If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
PCI Lock. is it really needed?
I think not considering the dividers used today.
Consider that running the default 200MHz has a divider of 6. So take it up to 217MHz and the PCI speed is still less than 36MHz. I don't know of any half way decent PCI hardware that won't run on a less than 10% overclock of the bus. All of mine will run happily at up to about 38MHz. So as long as dividers of 7 and maybe 8 later are provided I don't really see a need for a PCI lock ever again. When the bus goes over half way to the next level, just use the next higher multiplier. And the higher the bus goes, the less fluctuation. With a divider of 7, a half way overclock to 249 would only put the PCI bus at 35.5MHz. I bring this up because of all the hoopla about the new PCI locked chipsets. Just doesn't seem like a valid thing to worry about any more as long as addtional dividers are provided. Opinions? -- Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB) http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
With the announcement of Via's new Pro chipset and the NVidia chipset with
working PCI lock, I can tell you I will almost certainly upgrade my motherboard to take advantage. When I go above 215 FSB, I get hard drive errors. That is definitely PCI bus speed related. The processor seems to have no problem. Then again, it means I'd need to buy memory faster than PC3200, but its only money, right? I've got another motherboard that would love to take my old memory. I have been so happy with my AMD64 3000+, I just can't leave it alone (does that make sense?) For stability, it has only been matched by an old dual Pentium II system with a Tyan Tiger motherboard. JonB - TeamAnandtech "Wes Newell" wrote in message newsan.2004.05.06.06.51.37.795619@TAKEOUTverizon .net... I think not considering the dividers used today. Consider that running the default 200MHz has a divider of 6. So take it up to 217MHz and the PCI speed is still less than 36MHz. I don't know of any half way decent PCI hardware that won't run on a less than 10% overclock of the bus. All of mine will run happily at up to about 38MHz. So as long as dividers of 7 and maybe 8 later are provided I don't really see a need for a PCI lock ever again. When the bus goes over half way to the next level, just use the next higher multiplier. And the higher the bus goes, the less fluctuation. With a divider of 7, a half way overclock to 249 would only put the PCI bus at 35.5MHz. I bring this up because of all the hoopla about the new PCI locked chipsets. Just doesn't seem like a valid thing to worry about any more as long as addtional dividers are provided. Opinions? -- Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB) http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Wes Newell" wrote in message newsan.2004.05.06.06.51.37.795619@TAKEOUTverizon .net... I think not considering the dividers used today. Consider that running the default 200MHz has a divider of 6. So take it up to 217MHz and the PCI speed is still less than 36MHz. I don't know of any half way decent PCI hardware that won't run on a less than 10% overclock of the bus. All of mine will run happily at up to about 38MHz. So as long as dividers of 7 and maybe 8 later are provided I don't really see a need for a PCI lock ever again. When the bus goes over half way to the next level, just use the next higher multiplier. And the higher the bus goes, the less fluctuation. With a divider of 7, a half way overclock to 249 would only put the PCI bus at 35.5MHz. I bring this up because of all the hoopla about the new PCI locked chipsets. Just doesn't seem like a valid thing to worry about any more as long as addtional dividers are provided. Opinions? -- Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB) http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm Generally, I would agree. But there is no arithmetic bias towards this situation: there have been non integer deviders in the past, so it wasn't impossible to employ them at 0.5 steps say a year ago... I think the current limitations (where available deviders are sometimes not enough to keep PCI within tolerance while O/C) are more due to motherboard (or chipset ?) simplicity from the designers point of view. They just care little for providing more choice in that department (pci bus deviders) or did not see need for it when they sat the drawing table. In the past, how many deviders have you found on a motherboard ? I can't remember more than 2-3. usually just 2. on intel first PCIsets it was 2/3 or 1/2 for 50, 60 and 66 MHz FSB. I think 1/3 was introduced with 75 and 83.3 MHz FSB, and it was enough for 100 FSB too. On KT133 PCI and AGP buses are driven via seperate clock signal path, which is not linked with FSB or memory bus signal. That' an effective "bus lock". I guess that with the wide range of tolerance some advanced Athlons and their chipsets (like Tbred Bs, bartons and NF2) the range of deviders was simply not covering enough "target" FSBs that overclockers wanted ;-) Who is to blame ? |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Wes Newell wrote:
I think not considering the dividers used today. Consider that running the default 200MHz has a divider of 6. So take it up to 217MHz and the PCI speed is still less than 36MHz. I don't know of any half way decent PCI hardware that won't run on a less than 10% overclock of the bus. All of mine will run happily at up to about 38MHz. So as long as dividers of 7 and maybe 8 later are provided I don't really see a need for a PCI lock ever again. When the bus goes over half way to the next level, just use the next higher multiplier. And the higher the bus goes, the less fluctuation. With a divider of 7, a half way overclock to 249 would only put the PCI bus at 35.5MHz. I bring this up because of all the hoopla about the new PCI locked chipsets. Just doesn't seem like a valid thing to worry about any more as long as addtional dividers are provided. Opinions? My opinion is that you should throw away the dividers and run the PCI bus locked. Why bother with more dividers when, for a few more pence, you can lock the clock? The argument I suppose, is that if you are overclocking your ram and your fsb, then why not the PCI bus too? Well, there isn't anything hanging off the PCI bus that could benefit from overclocking it. Ben -- A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups. I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String... |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 06 May 2004 06:47:06 +0000, Wes Newell wrote:
I think not considering the dividers used today. Consider that running the default 200MHz has a divider of 6. So take it up to 217MHz and the PCI speed is still less than 36MHz. I don't know of any half way decent PCI hardware that won't run on a less than 10% overclock of the bus. All of mine will run happily at up to about 38MHz. So as long as dividers of 7 and maybe 8 later are provided I don't really see a need for a PCI lock ever again. When the bus goes over half way to the next level, just use the next higher multiplier. And the higher the bus goes, the less fluctuation. You can't assume this. It's more than likely that the overclocked bus will have an increased fluctuation itself. Whether the increase will be cancelled out by the higher divider is pure speculation without actually measuring it. With a divider of 7, a half way overclock to 249 would only put the PCI bus at 35.5MHz. I bring this up because of all the hoopla about the new PCI locked chipsets. Just doesn't seem like a valid thing to worry about any more as long as addtional dividers are provided. Opinions? Overall, it's an extra option. If your system works properly without locking then why not. If you need the lock for stability or prefer not to overclock the PCI bus then you can do that too. It's always foolish to prescribe one set of rules for everyone. I think you're also forgetting the AGP bus which can be very difficult to overclock at all. -- Ian. EOM |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 7 May 2004 19:32:17 +0100, "Ben Pope"
wrote: ... Why bother with more dividers when, for a few more pence, you can lock the clock? The argument I suppose, is that if you are overclocking your ram and your fsb, then why not the PCI bus too? Well, there isn't anything hanging off the PCI bus that could benefit from overclocking it. Ben Is there a program that can read the actual pci and agp bus speeds and report them ? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hard disk failure and security lock | [email protected] | General | 2 | December 16th 04 11:02 AM |
250 watt and ATX 2.1 needed to kep xp 2000 board running ? | We Live for the One we Die for the One | General | 2 | May 31st 04 02:38 PM |
Intermittent PC lock up | Putim | General | 66 | April 26th 04 12:13 PM |
A7V266-MX refuses to recognise the hard ware lock (dongle) | [email protected] | General | 1 | February 12th 04 08:50 AM |
Freezing, lock up, unresponsive problem. | James | General | 5 | September 5th 03 02:54 PM |