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

Stupid Free RealityCheck CPUs!

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

Krusty

Insane Overclocking Clown
Joined
Sep 17, 2001
Location
Orange County
Just popped in the 2100+ (Palomino) that I won at the AMD thingie. Booted up at 140fsb and ran Sandra tests, 3dmark, and SETI for a couple hours flawlessly. Pop it up to 145fsb and the stupid thing won't even boot into Windows! What kind of cpu can't even take a fsb overclock of 145?!?:mad:

Could it be that the 1600+ cpus with good steppings will actually run at faster max speeds than the 2100+ cpus? Does the 2100+ actually perform better than a 1600+ overclocked to the same speed (ignoring fsb performance increase)?

I was able to hist 1.8Ghz with my 1600+ before my hard drive started crapping out. The 2100+ starts at 1733 and I might not even be able to get it to 2Ghz!

I just might attempt to unlock my 1600+ to see which could run faster and which will run better.

EDIT:Ugh, had to give it 1.85v to boot into Windows. 1.8 didn't do it. Time for some stress testing.
 
Last edited:

Illah

Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2002
Location
San Francisco
Steppings mean alot. If the 2100 is an old stepping then it won't go as far.

Also realize that the 2100 starts at 1733 MHz, a 1600 starts at 1400 MHz. The 'finish line' for Palomino chips averages in the 1800-1900 range, and 1733 is almost there.

Then you have the 10.5 multi on the 1600 compared to the 13 multi on the 2100. Up the FSB by 10 MHz and the 1600 is only at 1501 MHz, a good deal away from the 1800-1900 range. Up the 2100's FSB by 10 MHz and it's at 1859 MHz, almost at the end for most XP chips.

See where I'm getting at?

--Illah
 
OP
Krusty

Krusty

Insane Overclocking Clown
Joined
Sep 17, 2001
Location
Orange County
I sure do see what you mean. It still doesn't change the fact that I'm angry that I can get the 1600 to run at about the same speed as the 2100. One of these will likely wind up being sold off soon. If I can get a better 3dmark and sandra score from the 1600, I'll be keeping the lower speed one.

All I wanted out of this stupid thing was a 150fsb speed. I figured at that speed it would be definately better than the 1600, but Noooo! I just gave it 1.85v at 144fsb and it died halfway through 3dmark.

Perhaps I should find myself some silicone tubing and reseal my reservoir for some real testing.
 

eli

Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2001
Can you really complain about a free CPU? I'm hoping to get me one of them 2100+'s. That would be sweet.
 

The Coolest

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 29, 2001
Heh, I'd like to have 1, cause my FSB is maxed out at 145mhz anyway, so if I could run it at 140-145 I'd be happy (as long as its free)
 

Arkaine23

Captain Random Senior Evil
Joined
Nov 8, 2001
XP's

Ok, a few things here to clear up what this rant is about.

1) 1600+ and 2100+ are the same. They just have a different multiplyer.

2) Agoia/Aroia are the steppings where higher yeilds of highly clocked cpu's came from. But many were cut back to lower models, such as our favorite 1600+ agoia. This is only further clarifying that they are the same chip with about the same potential.

3) With retail cooling and voltage, there is very low yield for chips that can test up to 1733 stable, hence 2100+ cost more. This is why there are no higher models of palominos than the 2100+. It also means that the Palomino core is limited to about this speed under stock conditions, and even under extreme condidtions there isn't much more to be had.

4) At 145x13 you're pushing the envelope on hitting 1900 mhz. That's pretty darm fast for a palomino if you ask me. Even 140x13 is fast, 1820 mhz. Mine only does about 1780 or so stable, and its a good stepping in a good board, with good memory, good cooling, and a strong PSU. Just needs more voltage than 1.85...

5) If you want nice overclocking with a high-end model chip, you have to accept there isn't much headroom, unlock, and sacrifice the multiplyer for more FSB.

6) It was free!
 

mook

Registered
Joined
Nov 5, 2002
Location
Seattle, WA
Please emphasize number 6 on that list. FREE. As in no cost to you.

*Looks around* Between you and me, I hope they give out 2400+'s on the Seattle stop :D
 

Mr B

Senior Admin Emeritus
Joined
Dec 28, 2000
Location
East Bridgewater, MA
mook said:
Please emphasize number 6 on that list. FREE. As in no cost to you.

*Looks around* Between you and me, I hope they give out 2400+'s on the Seattle stop :D

Couldn't have said it better, but I would have said Boston instead....:D ;)
 

Fever

Member
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Location
Montreal, Canada
I don't see why you're complaining. You got the chip for free man! If it's really bugging you sell it and get another 1600+.
 

rogerdugans

Linux challenged Senior, not that it stops me...
Joined
Dec 28, 2001
Location
Corner of No and Where
I got an XP1800 last time (in Boston) and it was the same thing: barely hit 1700 mhz stable (166 mhz oc.)

But bottom line is that FREE is one of my favorite things!

I would be happy with any free XP chip:)

I would, of course, prefer one that could get 400 mhz of overclock, but when you get back to the old "Bang for the Buck" equation, it really doesn't matter....if it was Free!
Sorry to hear about your pain:(, but it is cheap performance.
 

stompah

Deep Pain Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2001
lol my 1800+ hit 1733MHz easy, so easy. Too bad it was the chips limit :(
 

Kosmic

Member
Joined
Mar 25, 2002
Location
Washington State
I never bothered to look at the stepping on my 1800+, but I guess I should be damn happy it hits 1800 so easy. I've had it up to 1850 stable, but my unlocking didn't give me half mults, and I like running at 200 fsb, so 1800mhz is just fine with me. :)