Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] CPU clock - beware
From: tim hall (tech_AT_glastonburymusic.org.uk)
Date: Sat Jul 24 2004 - 03:42:42 EEST
Last Friday 23 July 2004 22:32, Rick B was like:
> Yes, I would think that you would notice a big difference. If
> before adjusting you had a 66.8mhz fsb x 3.5 multiplier = 233.8mhz and
> after you have a 66.8mhz fsb x 8.0 = 566mhz.
Great, thanks for confirming that.
> You might want to check and
> see if you have a fan on your cpu (I have a 566mhz that doesn't), if not
> and you do notice instability adding one would probably fix it. Also if
> you dont have a fan now, adding one for $10 is a cheap way to overclock
> it.
I do have a fan on it, although I could probably fit a bigger quieter one in.
I'm not interested in overclocking as such, just getting the straightforward
best performance.
> I'm wondering though, where does the 100mhz fsb you mentioned come
> in? You will either have a 66.8mhz fsb times a multiplier or a 100mhz
> fsb times a multiplier
These fluffy figures probably come from my misunderstanding of the manual.
CPU Freq: 600MHz
CPU Ratio: 6x (?)
CPU FSB: 100MHz
It also says: Warning: Intel 810/810DC-100 chipset supports a maximum of
100MHz CPU FSB blah ...
I think from the jumper settings that the display cache runs at the same
speed, there's nothing to suggest there's any value in pushing it.
So far I'm not seeing any instability, so I'll stick with this and see how it
goes.
> As far as memory goes, I think most people that read this list
> would agree that you can never have to much. When you run out of
> physical ram and have to swap to disk it slows the machine waaayy down
> (and causes dropouts).
And dropouts, right. This is now my biggest (but not insurmountable) problem,
which can obviously be fixed by throwing some cash at it when I get some.
That's a Win AFAIC :-)
Thanks for increasing my understanding of this subject.
tim hall
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sat Jul 24 2004 - 03:46:35 EEST