K6 233(3.2/3.3v) on single voltage mb(3.3v) - award bios

Don't ask how to over-clock.
Denniss
BIOS Guru
Posts: 3153
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2002 8:16 pm
Location: Near Hannover (CEBIT) Germany
Contact:

http://users.erols.com/chare/elec_pentium.htm

The 3.3V Version is rated at 9.75A, the 7.5A of the 200 are for split-voltage 2.9/3.3V.

I'd stick with 200 MHz to be on the safe side, at max I'd use 75x3 (if the board supports 75 and is stable)
BiosMan
The BIOS Patcher
Posts: 81
Joined: Mon May 20, 2002 9:20 pm
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Just to keep you all updated on the BIOS issue, Space Marine is now running the REV:F10 BIOS. This is the latest official BIOS I could find for the Lucky Star P54CE Ver.F board and it is a close match with the original REV:F03 BIOS he send me.
This 02/14/97 REV:F10 BIOS has full support for the 3.2V/ 3.3V K6, but not for the later 2.2V K6 and K6-2 models.

Greetings,
Jan.
The Unofficial AMD K6-2+ / K6-III+ page
http://web.inter.nl.net/hcc/J.Steunebrink/k6plus.htm
cp
BIOS Guru
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 9:07 pm
Location: Germany

hey Jan, nice to see you posting here :) it's been a while..

support for the later 2.2v K6/K6-2 would require split voltage on the board. since it doesn't support split voltage out of the box and doesn't even feature a vrm slot there's no use in supporting those processors on a board like this anyway.
KachiWachi
The New Guy
Posts: 1451
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 10:32 pm
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

<- concurs with cp.

Hi Jan! :D
Space Marine
BIOS Rookie
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 2:17 am

My motherboard is dead!

I installed correctly the k6, it started but no POST done.
Then i returned to my p133 but no post too.

Maybe that mainboard was completely incompatible with k6.

Any idea or i have to launch it out of window? :(
edwin
The Hardware Archivist
Posts: 6286
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

you have reset the jumpers properly? You did a cmos clear?
edwin/evasive

Do not assume anything

System error, strike any user to continue...
cp
BIOS Guru
Posts: 1914
Joined: Mon Oct 21, 2002 9:07 pm
Location: Germany

while running the AMD K6 you did install a large fan to cool the cpua AND the power-transistor, didn't you?
Space Marine
BIOS Rookie
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 2:17 am

Today happened a strange thing:

i tryed another time to start the mb with 133 and it starts, and now it is running.

Onestly i don't know what happened, but i didn't changed nothing from when i reinstalled it to today.

However a moderate fan was installed, not directly on cpu and VRM where i use the old ones, but at about 5 centimetres.

I don't know if is a good idea to risk again on mounting the k6.
Space Marine
BIOS Rookie
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 2:17 am

edwin wrote:you have reset the jumpers properly? You did a cmos clear?
Jumpers was correct but i didnt clear the cmos.

Mb doesnt have an erasing jumper, for clearing cmos have i only to remove cmos battery?
edwin
The Hardware Archivist
Posts: 6286
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2002 7:11 pm
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

yeah and disconnect from mains power to be sure.

the VRM may have indeed overheated, it might be a good idea to put a large heatfinger on the power transistor on that and have a larger fan blow over it...
edwin/evasive

Do not assume anything

System error, strike any user to continue...
Space Marine
BIOS Rookie
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 2:17 am

I don't thing that it gone overheated, i touched it just after the last trying (when it doesnt post) and was cold, like metal at ambient temperature.
Space Marine
BIOS Rookie
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 2:17 am

I'm posting from the k6! It's up and running since 3 hours! :D

The problem probably was that i hadn't cleared cmos.
I have installed old cpu fan on vrm and used an old gf2mx fan as cpu fan.

The case is opened: i can touch cpu heatsink and is still cold :)

Vrm airflow seems a bit hotter then cpu airflow, but the difference is barely noticable, and in general is very little bit hotter then ambient temperature.

I'm thinking that probably it will not suffer much on setting cpu at 233 (original k6 speed) instead of 200.



However i have another question:
win95 recognize cpu as a general pentium, and not a k6 mmx (bios recognization is ok).
Does it influence performances much? Does any k6 mmx patch for win95a exist?
I'm not noticing big performance improvements from old p133.
Denniss
BIOS Guru
Posts: 3153
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2002 8:16 pm
Location: Near Hannover (CEBIT) Germany
Contact:

Use Everest or Sandra to check for K6 featrures been enable or not. Especially this should be MMX and Write Allocation.

It is way faster than your old CPU not only because of MHz but also 'cause of quadrupled L1-Cache. (2x8KiB on P1-133, 2x32 on K6)
KachiWachi
The New Guy
Posts: 1451
Joined: Fri Mar 29, 2002 10:32 pm
Location: Pennsylvania, USA

If you use Everest, please post a dump of the CPU MSR's.

To do this, right-click on the bottom bar, select CPU Debug, then K6 MSR Dump.

Thanks.
Space Marine
BIOS Rookie
Posts: 39
Joined: Sun Nov 26, 2006 2:17 am

I'm using everest


- MSR dump is empty

- this is cpuid+msr dump
------[ Logical CPU #0 ]------

allcpu: Valid

CPUID 00000000: 00000001-68747541-444D4163-69746E65
CPUID 00000001: 00000562-00000000-00000000-008001BF
CPUID 80000000: 80000005-00000000-00000000-00000000
CPUID 80000001: 00000662-00000000-00000000-008005BF
CPUID 80000002: 2D444D41-6D74364B-202F7720-746C756D
CPUID 80000003: 64656D69-65206169-6E657478-6E6F6973
CPUID 80000004: 00000073-00000000-00000000-00000000
CPUID 80000005: 00000000-02800140-20020220-20020220

------[ MSR Registers ]------


PerformanceFrequency = 1193180

- The cpu is recognized as K6 at 200mhz (66x3, is right) and both mmx and L1 cache are ok

- everest seems unable to say if write allocation is active or not. Havent find that option written


BUT, there is a problem:

- L2 cache is not recognized

I have 256k of pipelined burst cache soldered onto motherboard.
But it has a 430VX and im using 128mb of ram.
VX support only 64 mb of ram for caching, so maybe is ram ammount the problem.


In your opinion, is better having 128mb of ram without L2 cache or 64mb using 256k (plus an eventual coast module) of L2?
Post Reply