Re: overclocking

A couple of links you may need: 1. OverClocker's Pad is free software, that allows you to calculate most necessary values for overlcocker: http://www.hardwareportal.ru/Soft/Ocpad/ 2. Tom's Hardware - The Overclocking Guide: http://www6.tomshardware.com/guides/overclocking/index.html Brian "Richard S Beckett" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a1k121$[email hidden]... x-no-archive: yes Guys, Gonna unlock the multipliers on my duron and try overclocking it tonight. The duron 750 has a FSB of 100MHz, but my memory is 133. So, would I be better off using a lower multiplier and a 133 FSB (if it works) as the memory will run quicker, or would it be better to stick with 100MHz and crank the multiplier up? Or do I have no idea what I'm talking about? ;-) Thanks. R.

Yep, for the same cpu speed you would be better off at higher fsb. For example, if you run at 6 x 133 = 800mhz then you should find that a little faster than 8 x 100 = 800mhz. Be very careful with your AGP and PCI divider settings when you increase your fsb or you'll end up overclocking your graphics card, sound card, modem, etc etc too, not good. Good luck! Jim "Richard S Beckett" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a1k121$[email hidden]... x-no-archive: yes Guys, Gonna unlock the multipliers on my duron and try overclocking it tonight. The duron 750 has a FSB of 100MHz, but my memory is 133. So, would I be better off using a lower multiplier and a 133 FSB (if it works) as the memory will run quicker, or would it be better to stick with 100MHz and crank the multiplier up? Or do I have no idea what I'm talking about? ;-) Thanks. R.

There are several factors that could be holding back your performance, things like your agp slot now being under/over clocked. Timing issues, but a jump from 750 to 900 is barely 10%. When I overclocked by Piii 500 to 512 I got ONE(1) extra frame per second in gpl. I can push it up to about 550 and still rarely see much improvement, and some of the titles actually run worse at that speed. My gut tells me unless you make a really big step in cpu speed, it won't be readily apparent. To be sure going to 900 is faster, but is it fast enough to be noticable. Put a big resource drain like N4 on...run at 750 and then at 900 using the same track. You'll see some improvement but not a great deal. When I'm purchasing a cpu, I try to avoid baby steps. I shoot for a new chip that is twice the speed of the old. So I went from a P200 to a PIII 500 then an Athlon 1.1...If I upgraded again, I wouldn't bother with the 1.4 Athlons or even up to 1.8 on the Pentium side. I'd find the best deal on a chip approximentally 50% faster...i..e the AMD 1.8 (1.9 too pricey) or the 2.0 Pentium 4. When you hang on to an older chip while waiting to afford a new one, buy small chip speed improvents doesn't really become apparent to you. But when you make big steps, then it's easily seen when you boot up a heavy hitter. dave henrie "Richard S Beckett" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a1md0j$[email hidden]... x-no-archive: yes Thanks for the tips. I got it running faster, but it wouldn't stand any FSB increase, so I upped the mulitplier. I now have a 900 MHz machine :-) That's 100MHz FSB, 9X, 1.65V. Is it better to keep the voltage as near to 1.6V (default) as possible, or should I run it a bit higher? It felt (but this is only a feeling) that it was running slightly better at 1.7V, but it would still make 900 at 1.65V. At 1.6V it wouldn't boot at 900. I'm a bit disappointed, though. Going from 750 to 900, I expected to see a bigger increase in frame rates than I did. Does it really make that little difference when upping the cpu, or do you get less improvement by OCing than by sticking a "proper" 900 in? My system: Soltek SL-75KAV mobo Duron 750 OCd to 900 (1.65V, 100MHz FSB, 9X) 128Mb 133 RAM Hercules GF2 MX 32Mb The difference in F1 2001 was pretty much un-noticeable, GP3 noticed slight improvement, GPL very slight improvement in FR (1-2). Did I do it wrong, or what? Thanks. R.

f "Dave Henrie" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:MGC%7.3977$Vq.29208@rwcrnsc53... When you hang on to an older chip while waiting to > afford a new one, buy small chip speed improvents doesn't really become > apparent to you. But when you make big steps, then it's easily seen when > you boot up a heavy hitter. > dave henrieYes Exactly. I went from a PII350 to a AMD Thunderbird 1.2 GHZ with a 266 fsb and It was extremely noticeable in everything.

f When you hang on to an older chip while waiting to Yes Exactly. I went from a PII350 to a AMD Thunderbird 1.2 GHZ with a 266 fsb and It was extremely noticeable in everything.

Your frame rates depend on three things - game and settings, the cpu and the graphics card. If you play games at 1280x1024 resolution in 32bit colour, your graphics card will be working extremely hard and so will probably be the limiting factor on framerate. If you play with loads of AI, loads of "special effects" and other cpu-intensive features enabled then the cpu is likely to be your system bottleneck. I think it was a good move to run the 750 Duron at 900 as long as it's stable there. Unfortunately you now have enough cpu power so that the "weakness" in your system shifts over the the Herc GF2 MX. Solve this by either (1) using lower resolutions in games, so the gfx card has life a little easier, or (2) get yerself a faster card (!) Hope this helps Jim PS: The more volts you give it, the hotter it gets and the more cooling is required. Hotter chips have lower life expectancies than cooler ones. So if it's happy at 1.65V then you should use it there. If however you end up with spontaneous reboots or lockups or something, your chip might not have enough (beware: it might have too much voltage and be overheating - if so don't add more!) A good test is to put Quake 3 on timedemo and loop the same demo all night. Use high detail and low res settings to load the cpu and not the gfx card. Alternatively get a freeware program "Prime95" and run it in "Torture Test" mode overnight. If your system is still going at breakfast time then you'll not have anything to worry about. "Richard S Beckett" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:a1md0j$[email hidden]... x-no-archive: yes Thanks for the tips. I got it running faster, but it wouldn't stand any FSB increase, so I upped the mulitplier. I now have a 900 MHz machine :-) That's 100MHz FSB, 9X, 1.65V. Is it better to keep the voltage as near to 1.6V (default) as possible, or should I run it a bit higher? It felt (but this is only a feeling) that it was running slightly better at 1.7V, but it would still make 900 at 1.65V. At 1.6V it wouldn't boot at 900. I'm a bit disappointed, though. Going from 750 to 900, I expected to see a bigger increase in frame rates than I did. Does it really make that little difference when upping the cpu, or do you get less improvement by OCing than by sticking a "proper" 900 in? My system: Soltek SL-75KAV mobo Duron 750 OCd to 900 (1.65V, 100MHz FSB, 9X) 128Mb 133 RAM Hercules GF2 MX 32Mb The difference in F1 2001 was pretty much un-noticeable, GP3 noticed slight improvement, GPL very slight improvement in FR (1-2). Did I do it wrong, or what? Thanks. R.

Richard S Beckett ([email hidden]) wrote on 11 Jan 2002:

Quoted text (30 lines)

> x-no-archive: yes > > Thanks for the tips. I got it running faster, but it wouldn't stand > any FSB increase, so I upped the mulitplier. I now have a 900 MHz > machine :-) That's 100MHz FSB, 9X, 1.65V. Is it better to keep the > voltage as near to 1.6V (default) as possible, or should I run it a > bit higher? It felt (but this is only a feeling) that it was > running slightly better at 1.7V, but it would still make 900 at > 1.65V. At 1.6V it wouldn't boot at 900. > > I'm a bit disappointed, though. Going from 750 to 900, I expected > to see a bigger increase in frame rates than I did. Does it really > make that little difference when upping the cpu, or do you get less > improvement by OCing than by sticking a "proper" 900 in? > > My system: > Soltek SL-75KAV mobo > Duron 750 OCd to 900 (1.65V, 100MHz FSB, 9X) > 128Mb 133 RAM > Hercules GF2 MX 32Mb > > The difference in F1 2001 was pretty much un-noticeable, GP3 > noticed slight improvement, GPL very slight improvement in FR > (1-2). > > Did I do it wrong, or what? > > Thanks. > > R.

As far as GPL is converned, 36fps is as high as it goes. With your system you're probably getting 36fps pretty much all the time anyway, so I expect you'll only see improvement on the grid (unless you have the detail slider a very long way to the right). PS: Yes, I know I haven't snipped. "X-no-archive" annoys me more than any other line on Usenet, so unless there's a *very* good reason for it (which is rare), I generally quote those posts in full, so Google groups can archive them for future reference. -- "After all, a mere thousand yards... such a harmless little knoll, really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh. The GPL Scrapyard: bits 'n' bobs at http://www.hillclimbfan.f2s.com

David. Your email address doen't seem to be working for me. Could you please contact me at [email hidden] -- Don Scurlock Vancouver,B.C. GPLRank -16.16 MonsterRank 86.92 Come see how you rank, at the GPLRank site http://newgplrank.schuerkamp.de/

Richard, some important things to note that no one seems to have mentioned... You will get a substantial boost by upping the FSB to 133 mhz. You mobo is based on the VIA KT133a chipset, which has official support for 133mhz FSB. What you will need to do is to drop the multiplier down to say 6.5 and check that it runs at 650mhz. Then there should be a setting to up it to 133mhz, most likely in the bios. DON"T try and do it slowly (like trying 110mhz, 115mhz, etc.) because these FSB settings will change the speed of the AGP and PCI buses. You have to go to 133, which has the correct ratios set. If you do everything right, you will get 866mhz with 266mhz FSB. This will be faster than the 900mhz you are running ATM. As far as voltage goes, Durons are well know to be able to handle voltages up to the maximum available, ie. 1.85v. So feel free to test the full range. If you can get 1ghz by bumping it up to 1.85v, then go for it. There are some who claim that it will reduce the life of your CPU. This is true, but what is the life expectancy anyway? Your Duron will likely be upgraded within two years. If it's life expectancy is dropped to "only" 5 years by overclocking, then who cares? FYI, I have a 1ghz Athlon which is quite happy at 1.4ghz, and the FSB is at 266 (from the standard 200mhz) and has been like this for 6mths already. Only way to go. Rafe Mc On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 09:58:55 -0000, "Richard S Beckett" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted text (19 lines)

>x-no-archive: yes > >Thanks for the tips. I got it running faster, but it wouldn't stand any FSB increase, so I upped the mulitplier. I now have a 900 MHz machine :-) That's 100MHz FSB, 9X, 1.65V. Is it better to keep the voltage as near to 1.6V (default) as possible, or should I run it a bit higher? It felt (but this is only a feeling) that it was running slightly better at 1.7V, but it would still make 900 at 1.65V. At 1.6V it wouldn't boot at 900. > >I'm a bit disappointed, though. Going from 750 to 900, I expected to see a bigger increase in frame rates than I did. Does it really make that little difference when upping the cpu, or do you get less improvement by OCing than by sticking a "proper" 900 in? > >My system: >Soltek SL-75KAV mobo >Duron 750 OCd to 900 (1.65V, 100MHz FSB, 9X) >128Mb 133 RAM >Hercules GF2 MX 32Mb > >The difference in F1 2001 was pretty much un-noticeable, GP3 noticed slight improvement, GPL very slight improvement in FR (1-2). > >Did I do it wrong, or what? > >Thanks. > >R.

That's what I think about overclocking and CPU life...I had my first CPU die to overclocking, my 300a, after 3, nearly 4 years of running at 464 and lots of time on distributed.net and SETI. The chip is obsolete long before it dies, unless you shove way too many volts into it. Milhouse "Rafe McAuliffe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:[email hidden]...

Quoted text (39 lines)

> Richard, some important things to note that no one seems to have > mentioned... > > You will get a substantial boost by upping the FSB to 133 mhz. You > mobo is based on the VIA KT133a chipset, which has official support > for 133mhz FSB. What you will need to do is to drop the multiplier > down to say 6.5 and check that it runs at 650mhz. Then there should be > a setting to up it to 133mhz, most likely in the bios. DON"T try and > do it slowly (like trying 110mhz, 115mhz, etc.) because these FSB > settings will change the speed of the AGP and PCI buses. You have to > go to 133, which has the correct ratios set. > > If you do everything right, you will get 866mhz with 266mhz FSB. This > will be faster than the 900mhz you are running ATM. > > As far as voltage goes, Durons are well know to be able to handle > voltages up to the maximum available, ie. 1.85v. So feel free to test > the full range. If you can get 1ghz by bumping it up to 1.85v, then go > for it. > > There are some who claim that it will reduce the life of your CPU. > This is true, but what is the life expectancy anyway? Your Duron will > likely be upgraded within two years. If it's life expectancy is > dropped to "only" 5 years by overclocking, then who cares? > > FYI, I have a 1ghz Athlon which is quite happy at 1.4ghz, and the FSB > is at 266 (from the standard 200mhz) and has been like this for 6mths > already. Only way to go. > > Rafe Mc > > > > On Fri, 11 Jan 2002 09:58:55 -0000, "Richard S Beckett" > <[email hidden]> wrote: > > >x-no-archive: yes > > > >Thanks for the tips. I got it running faster, but it wouldn't stand any

FSB increase, so I upped the mulitplier. I now have a 900 MHz machine :-) That's 100MHz FSB, 9X, 1.65V. Is it better to keep the voltage as near to 1.6V (default) as possible, or should I run it a bit higher? It felt (but this is only a feeling) that it was running slightly better at 1.7V, but it would still make 900 at 1.65V. At 1.6V it wouldn't boot at 900. > > > >I'm a bit disappointed, though. Going from 750 to 900, I expected to seea bigger increase in frame rates than I did. Does it really make that little difference when upping the cpu, or do you get less improvement by OCing than by sticking a "proper" 900 in?

Quoted text (8 lines)

> > > >My system: > >Soltek SL-75KAV mobo > >Duron 750 OCd to 900 (1.65V, 100MHz FSB, 9X) > >128Mb 133 RAM > >Hercules GF2 MX 32Mb > > > >The difference in F1 2001 was pretty much un-noticeable, GP3 noticed

slight improvement, GPL very slight improvement in FR (1-2).

Quoted text (7 lines)

> > > >Did I do it wrong, or what? > > > >Thanks. > > > >R. >

Don Scurlock ([email hidden]) wrote on 12 Jan 2002: > David. Your email address doen't seem to be working for me. Could > you please contact me at [email hidden] Done. -- "After all, a mere thousand yards... such a harmless little knoll, really" - Raymond Mays on Shelsley Walsh. The GPL Scrapyard: bits 'n' bobs at http://www.hillclimbfan.f2s.com