kony wrote:
>
> On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 14:14:12 -0700, Robert Heiling
> <robheil@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> Yes that is possible.
> >> Install the CPU, video and memory for the time being.
> >
> >Then you think it will even run at all in spite of that
> >speed conflict? That's my only real concern! I don't really
> >care if it runs at 950Mhz or 1000Mhz, just so it will work.
> >I didn't want to touch the new mb if it wasn't going to
> >work and I had to return it.
>
> Mostly likely it will run at the correct frequency but
> merely not be able to make a positive ID on the CPU. It may
> correctly display the operational speed, or may display
> something *wrong*. For this reason it is necessary to
> confirm the speed with alternate methods as mentioned
> previously. It is least likely that it would run at 950
> instead of 1000MHz. More like it would not POST at all, but
> the odds are it will.

It is working, but with problems. It's all covered in my other response.

> I cannot guarantee it, but think it is worth trying. If
> there is a newer bios available you might want to update the
> bios, particularly if the board has a relatively early bios
> version. This may combat other bios issues in additon to
> CPU identification.

I've done a lot of checking and it's pretty certain that my Bios is the
latest. It was also updated on 06/21/2002, which is the same day as the
Bios for a closely related board was also updated.

> "In general" such boards did support 1GHz CPU, within the
> limit of the [no support for 133FSB with non-'A' KT133] it
> was the issue you mentioned that they simply didn't have
> that speed yet when the spec for the board was produced- and
> with lesser board brands/support, they may not update their
> specs for it later, and sometimes won't even fully disclose
> the changes a particular bios incorporates if there's even a
> newer bios available. After flashing a bios, clear CMOS.
>
> >
> >> When it posts, note what the board reports for CPU.
> >> If necessary (and possible) adjust bios settings or onboard
> >> jumpers to accomodate your CPU- keeping in mind that KT133
> >> (non-"A") does not support 133FSB (I dont recall the
> >> particularly of your system at this time and I'd deleted the
> >> original post).

The board came with the jumper set at 100 and I left it there.

> >This one has a FSB jumper for 100/133. You may be thinking of
> >266 FSB which I've seen the KT133A supports in the later
> >CT-7AIA5 version of this board per:
> >http://www.zen26266.zen.co.uk/CT-7AIA5-page1.htm
> >
>
> No, KT133 non-"A" does not actually support 133FSB. It does
> not matter if it has a jumper. Other non-supportive boards
> also had such a jumper. Via originally had intended to be
> able to get KT133 running up to 133FSB, but wasn't able to
> and shipped out the chips they had at the time. LATER they
> got 133FSB working right and this was the distinction of
> KT133A.

Gotcha - Thanks - that makes it pretty clear.

> >> Install floppy drive and run memtest86 to confirm memory
> >> stability.
> >
> >I have the PC133 memory so it shouldn't be a problem.
>
> Not so easy to assume, the board itself can be an issue even
> when memory is spec'd higher, especially when a board looks
> up SPD info and finds a module spec'd for (as an example)
> CAS3 @ 133MHz but CAS2 @ 100MHz. In such cases there is the
> potential for it to still be running the memory at most
> aggressive CAS timing possible. Resolution if there were
> this kind of problem is obviously different memory, or
> manually setting a higher CAS #, or other things we need not
> delve into at this time.

Hmmmm. Wondering now about that. Details in next message and the 512
memory was running fine on the old system

Bob