View Full Version : ASUS/Celeron Hell

10-24-01, 11:39 AM
I am working on a machine for a neighbour and have hit a wall.

The machine specs are...

Intel Celeron 533 Processor

The guy who built this machine ripped off my neighbour. He sold it as a 600, but it was overclocked with the following specs...

133 Mhz FSB, 4.5 Multiple, 600 Mhz result.

Unfortunately the system is very volatile. When I opened the case and read the ASUS manual on the web, the computer had been set for JumperFree mode, and the BIOS Settings had ben set to what I listed above (133/4.5/600).

I set the Motherboard to Jumper mode and changed the jumpers (dip swicthes) to

FSB 66Mhz / PCI 33Mhz
Multiple 8

According to the ASUS site, that should have given me 533 Mhz. However, when I checked the stats using WCPUID, it said

CPU 300 Mhz
Multiple 4.5

I tried going back to JumperFree mode to see if I could change the Multiple in the BIOS. The setting is there, but I can not change it. The message in the right panel says, "If the Multiple option is unavailable, then your processor is locked from changing this value."

So, what it comes down to is, is the Multiple locked? If so, does anyone have any suggestions?


10-24-01, 11:58 AM
ALL intel chips after the P-II 266 are locked... the only speed manipulation is through the FSB. since the early celerons ran on a 66Mhz bus 4.5 x 66 = 297 (300). That is the speed the celeron SHOULD run at.

10-24-01, 01:04 PM

10-24-01, 06:18 PM
your friend got ripped off BIG time, I would find the sob and give them a piece of my mind!

el bob
10-24-01, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by TigerUpperCut

It has been done many times.


Check out both PPGA and Slot 1.

10-24-01, 06:43 PM
damn ur friend is teh screwed

10-24-01, 06:49 PM
Haha the ppl posting that ***** in the OC database are either lying or using EXTREME cooling (mostly lying).

el bob
10-24-01, 07:37 PM
I agree. Just wanted to give some evidence of the aforementioned overclock.

10-25-01, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by TigerUpperCut
Haha the ppl posting that ***** in the OC database are either lying or using EXTREME cooling (mostly lying).

The celeries up to 533 were REALLY overclockable.... With enough cooling they hit some awesome speeds.... especially the few 300A's which made it out unlocked.

10-25-01, 12:30 AM
No, the Mendocino Celeries suk @ overclocking, I have a 500Mhz version and a 466Mhz, both can only get about another 150Mhz out of em. The Coppermine128 533/566 celeries were a bit better, geting upto 800Mhz (8*100), but the 100Mhz FSB is too slow.

Now a 533Mhz Celery @ 800Mhz is only a 50% overclock, but a 300Mhz Celery @ 600 is 100%, and whoever built that computer thinking it will run stable is the dumbest fuk on earth.

10-25-01, 06:09 AM
Actually just about everyone loved the Mendocino Celeries for overclocking. The true early Celerons, the Deschutes, (266 and 300)did indeed suck. But the 300A's and later were Mendocino, and awesome bang for the buck. Just about every 300a would easily take running at 450 and 464 all day long without a hiccup. But for a 1.5 time increase in performance, that's pretty damn good. A good percentage of users could also get them steady on the 112 fsb, running at 504. And a few lucky people could get them stable on a 124 fsb....@ 558. (a friend of mine was one of the lucky, ran great. I didn't have a lucky yield, only got 464) And I'm not kidding, a very rare few could get a 133 bus running....@598. Not bad to almost "double" a processor. Lets see someone double one now...

The reason early Mendocino's were so clockable was that their multipliers were low, and you were starting at 66 FSB, so you had plenty of room for small increments. Later Mendocino's were on much higher multipliers, so each FSB step resulted in a big change in frequency, often taking it too high.

Celery II's, you're already starting at 100 FSB....with higher multipliers also. Don't see these procs being near doubled, not even a 1.5 time increase.

10-25-01, 07:19 AM
Dude, i'm running a 800Mhz Celery2 with a 50% overclock no probs.

Each design has a limit to what speeds they can reach, the mendocinos were about 500Mhz, which is why they stopped making them @ that speed. The Coppermine core is targetted for the 1.1Ghz range, which is why I can run stable @ 1.2Ghz

Yes its possible to get the 300A upto 600Mhz, but not without some extreme cooling, its not a common occurance.

10-25-01, 08:02 AM
well I got my celeronII 700 running at 1.1ghz, but it still wasn't worth it for me(I think runing the fsb at 105mhz wasn't good enough). The performance was nothing compared to a 1.13 ghz T-bird in the video compression and all that crap. I needed the speed. Hmmm but what if the tualtin is a clocker? that would be a kicker.

10-25-01, 02:57 PM
Terrance, i've told you a thousand times before, itz not totally your low FSB's fault, its the VIA chipset's fault. You said that you were getting about 200MB/sec bandwidth in sisandra with the celery right? @ 105Mhz FSB? Guess what, my Celery 500 @ 645Mhz on a BX chipset gets 300+ MB/sec ON A 86Mhz FSB!! (7.5*86Mhz=645Mhz)

I can prove it to you if you want.

You've seen my 1.2Ghz Celery benches right? More memory bandwidth than a KT133A and right on par with a 1.2Ghz T-bird in CPU performance.

There is nothing wrong with the Celery as long as its paired up with lots of memory bandwidth, I would say Celeron2's have more bang for the buck than a same Mhz T-bird setup

10-25-01, 03:52 PM
I know, crappy pappy via screwed my performance, but I think I made the right choice in going over to AMD. The heat will keep me warm this winter. Hmm AMD warmer. :) But nothing else I can really do about it so, not going to buy a new mobo and I sold off my celeronII which got "KRUSHED"(not a sp) by by a TT Gorb.

10-25-01, 05:06 PM
I don't think you made the right choice cuz if you had replaced your Via mobo with a BX one, your system would last you til end of next year AT LEAST cuz you already have a pretty fast Video card, 1.1Ghz is plenty enough, just that your memory bandwidth was crap.