PC reboots when FSB is increased !!!!

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

>>While severely overclocked. Ummm, no . . . that is not a reasonable
>>expectation. Many systems running OK overclocked does not mean that any
>>particular system will be guaranteed to be stable if you force it to do
>>something it wasn't designed to do. If you push a system beyond it's
>>limits
>>EXPECT instability. And be very relieved if you do NOT encounter it. But
>>don't post here complaining that your system is doing exactly what you
>>should expect it to do. -Dave
>>
>
> Dave, thanks for your help but if you read the thread who will see
> that the PC is not overclocked nor is it doing anything it wasn't
> designed to do.

Actually, after reviewing the entire thread, I'm pretty sure that your CPU
is overclocked at 166. First, it is ACTING like it is overclocked at 166.
Second, if your vendor didn't specify which version of chip you were sold,
it's practically guaranteed that you got the 133 version.

I stand by my original assertion. If you have a system set properly at 133,
it's fine. If you overclock it by raising the FSB to 166, it becomes
unstable. This is not a problem, but rather an expected result. -Dave

 

[Anthropy]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 2 Jan 2005 11:45:58 -0500, "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net> wrote:

>
>>>While severely overclocked. Ummm, no . . . that is not a reasonable
>>>expectation. Many systems running OK overclocked does not mean that any
>>>particular system will be guaranteed to be stable if you force it to do
>>>something it wasn't designed to do. If you push a system beyond it's
>>>limits
>>>EXPECT instability. And be very relieved if you do NOT encounter it. But
>>>don't post here complaining that your system is doing exactly what you
>>>should expect it to do. -Dave
>>>
>>
>> Dave, thanks for your help but if you read the thread who will see
>> that the PC is not overclocked nor is it doing anything it wasn't
>> designed to do.
>
>Actually, after reviewing the entire thread, I'm pretty sure that your CPU
>is overclocked at 166. First, it is ACTING like it is overclocked at 166.
>Second, if your vendor didn't specify which version of chip you were sold,
>it's practically guaranteed that you got the 133 version.
>
>I stand by my original assertion. If you have a system set properly at 133,
>it's fine. If you overclock it by raising the FSB to 166, it becomes
>unstable. This is not a problem, but rather an expected result. -Dave
>
Yes , that could be the reason but as a previous poster suggested the
temperature reading of the overclocked CPU would be reading a lot
higher than it is, i.e CPU 45c, Mobo 40c. Hot but not hot enough to
cause instant rebooting. Also another poster, using the info supplied
by CPUz (CPU diagnostic prog) worked out that the CPU is a 333,

>12.5 x 166.6 = 2083, the correct speed for a 2600+. That's a 333 FSB 2600+ XP.

Of course I'm quite new to all this so if you have any other ideas,
feel free to mention.
Thanks