Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (
More info?)
try unlocking an A64 or a P3/P4
XP's yeah sure you can unlock them, but why? the higher the fsb the better
--
From Adam Webb, Overlag
www.tacticalgamer.com
CS:SOURCE server now active
"James Hanley" <jameshanley39@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:930a4bf.0410310817.50f2267e@posting.google.com...
> "Michael Brown" <see@signature.below> wrote in message
news:<SOUgd.1267$op3.55721@news.xtra.co.nz>...
> > James Hanley wrote:
> > > "Adam Webb" <adam@ajmysecondname.eclipse.co.uk> wrote in message
> > > news:<QqOdnX9R5pNixx_cRVnygQ@eclipse.net.uk>...
> > >>> it seems to me that nobody needs a high fsb. since they could just
> > >>> push the multiplier really high.
> > >>
> > >> you cant push the multiplier high because its locked on most modern
> > >> CPU's
> > >
> > > nobody on an overclocking forum should be saying
> > > "oh no, the multiplier is locked, what am I going to do"
> > > Just like no technician is going to say, oh no, the file is 'hidden'
> > > what am I going to do.
> >
> > Better analogy: the technician saying "oh no, someone has wiped the disk
> > then turned it into slag in a blast furnace, what am I going to do?".
Given
> > that people have spent close to 6 years trying to unlock Intel CPUs (no
> > success) and about 1 year trying to unlock locked AMD chips (no
success),
>
> 6 years? - but there are loads of articles on unlocking AMD chips, i'm
> sure I think I saw one for the AMD XP 1500+, that's less than 6 years
> old isn't it?
>
> >The general view is
> > that both companies are using fuses inside the die, which can't be
altered
> > once set.
>
> bastards.
> So how can anybody overclock? Just by upping the FSB to whatever the
> mobo supports?
> I suppose that a CPU will have a built in multiplier at a fixed value,
> and will assume a certain FSB speed. So if the FSB is lower then it's
> underclocked. If it's higher then it's overclocked. Or does it not
> even derive its clock by multiplying the FSB clock?
> Would most people have the FSB at the highest setting suported anyway,
> and they'd have a CPU that supports it, so how would they overclock?
> (they cna't up the FSB clock because it's already on the highest, and
> they can't up the multiplier because it's properly locked)
>
> > >> also higher FSB = higher bandwidth = higher performance.
> > >
> > > yeah, if it's greater width. i'm talking about speed only though.
> >
> > Umm, say what? It's obvious that more throughput = more performance, and
> > throughput = bus width * bus speed, so increasing the bus speed (FSB)
> > obviously increases performance. Or do you think a Athlon running sync
with
> > PC66 RAM (66MHz FSB, SDR, 64 bits wide) would perform just as well as
the
> > identical CPU running sync with PC3200 RAM (200MHz FSB, DDR, 64 bits
wide)?
>
> oh yeah, I just realised that in a post in reply to that other Geezer
> in the thread.
> btw, Some software tells me that my RAM is operating at a multiple of
> the processor speed. I can put my FSB=100 and have 266MHZ
> DDR-SDRAM(actual speed 133MHz) So si sandra tells me it's a multiple
> of my FSB.
> Is it correct that RAM uses a multiplier too? It sure looks like it
> from si sandra, though there is no option in the BIOS to set it, I can
> only set the ram frequency. I thought that RAM derives its speed from
> the FSB, the FSB is like the base clock, so it must multiply it,
> strange that there's no option in the bios to set the ram multiplier.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.786 / Virus Database: 532 - Release Date: 29/10/2004