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

I've got an old ABit ZM6 (PPGA360) MoBo and picked up an old Celeron
566 coppermine (cB0) which the board DOES support w/ last couple BIOSs
(it's a PPGA board and this is an early FCPGA chip). Previously I had
a 366(66) OC'd to 550(100) for years no prob. I dropped in the 566 and
w/ 66FSB sure enough it works just fine at 1.5V as advertised.

Now here's where I've run into some rather odd behavior given my
limited experience w/ OC'ing - I suspect it may just not be OC'able
but I'd be curious to understand it's behavior. Is there something
special about Win2K at boot time that taxes a CPU perhaps?

Basically it will post 850mhz all day long about 1.75V to 1.80V or
better. It will boot into DOS(w95) easily as well using a boot disk.

Here's the odd behavior: It is a ONE-TIME run session immediately
after a BIOS Flash for Win2K specifically.

It will never reboot again into Win2K. Sound strange? Let me explain
further. Let's say I set the voltage to say 1.85 or 1.90V default
(those are good popular voltages for an OC'd SL46T) - to do that I
have to reflash the BIOS so the Abit will give me a proper 'default'
voltage range. Immediately (and 1 time only) after a given reflash I
can then boot it ONE time and ONE TIME ONLY at 850mhz(100FSB). That's
IT! It will never reboot, restart or power-off and get back into Win2K
at that speed. Doesn't matter what I do to modify the voltage further
(I've gone as high as 2V). It will hang on booting into Win2K next go
around period.

I CAN get back into Win2K if I do a reflash of the BIOS as I would to
say modify the default voltage. I am then granted one single full boot
into Win2K. BUt I know of know other 'trick' to allow me back in a 2nd
time...

I CAN also get back into Win2K if I drop the FSB down to 66 for a
stock 566 speed (and of course old DOS at 850mhz too).


Once in Win2K it's golden at about 1.85V to 1.95V - any of those will
yield seemingly long term stability and hours and hours of Prime95 w/
temps as high as 39C (1.95V). I can play games, do nothing, whatever -
seems rock solid.

But remember I CANNOT get BACK into Win2K a SECOND time if I do a
restart or power it down.

And also remember that this machine has run for years at 100FSB w/ a
366 OC'd to 550 under the same Win2K setup. (DO I need to do something
special in Win2K when upping to a new CPU?)

That just doesn't seem consistent w/ my experience w/ OCing. Even
though I can trick it into 850mhz under Win2K thru the hassle of a
reflash each time - obviously it's not worth the hassle so I'd have to
say this one 'apparently' is not OC'able. But I'd like to better
understand it's behavior as well as whether or not there is something
about Win2K or other BIOS settings etc I should be aware of here.

thanks!

PS: Also the case reset button no longer functions w/ it set at
100FSB(850mhz) - usually I have to power cycle now too...?

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

On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 12:06:05 -0500, pgtr <> wrote:

>I've got an old ABit ZM6 (PPGA360) MoBo and picked up an old Celeron
>566 coppermine (cB0) which the board DOES support ....

>Basically it will post 850mhz all day long about 1.75V to 1.80V or
>better. It will boot into DOS(w95) easily as well using a boot disk.
>
>Here's the odd behavior: It is a ONE-TIME run session immediately
>after a BIOS Flash for Win2K specifically.

>I CAN also get back into Win2K if I drop the FSB down to 66 for a
>stock 566 speed (and of course old DOS at 850mhz too).

>But remember I CANNOT get BACK into Win2K a SECOND time if I do a
>restart or power it down.
>
>And also remember that this machine has run for years at 100FSB w/ a
>366 OC'd to 550 under the same Win2K setup.

check for bad caps ...
--
Regards, SPAJKY ®
& visit my site @ http://www.spajky.vze.com
"Tualatin OC-ed / BX-Slot1 / inaudible setup!"
E-mail AntiSpam: remove ##

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

pgtr <> wrote in message news:<e2h8e09fsqcr48f47brbrknu3fp9t275s0@4ax.com>...

> I CAN also get back into Win2K if I drop the FSB down to 66 for a
> stock 566 speed (and of course old DOS at 850mhz too).

says it all.


> PS: Also the case reset button no longer functions w/ it set at
> 100FSB(850mhz) - usually I have to power cycle now too...?

again, says it all. Seems like you been focussing too much on whats
not relevant. Something needs slowing down. I've no idea what your
speed options are on this combo but hope you can do something better
than 566, if not 850.


Regards, NT

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

Spajky wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 12:06:05 -0500, pgtr <> wrote:
>
>
>>I've got an old ABit ZM6 (PPGA360) MoBo and picked up an old Celeron
>>566 coppermine (cB0) which the board DOES support ....
>
>
>>Basically it will post 850mhz all day long about 1.75V to 1.80V or
>>better. It will boot into DOS(w95) easily as well using a boot disk.
>>
>>Here's the odd behavior: It is a ONE-TIME run session immediately
>>after a BIOS Flash for Win2K specifically.

Try clearing CMOS and reentering your parameters.


>>I CAN also get back into Win2K if I drop the FSB down to 66 for a
>>stock 566 speed (and of course old DOS at 850mhz too).
>
>
>>But remember I CANNOT get BACK into Win2K a SECOND time if I do a
>>restart or power it down.

Yes, well, simply saying "it's broke" doesn't provide many clues. What the
heck does it DO when it doesn't 'get back into Win2K'? Hang? Crash? reboot?
Spew some message at you? And at what point in the shutdown or boot?

It runs win2K fine 'one-time'? (whatever the heck 'one-time' means).

What was the purpose of the flash and what 'changes' does the update say it
makes? That may have a clue.

Set your memory timings to the slowest possible and see if that helps.

>>And also remember that this machine has run for years at 100FSB w/ a
>>366 OC'd to 550 under the same Win2K setup.
>
>
> check for bad caps ...

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

Can you expand on how to check for bad caps?

thanks,



On Sun, 04 Jul 2004 10:46:53 +0200, Spajky <Spajky##@volja.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 01 Jul 2004 12:06:05 -0500, pgtr <> wrote:
>
>>I've got an old ABit ZM6 (PPGA360) MoBo and picked up an old Celeron
>>566 coppermine (cB0) which the board DOES support ....
>
>>Basically it will post 850mhz all day long about 1.75V to 1.80V or
>>better. It will boot into DOS(w95) easily as well using a boot disk.
>>
>>Here's the odd behavior: It is a ONE-TIME run session immediately
>>after a BIOS Flash for Win2K specifically.
>
>>I CAN also get back into Win2K if I drop the FSB down to 66 for a
>>stock 566 speed (and of course old DOS at 850mhz too).
>
>>But remember I CANNOT get BACK into Win2K a SECOND time if I do a
>>restart or power it down.
>>
>>And also remember that this machine has run for years at 100FSB w/ a
>>366 OC'd to 550 under the same Win2K setup.
>
>check for bad caps ...

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

On 4 Jul 2004 10:36:17 -0700, bigcat@meeow.co.uk (N. Thornton) wrote:

>pgtr <> wrote in message news:<e2h8e09fsqcr48f47brbrknu3fp9t275s0@4ax.com>...
>
>> I CAN also get back into Win2K if I drop the FSB down to 66 for a
>> stock 566 speed (and of course old DOS at 850mhz too).
>
>says it all.

Can you expand more on what all that says?

>> PS: Also the case reset button no longer functions w/ it set at
>> 100FSB(850mhz) - usually I have to power cycle now too...?
>
>again, says it all. Seems like you been focussing too much on whats
>not relevant. Something needs slowing down. I've no idea what your
>speed options are on this combo but hope you can do something better
>than 566, if not 850.

I've got the thing as conservatively set up as possible. The only real
variable here that I'm aware of is the FSB - can you suggest what I
appear to be missing?

The chip is locked at 8.5 multiplier. It runs fine at 66FSB (it's
stock speed). It will run fine at 75FSB (a mild OC of 637mhz). It will
run fine at 100FSB one time immediately after a BIOS flash. It will
also run fine at 850mhz(100FSB) repeatedly if using a boot disk into
DOS or Win98 command prompt. (I'm going to check a full 98 setup
later). So far the indications are that the COMBINATION of W2K and 850
on this chip are mutually exclusive. Also all the H/W has worked fine
in the past w/ Win2K at 100FSB (using a 366 OC'd to 550).

Can you offer some suggestions on what is relevant to try?

thanks,

>Regards, NT

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

pgtr <> wrote in message news:<e50ne0dnp11ssvtss0o0bpt57hipuvi9qf@4ax.com>...
> On 4 Jul 2004 10:36:17 -0700, bigcat@meeow.co.uk (N. Thornton) wrote:
> >pgtr <> wrote in message news:<e2h8e09fsqcr48f47brbrknu3fp9t275s0@4ax.com>...

> >> I CAN also get back into Win2K if I drop the FSB down to 66 for a
> >> stock 566 speed (and of course old DOS at 850mhz too).
> >
> >says it all.
>
> Can you expand more on what all that says?

I'm no overclocking genius but if it all works dandy at one speed and
frequently hangs at 30% faster speed... hello?


> >> PS: Also the case reset button no longer functions w/ it set at
> >> 100FSB(850mhz) - usually I have to power cycle now too...?
> >
> >again, says it all. Seems like you been focussing too much on whats
> >not relevant. Something needs slowing down. I've no idea what your
> >speed options are on this combo but hope you can do something better
> >than 566, if not 850.
>
> I've got the thing as conservatively set up as possible.

Is a 566 running at 850 conservative?


> The only real
> variable here that I'm aware of is the FSB - can you suggest what I
> appear to be missing?

the obvious?


> The chip is locked at 8.5 multiplier. It runs fine at 66FSB (it's
> stock speed). It will run fine at 75FSB (a mild OC of 637mhz). It will
> run fine at 100FSB one time immediately after a BIOS flash. It will
> also run fine at 850mhz(100FSB) repeatedly if using a boot disk into
> DOS or Win98 command prompt. (I'm going to check a full 98 setup
> later). So far the indications are that the COMBINATION of W2K and 850
> on this chip are mutually exclusive. Also all the H/W has worked fine
> in the past w/ Win2K at 100FSB (using a 366 OC'd to 550).
>
> Can you offer some suggestions on what is relevant to try?


DOS / 98 command prompt is small and simple compared to win98, and
thus far more likely to boot than full Win when you have data errors
going on. This is to be expected.

I dont know I could always be wrong, but it seems quite obvious that
youre trying to run it at a speed it cant do. What to do? Run it at a
speed it will do! What else?

Youve tried the tricks, tweaking the voltage... thats it. Your max
speed depends not just on CPU or mobo, but on the pair of them
together. If the CPU will run faster in another mobo, you might
contemplate using the other mobo.


Regards, NT

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

On 7 Jul 2004 04:33:41 -0700, bigcat@meeow.co.uk (N. Thornton) wrote:

>I'm no overclocking genius but if it all works dandy at one speed and
>frequently hangs at 30% faster speed... hello?

It hangs specifically at startup under one specific OS in a consistent
fashion. THis largely eliminates the typical OC issues of not posting
and temperature stability problems and leaves some sort of
configuration issue.

>
>> >> PS: Also the case reset button no longer functions w/ it set at
>> >> 100FSB(850mhz) - usually I have to power cycle now too...?
>> >
>> >again, says it all. Seems like you been focussing too much on whats
>> >not relevant. Something needs slowing down. I've no idea what your
>> >speed options are on this combo but hope you can do something better
>> >than 566, if not 850.
>>
>> I've got the thing as conservatively set up as possible.
>
>Is a 566 running at 850 conservative?

To be more specific I was referring to all BIOS settings - they are as
conservative as possible.

However a 566 at 850 is below average. The CPU database suggests 874
as average. Anything above that up to say 1ghz is aggressive. The 566
is generally regarded as one of the more OCable chips of that ilk much
like the 300A back in it's day.


>> The only real
>> variable here that I'm aware of is the FSB - can you suggest what I
>> appear to be missing?
>
>the obvious?

ok

>> The chip is locked at 8.5 multiplier. It runs fine at 66FSB (it's
>> stock speed). It will run fine at 75FSB (a mild OC of 637mhz). It will
>> run fine at 100FSB one time immediately after a BIOS flash. It will
>> also run fine at 850mhz(100FSB) repeatedly if using a boot disk into
>> DOS or Win98 command prompt. (I'm going to check a full 98 setup
>> later). So far the indications are that the COMBINATION of W2K and 850
>> on this chip are mutually exclusive. Also all the H/W has worked fine
>> in the past w/ Win2K at 100FSB (using a 366 OC'd to 550).
>>
>> Can you offer some suggestions on what is relevant to try?
>
>
>DOS / 98 command prompt is small and simple compared to win98, and
>thus far more likely to boot than full Win when you have data errors
>going on. This is to be expected.

Can you expand on "data errors" that might prevent W2K from booting
and hang?

>I dont know I could always be wrong, but it seems quite obvious that
>youre trying to run it at a speed it cant do. What to do? Run it at a
>speed it will do! What else?

That's not exactly correct - I can reflash the BIOS each time at boot
up and it can CONSISTENTLY run at 850 indefinately and be very stable.

I am looking for:

A) an explanation as to what is special about running W2K immediately
after a flash that allows this

B) a solution to booting it at 850mhz into W2K w/o having to reflash
it each time

>Youve tried the tricks, tweaking the voltage... thats it. Your max
>speed depends not just on CPU or mobo, but on the pair of them
>together. If the CPU will run faster in another mobo, you might
>contemplate using the other mobo.

Could there not be some driver or configuration issues w/ W2K?

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

N. Thornton wrote:

> pgtr <> wrote in message news:<e50ne0dnp11ssvtss0o0bpt57hipuvi9qf@4ax.com>...
>
>>On 4 Jul 2004 10:36:17 -0700, bigcat@meeow.co.uk (N. Thornton) wrote:
>>
>>>pgtr <> wrote in message news:<e2h8e09fsqcr48f47brbrknu3fp9t275s0@4ax.com>...
>
>
>>>>I CAN also get back into Win2K if I drop the FSB down to 66 for a
>>>>stock 566 speed (and of course old DOS at 850mhz too).
>>>
>>>says it all.
>>
>>Can you expand more on what all that says?
>
>
> I'm no overclocking genius but if it all works dandy at one speed and
> frequently hangs at 30% faster speed... hello?

It means there's a problem. Your assumption that it also means the
processor can't handle it isn't necessarily the case, however.

And your description is misleading. 'Frequently', with no other
description, suggests it's semi 'random', that it 'just happens' some
times, but there's a definite, repeatable, known set of circumstances that
causes it to hang at a single, known, spot while it runs perfectly fine for
days on end under the right circumstances.


>>>>PS: Also the case reset button no longer functions w/ it set at
>>>>100FSB(850mhz) - usually I have to power cycle now too...?
>>>
>>>again, says it all. Seems like you been focussing too much on whats
>>>not relevant. Something needs slowing down. I've no idea what your
>>>speed options are on this combo but hope you can do something better
>>>than 566, if not 850.
>>
>>I've got the thing as conservatively set up as possible.
>
>
> Is a 566 running at 850 conservative?

Depends on how you define 'conservative' and in what context. It isn't
'unusual' for a 566 to run 850, NOT running 850 would be the unusual case,
and the CB0 566 I had ran 1020/120MHz FSB (properly torture tested). In
that context, 850 does look rather 'conservative'.


>>The only real
>>variable here that I'm aware of is the FSB - can you suggest what I
>>appear to be missing?
>
>
> the obvious?

I think the problem here with 'obvious' is you seem to be operating under
the theory that if a 'problem' occurs then it's 'broke' so give up (the
'obvious' answer) whereas we're looking at what others have done, and the
statistical success rate, and wondering why this one seems to be so oddball
compared to what virtually every other 566 can do; then looking at the
symptoms to see if we can find out why.

You may be right, but it's not the odds.

>
>>The chip is locked at 8.5 multiplier. It runs fine at 66FSB (it's
>>stock speed). It will run fine at 75FSB (a mild OC of 637mhz). It will
>>run fine at 100FSB one time immediately after a BIOS flash. It will
>>also run fine at 850mhz(100FSB) repeatedly if using a boot disk into
>>DOS or Win98 command prompt. (I'm going to check a full 98 setup
>>later). So far the indications are that the COMBINATION of W2K and 850
>>on this chip are mutually exclusive. Also all the H/W has worked fine
>>in the past w/ Win2K at 100FSB (using a 366 OC'd to 550).
>>
>>Can you offer some suggestions on what is relevant to try?
>
>
>
> DOS / 98 command prompt is small and simple compared to win98, and
> thus far more likely to boot than full Win when you have data errors
> going on. This is to be expected.

I doubt DOS would boot with flat out 'errors'. It isn't as if DOS has
'spare' program material that can get corrupted with no effect.


> I dont know I could always be wrong, but it seems quite obvious that
> youre trying to run it at a speed it cant do. What to do? Run it at a
> speed it will do! What else?

Find what the problem is.


> Youve tried the tricks, tweaking the voltage... thats it. Your max
> speed depends not just on CPU or mobo, but on the pair of them
> together. If the CPU will run faster in another mobo, you might
> contemplate using the other mobo.

That's a possibility but I'm more inclined to think it has something to do
with the foolie flash.

>
>
> Regards, NT

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

pgtr <> wrote in message news:<9o3oe0ta6b2ahm5uqtf6ikatkq8ifuu3rv@4ax.com>...
> On 7 Jul 2004 04:33:41 -0700, bigcat@meeow.co.uk (N. Thornton) wrote:

I apologise for being a bit rude.

> >I'm no overclocking genius but if it all works dandy at one speed and
> >frequently hangs at 30% faster speed... hello?
>
> It hangs specifically at startup under one specific OS in a consistent
> fashion. THis largely eliminates the typical OC issues of not posting
> and temperature stability problems and leaves some sort of
> configuration issue.

POST failure, startup hang and instability are all caused by the same
thing: data errors. Data errors are what you get with an _unstably_
overclocked system.

Not POSTing is merely a more extreme data error problem than hang on
boot. Crashes after startup are the same issue again, merely with a
lower data error rate.

The difference merely lies in when the error occurred: during POST,
during startup, or after. The level of errors will determine which. 1
error per 0.1 secs will cause POST fail, 1 error per hour will cause
crashes during uptime. This is why DOS will often boot when Win wont:
far less work = less chance of error during startup.

So the picture leaves us with data errors, not configuration problems.


> >> >> PS: Also the case reset button no longer functions w/ it set at
> >> >> 100FSB(850mhz) - usually I have to power cycle now too...?
> >> >
> >> >again, says it all. Seems like you been focussing too much on whats
> >> >not relevant. Something needs slowing down. I've no idea what your
> >> >speed options are on this combo but hope you can do something better
> >> >than 566, if not 850.
> >>
> >> I've got the thing as conservatively set up as possible.
> >
> >Is a 566 running at 850 conservative?
>
> To be more specific I was referring to all BIOS settings - they are as
> conservative as possible.

850 still isnt conservative. Sorry


> However a 566 at 850 is below average. The CPU database suggests 874
> as average. Anything above that up to say 1ghz is aggressive. The 566
> is generally regarded as one of the more OCable chips of that ilk much
> like the 300A back in it's day.

566s may love o/cing, but that doesnt mean every 566 will do way above
566. Inevitably some wont, its always the way.
I agree 1G would be aggressive



> >> The chip is locked at 8.5 multiplier. It runs fine at 66FSB (it's
> >> stock speed). It will run fine at 75FSB (a mild OC of 637mhz). It will
> >> run fine at 100FSB one time immediately after a BIOS flash. It will
> >> also run fine at 850mhz(100FSB) repeatedly if using a boot disk into
> >> DOS or Win98 command prompt. (I'm going to check a full 98 setup
> >> later). So far the indications are that the COMBINATION of W2K and 850
> >> on this chip are mutually exclusive. Also all the H/W has worked fine
> >> in the past w/ Win2K at 100FSB (using a 366 OC'd to 550).
> >>
> >> Can you offer some suggestions on what is relevant to try?
> >
> >
> >DOS / 98 command prompt is small and simple compared to win98, and
> >thus far more likely to boot than full Win when you have data errors
> >going on. This is to be expected.
>
> Can you expand on "data errors" that might prevent W2K from booting
> and hang?

have now done. Hopefully clearly.


> >I dont know I could always be wrong, but it seems quite obvious that
> >youre trying to run it at a speed it cant do. What to do? Run it at a
> >speed it will do! What else?
>
> That's not exactly correct - I can reflash the BIOS each time at boot
> up and it can CONSISTENTLY run at 850 indefinately and be very stable.
>
> I am looking for:
>
> A) an explanation as to what is special about running W2K immediately
> after a flash that allows this
>
> B) a solution to booting it at 850mhz into W2K w/o having to reflash
> it each time

I know thats a teaser, but
a) its not something you can change AFAIK, unles you try older BIOS
software versions on the remote offchance one might work.
b) the plain stump-like fact is it runs reliably at 566 but not
consistently at 850.


> >Youve tried the tricks, tweaking the voltage... thats it. Your max
> >speed depends not just on CPU or mobo, but on the pair of them
> >together. If the CPU will run faster in another mobo, you might
> >contemplate using the other mobo.
>
> Could there not be some driver or configuration issues w/ W2K?

I guess there one way to find out: put 98se on it, or any other 'as
different to 2k as poss' large OS. But if win2k starts up fine at 566
but not at 850, you have a clear answer: data errors at 850.


Regards, NT

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

On Wed, 07 Jul 2004 17:52:58 -0500, David Maynard <dNOTmayn@ev1.net>
wrote:

<SNIP>

>WELLLlllllll, now, that's a sight different than the original description
>of "reset switch has no affect (sic)." It IS apparently doing
>'something'... it blanks the screen and the hard drive response indicates
>it got a hard reset.
>
>The motherboard apparently isn't 'starting back up', from the reset, though.

Yes BUT remember only if it was at 850. If it's at 637 or 566 it stops
and starts fine inclduing the reset button on the case.

>> I CAN however put a boot disk in and boot (at 850mhz) into a DOS
>> prompt (W98 book disk) and the reset button works there as well as
>> CNTRL ALT DEL.
>
>It's beginning to sound like a BIOS power management issue. APM, ACPI,
>nothing, conflicting, confused, I don't know.
>
>Of course, DOS couldn't care less about APM/ACPI but Windows 2000 sure as
>heck does and it's going to be very angry about having the wrong kernel
>(APM, ACPI, etc) vs what the motherboard claims.

Hmmmmmm I might double check and see what BIOS is set at. I've done so
many flashes that I've stopped bothered to modify much of anything
other than the CPU and maybe the setting for PnP OS. Everything else
iincluding those power settings in BIOS are all left at whatever the
default is.

>> Basically when it hangs on teh 2nd attempt and beyond going into W2K
>> at 850mhz - it REALLY hangs and not even the reset button will wake it
>> up properly - just a power off/on.
>
>Yes, ok. The rest doesn't cause a proper reboot but, according to your
>current description, it IS doing something.

Well it 'tries' to restart and acts like it is, but never gets beyond
a blank screen so I power off. Again, only at 850 though not at 566 or
637.

>>>Yeah. Ok. If you'd mentioned Abit and flashing for Vcore I'd have known
>>>what you meant.
>>
>>
>> Yep. I thought I'd mentioned in the orig post it was an ABit ZM6
>> (similar to BM6 but less memory). You know your mobos! I have the
>> latest flashing they released (SU?) to move the default voltage up...
>> I think the chip is pretty happy at 1.85V which is right in line w/
>> the many entries in overclockers.com CPU database for OCing the 566 to
>> 850.
>
>Yeah, I don't think it's the voltage, per see, or else the symptom would be
>more random.
>
>How does the 566 perform at 850 if you use the max voltage the 'normal'
>default range allows?

The max teh default allows is 1.5 +-.2 or 1.7V. That just wasn't
enough as I recall. It's real happy at about 1.8 to 1.9. I don't
recall how it did at 1.75V offhand but I think it might also work
there...


<SNIP>

>>>Just because it worked with a 366 OC'd, though, doesn't mean a 566 'must'.
>>>On the other hand, that overclock isn't in any way unusual.
>>
>>
>> No it doesn't. But 366 at 550 tells me that the system is stable and
>> happy w/ a 100FSB. And the 566 CAN run nicely at 850 indefinately that
>> 'one' time after a flash. It can also run at 850 consistently via a
>> DOS prompt boot. Sure seems like the ducks are all in a row for it to
>> OC at 850mhz but throw in W2K and ...?
>
>Which kernel DO you have in win2000? ACPI? 'Standard pc'?

YOu would ask. How do I tell? In Control Panel: Power Options it shows
an APM tab. In that tab it is NOT checked.

Under Device Mgr if I view hidden devices the NT/APM Legacy driver
shows itself but w/ a red X - it's disabled.

Let me know what to change or check for and I'll definately go for it.

>> No I haven't tried that particular combination. What might that tells
>> us one way or the other? To be honest going thru the flashing process
>> is a little tricky and sometimes it doesn't take or preserve the
>> voltages correctly and may take a 2nd or 3rd attempt (I've had
>> problems w/ it reverting from 1.7V to 1.5V default on subsequent
>> flashes so I have to do it twice). Even though I have a UPS we have
>> lots of power fluctuations out here and to be honest I'm just plain
>> nervous about doing any more flashes.
>
>Well, I was trying to establish whether the reset ever worked 'right' with
>win2000 but I'm now on the power management tract.

FWIW the reset does work fine @ 566 and 637 (75fsb) and did w/ the old
366 @ 550(100fsb) as well.

>What *I* would do, at this stage, since the Vcore range is your big issue,
>is wire strap the processor pins for a higher Vcore so the BIOS just
>naturally thinks it should be higher: no flash required.
>
>Pulling VID3, that's AJ37, to ground (AK36, Vss, is right next to it) will
>give you 1.9V default (just about your only choice short of
>insulating/pulling pins), which you can then lower to the 1.85 you're using.
>
>That is, if the default core is 1.5, as I think you said. If it's higher
>then jumpering AJ37 low will result in a correspondingly higher Vcore above
>1.9.

So you're saying soldering a wire between AJ37 and AK36? Would this
best be done from under the mobo?

Here's a link to an interesting article that talks about modifying the
same ZM6 mobo for later coppermines - it's where I picked up the flash
trick.
http://www.3feetunder.com/krick/370mod/
I need to find a better diagram of the celeron as that one is too
small/blurry - probably at intel.com I can find a better one.

Any other easy/quickee tricks to jump AJ37 and AK36?

I don't mind putting something around a pint to insulate it (like a
piece of insulation from an old ribbon cable). Bit more of a hassle to
pull everything apart and solder from behind - small for me to solder
but I think doable for me.

>>>Doesn't seem to explain why it would run in DOS, though, unless whatever is
>>>'missing' from the reset is of no consequence to DOS.
>>
>>
>> I'm leaning towards something odd going on w/ W2K that seems to upset
>> the applecart so to speak w/ regards to: BIOS or COppermine or
>> something...? I believe the chip posts consistently at 850. It doesn't
>> have any temperature related stability problems at 850. W2K is happy
>> w/ the chip at 66FSB and 75FSB.
>>
>> There is a setting as I recall in the BIOS that is something like
>> 'Force Update ESCD' - could that have any impact?
>>
>> I'm going to hit the jumper on the mobo and clear the CMOS (may need
>> to reflash to get back to 1.7V default?) and see what that does.
>
>Clearing BIOS is a grand idea with all the flashes you've done.

Just did it today at lunch and sure enough it kicked me back to 1.5V.
SO I figured I'd reflash w/ /cc and have been running 850mhz all
afternoon (including a torture test for kicks). I haven't had teh
heart to restart it figuring I'll probably lose the 850 yet again...


>> I'm also going to grab an extra small HD and put a Win98 install on
>> there and swap out the two large HDs w/ W2K for this one temporarily -
>> I'd like to see if it will boot consistently into a full Win98 at
>> 850... I don't know how much it says that it can boot into a W98 dos
>> prompt at 850 consistently - it is only a DOS prompt as opposed to the
>> full W98. Basically at this point I'm sure the chip will post at 850
>> consistently. Also that it doesn't seem to have any temperature
>> related stability problems (based on 'successfuly' initial boots after
>> flash).
>
>Try the VID jumper so you don't have to flash.

Yeah I understand what you are thinking but I need to think that one
thru. FYI the 'default' chips only cycle up to 600(66).

I also still want to load up W98 on a spare HD and see what happens.
If it works that would isolate the problem as unique to W2K combined
w/ the OC'd chip.

And I will need to (reluctantly) reboot here shortly and verify it
will NOT come up @ 850 a second time in W2K.

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