You're lucky. I had that motherboard. You can't use voltages of 2.1 or 2.2 on a Celery1 because ASUS won't support it. I called them and they said they don't support overclocking yet they include the option. I finally got them to directly ship me a P3V4X in exchange so I could adjust the voltage.

I was going to buy a celeron 2 and go for some mad overclocking action, but now with amd durons around that are bitchslapping celeron 2's in benchmarks and even some p3's, suddenly im not too interested anymore. I think im just going to wait for P4 or something.

Now running at 875 MHz at 1.6 V Vcore.
Memory runs at 137 MHz. Win2k rock stable.
Motherboard+processor costed an equivalent of US$ 260. I think this is good value.
Some more quiet burnin and next step will be 105 fsb to go to 892 MHz.

Just to let you know guys how this little puppy does well.
It now runs rock stable at 935 MHZ (110x8.5) at 1.75 core voltage
It does post at 1020 MHz (120x8.5) but stops when trying to load the os. I'll try with a pc133 sdram stick. I have only no-name pc100 at the moment and get a blue screen with 'memory error' when getting into W2K at 1020 MHz.
I swapped the CUV4X for a P3V4X as it is definitely easier to do soldering tweaks on a slotket than on a mobo.
Who said W2K does not like overclockin' ?

Arrgh... double post. Sorry
 
[This message has been edited by FrogMaster (edited 16 October 2000).]

Guys hate to rain in on your party but Celerons suck. Yeah they can be overclocked but the CPU is totally outdated. Ive got a Duron coming in 650 to be exact cost me $59 bucks. Sad thing is it prol has more horsepower than your C2 overclocked. Save up and buy a T-Bird/Duron Board

i'd have to go with AMD too... they kill intel chips in benchmarks, and they're cheaper.

Oh yeah, and mine is longer and thicker and faster.
Childish intel/amd religion war. Reminds me of the Apple/Ibm war.
You are too dumb to understand that it is only a question of having fun, just the pleasure to get the max from the hardware you have at hand at a given time.
Ridiculous.

Intel CPUs allow you more room to overclock, usually...and more compatability with Windows2000, than an AMD. But AMD makes a fast little chip.
 
It just takes more to get it working properly

Dumb you say. I'm not the one buying the C2 a POS chip. And it has nothing to do AMD vs Intel.. I'm just stating that if you wanted to have fun buy a real chip and go from there.. your purchasing history tells us your lack of intelligence so don't get personal when i insult your inferior chip.
 
Fewl

blah, blah :
 
[ WCPUID Ver.2.8 1996-2000 By H.Oda! ]
 
Processor 1 : Intel Celeron / 064AD39C
Platform : Socket370 (PGA370 Socket)
Vendor ID : GenuineIntel
Type ID : 0 (0)
Family ID : 6 (0)
Model ID : 8 (0)
Stepping ID : 3 (0)
Brand ID : 1 (0)
 
Clock Frequency
Internal : 954.62 MHz
External : 112.31 MHz
Multiplier : 8.5
 
L1 I-Cache : 16K Byte
L1 D-Cache : 16K Byte
L1 T-Cache : ---
L2 Cache : 128K Byte
L2 Latency : 2
L3 Cache : ---
 
MMX : Supported
SIMD : Supported
3DNow! : Not Supported
 
Machine : IBM PC/AT
Version : Windows 98 Version 4.10.1998
 
----------- : --------
F.Flags : 0383F9FF 00000002
I@PCP : 03020101 00000000 00000000 0C040841
: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
I@0017/002A : 37310000 00000000 00000000 CD800000
I@0119/011E : 00000000 00000000 00000000 007405E5

Same in W2K?
 
[ WCPUID Ver.2.8 1996-2000 By H.Oda! ]
 
Processor 1 : Intel Celeron / 064AD39C
Platform : Socket370 (PGA370 Socket)
Vendor ID : GenuineIntel
Type ID : 0 (0)
Family ID : 6 (0)
Model ID : 8 (0)
Stepping ID : 3 (0)
Brand ID : 1 (0)
 
Clock Frequency
Internal : 954.62 MHz
External : 112.31 MHz
Multiplier : 8.5
 
L1 I-Cache : 16K Byte
L1 D-Cache : 16K Byte
L1 T-Cache : ---
L2 Cache : 128K Byte
L2 Latency : 2
L3 Cache : ---
 
MMX : Supported
SIMD : Supported
3DNow! : Not Supported
 
Machine : AT/AT COMPATIBLE
Version : Windows NT Version 5.00.2195 Service Pack 1, RC 1.59
 
----------- : --------
F.Flags : 0383F9FF 00000002
I@PCP : 03020101 00000000 00000000 0C040841
: 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000
I@0017/002A : 37310000 00000000 00000000 CD800000
I@0119/011E : 00000000 00000000 00000000 007405E5
 
Have a nice day ... or night, don't care.

sapien,
 
First off you are an idiot. As far as Quake III benchmarks are concerned AMD can't keep up with Intel. On my second machine I have a 566 Celeron II @ 872 (103 bus) and I get 87 frames per second with a Geforce 2 GTS. My buddy has the same thing with an Athlon 800 and he gets 80 frames....so why don't you go look up [RwOc]DEVGRUSEAL on Beer for Breakfast 2 Counterstrike server so I can virtually rape you.
 
Frog,
You made a good buy.

Err, you say your Celery 2 is running at 872MHz and your friend's AMD is running at 800MHz, right? Isn't the frame rate difference almost exactly clock for clock? I'm not trying to say one is better than the other, but if they're performing that closely, why does it really matter? It ought to boil down to price and comfort at that point, so if the AMD works for him I say more power to him. I'm going to stick with my Intel right now (although that's mainly because I'm broke and its already been paid for )
 
[This message has been edited by Gerbache Kaznet (edited 17 October 2000).]

I wanna play too...
 
For my money, Intel is the high quality chip maker right now. It looks like the P4 may change this, so a Sledgehammer may be in my future, but check out www.AlienWare.com [specifically: http://www.alienware.com/x/sector/systems/gaming_main.htm ]. They make high end gaming machines [in sweet little cases]. Guess what their top-of-the-line gaming computers use? A PIII 1GHz, and a 1GHz AMD. But, their high end graphics workstation uses a PIII 933MHz. AMD seems to be great for games, but I use my computer for more than just games.
 
The last computer I had was an AMD K6-2 450MHz, and it was not much faster than my old P166 workstation at my office. My current PIII 500E is about 3 times as fast as that AMD machine. For this, I am a bit jaded against AMD, but from the media Intel looks to be sliding while trying to keep up in speed, which is sacrificing their general quality, especially on the IA-64.
 
Whatever, as long as competition keeps the prices on the downfall, I don't care.
 
My pennies,
-bZj
 
[This message has been edited by Down8 (edited 17 October 2000).]

I'm building a briefcase pc for LAN parties..and I had a choise between a Cel2 for about 70 bucks, or a Duron for the same price, and a bit faster.
 
However, it's not just a matter of CPU. It's also a matter of Chipsets.
 
I can go either Intel or VIA for the Cel2, or VIA or VIA for the Duron.
 
I've played with VIA on the AMD side with my old K7V. The thing was a nightmare in Win2k...it wouldn't support NTFS, and crashed daily several times.
 
I went to an intel lineup(CUSL2) and an 800eb.
 
Based purely on the fact that this computer never gets rebooted due to a crash, but rather due to Windows updates coming out, I will go with intel & intel over intel &via, or AMD & VIA.
 
I did not lose out on anything by going intel.
 
My friend on the other side of the wall has a Thunderbird 700 OCed to 900. I have an 800eb at 900.
He has a Voodoo5, and I ahve a Geforce256DDR.
 
By all rights, his computer should blow mine away in games and stuff, am I right?
 
My scores in 3dmark2000 ALMOST DOUBLE HIS.(We use the same amount and type of ram--he has 2 128 Mushkin CAS2, and I have 1 256 Mushkin CAS2(rev2))
 
So for that, I'll say Intel stomps AMD. But that is a bad example, because the video cards are different.(though his should still beat mine)
 
 
If you got a Celery2, good for you. Wanna overclock it? Have fun, if you're like me you'll reach a hardware limit before you'll reach a CPU limit(at 159:159:39, I run, but faster and I lose my UDMA100 harddrive controllers).
 
If you happen to have AMD, good for you. Great performance, better price than what I paid, but you might experience instability like I did.
 
Don't give a guy a hard time because he chose the chip he did and is happy with it?
 
I had a PIII 500 in a COMPAQ, and was happier with its performance than I was with my custom Athlon 750...just because the PIII would STAY UP FOR WEEKS, rather than hours.
 
Oh...and for the briefcase, I'm looking at an 810e or 440 with onboard video(the 440 has obv and an AGP) and sound and a Celeron 400 or better. Why? because it doesn't matter if I get hundreds of FPS in games...This is just a fun little project for me.

I've got this to say to all those gay C2 owners..didnt wanna have to say this but forced me too. You know why that celery overclocks so easy..cause its actually a 900...thats the way intel does business. The poor Joe down the street paid 600 bucks for the real deal only to get the same chip. So how can youy say your suprised it overclocks when in fact that should be its speed. Quake 3 should perform better with an P3 or Celeron 2 cause the SSE...Thats the only game it wins on..or application for that matter... As to your challenge Led....anythime you want some.. me and my Quake3 powered by a real chip T-Bird and Geforce 2 ...Btw i get 92 fps.will take and smack you like the B@#ch you are
 
www.yourmom.com
 
 
Fewl

I've got this to say to all those gay C2 owners..didnt wanna have to say this but forced me too. You know why that celery overclocks so easy..cause its actually a 900...thats the way intel does business. The poor Joe down the street paid 600 bucks for the real deal only to get the same chip. So how can youy say your suprised it overclocks when in fact that should be its speed. Quake 3 should perform better with an P3 or Celeron 2 cause the SSE...Thats the only game it wins on..or application for that matter... As to your challenge Led....anythime you want some.. me and my Quake3 powered by a real chip T-Bird and Geforce 2 ...Btw i get 92 fps.will take and smack you like the B@#ch you are
 
www.yourmom.com
 
 
Fewl

92? that's all?
damn you suck!
 
I have a GeForce 1, and a PIII 800eb, and I STILL GET OVER 100 FPS!
 
your system must really suck ass.
 
And about Cel2 users paying a little for a faster CPU, what the hell is wrong with that? I thought that's the point of overclocking--get the cheaper cpu, and make it perform like a more expensive cpu.
 
And as for Celeron Owners...aren't they the more intelligent group? They realize their cpus are handicapped PIIIs, and remove most of the handicap(the 128k cache versus 256 can't be fixed) by overclocking.
 
 
If I have to choose between a Duron and Cel2, I'll pick a Cel2 because
1: It will PI$$ YOUR STUPID @SS OFF
2: Intels outperform AMDs in Win2k(THEY WORK!)
3: I KNOW a Cel2 will overclock and be a good CPU for me. Durons...same story as my old Athlon system. Bound to VIA's crap

Might aswell join in ;-)
 
I used to have an AMD K6 III/450 for 6 mnths, yes 6 mnths, thats all. I had 3 different gigabyte GA5AX mobos, and 2 different cpu's, as they were so unstable. I couldn't even install Win98 on it without it hanging. Itwas all down to the internal cache. If I disabled it, it would install win98 and run for about 5 days, b4 crashing again, needing a total reinstall. I never got to try W2k on it, but I think you will agree that it would have been fruitless. I then went for the BP6 and 2 cellys. Never ever had a prob, with installing anything. No crashes, just oure PC fun without a hitch. I will go with Intel every time, as AMD has left a bitter taste in my mouth. BTW, I sold the AMD and Gigabyte to a m8 of mine (he knew about the probs), and he has swapped it twice since. And guess what.. Still unstable as Fook.
Right, lets start on about the C64 and Speccy
 
Yak
 
--