parhelia voltage mod finished

[WyWyWyWy]

K6-III you started yet?

[K6-III]

Sorry, school has me busy for now.

When I get to it, I'll let you all know....

[funky-d-munky]

To clear up the 486 o/c issue. The DX2 chips were internally doubled.(double the bus internally, or a 2x multiplier) The DX chips were run on a 1-to-1 chip bus ratio.
They never made a DX2-33. So Fender had to own a regular 486 DX-33. You switch the mult. to 2x and you have a 486 DX2-66. Not a big deal.
Now the DX-2 could not be o/c'ed because Intel had already done it. Making any attempt to o/c pushed them WAY out of spec.

Also in raw # there were many more DX2's made then regular DX's. So it was a little rare to o/c.
386's were not locked.
486's were not locked.(except in the example of the DX2's where they were already at 2x and 3x was an impossability)
Pentium I were not locked.
funky

[Marshmallowman]

386 was not locked?, what was there to unlock, it either had a 32 bit bus (dx) or a 16 bit (sx), they had no multiplier..bus speed=clock speed

[funky-d-munky]

True enough. I was just stating that Intel didn't hard lock multipliers untill the Celeron, PII era.
funky

[Fender]

Originally posted by funky-d-munky
True enough. I was just stating that Intel didn't hard lock multipliers untill the Celeron, PII era.
funky

Thx, and you're right, it wasn't a DX2 (although i didn't know that the multplier was internal for those ones, thx).

[rylan]

Kinda getting off topic, but the DX4 chips made me laugh... oh yeah here is a nice 486DX4-100 but we won't tell you it runs on a crappy slow 25MHz bus :P

[Greebe]

Then they came out with the dx4/120's which ran at 33 and were often OC'd to 160 with an FSB of 40mHz...

[Greebe]

Allow me to reiterate... it was during the 386 days that Intel started to discuss locking their cpu's openly. This involved forward looking at their roadmap as to what could be done to prevent uncooth vendors from selling undisclosed OC'd systems.

I'd still like to see anyone prove a 486dx/2 can be unlocked or even then a DX33 that could run at 66(stable).

[Greebe]

Pentium I were not locked.

The reasoning behind this was how difficult it was to mod the chips (something that didn't happen by vendors in the day) and that Intel was the only vendor supplying chipsets that supported these cpu's (no FSB adjustments).

Adjustable FSB's only came into being when Intel's chipset had competition which could do it. This occured in the mid P2 era when companies like Abit came out with adjustable FSB (like the BH6). Hense Intel multiplier locked their cpu's to once again to minimize uncooth vendors from selling undisclosed OC'd systems.

[rugger]

Huh,

From what I remember:

486 DX2 = clock doubled
486 DX4 = clock tripled (not clock doubled)
486 DX4 100 had a 33mhz bus
486 DX4 120 had a 40mhz bus

5x86 133 = 486 at 133mhz, bus at 33mhz, cpu clock quadtripled

[Greebe]

ah I see my typo's... the multiplier wasn't locked on the DX4's... hense 40mHz fsb with the core running at 160 sorry for the confusion

[Roark]

Originally posted by funky-d-munky

Pentium I were not locked.
funky

Later Pentium chips were locked. the later steppings of the 166-233's (both MMX and non-MMX, iirc. I know the MMX chips were locked at one point) were multiplier locked. this is about the time when intel realized that overclocking was a big thing and could cut into their profits.

and acctually, you don't adjust the multiplier to get a 5x86 to 160mhz. 4x33 = 133, 4x40 = 160... i know, i did it... i still have the chip (despite being mostly dead and not having a motherboard for it) sitting here next to a P60, P133 and P166MMX (that is multiplier locked). I think i have another 486 chip or two in my glove compartment in my car... will have to see...

[CaineTanathos]

Every Pentium II CPU produced after half August 1998 includes a locked multiplier both upwards and downwards.

Before august 1998 they were only locked upwards.

[The PIT]

Now we need someone with these old processors to test it out and confirm things. Yup I thought the DX4100 ran at 33 x 3.