View Full Version : MSI KTV4 -AMD Athlon XP OC
31st March 2004, 05:18 PM
I've been searching this forum and found it quite interesting. Hard to find a good forum that discusses OC.
I have a sort of out-dated rig. (Was new a year ago) And I was looking into OC it. Now, I've been and avid pc user for quite a long time now, but never got into OC my system. For one, I was afraid of the consequences, and two I didn't see the reason when I could just upgrade. But... money is scarce at this point, and my rig is slow. So, I read into OC a bit. And like what I saw. Basically, I have already made modifications to the system I'm using now. It's running stable, but I've only noticed a minor performance improvement. I know that setting the FSB and multiplier can be a touchy situation. So I would like to show you what I've done, and maybe I could get some feedback on what would work better.
MSI KT4V board
AMD Athlon XP - 1.1Ghz (1700+)
512mb DDR (PC2100)
Nvidia GeForce FX 5200
Like I said, a bit outdated.
I managed to get another 350mhz out of my cpu, but can't get it any higher without it crashing, and having to reset the cmos over and over. But I was disappointed with the results.
By default my FPS setting is 100mhz while every other voltage setting is set to AUTO. I managed to get my...
Any higher on the FPS and I crash. But I wish I could get it higher. I'm not very familiar with the entire "FPS to multiplier ratio". As of now my system is running at 1450mhz. Is there any way to increase my performance any more? Are my setting right? Is there something I'm missing or overlooking? Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
1st April 2004, 07:30 AM
First off... a :ninjawel: to our forums! It's always good t' see new members posting :clap:
Unforunately tho'... I'm not the one who can best answer yer OCing questions! There are many others who are better qualified to do so, since they're old hands/past masters at that sorta thing :D
What I can tell you is that not all CPU's are the same - in that... even if you have a potentially decent chip... one which you might expect to OC well, it isn't guaranteed to do so, and you've quite possibly reached the limit of your particular CPU already wi' that 350mhz OC?
Before the 'in the knows' read this, I'd ask you (if possible) to check/tell them the code on your chip. Unless it's a particular chip (i.e. a JIUHB), it may not lend itself to very high OC's, but they'll be able to advise you better if they know exactly what chip it is you've got there ;)
1st April 2004, 09:11 AM
Welcome to the forums :)
An XP 1700+ is running, by default at 1466 MHz. The Slowest XP CPU that was ever released was, I think the XP 1600+ at 1400 MHz.
The default multiplier for your CPU should be 11x and paired with an FSB of 133 MHz, you would get the 1466 MHz.
Now.. you say it crashes when you up the FSB over 116 MHz, that looks like the mobo/chipset/PCI cant keep up with those speeds.
Im now looking to find out what chipset that MSI board has... one sec... KT400, that should be good up to an FSB of at least 166 MHz.
I'd try to set the FSB to 133 and go from there. On reason why your system doesnt want to start up beyond 116 MHZ FSB could be because at that speed, the PCI bus is running all PCI cards (LAN, sound etc) at 38.6 MHz instead of the default 33 MHz. The AGP card is run at 77.3 MHz instead of 66 MHz....
At an FSB of 133, a proper multiplier kicks in to get PCI/AGP back to 33/66 MHz.
Try that and post what it gives :)
1st April 2004, 09:20 AM
Yeah... that's what I was gonna suggest Rag'... :cunning:
:duck: :xsofa: :p
1st April 2004, 09:23 AM
Btw, rereading your post partly, you will have to make sure you set the multiplier to 11x and then the FSB to 133, you seem to have an unlocked CPU there.
1st April 2004, 01:40 PM
for vre on that board, either by jumper or in the bios, and you may have to improve the cooling on the CPU, the older chips had a tendency to run hot.
you are limited by the motherboard, but you should be able to improive the performance quite a bit with the x change and the much higher FSB (hopefully that 1700+ is unlocked, if not, it can be with some bridge work)
once you get the bug and see what is, the good news is you will want MORE free speed, so be prepared to add a monthly bill to your living expenses (bad news), hehe.
a big welcome also here.
1st April 2004, 04:28 PM
Baldy memano... it's good t' see ye back! Where'n the h3ll have you been hidin' l8ely? We've missed hearing about new OCing adventures :D
1st April 2004, 04:46 PM
I changed the settings to Rags Specs, and it's looking good so far. As of right now, I'm running @ 133/x11 and on boot instead of saying (1450mhz) my system is saying (1700+) and the processor speed in Windows says 1.47mhz :D
So, I am going to keep building up my FPS until I crash, then reset, and set. I'll update ya when I get this tweaked just right. Thanks again Rag! Great forum also!
P.S. Before these changes my system seemed to lag a bit, most likely the PCI/AGP mhz. Booted up nice and quick this time.
UPDATE 2: WOW! Ok, not sure if this is good or not. I tried setting the FSB to 166/x11 and it booted up saying (2200+) when I got the my welcome screen (WinXP) it crashed. So, I reset the FSP to 160 then it booted up just fine. Currently it is set at 2200+ 1.76Ghz That's 660mhz MORE. (EEK!) Is this too high? I have Fuzzy Logic that came with my board. (Temp. Readings) Says my CPU is running at a cool 45oC Which is a perfect temp. I have a decent cooling system (Two face fans blowing IN, two case fans blowing OUT, two rear fans blowing OUT, CPU fan mounted on heatsink, and PS obviously.) So I seem to be alright in the heating aspect of this. But, if I go and run UT2004, using all the CPU, will it overheat? I just don't know how high it TOO high before I need a better cooling system...
Also, should I continue trying to get more out of it? (eg. work my way up from 160?) Thanks again guys!!!
1st April 2004, 06:09 PM
Well Of course it's good...:D 45c running at that OC is quite respectable...:) If it goes beyond 60c I'd start worrying a bit but unless that happens it's good to go...:D
Most likely you won't get much more than 160/166 FSB considering that you have PC2100 memory... but it's a bit wierd that it likes 160 better than 166? try upping the vcore voltage just one notch in the CPU settings and see if it won't stay stable at 166...:) That is the sweet spot, where all other settings (PCI/AGP) goes back to stock settings...
1st April 2004, 06:14 PM
BTW "To high" doesn't exist in the vocabulary of an OC'er...:D
And with the temps you have currently there really shouldn't be any problems for you as far as cooling is concerned... most likely you memory or other components will hit their respective cieling before you get heat problems...:)
1st April 2004, 06:27 PM
It would be interesting to know if its a Palomino 1700+ or a TBred...
What is the default voltage for your CPU in the BIOS?
If its 1.65 then its a TBred, if its 1.75 its a Pally.
Ok now for both of these a "safe" voltage is 1.85V but thats the limit (yes Tweety I know...there's no limit for some of us ;) ) And remember, increasing the voltage will reduce the CPU lifespan (trust me...I made the experience) and increase your heat output. Go in notches of 0.05V if possible and see if you cant get it stable at 166x11. Like Tweety im surprised it liked 160 MHz since that should play havoc with PCI/AGP unless the higher multiplier kicks in at 160 (I remember something like that, fainlty)
1st April 2004, 06:40 PM
By default, my Vcore voltage is set to 'Auto'. Though the ranges are 1.575 - 1.700. (increasing by .025 increments) I am currently running it at 1.70v (the highest it will let me go) So maybe, because of this, my CPU doesn't want to run stable at 166 is because I have my Vcore a bit too high? I maxed it right out. Actually, I have my AGP and memory maxed out as well. (voltage) Also, at 160 it ran fine. Great, actually. But then I booted up UT2004. As soon as I got in a game, and maxed that CPU, it crashed. Got a quick blue screen, and then rebooted. So, I dropped the FSB to 155 and tried the game again, and it ran fine.
So, think I should drop that Vcore voltage down, and try 166/x11?
1st April 2004, 07:18 PM
Try 166x10.5 and see what that gives :)
Let the VCore be at 1.7
1st April 2004, 07:29 PM
Yep 10,5/10*166 should be the best bet for you...:D and well to high voltage never made anything unstable yet...:) (well as far as I know...)
Rag... there is a limit even to my OC'ing...:) It's usually when things start to smell burnt and stop working...:D or preferably a few hairs before that...:nod:
1st April 2004, 09:42 PM
Alright, I just don't get it. My system will not stay stable with a 166/11 - 10.5 - 10.0 - 9.5. I just can't seem to get it to work. With 166/x11 it boots up fine until it get to my welcome screen, and just stays black with only the mouse pointer visible. So, I finally had to drop the FSB to 159 to see how that goes, works so far, but the system is LAGGY. Like...locks up for 5-8 secs before it runs a any process. I don't get it. I wish I could find that 'sweet spot'... :(
1st April 2004, 09:51 PM
I guess you will just have to keep on trying different combinations until you find it.
One of the most important things overclockers have - determination. :)
1st April 2004, 10:24 PM
I am determined to find it, but I was thinking into what someone posted saying 166 is better then 160. Like it's just an overall better setting. Just makes the AGP/PCI buses run smoother and more stable. So... If I can't hit 166, what's the next best lower? 155? or is that just an odd setting?
1st April 2004, 10:26 PM
Try 133 FSB and up the multiplier to 11.5 then 12 and more if you can. The lag you're xperiencing could be the PCI/AGP having hickups...
1st April 2004, 10:27 PM
Oh and yes, 155 is an odd setting too. The only settings that let the AGP/PCI be within spec (on that chipset) are 100/133/166 MHz.
2nd April 2004, 03:42 AM
Well, I guess I've found the most stable settings. Maybe not the fastest, but sometimes you have to sacrifice quality for quantity. Whatever that means...
So, I took your advice and set the FSB to 133 and the multiplier to x12.5/13.0 which leaves me with 1.67Ghz (2000+) Which I guess is pretty nice considering I was running at a 'steady' 1.1Ghz (1700+). Tacked on a couple hundred MHz. Allot better then what I did have. Ehh hem... *cheaper*
So, thank you all for the help. Going to test some games out. Also, I have an Asus A7V333 board that was replaced by the KT4V I'm using now. Was that a bad call on my part? If not, I'm looking to sell it.
2nd April 2004, 11:09 AM
That seems to be a rather good OC none the less...:) and Yes, rather a 100% stable OC than beeing on the bleeding edge and having constant problems...:D
Well It's a possibility that the Asus will clock higher than the MSI...:) I would atleast try it before selling it...:D
5th April 2004, 06:27 AM
Well, I just wanted to thank everyone again for all your help. And thanks for the welcome. :D
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.