Re: K7s5a vs. Abit NFs-7 v2.0

That's amazing (212 FSB). I'm not really interested in buying a new CPU until I
can get double the clock speed of what I've got. Up until late 2000, I was
running a K63+ at 600Mhz. This system is just a stopgap until I can get some
sort of Intel
Pentium IV based system. Does anyone know if the quad-pumped FSB's of the newer
Pentium IV systems really make a huge difference?

>But my XP2100 (meant for 133FSB) is currently running stable at 212FSB, and
>I haven't even bothered to REALLY push it. And because the abits allow you
>to change the CPU multiplier on unlocked chips (well MINE'S locked I think)
>I can put the FSB to silly figures without overclocking the CPU at all (ie
>by reducing the CPU multiplier).
>
>I work in pounds rather than dollars, but what you mentioned is the going
>rate for a top of the range board (you could spend more and get no more).
>And I URGE you to chuck that tbird and buy an XP! You can buy an XP2400 for
>under 60 pounds in the UK (probably way under 90 dollars for you without
>tax)
>
>It's no wonder you don't think much of the board when you're constraining it


-Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)

"Wblane" <> wrote in message
news:...
> That's amazing (212 FSB).

Well the board can go upto 300fsb! Obviuously my setup won't, but 212 was
just a stab in the dark. I might try 220 later as this will represent
exactly 10% overclocking of my PC3200. If that's a little unstable, I'll
stick some heatsinks on it.

> I'm not really interested in buying a new CPU until I
> can get double the clock speed of what I've got.

Remember that AMD don't really talk in terms of clock speed these days. The
newer barton chips have a much slower clock speed than their tbred
equivalents (an XP2800 barton is the same clock speed as a XP2600, but with
twice the cache)

My XP2100 is only 1.73(?)ghz out of the box. I'm currently overclocking it
by just 200mhz (I can't go more til I sort out some proper cooling) and
Sisoft Sandra rates it approximately the same as a p4 2.66ghz! I reckon it
could top out at the same speed as a p4 2.8

> Up until late 2000, I was
> running a K63+ at 600Mhz. This system is just a stopgap until I can get
some
> sort of Intel
> Pentium IV based system. Does anyone know if the quad-pumped FSB's of the
newer
> Pentium IV systems really make a huge difference?

Don't know much about P4s, but I know an XP2500 is a third the price of a P4
2.8 (you could buy a good mid-range graphics card for the difference). Bear
that in mind with what I said about my XP2100.

> >But my XP2100 (meant for 133FSB) is currently running stable at 212FSB,
and
> >I haven't even bothered to REALLY push it. And because the abits allow
you
> >to change the CPU multiplier on unlocked chips (well MINE'S locked I
think)
> >I can put the FSB to silly figures without overclocking the CPU at all
(ie
> >by reducing the CPU multiplier).
> >
> >I work in pounds rather than dollars, but what you mentioned is the going
> >rate for a top of the range board (you could spend more and get no more).
> >And I URGE you to chuck that tbird and buy an XP! You can buy an XP2400
for
> >under 60 pounds in the UK (probably way under 90 dollars for you without
> >tax)
> >
> >It's no wonder you don't think much of the board when you're constraining
it
>
>
> -Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)

Quad pumped CPU's are not all that, what is cool about some of them is the
HT technology, that is what peaks my interest with them. With HT enabled
those processors can crunch through anything in a quarter of the time than
without it enabled.


"Wblane" <> wrote in message
news:...
> That's amazing (212 FSB). I'm not really interested in buying a new CPU
until I
> can get double the clock speed of what I've got. Up until late 2000, I was
> running a K63+ at 600Mhz. This system is just a stopgap until I can get
some
> sort of Intel
> Pentium IV based system. Does anyone know if the quad-pumped FSB's of the
newer
> Pentium IV systems really make a huge difference?
>
> >But my XP2100 (meant for 133FSB) is currently running stable at 212FSB,
and
> >I haven't even bothered to REALLY push it. And because the abits allow
you
> >to change the CPU multiplier on unlocked chips (well MINE'S locked I
think)
> >I can put the FSB to silly figures without overclocking the CPU at all
(ie
> >by reducing the CPU multiplier).
> >
> >I work in pounds rather than dollars, but what you mentioned is the going
> >rate for a top of the range board (you could spend more and get no more).
> >And I URGE you to chuck that tbird and buy an XP! You can buy an XP2400
for
> >under 60 pounds in the UK (probably way under 90 dollars for you without
> >tax)
> >
> >It's no wonder you don't think much of the board when you're constraining
it
>
>
> -Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)

Not so, I saw a demo where Intel was doing a backup using the MS version
from years ago, and with the HT enabled it killed that backup in no time,
whereas with the same system and it turned off it took forever. I doubt
that old backup deal from Win 95 was an HT program. They also demoed some
high graphics picture processing from digital camera in Adobe photo and it
processed and opened 50 pics in 24 seconds enabled, disabled took the normal
7-8 minutes.

Of course this was in the Intel road show that I attended, and anything is
possible when Intel is putting on the demo. But with all the reviews of the
HT I don't think you can go wrong today by using it. And the 2.4GHZ version
is supposed to be very overclockable. At around $200 for a 2.4GHZ 800FSB
this might not be a bad deal.


"Li'l ol' me" <richie42@***SPAMOFF**eidosnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:beksgk$bt5$...
> I was under the impression that applications had to be specially written
for
> HT for any speed increase.
>
> "woody" <> wrote in message
> news:fumPa.26428$ et...
> > Quad pumped CPU's are not all that, what is cool about some of them is
the
> > HT technology, that is what peaks my interest with them. With HT
enabled
> > those processors can crunch through anything in a quarter of the time
than
> > without it enabled.
> >
> >
> > "Wblane" <> wrote in message
> > news:...
> > > That's amazing (212 FSB). I'm not really interested in buying a new
CPU
> > until I
> > > can get double the clock speed of what I've got. Up until late 2000, I
> was
> > > running a K63+ at 600Mhz. This system is just a stopgap until I can
get
> > some
> > > sort of Intel
> > > Pentium IV based system. Does anyone know if the quad-pumped FSB's of
> the
> > newer
> > > Pentium IV systems really make a huge difference?
> > >
> > > >But my XP2100 (meant for 133FSB) is currently running stable at
212FSB,
> > and
> > > >I haven't even bothered to REALLY push it. And because the abits
allow
> > you
> > > >to change the CPU multiplier on unlocked chips (well MINE'S locked I
> > think)
> > > >I can put the FSB to silly figures without overclocking the CPU at
all
> > (ie
> > > >by reducing the CPU multiplier).
> > > >
> > > >I work in pounds rather than dollars, but what you mentioned is the
> going
> > > >rate for a top of the range board (you could spend more and get no
> more).
> > > >And I URGE you to chuck that tbird and buy an XP! You can buy an
> XP2400
> > for
> > > >under 60 pounds in the UK (probably way under 90 dollars for you
> without
> > > >tax)
> > > >
> > > >It's no wonder you don't think much of the board when you're
> constraining
> > it
> > >
> > >
> > > -Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
> >
> >
>
>

"woody" <> wrote in message
news:qxnPa.26620$ t...
> Not so, I saw a demo where Intel was doing a backup using the MS version
> from years ago

That's a little obscure, reckon they searched high and low for anything that
might just work well with HT.

> , and with the HT enabled it killed that backup in no time,
> whereas with the same system and it turned off it took forever.

Doesn't say a lot about a standard P4.

> I doubt
> that old backup deal from Win 95 was an HT program. They also demoed some
> high graphics picture processing from digital camera in Adobe photo and it
> processed and opened 50 pics in 24 seconds enabled, disabled took the
normal
> 7-8 minutes.

Very obviously an enhanced HT version, but impressive all the same.

> Of course this was in the Intel road show that I attended, and anything is
> possible when Intel is putting on the demo.

Well, exactly.

> But with all the reviews of the
> HT I don't think you can go wrong today by using it.

Well, I haven't seen many reviews, but maybe if you swapped 'today' for
'tomorrow'

> And the 2.4GHZ version
> is supposed to be very overclockable. At around $200 for a 2.4GHZ 800FSB
> this might not be a bad deal.

You could buy 2 good XP2400 chips for that. And like I said, my overclocked
XP2100 system compares favourably to a 2-and-a-half-gig P4. Unless Intel
are doing the benchmarking and you're using Win95.....

>
> "Li'l ol' me" <richie42@***SPAMOFF**eidosnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:beksgk$bt5$...
> > I was under the impression that applications had to be specially written
> for
> > HT for any speed increase.
> >
> > "woody" <> wrote in message
> > news:fumPa.26428$ et...
> > > Quad pumped CPU's are not all that, what is cool about some of them is
> the
> > > HT technology, that is what peaks my interest with them. With HT
> enabled
> > > those processors can crunch through anything in a quarter of the time
> than
> > > without it enabled.
> > >
> > >
> > > "Wblane" <> wrote in message
> > > news:...
> > > > That's amazing (212 FSB). I'm not really interested in buying a new
> CPU
> > > until I
> > > > can get double the clock speed of what I've got. Up until late 2000,
I
> > was
> > > > running a K63+ at 600Mhz. This system is just a stopgap until I can
> get
> > > some
> > > > sort of Intel
> > > > Pentium IV based system. Does anyone know if the quad-pumped FSB's
of
> > the
> > > newer
> > > > Pentium IV systems really make a huge difference?
> > > >
> > > > >But my XP2100 (meant for 133FSB) is currently running stable at
> 212FSB,
> > > and
> > > > >I haven't even bothered to REALLY push it. And because the abits
> allow
> > > you
> > > > >to change the CPU multiplier on unlocked chips (well MINE'S locked
I
> > > think)
> > > > >I can put the FSB to silly figures without overclocking the CPU at
> all
> > > (ie
> > > > >by reducing the CPU multiplier).
> > > > >
> > > > >I work in pounds rather than dollars, but what you mentioned is the
> > going
> > > > >rate for a top of the range board (you could spend more and get no
> > more).
> > > > >And I URGE you to chuck that tbird and buy an XP! You can buy an
> > XP2400
> > > for
> > > > >under 60 pounds in the UK (probably way under 90 dollars for you
> > without
> > > > >tax)
> > > > >
> > > > >It's no wonder you don't think much of the board when you're
> > constraining
> > > it
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -Bill (remove "botizer" to reply via email)
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>