Celeron 400 @ 500 or 600?

[ayuen]

I just o/c my Cel400 to 600 at 2.3V. It would post and then crash with windows. I turned off the L2 Cache and it seems to work fine. Played Quake II with no problems. Was wondering if not having the L2 Cache offsets the gain of 100 Mhz from my previous stable 500Mhz at 2.1V? Using Asus P3B-F. Also, the reason I might want to go to 600 is to save my HDD and AGP as 83FSB was pushing my PCI to 41.5. If it runs stable at 600, should I keep it at that? Thanks for any input!

[Pollux]

I have my dual celerons running @ 552 right now and they seem to be doing fine. that 600 is a high price to pay though if stuff starts to sizzle http://www.sysopt.com/forum/smile.gif
-pollux

[TcMatic]

I have a 400 o/c to 600
First time booting into win the system freeze
I rebooted on 400 and deleted a lot of progs
from the startup list and then installed
cpuidl
The system is running fine in win98
L2 cache stil on 2,3 volt core
But games freez the system
So i hope u are a lucky guy

[ayuen]

Hi, I've found that disabling the L2 cache really helps. And at 600, the PCI and AGP buses aren't o/c so I think the only thing that would fry would be the CPU. So far so good. Sandra shows the 600 w/o L2 is still better than 500 w L2. Thanks.

[Brydon]

I got mine doing 400a@600 on 2.2v with no problems what ever.I also have a amdk6-2400 which is at 110x4.5=495.

[Sweeper]

Heck, I tried a PPGA 400 Celeron at 500 on the BF6 Abit MB, and my registry went to $^#&....couldn't get it past 450 without errors. I never was to up on turning off the L2 Cache. It's there for a reason so I tend to want to leave it on.
My Pentium III 450 ran at 602 with the L2 cache on.

[This message has been edited by Sweeper (edited 01-02-2000).]

[wee96]

It's kinda like when celerons first came out, they had no cache at all. A 300A with its cache enabled (not overclocked) is slower than a 266 celeron without cache running at 400mhz. I'd say if you like the performance of your chip at 600mhz without cache, keep it there. At such a high mhz rate, the lack of cache isn't nearly as noticeable. Plus most games will run just as fast.

[ayuen]

Thanks for all the responses. I like the performance at 600 and I think I'll keep it there. Just for interest, I tried disabling the L1 cache and it was a slug. Surprising what 32k of cache will do. By the way, what does lol mean?

[alpha]

Lots Of Laughs

[blondini]

something i use to keep my 400 celeron stable at high clocks is a program from the guy who gave us softfsb called WCPUL2 it allows you to back off the latency of the L2 cache if your unable to do it in your bios, try 8 then see if it's stable if so then bit by bit lower it-i can get away with a latency of 6 at 672mhz or 7 at 690mhz stable but that is it cooled with peltiers-if you have to go above 8 then just leave the L2 disabled give it a try it might help

[ayuen]

Blondini, thanks.
Is the program you mentioned fairly easy to and use? I'm using Asus P3B-F as I mentioned above. I don't see any settings in the bios for l2 latency, just for sdram settings for slow, normal and fast. Since I've disabled L2 @ 600, would I have to drop the speed back down to 500 with L2 enabled in order to change the latency and then bump it back up to 600 with L2 to see if it works?

[This message has been edited by ayuen (edited 01-07-2000).]