PDA

View Full Version : A64 3000+ oc to 3700+


rstlne
July 8th 04, 11:10 AM
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjI5LDE=

Now.. I am sure some of you may have seen it.. BUT
273fsb (how's he get that??)..

I am not up real big on this a64 stuff yet (and I dont see many questions
like this) so is it that the fsb of these new boards will go higher to
support later chips? ..
or am I just missing something..
I seem to have missed the 233, 266, and 300 fsb days being reach'd..
So how high will these boards go fsb wise.. OR since he was just pushing the
high fsb only to the CPU then is that why it could go so high..

Just looking for feedback is all :) ..
Re
RstLne

Ben Pope
July 8th 04, 08:14 PM
rstlne wrote:
> http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjI5LDE=
>
> Now.. I am sure some of you may have seen it.. BUT
> 273fsb (how's he get that??)..
>
> I am not up real big on this a64 stuff yet (and I dont see many questions
> like this) so is it that the fsb of these new boards will go higher to
> support later chips? ..
> or am I just missing something..
> I seem to have missed the 233, 266, and 300 fsb days being reach'd..
> So how high will these boards go fsb wise.. OR since he was just pushing
> the high fsb only to the CPU then is that why it could go so high..
>
> Just looking for feedback is all :) ..
> Re
> RstLne

"With that said, see what can be accomplished when scaling the multiplier
down and the FSB up while the PCI/AGP bus is locked to spec speeds."

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

rstlne
July 9th 04, 01:58 AM
"Ben Pope" > wrote in message
...
> rstlne wrote:
> > http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjI5LDE=
> >
> > Now.. I am sure some of you may have seen it.. BUT
> > 273fsb (how's he get that??)..
> >
> > I am not up real big on this a64 stuff yet (and I dont see many
questions
> > like this) so is it that the fsb of these new boards will go higher to
> > support later chips? ..
> > or am I just missing something..
> > I seem to have missed the 233, 266, and 300 fsb days being reach'd..
> > So how high will these boards go fsb wise.. OR since he was just pushing
> > the high fsb only to the CPU then is that why it could go so high..
> >
> > Just looking for feedback is all :) ..
> > Re
> > RstLne
>
> "With that said, see what can be accomplished when scaling the multiplier
> down and the FSB up while the PCI/AGP bus is locked to spec speeds."
>
> Ben
> --

So your saying that there is unlimited room for clockspeed with the pci/agp
bus's lock'd and the ram dividers keeping the speed sane?
could I have say a 600mhz fsb on this board.. I think that's where I was
going with it ;)..

Wes Newell
July 9th 04, 07:37 AM
On Fri, 09 Jul 2004 00:58:00 +0000, wrote:

>
> "Ben Pope" > wrote in message
> ...
>> rstlne wrote:
>> > http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjI5LDE=
>> >
>> > Now.. I am sure some of you may have seen it.. BUT
>> > 273fsb (how's he get that??)..
>> >
>> > I am not up real big on this a64 stuff yet (and I dont see many
> questions
>> > like this) so is it that the fsb of these new boards will go higher to
>> > support later chips? ..
>> > or am I just missing something..
>> > I seem to have missed the 233, 266, and 300 fsb days being reach'd..
>> > So how high will these boards go fsb wise.. OR since he was just pushing
>> > the high fsb only to the CPU then is that why it could go so high..
>> >
>> > Just looking for feedback is all :) ..
>> > Re
>> > RstLne
>>
>> "With that said, see what can be accomplished when scaling the multiplier
>> down and the FSB up while the PCI/AGP bus is locked to spec speeds."
>>
>> Ben
>> --
>
> So your saying that there is unlimited room for clockspeed with the pci/agp
> bus's lock'd and the ram dividers keeping the speed sane?

I'm not sure what he was trying to say, but that wasn't it.:-)

> could I have say a 600mhz fsb on this board.. I think that's where I was
> going with it ;)..

No. I'm not sure what the new chipsets will do, but I'm sure it's not
going to go that high or anywhere close to it. 300 maybe, but I'd have
my doubts about that. And there's other factors to consider too.

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

Ben Pope
July 9th 04, 08:52 AM
rstlne wrote:
> http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjI5LDE=
>
> Now.. I am sure some of you may have seen it.. BUT
> 273fsb (how's he get that??)..

I'll try again... My previous post was a bit brief :-p

> I am not up real big on this a64 stuff yet (and I dont see many questions
> like this) so is it that the fsb of these new boards will go higher to
> support later chips? ..
> or am I just missing something..

Well, there are various factors that affect it, but essentially the new
process (with SOI) has more headroom than the old one, so the new processors
can be clocked higher.

Another one is that the "FSB" or more correctly, hypertransport link was
designed from the ground up to operate at frequencies higher than 200MHz. I
think the version 1 spec has clock rates to 1.4GHz, but I'm not sure if
thats practical.

> I seem to have missed the 233, 266, and 300 fsb days being reach'd..

I think this confused me a bit last time I replied. I don't know of any x86
style processors that operate with a FSB above 200Mhz, officially. Many
Intels can be clocked to 250MHz, apparently, and the Bartons to 233 or so.

> So how high will these boards go fsb wise.. OR since he was just pushing
> the high fsb only to the CPU then is that why it could go so high..

Well, the link is still there between Northbridge and CPU, but I think it's
designed for higher frequencies (being hypertransport) than the old FSB.
Also, the memory is not clocked that high, it was at around 200MHz, which is
a shame.

Ben
--
A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...

Wes Newell
July 9th 04, 09:44 PM
> rstlne wrote:
>> http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjI5LDE=
>>
>> Now.. I am sure some of you may have seen it.. BUT
>> 273fsb (how's he get that??)..
>
He set the host clock to 273MHz from the default of 200. With older
chipsets, this wasn't possible because the PCI/agp buses weren't locked at
33/66MHz, so 273 on the old chipset would have given him pci/agp clock
rates of 45.5/91, at which the components couldn't work. Also earlier
chipsets were only spec'd for 800MHz on the HTT link (600 for nf3-150).
The newer chipsets have the new spec of 1000MHz. He also lowered the
multiplier from 10 to 9 and threw a lot of voltage at it. The board he
used had a lot of seperate control settings that might not be availible on
other boards.

I think that answers the original question, except it's not really called
a FSB any longer, but host clock.. And to be honest, I'm not sure if the
MHz numbers used to define the HTT link or really clock rates. I think
they are data rates with a MHz thrown behind them since they talk of being
2 way. I haven't looked into too much, except that with some/most boards,
changing the host clock also changes the HTT link, and you might notice
that it reports the HTT clock rate at 273MHz. Corrections welcome.:-)

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