FIC PA-2013 : 100MHz X 2x =600HMZ ???

The BIOS is lying to you, the CPU speed is actually 600.

Don't believe me? Then find the k6speed utilities, there are DOS and
Windows versions here:

www.k6plus.com

--
Best regards,
Kyle
"Gibby" <MrBaltimore.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106677923.563761.313600@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Hi all:
| In setting up a AMD K6-III/450+ CPU on an FIC PA-2013 MB (Rev. 2.1),
we
| all know that the highest multiplier is 5.5x.
| The question: I've been told by some in the know that if one uses
the
| 2x multiplier X 100MHz, then the AMD CPU looks at the 2x selection
as a
| 6x, thereby giving one a 600 reading. When I turn on my computer, I
| only get a 556MHz reading from BIOS (not 600), when shorting 2x. I'm
| using 2.2 volts. How do I get up to 600 MHz WITHOUT having to select
| the 112MHz speed configuration? That is, 112 X 5.5 = 616. FIC
doesn't
| recommend using the 112 or 124MHz saying that performance will not
be
| guaranteed. I can't get any further than "initialization complete,"
| then it hangs.
| Thanks to Robert. Alex, and others who have helped me so much in the
| past.
| Gibby
|
 >> Stay informed about: FIC PA-2013 : 100MHz X 2x =600HMZ ??? 

Alex and Kyle:
I was looking at some past posts and I believe that it was Robert
(not sure) that said there wouldn't be any problems with what I
propose, but that problems with the hard drives might be a result of
going to 600MHz.
Well, as I said, when I boot up, even though I only see 566MHz, I get
down to "initialization complete," but then it hangs. My guess is that
the HD's will not allow it to bootup to Windows 98SE. I have new large
HD's (100 meg) using the Promise Ultra 100TX card, which I've been
using for some time. So, then, if I could get the HD's going, then I'd
likely be on my way. This is my GUESS as to what the problem is. The
answer to the problem is another story.
All suggestions appreciated, as usual.
Gibby
***********************************************************
Alex Zorrilla wrote:
 > Hey, Gibby.
 >
 > As far as I know, the 2x jumper setting is interpreted as 6x for
other
 > FSB's... (2x66)=(6x66)=400... (2x75)=(6x75)=450... etc. I would not
 > expect it to be different for the 100 MHz FSB, but the BIOS is
telling
 > you 556 MHz. Hmmmm..... it could be a display issue with the BIOS.
 > That is, it does not know what to make of 600 MHz, so it just
displays
 > 556 MHz instead, even though the CPU really is running at 600.
 >
 > Try running some utility within Windows to get the actual CPU speed.
If
 > you have Windows XP, go to Control Panel --> System --> General tab.
 > That should tell you the approximate speed of the CPU, as measured by

 > Windows. For earlier versions of Windows, the DirectX Diagnostic
 > Utility will tell you, assuming you have a fairly recent version of
DirectX.
 >
 > If you want to download a free utility, try CPU-Z at
 > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php" target="_blank">http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php</a> . That should tell you what you want
to
 > know and more.
 >
 > --Alex
 >
 >
 >
 > Gibby wrote:
  > > Hi all:
  > > In setting up a AMD K6-III/450+ CPU on an FIC PA-2013 MB (Rev.
2.1), we
  > > all know that the highest multiplier is 5.5x.
  > > The question: I've been told by some in the know that if one uses
the
  > > 2x multiplier X 100MHz, then the AMD CPU looks at the 2x selection
as a
  > > 6x, thereby giving one a 600 reading. When I turn on my computer, I
  > > only get a 556MHz reading from BIOS (not 600), when shorting 2x.
I'm
  > > using 2.2 volts. How do I get up to 600 MHz WITHOUT having to
select
  > > the 112MHz speed configuration? That is, 112 X 5.5 = 616. FIC
doesn't
  > > recommend using the 112 or 124MHz saying that performance will not
be
  > > guaranteed. I can't get any further than "initialization complete,"
  > > then it hangs.
  > > Thanks to Robert. Alex, and others who have helped me so much in
the
  > > past.
  > > Gibby
  > ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: FIC PA-2013 : 100MHz X 2x =600HMZ ??? 

Hey, Gibby.

Problems with the hard drives, IDE, PCI/AGP cards and RAM usually come
as a result of overclocking the FSB. This is because they often use a
divider to derive the PCI clock speed from the FSB. For example, if the
FSB is 66, the usual divider is 2, to give a PCI speed of 33. If the
FSB is 100, the usual divider is 3. For an FSB of 112, the divider is
still 3, which gives a PCI speed of 37.5. Some components may not be
able to handle this, so this may cause problems.

From what you say, though, you are running an FSB of 100, so I would
not expect the hard drives to be the problem. Instead, the problem is
most likely with the CPU itself. It is simply not capable of going that
fast. It seems to be able to handle the BIOS POST, but the process of
loading Windows seems to be too much for it.

An overclockers' trick to try to get around this is to raise the voltage
of the CPU. Sometimes it works, but it does produce more heat, in which
case overheating can become a problem. Raising the voltage too much can
also shorten the life of the CPU. Raising the voltage and improvong the
cooling do not always work, however. At some point, you will hit a
wall, and nothing you do will let you get past it.

Is this that K6-III+ 500 processor you mentioned a while ago? What was
its rated voltage, and what voltage are you running at right now?

--Alex



Gibby wrote:
 > Alex and Kyle:
 > I was looking at some past posts and I believe that it was Robert
 > (not sure) that said there wouldn't be any problems with what I
 > propose, but that problems with the hard drives might be a result of
 > going to 600MHz.
 > Well, as I said, when I boot up, even though I only see 566MHz, I get
 > down to "initialization complete," but then it hangs. My guess is that
 > the HD's will not allow it to bootup to Windows 98SE. I have new large
 > HD's (100 meg) using the Promise Ultra 100TX card, which I've been
 > using for some time. So, then, if I could get the HD's going, then I'd
 > likely be on my way. This is my GUESS as to what the problem is. The
 > answer to the problem is another story.
 > All suggestions appreciated, as usual.
 > Gibby
 > ***********************************************************
 > Alex Zorrilla wrote:
 >
  >>Hey, Gibby.
  >>
  >>As far as I know, the 2x jumper setting is interpreted as 6x for
 >
 > other
 >
  >>FSB's... (2x66)=(6x66)=400... (2x75)=(6x75)=450... etc. I would not
  >>expect it to be different for the 100 MHz FSB, but the BIOS is
 >
 > telling
 >
  >>you 556 MHz. Hmmmm..... it could be a display issue with the BIOS.
  >>That is, it does not know what to make of 600 MHz, so it just
 >
 > displays
 >
  >>556 MHz instead, even though the CPU really is running at 600.
  >>
  >>Try running some utility within Windows to get the actual CPU speed.
 >
 > If
 >
  >>you have Windows XP, go to Control Panel --> System --> General tab.
  >>That should tell you the approximate speed of the CPU, as measured by
 >
 >
  >>Windows. For earlier versions of Windows, the DirectX Diagnostic
  >>Utility will tell you, assuming you have a fairly recent version of
 >
 > DirectX.
 >
  >>If you want to download a free utility, try CPU-Z at
  >>http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php . That should tell you what you want
 >
 > to
 >
  >>know and more.
  >>
  >>--Alex
  >>
  >>
  >>
  >>Gibby wrote:
  >>
   >>>Hi all:
   >>>In setting up a AMD K6-III/450+ CPU on an FIC PA-2013 MB (Rev.
 >
 > 2.1), we
 >
   >>>all know that the highest multiplier is 5.5x.
   >>>The question: I've been told by some in the know that if one uses
 >
 > the
 >
   >>>2x multiplier X 100MHz, then the AMD CPU looks at the 2x selection
 >
 > as a
 >
   >>>6x, thereby giving one a 600 reading. When I turn on my computer, I
   >>>only get a 556MHz reading from BIOS (not 600), when shorting 2x.
 >
 > I'm
 >
   >>>using 2.2 volts. How do I get up to 600 MHz WITHOUT having to
 >
 > select
 >
   >>>the 112MHz speed configuration? That is, 112 X 5.5 = 616. FIC
 >
 > doesn't
 >
   >>>recommend using the 112 or 124MHz saying that performance will not
 >
 > be
 >
   >>>guaranteed. I can't get any further than "initialization complete,"
   >>>then it hangs.
   >>>Thanks to Robert. Alex, and others who have helped me so much in
 >
 > the
 >
   >>>past.
   >>>Gibby
   >>>
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: FIC PA-2013 : 100MHz X 2x =600HMZ ??? 

Your problem is the CPU, some won't work at 600, yet I've seen many
k6+ CPUs that work nicely at 570 MHz (6x95). In fact, I have one that
will NOT run at 550 (5.5x100) but WILL run at 570 (6x95), go figure.
Thus, it's my opinion the onboard full speed cache is the limiting
factor with k6+ CPU overclocking.

--
Best regards,
Kyle
"Gibby" <MrBaltimore RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106748582.624582.230720@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Alex and Kyle:
| I was looking at some past posts and I believe that it was Robert
| (not sure) that said there wouldn't be any problems with what I
| propose, but that problems with the hard drives might be a result of
| going to 600MHz.
| Well, as I said, when I boot up, even though I only see 566MHz, I
get
| down to "initialization complete," but then it hangs. My guess is
that
| the HD's will not allow it to bootup to Windows 98SE. I have new
large
| HD's (100 meg) using the Promise Ultra 100TX card, which I've been
| using for some time. So, then, if I could get the HD's going, then
I'd
| likely be on my way. This is my GUESS as to what the problem is. The
| answer to the problem is another story.
| All suggestions appreciated, as usual.
| Gibby
| ***********************************************************
| Alex Zorrilla wrote:
| > Hey, Gibby.
| >
| > As far as I know, the 2x jumper setting is interpreted as 6x for
| other
| > FSB's... (2x66)=(6x66)=400... (2x75)=(6x75)=450... etc. I would
not
| > expect it to be different for the 100 MHz FSB, but the BIOS is
| telling
| > you 556 MHz. Hmmmm..... it could be a display issue with the
BIOS.
| > That is, it does not know what to make of 600 MHz, so it just
| displays
| > 556 MHz instead, even though the CPU really is running at 600.
| >
| > Try running some utility within Windows to get the actual CPU
speed.
| If
| > you have Windows XP, go to Control Panel --> System --> General
tab.
| > That should tell you the approximate speed of the CPU, as measured
by
|
| > Windows. For earlier versions of Windows, the DirectX Diagnostic
| > Utility will tell you, assuming you have a fairly recent version
of
| DirectX.
| >
| > If you want to download a free utility, try CPU-Z at
| > http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php . That should tell you what you
want
| to
| > know and more.
| >
| > --Alex
| >
| >
| >
| > Gibby wrote:
| > > Hi all:
| > > In setting up a AMD K6-III/450+ CPU on an FIC PA-2013 MB (Rev.
| 2.1), we
| > > all know that the highest multiplier is 5.5x.
| > > The question: I've been told by some in the know that if one
uses
| the
| > > 2x multiplier X 100MHz, then the AMD CPU looks at the 2x
selection
| as a
| > > 6x, thereby giving one a 600 reading. When I turn on my
computer, I
| > > only get a 556MHz reading from BIOS (not 600), when shorting 2x.
| I'm
| > > using 2.2 volts. How do I get up to 600 MHz WITHOUT having to
| select
| > > the 112MHz speed configuration? That is, 112 X 5.5 = 616. FIC
| doesn't
| > > recommend using the 112 or 124MHz saying that performance will
not
| be
| > > guaranteed. I can't get any further than "initialization
complete,"
| > > then it hangs.
| > > Thanks to Robert. Alex, and others who have helped me so much in
| the
| > > past.
| > > Gibby
| > >
|
 >> Stay informed about: FIC PA-2013 : 100MHz X 2x =600HMZ ??? 

Kyle:
What voltage do you use at 570Mhz? I can easy do 550MHz (100MHz at
5.5x at v2.0)with this AMD K6-III/450+ v2.0 CPU. I was given the
programs with the CPU listed below as optimizers, stating that if I
tinker with them that I can get 600 to fly with remarkable speed. So
far, no go. However, the operative word was tinker - there's a very
fine line here in getting it to work, but it will (supposedly).
cacheonw.exe
k6wao
setewb
k6wcx
**************************************************************
Kylesb wrote:
 > Your problem is the CPU, some won't work at 600, yet I've seen many
 > k6+ CPUs that work nicely at 570 MHz (6x95). In fact, I have one
that
 > will NOT run at 550 (5.5x100) but WILL run at 570 (6x95), go figure.
 > Thus, it's my opinion the onboard full speed cache is the limiting
 > factor with k6+ CPU overclocking.
 >
 > --
 > Best regards,
 > Kyle
 > "Gibby" <MrBaltimore DeleteThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
 > news:1106748582.624582.230720@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
 > | Alex and Kyle:
 > | I was looking at some past posts and I believe that it was Robert
 > | (not sure) that said there wouldn't be any problems with what I
 > | propose, but that problems with the hard drives might be a result
of
 > | going to 600MHz.
 > | Well, as I said, when I boot up, even though I only see 566MHz, I
 > get
 > | down to "initialization complete," but then it hangs. My guess is
 > that
 > | the HD's will not allow it to bootup to Windows 98SE. I have new
 > large
 > | HD's (100 meg) using the Promise Ultra 100TX card, which I've been
 > | using for some time. So, then, if I could get the HD's going, then
 > I'd
 > | likely be on my way. This is my GUESS as to what the problem is.
The
 > | answer to the problem is another story.
 > | All suggestions appreciated, as usual.
 > | Gibby
 > | ***********************************************************
 > | Alex Zorrilla wrote:
 > | > Hey, Gibby.
 > | >
 > | > As far as I know, the 2x jumper setting is interpreted as 6x for
 > | other
 > | > FSB's... (2x66)=(6x66)=400... (2x75)=(6x75)=450... etc. I would
 > not
 > | > expect it to be different for the 100 MHz FSB, but the BIOS is
 > | telling
 > | > you 556 MHz. Hmmmm..... it could be a display issue with the
 > BIOS.
 > | > That is, it does not know what to make of 600 MHz, so it just
 > | displays
 > | > 556 MHz instead, even though the CPU really is running at 600.
 > | >
 > | > Try running some utility within Windows to get the actual CPU
 > speed.
 > | If
 > | > you have Windows XP, go to Control Panel --> System --> General
 > tab.
 > | > That should tell you the approximate speed of the CPU, as
measured
 > by
 > |
 > | > Windows. For earlier versions of Windows, the DirectX Diagnostic
 > | > Utility will tell you, assuming you have a fairly recent version
 > of
 > | DirectX.
 > | >
 > | > If you want to download a free utility, try CPU-Z at
 > | > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php" target="_blank">http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php</a> . That should tell you what you
 > want
 > | to
 > | > know and more.
 > | >
 > | > --Alex
 > | >
 > | >
 > | >
 > | > Gibby wrote:
 > | > > Hi all:
 > | > > In setting up a AMD K6-III/450+ CPU on an FIC PA-2013 MB (Rev.
 > | 2.1), we
 > | > > all know that the highest multiplier is 5.5x.
 > | > > The question: I've been told by some in the know that if one
 > uses
 > | the
 > | > > 2x multiplier X 100MHz, then the AMD CPU looks at the 2x
 > selection
 > | as a
 > | > > 6x, thereby giving one a 600 reading. When I turn on my
 > computer, I
 > | > > only get a 556MHz reading from BIOS (not 600), when shorting
2x.
 > | I'm
 > | > > using 2.2 volts. How do I get up to 600 MHz WITHOUT having to
 > | select
 > | > > the 112MHz speed configuration? That is, 112 X 5.5 = 616. FIC
 > | doesn't
 > | > > recommend using the 112 or 124MHz saying that performance will
 > not
 > | be
 > | > > guaranteed. I can't get any further than "initialization
 > complete,"
 > | > > then it hangs.
 > | > > Thanks to Robert. Alex, and others who have helped me so much
in
 > | the
 > | > > past.
 > | > > Gibby
 > | > >
 > |<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: FIC PA-2013 : 100MHz X 2x =600HMZ ??? 

I think I used 2.1v, never have used anything over 2.2v with a k6+ CPU
(as the manufacturers spec indicates the upper limit for Vcore is
2.2v). I figure that exceeding the product spec is asking for future
trouble.

Now that I think about it, I have one k62+ cpu that will not run 550
MHz (5x100) because it does not work at all with 100 MHz FSB and any
multiplier. But, that same CPU works great at 95 MHz FSB and any
multiplier. I nearly threw it away as a dead CPU when I suddenly
thought to try 95 MHz FSB, and to my astonishment, it works flawlessly
at any multiplier, and has run 24/7 for years.

--
Best regards,
Kyle
"Gibby" <MrBaltimore.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106843483.715957.126780@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Kyle:
| What voltage do you use at 570Mhz? I can easy do 550MHz (100MHz at
| 5.5x at v2.0)with this AMD K6-III/450+ v2.0 CPU. I was given the
| programs with the CPU listed below as optimizers, stating that if I
| tinker with them that I can get 600 to fly with remarkable speed. So
| far, no go. However, the operative word was tinker - there's a very
| fine line here in getting it to work, but it will (supposedly).
| cacheonw.exe
| k6wao
| setewb
| k6wcx
| **************************************************************
| Kylesb wrote:
| > Your problem is the CPU, some won't work at 600, yet I've seen
many
| > k6+ CPUs that work nicely at 570 MHz (6x95). In fact, I have one
| that
| > will NOT run at 550 (5.5x100) but WILL run at 570 (6x95), go
figure.
| > Thus, it's my opinion the onboard full speed cache is the limiting
| > factor with k6+ CPU overclocking.
| >
| > --
| > Best regards,
| > Kyle
| > "Gibby" <MrBaltimore.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
| > news:1106748582.624582.230720@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| > | Alex and Kyle:
| > | I was looking at some past posts and I believe that it was
Robert
| > | (not sure) that said there wouldn't be any problems with what I
| > | propose, but that problems with the hard drives might be a
result
| of
| > | going to 600MHz.
| > | Well, as I said, when I boot up, even though I only see 566MHz,
I
| > get
| > | down to "initialization complete," but then it hangs. My guess
is
| > that
| > | the HD's will not allow it to bootup to Windows 98SE. I have new
| > large
| > | HD's (100 meg) using the Promise Ultra 100TX card, which I've
been
| > | using for some time. So, then, if I could get the HD's going,
then
| > I'd
| > | likely be on my way. This is my GUESS as to what the problem is.
| The
| > | answer to the problem is another story.
| > | All suggestions appreciated, as usual.
| > | Gibby
| > | ***********************************************************
| > | Alex Zorrilla wrote:
| > | > Hey, Gibby.
| > | >
| > | > As far as I know, the 2x jumper setting is interpreted as 6x
for
| > | other
| > | > FSB's... (2x66)=(6x66)=400... (2x75)=(6x75)=450... etc. I
would
| > not
| > | > expect it to be different for the 100 MHz FSB, but the BIOS is
| > | telling
| > | > you 556 MHz. Hmmmm..... it could be a display issue with the
| > BIOS.
| > | > That is, it does not know what to make of 600 MHz, so it just
| > | displays
| > | > 556 MHz instead, even though the CPU really is running at 600.
| > | >
| > | > Try running some utility within Windows to get the actual CPU
| > speed.
| > | If
| > | > you have Windows XP, go to Control Panel --> System -->
General
| > tab.
| > | > That should tell you the approximate speed of the CPU, as
| measured
| > by
| > |
| > | > Windows. For earlier versions of Windows, the DirectX
Diagnostic
| > | > Utility will tell you, assuming you have a fairly recent
version
| > of
| > | DirectX.
| > | >
| > | > If you want to download a free utility, try CPU-Z at
| > | > http://www.cpuid.com/cpuz.php . That should tell you what you
| > want
| > | to
| > | > know and more.
| > | >
| > | > --Alex
| > | >
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > Gibby wrote:
| > | > > Hi all:
| > | > > In setting up a AMD K6-III/450+ CPU on an FIC PA-2013 MB
(Rev.
| > | 2.1), we
| > | > > all know that the highest multiplier is 5.5x.
| > | > > The question: I've been told by some in the know that if one
| > uses
| > | the
| > | > > 2x multiplier X 100MHz, then the AMD CPU looks at the 2x
| > selection
| > | as a
| > | > > 6x, thereby giving one a 600 reading. When I turn on my
| > computer, I
| > | > > only get a 556MHz reading from BIOS (not 600), when shorting
| 2x.
| > | I'm
| > | > > using 2.2 volts. How do I get up to 600 MHz WITHOUT having
to
| > | select
| > | > > the 112MHz speed configuration? That is, 112 X 5.5 = 616.
FIC
| > | doesn't
| > | > > recommend using the 112 or 124MHz saying that performance
will
| > not
| > | be
| > | > > guaranteed. I can't get any further than "initialization
| > complete,"
| > | > > then it hangs.
| > | > > Thanks to Robert. Alex, and others who have helped me so
much
| in
| > | the
| > | > > past.
| > | > > Gibby
| > | > >
| > |
|
 >> Stay informed about: FIC PA-2013 : 100MHz X 2x =600HMZ ??? 

Kyle:
I did SYSID benchmark on each setting and the results were:
Using 100MHz X 5.5x =550 I got 559 CPU and 265/379 CPU/MMX
Using 95MHz X 6.0x = 570 I got 578 CPU and 245/353 CPU/MMX
I'm not quite sure what to make of the results. Which of the two is
the better benchmark?
Gibby
 >> Stay informed about: FIC PA-2013 : 100MHz X 2x =600HMZ ??? 

My Mom's system has a K62550 in it. The thing will not work reliably at 600 Mhz
w/o upping the Vcore significantly. At 600 Mhz it's nearly impossible to keep
the system stable in the summer (even w/a Thermalright SLK7!).

Nice to see you still come around here Kyle. Hope the New Year is treating you
right.

 >Your problem is the CPU, some won't work at 600, yet I've seen many
 >k6+ CPUs that work nicely at 570 MHz (6x95). In fact, I have one that
 >will NOT run at 550 (5.5x100) but WILL run at 570 (6x95), go figure.
 >Thus, it's my opinion the onboard full speed cache is the limiting
 >factor with k6+ CPU overclocking.
 >
 >--
 >Best regards,
 >Kyle


-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: FIC PA-2013 : 100MHz X 2x =600HMZ ??? 

Kind of a mixed bag there. As you can see, the first CPU score is a
result of the CPU clockspeed, while the CPU/MMX speed is influenced by
the FSB. The benchmark does seem to be rather synthetic, but I would
guess that the 100x5.5 is probably better overall. Any other benchmarks
you can try? Does the system feel different, one way or another?

--Alex


Gibby wrote:
 > Kyle:
 > I did SYSID benchmark on each setting and the results were:
 > Using 100MHz X 5.5x =550 I got 559 CPU and 265/379 CPU/MMX
 > Using 95MHz X 6.0x = 570 I got 578 CPU and 245/353 CPU/MMX
 > I'm not quite sure what to make of the results. Which of the two is
 > the better benchmark?
 > Gibby
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: FIC PA-2013 : 100MHz X 2x =600HMZ ??? 

"Gibby" <MrBaltimore.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1106865992.991713.223300@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
| Kyle:
| I did SYSID benchmark on each setting and the results were:
| Using 100MHz X 5.5x =550 I got 559 CPU and 265/379 CPU/MMX
| Using 95MHz X 6.0x = 570 I got 578 CPU and 245/353 CPU/MMX
| I'm not quite sure what to make of the results. Which of the two is
| the better benchmark?
| Gibby
|

The down side of the 95 MHz FSB is the PCI bus will run at 95/3 or
31.67 MHz and the memory and cache will run 5% slower. Thus, PCI bus
transfers will be ever so slightly slower. However, actual CPU
internal computational speed will be a bit higher. I have no idea
what the Sysid benchmarks represent or measure. With my systems, I
prefer to run 550 MHz with 100 MHz FSB versus the 95 MHZ FSB and 570
MHz CPU speed. However, I got that 1 k62+ CPU that likes to run at
95. In addition, I have a couple of Jbond MVP3 mobos (both still
running I might add) and neither board was properly designed to run
100 MHz FSB (I had to add a jumper to the mobo to enable running the
memory and FSB at the same speed, seems the designers omitted the
jumper b/c the boards were not a stable design at 100 MHz). I still
have a spare 503+ and a spare Soyo 5EHM that are just hanging out,
lol.

With the price of a 1600 Duron at about $40 that will easily overclock
to 2000 MHz, and refurb nforce2 mobos from newegg at $35, the old k6+
CPUs are looking mighty slow nowadays.
--
Best regards,
Kyle
 >> Stay informed about: FIC PA-2013 : 100MHz X 2x =600HMZ ??? 

Kyle:
You said, "With the price of a 1600 Duron at about $40 that will
easily overclock
to 2000 MHz, and refurb nforce2 mobos from newegg at $35, the old k6+
CPUs are looking mighty slow nowadays."
Regarding the Nforce2 MB's and the 1600 Duron, is this the thing to
have these days? Do both get good ratings? Do they take 168 pin PC133
cas2 256 memory sticks? Can most of the display, sound, adapter cards,
etc. used in FIC PA-2013 be transferred to nforce2? I've been out of
the loop on the newer stuff, so that's why I'm asking. One thing I've
found out over the years is that a good performing MB is critical -
likely the most imp. decision.
Thanks, Gibby
****************************************************

Kylesb wrote:
 > "Gibby" <MrBaltimore RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote in message
 > news:1106865992.991713.223300@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
 > | Kyle:
 > | I did SYSID benchmark on each setting and the results were:
 > | Using 100MHz X 5.5x =550 I got 559 CPU and 265/379 CPU/MMX
 > | Using 95MHz X 6.0x = 570 I got 578 CPU and 245/353 CPU/MMX
 > | I'm not quite sure what to make of the results. Which of the two is
 > | the better benchmark?
 > | Gibby
 > |
 >
 > The down side of the 95 MHz FSB is the PCI bus will run at 95/3 or
 > 31.67 MHz and the memory and cache will run 5% slower. Thus, PCI bus
 > transfers will be ever so slightly slower. However, actual CPU
 > internal computational speed will be a bit higher. I have no idea
 > what the Sysid benchmarks represent or measure. With my systems, I
 > prefer to run 550 MHz with 100 MHz FSB versus the 95 MHZ FSB and 570
 > MHz CPU speed. However, I got that 1 k62+ CPU that likes to run at
 > 95. In addition, I have a couple of Jbond MVP3 mobos (both still
 > running I might add) and neither board was properly designed to run
 > 100 MHz FSB (I had to add a jumper to the mobo to enable running the
 > memory and FSB at the same speed, seems the designers omitted the
 > jumper b/c the boards were not a stable design at 100 MHz). I still
 > have a spare 503+ and a spare Soyo 5EHM that are just hanging out,
 > lol.
 >
 > With the price of a 1600 Duron at about $40 that will easily
overclock
 > to 2000 MHz, and refurb nforce2 mobos from newegg at $35, the old k6+
 > CPUs are looking mighty slow nowadays.
 > --
 > Best regards,
 > Kyle<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: FIC PA-2013 : 100MHz X 2x =600HMZ ??? 

Alex:
I'm using a K6-III/450+ cpu and I can get 550 MHz from it using the
standard v2.0. I can also get the 570 at v2.0 (using 95 X 6). I'm also
able to enable many settings in BIOS rather than disable them. Now,
having said that, I got 600 to work using v2.2, but it took about 15
minutes for everything to load properly. EXTREMELY slow.
Found myself having to disable this and that.
After thinking about it, I decided that I had benefitted nicely from
the cooler CPU (v2.0) and additional speed increase of 550, plus
stability, so I've decided not to pursue 600, even though I think I
could get it working with lots of man hours.
Always appreciate your replies as well as the others. Many thanks,
Gibby
 >> Stay informed about: FIC PA-2013 : 100MHz X 2x =600HMZ ??? 

In my opinion, the nForce2 is the best performing chipset for the
AthlonXP/Athlon/Duron/Sempron. However, it takes DDR RAM only... PC133
will not work.

In fact, it has been years, literally, since anyone produced Socket A
motherboards that accept PC133. If you really want one, the best place
to look would be eBay. In my opinion, though, it would probably not be
worth the hassle unless you could find one really cheap that also comes
bundled with a CPU. Many of the newer Socket A CPUs will not work in
those older PC133 motherboards.

The Duron is the cutdown version of the Athlon/Athlon XP (less L2
cache), but it still gives good performance. The Sempron is the new
name for the AMD value line. Now that the Athlon 64 is around, the
Sempron is really just an Athlon XP with a new name, in most cases. The
only exception as of now is the Sempron 3100+, which is a cutdown
version (less L2 cache, no 64-bit extensions) of the Athlon 64 and uses
Socket 754 motherboards instead of Socket A.

In case you do decide to upgrade the motherboard/CPU/RAM at some point,
pretty much all of your PCI cards should still work. ISA cards will not
work, since there are no more ISA slots. AGP cards will work if they
support AGP 4x. Older AGP cards that max out at AGP 2x will not work.

--Alex



Gibby wrote:
 > Kyle:
 > You said, "With the price of a 1600 Duron at about $40 that will
 > easily overclock
 > to 2000 MHz, and refurb nforce2 mobos from newegg at $35, the old k6+
 > CPUs are looking mighty slow nowadays."
 > Regarding the Nforce2 MB's and the 1600 Duron, is this the thing to
 > have these days? Do both get good ratings? Do they take 168 pin PC133
 > cas2 256 memory sticks? Can most of the display, sound, adapter cards,
 > etc. used in FIC PA-2013 be transferred to nforce2? I've been out of
 > the loop on the newer stuff, so that's why I'm asking. One thing I've
 > found out over the years is that a good performing MB is critical -
 > likely the most imp. decision.
 > Thanks, Gibby
 > ****************************************************
 >
 > Kylesb wrote:
 >
  >>"Gibby" <MrBaltimore.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> wrote in message
  >>news:1106865992.991713.223300@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
  >>| Kyle:
  >>| I did SYSID benchmark on each setting and the results were:
  >>| Using 100MHz X 5.5x =550 I got 559 CPU and 265/379 CPU/MMX
  >>| Using 95MHz X 6.0x = 570 I got 578 CPU and 245/353 CPU/MMX
  >>| I'm not quite sure what to make of the results. Which of the two is
  >>| the better benchmark?
  >>| Gibby
  >>|
  >>
  >>The down side of the 95 MHz FSB is the PCI bus will run at 95/3 or
  >>31.67 MHz and the memory and cache will run 5% slower. Thus, PCI bus
  >>transfers will be ever so slightly slower. However, actual CPU
  >>internal computational speed will be a bit higher. I have no idea
  >>what the Sysid benchmarks represent or measure. With my systems, I
  >>prefer to run 550 MHz with 100 MHz FSB versus the 95 MHZ FSB and 570
  >>MHz CPU speed. However, I got that 1 k62+ CPU that likes to run at
  >>95. In addition, I have a couple of Jbond MVP3 mobos (both still
  >>running I might add) and neither board was properly designed to run
  >>100 MHz FSB (I had to add a jumper to the mobo to enable running the
  >>memory and FSB at the same speed, seems the designers omitted the
  >>jumper b/c the boards were not a stable design at 100 MHz). I still
  >>have a spare 503+ and a spare Soyo 5EHM that are just hanging out,
  >>lol.
  >>
  >>With the price of a 1600 Duron at about $40 that will easily
 >
 > overclock
 >
  >>to 2000 MHz, and refurb nforce2 mobos from newegg at $35, the old k6+
  >>CPUs are looking mighty slow nowadays.
  >>--
  >>Best regards,
  >>Kyle
 >
 ><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: FIC PA-2013 : 100MHz X 2x =600HMZ ???