Overclocking my Athlon XP 3000+ [Archive]

Simon Charles

05-03-2005, 11:44 PM

I have an Athlon XP 3000+. My little utility, CPU-Z, identifies it as 333 bus speed. The CPU won't go higher than 2.1 ghz. I'd like to know if it's possible to get it around 2400 or 2600. Seems like it's impossible, given I have the "cheap" version of the XP 3000 but any feedback would be appreciated.

I have 1.5 gig of OCZ 3200 ram. My mobo is an Asus A7N8X-E Deluxe (nForce chipset, latest bios and everything) and no matter what CPU multiplier I change (or anything else for that matter), performance can only be either 1.6 ghz or 2.1 ghz.

Please don't tell me my memory/mobo/CPU sucks and I should get a new one. I just need info. Is there any way to squeeze a bit more out of the CPU?

Jeff

05-04-2005, 12:24 AM

In my BIOS (K8V SE Deluxe), there's a setting where you could set the "performance mode" to turbo or normal mode. Setting it to turbo mode allows you to increase your FSB or clock speed by about 3%. Can't remember which one it is. Don't know if you've got that on yours.

Gryph

05-04-2005, 01:34 AM

What's your cooling situation and what are your temps?

Inanimate Carbon Rod

05-04-2005, 01:38 AM

Just like with any overclock, slowly increase the memory timeing's and/or the multiplier.

Also I have an A7n8x-x, and there is an option to have the memory run at 83% the front side bus. This might allow you to have a 400mhz front side bus and keep your memory at 333hz (like mine).

I have an Athlon 2400-M clocked at 2.4ghz on air.

DudeMiester

05-04-2005, 12:30 PM

With Athlon64's you can adjust the memory divider so that the ram will always run around 200Mhz, so if you're ram is crap then you can still OC the CPU. You might want to google for the specifics on how the memory dividers work cause it's somewhat complex. Here's a table for you:

Simon Charles

05-04-2005, 05:29 PM

Inanimate Carbon Rod said:
Just like with any overclock, slowly increase the memory timeing's and/or the multiplier.

I already did that, it doesn't work. Whatever values I change, they don't take effect. As soon as I save the changes and reboot, everything goes back to default. I check in Windows, and it always says Athlon 3000 @ 2.1 ghz. And my little clock speed utility always says 166 frequency, 13 multiplier. Always. It's as if the changes I make in the bios never save.

Also I have an A7n8x-x, and there is an option to have the memory run at 83% the front side bus. This might allow you to have a 400mhz front side bus and keep your memory at 333hz (like mine).

You'll have to explain that to me again, just so I can go into my bios and do exactly what you're saying. Cause right now, it sounds like taking a step backwards. My old mobo couldn't run my memory at 400. And now that the new one can, you want me to slow it down?

Answer to the other questions:

-- I don't have an Athlon 64.

-- Cooling is heatsink/fan. I'm getting casing fans soon.

DudeMiester

05-04-2005, 09:16 PM

lol, I must have been tired when I posted that. Well I hope someone finds it useful.

Simon Charles

05-05-2005, 05:05 PM

Bump. Anyone else has imput?

EDIT:

Seems like you gotta slightly increase the voltage of the CPU/memory to get any kind of performance gain. So I did, very carefuly not to fry anything. I set everything in my bios to 'user defined' so it would unlock the settings and allow me to change them on my own.

Well, turns out if I change something -- anything -- the computer won't boot. CPU frequency, multiplier, lowering the memory frequency, increasing the voltage from 1.6 to 1.65, etc... NOTHING.

As soon as I change something, the computer doesn't boot. Whatever's going on in my system, I simply cannot change any bios settings. If I do, the computer doesn't boot and just shuts down. Plain and simple. It then goes into "safe speed mode" and automatically goes into the bios to tell me I must reset everything to default values.

May I humbly ask WTF? I thought Athlon XPs could be overclocked. I'm not asking for insane overclocking that fries the CPU and memory, just a tiny increase in performance.

What the hell? http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Hudson

05-05-2005, 08:03 PM

Simon Charles said:
What the hell? http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

If you have no idea what the hell you're doing I highly suggest you not mess with any of those features.. unless you like to piss money away on new motherboards and CPU's http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

avatar_58

05-05-2005, 10:04 PM

Hudson said:

Simon Charles said:
What the hell? http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

If you have no idea what the hell you're doing I highly suggest you not mess with any of those features.. unless you like to piss money away on new motherboards and CPU's http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

In which case he'd be better of just buying a faster one of both anyway.... http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

Simon Charles

05-05-2005, 10:32 PM

Hudson said:

Simon Charles said:
What the hell? http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

If you have no idea what the hell you're doing I highly suggest you not mess with any of those features.. unless you like to piss money away on new motherboards and CPU's http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Ah, you know I meant what the hell as in why the hell I can't squeeze a bit out of my CPU. I knew enough about bios settings to safely increase a few by a tiny notch.

Point is, nothing works. I thought about getting a new CPU but my mobo is socket A, I think, and those look like they're not sold anymore, not where I live anyway.

Jeff

05-06-2005, 01:25 AM

I'd lay off the overclocking if I were you. For me personally, I find that my system untouched, is blazing fast. Probably because I've got a 10,000 RPM RAID 0 array. Not to mention a Radeon X800 Pro. Set the BIOS settings back to default if you can.

If you want to gain some speed in Windows, I'd get one of those WD Raptor SATA hard drives. The spindle speed of 10,000 RPM helps to accelerate program loading times.

TerminX

05-06-2005, 03:36 AM

jeffbthomson said:
For me personally, I find that my system untouched, is blazing fast. Probably because I've got a 10,000 RPM RAID 0 array. Not to mention a Radeon X800 Pro.

Oh, look, you're posting your hardware specs.. again. Hasn't it sunk in yet that nobody cares? Perhaps it should also be noted that no, your system is not magnificent and no, it will not hold up running new games until 2008 or whatever hilarious year you think it'll be good for. Furthermore, while we're on the topic of hardware bigotry, I'd like to personally inform you that anyone with a 6800 GT or Ultra is most likely laughing at you. I suppose you're thinking that those aren't very nice things to say, right? Something to think about the next time you feel like posting "Fast parts, oh yeah, look at me, yay!" in somebody's thread.

Now, considering that this thread is called "Overclocking my Athlon XP 3000+" instead of "Hurrr, I have better parts than you!" I think it would be a good idea to get back on topic.

Simon, I've never heard of a 3000+ that overclocked particularly well. The best you can hope for is lowering the multiplier from 13x to 11x and raising the FSB to 200 from 166. Good luck.

avatar_58

05-06-2005, 09:17 AM

jeffbthomson said:
If you want to gain some speed in Windows, I'd get one of those WD Raptor SATA hard drives. The spindle speed of 10,000 RPM helps to accelerate program loading times.

Considering he seems to have more gamer-oriented parts I doubt he just wants a faster HD. I agree, SATA is nice (very nice) but it doesn't do beans when your trying to get more fps in games.

DudeMiester

05-06-2005, 12:03 PM

Well if you can't get anymore overclock, then you just can't. Only caution about increasing voltage, you have to be careful because it add a lot of heat, and even if you have a super-cooler you can still fry a chip with too much voltage. It's like filling a pipe until it bursts. Of course, small increases are no big deal, the chips are designed with about a 10% safety margin anyways.

Other things you might want to try, if you have two sticks of RAM, try with just one. Usually one will OC better then the other, so if that's limiting you then at least you can remove that problem somewhat. Although, perhaps it isn't practical in the long run. Personally, I have two sticks of RAM, both DDR266 2.5-3-3-6. One OCs to 275Mhz 2-3-3-6, and the other I can get up to 355Mhz 2-2-2-6 on a divider, but then my CPU/mobo (it's a DDR333 mobo) maxes out even though clearly that RAM could still go much faster.

Jeff

05-06-2005, 12:48 PM

Terminix I never said "Hahaha, I've got better parts than you". I'm simply making a suggestion in order to possibly improve the performance of his PC. Faster hard drives are one way, but graphics cards or CPUs are another way. For people who are new to overclocking, it might be wise to read up on it until you get comfortable, because it could cause major damage to parts if you're not sure what you're doing. I was simply trying to suggest an alternative, due to the stuggles he's having.

Simon Charles

05-07-2005, 08:44 AM

TerminX said:
Simon, I've never heard of a 3000+ that overclocked particularly well. The best you can hope for is lowering the multiplier from 13x to 11x and raising the FSB to 200 from 166. Good luck.

Thanks. I already did that but it didn't work. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif As soon as I change one settings, the computer doesn't boot. It then goes into the bios safe mode, where all settings were put back to their default values.

EDIT:

Just retried to double and triple check... nothing. What I did was only lower the frequency to 11x. I changed nothing else. Even that didn't stick. This time it didn't crash, but once you're in Windows, it still says the multiplier is 13x.

That's one damn stubborn CPU/mobo I have there. What, I can't even downgrade my performances?

TerminX

05-07-2005, 04:04 PM

I've heard of locked CPU multipliers, but that's fscking ridiculous. I don't know what to tell you -- the nForce2 chipset is supposed to be able to override the locks. Can you post a screenshot of how CPU-Z identifies your CPU?

DudeMiester

05-07-2005, 06:32 PM

Well I'm not sure about the overriding parts, but I do know that the a lot of chips in XP line do have locked multipliers, mine does anyways. Thankfully there is a mod you can do to the CPU to unlock it:

http://www.nvnews.net/articles/athlon_xp_unlocking/index.shtml

TerminX

05-07-2005, 06:52 PM

DudeMiester said:
Well I'm not sure about the overriding parts, but I do know that the a lot of chips in XP line do have locked multipliers, mine does anyways. Thankfully there is a mod you can do to the CPU to unlock it:

http://www.nvnews.net/articles/athlon_xp_unlocking/index.shtml

That only works on certain older revisions of the Athlon XP. Note the date.

DudeMiester

05-08-2005, 12:47 AM

Ok, well then I guess he'll just have to get an XP 2600-M then if he wants unlocked multipliers. Considering they can hit 3GHz on good air with some consistancy, I suppose it wouldn't be a terrible investment.

TerminX

05-08-2005, 01:04 AM

DudeMiester said:
Considering they can hit 3GHz on good air with some consistancy, I suppose it wouldn't be a terrible investment.

More like 2.5. Nowhere near 3.

Simon Charles

05-08-2005, 08:39 AM

DudeMiester

05-08-2005, 11:49 AM

This thread:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?t=61669&page=1&pp=25
This post in particular:
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?p=850653#post850653

That's where I got it from. Sure you'd probably have to buy and test 10 2600-Ms to find one, but they exist. Of course, I'm sure he means suicide shots, not stable.

TerminX

05-08-2005, 01:50 PM

Simon, what's the manufacturing date reported in the SPD tab? I should have (read: would have if I had remembered that CPU-Z could even report that) asked that earlier.

DudeMiester said:
That's where I got it from. Sure you'd probably have to buy and test 10 2600-Ms to find one, but they exist. Of course, I'm sure he means suicide shots, not stable.

Oh, I see. I was referring to overclocking with a purpose (ending up with hardware that runs faster) rather than overclocking for the point of coming up with some bullshit number that didn't get any farther than POST and ended up taking years off of the processor's life in the process. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

It's like having someone say "oh man, my engine has 1500 hp!" to which someone replies "sweet, how fast does it go?" to which the first guy replies "I don't know, if I drive it it'll blow up." Utterly pointless. Maybe if I knew how to shit out money I'd see more of a point. Unfortunately, my morning dumps are not rolls of $20s. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

BioHazard

05-08-2005, 04:09 PM

I would say don't bother, it's not worth the risk of burning out the cpu or reducing the lifetime, especailly since an Athlon 3000 should more than powerful enough to run anything today, but that's just my opinion on it.

Simon Charles

05-08-2005, 06:00 PM

TerminX said:
Simon, what's the manufacturing date reported in the SPD tab? I should have (read: would have if I had remembered that CPU-Z could even report that) asked that earlier.

The serial number and manufacturing date for all three memory banks is greyed out. There is no information in those fields.

TerminX

05-08-2005, 06:55 PM

Simon Charles said:

TerminX said:
Simon, what's the manufacturing date reported in the SPD tab? I should have (read: would have if I had remembered that CPU-Z could even report that) asked that earlier.

The serial number and manufacturing date for all three memory banks is greyed out. There is no information in those fields.

That's okay, I had a brain fart and thought it was the processor manufacturing date anyway because I didn't actually read any of it. I guess I should have paid more attention.. or at least related to the fact that SPD concerns memory and memory alone. Sorry. I blame it on this goddamn cold I've got and all the ass-tasting nyQuil I've had to drink to keep it at bay. Maybe someone else can help you, as I am obviously incapable of doing it at this time. D'oh. Maybe I should just go back to bed.

That said.. how long have you had the processor? I should have known that something reporting the manufacturing date of it would be too good to be true, because if it did it would be relatively trivial to find out how far you could take it. It's sounding like you have one of the ones where the only way to change the multiplier is by hardware modification, however, which probably isn't going to be worth it in this case. It sounds likely that the only way to change the multiplier in this case will be to remove the processor from the motherboard, fill the pits where the bridges were cut via laser at the factory, then extremely carefully reconnect them. To be perfectly honest, I don't think it'll be worth it.

You can still get a bit more out of your motherboard by following DudeMiester's suggestion of getting a mobile XP, though. Most of these will hit at least 2.4-2.5 GHz on air cooling at a relatively low voltage, but it might not be worth it to you to blow $100 USD on a couple hundred MHz over what you have now.

Simon Charles

05-08-2005, 07:53 PM

Thanks. Guess the bottom line answer is : it's not really worth it. I thought as much.

Seems like the only other processor that will fit in my mobo is an Athlon XP 3200. It's also a Socket A, and the FSB is 200. But go find one of those here in Québec today. Snowball's chance in hell, and I'd end up paying extra if I order it online. Mleh.

Either that or I wait a month or two and I get myself a mobo that supports Athlon 64s.

Thanks all.

DudeMiester

05-09-2005, 01:27 AM

About the suicide shots, from my experiance no one gives a damn if it's a BIOS shot. Rather they boot into windows, use a program like clockgen to crank it up, then quickly take a screenshot of CPU-Z. Still, I do know a friend of mine who has a 2500-M and he can get 2.6Ghz stable. That's what I've heard is average.

Simon, you're probably better off just getting the Athlon64 if you really want to upgrade.

Simon Charles

05-09-2005, 05:05 PM

DudeMiester said:
Simon, you're probably better off just getting the Athlon64 if you really want to upgrade.

Can anyone recommend me a good motherboard that supports Athlon 64?

1) I'd like to stick with Asus since I've been very satisfied with them.

2) I'd like the onboard sound to have hardware acceleration, like I have now with the nForce thing.

If I could find one with nVidia chipset, I'd be happy. But basically, I want to be able to use my 3 sticks of 512 ram so they all run at 400 instead of 333 right now (limited by CPU).

DudeMiester

05-09-2005, 05:50 PM

Well DFI has the best mobos around with Nforce 4 series, although you'll probably want AGP and not PCIe. In that case I'm sure you can find a decent ASUS Nforce 3 with AGP. Although, I've heard good things about the MSI Neo2 when it comes to NForce 3 mobos.

After Nforce 2 Nvidia stopped putting in integrated audio on account of the royalty fees to Dolby/THX/etc...

As long as they're capable of running at 400Mhz, the Athlon 64 can do it. Although if you have 3 sticks and not 4, I don't think you can run dual channel. Also, if you want to run 4 sticks full speed you have to make sure you get a Venice or San Deigo core. The earlier cores don't have a good enough memory controller to run 4 sticks at 400Mhz.

Simon Charles

05-21-2005, 01:15 PM

*Bump*

Some tech guy told me that I can't change my CPU's multiplier because (translated from french), "the LP1 and LP2 bridges are cut off."

Apparently, what would bypass this limitation would be to reconnect the bridges using a simple graphite tip pencil or better, a pen with "conductive ink", which is commonly found in all computer parts stores.

I hate the idea of running a pen across my CPU just to get a few extra ghz. Anyone knows what this is all about? Is the guy pulling my leg or is this legitimate info?

TerminX

05-21-2005, 01:29 PM

Simon Charles said:
*Bump*

Some tech guy told me that I can't change my CPU's multiplier because (translated from french), "the LP1 and LP2 bridges are cut off."

Apparently, what would bypass this limitation would be to reconnect the bridges using a simple graphite tip pencil or better, a pen with "conductive ink", which is commonly found in all computer parts stores.

I hate the idea of running a pen across my CPU just to get a few extra ghz. Anyone knows what this is all about? Is the guy pulling my leg or is this legitimate info?

You haven't been able to use a pencil for, oh, 4 and a half years. The process for reconnecting the bridges has become increasingly difficult with each revision of Athlon. At first, one could use a pencil, but this was only when the processors had ceramic packaging (Thunderbird). These days you need to mask off most of the processor with tape, fill the pits left by the laser cut with superglue, even it out with an X-Acto knife, then carefully paint over what you filled in, making sure that no bridge gets shorted with any other bridge.

He has the right idea, but doesn't have a clue as to how to actually do it.

Simon Charles

05-21-2005, 02:37 PM

Just what I wanted to hear. Thanks.

Night Hacker

05-22-2005, 12:28 PM

TerminX said:
I've heard of locked CPU multipliers, but that's fscking ridiculous. I don't know what to tell you -- the nForce2 chipset is supposed to be able to override the locks. Can you post a screenshot of how CPU-Z identifies your CPU?

That is strange. Sounds like AMD might be doing something to combat the overclocking as their XPs were extremely overclockable, which probably led to lost sales. I know my XP1700+ can go up to a 3200+ speed with air cooling alone. And even higher if I wanted to do liquid cooling (which I don't).

I bought my 1700+ very cheap and don't regret it. I remember telling my brother at the time they were still being sold that you would be crazy to buy a 3200+ when a 1700+ could be overclocked safely to that speed. Of course, they have a larger L2 cache which would make a difference, but in my benchmarks it wasn't that big of a difference.

I also remember a friend of mine used a pencil on his CPU so he could overclock it but I didn't have to due to my motherboard having the nForce2 chipset (ASUS A7N8X).

Anyhow, in my opinion, I don't see any reason to overclock a 3000+ CPU. With a decent video card your system will run very nicely

If you want to do better than 3000+ than see if you can get your hands on an older CPU like a 1700 or 1800 XP, then overclock it to 3200. heh.

I know I'll be holding onto my 1700+ for quite some time... best CPU I have EVER purchased!

Kevin Wolff

05-22-2005, 01:28 PM

The reason AMD's been locking them is because they caught a huge operation of people selling overclocked chips at prices matching the real, faster things. Search Slashdot for the article.

Simon Charles

05-22-2005, 09:38 PM

Neat info, thanks. But the bottom line is still the same, right? I can't use that pencil trick to overclock my Athlon XP 3000?

TerminX

05-22-2005, 10:55 PM

Simon Charles said:
Neat info, thanks. But the bottom line is still the same, right? I can't use that pencil trick to overclock my Athlon XP 3000?

Correct.

Simon Charles

05-22-2005, 11:46 PM

Okay. Case closed, dead and buried. I cannot overclock my CPU and that's final. Thank you all for your input.

Night Hacker

05-23-2005, 10:44 PM

Simon Charles said:
Neat info, thanks. But the bottom line is still the same, right? I can't use that pencil trick to overclock my Athlon XP 3000?

No, your motherboard is the same as mine, in fact, it's a little better version of mine. If it won't overclock with that, then it won't overclock, which sucks. But it's a nice CPU as is. I leave mine at 2600+ speeds and it is fine. I bought a good video card and can play all the games at their maximum settings. AMD's CPUs are so cheap, by the time you need more speed the faster CPUs will be very affordable.

You live in Ottawa if I remember correctly, not far from me. They're pretty cheap, at least in Kingston.

Simon Charles

05-24-2005, 09:17 PM

Night Hacker said:

Simon Charles said:
Neat info, thanks. But the bottom line is still the same, right? I can't use that pencil trick to overclock my Athlon XP 3000?

No, your motherboard is the same as mine, in fact, it's a little better version of mine. If it won't overclock with that, then it won't overclock, which sucks. But it's a nice CPU as is. I leave mine at 2600+ speeds and it is fine. I bought a good video card and can play all the games at their maximum settings. AMD's CPUs are so cheap, by the time you need more speed the faster CPUs will be very affordable.

Ha! I wish I could "leave" mine at 2600+ But that's what I wanted to reach... lol! I wanted to overclock my 3000 at 2.6. But it can't get it past 2.1 ghz http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

You live in Ottawa if I remember correctly, not far from me. They're pretty cheap, at least in Kingston.

Close. Yes, I'm canadian but I live in Québec. My only hope is to find an Athlon 3200. But new is nearly impossible to find.

DudeMiester

05-25-2005, 11:22 AM

Darn I should have visited you when I was living in Ottawa.

Night Hacker

05-26-2005, 12:37 AM

No, I leave my CPU running at the same speed as a 2600+, which runs at 2085MHz, not 2600MHz! heh. An AMD XP2600+ runs at 2085MHz. It is called a 2600+ because when you benchmark it, it runs as fast as a Pentium running at 2600MHz.

My 1700+ runs at about 1400MHz normally. I have overclocked it as high as an AMD 3200+ which runs at 2200MHz. If you're CPU is running at 2100MHz real speed, than it is running at the normal 3000+ speed.

This is why AMDs ARE faster than Intel's. An AMD CPU running at 2200MHz is as fast as one of Intel's CPUs running at 3200MHz, which is why AMD named them the 3200+. Otherwise uninformed people (and there are PLENTY of them as we have seen) would think a Pentium 3.2GHz is faster than an AMD XP 2.2GHz when they are the same speed. Intel is just now realizing that clock speed means NOTHING (something AMD has known for a while now).

Oh yeah, you live in Montreal don't you? Somewhere around there? Still just about as far from me. I want to return to Quebec sometime soon to visit my father, he lives near Sherbrook (sp?) in a little town called La Patrie.

Kevin Wolff

05-26-2005, 03:15 PM

This is why AMDs ARE faster than Intel's. An AMD CPU running at 2200MHz is as fast as one of Intel's CPUs running at 3200MHz, which is why AMD named them the 3200+.

The XP 3200+ didn't make it to P4 3.2 performance. The 64 3200+ does, but not the XP.

Night Hacker

05-26-2005, 03:48 PM

The benchmark I ran on mine when I overclocked it to 3200+ speeds had it about the same.

But even if it fell a little short, we're talking about a CPU who's real speed is 2200MHZ coming close to or matching the speed of a rival CPU running at 3200MHZ! Heh.

If you want to be FAiR, lets compare the AMD 3200+ who's real speed is 2200MHz to a P4 running at 2200MHz, who's is faster? The AMD running at 2200MHz real speed benchmarks out to almost as fast as a P4 running at 3200MHz. So the AMD IS faster still. http://forums.3drealms.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Kevin Wolff

05-26-2005, 06:25 PM

But even if it fell a little short, we're talking about a CPU who's real speed is 2200MHZ coming close to or matching the speed of a rival CPU running at 3200MHZ! Heh.

That's really not impressive. Rather, it's anti-impressive towards Intel and the infamous 31-stage pipeline. They have some other CPUs that match the Athlon, but they're embarrassed to release them for desktops. You guessed it, the M.