BSEL Mod (Xeon Overclocking) Failed - Any Observations?

Discussion in 'Mac Pro' started by spetznatz, Mar 25, 2008.

  1. spetznatz macrumors regular

    spetznatz

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    #1
    I followed the instructions here:

    http://www.o0o.it/pro

    To do the BSEL mod. My (previously 2.0 GHz) MP booted up after brain transplant - hooray. Eight-core rendering in Cheetah, no problem.

    However the chips seem to be running at 1.86/1066 (According to Marcel Bresink's Hardware Monitor).

    So questions -- if I somehow got the procedure wrong (wrong pin covered, say), should the chips be running at all?

    If I got the procedure right (correct pin covered) then what are the possible explanations for it not working?

    I'd really appreciate any hints, advice, input!!!
     
  2. cal6n macrumors 68000

    cal6n

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2004
    Location:
    Gloucester, UK
    #2
    Can you post a screen-grab of your "System Information" window from Hardware Monitor, like this:

    [​IMG]

    It's where your "true" clock and FSB speeds will be shown.
     
  3. spetznatz thread starter macrumors regular

    spetznatz

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    #3
    Cal -- here you go...as you see, both are reporting 1.86 GHz

    The core step of my processors was later than the ones used in the article, would that make a difference?

    Also, shouldn't the level 2 cache be 8MB?
     

    Attached Files:

  4. Frozonecold macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    #4
    Can that mod be applied to a 3.0 8-core 2007 mac pro?
     
  5. cal6n macrumors 68000

    cal6n

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2004
    Location:
    Gloucester, UK
    #5
    Yeah. Are you absolutely certain that you covered the correct pin? Was your insulation tape high quality? I mean, could the connector pin have "punched" through and made contact.

    I don't know enough about the core step to comment, sorry.

    The L2 cache in Hardware Monitor is per core-pair. ASP shows 8 MB per processor.

    I don't believe so, although I could be wrong. I believe its purpose is to bump the the FSB from 1066 to 1333 MHz, matching the motherboard and up-clocking the processor by x 1.25 into the bargain. Your FSB is already running at 1333 MHz.
     
  6. Tracer macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    #6
    Not to much to add except recheck your pins.

    This is only good for 266MHZ FSB Chips.

    Tracer
     
  7. spetznatz thread starter macrumors regular

    spetznatz

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    #7
    Thanks, Cal, Tracer --

    Yes, the only thing that I can think of is that the tape is somehow at fault. We used this brown insulating tape, because it was the only one with the required 'stickiness'. The other two black tapes just wouldn't stay stuck.

    If the wrong pin had been covered (and was insulated) then it shouldn't work at all, should it?

    Maybe it's semi-conductive insulating tape...:confused::confused::confused:

    Is there any other method of blocking the pins? insulating paint, perhaps?
     
  8. Pressure macrumors 68040

    Pressure

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Location:
    Denmark
    #8
    Rear defogger kit works great. Just be sure to isolate the pins correctly.

    The processor still works even though the BSEL trick did not work properly.

    That should explain the reason why it reverts to 1866Mhz.
     
  9. cal6n macrumors 68000

    cal6n

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2004
    Location:
    Gloucester, UK
    #9
    Well, it seems like they're working at stock speeds. Either the pins are still contacting or the over-clock ability has been disabled. Do you have any Intel part numbers for them, maybe starting with Q or SL?
     
  10. spetznatz thread starter macrumors regular

    spetznatz

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    #10
    Pressure -- "Rear Defogger" -- can you be a bit more specific?

    Cal -- will look into it...they came in plain boxes...
     
  11. Pressure macrumors 68040

    Pressure

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Location:
    Denmark
    #11
    Not really, it is just called Rear Window Defogger kit.

    It's conductive ink.
     
  12. pipomolo42 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    #12
    Yes, and I don't thin kit will work in this case: we need to insulate the pin, not to make a connection like it was the case on old Athlons, where conductive ink was used to "unblow" some fuses on the CPU surface.
     
  13. Pressure macrumors 68040

    Pressure

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Location:
    Denmark
    #13
    no, you use conductive ink for the BSEL mod...

    You can read more about it here.
     
  14. Tracer macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2007
    #14
    That link was for socket 775 processors, both Mac Pros use socket771 processors.

    Tracer
     
  15. cal6n macrumors 68000

    cal6n

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2004
    Location:
    Gloucester, UK
    #15
    Here is the datasheet for the 5300 processor in a 771 socket.

    Table 2-1 and 2-2 on page 20 show what BSEL mods are needed. (connect BSEL2 to VTT)

    Table 4-2 on pages 74 and 75 identify pin G30 as BSEL2 and E30 as a VTT.

    Figure 3-7 on page 55 shows the location of G30 and E30 when viewed from underneath.

    Join these with a conductive pen and then insulate G30 (as on oOo.it) you should be golden.

    Well, in theory, anyway...

    (no guarantees, though) :)
     
  16. Pressure macrumors 68040

    Pressure

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Location:
    Denmark
    #16
    They also did it with socket 771 processors.
     
  17. spetznatz thread starter macrumors regular

    spetznatz

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    #17
    Thanks for all the info, folks.

    Cal -- The core step for my processors is SLAEL

    ...now how do you say 'Conductive Ink Pen' in German?
     
  18. dukeblue91 macrumors 65816

    dukeblue91

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Location:
    Raleigh, NC
    #18
    Leitende Tinten Feder oder Stift, I think :D
     
  19. cal6n macrumors 68000

    cal6n

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2004
    Location:
    Gloucester, UK
    #19
    E5320 details

    Yours would seem to be the production model. It's quite possible that they're locked to 1066 MHz in a way that engineering and qualification samples aren't.
     
  20. spetznatz thread starter macrumors regular

    spetznatz

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    #20
    Cheers, Duke! (My wife didn't have a clue, and she's a native speaker...)

    Cal -- I have a horrible feeling you may be right...

    Actually, I think due to the 8MB cache v. 4MB on my previous models, my Pro actually feels extremely responsive...I don't think it's a step backward in speed, anyway. It's just what it will do to the re-sale...
     
  21. cal6n macrumors 68000

    cal6n

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2004
    Location:
    Gloucester, UK
    #21
    Any program that's capable of really using multiple cores intelligently will work better in spite of the apparent drop in clock speed. More and more applications, especially on the Mac side, are going to be doing this. By the time you come to sell, potential buyers should have come to realise that a 1.87 GHz octo beats a 2.0 GHz quad, hands down.

    Have you tried the conductive pen? It might just work and it shouldn't do any irreversible harm. My second processor swap only took 10 minutes or so. It's only the first time that seems difficult!
     
  22. spetznatz thread starter macrumors regular

    spetznatz

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    #22
    Not tried it yet, but got a friend coming over from London on the weekend. He can help me get the procs out again (I can't manage it on my own due to being somewhat 'manually challenged' ;))

    Thanks for all you help on this. Much appreciated.
     
  23. 65StangBoy macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2007
    #23
    I did this same mod 3-4 months ago and mine reacted the same way. But I can assure you that my cores are running @ 2.33GHz even though the monitoring software in OSX only states 1.86GHz. When I boot up into Windows and run CPU-Z it shows 1333MHz FSB and 2.33GHz. For whatever reason OSX just doesn't know how to report it correctly. Unfortunately, the only way that I know of to find out what they're actually running at is to boot up Windows.
     
  24. cal6n macrumors 68000

    cal6n

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2004
    Location:
    Gloucester, UK
    #24
    Something I noticed when upgrading from 4 x 2.66 to 8 x 2.66 was that most of my xbench and my cinebench 9.5 (single CPU) scores were virtually unchanged. Have you any tests that you ran before the upgrade. You could find a relevant section to compare with your performance now?
     
  25. spetznatz thread starter macrumors regular

    spetznatz

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    #25
    Stangboy -- Interesting. Will check it out later.

    Cal -- the fact that I'm getting 52,000 MFlops in PowerFractal vs. the original article's 64,000 is what alerted me first. I'm seeing a 60% increase in rendering speeds in Cheetah3D (the Mac's best-kept secret ;)). I would have expected a bit more...
     

Share This Page