I removed the Voodoo3 2000 card, and replaced it with a Radeon 9800 Pro card. Unfortunately, I can't find my Radeon 9800 XT card at the moment. And also unfortunately, the Pro card doesn't want to cooperate with this 150 FSB setting. I'm sure the XT card would be better for this. I've looked everywhere for it! Anyway, I tried a Voodoo5 5500 AGP card, and that works. I ran 3DMark 99 Max and here's the screenshot of the result.

I also ran PcpBench in Windows 98. I did that instead of inside pure DOS, because Win98 quickly and automatically sets up the fastest conditions.

Standard VGA = 453.7
640x480x8 = 241.0
640x480x16 = 165.0

Very pretty results! (:

I love Athlon family processors. For this reason I use those CPUs until now on my dual Athlon MP 2400+ rig. My first MPs (2000+) had unlocked multiplier which allowed me to increase FSB to 150MHz. Unfortunately current 2400MPs have locked multiplier and I can't achieve stable 150FSB (in this case CPU clock is set to 2250MHz)...

And also unfortunately, the Pro card doesn't want to cooperate with this 150 FSB setting. I'm sure the XT card would be better for this.

I doubt that R9800XT is much better. There is big chance that your 9800 PRO uses the same R360 chip as 9800XT. I had 9800Pro based on R360 and it doesn't want to work with FSB set to 150MHz on MSI k7d-l master motherboard. GF5900XT worked perfectly with these settings. If you have GF5900 to hand, I reccomend it.

Regards! (:

I do have a 5950 ... somewhere. 😦 Regarding the use of an R9800 in conjunction with an FSB ~150. I posted a thread on Vogons here, and managed to get a 9800XT running on this exact mobo, with an FSB of 156. I think it can be done! 😀 I need to tidy up my attic. That way, I'll discover where I put it!

10 MHz more on the bus almost makes up for 400 MHz on the core. 😉

EP-8KTA3+Pro, Voodoo5:

The CPU is a humble 1700+. I've unlocked the multiplier (low multis only) with a wiremod.

PCPBench results (Win98 DOS box):
Standard VGA: 443.9
640x480x8: 244.0
640x480x16: 169.3

PCPBench video output looks rather funny at these speeds 🤣

5u3 wrote:

10 MHz more on the bus almost makes up for 400 MHz on the core. 😉

Wow, your test results are absolutely incredible! Congratulations! 😎 😁

Edit: How do you tell the Epox mobo to use a lower multi? Are these excellent results Windows based only, via a special Windows "CPU utility"?

Edit 2: Sorry, I got this wrong! 😊 A wire mod controls the CPU's multiplier using a hardware modification, so you don't need any special Windows only based util to change it.

I posted a thread on Vogons here, and managed to get a 9800XT running on this exact mobo, with an FSB of 156.

Huh this puts things in another light! [: R9800XT must have much better PCB than R9800Pro...

EDIT1:

10 MHz more on the bus almost makes up for 400 MHz on the core. Wink

Superb FSB! What memory modules do you use? (;

EDIT2:
What is the highest available FSB on this motherboard?

udam_u wrote:

EDIT2:
What is the highest available FSB on this motherboard?

I think it's 180. Reading one of 5u3's older posts, I believe he managed 170. I managed 169 on one of my Epox mobos. I can't remember why it failed on 170. Perhaps I didn't increase the CPU's voltage enough?

The caps need to be good on this board. Also, it's possible that some onboard components need to be kept cool, in order to achieve big and stable overclocks.

Edit: 5u3, are you still using that Epox board bought from the UK - the one with the silent heatsink on the chipset chip? Have you made any mods to the board, like replacing caps, and also adding heatsinks to any of its onboard components?

Yes the board is the one bought from the UK. It can still pull off 166 MHz FSB without any modifications and only slightly raised AGP and I/O voltages. However, the caps don't look very good any more... 🙁

Any recommendations on where to order those 4700µF caps?

Since my CPU is a standard desktop model, I can't use software to alter the multiplier. With the wire mod and the latest BIOS version the highest multi supported is 12.5.
The best of the KTA3 boards can run stable up to 170 MHz, but you'll really have to hand-pick your components then, and you'll have to cool the clock generator chip.

The memory is one of the key components when trying for high FSBs. I use these rather plain Infineon sticks:

I assume they derive their magic from the late production date. These are better than most of those "Overclockerz PC150" modules that were available at the time.

Great info - thanks! Regarding the 4700µF caps, I'm afraid that I have yet to begin my first caps replacement project. I haven't even got an iron yet. So, unfortunately I am clueless about where to get good caps. Actually, I do hope that they can still be obtained, from somewhere, because it's definitely something that I'll need to be doing in the not too distant future...

I found my Radeon 9800XT card. It was hiding in one of the gloomier parts of the attic of doom. I ran it on the Epox caps of death board, with the FSB set to 150, and so the T-Bred 2600+ rated CPU was operating at a real clock speed of 2.4 GHz. I ran 3DMark 2001 s.e., and got a slightly disappointing score of just 11728.

Tomorrow I will remove it, and replace it with a Radeon 9800Pro card, to see if it will run OK using this same OC'd rig specification. I will then rerun the 3DMark 2001 s.e. benchie...

Edit: Oops. When I said that 11728 for 3DMark 2001 s.e. was slightly disappointing, I just realised that I was comparing it to the other scores in this thread. But those scores were for a different benchmark, namely 3DMark 99 Max. Perhaps 11728 is a good score after all.

I tried a Radeon 9800 Pro @ 150 FSB, and it worked fine. Previously, I couldn't get it to work. It must have been a chipset driver problem. I uninstalled various things, and reinstalled various things, and now everything works OK.

For the 128MB Pro card, I get 11625 in 3DMark 2001 s.e. In my post above, I got 11728 using the 256MB 9800XT card. Percentage wise, the XT is less than 1% faster, which is a small amount.

I doubt that R9800XT is much better. There is big chance that your 9800 PRO uses the same R360 chip as 9800XT. I had 9800Pro based on R360 and it doesn't want to work with FSB set to 150MHz on MSI k7d-l master motherboard.

I tried a Radeon 9800 Pro @ 150 FSB, and it worked fine. Previously, I couldn't get it to work. It must have been a chipset driver problem. I uninstalled various things, and reinstalled various things, and now everything works OK.

^^ You have scientist predisposition because you always verify what other said. There is one quote written by Ralph Waldo Emerson which I really like: 'Do not go where the path may lead; go instead where there is no path and leave a trail'.

Just for a bit of fun, I decided to see how well Quake 1 timedemo demo1 would work, if I continued to increase the FSB, and also core voltage when necessary. I'm just using an AGP TNT2 M64. Nothing fancy.

FSB FPS
152 278.1
153 280.4
154 281.9 (Core voltage increased from 1.775v to 1.8v. Default is 1.65v)
155 283.3

Speedsys @ 155 FSB; 2481 MHz.

Hehe, how about this? 2 volts added to the 2600+ rated T-Bred's default vcore of 1.65V, and the mobo's FSB set to 159. That gives a real clock speed of 2545 MHz, for this 2128 MHz chip. Quake 1 timedemo fails, but speedsys still works. I got Quake 1 working OK @ 156 FSB, with a VCore needed of 1.825. Any additional overclock on the FSB resulted in Quake 1 timedemo not working. It's a good DOS stability test.

This chip looks like it peaks at ~ 2.54 GHz. That's interesting. All of my XP-M tests pointed to exactly the same thing. No matter what you did with them, whether you increased the multi, or decreased it, or left it alone in conjunction with altering the mobo's FSB, I could never go beyond the ~2.54 GHz barrier.

the Thoroughbreds get very unstable once you overclocked the shit out of it... I have an XP 2100, but I made it run at 2.1ghz real speed.. so that was basically "XP 2600"... I up'd the FSB but lowered the multiplier... it was a bit faster but overtime the system got more and more unstable
I used it this way for 6 of the 8 years that it was in service

now it's in pieces, and I'm using an Athlon 64 X2 now... as of 2 months ago 😁

if you want a stable overclock, get a Barton

TheMAN wrote:

the Thoroughbreds get very unstable once you overclocked the shit out of it... I have an XP 2100, but I made it run at 2.1ghz re […]
Show full quote

the Thoroughbreds get very unstable once you overclocked the shit out of it... I have an XP 2100, but I made it run at 2.1ghz real speed.. so that was basically "XP 2600"... I up'd the FSB but lowered the multiplier... it was a bit faster but overtime the system got more and more unstable
I used it this way for 6 of the 8 years that it was in service

now it's in pieces, and I'm using an Athlon 64 X2 now... as of 2 months ago 😁

if you want a stable overclock, get a Barton

Maybe the performance degredation you were experiencing was either partly or possibly entirely related to capacitor failure? Caps can still go "rotten", even if they look OK.

However, it is understandable that continuous "over volting" of a CPU could permanently affect its stability. Visibly, do these particular CPUs show any sign of damage? For instance, do they "crumble" a bit at the edges, or is that entirely due to heatsink mounting/dismounting problems?

retro games 100 wrote:

TheMAN wrote:

the Thoroughbreds get very unstable once you overclocked the shit out of it... I have an XP 2100, but I made it run at 2.1ghz re […]
Show full quote

the Thoroughbreds get very unstable once you overclocked the shit out of it... I have an XP 2100, but I made it run at 2.1ghz real speed.. so that was basically "XP 2600"... I up'd the FSB but lowered the multiplier... it was a bit faster but overtime the system got more and more unstable
I used it this way for 6 of the 8 years that it was in service

now it's in pieces, and I'm using an Athlon 64 X2 now... as of 2 months ago 😁

if you want a stable overclock, get a Barton

Maybe the performance degredation you were experiencing was either partly or possibly entirely related to capacitor failure? Caps can still go "rotten", even if they look OK.

However, it is understandable that continuous "over volting" of a CPU could permanently affect its stability. Visibly, do these particular CPUs show any sign of damage? For instance, do they "crumble" a bit at the edges, or is that entirely due to heatsink mounting/dismounting problems?

It's also possible it was electro migration:The continual degradation of the silicone itself.

I don't think the Thoroughbreds were worse overclockers then the Barton by design, but because the Thoroughbreds were simply made earlier, and thus were generally made of inferior silicone compared to the later Bartons.
My guess is, the Thoroughbred based Semprons are much better overclockers then those old Thoroughbreds, simply because they were made later.

Thanks for posting this, I always love your threads rg100

edit: What is your (planned) sound card setup for this rig?

Thanks a lot! 😀 I've tried 3 soundcards in this mobo so far: Terratec EWS64 XL, AWE32, and an AWE64. That sequence represents my preferred sound card option, but unfortunately I could only get the last card, the AWE64 to function without any issues. The EWS produced strange latency/timing problems, and the AWE32 produced pops and crackles. The AWE64 sounded clean, and worked OK.