Is the Sempron a budget line that costs more?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Tom's Hardware points out that AMD wanted a budget line which did not
detract from the name "Athlon" and so AMD created the Sempron which are for
the most part nothing much more than old-style Athlons.

At the same time the equivalent Athlon models have been withdrawn.

Someone pointed out that the Sempron costs more than the equivalent Athlon
cpu they replace.

So have we now got a situation where a newly-launched budget line (Sempron)
actaully costs MORE than the equivalent mainstream line (Athlon) of the same
power?

I hope i have got soemthing wromg there!

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 19:55:32 +0100, Aaron R Salp
<nomail@thankyou.com> wrote:

>Tom's Hardware points out that AMD wanted a budget line which did not
>detract from the name "Athlon" and so AMD created the Sempron which are for
>the most part nothing much more than old-style Athlons.
>
>At the same time the equivalent Athlon models have been withdrawn.
>
>Someone pointed out that the Sempron costs more than the equivalent Athlon
>cpu they replace.
>
>So have we now got a situation where a newly-launched budget line (Sempron)
>actaully costs MORE than the equivalent mainstream line (Athlon) of the same
>power?
>
>I hope i have got soemthing wromg there!

Yes, for the time being you have it right, Sempron is higher
priced. They are expected to o'c higher than the T'Bred B,
on average, since they're desending from Thorton, but
Thorton cores are also cheaper, and AFAIK, all Semprons are
locked, though I could be wrong about that?

I expect that eventually the Semprons will drop in price,
but for the time being anyone building on socket A ought to
snatch up a Barton while they still can.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:35:38 +0100, Franklin wrote:

> I don't kmow how reliable AMD's "+" figure is in idnicating throughput
> power, so I don't know if I can take at face value that these two cpus are
> equivalent:
>
> 2500+ Sempron (1.75 GHz, FSB 333, T'bred-B core)
> 2500+ Athlon (1.92 GHz, FSB 333, Barton core)
>
> [Data taken from page linked above.]
>
> Surely these two are not equivalent in terms of power?

They aren't. The Sempron, if rated with the same suite of benchmarks
Athlon XP's are rated with, would rate as a 2100+. All Semprons are rated
with a set of benchmarks to compare them to Celerons clock speeds and the
resulting PR number reflects that. not compared P4's or even XP's. IF you
subtract 400 from every Semprons number, you will get the approximate
Athlon rating. So a Sempron 2200+ would [erforme the same as an Athlon
1800+, etc. And you can take that to the bank.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Wes Newell wrote:

> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:35:38 +0100, Franklin wrote:
>
>
>>I don't kmow how reliable AMD's "+" figure is in idnicating throughput
>>power, so I don't know if I can take at face value that these two cpus are
>>equivalent:
>>
>> 2500+ Sempron (1.75 GHz, FSB 333, T'bred-B core)
>> 2500+ Athlon (1.92 GHz, FSB 333, Barton core)
>>
>>[Data taken from page linked above.]
>>
>>Surely these two are not equivalent in terms of power?
>
>
> They aren't. The Sempron, if rated with the same suite of benchmarks
> Athlon XP's are rated with, would rate as a 2100+. All Semprons are rated
> with a set of benchmarks to compare them to Celerons clock speeds and the
> resulting PR number reflects that. not compared P4's or even XP's. IF you
> subtract 400 from every Semprons number, you will get the approximate
> Athlon rating. So a Sempron 2200+ would [erforme the same as an Athlon
> 1800+, etc. And you can take that to the bank.
>

Good info and that explains a LOT.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:

>> I don't kmow how reliable AMD's "+" figure is in idnicating
>> throughput power, so I don't know if I can take at face value
>> that these two cpus are equivalent:
>>
>> 2500+ Sempron (1.75 GHz, FSB 333, T'bred-B core)
>> 2500+ Athlon (1.92 GHz, FSB 333, Barton core)
>>
>> [Data taken from page linked above.]
>>
>> Surely these two are not equivalent in terms of power?
>
> They aren't. The Sempron, if rated with the same suite of
> benchmarks Athlon XP's are rated with, would rate as a 2100+.
> All Semprons are rated with a set of benchmarks to compare them
> to Celerons clock speeds and the resulting PR number reflects
> that. not compared P4's or even XP's. IF you subtract 400 from
> every Semprons number, you will get the approximate Athlon
> rating. So a Sempron 2200+ would [erforme the same as an Athlon
> 1800+, etc. And you can take that to the bank.


Interesting. So the table which I referred to in my earlier posting

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20 [...] on-01.html

has got it about right by comparing clock speeds because this does indeed
give approximately that 400 unit difference in the "+" rating which you
point out.

In which case that must mean that a given Sempron costs even more than the
corresponding Athlon of equivalent power?

Has anyone compared actual prices?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Franklin" <franklin_lo@mail.com> wrote in message
news:95676877C99D531E75@127.0.0.1...
> Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:
>
> >> I don't kmow how reliable AMD's "+" figure is in idnicating
> >> throughput power, so I don't know if I can take at face value
> >> that these two cpus are equivalent:
> >>
> >> 2500+ Sempron (1.75 GHz, FSB 333, T'bred-B core)
> >> 2500+ Athlon (1.92 GHz, FSB 333, Barton core)
> >>
> >> [Data taken from page linked above.]
> >>
> >> Surely these two are not equivalent in terms of power?
> >
> > They aren't. The Sempron, if rated with the same suite of
> > benchmarks Athlon XP's are rated with, would rate as a 2100+.
> > All Semprons are rated with a set of benchmarks to compare them
> > to Celerons clock speeds and the resulting PR number reflects
> > that. not compared P4's or even XP's. IF you subtract 400 from
> > every Semprons number, you will get the approximate Athlon
> > rating. So a Sempron 2200+ would [erforme the same as an Athlon
> > 1800+, etc. And you can take that to the bank.
>
>
> Interesting. So the table which I referred to in my earlier posting
>
> http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20 [...] on-01.html
>
> has got it about right by comparing clock speeds because this does indeed
> give approximately that 400 unit difference in the "+" rating which you
> point out.
>
> In which case that must mean that a given Sempron costs even more than the
> corresponding Athlon of equivalent power?
>
> Has anyone compared actual prices?
That is true of the top end semptrons but the 2200 semptron is £31 and
cheaper than the 1600 duron and gives a better bang for your buck at the
bottom end of the market

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"CrackerJack" <binaryblobNOTTHISBIT@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:9567B60C91E4C6AD265@130.133.1.4...
> "hugh pearce" <hwpearce@worldonline.co.uk> wrote:
>
> >> Interesting. So the table which I referred to in my earlier
> >> posting
> >>
> >> http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20 [...] on-01.html
> >>
> >> has got it about right by comparing clock speeds because this
> >> does indeed give approximately that 400 unit difference in the
> >> "+" rating which you point out.
> >>
> >> In which case that must mean that a given Sempron costs even
> >> more than the corresponding Athlon of equivalent power?
> >>
> >> Has anyone compared actual prices?
> > That is true of the top end semptrons but the 2200 semptron is
> > £31 and cheaper than the 1600 duron and gives a better bang
> > for your buck at the bottom end of the market
>
>
> How much faster is th sempron 2200+ than a Duron 1600?
as said earlier its about XP1800 speed Although it may be slightly faster
dur to its higher bus speed

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 19:40:22 +0100, Aaron S
<nomail@thankyou.com> wrote:

<snip>

>But surely that new processor pricing model shouldn't be applied to their
>Sempron because they are essentially Athlons which have been in production
>for some time.

New products entering a market are often priced a bit too
high, then price normalizes after demand is less than
anticipated, or lower than production. It is still a bit
odd though, even a lowly Duron 1.6 is going for $48 on
pricewatch, seems like it should've dropped to $38 already.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

> If the Sempron 2600+ at £64 is the equivalent power of the Athlon 2200+ (see
> earlier this thread) which is £50 then the Sempron is 28 percent more
> expensive.

Keep in mind, though, that the Sempron 2600+ is on a 333MHz FSB, whereas
the Athlon 2200+ is on a 266MHz FSB. That doesn't give it quite enough
of a boost to justify its higher price, but the real-world PR rating
difference is probably closer to 300 than 400.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Since the Athlon XP chips may start disappearing pretty soon, this might
not be an issue for very long.


Michael Brown wrote:

> Lachoneus wrote:
> >> If the Sempron 2600+ at £64 is the equivalent power of the Athlon
> >> 2200+ (see earlier this thread) which is £50 then the Sempron is 28
> >> percent more expensive.
> >
> > Keep in mind, though, that the Sempron 2600+ is on a 333MHz FSB,
> > whereas the Athlon 2200+ is on a 266MHz FSB. That doesn't give it
> > quite enough of a boost to justify its higher price, but the
> > real-world PR rating difference is probably closer to 300 than 400.
>
> FWIW, the slowest 256KB L2, 166MHz FSB Athlon XP was the 2600 at 2083MHz.
> The highest Sempron (absolutely identical to the 256KB L2, 166MHz Athlon
> XPs), the 2800, has a speed of 2000MHz, which pretty much exactly equates to
> a 2500 (if it esisted with the 256/166 spec) under the old scheme. So in
> this particular case the rating on the Sempron is very close to 300 points
> too high.
>
> At the lower end, we have the Sempron 2200 at 1500MHz. 1500MHz would put you
> at an 1800 rating with a 256/100 config, ~1750 (yeah, it's backwards) with a
> 256/133 config, ~1950 with a 512/100 config, and ~1950 with a 512/133
> config. So it looks as though at this speed, AMD thinks that the bus speed
> has very little impact on the performance of the CPU, so a 256/166 part at
> 1500MHz would be somewhere around 1850 rating or so at the most. This means
> the Sempron is overrated by about 350 points. Now, there is some variation
> at each speed, due to the requirements that the speed must be a half-integer
> multiple of the bus speed (hence why the 133MHz FSB part is "slower" than
> the 100MHz FSB part at 1500MHz). However, I would say that overall, the
> Sempron is over-rated by something in the range of 300 to 350 points.
>
> As for the prices in New Zealand (in order from cheapest to most expensive,
> skipping those where the lower rated part is more expensive, and including
> the two closest-in-price Athlon XP chips):
>
> Sempron 2400+: $106
> XP 2000+: $100
> XP 2200+: $116
> Should be XP 2100+ at ~$108 (-2%)
>
> Sempron 2500+: $124
> XP 2200+: $116
> XP 2400+: $133
> Should be XP 2200+ at $116 (+7%)
>
> Sempron 2600+: $145
> XP 2400+: $133
> XP 2500+: $148
> Should be XP 2300+ at ~$125 (+16%)
>
> Sempron 2800+: $187
> XP 2600+: $155
> XP 2700+: $190
> Should be XP 2500+ at $148 (+26%)
>
> So, the Sempron 2400+ is priced "about right". However, the 2500, 2600, and
> 2800 Semprons are clearly overpriced, coming close to the price of an Athlon
> XP with a 100 point lower rating.
>
> --
> Michael Brown
> www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more
> Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Matt wrote:
>
> Matt wrote:
> > kony wrote:
[...]
> > Yes, and the XP 2500+ costs more today than it did a year ago.
>
> Maybe they can't produce the low-end chips fast enough because they've
> given over much of their production capacity to the 64-bit chips. The
> tide raises all boats, so to speak.
>
> But I am not an economist.

But this has never happened before that a PC CPU is more expensive than
it was a year ago AFAIK.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Ed" <nosay@home.com> wrote in message
news:q6ook0ddkak20vpdfvib7fnluh05d86bts@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 01:20:41 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>>Since the Athlon XP chips may start disappearing pretty soon, this might
>>not be an issue for very long.
>>
>
> and people who buy retail may like the idea of the NX bit security on
> the Sempron and won't mind paying a little more for it.?
> Ed
>
The Socket A Semprons are Athlon T'bred CPU's down to the last transistor...
They don't have any new features.
--
*****Replace 'NOSPAM' with 'btinternet' in the reply address*****

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 11:55:14 +0000, Johannes H Andersen wrote:

> But this has never happened before that a PC CPU is more expensive than
> it was a year ago AFAIK.

Sure it has. The price of the high end 100MHz (200FSB) Tbirds went up when
the supply got short. Too bad most perople don't realize they really don't
have to have these to upgrade. Here's current pricing on pricewatch.

$94 - Athlon 1.4GHz 266
$149 - Athlon 1.4GHz 200
$42 - Athlon 1.33GHz 266
$56 - Athlon 1.3GHz 200
$43 - Athlon 1.2GHz 266
$57 - Athlon 1.2GHz 200
$50 - Athlon 1.13GHz 266
$61 - Athlon 1.1GHz 200
$54 - Athlon 1GHz 200

Now consider one could buy a $56 XP 2400+ and run it at 1500MHz (without
overclocking the FSB) in those old 100MHz boards like the one below and it
almost becomes comical.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 19:28:27 +0000, kony wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:28:18 GMT, Wes Newell
> <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:
>>Now consider one could buy a $56 XP 2400+ and run it at 1500MHz (without
>>overclocking the FSB) in those old 100MHz boards like the one below and it
>>almost becomes comical.
>
> I agree, except that you keep ignoring that many boards
> won't run them.

I haven't ignored anything. And what makes you think there are many boards
that won't run them. Every time someone has told me the XX board wouldn't
run them, I've proved them wrong. And this list includes boards from about
all manufacturers.


> I've tried 100MHz FSB boards (like ECS K7VZM) that won't run anything
> Palomino or newer, and even 133MHz FSB boards (like MSI K7T266 Pro2)
> that won't run T'Bred or newer... "maybe" in later revisions those
> boards would, but actual samples which worked 100% fine, simply won't
> run these faster chips even at 1500MHz (or whatever applied per chip
> tried), with bios released long after the CPUs were.

What you mean to say is that you couldn't get them to work. There's a big
difference. Most people couldn't get the 2200+ to work in any board that
had multiplier control when it came out. That doesn't mean it didn't work.
it just meant they didn't know what they were doing.:-)


--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 00:16:50 GMT, Wes Newell
<w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:

<snip>

>I haven't ignored anything. And what makes you think there are many boards
>that won't run them. Every time someone has told me the XX board wouldn't
>run them, I've proved them wrong. And this list includes boards from about
>all manufacturers.
>
>
>> I've tried 100MHz FSB boards (like ECS K7VZM) that won't run anything
>> Palomino or newer, and even 133MHz FSB boards (like MSI K7T266 Pro2)
>> that won't run T'Bred or newer... "maybe" in later revisions those
>> boards would, but actual samples which worked 100% fine, simply won't
>> run these faster chips even at 1500MHz (or whatever applied per chip
>> tried), with bios released long after the CPUs were.
>
>What you mean to say is that you couldn't get them to work. There's a big
>difference. Most people couldn't get the 2200+ to work in any board that
>had multiplier control when it came out. That doesn't mean it didn't work.
>it just meant they didn't know what they were doing.:-)

OK, then tell me why a K7VZM wouldn't run an XP1800 at
100MHz FSB?

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 00:41:10 +0000, kony wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 00:16:50 GMT, Wes Newell
> <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>I haven't ignored anything. And what makes you think there are many boards
>>that won't run them. Every time someone has told me the XX board wouldn't
>>run them, I've proved them wrong. And this list includes boards from about
>>all manufacturers.
>>
>>
>>> I've tried 100MHz FSB boards (like ECS K7VZM) that won't run anything
>>> Palomino or newer, and even 133MHz FSB boards (like MSI K7T266 Pro2)
>>> that won't run T'Bred or newer... "maybe" in later revisions those
>>> boards would, but actual samples which worked 100% fine, simply won't
>>> run these faster chips even at 1500MHz (or whatever applied per chip
>>> tried), with bios released long after the CPUs were.
>>
>>What you mean to say is that you couldn't get them to work. There's a big
>>difference. Most people couldn't get the 2200+ to work in any board that
>>had multiplier control when it came out. That doesn't mean it didn't work.
>>it just meant they didn't know what they were doing.:-)
>
> OK, then tell me why a K7VZM wouldn't run an XP1800 at
> 100MHz FSB?

How should I know why the one you tried didn't work. There could be many
reasons. This much I can tell you. It's not because the chipset won't
support it. Specs for the XP cpu are for FSB's as low as 50MHz. It could
be a problem with power, timing or many other things. Now since you don't
have this board any more to try some things, what's the point of me
wasteing my time guessing?

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

They will remain at the 'expensive' equivalent price to the Athlon XP until
stocks of the latter have disappeared, then the Sempron prices will drop.
Dealers with stocks of Athlons do not want the cheaper Sempron leaving them
with an Athlon investment that they can't shift. Durons have already mostly
gone. Standard pricing practice.

Any Sempron user experiences out there? The Sempron 2800 looks like a 'good
bang for the buck' CPU if the price came down to more reasonable levels, say
£50 or less.


"David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10knkcfkv6fma9b@corp.supernews.com...
> Fishman wrote:
>
>> "David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
>> news:10kkf3ebv68go8e@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>>Wes Newell wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:35:38 +0100, Franklin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I don't kmow how reliable AMD's "+" figure is in idnicating throughput
>>>>>power, so I don't know if I can take at face value that these two cpus
>>
>> are
>>
>>>>>equivalent:
>>>>>
>>>>> 2500+ Sempron (1.75 GHz, FSB 333, T'bred-B core)
>>>>> 2500+ Athlon (1.92 GHz, FSB 333, Barton core)
>>>>>
>>>>>[Data taken from page linked above.]
>>>>>
>>>>>Surely these two are not equivalent in terms of power?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>They aren't. The Sempron, if rated with the same suite of benchmarks
>>>>Athlon XP's are rated with, would rate as a 2100+. All Semprons are
>>
>> rated
>>
>>>>with a set of benchmarks to compare them to Celerons clock speeds and
>>
>> the
>>
>>>>resulting PR number reflects that. not compared P4's or even XP's. IF
>>
>> you
>>
>>>>subtract 400 from every Semprons number, you will get the approximate
>>>>Athlon rating. So a Sempron 2200+ would [erforme the same as an Athlon
>>>>1800+, etc. And you can take that to the bank.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Good info and that explains a LOT.
>>>
>>
>>
>> So that makes them even less value for money then!
>
> True, but it explains why I was having such a hard time making sense of
> the new numbering scheme.
>
>> With computer hardware something new is usually better and often cheaper,
>> doesn't seem to be the case here.
>
> From their vantage point it is because the Sempron replaces the Duron.
>
>> Are AMD in trouble and need to hike the price up on their products?
>
> AMD has always been in price trouble.
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 06:43:03 GMT, Wes Newell
<w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:


>> There was a hack at the time, removing a (resistor?), but
>> attempt was made prior to and post-removal of the resistor
>> without success. BTW, the board is still running fine,
>> person it was sold to uses it every day, nothing else wrong
>> with board.
>
>Copied from google groups:
>
>From: Homer J. Simpson (hjsimpson@springfield.usa)
>Subject: Re: AMD Palomino 2100Xp CPU
>
>View this article only
>Newsgroups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.msi-microstar
>Date: 2004-03-18 14:42:50 PST
>
>If you have the K7T266pro2(-RU) MS-6380 V2, and NOT any of the other boards
>like the K7T266pro or the K7T266pro2-A series, you can remove a tiny (1mm x
>0.5 mm) surface mount capacitor, C37, which will then allow you to run any
>266MHz FSB TBred CPU. I made this mod to my K7T266 Pro2-RU Rev. 2 and I'm
>currently running an XP2400+ TBred with complete success.
>
>You should also download BIOS Version 3.7 from MSI's web site and reflash
>your BIOS. This BIOS version provides proper identification of the TBred's
>during POST. This BIOS version also has 48-bit LBA support for large hard
>disks. Don't bother with BIOS Version 3.7 beta 4 as it does not have 48-bit
>LBA support.
>
>Check out this link at MSI's Forum for much info on this popular mod:
>
>http://forum.msi.com.tw/thread.php?threadid=5723&boardid=13&styleid=1

Yes, that's the "hack" I saw at the time, which didn't work,
board still very instable... but runs fine with an o'c
Palomino still, today.

If you're going to ignore all the boards that won't work
with newer CPUs, then i guess you can keep claiming all do
work, but that's not very useful to anyone who has a board
that won't work.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Matt <matt@themattfella.zzzz.com> wrote:

>> Are AMD in trouble and need to hike the price up on their products?

>I'm sure they set their prices so as to maximize their profit, whether
>they "need" it or not.

>And I doubt they are in trouble. They make great CPUs!

It's somewhat naive to assume a company isn't in trouble just because
it makes great products!

AMD have been making a loss for as long as I can remember but it's
probably fair to say their not in trouble at this moment in time. For
the last year they have reported record sales and, for the first time
I can remember, returning a profit and are sitting on over 1/3
billion$ in cash.

--
>iv< Paul >iv<

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 13:41:18 +0000, kony wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 06:43:03 GMT, Wes Newell
> <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> There was a hack at the time, removing a (resistor?), but
>>> attempt was made prior to and post-removal of the resistor
>>> without success. BTW, the board is still running fine,
>>> person it was sold to uses it every day, nothing else wrong
>>> with board.
>>
>>Copied from google groups:
>>
>>From: Homer J. Simpson (hjsimpson@springfield.usa)
>>Subject: Re: AMD Palomino 2100Xp CPU
>>
>>View this article only
>>Newsgroups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.msi-microstar
>>Date: 2004-03-18 14:42:50 PST
>>
>>If you have the K7T266pro2(-RU) MS-6380 V2, and NOT any of the other boards
>>like the K7T266pro or the K7T266pro2-A series, you can remove a tiny (1mm x
>>0.5 mm) surface mount capacitor, C37, which will then allow you to run any
>>266MHz FSB TBred CPU. I made this mod to my K7T266 Pro2-RU Rev. 2 and I'm
>>currently running an XP2400+ TBred with complete success.
>>
>>You should also download BIOS Version 3.7 from MSI's web site and reflash
>>your BIOS. This BIOS version provides proper identification of the TBred's
>>during POST. This BIOS version also has 48-bit LBA support for large hard
>>disks. Don't bother with BIOS Version 3.7 beta 4 as it does not have 48-bit
>>LBA support.
>>
>>Check out this link at MSI's Forum for much info on this popular mod:
>>
>>http://forum.msi.com.tw/thread.php?threadid=5723&boardid=13&styleid=1
>
> Yes, that's the "hack" I saw at the time, which didn't work,
> board still very instable... but runs fine with an o'c
> Palomino still, today.
>
> If you're going to ignore all the boards that won't work
> with newer CPUs, then i guess you can keep claiming all do
> work, but that's not very useful to anyone who has a board
> that won't work.

I'm goimg to ignore a board that one person can't get to work while there
are many others with the same model board that it does work with. So if
jack, James, Tom , Tim , etc. have success, but Dumas doesn't, you
consider that to mean the board doesn't work? I consider it just a
defective board or the person didn't...... If only one person can get it
to work that's proof enough to me, taking in the fact there's abosolutely
no reason it shouldn't work.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 17:07:13 GMT, Wes Newell
<w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:


>> Yes, that's the "hack" I saw at the time, which didn't work,
>> board still very instable... but runs fine with an o'c
>> Palomino still, today.
>>
>> If you're going to ignore all the boards that won't work
>> with newer CPUs, then i guess you can keep claiming all do
>> work, but that's not very useful to anyone who has a board
>> that won't work.
>
>I'm goimg to ignore a board that one person can't get to work while there
>are many others with the same model board that it does work with. So if
>jack, James, Tom , Tim , etc. have success, but Dumas doesn't, you
>consider that to mean the board doesn't work? I consider it just a
>defective board or the person didn't...... If only one person can get it
>to work that's proof enough to me, taking in the fact there's abosolutely
>no reason it shouldn't work.

Except that if that "one person" did nothing differently in
order to get it to work, there is another variable involved.
If you, I, and everyone else can't identify that variable,
then any effected boards can't be assumed to work. I
mentioned a specific board and you yourself had no working
resolution, so why do you expect it would "magically" work
for someone else?

Again, board ran fine, before CPU swap, after original CPU
was reinstall, and still today OC'd, nearly 2 years later.
Voltage, multiplier, FSB, Mem, were all correct and system
ran with same settings except different multiplier and
voltage with the Palomino. It posted, could get into bios
but soon locked up, OS wouldn't load either... severely
instable.

Alluding to a theory that doesn't always work in practice
is normally a reason to reformulate the theory. Vaguely
claiming "someone must have done something wrong" doesn't
quite cut it if you can't identify what was wrong, so
ultimately, in the end it did NOT work.

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 12:22:27 -0500, Ed <nosay@home.com> wrote:
>
>On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:50:48 +0100, "BigBadger" <big_badger@NOSPAM.com>
>wrote:
>
>>The Socket A Semprons are Athlon T'bred CPU's down to the last transistor...
>>They don't have any new features.
>
>Geez, AMD should of just called those Durons then!

That's basically what they're doing, except that the Duron brand name
never really caught on. They are hoping that the new Sempron brand
name will catch on with customers were Duron failed. From a marketing
perspective it's not a bad idea, though most of us techies don't like
it very much.

FWIW the real deal on the Sempr0n line is in their mobile chips.
These look like they should be EXCELLENT bargains. They are all
Athlon64-based, dirt-cheap and are available as low-voltage models
with a maximum power consumption of only 25W.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 15:40:16 +0100, Paul Hopwood <paul@hopwood.org.uk>
wrote:
>
>Aaron R Salp <nomail@thankyou.com> wrote:
>
>>Tom's Hardware points out that AMD wanted a budget line which did not
>>detract from the name "Athlon" and so AMD created the Sempron which are for
>>the most part nothing much more than old-style Athlons.
>
>I always thought that's what the Duron was for.

Consider 'Sempron' as the new name for 'Duron' and things will make
more sense. The 'Duron' brand name never caught on and it was
actually discontinued about a year ago (if you check AMD's website
you'll notice that they no longer sell the Duron and it's listed as a
legacy product alongside the K6 line). Sempron is just a new name but
designed for fill the same market.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca