• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

A64 OC Data

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by M4d-K10wN
1) PCI lock was broken?? WTF. PCI = AGP/2. It's just a half divider as simple as that. I don't know what you've been smoking.
2) The board was tested later with an oscilloscope to measure the freqency. It does, in fact change.
3) Some video cards are more toleran than others. "over 300 HTT" will give you anywhere from 99MHz to +InfinityMHz in AGP speeds. Most geForce FX cards can easily take 120 , and some even more, with the exception of the 5800 (or the 5700, forget which).
Click to expand...

www.xtremesystems.org/forums

Go there and say what you just said in the Overclocking or AMD forum.
 
It would look infinetly stupid, because I would seem to be flaming someone, but if I'm a thread starter, who am I flaming then? And what difference does it really make what forum I post this on? It won't make the shuttle board have a lock. It quite possibly has some dividers (as other boards do too) but no lock.
 
Anandtech tested the PCI lock and came to the conclusion that no A64 boards at the time had a working PCI lock. That does not necessarily mean that there is no AGP lock either. At default, AGP might be PCIx2 at default but they don't necessarily change together. nVidia shipped to nForce3 150 engineering samples with a working PCI/AGP lock. However on many boards it is broken because the manufacturer didn't implement it correctly in BIOS. Shuttle AN50R may just be one of these, PCI lock flaking out but the AGP speed staying constant. Mavla is only one of many people who have tested this board. 300+ HTT stable. And by the way, benches are done with Radeons that crap out at high AGP frequencies at OCForums and Xtreme Systems. Nobody uses the FX series.

Anandtech just reviewd the AOpen AK89 Max, based on the nForce3 150 chipset. Not only do they say it has a PCI/AGP lock, they tested it, reaching 340 HTT if I recall correctly at a 7x multi.
 
K8T800 Pro has a working PCI/AGP lock...it was Abit's fault that their early KV8 BIOS didn't support it. Now it's working fine.
 
Not really. You should look more into it. VIA screwed up again; the lock is highly unstable.
 
They were talking about the reference board...in their review containing the Abit KV8 Pro they themselves stated the lock was fixed.
 
DaveX said:
They were talking about the reference board...in their review containing the Abit KV8 Pro they themselves stated the lock was fixed.
Click to expand...
You obviously won't read the article yourself so I'll quote it for you...

"We figured that we would be seeing working competitive PCI/AGP locks on shipping K8T800 PRO chipsets, but that has not really materialized. In fact, we are very disturbed at the chaos that seems to surround the VIA implementation of the PCI/AGP lock at the manufacturers that we have talked with here at Computex. Some have proclaimed the feature is so unstable that they will not include it in VIA K8T800 PRO boards, while others say the feature is actually broken in the majority of the chipsets that they are currently receiving from VIA."

And here is a link to the actual page in the article: http://anandtech.com/chipsets/showdoc.html?i=2069&p=3
 
My AMD system

FX 53 @ 2700Mhz
ATI X800 Pro
Asus SK8V
2 (512) Corsair XMS 3200LL RE Cas 2
2 (Raptor 37 gb) RAID 0 Promise controller
2 (samsung 120 gb 8mb cache) RAID 0 VIA controller
Nec 2500A 8x DVD Burner
TEAC 52x CDRW
Antec 550W
DangerDen Maze 4 CPU and GPU Watercooling

I'm adding a ASETEK Vapochill LS this Friday, June 4th, to the mix.

Some scores...

My Aquamark3 score 66K+

3DMark 2001SE 27K+

3DMark 2003 10K+

My Homepage that currently has my P4 system.

The scores above were done with the CPU set to 2600 Mhz at a 210 FSB. Temps ran in the mid 40's for the CPU. The SK8V's bus is unlocked so I have to keep the FSB low or the SATA drives fail :(

I'm expecting to get to at least 2940Mhz with this set up, but a 3 Ghz may be feasible. We'll see come Monday.

I'm redoing the page for the FX system as soon as I get the Vapo LS in place.
Here is a picture of the system being built. At this point of the build, I still needed to add the Raptors (which are now in place) and the X800 Pro. ( GREAT Card BTW)

sideopen1.jpg


The water system will only be for the video card once the Vapo LS gets here.
I pre-ordered a X800 XT and then bought the X800 Pro, I have it sold for a small loss as soon as the XT comes in.
I'll be adding this to the X800 XT as soon as it arrives.

pelt.jpg
 
hmm, good call on that one dave. i guess we can keep our eyes open and see how many other via based boards are broken on release too.

silverback: all i can say is HOT! :eek: :D
 
M4d-K10wN said:
90% of the K800T pro chipsets can't, or use the lock erroneously.
Click to expand...

Majority could mean 51% also...unless you went to Computex and took a poll to get 90%.
 
DaveX said:
A64s cannot have their multipliers adjusted up, they can only be adjusted down. The FX series are completely multiplier unlocked (one of the reasons why you pay a premium).

I have a question. Have you A64 oc'ers noticed any performance difference running memory dividers? Is it like the Athlon XP where any ratio other than 1:1 completely sucks? I noticed that jhatfie runs a divider.

EDIT: Read that link jhatfie gave...very helpful, I suggest everybody read it.
Click to expand...

I know that the memory is slightly slower when using a fractional divider. ie 13.5
This forces the memory controller into asychronus mode making it take more cycles.
 
DaveX said:
Majority could mean 51% also...unless you went to Computex and took a poll to get 90%.
Click to expand...
That's according to the amount of people on Abit's forums that the lock worked for. 18 people- no, 2 people- yes. Actualy numbers may vary... VIA is trying to figure out what's going on.
 
M4d-K10wN said:
That's according to the amount of people on Abit's forums that the lock worked for. 18 people- no, 2 people- yes. Actualy numbers may vary... VIA is trying to figure out what's going on.
Click to expand...

Ok I see. I guess people going A64 should get a nForce3 250GB board for now.
 
Abit admit some of the shipped KV8 Pros locks dont work, and will RMA boards for ones with a working lock.

Quite a few people in the UK are in the process now.

Rob
 
DaveX said:
No A64 boards right now have a working PCI lock. That may change with the SiS 755 chipset and the upcoming K8T800 Pro chipset. However, the ECS board containing the SiS 755 A chipset doesn't have a working PCI lock. Asus is planning on releasing a board with the SiS 755 B chipset that supposedly will have a PCI lock. Considering Via's track record with PCI/AGP locks, I doubt that the K8T800 Pro will have a PCI/AGP lock. Who knows, Via may suprise us.
Click to expand...

check review on front page....
 
A64 Newcastle 3200+ @ 2529 =1.65vcore
Stock HSF = 36deg C idle/ 44deg C load
2 x 512 Adata D43 PC 3200 @ 11 x 229 2.5*3*3*7 2T= 2.8vdimm
Epox 8KDA3+
3 x 120 WDJB, 1 X 80WDJB
Elsa X800pro Vivo on order:)
9600le on loan in the meantime:( [too embarrassing to post link to orb atm]
Pioneer AO7 DVR

Love this board however I really need them to release the promised bios update to enable upto 3.2vdimm...
 
CPU = A64 3000+ Newcastle @ 2400 & 1.65v
HS/F = Stock
MB = Abit KV8 Pro. FSB = 240mhz
RAM = 1GB PC3200 @ ~200mhz
HD = 2xHitachi 160GB SATA - Raid 0
Video = ATI x800XT Platinum Edition @ 552/571

I haven't even tried to go past 240mhz on the FSB. It very stable at 240 but I don't want to push things without good cooling installed so I am waiting until I get my new HS/F kit to push further.
 
CPU = A64 2800+ Newcastle @ 2.51ghz @1.6v
HS/F = SLK948U w/92mm fan
MB = Chaintech VNF3-250 w/beta 5/7 bios FSB = 279mhz
RAM = 1GB PC3700 @ ~243mhz
HD = 2xWD Raptorsi 74GB SATA - Raid 0, 1 250gb & 1 180gb drive
Video = VisionTek X800Pro @ 560/571

2.6ghz wasnt quite stable , dono if ram or cpu limit ..so back down to 2.51 and will work my way back up and see where it stops beig stable
 
ThreeDee said:
CPU = A64 2800+ Newcastle @ 2.51ghz @1.6v
HS/F = SP94 w/92mm fan
MB = Chaintech VNF3-250 w/beta 5/7 bios FSB = 277mhz
RAM = 1GB PC3700 @ ~243mhz
HD = 2xWD Raptorsi 74GB SATA - Raid 0, 1 250gb & 1 180gb drive
Video = VisionTek X800Pro @ 560/571

2.6ghz wasnt quite stable , dono if ram or cpu limit ..so back down to 2.51 and will work my way back up and see where it stops beig stable
Click to expand...

Dsoe that board have PCI locks? im looking to buy very shortly.....
 
I(illa Bee said:
Dsoe that board have PCI locks? im looking to buy very shortly.....
Click to expand...
yes it does ..I believe all the nForce3-250 mobo's have the pci locks working
 
ThreeDee said:
yes it does ..I believe all the nForce3-250 mobo's have the pci locks working
Click to expand...
So why is everyone getting hyped up on the KV8T800 pro chipset? Im looking to buy shoudl i be looking at Nforce3 250 boards, so far im kinda set on the Abit KV8pro (KV8T800pro chipset)

for overclocking...
 
on the pro chipset , via has implemented locked agp/pci as well ..so either or should get you good results ..
 
I(illa Bee said:
So why is everyone getting hyped up on the KV8T800 pro chipset? Im looking to buy shoudl i be looking at Nforce3 250 boards, so far im kinda set on the Abit KV8pro (KV8T800pro chipset)

for overclocking...
Click to expand...

nobody is hyped up on the K8T800 Pro for Socket 754...everybody is hyped up on the K8T800 Pro for Socket 939 because of the moment nForce3 250GB boards for Socket 939 are non-existent...
 
ThreeDee said:
on the pro chipset , via has implemented locked agp/pci as well ..so either or should get you good results ..
Click to expand...

Via has not successfully implemented the locks on all boards, the older Abit AV8 boards do not have a working PCI/AGP lock.
 
DaveX said:
Via has not successfully implemented the locks on all boards, the older Abit AV8 boards do not have a working PCI/AGP lock.
Click to expand...

Yea they have...on the pro chipsets... i think its the motherboard MFGs that havent got working BIOSes out for them but some do.
 
I(illa Bee said:
Yea they have...on the pro chipsets... i think its the motherboard MFGs that havent got working BIOSes out for them but some do.
Click to expand...

the inherent instability of Via's PCI/AGP lock is hard for mobo manufacturers to implement, hopefully they can get this worked out 100%

AnandTech said:
We figured that we would be seeing working competitive PCI/AGP locks on shipping K8T800 PRO chipsets, but that has not really materialized. In fact, we are very disturbed at the chaos that seems to surround the VIA implementation of the PCI/AGP lock at the manufacturers that we have talked with here at Computex. Some have proclaimed the feature is so unstable that they will not include it in VIA K8T800 PRO boards, while others say the feature is actually broken in the majority of the chipsets that they are currently receiving from VIA.

VIA themselves acknowledge that there is a problem with the AGP/PCI lock feature on the K8T800 PRO chipset, though they state the feature does work for limited overclocking in shipping chipsets - and will be quickly and completely fixed as soon as they can determine the factors that are causing the instability and inconsistency in the current PCI/AGP lock. The fact that VIA still does not know what exactly is wrong with the PCI/AGP lock on K8T800 PRO does not bode well for a quick fix.
Click to expand...

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2069&p=3

AnandTech said:
So, why is it that VIA's AGP/PCI lock doesn't work all the time? Architecturally, from a high level, everything seems fine. But as simple as our explanation here may be, actually implementing a multi-clock environment is quite difficult. Designs like this require very complicated clock trees that ensure all parts of the chipset receive the same clock signal at the same time. Introducing a second clock to some of the components complicates things even more, as you now have multiple clock trees to deal with and the components running off of different clocks still need to communicate with one another as fast as possible.
Click to expand...

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2069&p=4
 
what is the deal with people not being abel to run 1:1 on ram? I see alot of people that are running only like a 230-250 FSB and there running there memory at 177-210

Are there issues with runnign sync with the A64?
 
I(illa Bee said:
what is the deal with people not being abel to run 1:1 on ram? I see alot of people that are running only like a 230-250 FSB and there running there memory at 177-210

Are there issues with runnign sync with the A64?
Click to expand...

There are some things people here should know that I thought they knew.

1) There is no such thing as running 1:1 or synchronous on an Athlon 64. The memory bus is completely independent from the HyperTransport Bus. Memory speed is derived from the total CPU clock using a divider. It shows itself in BIOS as a 200, 166, and 133 setting.

2) Running memory at the 166 setting does not hurt the Athlon 64 performance. You can go to Xtreme Resources Forum and look at the tests done. Why would you want to have a lower overclock from blindly trying to run "sync" as people call it when you can run a higher overclock and lower memory speeds with better performance?

3) ClawHammers and Newcastles are different when it comes to how the respond to memory. The majority of ClawHammers, the old C0 revision, just are really picky on memory and will not run at that high of speeds. The majority of Newcastles, the newer CG revision (unless you happened to be unlucky and order one of the first A64 3000+ "Newcastles" that came out, which were castrated chips with the full-size ClawHammer die with 512KB L2 cache disabled), handle memory much better. It might be due to the revised memory controller or be mostly because it defaults ram to 2T. Grace at Xtreme Resources tested some memory on a ClawHammer and Newcastle. With the ClawHammer there was a wall at 215MHz for the memory (C0 ClawHammers probably have the memory wall around 215-220MHz). But on the Newcastle the memory flew and got much higher.
 
DaveX said:
There are some things people here should know that I thought they knew.

1) There is no such thing as running 1:1 or synchronous on an Athlon 64. The memory bus is completely independent from the HyperTransport Bus. Memory speed is derived from the total CPU clock using a divider. It shows itself in BIOS as a 200, 166, and 133 setting.

2) Running memory at the 166 setting does not hurt the Athlon 64 performance. You can go to Xtreme Resources Forum and look at the tests done. Why would you want to have a lower overclock from blindly trying to run "sync" as people call it when you can run a higher overclock and lower memory speeds with better performance?

3) ClawHammers and Newcastles are different when it comes to how the respond to memory. The majority of ClawHammers, the old C0 revision, just are really picky on memory and will not run at that high of speeds. The majority of Newcastles, the newer CG revision (unless you happened to be unlucky and order one of the first A64 3000+ "Newcastles" that came out, which were castrated chips with the full-size ClawHammer die with 512KB L2 cache disabled), handle memory much better. It might be due to the revised memory controller or be mostly because it defaults ram to 2T. Grace at Xtreme Resources tested some memory on a ClawHammer and Newcastle. With the ClawHammer there was a wall at 215MHz for the memory (C0 ClawHammers probably have the memory wall around 215-220MHz). But on the Newcastle the memory flew and got much higher.
Click to expand...

good stuff, got any more? im hungry...

Is there no way to make the memory run faster than 200? Im a little confused on this. Do you set the divider (133, 166, 200) to 166 then start upping the FSB and it raises the memory from 166 up? Then setting it to 200 will act as a less dramatic divider and upp the memory even more along with the FSB, but this will hit the memory wall faster correct?
 
I believe the way it works is that you work up from the 133 or 166 settings ..meaning ..whatever over 200mhz fsb your running on the chip ..add to 133 or 166 .. so if chip is running at 210 and you have mem set at 166 =176 on mem .. my mobo doesnt have a straight 200 setting, its just called "Auto" ..and it must drop down to next lowest speed when you start cranken on the fsb .

I'm pretty sure my buffalo ram cant do 250 at 2.9v of which on the "Auto" setting I can run stable at 250... but I cant run stable at 279 with mem set at 166 =245 ... i have to set it to 133 =212.

then again , maybe my formula for figuring out what my mem is running at is flawed.
 
CPU = A64 3200+ Newcastle @ 2475 & 1.625v
HS/F = Stock
MB = Asus K8V SE Deluxe FSB at 225 x11
RAM = 1GB PC3200 @ ~400mhz
HD = IDE 60gb HD & 120GB HD
Video = Geforce 6800 GT 425mhz and 1.2ghz Ram
 
Gautam said:
Overclocking Technique

You are essentially in control of the speeds of four different…ummm lets call em data paths; the CPU, the memory bus, the HyperTransport bus, and the HyperTransport’s effective data rate. Overclocking the CPU is done pretty much as it always has been, except that the HyperTransport substitutes the front side bus.

The HyperTransport can almost always go just as high as you need it, granted that you don’t exceed the motherboard’s maximum supported data rate by too much. For systems that support a 1000MHz HyperTransport data rate, for example, one could use a 200MHz HyperTransport bus with a 5x LDT multiplier. However, using 5x250 would result in an effective 1250MHz, which would almost certainly lead to instability. The LDT could be dropped to 4x, allowing for a higher HyperTransport bus speed with stability, 250, but resulting in the same 1000MHz effective data rate as default. The HyperTransport bus being increased alone doesn’t accomplish anything; unlike increasing the front side bus does other platforms. Even raising the effective data doesn’t add any noticeable increase in performance, as the bus is already so wide, that saturating it isn’t very likely. For this reason, the nF3 250’s and 150’s perform quite similarly to one another. My suggestion would be to leave the effective rate at as close to stock as possible, and raise the HyperTransport bus speed only as much as necessary. Unless you’re using an 8x multiplier, there shouldn’t be much reason to go far above 300MHz in many cases.

What complicates what multiplier and HyperTransport speed you should use are the CPU/memory dividers. No motherboard allows you to manipulate them directly. Instead, they provide “maximum memory clocks,” or supposed HTT/memory ratios. Make no mistake, no such thing exists. The memory is derived off of the CPU speed, but it’s never made clear, and the dividers need to be manipulated indirectly. Also, CPU/mem dividers are integral only; there are no half dividers, so it’s advisable not to use half multipliers. Ok, what I just said probably doesn’t make much sense, so here are some examples of how to get certain get CPU/mem dividers:

CPU/5-8 - Set memory to 200 and multiplier to desired divider

CPU/9
Memory to 200, multi to 9x(if available)
Memory to 183*, multi to 8x

CPU/10
Memory to 200, multi to 10x(if available)
Memory to 183*, multi to 9x(if available)
Memory to 166, multi to 8x

CPU/11
Memory to 200, multi to 11x(if available)
Memory to 183*, multi to 10x(if available)
Memory to 166, multi to 9x(if available)
Memory to 150, multi to 8x

CPU/12
Memory to 200, multi to 12x(if available)
Memory to 183, multi to 11x(if available)
Memory to 166, multi to 10x(if available)
Memory to 150, multi to 9x(if available)
Memory to 133, multi to 8x

Doesn’t make much sense? Don’t worry, it shouldn’t. You will probably need to experiment with different multipliers and max mem clocks to find the CPU/mem divider that you desire. Using half multipliers complicates things further, as the memory is divided integrally. Just to eliminate variables, drop the LDT multiplier down to 3x if your board supports a 1000MHz HyperTransport speed, or down to 2x if 800MHz or 600MHz is it’s maximum. You can also increase in the HTT/LDT voltage on some motherboards, which can give you an extra 20-50MHz extra MHz on your effective rate in some cases.

As I've always stressed, overclocking needs to be done carefully and systematically. This is especially important with the A64. Focus on one area that you wish to overclock, and overclock it alone. For example, if you wish to overclock your memory, drop your LDT and CPU multipliers as low as they can go, and see how far your memory can go with everything else clocked low enough to not hinder stability. For overclocking the CPU, drop the LDT as low as it can go, and set the max memory clock as low as it can go as well. Once you find your maximum memory speed and CPU clock, play around with the max memory and CPU multiplier to find the suitable CPU/mem ratio. Once you've already got in mind how far the CPU and memory each can go, this isn't too difficult. I cannot stress enough how important it is to isolate variables. It's all too common that people try to max everything out at once, fail, and then give up out of frustration. Take your time, be patient, and have fun. Dividing and conquering can make the task of overclocking the A64 a lot less daunting.

This excellent tool by Cpjk can be very helpful in removing some of the confusion in figuring out how to run things.

If you're lucky enough to have an FX, though, you don't need to bother with finding the right CPU/memory ratio. Simply find your maximum memory clock, and then increase the multiplier as necessary to max out the processor.

On a related note, the absolute core voltage for A64’s rated by AMD is 1.65v, opposed to 2.25v(I believe) for Bartons. The heat output of A64’s at the same speeds as AXP’s is roughly equivalent to what they’d put out with 0.2v less. For this reason, it usually is not too beneficial to exceed a core voltage of 1.7v or so on air cooling. On your everyday R404A setup, 1.8-1.85v usually appears to be all that’s needed for an optimal overclock.

One rather important memory-related setting is the command rate, a.k.a CPU Interface on many other boards. The default for C0 processors is 1t, and the default for the CG’s is 2t. 1t is quicker, but makes overclocking the memory with double-sided sticks especially difficult in many cases. Running at 2t, however, takes off about 1 sec in SuperPI and PIFast, and makes a couple hundred point difference in 3DMark01. The one benchmark where it takes a significant toll is the Sandra Memory Bandwidth Benchmark, where it takes 10%, or 300-400 MB/sec off. I don’t see having to run at 2t as the end of the world, unless you’re a Sandra fanatic. The difference between 1t and 2t is actually less than that between tRCD2 and tRCD3 in my experience. Again, there is no one size fits all solution. It may take some experimentation to see what combination of command rate, latencies and memory speeds are optimally for you. Low tRCD is highly recommended, but CAS doesn't matter very much. tRAS at 10, and nothing else, seems to deliver the best performance, while backing it down much lower begins to hurt.
Click to expand...

http://www.xtremeresources.com/forums/showthread.php?t=32441

You have to experiment around to get different dividers. I trust what Gautam said since he's had an A64 for quite some time while I have yet to get one.
 
CPU = FX-53 (939) @ 2.64 GHz @1.7v
HS/F = Water Block
MB = Asus A8V Deluxe - Beta Bios 1005.021
RAM = 1GB OCZ 3700 EB (2.5-2-2-5 @ 2.7v)
HD = WD Raptor 74GB SATA
Video = ATI X800 Pro @ 550/560
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top