how (much) to OC TB rev. B

oupei

Senior member
Jun 16, 2003
285
0
0
Processor: XP 1700+ rev. B
Mobo: Epox 8RDA+
RAM: PNY 512MB PC2700
Stock CPU Temps: 34/37 (idle/100% util)
Stock Sys Temps: 33/36
OC experience: none

from what i've gathered so far, it seems I should go about it like this:

1. raise FSB
2. raise multiplier
3. raise voltage, go back to 1 (or 2?)

doing stability tests after every adjustment. Should I adjust by smallest increments possible? if so, it sounds like it will take a loooong time to reach the 2+ gig that people have been posting. well, if I run prime95 for 6hrs every time, that is. also, what can I expect as a moderate OC? particularly would the FSB go over 166Mhz? would the RAM hold me back? If so, should I increase RAM speed at the expense of RAM timings? Everything is done via system bios, right? Should I leave voltage alone (it's at 1.61v according to bios)?
 

infinite012

Senior member
Apr 23, 2003
817
0
0
Leave everything alone except for FSB and multiplier. Try pushing those up to 166 and 12.5x respectively. If it doesn't boot, then you don't have a "golden" chip, so to speak. If the vcore is at 1.61v in BIOS then I will assume that you have a DUT3C - don't expect more than 2.2GHz from this CPU even with the right equipment for air cooling.
 

oupei

Senior member
Jun 16, 2003
285
0
0
Originally posted by: infinite012
Try pushing those up to 166 and 12.5x respectively.

immediately? or a bit at a time? 1470 to 2075 seems like a pretty big jump to me. I'm pretty sure i have a "golden" chip: i wrote down the serial as "JUIHC" which I assume was a typo on my part and now i'm too lazy to go back and check.
 

infinite012

Senior member
Apr 23, 2003
817
0
0
yeah...definitely typo considering there's no thoroughbred c....i think.

Yes try going to 166x12.5 (without all the small jumps inbetween) considering that is what almost all of the t-bred b's can do right out of the box.
 

oupei

Senior member
Jun 16, 2003
285
0
0
it booted at 166x12.5 and cpu temps read 38/41, but prime95 errors out in ~5min. should i check ram with Memtest or turn down the cpu?

edit:
was looking at my voltages in Speedfan and they look quite a ways off, maybe it's my PS?

VCOREA: 1.57V
VCOREB: 1.62V
+3.3V: 2.72V
+5V: 4.92V
+12V: 12.56V
-12V: -13.53V
-5V: -5.65V
+5VSB: 5.46V
VBAT: 3.03V
 

oupei

Senior member
Jun 16, 2003
285
0
0
well, i set voltage to 1.65 (1.66 actual) and it ran prime95 just fine at 166x12.5, but it won't boot at 166x13, not even at 1.675V. temps are 41/45 now. what does it mean when i boot it up and it goes back to 100X11 and it says that the overclocked failed at startup? does that mean i'm not going any higher or should i try some higher voltages? i guess i'm happy with 2083 but lots of people got more...

edit:
fished out what i wrote down as my serial:
AXDA1700DUT3C 9489767270858
JUIHC 0312WPMW copyright1999 AMD

keep in mind that the JUIHC is probably a typo.
 

KillaBong

Senior member
Nov 26, 2002
426
0
0
166 is nothing... go for 200. I liked your steps from the start. I wouldn't put it much past 1.8 volts though. Also raise the vdimm to 2.7 or 2.8 or relax timings to help with your fsb.
 

deadseasquirrel

Golden Member
Nov 20, 2001
1,736
0
0
Originally posted by: KillaBong
166 is nothing... go for 200. I liked your steps from the start. I wouldn't put it much past 1.8 volts though. Also raise the vdimm to 2.7 or 2.8 or relax timings to help with your fsb.

i agree. try for 200 (with a lower multi) if your mobo has an agp/pci lock or 1/6 divider. mine does not. i have the same chip as you do. so i'm sticking with 166 x 12.5. i did the wire-pin-in-the-socket-mod and got it to get into windows at 166x14. but even with the voltage up to 1.85, it wouldnt run 3dmark. but 13.5 worked. prime ran fine. but the heat increase vs. performance increase wasnt justifiable for me.

deadseasquirrel
 

oupei

Senior member
Jun 16, 2003
285
0
0
I tried for a higher FSB, but it's not going so well. The computer refused to post at the following speeds:
2160(180x12) RAM@83%
2013(175x11.5) RAM@83%&100%
2000(166x12)RAM@83%

it seems the RAM really doesn't like being clocked slower than the FSB. I guess i could raise the voltage (it's at 1.66v) but it just doesn't seem worth it if i can't even reach 175x11.5. unless i'm doing something wrong and there's an easy fix, i'll just stick with 166x12.5 for now.

 

infinite012

Senior member
Apr 23, 2003
817
0
0
I think there's something wrong with the nForce2 chipset because none of the motherboards I have worked with that use the nForce2 have been able to use the 83% RAM speed. They work fine (sometimes) at 75%, but 83 seems to make the computer stop working...
 

Tuff

Member
Dec 27, 2002
79
0
0
I have tried the 83mhz on my Asus Nforce board...now its being sent to asus to get fixed.

Tuff
 

xSauronx

Lifer
Jul 14, 2000
19,586
4
81
Originally posted by: oupei
I tried for a higher FSB, but it's not going so well. The computer refused to post at the following speeds:
2160(180x12) RAM@83%
2013(175x11.5) RAM@83%&100%
2000(166x12)RAM@83%

it seems the RAM really doesn't like being clocked slower than the FSB. I guess i could raise the voltage (it's at 1.66v) but it just doesn't seem worth it if i can't even reach 175x11.5. unless i'm doing something wrong and there's an easy fix, i'll just stick with 166x12.5 for now.


had my DUT3C running 190x11 (2090mhz) no problems, no extra voltage (1.6v in bios, MBM showing 1.62), and idle temp around 40c (load went around 46c) with a TT Volcano 7+

my ram went weird though, good pc2100 and will do up to 175 fine, but not much higher reliably. gonna get some pc3200 and try for 200x11 (2.2ghz, w00t)