BH6 V1.0x
John Manning
have not been able to come up with a definite answer.
Will a PIII 600E(coppermine) in the Slot 1 package work in a BH6 V1.0x or is
this motherboard incapable of provided a low enough core voltage for the
CPU? I know there is a problem with the FCPGA versions and a standard
slotket but can't find for certain on the Slot 1 version. The same
questions apply to the PIII 650E and 700E.
TIA,
John
Luke Carroll
John Manning <mann...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:jCU15.3041$8z6...@typhoon.jacksonville.mediaone.net...
TechSupport@ABIT
We cannot officially claim that all BH6 1.0x support Coppermine, for they
don't all fully VRM 8.4 spec. compliant.
Some later BH6 1.0x boards applies newer MOS-FET power amplifier (chip
labeled 55N03, while earlier boards' are 45N03), which could provide
sufficient current for Coppermine's application. We believe these boards are
the last several stepping of BH6 1.02.
To ensure if your BH6 1.0x is capable for Coppermine, please check your
MOS-FET chips' IC number.
Otherwise, you may also check your motherboard's backside. There would be a
PCB revision number. "0.5" is okay.
--
Best Regards,
TechSupport, FAE Department, ABIT
sup...@server2.abit.com.tw
Luke Carroll
is it possible that somewhere in the last revisions of the 1.0x that 1/4 pci
divider was added as well? Are programs reporting it incorrectly, and
differently to others?
TechSupport@ABIT <sup...@server2.abit.com.tw> wrote in message
news:GJX15.170188$701.2...@news4.giganews.com...
TechSupport@ABIT
Sorry. It's limited by the clock generator chip, not upgradeable.
--
Best Regards,
TechSupport, FAE Department, ABIT
sup...@server2.abit.com.tw
"Luke Carroll" <lukec...@NOSPAMoptushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:eSY15.1314$FO1....@news1.rochd1.qld.optushome.com.au...
Luke Carroll
TechSupport@ABIT <sup...@server2.abit.com.tw> wrote in message
news:_D_15.171460$701.2...@news4.giganews.com...
Luke Carroll
Luke Carroll <lukec...@NOSPAMoptushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:qY_15.1321$FO1....@news1.rochd1.qld.optushome.com.au...
ASUS
Go ahead & Good Luck!
Jey
Patrick Morel
That is a good question. I have looked carefully for 55N03 or 45N03 chip on
my BH6-V1.02 with no success. I can assure that there is no such chips on my
MB.
Nevertheless, I found 2 identical chips which probably are the MOS-FET, and
the digits written on them are :
L 3103 S
Can we know if they are of the good or bad kind for Coppermine ?
Thank you Luke anyway for your cool web site.
Patrick
Luke Carroll <lukec...@NOSPAMoptushome.com.au> a écrit dans le message :
iFh25.1361$FO1....@news1.rochd1.qld.optushome.com.au...
> where can you find the MOS-FET powere amplifier chip? people want to know
:)
> www.anomaly.org.au/bh6faq
> lukec...@optushome.com.au
Anderson Lie
"ASUS" <notr...@nobody.com> wrote in message
news:8icjd3$cn$1...@news.ctimail.com...
> Upgrade your BIOS to QN will be fine!
> Go ahead & Good Luck!
>
> Jey
I have a BH6 that has a partially faulty BIOS (FL). I cannot reflash it.
When it boots.. the BIOS reports "unknown Flash type". The motherboard
itself still functions perfectly. Any chance I could put a Celeron II in
the board on the FL BIOS (the very first one)?
John
lukec...@NOSPAMoptushome.com.au says...
> where can you find the MOS-FET powere amplifier chip? people want to know :)
>
Between the cpu and back of the case before you get to the usb/etc.
connectors, there are two of them, bent over. Mine are 45's. ugh.
Luke Carroll
think anyways :)
--
t0r
lukec...@optushome.com.au
www.anomaly.org.au/bh6faq/
Anderson Lie <ander...@dingoblue.net.au> wrote in message
news:394a2f96$0$512$7f31...@news01.syd.optusnet.com.au...
John Occolowitz
The chips are close together under the parallel port connector. My
motherboard is V1.01 and the chips are 45N03's. Except for the small
pads on the MB they are not heat sinked. Unfortunately the thermally
conducting side is on the MB, however I am going to heat sink them by
bridging the epoxy-side with a common heat sink. Providing the heat
sink does not electrically short the pins I figure that it will
improve the higher current performance of the 45N03's.
John.
Luke Carroll
problems with any bh6 running a coppermine, so you prolly really don'y need
to worry bout heatsinking the chips
--
t0r
lukec...@optushome.com.au
www.anomaly.org.au/bh6faq/
John Occolowitz <joh...@indy.net> wrote in message
news:394d08f0...@news.portup.com...
Emvious
don't say 45N03, or 55N03. Mine say 50N03LT. Anyone know if these will
work? Did I find the right chips?
Someone should start a survey of these things...
"Luke Carroll" <lukec...@optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:DLe35.1455$FO1....@news1.rochd1.qld.optushome.com.au...
Oliver Cromwell
<sup...@server2.abit.com.tw> wrote:
>We cannot officially claim that all BH6 1.0x support Coppermine, for they
>don't all fully VRM 8.4 spec. compliant.
>Some later BH6 1.0x boards applies newer MOS-FET power amplifier (chip
>labeled 55N03, while earlier boards' are 45N03), which could provide
>sufficient current for Coppermine's application. We believe these boards are
>the last several stepping of BH6 1.02.
>
>To ensure if your BH6 1.0x is capable for Coppermine, please check your
>MOS-FET chips' IC number.
>Otherwise, you may also check your motherboard's backside. There would be a
>PCB revision number. "0.5" is okay.
Unfortunately, this MOS-FET issue seems like a red herring. The
55N03LT is an improved part compared to the 45N03LT, which is nice,
but it doesn't appear to be directly related to VRM 8.4 compliance.
The difference between the VRM 8.4 spec and the VRM 8.2 spec is not
simply a matter of how much current the power supply can provide.
That's because, with the sole exception of the 1.0 gigahertz model,
Coppermine processors don't in fact draw any more current than the
Katmai processors did. Thus, that explanation doesn't seem convincing.
Looking at the specs for both parts, one can see the 55N03LT is
rated at 55 A of drain current, and 103 W of total power dissipation,
whereas the 45N03LT is rated at 45 A drain current, 86 W power
dissipation. So, while it's true the 55N03LT has a power rating some
20% higher --which is nice --the 1.0x motherboards still seem to have
a pretty robust configuration, in that they use a pair of 45N03LTs,
each rated at 45A/86W. And, beyond that difference in power rating, by
every other performance measurement, the two parts seem to be
virtually identical.
When one looks at the maximum power requirements for various
processors, one realizes that isn't the most relevant factor. For
example, the Coppermine 700 MHz draws slightly less current than the
Katmai (Pentium III, 512K cache) 450 MHz did, 14.0 versus 14.5 amps.
The Katmai 600 MHz (which the BH6 1.0x ostensibly supports) draws 17.8
amps. That means it draws almost exactly the same amount of current as
the Coppermine 933 (17.7 amps). (The Coppermines appear to be much
more efficient in that they only generate 60%-65% the amount of heat
while drawing a similar amount of current.)
VRM 8.4 is just a set of design guidelines (for DC to DC power
converters) that Intel provides to manufacturers who intend to use
Intel processors. VRM 8.4 was a revision to the VRM 8.2 standard,
which applied to the previous generation of Intel CPUs (and to which
standard the BH6 1.0x motherboards presumably comply). It's not like
motherboards which "lack" VRM 8.4 were produced during some lawless
stone age. It just means they conformed to the earlier VRM 8.2
standard (or some previous one) instead.
Looking at VRM 8.4 and VRM 8.2 side by side, one sees that the
recommendations are largely the same as they were before. The one
notable difference is that VRM 8.4 recommends somewhat tighter
tolerances for how closely voltages are maintained in various
situations. These tolerances involve regulating those very brief power
fluctuations that might occur during a steady state, or during
transitional periods like power on, power off, sleep modes, etc. In
one extreme example, VRM 8.2 allows for a power fluctuation of +0.130
V and -0.130 V, whereas the VRM 8.4 tolerance in the same situation is
+0.050 V, and -0.080 V. (Another interesting fact is that VRM 8.4
allows for somewhat sloppier voltage tolerances for FCPGA Coppermine
processors than for SECC2 ones. Even VRM 8.2 is pretty close to
conforming to the tolerances suggested for the FCPGA Coppermines.)
The point is: big deal. If anyone ever encounters a situation
where they suspect a transitory fluctuation of minus 0.05 or plus 0.08
volts is leading to an instability on their system, they should feel
free to set their Coppermine CPU to 1.70V instead of 1.65V, which
should more than compensate for it.
I look at the situation this way. Basically, when Abit says that
Coppermine processors aren't "officially supported" on BH6 version
1.0x motherboards, it just means they don't want to publicly
contradict the guidelines issued by Intel. If Intel says Coppermine
processors require VRM 8.4, then that's the party line. While it's
true that the differences between VRM 8.4 and VRM 8.2 could
theoretically inspire some additional stability problems, I think
that's a relatively minor matter.
Rather than paying so much attention to what Abit tells us by way
of FAQs or in public statements made by tech support people, I think
it's better to pay attention to what Abit engineers are quietly
telling us by way of their deeds. The NV and QN BIOS for the BH6
version 1.0x correctly identify and configure 650E and 700E Coppermine
processors. The QN BIOS correctly identifies Celeron-II processors at
566 and 600. I think it's completely realistic to expect those
processors to run perfectly well on a BH6 version 1.0x. If you want to
bump your voltage .05V to be on the safe side, go ahead.
By the way, my Pentium III 700 MHz SECC2 runs perfectly well at
784 MHz on my BH6 version 1.01 (NV BIOS, 1.65V). (Don't forget, you'll
need to scrounge up a "Universal Retention Mechanism" to hook up a
Coppermine SECC2. The BH6 1.0x motherboards originally came with the
"classic" Pentium II retention mechanism, which won't work.)
o.c.
References,
Philips 45N03LT specs,
http://www.semiconductors.com/acrobat/datasheets/PHP45N03LT.pdf
Philips 55N03LT specs,
http://www.semiconductors.com/acrobat/datasheets/PHP55N03LT.pdf
Intel VRM 8.2 Guidelines,
ftp://download.intel.com/design/PentiumII/xeon/designgd/24377302.pdf
Intel VRM 8.4 Guidelines,
ftp://download.intel.com/design/PentiumIII/designgd/24533501.pdf
Intel Pentium® III Processor 450-1000 Datasheet,
ftp://download.intel.com/design/PentiumIII/datashts/24445207.pdf
Randy
Celeron 533a stable at 800 (8x100 - stable at 83), nor a PIII-500E at
665 (5x133 - fairly stable at 124). Both using Abit's SlotKET III v.81
and 128megs PC100 Samsung GH-Cas2 (Mushkin). So maybe this mosfet issue
has something to do with it.
Robert Kalita
specification was all about, even though I ignored it (like most of this newsgroup) and bought a
Celeron 533a for clocking at 800. It works fine at 1.65v.
Stargazer
On Mon, 19 Jun 2000 03:35:29 GMT, us...@host.net (Oliver Cromwell)
wrote:
Randy
provide the VRM 8.4 circuitry required for older BH6 (possibly other) boards
to run 700+mhz CPU's correctly. I'm guessing this also applies to
overclocking a CPU (ex. Cel 533a or PIII-500E) past 700 (probably the reason
for my stability problems). It appears there are variants of the v1.02
board. Earlier ones (like mine-50N03LT) don't handle the faster speeds
correctly, while the newer ones (55N03LT) do. Soltek was to introduce a
SlotKET that included the VRM 8.4 circuitry on board, but decided against
releasing it. My friend has a BH6 v1.01, and has problems getting his
Celeron 566 to 850. I believe its currently working at 8.5x83. Next month
the computer show is back in town, so I'll pick up a new board (still
undecided), see how these CPU's react with it, and post my results.
Randy
"Blade Runner®" wrote:
> I thought that the Abit Slocket III lets you run any type of Flip Chip
> coppermine on a None Coppermine MoBo..?
>
> Or did I read it all wrong..
>
> Blade Runner©
Joe Student
>provide the VRM 8.4 circuitry required for older BH6 (possibly other) boards
>to run 700+mhz CPU's correctly.
>Soltek was to introduce a
>SlotKET that included the VRM 8.4 circuitry on board, but decided against
>releasing it.
The guys at PowerLeap say their upcoming PL-PIII will have VRM 8.4
circuitry on board. I have no idea if they will actually release it.
Here's a page with their product announcement:
http://www.friendtech.com/
--Joe
Drew
905
L...
WTF????
BH6 1.02
remove spamblockers Drew and replace it with jcrober and remove never to
reply!
Drew
Patrick Morel
Patrick
????????????????????????????????
"Drew" <Ne...@home.com> a écrit dans le message news:
39515986...@home.com...
Oliver Cromwell
>Well mine say 76129S
It looks like it has a very similar power rating to the 55N03LT
(though the thermal characteristics don't look quite as good).
o.c.
76129S,
http://www.intersil.com/data/fn/fn4/fn4395/FN4395.pdf
55N03LT,
http://www.semiconductors.com/acrobat/datasheets/PHP55N03LT.pdf
Patrick Morel
(http://www.semiconductors.com)
Good for me !
Maybe it can help some
Patrick
---------------------
"Patrick Morel" <patm...@netcourrier.com> a écrit dans le message news:
8irp86$17qc$1...@news4.isdnet.net...
Drew
and I'll let ya know!
Emvious
http://www.semiconductors.com , but I don't really know what I should be
looking for.
"Patrick Morel" <patm...@netcourrier.com> wrote in message
news:8iu1pp$ncn$1...@news2.isdnet.net...