# Should I have underclocked. - Page 2

•  Subject
• Author
• Posted on

## Re: Should I have underclocked.

On Tue, 09 Aug 2005 23:03:38 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"

No, that's incorrect.  I've posted equations previously

## Re: Should I have underclocked.

No it isn't its correct.

because W=I x I x R

So...

X =I x I x R/ [(Freq)*(V)²]

I've posted equations previously

## Re: Should I have underclocked.

Power is E*I. If voltage is  held constant then
power is not a function of current squared. The
impedance of the CPU is not a constant with

## Re: Should I have underclocked.

Yes I was not thinking of a constant voltage, however
maybe you can run the chip at a lower voltage at a lower
frequency.

Also with less current the chip will be cooler and hence
have a lower resistance? (not sure whether it would be higher
though!!!).

## Re: Should I have underclocked.

The chip doesn't have a resistance, but rather an Impedance
which will vary with frequency. Ohms law only really applies
to static conditions. You're leaping to conclusions to
support
what you think should be happening.

## Re: Should I have underclocked.

The chip does have a resistance, obviously.

## Re: Should I have underclocked.

No I suggest you go back an learn some AC circuit theory.
There
may be a resistive component to the impedance, but the
impedance is
mainly reactive. If it were resistive then current drain
would remain
constant with frequency, which it clearly does not.

## Re: Should I have underclocked.

Thats becayse V and I are out of phase, obviously silicon
is a material which has resistance. Do you deny that? (yes or no).

## Re: Should I have underclocked.

Get real.  I've told you 3 times it's complex with a
resistive component.
It is NOT purely resistive, which is what made  all your
with this entire project.

## Re: Should I have underclocked.

I barely have my toes, wet all materials have a resistance
a capacitance and an inductance. Or are you denying this too???

## Re: Should I have underclocked.

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:00:12 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"

Regardless of what you do or don't want to accept, simply
plugging in the numbers and taking measurements, it's

## Re: Should I have underclocked.

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 15:14:06 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"

yes you often can reduce voltage at lower speed.  There is
some variability in how much though.

It's not very significant, the relative temp only changes
performance, you again try to reinvent the wheel so to
speak.  These are known facts and it would be better to
simply accept them until you understand what and why.

## Re: Should I have underclocked.

Donald McTrevor wrote:

No, power is current * voltage, and voltage is constant here.  The
device is not ohmic, so it doesn't have a 'resistance'.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.

## Re: Should I have underclocked.

Well I think it does, it will have a resistance a capacitance and an
inductance.

## Re: Should I have underclocked.

Donald McTrevor wrote:

.... snip ...

It has an impedance, which is frequency sensitive.  Square waves
contain many harmonics.  The phase relationship between current and
voltage marks things as capacitive, inductive, or resistive.  After
you study some functions of complex variables and Laplace and
Fourier transforms you may be able to begin to appreciate the
complexity of so characterizing the device.  I already told you the
primary current draining mechanism.

Since you obviously already know everything I suppose there is no
point in informing you.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.

## Re: Should I have underclocked.

Obviously I don't know everything I ws just stateing some basic
laws of physics. If in a physics class I said power was directly
proportional to currrent in an electrical circuit I would get my
knuckles rapped and deservidly so!!!
Probably be told to write out "Power equals I squared R" 1000 times too!!

## Re: Should I have underclocked.

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 22:16:47 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"

Rather than trying to comprehensively understand every tiny
mechanism involved in current, heat generation, it is easier
to simply take the opposite approach, to know that others
have measured current consumption to be very close (close
enough) to linear with frequency changes.  If it did happen
to deviate a percent or two from that, what useful purpose
is there to implement this information into your K6-2
experiment?

## Re: Should I have underclocked.

Well if you can run at a lower voltage at a lower frequency they you may
find is not so linear and more proportional to the square root of the
frequency, possibly.

Not much really since I have as good as given up on it.
It seemed to be running OK at 4.5 X 66 00 but it
failed to boot second time so I am back on the trusty
cyrix.
I think that without an L2 cache the K6 is handicapped.
The AIDA32 prog has a benchmark thing in it.

Duron-850              Gigabyte GA-7IXE4          AMD750
PC100 SDRAM               460 MB/s
Celeron-466A         IBM 628848U                         i810 Int.
PC66 SDRAM                390 MB/s
PII-266                   Intel DK440LX                      i440LX
PC66 SDRAM                350 MB/s
PC100 SDRAM               290 MB/s
PC100 SDRAM                 260 MB/s
C3-800                   VIA EPIA                         PLE133
PC133 SDRAM                  210 MB/s
PentiumMMX-166 Asus TX97-E                        i430TX
PC66 SDRAM                 190 MB/s
K6-266                  Asus SP97-V                   SiS5598 Int.
66 MHz EDO RAM              60 MB/s
This Computer        K6-2 4.5X66=300
52 MB/s
This Computer        Cyrix MII 300
49 MB/s

So not much in it and the Cyrix had ZoneALarm running which may have slowed
But it shows how slow my computer is compared to others.
Basically it needs a new motherboard, and I need to get that Athlon64.

## Re: Should I have underclocked.

On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 00:23:52 GMT, "Donald McTrevor"

No, it is not proportional to the square root.
You have zero evidence to suggest it is and this is getting
ridiculous.  You are essentially trying to reinvent facts
already known.  Your argument is not valid and it is a waste
of time to argue something already proven false.

That's not a cache benchmark.
I'd already suggested a benchmark for the cache but you are

It could easily be that your motherboard or power supply are
simply aged to the point where they aren't stable with this
viability.

However, we can only assume what you have or haven't done to
set it up, you might recheck the jumpers to confirm they
were correct.

It needs a 100% overhaul, not just a motherboard and CPU.
You might keep the floppy drive though, as one that old may
be out of alignment and any floppies made with it may not be
as readable with a new floppy drive.

## Re: Should I have underclocked.

too!!

Never said it was.

Well the K2 has no L2 cache anyway.

I know its only a 100watt supply.

slowed

Mobo PSU CPU And memory. The case and drives are fine.