KT400 or KT400A PLS READ

Caviman2201 · Jan 17, 2004

Two questions...

1) How can you tell which one you have seeing as they both support the 8235 south bridge (which i have) SANDRA says Apollo KT400 (the regular one) but VIA's website says the Apollo does not support the 400MHz Memory Bus, which mine does support...

2) I have heard rumors that the KT400A supports the 1/6 divider which would help me out tremendously... how do you set it if it does?

Balrog · Jan 17, 2004

To my understanding if it supports 200FSB\400DDR then its the KT400A. I don't believe they included 1/6 divider, people talked about it but I don't think it ever happened.

Regards, Balrog

Sonny · Jan 17, 2004

To get a few things straight about the KT400 & KT400A;

KT400
Synchronous

100/100
133/133
166/166

Asynchronous

100/133
100/166
100/200
133/166
133/200

KT400A
Synchronous

100/100
133/133
166/166

Asynchronous

100/133
100/166
100/200
133/166
133/200
166/200

Neither of the 2 chipsets from VIA have a 6:2:1 option to run 200/200 & keep the AGP & PCI BUS Speeds at uninspiring default speeds.

Caviman2201 · Jan 17, 2004

so basically... the only real difference between the KT400 and the KT400A is that the 400A can handle a 166MHz FSB and a 200MHz Memory bus whereas the 400 can only handle a 200MHz Memory bus if the FSB is 133MHz or below...

the main advantage to the "A" is that it can run a Barton processor (aka 333Mhz FSB) and DDR400 RAM... the KT400 regular couldn't run the 333MHz FSB with DDR400...

still, without the componets, how would I be able to tell which one I have?

Sonny · Jan 18, 2004

Caviman2201 said:
so basically... the only real difference between the KT400 and the KT400A is that the 400A can handle a 166MHz FSB and a 200MHz Memory bus whereas the 400 can only handle a 200MHz Memory bus if the FSB is 133MHz or below...

the main advantage to the "A" is that it can run a Barton processor (aka 333Mhz FSB) and DDR400 RAM... the KT400 regular couldn't run the 333MHz FSB with DDR400...

That's correct in understanding the asynchronous setup. There is no real advantage in running asynch though, you more than likely see little or no difference at all compared to synchronous setups & more performance when compared to a slightly overclocked FSB.

Caviman2201 said:
still, without the componets, how would I be able to tell which one I have?

If you dont have the board physically then you should email the manufacturer. If you have it then just remove the NorthBridge cooler if you want to make sure.

Caviman2201 · Jan 18, 2004

so you're saying I should definately run at 166/166... or any syncronous setup... such as my current 172/172

Sonny · Jan 18, 2004

Yup, thats the way to run with any AMD chipset.

computerbias · Jan 19, 2004

who is the board manufacurer,
I know that the kt400 never came with a 1/6 divider, but with other stable components, the board should still be able to oc close to 200FSB. I had the MSI KT4 Ultra (still have just replace with NF7-s) and had the FSB at 180 stable but with My 9500 pro Radeon, that is where she stopped, I used to get further with the 9000 pro Radeon, but the trade off for graphics is definately a small price to pay

Caviman2201 · Jan 22, 2004

see, that speed makes sense... when I had my 2400+, I overclocked from 133 to 145 stable... that's a 12Mhz increase... I went from 1995MHz @ 133Mhz FSB to 2175MHz @ 145 FSB. With my new 2800+ Barton and the SAME MEMORY(512M DDR400 Crucial) and components I can only overclock from 166Mhz to 173Mhz stable... only a 7Mhz overclock... I don't know where the extra 5Mhz went but I want it back

it's a Biostar M7VIT Pro motherboard (LINK

KT400 or KT400A PLS READ

Caviman2201

Member

Balrog

Member

Sonny

Senior TIFOSI

Caviman2201

Member

Sonny

Senior TIFOSI

Caviman2201

Member

Sonny

Senior TIFOSI

computerbias

Member

Caviman2201

Member

Similar threads