Any of you out there know about overdrives???

[tolemac]

O.K. all you OC'ers out there. Here's a question for you.
Here's the board:
Iwill P55XB2
Intel 233MMX oc'd to 266
160 mb ram
30.7 gb harddrive

This is going to my son, and I want some info/opinions on overdrives. I am looking at the Evergreen Spectra 400MHz, and the Kingston TurboChip 400 MHz. They're both around $100.00, and I'm cutting costs so as to build a better system for myself.

Any and all thoughts on this are greatly appreciated!

tolemac

 

[AndyHui]

Overdrives are somewhat questionable in performance. For that system, you might look at getting an AMD K6-2 400, using the 66MHz FSB. The K6-2 400 should be significantly cheaper than $100.

 

[paulip88]

Or, if you are looking to spend somewhere around $100, you can always go for a mobo and CPU upgrade. I don't realy see you gong anywhere with a 400MHz OD setup. Megahertz is not everything.

 

[Poof]

For about $40 over $100, you could get a Duron 600 w/mobo and HS/F off of pricewatch. At that price, it's a micro-ATX mobo though, but some come with built-in eithernet leaving you slots for the fancier sound/video cards that would allow it to become a decent gamebox.

 

[JimMc]

They suck. Go for a MB/CPU combo.

 

[novice]

I have to agree that you would probably be way ahead in the long run with a new motherboard and processor. With an overdrive processor, you would still have an outdated motherboard which probably won't support newer peripherals. I went the overdrive processor route for my first PC, a PowerLeap which was supposed to turn my P75 into a P200 with an IDT Winchip. It worked okay, but I was still stuck with a Motherboard which had PCI 2.0 slots and was unable to install decent video cards. Also it was unable to boot at 60 or 66 fsb, so my P200 target became a P150. At the time I was intimidated by replacing a motherboard, now I know it is the much better way to go, although admittedly more expensive. I would suggest trying to come up with another $50 or so and get a socket 370 board and celeron 566, or a cheap slot A board and Duron as previously suggested. Check Pricewatch.com and then resellerratings.com for decent prices from decent dealers. Good Luck, Chuck

 

[AndyHui]

Problem is that if you decide to buy a new motherboard and processor, you may have to buy a new case as well, since you may be using an AT box. Secondly, the RAM in your system may not be PC100 or what you would need on the new board, so you would end up spending more.

Tell me....what sort of RAM is that 160MB? The Intel VX chipset can only cache 64MB, so you are actually SLOWING down your system in many cases, due to memory being uncached. Windows' top down memory structure means that you are holding frequently accessed data OUTSIDE the cached area, which reduces your performance.

 

[tolemac]

Yep, yep. I just knew I'd get some quality answers here!

Thanks all of you for the info. Looks like a new mobo and cpu is the way to go.

Andy...It's a i430TX chipset with 2 dimm and 4 simm. I have 128 dimm in the 2nd bank, and 32 simm in bank 0. 160mb with zero problems, and everything I've tested on it tells me all the memory is there.
Yes, it is an AT case and board, but this is going to be my backup/ stepson's 'puter while I build the MAIN THANG. Also, you suggested the K6_2 400--Don't know if that would work, as the board manual says max 300MHz Cyrics. Can't tell if I could go higher or not.

Thanks again for all the info!!
tolemac

 

[AndyHui]

Even with a TX chipset, you can only cache 64MB of RAM. Only the HX chipset was capable of caching more. It's not a question of whether or not you can see all the RAM.....that's not the problem. The problem is that the areas where all the critical data is kept is outside the cached area, which slows performance.

According to the P55XB2 information page, you can put in up to 300MHz for a K6(2) or a Cyrix. You could probably put in a 400 as well, since it uses a multiplier remap to get those speeds.

Make sure you get the latest BIOS to support such CPUs though.

 

[tolemac]

Andy...Not going to disagree with you as I am not yet that knowledgeable when it comes to inner workings. I practically lived at the Iwill site when I first got this computer, and it's still first on my links list.
My question to you then is if only 64mb is cacheable, then why will the board take up to 256?
Also, since adding the 128 dimm, the system is noticably faster, and I am running games that before would crap out on me. (Riven, in particular)

About the cpu--the frequency map shows a max of 300, but you're right that there are jumper settings that can be tweaked. I can change the fsb to 75 (where it's at now) and add in a jumper called RSV (reserve/reserved??) Maybe I'll pick up a 400MHz cpu and play around with it.

I really appreciate your, and everyone elses responses!

Thanks mucho!!
tolemac

 

[AndyHui]

The amount of RAM that can be placed on the board is independent of cache size. Intel deliberately hobbled the TX chipset to a cacheable limit of 64MB because it was not classed as a high end chipset. It was the HX chipset's job to provide high performance.

The cacheable limit simply states how much RAM can be mapped to the cache. While 64MB of 160MB is fine, the problem is that Windows' memory structure is top down, resulting in critical data being located from the top of the RAM, ie starting at 160MB and working down in your case.

Depending on what you run, this cacheable limit may or may not be a problem. Where the data required to be stored in RAM exceeds 64MB, then by all means, 160MB of RAM is usually better than having to go and thrash the hard drive for data. If the amount of RAM actually required by your system load was less than 64MB, then it would be somewhat slower than what it would have been had you have all your RAM cached.

Normally the AMD K6-2 400 uses a multiplier remap of 2 to 6. So where normally you would need to set the multiplier to 6, you can set it to 2 instead where the motherboard has no setting for such a high multiplier. I can't remember if it was 2 or 2.5, but it's one of those. So set the speed to 133 or 166, and you should see the system boot up at 400 instead.

 

[tolemac]

Andy...Thanks, mate! I'm grateful for the info. Now I understand a little more about memory and windows. Just going to have to get a different board!
I will probably get a 400 K6_2, and see what it does. Definitely cheaper than anything else. What do you think of the i815E chipset?
Also, how do I send in a rating for you?

Thanks again.
tolemac

 

[AndyHui]

The i815E chipset is very good. Performance is acceptable and there is room for expansion in the future. I have the ASUS CUSL2, and I am very happy with it. Although it has a few strange quirks, most of which can be fixed with BIOS updates, it is certainly the best performing board with more features than you could want.

You won't be able to put a K6-2 into the CUSL2 though....just Pentium 3s and Celerons.

Rate me by clicking on my profile icon....2nd from the left in any one of my posts.