CPU vs. motherboard

Csaba Henk ekho at renyi.hu
Wed Sep 18 07:22:50 PDT 2002


 Hello.

 In July I began a thread on the lfs-support mailing list, which thread
ended up with consisting of only two messages (my original mail & an
answer), and it was OK for me (my primary aim was to share an experience,
there was no need for more answers). 
 However, I have some hardware problems related to this story, so now I
continue the thread, but here @ lfs-chat, because this problem is not
closely connected with LFS.
 Here you can see the answer to my July mail (I omitted some irrelevant
paragraphs), which includes my mail as well. Read it please, then I keep
it on.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 12:42:00 +0000
From: James Iwanek <chthon at chthon-uk.com>
Reply-To: lfs-support at linuxfromscratch.org
To: lfs-support at linuxfromscratch.org
Subject: Re: How not to install gcc-3.1 [fixed]

Henk Csaba wrote:

  [...]
>  I also had a mystic trouble with compiling (statically) gcc-3.1 and I was
> just to damn Linux and go back to Windows (Ok, it was just a joke :-) when
> I realised what's the trouble.
  [...]
>  So, I used my processor at 1133 MHz (to optimalize bus speed). However,
> this was a bit more than its official frequency, ie. 1100 MHz. 'Till now
> this configuration worked flawlessly, so I didn't even had in my mind that
> I used my computer in an extraordinary way. After taking back the CPU
> speed, gcc compiled nicely.
> 
>  That was the story, now I have some questions.
  [...] 
> Thanks,
> Csaba Henk
> 
> 

ok first of all running your system at 1133Mhz will NOT optomize your bus 
speed - it NEVER will - besides 33mhz extra on a 1Ghz+ system is an 
unnoticable change. 

if you overclock your processor (which is what you were doing) then the 
computer could become incredably unstable - gcc dosnt like overclocked 
procesors (i bet it kept bailing out with sig11 or signal 11)

this should save you future trouble ;-)

anyway if you must insist on overclocking your PC then invest in a bigger 
fan for the CPU - that will keep it cooler and therefore more stable - but 
i personally wouldnt reccomend overclocking any CPU

-----
Jay
-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-support' in the subject header of the message

---------------------------------------------------------------

 So that was the story. I used my 1100 MHz CPU at 1133 MHz, this caused
some problems, then I took it back, the problems have vanished. 
 But there is no happy end, just struggling on -- because when I set a
lower CPU speed, it wasn't willing to work at other speed than 850 MHz!
 In more details, I have the following hardware configuration:

Motherboard: Abit KT7A, VIA-KT133-A, ATX Socket A
CPU: AMD K7 Thunderbird 1100/266 MHz
Memory: 256 MB SD 133 MHz
  
I include here the relevant CPU speed options of my BIOS:

...
800(100)
850(100)
900(100)
950(100)
1000(100)
1000(133)
1050(100)
1100(100)
1133(133)
...

 As I know, the first number shows the CPU speed, the other (in
parentheses) shows the bus speed at the given configuration. This is why I
thought that the 1133(133) configuration optimizes the bus speed (so why
does it not, according to Jay?). (133 MHz is the maximum bus speed my
motherboard is said to be capable of.)
 The facts:

 * If I switch to 1133(133), then this (CPU speed) value is realised, but
I face with the mentioned instability phenomena; 
 * if I switch to 1000(133), the computer is not willing to start and I
have to clear the BIOS memory to get back defaults;
 * if I switch to any other value, the CPU runs on 850 MHz, ignoring the
chosen confiuration.

 Note that if I set "optimized default values", then the 850(100)
option is chosen, so I think bus speed is always 100 MHz in the third
case.
 So: can anyone help me how could I optimize my CPU (bus) speed? Or
the best thing I can do is hanging the vendor? 

Thank you, Csaba
  



-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-chat' in the subject header of the message



More information about the lfs-chat mailing list