Complete A64 Memory Divider Table

[papatsonis]

i have some ''objections'' tο the above table

it needs to be clear enough, what exact every ratio is,e.g. 166/200=5/6 , but for the not common ones (183,143) , is more ..misty

the 183/200 what should be? 183.3333333/200 which means 11/12 ??? ,should be 9/10 as dfi says in the bios??? , or 10/11 ???
From the table , we can find some multis that are in the ''edge'' to change for different ratios (9/10, 10/11, 11/12) so the rounding could be different ,and IF , we assume the table is correct we might find the right one.

--from now on will be LONg post

for 10x multi(CPU) 10/9 gives 11,1111-> 12x ram multi
11/10 gives 11 -> 11x
12/11 gives 10.9-> 11x

for 19x , 10/9 =21.1111-> 22x
11/10=20.9 -> 21x
12/11=20.73->21x

for 20x , 10/9=22.2 ->23x
11/10=22->22x
12/11=21.81->22x

for 21x , 10/9 =23.3->24x
11/10=23.1->24x
12/11=22.9->23x

for 22x , 10/9=24.4->25x
11/10=24.2->25x
12/11=24->24x

so.. from the table and the calculated ram mlutis (for cpu 10x,19x,20x) we can easily see, that the 10/9 is unacceptable, so 11/10 or 12/11

but...for 21x multi =4200MHZ clock , for 183mhz ram setting ,the table says 182.61MHZ =..23x ram multi as for 11/12 ratio

and for 22x =4400mhz >> , >> 176mhz, as for 11/10 ratio..!!?? whats happens here??of course IMO , the correct ratio is 11/12 as for 183.33333333/200

doing the same thoughts in propotion for the 143mhz divider , i think -and seems to be confirmed the 5/7 ratio ,

2 more observations.. :

1)all the mem dividers for half multi dividers, are ''calculated"-oscilloscoped from the above table, like the half multis do exist, but... we all think that they are just a trick to give more flexibility.example from the table : 6.5x cpu multi , 5/6 ratio (should be =rounded to 7*1.2=8.4=..9x ram multi) ,but it gives 6.5x1.2=7.8=..8x ram ratio.Also note that for 1:1 setting the half multis are normally up-rounded .. so may that mean that the half multis DO EXIST when not using 1:1 htt:ram setting???
2) the cpu multies <5x seems to be emulated using 5x multi , as a consequense the 4x multi 1:1 gives only 160mhz!!