M572 processor upgrade update - mainly for Franc

[thanatoid]

Hi Franc,

I DL'd the utils you mentioned, and decided to just go ahead and
flash the BIOS with the "990224sj" hacked version. I figured I
could always go back.

Well, it worked fine and I am now running an AMD K-6 475MHz CPU
set at 418 MHZ (or something) on a "300MHz max" board!!!

(It runs at 475 as well and MIGHT even run at 500 or 550 but I
don't want to overdo things. Better to "underclock" (?) than to
overclock in this situation, I think.)

It took about 50 reboots, fiddling with the RAM sticks, and
several intermittent "windows protection errors" but everything
seems OK now.

The hacked BIOS is INFINITELY more customizable than the
original one that came with the board, even though its "original
date" is 1995! But the latest changes were made in 2002. This is
the guy's homepage, BTW:

http://web.inter.nl.net/hcc/J.Steunebrink/

(I can't remember if it's mentioned on the "m571" site, I
believe I found it with Google.)

Before any of this, I ran SiSoftSandra and it gave me 2 errors
at first, one of which was eliminated after installing the K6
CPU. Apparently the original 166MMX could not cache all the
memory, or something like that.

I am still getting a Sandra message about memory being written
too fast (or something) but there was nothing in the new BIOS to
make the adjustment suggested. However, that setting DOES show
up using the AMIBCP.EXE which I DL'd from your site. So I may
try to /further/ edit the already hacked BIOS (it supposedly
even allows for HD's up to 137 GB, not that I am interested) to
change that setting.

/If/ that setting shows up once flashed - I don't understand why
it doesn't NOW, it's the SAME file - it might fix that problem,
even though it does not appear to have caused any trouble so
far.

I would not even know about if I hadn't installed Sandra - which
I have had for years, but never used. It's an excellent tool.
Too bad the trial version does not have the memory test enabled
(see next).

I ran MemTest-86 v3.4 from a floppy and on the first test it
gave me nothing but errors, and then it hanged (hung?) in the
2nd test (of about 8 or 9 tests total). The quick BIOS check of
the memory says "OK" and the machine works fine, so I don't
know. The 2 SDRAM's are a 128 and a 64, and they are both PC-100
- but of different manufacturers. (The K-6 475 /might/ be able
to handle PC133 SDRAM in which case I might be able to find one
256MB stick of those. I'll look into it later.)

In spite of these possibly existent memory troubles, there have
been no problems at all running the computer today - it did give
me a WPE when I first booted, but upon reboot it went into
Windows just fine.

Anyway, so far, so good, it seems.

Today I checked out the "forbidden NG" you mentioned but I
really had nothing specific to post about. I am just glad
everything didn't go up in flames and I want to relax a little
and see how things work over the next few days.

Thanks again for all your help - it is quite possible that I may
be able to eliminate the memory speed problem with the AMI BIOS
editor you provided (which I - needless to say - had no idea
even existed).

Regards
t.


--
[from a recent conversation]
thanatoid: So why did you decide you needed broadband?
Neighbor: I wanted to read my e-mail faster.

 

[thanatoid]

Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in
news:akmmb4pc9degrfk4vs71k5op3hd3jknk4a@4ax.com:

<SNIP>

> If you are still running Win95, then be aware that there is
> a patch that fixes a Windows timing bug that affects AMD
> CPUs running at 350MHz and above. There is no such bug in
> Win98.
>
> See http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q192841/
>
> Hopefully that will fix your "Windows protection error".

Wow, Franc. You know EVERYTHING, I mean it! Once I see
everything runs OK for a while, I /will/ put 98SE on this
machine, but I will DL this patch right away. I don't like scary
error messages without explanations! (And Windows is /so/ good
at that!)

> As for your Memtest errors, it may be that your RAM has
> difficulty running at whatever speed has been selected by
> the BIOS. I suspect that your CPU speed of 418MHz equates
> to an FSB (CPU base frequency) of 83.3MHz and a multiplier
> of 5x. If so, then perhaps you would be better off
> selecting 75MHz and 2.0x (=6.0x). That should get your CPU
> running at 450MHz. The CPU FSB may also be the same clock
> used by your RAM, in which case a lower clock speed may
> solve your RAM stability issues at the same time.

Excellent information, thanks, I'll try it.

> I've also seen statements to the effect that the i430TX
> chipset requires PCICLK=CPUCLK/2 which means that at an FSB
> of 83MHz, your PCI bus would be (over)clocking at 41.6MHz
> instead of 33MHz. I'd need to see the datasheet for your
> clock generator chip before I could be certain, though. If
> the statement is true, then 75MHz would be a less
> aggressive overclock. FWIW, that's what I'm using on my
> M571.

Speaking of which, I now see how TOTALLY untrue was the computer
shop guy's (who made my system) statement of "M572 is just like
M571 except is has on-board sound", or something. Even the board
layout is completely different, not to mention the flexibility
of the jumper settings and probably many other things I am not
aware of!

> In fact Intel's datasheet ...
>
> http://download.intel.com/design/chipsets/datashts/29055901.
> pdf
>
> ... states that it "Supports the Pentium® Processor Family
> Host Bus at 66 MHz and 60 MHz" and has a "Fully
> Synchronous, Minimum Latency 30/33-MHz PCI Bus Interface".
>
> So it does appear that even at 75MHz your motherboard may
> be overclocking the chipset, unless Intel produced better
> spec'ed parts at a later date.

Thanks SO much. I will check and lower the FSB to 66 or 60 and
use whatever multiplier gives me 400-450 or so.

My "update" post was really not a sneaky attempt to get more
advice from you, just to let you know where I was with all this,
but I certainly appreciate the additional info! It should be
very useful.

I must say I do feel bad about taking up so much of your time.
Next time I have a question I'll post it to the "forbidden NG"
and see what happens there. I am pretty sure they have no one
else working on upgrading an 11-year old system in there!

Best regards
t.


--
[from a recent conversation]
thanatoid: So why did you decide you needed broadband?
Neighbor: I wanted to read my e-mail faster.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On 31 Aug 2008 20:35:09 GMT, thanatoid <waiting@the.exit.invalid> put
finger to keyboard and composed:

>Hi Franc,
>
>I DL'd the utils you mentioned, and decided to just go ahead and
>flash the BIOS with the "990224sj" hacked version. I figured I
>could always go back.
>
>Well, it worked fine and I am now running an AMD K-6 475MHz CPU
>set at 418 MHZ (or something) on a "300MHz max" board!!!
>
>(It runs at 475 as well and MIGHT even run at 500 or 550 but I
>don't want to overdo things. Better to "underclock" (?) than to
>overclock in this situation, I think.)
>
>It took about 50 reboots, fiddling with the RAM sticks, and
>several intermittent "windows protection errors" but everything
>seems OK now.

If you are still running Win95, then be aware that there is a patch
that fixes a Windows timing bug that affects AMD CPUs running at
350MHz and above. There is no such bug in Win98.

See http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q192841/

Hopefully that will fix your "Windows protection error".

As for your Memtest errors, it may be that your RAM has difficulty
running at whatever speed has been selected by the BIOS. I suspect
that your CPU speed of 418MHz equates to an FSB (CPU base frequency)
of 83.3MHz and a multiplier of 5x. If so, then perhaps you would be
better off selecting 75MHz and 2.0x (=6.0x). That should get your CPU
running at 450MHz. The CPU FSB may also be the same clock used by your
RAM, in which case a lower clock speed may solve your RAM stability
issues at the same time.

I've also seen statements to the effect that the i430TX chipset
requires PCICLK=CPUCLK/2 which means that at an FSB of 83MHz, your PCI
bus would be (over)clocking at 41.6MHz instead of 33MHz. I'd need to
see the datasheet for your clock generator chip before I could be
certain, though. If the statement is true, then 75MHz would be a less
aggressive overclock. FWIW, that's what I'm using on my M571.

In fact Intel's datasheet ...

http://download.intel.com/design/chipsets/datashts/29055901.pdf

.... states that it "Supports the Pentium® Processor Family Host Bus at
66 MHz and 60 MHz" and has a "Fully Synchronous, Minimum Latency
30/33-MHz PCI Bus Interface".

So it does appear that even at 75MHz your motherboard may be
overclocking the chipset, unless Intel produced better spec'ed parts
at a later date.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[thanatoid]

Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in
news:k75nb459qessmtks0lgo6ob0ngagn6mbuu@4ax.com:

> At the risk of annoying others, here is one more post on
> the subject ...

Bears seem to get annoyed rather easily. That's why they are
best viewed from a long distance.

>>Speaking of which, I now see how TOTALLY untrue was the
>>computer shop guy's (who made my system) statement of "M572
>>is just like M571 except is has on-board sound", or
>>something. Even the board layout is completely different,
>>not to mention the flexibility of the jumper settings and
>>probably many other things I am not aware of!
>
> Both have onboard sound. The M571 has integrated graphics
> in the SiS 5597/5598 chipset.

Right, graphics, my mistake. I wanted a decent graphics card so
I got a Matrox Mystique (Millennium seemed a bit of an overkill)
with an astonishing 4MB of RAM!!! (I remember your post from a
while ago where you explained in mathematical detail why even
2MB is more than enough unless you're a gamer.)

> I can see why the vendor would have thought that the two
> boards were alike, though. PCChips is very deceptive in its
> description of the M571's hardware. For example, the
> chipset has a heatsink (probably because it is
> overclocked), and this heatsink carries the words "TX
> Pro-II" which is possibly intended to give the impression
> that the chipset is in fact an Intel TX equivalent.
> Furthermore, the sound chip is labelled "HT1869V+", which
> is possibly intended to make it look like an ESS ES1869,
> but it is in fact a C-Media CMI8330A. Worse still, the
> manual refers to the integrated graphics as an "Advanced
> Graphics Port", possibly intended to confuse the buyer into
> thinking that it is in fact an "Accelerated Graphics Port".

Good ol' PCChips. Still, a great MB!

I am actually thinking of getting one of their current ones IF I
end up building a new computer. They seem to be getting pretty
good reviews and the quality control seems to have improved a
lot in 11 years.

> One last thing I have to say is that your 475MHz CPU was
> apparently produced in two flavours, one with a 2.4V Vcore,
> the other with 2.2V. You should check your BIOS setup to
> make sure that the voltage selected by the BIOS matches
> that printed on the chip. Selecting the wrong voltage may
> be another cause of stability problems.

Yes, I checked that before I installed it. It's the 2.2V
version, and set for that.

> http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K6-2/AMD-K6-2 475 - AMD-
> K6-2-475AFX.html
> http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K6-2/AMD-K6-2 475 - AMD-
> K6-2-475AHX.html

Good site to know about.

> Both chips are spec'ed for a 95MHz FSB and 5x multiplier.
> Obviously your motherboard, and consequently your BIOS,
> cannot provide a 95MHz FSB, so the configuration will
> necessarily be a compromise. It may involve quite a bit of
> experimentation before you settle into a comfort zone.

I'm actually quite optimistic (a VERY rare occurrence in this
brain). I read the MS AMDfix page you directed me to and those
are EXACTLY the error messages I was getting, so I'm sure that
will take care of it.
Your other suggestions about memory will also work I am quite
sure. You seem to be rarely wrong, if ever.

Thanks again.


--
[from a recent conversation]
thanatoid: So why did you decide you needed broadband?
Neighbor: I wanted to read my e-mail faster.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On 01 Sep 2008 01:06:13 GMT, thanatoid <waiting@the.exit.invalid> put
finger to keyboard and composed:

At the risk of annoying others, here is one more post on the subject
....

>Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in
>news:akmmb4pc9degrfk4vs71k5op3hd3jknk4a@4ax.com:

>Speaking of which, I now see how TOTALLY untrue was the computer
>shop guy's (who made my system) statement of "M572 is just like
>M571 except is has on-board sound", or something. Even the board
>layout is completely different, not to mention the flexibility
>of the jumper settings and probably many other things I am not
>aware of!

Both have onboard sound. The M571 has integrated graphics in the SiS
5597/5598 chipset.

I can see why the vendor would have thought that the two boards were
alike, though. PCChips is very deceptive in its description of the
M571's hardware. For example, the chipset has a heatsink (probably
because it is overclocked), and this heatsink carries the words "TX
Pro-II" which is possibly intended to give the impression that the
chipset is in fact an Intel TX equivalent. Furthermore, the sound chip
is labelled "HT1869V+", which is possibly intended to make it look
like an ESS ES1869, but it is in fact a C-Media CMI8330A. Worse still,
the manual refers to the integrated graphics as an "Advanced Graphics
Port", possibly intended to confuse the buyer into thinking that it is
in fact an "Accelerated Graphics Port".

One last thing I have to say is that your 475MHz CPU was apparently
produced in two flavours, one with a 2.4V Vcore, the other with 2.2V.
You should check your BIOS setup to make sure that the voltage
selected by the BIOS matches that printed on the chip. Selecting the
wrong voltage may be another cause of stability problems.

http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K6-2/AMD-K6-2 475 - AMD-K6-2-475AFX.html
http://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K6-2/AMD-K6-2 475 - AMD-K6-2-475AHX.html

Both chips are spec'ed for a 95MHz FSB and 5x multiplier. Obviously
your motherboard, and consequently your BIOS, cannot provide a 95MHz
FSB, so the configuration will necessarily be a compromise. It may
involve quite a bit of experimentation before you settle into a
comfort zone.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.