Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Hi,
I got a Biostar M7NCD motherboard that says it can support 400Mhz FSB.
I bought a new AMD 3200 XP+, 400FSB CPU and 512MB PC3200 Memory to go with
it. I wanted to run it with FSB speed of 400Mhz.

The default BIOS setup is for 200Mhz FSB and the BIOS menu does not let
me change it to anything higher that 200Mhz FSB.

What can I do to get it run at a higher FSB ? I did not see anything
in the motherboard manuals. Please help.

Thanks,
Krutibas

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

I have that same board- and that same problem! I pretty much gave up-
decided that its just bluffing pmsl- you could try asking Biostar
themselves? www.biostar.co.tw i think- please post back with any information

Yours,
Dalgibbard.

"Krutibas Biswal" <krutibasb@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7cf8d984.0409281824.4111ea10@posting.google.com...
> Hi,
> I got a Biostar M7NCD motherboard that says it can support 400Mhz FSB.
> I bought a new AMD 3200 XP+, 400FSB CPU and 512MB PC3200 Memory to go with
> it. I wanted to run it with FSB speed of 400Mhz.
>
> The default BIOS setup is for 200Mhz FSB and the BIOS menu does not let
> me change it to anything higher that 200Mhz FSB.
>
> What can I do to get it run at a higher FSB ? I did not see anything
> in the motherboard manuals. Please help.
>
> Thanks,
> Krutibas

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

sorry that link again www.biostar.com.tw
Dalgibbard.

"Dalgibbard" <dalgibbard@*remove*blueyonder.*remove*co.uk> wrote in message
news:k9y6d.118659$U04.45625@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> I have that same board- and that same problem! I pretty much gave up-
> decided that its just bluffing pmsl- you could try asking Biostar
> themselves? www.biostar.co.tw i think- please post back with any
information
>
> Yours,
> Dalgibbard.
>
> "Krutibas Biswal" <krutibasb@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:7cf8d984.0409281824.4111ea10@posting.google.com...
> > Hi,
> > I got a Biostar M7NCD motherboard that says it can support 400Mhz
FSB.
> > I bought a new AMD 3200 XP+, 400FSB CPU and 512MB PC3200 Memory to go
with
> > it. I wanted to run it with FSB speed of 400Mhz.
> >
> > The default BIOS setup is for 200Mhz FSB and the BIOS menu does not let
> > me change it to anything higher that 200Mhz FSB.
> >
> > What can I do to get it run at a higher FSB ? I did not see anything
> > in the motherboard manuals. Please help.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Krutibas
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:47:12 +0000, Dalgibbard wrote:

> "Krutibas Biswal" <krutibasb@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:7cf8d984.0409281824.4111ea10@posting.google.com...
>> Hi,
>> I got a Biostar M7NCD motherboard that says it can support 400Mhz FSB.
>> I bought a new AMD 3200 XP+, 400FSB CPU and 512MB PC3200 Memory to go with
>> it. I wanted to run it with FSB speed of 400Mhz.
>>
>> The default BIOS setup is for 200Mhz FSB and the BIOS menu does not let
>> me change it to anything higher that 200Mhz FSB.
>>
>> What can I do to get it run at a higher FSB ? I did not see anything
>> in the motherboard manuals. Please help.
>>
> I have that same board- and that same problem! I pretty much gave up-
> decided that its just bluffing pmsl- you could try asking Biostar
> themselves? www.biostar.co.tw i think- please post back with any information
>
You don't have a problem. Your board supports a 400FSB (200MHz), not a
400MHz FSB. There aren't any boards that support a 400MHz FSB, and the
3200+ runs on a 200MHz FSB (real clock speed).

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Thanks Wes. I realized that last night while trying to play with
the FSB numbers and reading stuff from the web. The 400FSB is
a marketing hype that refers to FSB speed of 200Mhz DDR.

Thanks,
Krutibas
Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.09.29.15.42.08.590095@TAKEOUTverizon.net>...
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:47:12 +0000, Dalgibbard wrote:
>
> > "Krutibas Biswal" <krutibasb@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:7cf8d984.0409281824.4111ea10@posting.google.com...
> >> Hi,
> >> I got a Biostar M7NCD motherboard that says it can support 400Mhz FSB.
> >> I bought a new AMD 3200 XP+, 400FSB CPU and 512MB PC3200 Memory to go with
> >> it. I wanted to run it with FSB speed of 400Mhz.
> >>
> >> The default BIOS setup is for 200Mhz FSB and the BIOS menu does not let
> >> me change it to anything higher that 200Mhz FSB.
> >>
> >> What can I do to get it run at a higher FSB ? I did not see anything
> >> in the motherboard manuals. Please help.
> >>
> > I have that same board- and that same problem! I pretty much gave up-
> > decided that its just bluffing pmsl- you could try asking Biostar
> > themselves? www.biostar.co.tw i think- please post back with any information
> >
> You don't have a problem. Your board supports a 400FSB (200MHz), not a
> 400MHz FSB. There aren't any boards that support a 400MHz FSB, and the
> 3200+ runs on a 200MHz FSB (real clock speed).

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Krutibas Biswal wrote:

> Thanks Wes. I realized that last night while trying to play with
> the FSB numbers and reading stuff from the web. The 400FSB is
> a marketing hype that refers to FSB speed of 200Mhz DDR.

No, it is not "marketing hype." It's the data rate which, for DDR, is
400MHz on a 200MHz clocked bus because the data rate is twice the clock rate.

That IS why it's called "Double Rata Rate" (DDR).

>
> Thanks,
> Krutibas
> Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote in message news:<pan.2004.09.29.15.42.08.590095@TAKEOUTverizon.net>...
>
>>On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 12:47:12 +0000, Dalgibbard wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Krutibas Biswal" <krutibasb@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:7cf8d984.0409281824.4111ea10@posting.google.com...
>>>
>>>>Hi,
>>>> I got a Biostar M7NCD motherboard that says it can support 400Mhz FSB.
>>>>I bought a new AMD 3200 XP+, 400FSB CPU and 512MB PC3200 Memory to go with
>>>>it. I wanted to run it with FSB speed of 400Mhz.
>>>>
>>>>The default BIOS setup is for 200Mhz FSB and the BIOS menu does not let
>>>>me change it to anything higher that 200Mhz FSB.
>>>>
>>>>What can I do to get it run at a higher FSB ? I did not see anything
>>>>in the motherboard manuals. Please help.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I have that same board- and that same problem! I pretty much gave up-
>>>decided that its just bluffing pmsl- you could try asking Biostar
>>>themselves? www.biostar.co.tw i think- please post back with any information
>>>
>>
>>You don't have a problem. Your board supports a 400FSB (200MHz), not a
>>400MHz FSB. There aren't any boards that support a 400MHz FSB, and the
>>3200+ runs on a 200MHz FSB (real clock speed).

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

David Maynard wrote:
> Krutibas Biswal wrote:
>
>> Thanks Wes. I realized that last night while trying to play with
>> the FSB numbers and reading stuff from the web. The 400FSB is
>> a marketing hype that refers to FSB speed of 200Mhz DDR.
>
> No, it is not "marketing hype." It's the data rate which, for DDR, is
> 400MHz on a 200MHz clocked bus because the data rate is twice the
> clock rate.

Oh dear, here we go again ... anyone taking bets on how many posts this
thread will finish up on?

[...]

--
Michael Brown
www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more
Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:38:00 -0500, David Maynard wrote:

> Krutibas Biswal wrote:
>
>> Thanks Wes. I realized that last night while trying to play with
>> the FSB numbers and reading stuff from the web. The 400FSB is
>> a marketing hype that refers to FSB speed of 200Mhz DDR.
>
> No, it is not "marketing hype." It's the data rate which, for DDR, is
> 400MHz on a 200MHz clocked bus because the data rate is twice the clock rate.
>
> That IS why it's called "Double Rata Rate" (DDR).
>
Data rates are measured in throughput, not MHz. Data rates deserve and do
have their own measuring systems, actually there's two, bps and Bps, and
it's not MHz. So if you don't want to call it marketing hype, what would
you call it? The inflated number serves absolutely no purpose except to
get a bigger number. How about marketing BS or just plain BS.:-)

Now before you reply, consider that by definition, bus speeds are
measured by their clock speeds, not data rates. If one wants to define the
data rate, a simple 200MHz DDR says it's Double Data rate. Still it's
rather worthless information unless one knows the number of data lines and
does the math to figure out the actual bandwidth of the bus. So being
worthless, what purpose other than marketing does it serve?


--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 18:38:37 +1200, Michael Brown wrote:

> David Maynard wrote:
>> Krutibas Biswal wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Wes. I realized that last night while trying to play with
>>> the FSB numbers and reading stuff from the web. The 400FSB is
>>> a marketing hype that refers to FSB speed of 200Mhz DDR.
>>
>> No, it is not "marketing hype." It's the data rate which, for DDR, is
>> 400MHz on a 200MHz clocked bus because the data rate is twice the
>> clock rate.
>
> Oh dear, here we go again ... anyone taking bets on how many posts this
> thread will finish up on?
>
> [...]
As many as it takes.;-)

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Wes Newell wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:38:00 -0500, David Maynard wrote:
>
>
>>Krutibas Biswal wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Thanks Wes. I realized that last night while trying to play with
>>>the FSB numbers and reading stuff from the web. The 400FSB is
>>>a marketing hype that refers to FSB speed of 200Mhz DDR.
>>
>>No, it is not "marketing hype." It's the data rate which, for DDR, is
>>400MHz on a 200MHz clocked bus because the data rate is twice the clock rate.
>>
>>That IS why it's called "Double Rata Rate" (DDR).
>>
>
> Data rates are measured in throughput, not MHz.

Clearly an opinion of yours that is not shared by the vast majority of
memory, processor, and motherboard manufacturers.

You seem to be under the false impression that the only thing 'Hz' applies
to is an electronic wave form.

> Data rates deserve and do
> have their own measuring systems, actually there's two, bps and Bps, and
> it's not MHz.

Obviously, by overwhelming usage it is as well.

> So if you don't want to call it marketing hype, what would
> you call it?

The data rate on the bus.

Which, I would argue, is rather intuitive from "double data rate."

> The inflated number serves absolutely no purpose except to
> get a bigger number. How about marketing BS or just plain BS.:-)

The apparent conclusion from that declaration would be that you don't
understand the meaning of double data rate, or quad pumped, since you see
'no purpose' to it.

> Now before you reply, consider that by definition, bus speeds are
> measured by their clock speeds, not data rates.

Any by who's definition would that be?

Not to mention you, yourself, claim that kind of 'definition' is
'worthless' in the very next two sentences.

> If one wants to define the
> data rate, a simple 200MHz DDR says it's Double Data rate. Still it's
> rather worthless information unless one knows the number of data lines and
> does the math to figure out the actual bandwidth of the bus.

You might as well be arguing that clock speed is worthless information
since it shares exactly the same lack of detail. And, if you are, then your
'complaint' goes to the first days of computer technology; not 'DDR'
terminology.

Your argument boils down to the logic absurdum of saying "200 x 2" has
meaning but that the result of the equation "400" does not.

> So being
> worthless, what purpose other than marketing does it serve?

It's only worthless to those who don't know the meaning and instead insist
on claiming it's 'marketing hype'.

The fact of the matter is it's a logical, natural progression of, and the
most consistent with, typical industry terminology.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 18:42:13 -0500, David Maynard wrote:

> Wes Newell wrote:
>> On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:38:00 -0500, David Maynard wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Krutibas Biswal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Thanks Wes. I realized that last night while trying to play with
>>>>the FSB numbers and reading stuff from the web. The 400FSB is
>>>>a marketing hype that refers to FSB speed of 200Mhz DDR.
>>>
>>>No, it is not "marketing hype." It's the data rate which, for DDR, is
>>>400MHz on a 200MHz clocked bus because the data rate is twice the clock rate.
>>>
>>>That IS why it's called "Double Rata Rate" (DDR).
>>>
>>
>> Data rates are measured in throughput, not MHz.
>
> Clearly an opinion of yours that is not shared by the vast majority of
> memory, processor, and motherboard manufacturers.
>
It's not my opinion. its clear fact. That's the way it has always been in
computer science. ref:

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/d/da [...] _rate.html

> You seem to be under the false impression that the only thing 'Hz'
> applies to is an electronic wave form.
>
No, I'm saying this is computer science, and it has it's definitions. Bus
speeds in computer science are measured in clock speeds, not data rates.
ref:

http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/b/bus.html

>> Data rates deserve and do
>> have their own measuring systems, actually there's two, bps and Bps,
>> and it's not MHz.
>
> Obviously, by overwhelming usage it is as well.
>
You will never see the data rate used as a bus speed in any technical
documentation. AMD doesn't. It shows the actual clock speed, not the bogus
numbers.

>> So if you don't want to call it marketing hype, what would you call it?
>
> The data rate on the bus.
>
Actually, it's not even the data rate of the bus. It's only the data rate
for a single line of the "bus". The actual data rate of the bus, more
commonly called it's bandwidth is about 3.2GBps.

>> The inflated number serves absolutely no purpose except to get a bigger
>> number. How about marketing BS or just plain BS.:-)
>
> The apparent conclusion from that declaration would be that you don't
> understand the meaning of double data rate, or quad pumped, since you
> see 'no purpose' to it.
>
And my conclusion is that you write a lot of BS for some reason.

>> Now before you reply, consider that by definition, bus speeds are
>> measured by their clock speeds, not data rates.
>
> Any by who's definition would that be?
>
Already answered above. And if you don't like that one, welll, just you
can look at the processor specs from AMD. And I said specs, not ads.:-)

>> If one wants to define the
>> data rate, a simple 200MHz DDR says it's Double Data rate. Still it's
>> rather worthless information unless one knows the number of data lines
>> and does the math to figure out the actual bandwidth of the bus.
>
> You might as well be arguing that clock speed is worthless information
> since it shares exactly the same lack of detail. And, if you are, then
> your 'complaint' goes to the first days of computer technology; not
> 'DDR' terminology.
>
> Your argument boils down to the logic absurdum of saying "200 x 2" has
> meaning but that the result of the equation "400" does not.
>
>> So being
>> worthless, what purpose other than marketing does it serve?
>
> It's only worthless to those who don't know the meaning and instead
> insist on claiming it's 'marketing hype'.
>
> The fact of the matter is it's a logical, natural progression of, and
> the most consistent with, typical industry terminology.

The fact of the matter is that you write a lot but have absolutely nothing
technical to back up any of your claims. And since you didn't answer the
question, i can only assume that you don't know of any logical use for the
400 number. And I can fully understand that since there is none unless you
divide it by 2 to get to the base clockspeed.:-)

Now since I know for a fact that's there's no supporting authority for
your claims, I hope we can end this.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Wes Newell wrote:

> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 18:42:13 -0500, David Maynard wrote:
>
>
>>Wes Newell wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 19:38:00 -0500, David Maynard wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Krutibas Biswal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Thanks Wes. I realized that last night while trying to play with
>>>>>the FSB numbers and reading stuff from the web. The 400FSB is
>>>>>a marketing hype that refers to FSB speed of 200Mhz DDR.
>>>>
>>>>No, it is not "marketing hype." It's the data rate which, for DDR, is
>>>>400MHz on a 200MHz clocked bus because the data rate is twice the clock rate.
>>>>
>>>>That IS why it's called "Double Rata Rate" (DDR).
>>>>
>>>
>>>Data rates are measured in throughput, not MHz.
>>
>>Clearly an opinion of yours that is not shared by the vast majority of
>>memory, processor, and motherboard manufacturers.
>>
>
> It's not my opinion. its clear fact. That's the way it has always been in
> computer science. ref:
>
> http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/d/da [...] _rate.html
>
>
>>You seem to be under the false impression that the only thing 'Hz'
>>applies to is an electronic wave form.
>>
>
> No, I'm saying this is computer science, and it has it's definitions.

You can 'say' whatever you want but that doesn't make it so.

> Bus
> speeds in computer science are measured in clock speeds, not data rates.
> ref:
>
> http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/b/bus.html

Your definition says "Every bus has a clock speed measured in MHz."

No one disputes that a bus has a "clock speed measured in MHz." The issue
is what other characteristics it has and one of those is how it transfers
data; such as one transfer per clock, two per clock, or 4 per clock.

Your definition 'proves' nothing because saying "Every bus has a clock
speed measured in MHz" is like saying "every internal combustion engine's
rotation is measured in RPM." That doesn't mean the horsepower description
is 'hype' nor that it 'violates' the RPM mention.


>>>Data rates deserve and do
>>>have their own measuring systems, actually there's two, bps and Bps,
>>>and it's not MHz.
>>
>>Obviously, by overwhelming usage it is as well.
>>
>
> You will never see the data rate used as a bus speed in any technical
> documentation. AMD doesn't. It shows the actual clock speed, not the bogus
> numbers.

AMD Athlon XP
Processor Model 10
Data Sheet

Publication # 26237 Rev. C
Issue Date: May 2003

Chapters:

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

Those are 'data rate' descriptors for the FSB, which you claim AMD
"doesn't" do.

>
>>>So if you don't want to call it marketing hype, what would you call it?
>>
>>The data rate on the bus.
>>
>
> Actually, it's not even the data rate of the bus. It's only the data rate
> for a single line of the "bus".

That statement is a nonsensical absurdity.

> The actual data rate of the bus, more
> commonly called it's bandwidth is about 3.2GBps.

You could use Bps but that's not 'really true' either as it's a theoretical
capability unsustainable with any known synchronous RAM.

However, the issue isn't whether you, or I, or anyone else, might think Bps
is a 'better' means to describe the bus; the issue is whether using the DDR
rate is 'hype'. And it's not 'hype' because it does, in fact, describe
something real and tangible. A '400', double data rate 200 Mhz clocked, bus
is faster than a single data rate 200 MHz clocked bus.

And, as I pointed out before, the data rate expressed in 'bus speed' is
consistent with the previous single data rate description whereas Bps is not.


>>>The inflated number serves absolutely no purpose except to get a bigger
>>>number. How about marketing BS or just plain BS.:-)
>>
>>The apparent conclusion from that declaration would be that you don't
>>understand the meaning of double data rate, or quad pumped, since you
>>see 'no purpose' to it.
>>
>
> And my conclusion is that you write a lot of BS for some reason.

You're the one writing 'B.S.' by suggesting there is no meaning to a bus
being DDR vs single data rate. I.E. that it's just 'hype'.

It does, however, describe something real and tangible and so is not
'hype', regardless of how much you dislike the usage.


>>>Now before you reply, consider that by definition, bus speeds are
>>>measured by their clock speeds, not data rates.
>>
>>Any by who's definition would that be?
>>
>
> Already answered above. And if you don't like that one, welll, just you
> can look at the processor specs from AMD. And I said specs, not ads.:-)

You failed at both, as I've shown.


>>>If one wants to define the
>>>data rate, a simple 200MHz DDR says it's Double Data rate. Still it's
>>>rather worthless information unless one knows the number of data lines
>>>and does the math to figure out the actual bandwidth of the bus.
>>
>>You might as well be arguing that clock speed is worthless information
>>since it shares exactly the same lack of detail. And, if you are, then
>>your 'complaint' goes to the first days of computer technology; not
>>'DDR' terminology.
>>
>>Your argument boils down to the logic absurdum of saying "200 x 2" has
>>meaning but that the result of the equation "400" does not.
>>
>>
>>>So being
>>>worthless, what purpose other than marketing does it serve?
>>
>>It's only worthless to those who don't know the meaning and instead
>>insist on claiming it's 'marketing hype'.
>>
>>The fact of the matter is it's a logical, natural progression of, and
>>the most consistent with, typical industry terminology.
>
>
> The fact of the matter is that you write a lot but have absolutely nothing
> technical to back up any of your claims.

Of course I do, as shown, but it really isn't necessary because you, as the
one levying the 'accusation' of the term being 'hype', have the obligation
to prove the charge.

So ante up. Explain how the P4 quad pumped 100MHz clocked FSB is 'hype' and
that it makes no difference whether it's a P4 'hyped' 400Mhz FSB or a P3
100Mhz FSB bus because they both operate at the 'same real' 100 MHz clock
speed.

> And since you didn't answer the
> question,

I most certainly did answer the question.

> i can only assume that you don't know of any logical use for the
> 400 number. And I can fully understand that since there is none unless you
> divide it by 2 to get to the base clockspeed.:-)

I repeat, it's apparent you have no understanding of what double data rate
means, or your feigning ignorance.

When streaming, I.E. when doing what your '3.2 GBps bandwidth' number
describes, there are two data transfer cycles per clock cycle or, in other
words, the data rate, for a double data rate bus clocked at 200 MHz, is 400
million data transfer cycles per second (burst rate). e.g. 400 Mhz.


> Now since I know for a fact that's there's no supporting authority for
> your claims, I hope we can end this.

A false conclusions arrived at from false premises.