Need advice on motherboard and GPu compatibility

[mastablasta]

hmm i found thisreply online to a similar quesiton:

All Athlons were until a few months ago named on a power rating, not actual CPU speed rating. Since you didn't tell me the exact type of your processor i believe that it's the actual , normal speed of your CPU. But if it isn't then it's underclocked. To verify that go in the BIOS and see if the FSB is the correct value - 133MHz - sometimes it's at the default value of 100MHz. This can be changed from 2 locations:
1 - the JP4 jumper on the motherboard - 2-3 corresponds to 133MHz (of course you should change it only with the pc is disconnected from the mains)
2 - in BIOS go to Frequency/Voltage Control - CPU Host Clock and set it to 133.

The thing is that

Frequency/Voltage Control - CPU Host Clock

is indeed set on default. I found the manual for the mobo, and it says that this funciton is used for overclocking the CPU.But is it safe to just increase it to a higher value?

I am also trying to find a newwer version of bios. maybe it would be a good idea to upgrade it first before attempting to increase the frequency.

EDIT: The mainboard model is Matsonic MS8137C+ with a VIA KT266A Chipset Socket A.

[cascade9]

I hada look at the Matsonic site, and it appeared to have no BIOS update for the MS8137C+. Its possibel that you could flash the BIOS from a different manufacturers version of the KT266A, but I wouldnt try it unless you had to.

I think its more likely that your multiplier is wrong than the FSB (CPU Host Clock). From what I remember, an unlocked Palamino/T'bred CPU defaults to a multi of 5.5 (which would explain the 133 x 5.5).

As for what the CPU is really rated at....maybe try the command 'lshw' but if that still gives you "AMD 733" then the only way to be sure is by checking the hardware, by pulling of the heatsink and checking the actual chip markings.

BTW, changing the CPU Host Clock is sort of safe- with your current Mhz, the CPU should run much higher than 133Mhz FSB, but as to how well the chipset would deal with it is unknown. It would be overclcokcing the nchipset to go past 133Mhz, and as with all overclcocking, there are risks (so, for example, 134Mhz would probably be fine, 200 is right out)

I would try to change the multiplier.

BTW, whoever you quoted above is wrong-

All Athlons were until a few months ago named on a power rating, not actual CPU speed rating.

Athlons started out as being rated by CPU speed rating (Mhz, 550-1400) then moved to a 'power' rating (XP1600+ onward). AMD never went back to a speed rating.

[mastablasta]

I just increased it ot max 150/38 or something like that.

now it says:

     *-cpu
          product: AMD Athlon(tm)
          vendor: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD]
          physical id: 1
          bus info: cpu@0
          version: 6.8.0
          size: 850MHz
          width: 32 bits

and

Architecture:          i686
CPU(s):                1
Thread(s) per core:    1
Core(s) per socket:    1
CPU socket(s):         1
Vendor ID:             AuthenticAMD
CPU family:            6
Model:                 8
Stepping:              0
CPU MHz:               825.135
L1d cache:             64K
L1i cache:             64K
L2 cache:              256K

SO 850Mhz. Is that correct? Or is it overclocked?

If it's 850 or close and not over 1000Mhz i think it will sill be better to replace it with a newer Motherboard and some 2Ghz celeron or something. computer will be used for office tasks, listening music and if i can make TV tuner work also temporary TV.

[cascade9]

I just increased it ot max 150/38 or something like that.

150/38 is FSB/PCI Mhz. normally it should be 133/33, but the PCI speed is determined by dividing the FSB by 4 (for 133 operation), so when you up the FSB to 150Mhz, it devides that by 4 = 38Mhz (actually 37.5)

now it says:

     *-cpu
          product: AMD Athlon(tm)
          vendor: Advanced Micro Devices [AMD]
          physical id: 1
          bus info: cpu@0
          version: 6.8.0
          size: 850MHz
          width: 32 bits

and

Architecture:          i686
CPU(s):                1
Thread(s) per core:    1
Core(s) per socket:    1
CPU socket(s):         1
Vendor ID:             AuthenticAMD
CPU family:            6
Model:                 8
Stepping:              0
CPU MHz:               825.135
L1d cache:             64K
L1i cache:             64K
L2 cache:              256K

SO 850Mhz. Is that correct? Or is it overclocked?

Underclocked CPU, overclocked FSB.

If it's 850 or close and not over 1000Mhz i think it will sill be better to replace it with a newer Motherboard and some 2Ghz celeron or something. computer will be used for office tasks, listening music and if i can make TV tuner work also temporary TV.

Its got to be at least 1000Mhz stock, the slowest Athlon with a 133 FSB was the Athlon 1000C ("C" for 133 FSB).

With it being a 1.5volt chip, I can say its not a 1000C. Its got to be an Athlon XP, possibly a late model Athlon XP-M (mobile). There are various Athlon XP chips, with various voltages so its hard to be sure without checking the chip.

I really wouldnt 'upgrade' to a 2Ghz Celeron- if you can get the chip going at even XP 1700+ speeds (and that is the slowest chip I think it could be) then it would be faster than a 2Ghz celeron.

Try to change the multiplier, not the FSB- like here-



http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/...ery,387-8.html

Go for x 11 and try that..if it works, that is running at 1700+ speeds. Its more than possible that you could get more multiplier- up to x 13.5 (2200+), or even x15 (2400+) but I would guess that x11-x12.5 would be the original rated speed from AMD.

[mastablasta]

Ok. this will have to wait until next weekend when i get my hands on it again. will post an update then.
computer doesn't have so many options to choose from in BIOS that's why i was hoping anew version of BIOS could show some light. I think i can take a pic with a camera next time. It should be Athlon XP i believe. It's a desktop so it's probably not mobile version.

Ugh, if i can't figure it out i will just pull of the heatsink and read the chips description...

[mastablasta]

i am attaching the pictures of all available options. I can not find any other option in BIOS to change anything. Except maybe DRAM clock if it would have any effect.

Any option than the highest selected one gives me less than 850Mhz. So it would appear that's the max i can get on this motherboard?!

EDIT: Actuall the max is then 825Mhz ?! WTF?!

[cascade9]

Changing the DRAM/PCI clock wont have any effect on your CPU speed.

Hmm...

You've got to be able to get more than 850Mhz on that motherboard, the KT266a always did (it was released about the same time as the XP 1600+, 1.4Ghz, which was the 1st CPU to commonly be used with the KT266a).

As for why you cant get more....well, this is a guess- its one of two things. Either you have a CPU released after your last BIOS update, and it defualts back to the minimum multipiler (5.5), or, far more liekly, its a mobile XP (and still defaults back to the minimum 5.5 multi)

What motherboard is it? All I can see from the end of the BIOS bootscreen is '7C+' and that is not quite enough to tell.

Yes, 825Mhz. 5.5 x 150Mhz. Its just rounded up to a 'normal' CPU speed.

[mastablasta]

Motherboard is Matsonic MS8137C+ and it looks like BIOS is already somehwat updated, since i have a manual for it and manual doesn't mention CPU voltage regulator. perhaps it would need more voltage. I checked the jumper settings and there are only two settings for CPU frequency and that is 100 Mhz and 133Mhz.

Ugh i don't know anymore it all seems a bit strange here. The computer was assembled at some local company some time ago. Its quite possibel they udnerclocked it but i wonder why they would do such a thing. i mean surelly a customer buying 1500Mhz processor would object when they saw only 733. Like i said computer wasn't mine before. i will see if i can maybe find a bill for it to see what it says in the specifications

Motherboard certainly is old...

[gordintoronto]

I am interested in this motherboard (due to AGP socket):
http://www.asrock.com/mb/overview.as...COREDUAL-SATA2...

I also have an old Radeon 9600 XT, which i would like to stick inside. Will it work with Ubuntu?

At the moment Ubuntu system uses old AMD 733 Mhz, 16 MB ATI Rage and 1.3 GB DDR ram. I plan to stick a 2+ Ghz Celeron to new system and reuse the DDR and old AGP card.

I don't believe in pouring money into old technology. For example, you could go to a system such as:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...-235-_-Product

It would be much higher performance than what you are looking at, and within a year you would save the price difference by using less electricity.

There are similar systems available with no operating system installed, if you want to avoid the Microsoft Tax.

[cascade9]

Sorry abotu askignthe motehrboard type. I completely forgot that you had already put it in.

Anyway, after figuring out what the 'normal' ECS motehrboard version of that board is (a K7VTA3 V2.x) it appears to not have a multiplier adjustment. Bah.

Ugh i don't know anymore it all seems a bit strange here. The computer was assembled at some local company some time ago. Its quite possibel they udnerclocked it but i wonder why they would do such a thing. i mean surelly a customer buying 1500Mhz processor would object when they saw only 733. Like i said computer wasn't mine before. i will see if i can maybe find a bill for it to see what it says in the specifications

Motherboard certainly is old...

I think there is onyl 2ways this would happen- AMD made a mistake (eg, they didnt 'lock' the multiplier, or put the wrong CPU into the box) or the assembler made a mistake (used the wrong CPUin the system).

I wouldnt be suprised if the customer never noticed, I know lots of people who dont pay any attention to the boot-up messages. Probably the majority of people dont.

Pretty easy for the assembler to miss that sort of thing as well. When you have 5+ computer builds going on, in a business envirotment, you tent to not look at the details like the bootscreen- to busy doing other stuff.

Its a pity, but you probably cant get that CPU going at proper speed on that mohterboard.

I wish I could have a (physical) look at it, its probably a nice CPU.