Close

Success!

A project log for Voyage 200 Upgrades

Following up with nearly a decade old thread about overclocking TI's V200 with a bit of a twist

Michael O'BrienMichael O'Brien 02/11/2015 at 09:270 Comments

So, the results are different than expected, but that is just fine. I'm running my V200 at 2x the speed it came from TI. For those who are TL:DR with my logs, you need a 1.21 kOhm resistor and an 18 pF capacitor. I never ran the MD5 checksums as I didn't see anything that presented as instability and I had a continuity problem in a wire from the battery pack that I couldn't be bothered to fix and taking that extra step was too tedious. That at sending a new OS file took about 3.5 min and I had to repeat this test at least once on each over clock after waiting for everything to cool down because even the contrast of the screen was affected by the hot air rework. Results posted after the break.

Okay, so in the course of benchmarking I quickly began to further understand the timings a bit better for the SRAM. The pulses for CE and WE are the crucial ones that are the determining factors for read and write time in this case and I only recorded these values for the 2 highest overclocks. In order of slowest to fastest, here are the results of today's tests:

1.43 kOhm & 51 pF - Stock

1.43 kOhm HQ & 33 pF - ~30% OC

1.43 kOhm HQ & 24 pF - ~55% OC (forgot to grab screen shots)

1.43 kOhm HQ & 18 pF - ~80 OC

At this point its apparent that the rise and fall times are becoming a bit lengthy relative to the periods. Just to see what would happen, I opted to drop in the 1.21 kOhm resistor of similar spec to see what effect it would have. As it would speed up the RC oscillator, I dropped back to 24 pF...

1.21 kOhm HQ & 24 pF - ~75% OC

So, for about a 4% loss in speed, I gained ~5% faster rise and fall times. Rounding error could attribute for the difference since the numbers computer were of the screen values, not the sampled points with how Rigol doesn't their math.

1.21 kOhm HQ & 18 pF - ~100% OC

Tonight's notes:

Discussions