A Simple tweak make fsb 1333 into 1600 on 45 nm

Printable View

03-16-2008, 07:23 PM
hersounds

A Simple tweak make fsb 1333 into 1600 on 45 nm

So is read as a simple tweak, converts fsb 1333 @ 1600 on processors from Intel 45 nm out so far.

Coolaler the site shows images in the following

QX9650 as you know has multiplier free, but comes manufactures in default to 333 x 9
Tweak the purpose of this is to make the mobo to take micro and 400 x 9

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/2130/01vw8.jpg

So we should just plug this contact that marks the red circle for the mobo we take fsb as 400 x 9

http://img136.imageshack.us/img136/8354/02ml5.jpg

Here we have the result, remember that the QX9770 brings fsb 1600 and its speed is 3.2 GHz being manufactured for now the only micro FSB 1600 put up for sale by intel ... until today, thanks to this we managed to tweak our motherboard to take our QX9650 of 3.0 ghz @ 3.6 Ghz (400 x 9)

http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/1763/03di8.jpg

As seen in the image, particularly in the bios this Order, so no traps or anything, actually believes that the motherboard has a micro FSB 1600

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/4425/04zn2.jpg

We saw in windows with the cpu - z to check once more that tweak is effective

http://img177.imageshack.us/img177/7209/051us9.jpg

After having checked and confirmed spend about 30 minutes orthos to verify stability (if there was a mistake or contacts problem before 30 minutes error is inevitable) as it is completely normal

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/9181/063ns7.jpg

45 nm others

E8200

Repeating the same process we see as our previous bios believes that our E8200
(8 X) gives us 400 FSB, from an original speed of 2.66 @ 3.2 Ghz

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/2941/07qm3.jpg

It is found again with CPU - Z that the change is real.

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/9098/08e82001mf7.jpg

E8500

You know the same procedure that all previous micros and ready, we believe that our bios E8500 has fsb 400

http://img406.imageshack.us/img406/549/09tb0.jpg

Again it is found with CPU - Z that the change be effective and that's all

http://img230.imageshack.us/img230/1052/10e85001ze9.jpg

Ladies and gentlemen, we have seen a reason to die more to buy a motherboard with more new chipset "that our P35 ".
03-16-2008, 07:31 PM
Movieman

I hate to burst your bubble but we've been doing this with the clovertowns since Dec 2006..taking them from 266 to 333 and the same mod takes the 333 chips to 400..
03-16-2008, 07:33 PM
road-runner

Quote:

Originally Posted by Movieman

I hate to burst your bubble but we've been doing this with the clovertowns since Dec 2006..taking them from 266 to 333 and the same mod takes the 333 chips to 400..

What is that a piece of tape over the pin?
03-16-2008, 07:34 PM
hersounds

Whether, if they are, but not everybody knows that and it is good to know that the majority of people entering xtreme systems, which is a public that is renewed, Know this not you think?
03-16-2008, 07:34 PM
metro.cl

dont see the benefit for this, why dont just overclock it to FSB 400? or is something that makes this way better?
03-16-2008, 07:36 PM
BlueAqua

This might be good on motherboards that you cannot change the FSB speed in the bios, otherwise just looks risky. I guess I miss the point of it otherwise.
03-16-2008, 07:41 PM
zoob

Do Intel (somethig like DG33TL) boards accept the BSEL mod? I know that Gigabyte boards do not from first hand experience.
03-16-2008, 07:41 PM
Movieman

Quote:

Originally Posted by road-runner

What is that a piece of tape over the pin?

We use a tiny piece of electrical tape, just enough to cover most of the pad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by hersounds

Whether, if they are, but not everybody knows that and it is good to know that the majority of people entering xtreme systems, which is a public that is renewed, Know this not you think?

Point, but it has been discussed quite a bit here.. Just search BSEL mod..;)

Quote:

Originally Posted by metro.cl

dont see the benefit for this, why dont just overclock it to FSB 400? or is something that makes this way better?

There is no benefit on a board that has that ability in the bios.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueAqua

This might be good on motherboards that you cannot change the FSB speed in the bios, otherwise just looks risky. I guess I miss the point of it otherwise.

\Exactly, this came about for the dual socket boards that don't have OC ability in the bios. It is pretty safe. My clovertowns have had this done to them for over a year now and no issues.
03-16-2008, 07:50 PM
hersounds

My apologies, i know the tweak, but it had never been in a 45nm chip
03-16-2008, 07:57 PM
Movieman

Quote:

Originally Posted by hersounds

My apologies, i know the tweak, but it had never been in a 45nm chip

Ahh, yes it has.. Dual harpertown rigs.. Been posted for app the last 3 months and they are 45nm.
Don't take this too personal, I was just pointing out that this wasn't something new.
I appreciate your bringing it as I would to anyone else.
03-16-2008, 07:59 PM
hersounds

Quote:

Originally Posted by Movieman

Ahh, yes it has.. Dual harpertown rigs.. Been posted for app the last 3 months and they are 45nm.
Don't take this too personal, I was just pointing out that this wasn't something new.
I appreciate your bringing it as I would to anyone else.

all fine man, not problem! :up:
03-16-2008, 10:00 PM
metro.cl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Movieman

We use a tiny piece of electrical tape, just enough to cover most of the pad.

Point, but it has been discussed quite a bit here.. Just search BSEL mod..;)

There is no benefit on a board that has that ability in the bios.

\Exactly, this came about for the dual socket boards that don't have OC ability in the bios. It is pretty safe. My clovertowns have had this done to them for over a year now and no issues.

Now i understand, is there any mod like this for AMD? i definetly need more than "FSB" 300 couse the mobo maxes out there and the chip can go higher
03-16-2008, 10:07 PM
Movieman

Quote:

Originally Posted by metro.cl

Now i understand, is there any mod like this for AMD? i definetly need more than "FSB" 300 couse the mobo maxes out there and the chip can go higher

Not that I've heard of but to be honest I haven't played around with the AMD's since the socket A days..
03-16-2008, 10:08 PM
ZOMGVTEK

Hmm... Would this work on say a Dual Quad Harpertown MacPro?

Bring the 2.8's up to like 3.2 or something?
03-16-2008, 10:09 PM
Movieman

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZOMGVTEK

Hmm... Would this work on say a Dual Quad Harpertown MacPro?

Bring the 2.8's up to like 3.2 or something?

yup, should..just watch your cooling..:D
03-16-2008, 10:14 PM
ZOMGVTEK

Quote:

Originally Posted by Movieman

yup, should..just watch your cooling..:D

http://www.o0o.it/pro/

Hmm, looks like it might!

Time to crack out the sandpaper AS5 and some tape...

And at 100% duty on the cores, i never saw temps go above 45ºC.
03-16-2008, 10:40 PM
Vapor

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZOMGVTEK

Hmm... Would this work on say a Dual Quad Harpertown MacPro?

Bring the 2.8's up to like 3.2 or something?

All current MacPros are 400FSB already...and this won't change multiplier.
03-16-2008, 10:43 PM
ZOMGVTEK

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vapor

All current MacPros are 400FSB already...and this won't change multiplier.

Grrr...

So the 2.8 has a 7 mulpt, 3.0 is 7.5 and 3.2 is 8? Is that just the standard spec on processor?
03-16-2008, 10:48 PM
Movieman

Arent's the 2830's 333's?????
E5440 2.83GHz, 12MB L2 Cache, 1333MHz FSB
I do admit to being uninformed on those things called "Macs":rofl:
03-16-2008, 10:52 PM
ZOMGVTEK

Assuming it is 333, Wouldnt this make it a 3.4 then?
03-16-2008, 10:56 PM
Vapor

Intel's 45nm Xeon Quad Core lineup:

3.2GHz - X5482 - 150W - 8x400
3.0GHz - X5872 - 120W - 7.5x400
3.0GHz - E5872 - 80W - 7.5x400
2.8GHz - E5862 - 80W - 7x400
3.16GHz - X5460 - 120W - 9.5x333
3.0GHZ - X5450 - 120W - 9x333
3.0GHz - E5450 - 80W - 9x333
2.83GHz - E5440 - 80W - 8.5x333
2.66GHz - E5430 - 80W - 8x333
2.5GHz - E5420 - 80W - 7.5x333
2.33GHz - E5410 - 80W - 7x333
2.0GHZ - E5405 - 80W - 6x333

Apple uses the CPUs in bold
03-16-2008, 11:12 PM
Movieman

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vapor

Intel's 45nm Xeon Quad Core lineup:

3.2GHz - X5482 - 150W - 8x400
3.0GHz - X5872 - 120W - 7.5x400
3.0GHz - E5872 - 80W - 7.5x400
2.8GHz - E5862 - 80W - 7x400
3.16GHz - X5460 - 120W - 9.5x333
3.0GHZ - X5450 - 120W - 9x333
3.0GHz - E5450 - 80W - 9x333
2.83GHz - E5440 - 80W - 8.5x333
2.66GHz - E5430 - 80W - 8x333
2.5GHz - E5420 - 80W - 7.5x333
2.33GHz - E5410 - 80W - 7x333
2.0GHZ - E5405 - 80W - 6x333

Apple uses the CPUs in bold

They are just nasty buggers!:rofl:
03-16-2008, 11:54 PM
mike047

Quote:

Originally Posted by Movieman

Arent's the 2830's 333's?????
E5440 2.83GHz, 12MB L2 Cache, 1333MHz FSB
I do admit to being uninformed on those things called "Macs":rofl:

EXCEPT "Big Macs":ROTF:
03-17-2008, 01:10 AM
M3kk

Sorry, but its enough a simple tape, to isolate that pins, or need to pus something conductive between them like with 266 @ 333? ( Conductive ink, or something. )

LE : Done, no conductive pen or ink needed, just isolate that two pins :).
03-17-2008, 03:36 AM
loopy83

Nice.... very simple mod.... will try it as soon as possible.
03-17-2008, 04:13 AM
my87csx481

Quote:

Originally Posted by M3kk

Sorry, but its enough a simple tape, to isolate that pins, or need to pus something conductive between them like with 266 @ 333? ( Conductive ink, or something. )

LE : Done, no conductive pen or ink needed, just isolate that two pins :).

Isn't it one pin?:shrug:

Edit: :am: I counted the contacts from the first post....yup, 2. Thanks M3kk ↓
03-18-2008, 02:24 PM
M3kk

Two :D
03-29-2008, 06:54 AM
conzymaher

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 :)
03-29-2008, 07:41 AM
CERO

dont see the point of this unless u cant enter BIOS to overclock it, then it is a nice mod:)
03-29-2008, 09:05 AM
celemine1Gig

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.
03-29-2008, 09:29 AM
WhiteFireDragon

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?
03-29-2008, 03:50 PM
__Miguel_

Quote:

Originally Posted by conzymaher

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 :)

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 WhiteFireDragon

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?

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.

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
07-28-2014, 09:08 PM
chris89

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.
07-28-2014, 09:26 PM
Movieman

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris89

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 voltage
and that you can't get on a dualie board of that generation. IIRC I got a suicide shot at 3912MHz