Isn't it one pin?:shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by M3kk
Edit: :am: I counted the contacts from the first post....yup, 2. Thanks M3kk ↓
Printable View
Isn't it one pin?:shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by M3kk
Edit: :am: I counted the contacts from the first post....yup, 2. Thanks M3kk ↓
Two :D
Does this method work to take a 200mhz fsb chip to 266mhz? or does it need the conductive pen method?
I want to try it on the e2160 in my Dell server :)
dont see the point of this unless u cant enter BIOS to overclock it, then it is a nice mod:)
Sometimes influencing/chaning the BSEL setting also changes the default strap setting for the NB. That means that on some boards you'll reach higher fsb speeds with CPUs that have a higher default FSB. ;) That's why the mod even can make sense on boards that do have adjustable FSB in BIOS.
wait so this mod is almost the same as going in the BIOS and manually changing the FSB higher? when doing this mod, would you have to increase the vcore also for more stability?
Not likely. Each BSEL mod is different, depending on starting FSB. You should search the specific mod for it. Search the forum, there are plenty 200>266 FSB BSEL mod threads available, and also 266>333 (and before you ask, yes, at least theoretically you can make a 200MHz FSB CPU work at 400MHz just by doing a - rather major - BSEL mod).Quote:
Originally Posted by conzymaher
Well, it's just about the same thing, altough you can get a strap change with a BSEL mod you might not get doing a regular overclock, and that strap change could allow more OC room. That's not very common, to my knowledge, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteFireDragon
As for the vCore issue, it really depends on the chip. There have been reports of E1xxx. E2xxx and E4xxx to go wild on the FSB (266+, sometimes even more, especially with the E1200) with stock vCore. I've also read reports on Q6600 G0 chips being perfectly able to boot at stock voltages, even after a 266>333 FSB BSEL mod. My guess is these 45nm parts wouldn't even flinch by changing the FSB to 400MHz, but that really depends on the chip itself.
In related news, it's good to see someone already messing around with the BSEL of new chips. Which reminds me... Isn't 1.6GHz like the lowest CPU speed Intel wants people to use? I mean, that's the lowest speed you can get these days (SLFM-enabled notebook models and 200-series Celerons aside, of course), which would in turn mean Intel could very likely fully downward unlock their 1600MHz FSB CPUs and still remain with VERY powerfull parts, albeit even cooler. And if SLFM (which halves the FSB speed) would be added to those parts, then we'd probably have sub-5W parts on idle, and some of them could even be made to be sub-15W regular desktop ones... yikes!
Cheers.
Miguel
I can't see the picture and super interested in trying this.... On my Intel Xeon X5450 3ghz quad from 1333 to 1600 ... 12MB cache and 3.6Ghz per core would be nice.
Once I see the pic on which pin exactly i'll try this. If all works out well, I may pickup the X5470 3.33Ghz chip from 1333 to 1600 for a sweet 4.00Ghz per core now that would be sick.
I used SetFSB with a pair of X5470's and ran then at 100% load 24/7 at 3758MHz with stock volts on a SM X7DWA-N board on water but I don't think you can do 5Ghz with out additional voltageQuote:
Originally Posted by chris89
and that you can't get on a dualie board of that generation. IIRC I got a suicide shot at 3912MHz