Tom's Guide | Tom's Hardware | Tom's Games
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Hi there,
I bought myself a highly configurable mainboard for my XP1800 processor. However, they sent me the earlier version of this mainboard, which is only supposed to support 200 FSB as opposed to the required 266 FSB for the XP processors.
BUT - on the mobo manufacturers website, BOTH the early as well as the later version of this mainboard, are listed to be AMD XP compatible, with a bios version that I already have. The earlier version is "just" AMD XP compatible, and the newer version is all the way to AMD XP 2100 compatible. My clock multiplier can be adjusted on the board, from 8x to 12.5 x.
Apparently both versions of this mainboard use the same (VIA KT133) chipset too.
In the bios, under CPU voltage settings, there are 3 adjustments per line, having to do with CPU Frequency, Voltage Control, and Spread Spectrum. Making a change, impacts all 3 items on that line.
==============================So, my question then, is this:
Since one of the CPU voltage control settings happens to be 130 at 33 Mhz., could I use that, in conjunction with a 12x multiplier? 12 X 130 = 1560 Mhz.
The CPU is supposed to run at 1553 Mhz.
With me, cooling is NOT an issue at all.
All I need to know, is if this will work?Oh, and there is no AUTO setting in the bios. Just the default one, and then about 15 other settings that I can adjust manually for the CPU frequency and voltage control. What do you think?
Hey Intel, AMD rulez!

Ok, well. It is not the first time a company has tried to sell it's older mobo's with updated bioses. Fact is, it was designed to run the 200fsb, and they have set the bios to run the faster 266 fsb.
NOW, the question is, will it handle the XP. There were Thnuderbird Athlons running at 266 up to the speed of 1.4gig I believe.
But you may well be asking for trouble putting in your XP chip, as the chipset was never designed with that processor in mind.
If it was me, and I had just bought the chip and board, I would send the board back and get the one MEAN'T to do the job.
Why risk it if you have paid good money for equipment that might not be suitable for it's job. Plus, you can't really upgrade much more on your new board, as I am guessing it doesn't handle DDR either.

Well, maybe I should rephrase some of what I had written earlier. First though, you're right, DDR memory is not supported - which is actually fine with me. My current setup is a 1200 Mhz. Athlon with 512 MB PC133 SDRAM and ATA 100 compliant prepartitioned drive. I can type over 100 words per minute and there's just about nothing that I can do, that my main PC won't keep up with. My OS is XP Pro, and has been for the past 10 months. With one intentional exception, I've NEVER had a crash, even though I use TONS of hardware on a regular, daily basis. (Scanner, Digital Camera, Printer, Multi USB Card, CDRW drive with ADDITIONAL CD Rom, and so on) I'm not a heavy gamer either.
===========================My main question was just to help me UNDERSTAND if my assumption was correct, this being that the core voltage of 130/33 actually meant that the Athlon XP chip would be running on a FSB of 260, as opposed to the recommended 266 ???
And if so, then it would make sense to me that it would work, just as the mobo manufacturer proclaimed ???I mean, heck, I could UNDERCLOCK the CPU first, and run it at 10 X 130 if that'll be safer, and then move up from there.
I don't want to return the boards (I have several of them) because I just want to see how far I can push them without any noticeable problems, and without doing anything detrimental to them - like screwi_g up my flash bios somehow. ;)
Hey Intel, AMD rulez!

Well, there is one problem with your theory, or plan, um... thing. Athlon XP's do not come unlocked, which means you can't change their multipliers freely. On the other hand, if you unlocked your athlon XP or have an Athlon MP, then you can freely change the multiplier. Also, I don't think you can screw up your BIOS by overclocking. The only way I know of to mess it up is to turn it off while flashing, or yank it off of your mobo and taking a hammer to it. If the mobo can handle that 130 Mhz frequency, then that should work. If it can't, then that won't work. It's as simple as that. Overclocking ability varies from mobo to mobo, even mobos of the same revision and from the same batch. Same is true for processors and other components, too.

Hey leembo,
Is your board a Chaintech 7aja2e ? The description sounds exactly like mine. I've got a Duron and was thinking of grabbing one of the cheaper XP's. The KTE133 chipset isn't officially speced for 133x2 FSB bus I figured that 130 is close enough. Tell us what happens. I might do the same as you.
Jimbo

Yeah, that's exactly what it is.
If you look at the chaintech website, they clearly imply that BOTH boards, the 266 FSB and the 200 FSB are XP compatible. According to their website and bios revision 4.0, the only difference seems to be that the 266 board goes up to XP2100, whereas the older 200 FSB board is strictly XP compatible - whatever that means.
But like you, I figured that 130 X 2 was close enough. If you look at the posts, I already asked about that earlier, but have yet to receive some specific yes/no information on the subject.
Looks like I'll have to be the guinea pig, when my XP 1800 processors comes in, in a few days. Keep looking here, and I'll let everyone know the (hopefully) good news.
You can email me for the results too.
Hey Intel, AMD rulez!

Have you read and fully understood your
mobo manual?
I am in the same sort of position. But my
mobo manual is very specific, it explains
that my mobo has 2 VIA chipsets.
1)supports 200mhz
2)supports 266mhz
Also I have changed the firmware with a
BIOS upgrade from my mobo manufacturer
website.
In the manual it says the mobo can handle
Athlons but I have been using a Duron for
9 mths.
My Advice check the support section of your
mobo manufacturers website.

![]() |
Athlon RMA
|
P4 1.9GHz Overclock
|

This post is quite old and has been locked from receiving new replies. Please create a new posting instead.
| Ads by Google |