I read all threads about Pentium M but I can't find nothing about Celeron-M
with Dothan core 1mb.Please post some results.
Thx :)
Printable View
I read all threads about Pentium M but I can't find nothing about Celeron-M
with Dothan core 1mb.Please post some results.
Thx :)
some results are int he dothan thread.
I find only one post by Macci.
The problem with the Celeron M is the FSB-limit, 165-180MHz. This is the case for all B1 revision and earlier Dothans. :fact:
It's still cheap power. ;)
Please post some Super Pi resultsQuote:
Originally Posted by Kamerat
I'm sorry, got my Pentium M 730 in the adapter well isulated. Don't wanna break the isulation to test my Celeron M 350 in Super PI. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Backbone
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y24...e/CeleronM.jpg
Stock voltage and cooling. Using Celeron 350J. Still trying to find a way to get 100% overclock (2.6 G)
I also have a 350J that does the same on stock volts (in my Aopen 855GM board with a passive heatsink). Am waiting for my CT479 to arrive so I can swap it out into another board, up the volts and see what I get.Quote:
Originally Posted by lktuio
What do you think about
Celeron M 370 1.50 GHz 1 MB 400 MHz 90 nm 21 W
which is based on Sonoma core.Can that baby clock like 533 Fsb's Pentium M
Maybe. Might still have problems with FSB over 180 though. I also had that problem with a C-M,....max 173fsb.Quote:
Originally Posted by Backbone
Are you running it on ct-479?Quote:
Originally Posted by lktuio
if so, have you tried to increase voltage a bit and to boot at 200/201 fsb?
i'm thinking of getting this cpu+adapter myself, as multiplier (13x) is ideal for
air/wcooling and the price anit too high.
but i'm afraid it hits the wall at under 2.6ghz :(
plus i haven't been able to find this cpu in finland or in estonia, only J-model available is 370 :mad:
Can you adjust multipilier ?Quote:
Originally Posted by DrJay
lktuio:This Super pi result is too low.My winchester beat that at 2400 mhz
Celeron M are b1 core, so boot at fsb 200 are very hard.
And I have try EIST and CrystalCPUID to change multi but no result with a celeron 350 + p4p800e
celeron M 350J ,360J and 370 are all c0 :)Quote:
Originally Posted by yodadu92
but no speedstep, that's true..
btw, superpi is indeed low.
macci had this result:
Quote:
Originally Posted by macci
Quote:
Originally Posted by caater
Ahh that is the diferrance between 350 and 350J. Thanks
I don't mean to thread jack, but how is the Banias core in terms of performance?
apparently Dothan Celeron-M is somewhat higher performance due to a couple enhancements. It also uses less power at standard vcoreQuote:
Originally Posted by busta`
Not with EIST...Quote:
Originally Posted by Backbone
Some result with one or two tweak: 34sec at super pi 1M and 283pt for cpu mark
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...id=32071&stc=1
that's very nice score for a celeron, m8 :)Quote:
Originally Posted by yodadu92
any word on cooling and any chance to boot @ 200 fsb?
wonder what 2M dothan would do at exact the same speed and mult..
anyone with a dothan, care to do a little superpi run @ 13x184 ?
I can't go highter, systeme freeze if i give him one more mhz. I will try to do pin mod and mod my vddr, but i thinks i'm hurt on fsb wall due to b1 core :(.
Have C0 cores have problem with FSB ?lktuio have it but he can't reach above 180.
C0 celerons _should_ be good.. but i haven't seen anyone around with one yet...Quote:
Originally Posted by Backbone
http://content.it4profit.com/itshop/...=asbis&LANG=bg
That is in my local shop.
But the socket is 478 wtf ? :confused: :confused: :confused:
nah, just some confusion :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Backbone
cpu has 478 pins, but socket is still 479 :)
but if you're going to use ct-479 and air/water-cooling, then only 350J is good choice.. the others just won't boot at 200fsb :(
are celerons multiplyers unlocked in bios ?
with a p4p800se ?
What BIOS and mobos are you using? I ask because I "lose" my 1MB cache on my 1.3Ghz on P4C800E and P4P800 (flashed to -E) and P4P800SE mobos, it shows in BIOS on the P4Ps, but nothing shows for L2 on CPU-Z etc. and it is much slower than your scores as a result.
This was me thrashing my slower 1.3. :) But both B1 stepping :(
http://www.meltdown.fsnet.co.uk/pics/Intel/1323.jpg
Cheers,
MM
i have a p4p800-E, bios is 1007.003. For the 1M score, i have a new instal of windows, and close all process, 2225 timing, there a few optimisation.
For cpu z, i have the same probleme with 1.28 version, passt to 1.29 and it's ok :)
I have a question, have you seen a defferance between stock vcore and 1.6? and what type of cooling do you use?
Thanks for that. CPUz comes out too often for me to keep up LOL. But it shaved 2 seconds off the Pi time WITH the cache showing.
Just for comparison then:
Asus P4P800 (flashed to P4P800-E 1007.003)
http://www.meltdown.fsnet.co.uk/pics/Intel/1323-1m.jpg
Now with 1:1 ratio and tight timings 2225.
http://www.meltdown.fsnet.co.uk/pics.../1323-2225.jpg
Volts don't make much difference on these CPUs it seems. Using standard Asus CT-479 heatsink.
Cheers,
MM
Hi,
I have ordered a Celeron M 370J (1.5Ghz, 400FSB, 1Mb Cache L2, c0 stepping) and a P4P800SE + CT-479.
How much can i expect from this configuration with stock cooling?
2.5ghz would be safe bet, however not more than 2.75ghz because of the fsb limit :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike@Portugal
but once you get it, pls benchmark the hell out of it :)
Has it been proven that the new C0 steppings still have the FSB bug ?Quote:
Originally Posted by caater
well, the problem is not cpu but asus motherboards..Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
they are unable lock pci/agp unless you boot at 200-201MHz fsb..
Hmm interesting,
but should'nt that be fixed then IF a lower multiplier can be used , as already pointed out.
But to BIOS< set multiplier to 9x save exit.
Back into BIOS set FSB to 201 save exit.
etc
Just some observations:
My 350J in my i855 board (the AOpen one) will clock to 13 x 180 (2340MHz) at stock volts. With my CT479 and P4P800-VM it will only get to 13 x 166 stable (even creeping up towards 175Mhz makes the PC lock up) at stock volts. 13 x 170 is just about bench stable but not prime stable. It could be my RAM (normal Samsung PC3200) as the P4P800 will only lock the AGP and PCI buses if set to a 133MHz FSB and 166MHz RAM (333 DDR) whereas the AOpen board will lock them at 1:1 (100/100 in this case). So even @ 166MHz the RAM is running @ 208MHz and @ 175Mhz it would be @ 219MHz - and the VDDR settings on the VM board only go up to 2.65V. I'm not convinced it's the RAM though as I have the timings @ 3-4-4-8 (and am disabling the PAT alike acceleration using the 865 tweaker) so it really ought to be able to manage an increase of 10% or so. I suspect the BIOS is selecting tighter timings for the chipset and / or lower volts for it when posted at a lower FSB. It's a shame this can't be rectified (either in the BIOS or via software in Windows).
When I have the time I will try wire / pin modding the board / cpu to up the vcore and select a 200MHz FSB but I'm not confident. IIRC the FSB mod will have to be done to the mobo socket / CT479 pins and the vcore to the CT479 socket / CPU pins.
Oh and for those that have asked the Celeron Ms are multiplier locked and VID locked (i.e. they lack EIST functionality) on the chip. Which is why my hopes for the 350J were so high (lower multiplier, C0 stepping)
are you unable to change voltage with p4p800-vm?
you should try to boot up @ 201fsb and bump voltage a little bit.
AFAIK the only way to change voltage to higher than default is via a pin / wire mod. There's a voltage setting in the BIOS that does nothing (not even decrease it) on the 350J and seems to half work (decreases only) for my (Banias) Pentium M... In windows with the Pentium M I can also use any of the various tools to change the VID or multiplier to lower values but none of this works for the Celeron M as it lacks the EIST function.Quote:
Originally Posted by caater
Have just noticed there's a new BIOS (1017) out for my board though so I will try that tonight and see what it can do. Will also try bumping the voltage but I am thinking that the only way to get anything good out of it will be to trick the board to post at a higher FSB.
I have had a busy night tonight - to cut a long story short I have tried:
Flashing my P4P800-VM with both a P4P800 bios and a P4P800-SE bios. Both worked well enough to post but both also crashed after choosing "save settings and exit". Luckily both still posted and booted with default values so I could flash the board back to the VM BIOS.
Wire modding for extra vcore. Have used both 1.425 and 1.61 but neither made any difference.
Wire modding for a higher FSB. Posts fine @ 166 ("reserved" in the BSEL table) no good @ 200 (even with higher voltage). Didn't realise wire modding to a VCC pin can cause damage but it has somewhere - even with the wire removed the chip is always posting @ 166 now (could be chip or CT479 but suspect I've blown something on the mobo)
When posting @ 166 and a higher vcore I still can't get any higher than the low 170s - so either the chip really doesn't like high FSBs (though it should be fine being a C0 part) or the mobo doesn't. This is even @ 166:166 (1:1 FSB / RAM ratio) so I don't think it's the RAM either. So it must be either the CPU or the mobo. Have reasons to suspect both.
Thanks for the update.Quote:
Originally Posted by malfunction!
Keep us posted on any progress with the celeron-m C0.
I too was under the impression that the old FSB limitation was due to the B1 stepping, and therfore the C0 should have fixed this. :confused:
Dont' know if someone saw my post about Celeron M 1.5Ghz (c0 stepping) + CT479 + P4P800SE so i ill post it here again.
The system is not stable beyond 160FSB no matter what vcore (1.6v max) or memory settings :mad:
Any sugestions?
With the cpu at (160x15) and memory at 200Mhz (4:5) with 2.5-3-3-5 (best i can do) i have achived this
Bought an Asus A9550GE to help the party, clocked it at 450/250
SuperPI: 36,313s
3DMark 2001SE: 12893 3d marks http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8633417
3DMark 03: 3736 3d marks (forgot to publish it)
3DMark 05: 1763 marks http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=985162
http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/380...b1601au.th.jpg http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/477...01se8cq.th.jpg http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/1...34609jj.th.jpg
Nice to know I'm not the only one having problems (nice for me, not for you obviously)... Maybe yours is just a bad overclocker compared to some of the Pentium Ms? How far can you go on default volts? Still 2.4GHz?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike@Portugal
@ malfunction & Mike@Portugal ! : I was thinking a bit, why there could be the problem with C-M not going at higher Fsb. Here are my thoughts:
- MoBo: problem with PCI/Agp divider/lock (bios) on Asus boards (or chipset can not handle it @ mobile chipset-no CT adapter boards), so problem with SATA-instability; possible solution : for test using IDE HD & PCI graphic card with disabling Sata in bios, which is too sensitive to higher PCI clock & running ram in_synch.
- default Vcore of CM3x0 is lower (from datasheet!) than on P-Ms & MoBo doesn´t apply higher set Vcore right @ boot but later after Cpu recognition, so no boot at too high Fsb or instabilities in Win later.
- C-M has disabled IntelSpeedStep changing frequencies/Fsb/multi/Vcore (other older type powersaving methods work normally-HLT/softColing); possible solution: Vid pins wire trick on CT adapter to rise default Vcore (tricking the adapter & MoBo), IMHO Vcore wire trick on MoBo or under the adapter will not work, should be done on cpu or on adapter socket upper if done ...
- C-M IMHO has (not like P-M dothans) locked multiplier, so no changes in Bios are effective regarding this so as proofed OC is done only by rising Fsb as usual. Could be that Vcore for C-M is locked too using that CT adapter & no bios Vcore change is effective on chip really, because the adapter has its own Vcore regulator. Possible solution: if the Vid pin wire trick does not work, maybe modding the adapters Vcore regulator would be the only alternative to get immediatelly default Vcore higher & possibility to boot & be stable @ 200Fsb/2,6GHz for CM350J (or bypassing adapter on-board Vcore regulator somehow for Vcc voltage getting it from MoBo instead or so) ...
--
Regards, http://www.spajky.vze.com :)
so no more solutions for celeron m?
Mine boots at 160FSB perfectly and it's stable... i can even put it in 170FSB inside windows throught clockgen but it doesn't boot at 170FSB
Here is SuperPI at 170FSB 2-3-3-5 (stable for superPI 1M at least)
http://img239.imageshack.us/img239/2...ifsb1705oo.jpg
Bit of a random thought dump to keep the thread going:
I'm working away from home at the moment but when I get the chance I will have a play around with my other chips in both my CT-479 + P4P800-VM and my AOpen i855 board - hopefully I will be able to find out what the limiting factor is. I have a Banias Pentium, Dothan Celeron and 3 Banias Celerons to play with. In the i855 board even the Banias Pentium M can clock at 180MHz FSB (10 x 180, RAM @ 1:1) so I'm not convinced my Dothan Celeron (especially as it's a C0 core) is the cause of the FSB problem - in the CT-479 the Banias Pentium can only clock to 166MHz. I don't have any "uber" RAM but I do have both Samsung PC3200 and Crucial / Micron PC3200.... The i855 machine is using the Crucial whereas the CT479 machine is using the Samsung so *maybe* that's why the i855 can clock higher (though the P4P can at least use looser timings than 2.5-3-3-6 which is as high as the latencies can go on the i855 IIRC). I finally found some wire (copper thread type from a power cord) that I can easily wire wrap pins with so I can try a few options... (I was using alu thread from data cables before and it just wasn't working for me)
My posts @ Dothan overclocking thread, first one with some not quite accurate statements, but others IMHO Ok! Resolving certain problems! Mods!
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...007#post934007
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...273#post944273
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...197#post945197
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...595#post945595
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...319#post947319
Quite a lot of stuff to read carefully, I know ... :)
& here is another idea also! (about non-Asus boards)
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...920#post946920
--
Regards, Spajky, :) passed months ago -
3rd_Ann.: "Tualatin OC-ed/BX-Slot1/inaudible setup!"
Has anyone tried the new bios ( http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...ghlight=ct-479 ) with Celeron M + P4P800SE ?
i think it got mentioned that the bios suport only adds newer cpus
PS.: has anybody studied my modding proposals on those links I gave in my previous post or even tried some? (or everybody else is already on Holidays away ...)
Tried the u wire mod, also tried to up the voltage at bios. Still can not pass 185 fsb. Using zalman 7000B-Cu so definetely not temperature problem (less than 40 C).
Any other workaround ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spajky
my celeron B1 will not pass 120FSB with 1.6v
if i drop the multi and try it on 140 FSB it still fails. :(
What voltage did you use with the wire mod?Quote:
Originally Posted by lktuio
Celeron M is multi locked (doesn't have speedstep) so no point in changing multi because it will always use the same factory multi.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibby
well mike..
take a look at this ;)
that seems to be like a banias pm, not celeron mQuote:
Originally Posted by ibby
:rolleyes:
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by ibby
Pentium-m
I have no more ideas than those explained on those links I gave... :woot:Quote:
Originally Posted by lktuio
opps ...
sorry .. i dont know why ive been thinking that it is a celeron .. :(
The Bannies aren't that great overclockers. I couldn't get my 1.5 banny past 2.0 and my 1.6 banny past 1.92Ghz (stock volts)
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...533#post953533
Generaly, C-M & P_M have at same Vcore & clock frequency same thermal dissipation ... :) ...
Since "existing Boot&FSB Problem" is present with Celeron_M, I got another idea to trick the MoBo (w/o bios code hex hacking!) & here it is; didn´t think it about it before!Quote:
Originally Posted by lktuio
The problem is present, because at first moments/seconds of boot, the default boot Vcore of this CPU is only around 1,2V /Vcc,BOOT one!/ [see links I previously gave] & is multplier locked & even "Vid wire pin trick" or Vcore rising (in Bios Cmos settings) does nothing at those moments [kicks-in later what is set/rised in Bios] & default FSB is only 100Fsb/400qp.
So what to do? Tricking MoBo to think right @ boot that has inserted in socket a 133Fsb Cpu instead a a 100Fsb one !!! MAYBE this COULD WORK if the Cpu is not a bad example/OC-er & CM350 will boot right @ 1,73GHz! Try !!!
There are two ways:
- one doing it on the P4 socket [wire trick as for Vid definition way] (or under the MoBo soldering same) by forcing MoBo to think that has inserted 133Fsb Cpu by using BSEL (bus_select, BCLK) pins combination (H means insulating pin, L means connecting it to nearest Vss (GND) pin! Table for P4:
pin AD5 pin AD6 Vss (Gnd) closest pins: AD4; AC5,7; AE7
Bsel(1) Bsel(0) Fsb_MHz
L L 100
L H 133
H L 200 (this you do not need!)
- the other maybe easiest way is doing the "same kind of mod" on CM/PM socket on Asus_CT-479 adapter by only grounding/shorting a Bsel(0) - C16 pin (forcing it on L!) to some nearest Vss pin: B16; C15; D15,17
So CM will boot with 1,2Vcore & 133Fsb & than Bios Cmos settings kick_in (rised Vcore & Fsb over defaults, so taking care about PCI/AGP clocks & problems with peripherrals, with good cooling should go to 200Fsb & maybe more. With preventing peripherrals problems if the Cpu can not go so high, there could be some other problem to resolve:
- modding the adapter: rising VccA [measuring it first, PLL supply voltage, max.120mA - see those my previouly linked posts for PM-dothan discussion] to 1,8V instead of 1,5V, since C_M supports both voltages. This (overvolting) would help internal Cpu generated_clocks to work better/at higher clocks, same as does overvolting pure core!
This last may be needed, because I found 2 datasheets for P_M, older ones states VccA 1,8V, newer one 1,5V & Asus IMHO took for all CPUs lower one not thinking much about extreme OC-ing!
Damn, if I would be so good in money earnings like I am with modding ideas, I´d be a millionaire .. :D ...
I'm only confortable in doing the u wire mod in the adapter, i don't wanna lose the warranty of my components.
What do you guys think of 1.7vcore? is it too much for Celeron M? or too much for Asus P4P800 SE?
I will try it but i'm afraid of burning my precious components.
IMHO going over Intels max. recommended is not a good Idea if not having subzero (or at least good water) cooling, because you do not gain much, just build heat; this first started with Tualatins mainly IMHO & 1,6Vcore is already 27% over C_M defaults for core!!! Thats why I recommended VccA & VccP voltage mods on adapter, rather than too much overvolting pure core!Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike@Portugal
Cpu internal PLL generator for other clocks has not enough juice to oscillate properly if OC-ed too much ... to much overvolting can kill components easier than heat (remember the Northwood sudden death syndrome?) :)
NSDS .. has long vanished :slapass: :woot:Quote:
Originally Posted by Spajky
Well if it makes ya all feel better, I run 1.7V 24/7 :P. With load that is (folding).
Gets me an extra 60MHz over 1.6V :P (also means I got a 166FSB which is perfect for the bus speeds (that way I get 33/66)).
temps never go above 31C load. (swiffy block/pump/coolant with a 120mm black ice)
What exactly does the VccA and VccB mods do different from overvolting the Vcore? (bus signal overvolting?)Quote:
Originally Posted by Spajky
I guess 1.7v won't do any diference! :nono:
My celeron M hit a brick wall at more than 160FSB, it's stable at 160FSB at 1.4250v and not stable at 165FSB at 1.6v :mad:
Maybe something else is holding me back, but i really think it's the Celeron M, well i will sell it and buy myself a P-M 730. :banana:
Yes, kind a that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pongi
VccP is a supply 2A power voltage for i/o (input/output) lines of core (peripherrical core circuits); rising it up a bit gives to them more "juice" when switching on and off states (logic zeroes & ones) & since a bit more current there flows, signal there is more clear (less subceptive to "noise"- digital "mistakes") so OC-ing by rising Fsb goes better. Thats why for example Tualatins on non-native boards w/o PowerLeap slot-1 adapter have been OC-ing better (higher Vtt=VccP than nominal voltage on those MoBo) since are multiplier locked, same as Celeron_M ! (same default clock there at defaults for both = 100MHz!)
That way you Over-volt & over-Current a bit same time those i/o Cpu lines supply & chipset*** gets on Cpu side a bit stronger signal (on memory side you have there Vdimm lines, on which you do the same with rising Dimm voltages, but in that case their i/o lines voltage+reference one rises automatically with Vdimm rising; on Cpu side that is not the case since you have separate adjustable Vcore & fixed VccP+reference voltage! On memory side many times in Bios you have a setting of "signal strength" (current setting for memory/chipset i/o lines!), but for Cpu side you do not have this there, so a mod is required on adapter/Mobo side to enhance stability there IF needed (at edge OC or if not achieving high enough FSB clocks). Since Celereons are worse (& cheaper) performers especially on Fsb side, IMHO will benefit from rising VccP more than PM 7x5/100Fsb/ or best PM7x0/133 ones.
The effect of rising VccP a bit (10% or so) is similar for CPU peripherrical circuits just like rising Vcore for central Cpu parts, but the limitation here is that it can never be higher than lowest Vcore to prevent data corruption. Rising a bit VccP there has some thermal impact on Cpu heat, but very small ...
Note: *** i/o (aGTL)signals from Cpu on CT479 adapter do not go directly to the chipset but thru "clamping voltage bi-directional chips" (3 there!), so rising Vccp affects them first before chipset ... There on adapter is also a voltage source for i/o signals reference between digital states (GTLREF, 0,63V) which can be also raised (mod!) to 0,7V together with rising VccP, so you enlarge also the margin "window" of proper recognizing 1 & 0 signals (more voltage "space" for i/o Cpu transistors to pull up & down signals).
In my case for my Tuallie (35% OC-ed can ride on lower Vcore than default!), on the contrary (having a BX old MoBo) I have lowered VccP on the MoBo (marked for them as Vtt instead, from on my MoBo 1,47 to 1,41V /default is 1,25V/ so to prevent data corruption since at heaviest Cpu load set Vcore drops from mine 1,47V to 1,44V sometimes ... I am planning to go toward C_M & MoBo changing before Christmas, since after last year close (less than 10m, almost direct) lightning hit (another long story), I have occasional problems with my MoBo ...
The story about VccA is the supply power for CPU internal clocks PLL generator. If higher, it helps keeping PLL circuitry running stable @ higher Cpu frequency & directly impacts on Cpu stability at high clocks (much more than VccP!). Since datasheet states for there bi-voltage source (around 1,5 or around 1,8V), I would opt for higher one, since IMHO Asus CT adapter uses single & lower one. For that to achieve, another mod on the adapter could be needed ...
Those kind of mods for someone having "guts", the will, knowledge & practice with delicate soldering (having proper equipment too) are not so complicated to make if you know what U are doing, having in mind also, that sometimes doing that, sh1t can happen finishing killing some stuff. :) Normally If I will do the mods myself on the adapter, will do it on it disconnected alone, later checking with a DVM all the success with it connected to power BEFORE I assemble all together (so if I kill the adapter, can buy another one & not the whole setup again!) :)
I am planning also to make some mild careful "lapping" the Cpu core (like all mine CPUs till now) & pre-burning it like this I did before: http://freeweb.siol.net/jerman55/HP/preBurn-in.htm together with CT adapter :D , maybe will try also some TEC AirCooling (not sub-zero, just a bit lower than ambient temps to prevent condensation & to much heat build_up inside my case (I will need to make some automated variable power source adapter for a TEC).
Yes, I do useful mods for fun too (browse a bit my site, well, needs some updating...) & the last one was just yesterday on my car (don´t ask!) :D :D :D ...
Please "snip" quoting while replying ...
So to some it up Spajky, it sounds like you're talking about improving the FSB signaling strength (or improving the signal/noise ratio at higher speeds). And to do this would require tinkering with the VccP pins (which there seems to be a bunch of). Does the adapter regulate the power to the VccP pins? I really don't know much of how the adapter works in supplying power to the CPU. I need to get a Digital Multi-Meter.
adapter generates all those voltages spajky mentioned.. that's for it has the power adapter :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Pongi
Spaiky, i've read now all your posts and You seem to have a strong point there.
Actually, when pm @ desktop madness started with dfi board, i wondered if fsb limit/oc'ability has something to do with lower io voltages and power-saving bus.
now, i think, you have proven in theory, that it is so.
i might think about modding my adapter (measuring voltages first, of course :)) after i finish some projects :)
Yes, that bigest (looks like Vcore Mosfets on MoBo) voltage linear regulator there does the job for all of VccP pins ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Pongi
mod it now :slapass:Quote:
Originally Posted by caater
Maybe ...Quote:
Originally Posted by caater
With native Centrino chipsets (first DFI or Aopen board on i855) there could be also a chipset or Bios problem, not just lover voltages not to be able to go much higher than 166Fsb (PCI/agp locks etc), while with Asus that should not be the problem (some people did with CT adapter even 300Fsb! as I saw, by lowering multiplier on PMs).
I really do not see why Celeron_M (dothan) shouldn´t go higher on Asus_CT, especially if C-0 revision or 350J one. The core is practically the same as last PM ones (its not Banias-"poor OC-er"), so with some overvolting should IMHO do 2,6GHz (200Fsb/100% OC) "on _Air", heat/cooling is not a problem as looks. Maybe we Are just too demanding (70% OC on air is an excellent achievement; times ago 50% was very nice result!) for this low priced CPU. But I really do not believe, that the core of C_M350 is so much worse made (maybe 2nd class cheaper silicon wafers?) than P_M ones ...
Sooner or later we will find out what is/was the real bottleneck ... :)
@ ibby : don´t be unpatient ... :nono:
PS.: Can someone with digital camera make me a big close high resolution *.jpg shot of Asus_CT-479 upper side & upload it somewhere posting me here URL for DL-it; my existing one is not enough detailed slide even if I enlarge it ... TIA ...
Hmm, then we'll just have to mod that linear regulator when I get my adapter back from RMA (No I didn't kill it, but if it dies again I'll be damned if it wasn't me who did it :D)
Just to add another perspective on this - though I've said most of this before - my i855 board (the AOpen one - no mods)) quite happily runs my 350J @ 180MHz FSB but my P4P800-VM locks up around 170MHz... 166MHz is fully stable (and what I'm booting the VM + 350J at). And though the Banias chips are crap overclockers in terms of total MHz my Banias 1.3GHz PM runs happily @ 180MHz in the 855 board too so there's definitely something weird going on here. When I get a chance (I'm working away from home at the moment) I will buy a decent board to replace the VM... (thinking P4GD1 as I also want to upgrade my GFX soon and will make the switch from AGP)... Then I'll get the chance to torture my poor celery some more!Quote:
Originally Posted by Spajky
There defintely is something wrong with being disappointed with a 66% overclock though!
I am contented with my 80% overclock although I can go as high as 85% (celeron M 350J 1.3@2.34).
BUT, I am still curious whether the wall is really due to CPU or other factor. If it is other factor, I will be more than happy to get 200 x 13 (2.6G) and make a direct comparison with FX-55.
It will be very ironic if a "celeron" beat an "FX-55". :p:
Quote:
Originally Posted by malfunction!
is there a way of pin modding the cpu ......
so we can make the mobo /bios belive that it is a 533 fsb celeron,
maybe that will unlock sumat else with more fsb .. ?
@ ibby :
Yes, doing the "wire mod on socket" between two pin holes, option : forcing MoBo to think that has inserted 133Fsb Cpu by using BSEL (bus_select, BCLK) pin connecting it to nearest Vss (GND) pin!: on Asus_CT-479 adapter by grounding/shorting a Bsel(0) - C16 pin (forcing it on L(ow)!) to some nearest Vss pin: B16; C15; D15,17
something like this ...
http://www.picturebio.com/images/laptoppics/image7.jpg
http://www.picturebio.com/images/laptoppics/image6.jpg
... and Cpu will boot already 33% OC-ed ... :)
@ lktuio : I also do not believe that the problem is Cpu, but rather something else /we don´t know for sure what yet/! Try disabling all stuff (other peripherrals) on your MoBo Bios except FD & IDE controller, find some old IDE disk & old PCI video card & try OC more & try if having any success booting higher than before, this "mine" :D win already made micro setup: http://users.volja.net/image/Files/ResQsys.htm ... report us the result ... :)
I've got that pinmod thing in yet I don't seem to notice any difference. Also it doesn't boot at the 133FSB straight off. I've tried setting the jumper to say its a 133FSB cpu with no luck. I've refitted the wire twice with no luck. Any ideas?
Surely something like this, though, could be done with a bios mod..
@Spajky,
There must be sumat holding us back.
there is no way all these cpus have a therotical max fsb at 180 (for example).
IT must be some thing else.
I know with the Zeons 1.6 LV one, if u did not do the pin mod then u would only get 2.4 gig ish max.
But once the pin mod had been done .... u could attain more 3.2 gig atleast.
I think the issue maybe adapter releated.
Has any one got a 479 dedicated mobo to test the cpu in ?
There could be:Quote:
Originally Posted by ibby
- peripherrals clock problems (no propper dividers PCI/otherStuff kicking_in in Bios)
- software block in bios (cpu microcode) forced by Intel to Bios manufacturers
- hardware block on internal PLL (crippled by Intel design just like for powersaving)
- all the above :-(
IMHO, CT-479 is not a problem (works perfectly with FSB over 200MHz with P-M), but could also be there some pin preventing C_M more than 80% higher basic CPU clock ... There are a bunch of pins mentioned in datasheet, that control a lot of stuff! I have to compare those to a P-M datasheet , maybe there is some difference somewhere & so a place for another mod proposal ...
all ur suggestions are correct.
are all Celeron M processors multi locked ?
if they are is there away to "lower the multi", via the
socket ?
Does any one know about BIOS and see if they can change / make the cpus a Unknown cpu ?
Hae a look at the data sheet and keep us informed, even tho iam not using a celeron,
iam willing to go buy 1 next month, for trial and error.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ibby
well the reason they open the multi is so that mobos can downclock them to save power (i.e. speedstep) - if celerons have speedstep then they are downwards unlocked...
no, they are locked!Quote:
Originally Posted by wwwww
Some other facts to add to my previous modding ideas:
-All pin listings for CM & PM are same (checked!) except! older /april-2004/ PM7x5 one 30218905.pdf datasheet has a difference: C14 is on all others Bsel(1) while there RSVD & C16 (Bsel-0) is there TEST3 [rsvd + test unconnected, the last has to have option of pull-down by 1k resistor] WHAT the F*CK ??? Same datasheet number dated January-2005 has no this exeption!!! Something weird here ...
- BSEL pins (C14,16) have L-ow state @ 0V & H-igh state @ 0,7V /=same almost as GTLREF/...
Bsel(1) has same status as for CM/PM also for P4 (so no problem here), while the other pin Bsel(0) has a reverse logic status on P4 than on Dothan; so there on CT479 has to be at least one transistor for that for reversing logic state to a P4 MoBo & means same time that BSEL pins are connected on Asus adapter; the other one is just directly going thru to P4 MoBo !!!
- ITP_CLK(1:0) 2 Fsb clock pins (A15,16)[output signals] are not connected IF the MoBo has "debug port interposer" implemented; if not so are connected to a MoBo/adapter - this should be checked with Ohm-Meter. IMHO that term means (not sure), that MoBo has hardware self-Post check implemented in Bios (majority of them now have this), so those 2 pins should be not connected anywhere IMO on the CT adapter ...
- BSEL pins can be or not be connected!!! If the Cpu selects FSB (& Cpu clock), than are connected & sent to MoBo clock generator chip; if they are not, than means that MoBo itself independently controls the Fsb /& clock to a CPU/ : this IS the case with MoBo based on older i852 & i855 chipsets (and NOT the case with i9xx chipset based ones) !!!
This last could explain, why even a malfunctions Banias Celly /if not really lucky example/ could do 180Fsb_! on his Aopen i855 board !!!, while on his P4 & CT adapter did not wanna go higher than 166Fsb, because those Bsel pins are sent/connected via adapter to a MoBo & something is preventing going higher ...
Also as I found till now (not sure but anyway), also PM7x5 (100Fsb/400qp) have same "Fsb problem" as Cellys do regardless they have down unlocked multipliers ... so there must be something involved with those BSEL pins or Bios detecting Fsb IMHO ...
Since Bsel pins look like are not needed to be connected (see note on i855 chipset MoBo), there IMHO could be left unconnected on P4 ! socket (isolating there AD5&6 pins, setting them on H-igh so; datasheet states this is a "reserved" option for P4). To achieve same is another option: isolating just on P4 socket pin AD5 & on CT-479 socket pin by grounding/shorting a Bsel(0) - C16 pin (forcing it on L!) to some nearest Vss pin: B16; C15; D15,17. The result would be IMHO the same! The P4 MoBo would go IMO into a test mode (other possibilities enabled, maybe even-not really believable, unlocking the Celeron_M multiplier ...)
But isolating pins properly & REVERSABLE way in the socket in a delicate job; needs some practice opening socket cover with pin holes to get access to pin contacts to bent them a little & widening pin hole on the cover; best is (like I did) practicing before on an old socket of some death old MoBo before few times with some dead CPU too. All mine Tuallie slotket mods were done reversable like this: [ http://freeweb.siol.net/jerman55/HP/...TualModsoc.JPG ]
Momently, I have no further ideas ....
can any 1 try this mod ? PLEASE ......
Spajky @ could u post a diagram on which pins would need to be modded ?
ibby
@ ibby :
...you have all info for DL on Intel's Literature Center in datasheets for Dothan & P4 : http://appzone.intel.com/literature/index.asp for pin assignments ...
@ wwwww :
have you tried to lower the multiplier & raise more Fsb on your P_M?
i own a Cooler Master aquagate system
Recently bought a Celeron M 370 (c0) +asus CT-479
Running them on an Asus P4GD1 (Bios 1005...)
Should receive them tomorrow.....(and tell charlie...:)
Can i expect 2.6 Ghz (15x173...) ??
Trying to put the waterblock on Ce M die......
Do you think it can work.....
The link shows the specs on the aquagate.....Should work so....
http://www.extremeoverclocking.com/r...ALC-U01_3.html
I have the same Celeron M 370 (c0) and with stock cooling i can get 2.4Ghz stable (160x15) at 1.425v.Quote:
Originally Posted by Newbie_User
No matter what vcore i put it does not stay stable at more than 165x15 (on windows)
You should have bought the 350J (with 13x multi) and maybe you could boot it at 200x13 with the CoolerMaster Aquagate.
But i don't think the cooling is the problem, my 370 is only 55º at load and 37 at idle with stock cooling.
When you install it please tell us the temperature in idle and full just to check out the eficiency of the CoolerMaster Aquagate.
I think this might be the nail on the head, I read over the older Pentium M 90nm specs and it states a typ. 1.8V for VccA. The newer P-M 533FSB CPU's run 1.5V typ. for VccA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spajky
do you happen to know where to measure the VccA voltage? I could probably find out myself but if you know it'd save me the homework :p
On some of those VccA pins & trying to determine on the adapter from where it comes folowing the traces on PCB; I do not know where that voltage is sourced; I asked before for a largest close/makro detailed photo that somebody could make me of the adapter to study it better; haven´t got it yet ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Pongi
I can try to give you some detailed shots of my adapter, but my camera sucks very badly and very old (640x480 and it uses floppies!)Quote:
Originally Posted by Spajky
edit: Nevermind, tried it and I can't make out any details at all. Asus used a very dark PCB for this and it's difficult to see anything with the naked eye.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spajky
I promise to do some very high res over the weekend for you.
But they will be very big files
will be Ok at 2048x1536/16bit Jpg best quality saved (if I need more, that quality is more than enough if is (upper side only) adapter almost on whole pic surface to enlarge it later at will on my monitor ... :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
To Mike@Portugal
Well....i was hopping for 2.6 stable....
Haven't received it yet...:( Midday maybe
trying to make the water block fit and stay on the Ce M die....
screws are too short i guess...
Talking about the aquagate.....
Previous CPU=Prescott3.2@4.0 Ghz Vcore 1.6
Room temp 25°C/idle 37°C/Load 46°C (sensor directly on the waterblock...shows 55°C in Asus Probe :)
Room temp 17°C/idle 30°C/Load 39-40°C.....:)
I modified it..In the stock version, the exhaust gaz (warm) directly go in the tower....so i've added a fan right there (no fan in stock version...) and exhausts gaz go right through the Power case.....(Tagan 380W...:)
Also, 've cutted the front entrance for more fresh air and changed the front fan (more efficiency/less noise....)
I think that's all :)
Thanks for infos about your rig.....great result fron 1.5Ghz anyway.....
Will tell you when i'll have received it....can't wait any more....
:slobber:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
I can host them for you guys.
Send us a copy to ibby @ cmia.co.uk
(no spaces) ......
and make the title ct479.
oopsQuote:
Originally Posted by ibby
:coffee:
MSG me if link required.
If the server gets hammered i will remove them !
Thanks .. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jericho
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spajky
then they dont have speedstep
yeah basically its like thisQuote:
Originally Posted by Spajky
17x157
16x166
15x173
14x176
10x181
same as before the mod...
guys i know its a little off beat
but i have a pentim M banjis 1.5 and want to put 1.7v
into it.
whch pins do i mod, and any particulat wires i should use.
Thanks.
Ibby