I keep hearing stories about the prescott being stable at 3.5 or even 3.6 on stock cooling. But, I'm using a Zalman 7000A AlCu, 1.4250 Voltage on the processor, and it's still not Prime95 stable at (178 FSB) 3.24. I'm using an Asus P4C800 Deluxe. Is it windows? or my processor? or my board?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
2.4A Prescott problems
- Thread starter carlson
- Start date
Socrilles17
Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2001
- Messages
- 857
the 2.4A can be the prescott (1 mb L2 cache, 533 fsb, no HT) I have one running at 3.8 ghz with default cooling/voltage. OP what is your PS?
Actually Corsair ram has problems with the chipset on your motherboard. Perhaps that is the problem. The Intel 875 chipset does'nt play nice with CH5 ram,which corsair is.
You want to use Mushkin or OCZ as it is BH5 ram. I have the same motherboard as you.
You want to use Mushkin or OCZ as it is BH5 ram. I have the same motherboard as you.
Socrilles17
Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2001
- Messages
- 857
PS = power supply
OP = original poster
OP = original poster
PSU = power supply. A U in there.Socrilles17 said:
On to the next one:
Wow. Your ranking is 2[H]4U (that's over 2,000 posts, I think?).. And... Well, I can't find the words for it. How do you know that his ram is even uses CH-5? How do you know it even uses Winbond chips to begin with? And where did the stupid notion come from, that all OCZ or Mushkin uses BH-5 IC's?Archer75 said:
Sigh. Read the list , and stop spreading the lies, as someone here already mentioned.
And these are only the sticks using Winbond chips. I know for a fact that Corsair puts Infineon IC's on their sticks, and I also know they have used, and stil use Samsung chips. I'm also pretty sure they at some point used Hynix crap... As do the other companies.
Archer75 said:
No there are 2.4a prescott's. I have 2 of them 3.6 on air is Max with 1.5 volts.
It's sad the rude responses a lot anymore on here. Newegg has them new for $123 or $104 refurb.
I've tried them in older 845 chipset boards and they work. Nice cheap Upgrade. 166fsb will give you 3ghz.
There are threads @ overclockers, xtremeresourses, and xtremesystems on the prescott 2.4a's 133fsb cpu's . I was going to start one here but the forums were down.
Here's one i did @ XR.com
http://www.truextreme.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32013
Tedinde said:
This is true. The common misconception is that 400MHz FSB Northwood CPUs are all "A" CPUs. In actual fact, the only CPUs with the "A" designation are those released when an equivilant x.xGHz speed CPU already exists; e.g 1.6A, 1.8A, 2.0A. The 2.2GHz and 2.4GHz 400MHz FSB Northwood CPUs did not have this designation.
Only half true. A 2.4A is a Prescott - (unintentionally) designed for a 533MHz FSB. Tedinde is correct that there are 2.4GHz Northwood-core P4's that use a 400MHz FSB, but those 400FSB Northwoods are just plain 2.4's (no "A" designation). The 2.4GHz Northwood with 533FSB is called the 2.4B; the 2.4GHz Northwood with 800FSB, 2.4C.Archer75 said:
M4d-K10wN said:
I got the information from other posters here over the years. Word is don't use Corsair with that intel chipset. OCZ is warrentied to work with that board even under overclocking conditions.
Why would I lie? C'mon now, there is no need to be an asshole. Misinformed perhaps, but not lying, not at all.
carlson said:
You do realize that all processors are not the same. You might have a "BUM" one.
Funny how your 1000mhz overclock isnt good enough for you??
Give it more volts and cool it more if you want more out of it. Cooling it more is going to cost you though.
E4g1e said:
Wrong-o.
The 2.4 non-HT Prescott was actually planned by Intel, apparently as a drop-in replacement for those tail-end-Charlie 2.4 and 2.4Bs (neither of these supported HT, either). I was wondering why several non-HT Prescotts (at 2.4, 2.6, and 2.8 GHz, respectively) were in Intel's roadmap; now I know.
They are designed as S478's Swan Song.
I have every reason to suspect that after August, the Northwood-C will die very quietly (the only Cs being sold will be from stock) along with S478 as a whole (the non-HT Prescotts in S478 will all fit in Intel's value-leader 300-series) while the Northwood-C (500-series) will go entirely LGA775 and Prescott (at clockings from 2.8 to 3.6 GHz). The new LGA775 700 series will require support for either 200 or 266 MHz quad-pumped FSB, and fully half will be in the Extreme Edition type (leading off with an LGA775 version of the current 3.4E-EE).
MemoryInAGarden
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2003
- Messages
- 4,067
carlson said:
Why would it be your board? This is 200FSB..not somewhere 250+ that you might run into a problem. Try out any P4C in that board and see if it runs into trouble at stock FSB
. My guess is that you just didn't get a terrific chip.
- Joined
- May 18, 1997
- Messages
- 55,601
It depends on the speed of the CPU. Plain Pentium 4 CPUs with no letters up to 2.0 GHz are Willamettes. But there are no Willamettes faster than 2.0 GHz. Thus, the plain 2.4 GHz Pentium 4 CPU with no letters is a 400MHz FSB Northwood. (All Willamettes nominally ran on a 400MHz FSB.)mc_P said:
And yes, there are four "different" 2.4 GHz Pentium 4 CPUs - three of which (2.4 plain/400, 2.4B/533 and 2.4C/800) are based on the Northwood core. And not all "A"-type Pentium 4 CPUs are 400MHz FSB Northwoods, either, nor do all 400MHz FSB Northwood Pentium 4 CPUs have the "A" designation - again, only the "A"-type P4's up to 2.0 GHz (the 1.6A, 1.8A and 2.0A - but for some strange reason, the 1.7 and 1.9 GHz Pentium 4 CPUs exist only in the Willamette version) are 400MHz FSB Northwoods (those 400MHz FSB Northwoods above 2.0 GHz have no letter in their speed designation) - thus, the 2.4 GHz Prescott that runs on a 533MHz FSB gets the "A" designation, because the 2.4A designation was previously unused.
we've been playing with his chip since he got it, around april i suppose, and i just couldn't be more disapointed with the p4c800's bios. at one point we had the ram running at 225mhz, right now it sits at 178mhz, so something else is causing the problems. at this point, i guess it's the chip, but moving to 1.5volts doesn't yield anymore of an improvement, oh well. 2.7ghz out of a 2.4b and 3.24ghz out of a 2.4a. i guess luck isn't in our blood.
let me just add that im the thread poster's brother. we took kyle's recommendation and went for the MSI board, twice. it went back both times. it's been around 4 years since i've had a via chipset and now i know why. i really wanted to see this thing hit 200mhz, since it was my recommendation to go for the 2.4a and forgo all the hyperthreading. now we just have an expensive motherboard and expensive ram both performing well under what they're capable of.
Wasn't that board around $60.00? I wouldn't call that expensive. 60 for the board, 120 for the chip. Not bad for 3.2 GHz with dual channel RAM. I'm sure that combination is will play any game or run any application plenty fast. Never buy a combination based only on what you think it will overclock to, or you might be disappointed.
You EXPECTED 200 MHz FSB from that 2.4a? That's 3600 MHz. Don't you think that's a bit unrealistic? You never mentioned if you used watercooling or phase-change. Don't tell me this was on stock air cooling?
I don't mean to flame you, but you got a heck of deal, and a nice overclock.
i said we tried the MSI board twice, and sent it back both times to newegg. the p4c800 is a very expensive board (although no quite as outrageous as an ic7). and what i wanted and what i expected are two very different things. i sure as hell expected it to run a little quicker than this, but oh well.Jonsey said:
i wish the msi board would have worked out, because then we wouldn't be complaining since the box was essentially a bargain, but now it's a different game. there's very high quality parts in it.