem at all overclocking the 2500+.


>Of course, modern boards have better versatility when it comes to
>overclocking... at least mine does. However, I've owned this 2500+
>machine for quite awhile now, so I can't remember all the stuff I
>learned before buying it.

Right. The biggest difference being the limited number of PCI and AGP
multiplier choices.

>
>Back to the old machine, I've set the graphics at XP's lowest possible
>settings to keep the graphics card working nice and cool. That should
>ensure that the AGP overclock is no problem. Other than that, there's
>little that can go wrong... at least until I actually try it! All
>that can go wrong will, I suppose.

The AGP speed is not going to affect the heat output to speak of.

Not of much interest to you since you don't plan on exercising the
graphics but there's an overclock program for that card to increase
the memory and GPU clock speed.


>I'm a benchmarking novice. I'll have to check out some programs for
>testing hard drive transfer speed etc. I see the program Sandra gets
>lots of mention.

Sandra is popular.

Also check the hard drive with the cache turned off so you get the raw
reading.

Since you're planning to run some benchmarks I might as well warn you
of what is usually a 'big surprise'. The performance of processors
using motherboard cache doesn't scale directly with speed. I.E.
doubling speed doesn't double performance because the *cache* speed
remains the same. It is usually around half to 1: doubling speed will
give you a, roughly, 50% performance boost.

Processors with on-die cache scale roughly 1 to 1, within reason.

> I think I'll check out Tom's Hardware to see what
>they like to use. I perused that site extensively before investing in
>my 2500+ machine.
>
>I'll see what kind of improvements I can make and post a follow up.
>Thanks for the great exchange.
>
>gene