• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

Do K7 1100s o/c any good?

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
K7 is the classic athlon (.25 process), but the fastest K7 was 700mhz and it was Slot A. So the thread title isn't exactly accurate. After that came the K75 which was on a .18 process and that maxed out at 1ghz and was also slot A. Then thunderbird, a .18 chip that maxed out at 1.4 ghz. Thunderbird started as slot A and was the first socket A Athlon. And as far as I can tell there never was a 1.1ghz Palomino AthlonMP, they went from 1ghz to 1.2ghz. So - the chip he is talking about pretty much has to be t-bird 1.1ghz. I doubt he would have put K7 if he meant duron, I've never seen a duron referred to as a K7, but often for the athlon. Also - if it is a 1.1ghz cpu - athlon or duron - it has to be a 100mhz (200DDR) fsb chip.

So - the answer to your question is no, they don't overclock well. With good cooling I wouldn't expect anything over 1.4ghz. Thunderbirds are very hot and get even hotter when overclocked/overvolted. I never got my 1400 t-bird over 1680, and it wasn't stable at that speed. You will have some potential for speed increase on the FSB side, increasing the FSB to 133 or above should give a noticable increase in speed. But, when you do that you will be running the chip at 1463, a speed I think you will be lucky to run at stabily. If the chip is unlocked, or you can unlock it you will have more options. What mobo/ram are you using?


A good place to look is the CPU Database on the main page (here), it shows the average overclock as 1323mhz for the 1.1ghz t-bird. Heatsinks have gotten much better since most of those entries, but the chips have not. Most of the high overclocks are with exotic/expensive cooling setups. It wouldn't be worth it to do that now. Not when a 1700+ is under $50.
 
K7 is the code name for everything after the original Athlon to the AthlonXP 3200+. K6 was the code name for the chips before that, and K8 is the code name for Opteron and Athlon64.

Likewise, P6 was the code for Pentium 2 and Pentium 3, and P7 is the code for Pentium 4.
 
No - I described the distinction in the athlon line very clearly...what did you miss?

K6 was the ORGINAL socket 5 and socket 7 6th generation AMD chip. After that came the K6-2 and K6-III, both socket 7. They used different cores, so they had different code names. Every new core design has a different code name. They used code names for the K6 line of cores as well, Model 6 was the original core design, then there was Little Foot, Chompers, and Sharptooth. It has been awhile since the K6 series so I'm less sure on where the core changes were.

K8 is not the official code name for opteron, it is sledgehammer. The code name for Athlon64 is clawhammer. The core technology (x86-64) is generally referred to as Hammer, but that isn't the official AMD codeword for any specific core.

Onto the Intel code names. P6 was the codename for the Pentium pro (p6t for PII overdrive). PII was Klamath and Deschutes, PIII is Katmai, Coppermine, Coppermine-T, and Tualatin. P4 is Willamette and Northwood.

If you want to go back even farther P5 was the original Pentium chip, with the P54c as Pentium classic, and the P55c as the Pentium with MMX technology.


This isn't just an argument in semantics; a K7 core is different from a Thunderbird core, just as a Thunderbird core is different from a Barton core. Just talking of the K7 as a series of cores is way too general.
 
Rather than explain why and what I'll post pics :D, you can tell me more after that. This is how it came from AMD RMA new, I just took it out of a machine so there is a little grease leftovers on it.
amd11001.jpg

k711002.jpg
 
This isn't just an argument in semantics; a K7 core is different from a Thunderbird core, just as a Thunderbird core is different from a Barton core. Just talking of the K7 as a series of cores is way too general.
Maybe we want to be general, to be able to describe a whole line of chips that share a common base. I don't know what you find so offensive about gathering all the codenames into one category. After all, don't you admit that a Barton and an original Athlon have more in common than an Athlon and a K6-III ?

BTW: That's an Athlon 1100 (Tbird). It should do pretty well. i recall it having a default FSB of 266, and the good old pencil trick should work to unlock the multipliers.
 
For the purposes of overclocking it is WAY TOO GENERAL. The different cores have different specs, different cache designs, and in some cases different packaging (slot A, socket A). Some are made on different manufacturing processes (.25;.18;.13), and some support new features making them have very different capabilities and potential. If you want to be general use the general name - ATHLON - not a specific core codename.

Obviously an original athlon (K7) is more similar to a Barton than to a K6, but that comparison is missing the point.

The K7 core and the Barton core are VERY different.

K7 core
- External 512kb L2 cache running at a fraction of the CPU speed
- Slot A
- 500-700mhz
- MMX
- 3DNow!
- .25 manufacturing process

Barton core
- On-chip 512kb L2 cache running at full clock speed
- Socket A
- 1833-2200mhz (2500+ -> 3200+)
- MMX
- 3DNow! Professional
- SSE
- .13 manufacturing process

The process of overclocking and the expected results are very different for the the different athlon cores.

There have been significant core redesigns between the K7 and the barton, they are still both Athlon's, though they did rename the current CPUs to AthlonXP. Sure, that was mostly marketing, but it was also because they made design changes and didn't want old ATHLON cores being confused with the newer ATHLON XP cores.


Also, that is a t-bird 1100, but it is definately a 200mhz chip. Not only does it say it in the pictures he posted, but there was never a 266mhz version of it. The 8.25x multiplier isn't too common (133.3*8.25 = 1100).

And as I said, I wouldn't expect too much out of that chip. My rational is clearly stated in my first post.
 
Mark Larson said:



BTW: That's an Athlon 1100 (Tbird). It should do pretty well. i recall it having a default FSB of 266, and the good old pencil trick should work to unlock the multipliers.

No.. my moms 1300 has a 200fsb..... I think the XP's were what went to 266...
 
kct2 said:
No - I described the distinction in the athlon line very clearly...what did you miss?

K6 was the ORGINAL socket 5 and socket 7 6th generation AMD chip. After that came the K6-2 and K6-III, both socket 7. They used different cores, so they had different code names. Every new core design has a different code name. They used code names for the K6 line of cores as well, Model 6 was the original core design, then there was Little Foot, Chompers, and Sharptooth. It has been awhile since the K6 series so I'm less sure on where the core changes were.

K8 is not the official code name for opteron, it is sledgehammer. The code name for Athlon64 is clawhammer. The core technology (x86-64) is generally referred to as Hammer, but that isn't the official AMD codeword for any specific core.

Onto the Intel code names. P6 was the codename for the Pentium pro (p6t for PII overdrive). PII was Klamath and Deschutes, PIII is Katmai, Coppermine, Coppermine-T, and Tualatin. P4 is Willamette and Northwood.

If you want to go back even farther P5 was the original Pentium chip, with the P54c as Pentium classic, and the P55c as the Pentium with MMX technology.


This isn't just an argument in semantics; a K7 core is different from a Thunderbird core, just as a Thunderbird core is different from a Barton core. Just talking of the K7 as a series of cores is way too general.

We are BEING general. my bios says AMD k7. I have a 1700+. what more do you want?!! Oh, and the A64 IS K8 =) Says it on gigabytes ad in max. PC he he... =)
 
dippy_skoodlez said:


No.. my moms 1300 has a 200fsb..... I think the XP's were what went to 266...

Some TBirds were 133, some were 100; it depended on the clock speed and whether having a 133 fsb involved a convenient multiplier. My 1ghz tbird was a 133 (133x7.5).
 
Look at the AMD roadmap - it doesn't say K8, it says Sledgehammer for the Opteron, and Clawhammer for Athlon64. If you just say K8, what CPU are you talking about? At least if you say Opteron or sledgehammer everyone knows you are talking about a socket940 or 939 CPU. I really don't care what gigabyte says in a magazine ad - they are just adding to the confusion that AMD should be trying more than anything to avoid (even though they created the problem).

There are 2 FSB's for t-birds. 200 for the 1400, 1300, 1200, 1100, and 1000MHz. 266 was for 1.4, 1.33, 1.2, 1.13, and 1.0GHz. Obviously there were some speeds that had both versions.

With overclocking you can't be general. When someone says they have an Athlon around here, the first question everyone asks is WHAT CORE. That is far more informative than just saying it is an Athlon.
 
The Hammer core is also named K8 just as the Athlon is named K7, there are different variations of the K8, just as there are (maybe just not as many) as the K7
 
AMD has not referred to the hammer as K8. Motherboard manufactures have just used K8 in the model numbers of their AMD64 platforms, and it was commonly referred to as K8 in the media, but that doesn't make it correct. The only reference to K8 on the AMD website is in a press release about a SOYO motherboard whose model name includes K8.


The K7 is one varient of the ATHLON, just as the Thunderbird is a varient of the ATHLON. The K7 just happened to be the first varient of the ATHLON. K7 = Athlon, but Athlon does NOT equal K7. What I mean by that is every K7 is an Athlon, but not every Athlon is a K7.

If you look at the OPN (ordering part number) for the different Athlon Processors, the original Athlon (K7) start with AMD-K7, which is the Family/Architecture and means 'AMD-K7 Architecture'. For the t-bred processors it starts with AXD and means 'AMD Athlon XP Processor Model 8 with QuantiSpeed Architecture for Desktop Products'. No mention of K7 there.


K7 data sheet: http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/21016.pdf

T-bred data sheet: http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/25175.pdf
 
Does it really matters if you call it K8, Hammer or whatever, the most important thing is that when you mention it, people know what u'r talking about, right? ;)
 
Why not just use the correct nomenclature? That way everyone will know what you are talking about.
 
And as far as I can tell there never was a 1.1ghz Palomino AthlonMP, they went from 1ghz to 1.2ghz.

Actually, they did make them. The one in my machine upstairs is such a beast. Took us a bit to identify it. Here's the original thread
AMD Athlon
AHL1100AUT3B
AGNGA0151MPMW
Y7185540185
(C)1999 AMD

L1s factory uncut, ran perfectly well at 133x11=1466 and 133x11.5=1533 (XP1800+ speed) at 1.5v STOCK. You betcha, 33% overclock on STOCK voltage.
I think the highest I ever pushed it was about 1766 or 1800, after that, it got too hot with the ****ty heatsink I had on it.


Yours looks vaguely like mine does, squarish-die (my TBird 850 is rectangular), although mine is a bit squarer from what I can see in the pictures. The dates are at least fairly close, so there's a possiblity you might be able to crank yours up, but I've never seen that stepping before. ASHHA is an odd one.

Whack it in and try it, that's the best advice I can give. Don't let it heat up too much, and don't _force_ the voltage down it's throat until you get a better sense of what it can do, but push it a bit and let us know how it goes.
 
We are talking about desktop Athlon chips. The chip in the picture is a T-bird. Look at the OPN - A1100AMS3B

A = AMD Athlon Model 4 Architecture (Thunderbird)
1100 = Clock Speed
A = Packaging; CPGA
M = Operating Voltage; 1.75v
S = Die Temperature; 95C
3 = L2 cache size; 256kb
B = Max FSB; 200mhz


With your chip: AHL1100AUT3B

AHL = Low-Power Athlon XP (Model 6 Palomino)
1100 = Clock Speed
A = CPGA
U = 1.6v
T = 90C
3 = 256kb
B = 200mhz

(i just noticed you had this info in the linked thread, but I had already typed it...)

So actually I was right, there wasn't an 1100mhz AthlonMP or normal desktop XP, I didn't look into low-power chips before. Honestly, I didn't even know they existed outside of the mobile realm.

Why not keep crapping my thread?

Sorry - I gave you my opinion. At some point you have to just try the chip and see what it can do, as radu386 said. We can talk about it all day long, but it won't change what the actual chip will do.
 
The most you will be able to get out of it will be just under 1.6ghz but the stepping code is not a good one either. If it was a AYHJA then I would say you have a Obsolete Gem. But the stepping is an ASHHA so according to the cpu database your lucky if you get 200mhz out of it.
 
Back