Need Overclocking Tips/Help

[TheCrimsonStar]

Okay everyone, I have an older computer (HP Pavilion 533c) and I'm interested in testing its limits with overclocking. My processor is a Pentium 4 @ 2.4Ghz, and I've read on different sites that it's possible to overclock this, and that some people have gotten it all the way up to 3.0Ghz on STOCK cooling! Is this possible?

So my question is, can someone help me get to the voltage/fsb settings in my BIOS? My mobo has PhoenixBIOS version 6.00, and I can't find the voltage/fsb settings anywhere. Here are 2 screenshots from CPU-Z of my cpu and bios info.

Thanks in advance!
________
Yamaha XS-1

 

[Optix]

A lot of companies like HP, eMachines, Dell, Gateway, etc use a modified BIOS that is missing many key overclocking features such as FSB, voltage and memory timing modification. The only way around this is to use software like ClockGen but you likely will only be able to change the FSB meaning you will top out either when heat becomes and issue or when the default voltage can no longer keep the system stable at the increased frequency.

The downside to ClockGen is that you will be required to know the PLL of your motherboard but there are a good number of them listed on the website.

 

[TheCrimsonStar]

Ok thanks I'll try that

*EDIT*

Ok I found my PLL but it seems that it's not supported by ClockGen (from what I can see in their PLL list). Any suggestions as to what I should do? I just got SpeedFan to monitor my temps while I try to OC. My PLL is v14.31-18
________
Aprilia ETV1000

 

[Optix]

Hmm...that PLL doesn't follow the normal naming scheme. Check out the link below from Tom's Hardware regarding software overclocking.

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/overclocking-software,2059-3.html

SetFSB looks like a pretty good overclocking application too. You may want to check it out and see which of the two you prefer.

One thing I forgot to mention is that your PCI bus is likely not locked as it is on many higher end motherboards. Raise your FSB, raise your PCI bus frequency. Too high and you run the risk of corrupting your operating system. I have done it (twice) and it sucks.

Also check out your processor info on Intel.com to see what the maximum temperature is and then stay about 5 degrees below it. Temperatures can get out of hand quickly and while most CPU's will throttle back when temperatures hit the high mark it's still not a good idea to push them past the safe zone. If I'm not mistaken you can set alarms with SpeedFan.

You may not get that high since you will not be modifying voltages but it's good information to have.

When overclocking there is always the possibility of something going wrong but if done properly it is incredibly fun.

 

[TheCrimsonStar]

mmmkay then. I'll try that now. Idk if I got the wrong PLL number or something, I saw the screenshot from that link you gave me, and got the numbers from the ICS chip. Was I supposed to use that? I had used the numbers off of the oval shaped chip next to it. here are the numbers from the ICS chip:

UJ860481
0230
950201AF

Looked back at ClockGen, my PLL isn't on there from these numbers I found. I'll try SetFSB.
________
DT250

 

[TheCrimsonStar]

Meh. SetFSB doesn't have my PLL in there either. lol
________
Honda MR50

 

[Optix]

Check out SoftFSB, CPUCool or CPUFSB. They may have it listed.

If not you may be able to find the PLL by doing google searches.

I did find this if you are REALLY hardcore...

http://overclocking.e4allupgraders.info/ics950201.htm

 

[TheCrimsonStar]

LOLOL I guess I can't do anything...I selected my PLL in CPUCool, and this is what it said to me:

You have found a PLL whose frequency could not be changed via SMBUS. The PLL manufacturer did not implement this feature. It will also not be possible to change the frequency in the future version of the program - the hardware does not support it...

________
Suzuki GS750S

 

[Optix]

Ouch. Well, at least you know 100% where it stands.

On the plus side you can get a really cheap motherboard that would at least allow you to change the FSB if you wanted. You wouldn't be able to change the voltages without a hardware mod but it would net you a small increase in performance, even if the real world benefits aren't apparent.

 

[TheCrimsonStar]

Yeah I might do that before I buy a new comp. getting a cheap mobo and a better processor fan would work for now, since I can upgrade to 2gb ram on this, and I don't mind playing games in a lower res, just as long as they're playable. Thanks for all your help
________
chevy wiki

 

[GFreeman]

Seriously safe the money and buy something new. You can get a Intel dual core quite cheap nowdays. The old DDR is quite expensive in comparison to the new stuff. Overclocking that CPU isn't going to help much in games. It mostly comes down to a strong videocard nowdays.

 

[Kougar]

Seriously safe the money and buy something new. You can get a Intel dual core quite cheap nowdays. The old DDR is quite expensive in comparison to the new stuff. Overclocking that CPU isn't going to help much in games. It mostly comes down to a strong videocard nowdays.

Unfortunately this adage isn't true with Pentium 4's, games are mostly optimized for dual-cores and require at least a single powerful CPU now. Something about the Netburst architecture just leaves it gasping.

Any review that benchmarks CPUs in games will illustrate this, and it is a shocker. Any of these games, for example: http://techreport.com/articles.x/18799/6

 

[GFreeman]

Well yes I may have not said it correctly there.. A strong videocard can give a good boost, but indeed games are optimized for multiple cores nowdays. Yes a strong CPU is becoming more important. I meant to point out that overclocking that Pentium 4 CPU isn't going help much improving smoother FPS in games.

 

[Tharic-Nar]

And I can confirm this quite easily. I have a very old system, P4 with an ATI 3650 AGP graphics card, there is no point in upgrading it at all, even with a better graphics card. Resident Evil 5 with P4 @ 3.0Ghz
- 1440 x 900 = 21 FPS peak
- 640 x 480 = 21 FPS peak
P4 @ 3.2 Ghz = 21.2 FPS.... If that doesn't scream underpowered and CPU bottleneck, i'll need to shout louder...

Moral of story - I need a new computer.... wait, no .... You are better off saving up for a new computer.

 

[GFreeman]

That is a nice strong AGP videocard. I have a ATI Sapphire 3850 512mb myself. I'm still running a X2 4200@2,8ghz, 1,42v vcore (s939) with 2gb DDR (2-3-2-6). I must say this is plenty for the purpose I use my PC for.

 

[Tharic-Nar]

Yes, the card itself is great, AGP did die before it's time, it's only dual GPU and the very top end cards that need more than 8 lanes even today, they wouldn't throttle back PCI-E slots to 8x if the cards didn't work, but of course, AGP didn't provide the same level of power either (and I’m sure there's something about latency as well). My Card is also a Sapphire, just the 3650 512MB. I had considered a while back of getting the 3850, but since I’m CPU bound, it would have made almost no difference for a 40-50% price premium.

In terms of the overall system, P4's really do show their age now - despite their popularity. Mine is a Socket 478 Prescott 90nm with Hyperthreading with a default clock of 2.8Ghz, OC'd to 3.1. Back in the day, it was running 3.4Ghz, but age does strange things. The CPU could hit over 3.6, I know it could, the problem was memory, I had generic Crucial 512 DDR400 modules and they couldn't overclock at all. I had to do some very heavy memory ratio's since they were locked to the FSB, and it was through the FSB I had to do all my overclocking, made things a lot simpler compared today. Even with the timing's at their highest of 2-4-2-8, they could never past 411Mhz. so with a CPU at 3.6 and the memory at 340Mhz due to the ratio (can't remember the exact values), my performance was worse than if I kept the CPU at 3.3 - 3.4Ghz. All this was done on Air cooling using a Thermaltake copper Tower cooler and 2x high speed 'Streetfighter' fans... the noise can get pretty damn bad, not Delta levels, but still bad.

The other thing as well is 2GB of ram really isn't enough anymore, for me at least, I have 2GB and I keep hitting memory based walls in applications (rendering and Graphics packages like Photoshop and Illustrator). I run WinXP so that I can keep as much memory as possible, though I will admit it's only been in the last year have I actually started to really need more than 2GB and a 64bit OS. I can put a fair bit of blame on Firefox, it is a real memory hog - I use 3 windows and about 30-40 tabs (yes, they're all used) and the memory footprint is about 300MB+ and virtual memory at about 400MB, I believe the 2 culprits are the javascript engine and flash, but we'll see when FF 4.0 gets released with the new javascript engine. But when I start throwing Mail clients, RSS readers, Office and messengers into the mix, I have about 400MB left - which can promptly be snapped up by Firefox.

Yes, I might be a bit of an extreme case but all I’m saying is, if your going for a new build, go 64-bit with 4, 6 or 8GB of ram, at least then you'll have some spare as you continue to use the system for a couple years.

 

[GFreeman]

I agree the minimum of 4gb RAM seems a good way to go. I'm running Windows 7 64bit quite smoothly with 2 gigs. This combination seems to run well enough for me. The advantage of AMD 64 compared to the P4 is that you can take better use of the memory dividers. In P4 terms a 1/1 ratio is always the quickest. Also P4's don't handle tight timings too well. You might try loosening up to 2,5-3-3-6 or so and get the memory speed up higher. I have owned a 2,8ghz P4 Northwood with Hypertreading. Loosening up seemed to help well achieving higher RAM speeds and stability with the overclock attempts. Right timings in P4 terms don't help much at all achieving higher memory bandwidths. When using a AMD64 in comparison, it does. The on-chip (AMD64) memory controller takes advantage of the tighter timings.