Archived from groups: microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (
More info?)
Actually, I have no particular desire to tinker with the zt3000, and I don't
blame HP a bit for wanting to simplify their support issues. All I really
wanted was for HP to make it easy for me to know what after-market memory
was compatible.
Actually, though, I am not afraid of small tools and simple instructions. I
have in my time built six or seven computers from components, including the
first, for which I had to solder the 6502 socket to the PCB.
But I think your observations help make clear the decision that the faster
memory is not called for in this situation.
"Jim Macklin" <p51mustang[threeX12]@xxxhotmail.calm> wrote in message
news:uaDB%23wtYEHA.3596@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> The HP company sells computers with motherboards and BIOS
> set the way they want. HP does not want to deal with
> problems caused by tinkering, so they limit your tinkering
> options.
> Just to point out how far they went in the past (your
> conditions may vary), the first Windows computer I bought
> was a HP 6465 with a 433 Celeron. Later as I learned more
> about computers I found that HP used a ASUS MEV-BM
> motherboard with an Intel 440BX chipset. The ASUS mobo
> manual shows many options in setting the mobo jumpers to set
> the FSB and CPU multiplier. Back in those days Intel wanted
> all the Celerons to run only on a 66 MHz bus. But since the
> MEV-BM mobo and all the other components were designed to
> run faster I wanted to set the jumpers to a 100 MHz FSB and
> the CPU multiplier at 4.5 or 5 so the CPU would not be
> over-clocked. But HP had used flush cutting tools to remove
> all the jumpers except the ones used to set the FSB to 66
> MHz and the CPU at 6.5.
>
> With the new mobo using the BIOS to control everything, you
> might be able to get a standard BIOS for the motherboard,
> but you recovery CDs won't work without the oem BIOS.
>
> If you want to be able to tweak, build your own and pick
> your components (or have one custom assembled if you're
> afraid of small tools and simple directions).
>
>
> --
> The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
> But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
>
>
> "Willy Nilly" <nilleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:-rSdneys2t3sW3TdRVn-vA@adelphia.com...
> | Your answer does indeed seem very knowledgeable and nearly
> resolves my
> | question. Many thanks.
> |
> | It would seem, however, that the key to wringing extra
> performance from the
> | DDR333 memory would be in whether the BIOS supplied with
> the zt3000/735
> | actually allowed the memory to be underclocked, or even
> configured at all.
> | Perhaps someone at HP would know. As for myself, I barely
> understand the
> | technique.
> |
> | So, without a look at that BIOS, it seems that wringing
> any extra
> | performance out of the PC2700 would be a long-shot. And,
> given the price
> | differential, perhaps not cost-effective.
> |
> | I am tempted to believe that the best increment in power
> is just to stuff
> | the computer with the full 2x1GB of memory, even at 288
> MHz. I am tempted,
> | but a tad reluctant, since I believe that each of these
> 1GB SODIMMs draws
> | down a full watt to keep itself refreshed (whacking your
> battery performance
> | sharply); and also the system then requires
> correspondingly large standby
> | recovery images and swap files. Perhaps that
> configuration is overdoing it
> | also.
> |
> | Any thoughts?
> |
> | Thanks for the excellent information!
> |
> |
> | "Nathan McNulty" <525676@betaweb.com> wrote in message
> | news:Om1cl9sYEHA.556@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> | > Here is the definitive answer for you. The new boards
> with support for
> | > the Dothan core are generally supporting PC2700. The
> major performance
> | > increase is really going to be in the Dothan core itself
> as you have a
> | > much larger on-die cache and a much better pipe-staging
> for the Dothan
> | > core. As for the PC2700 vs. PC2100, it is true that if
> you are limited
> | > to 266 MHz, then 333 MHz memory will only run at that
> speed, but there
> | > is a catch. You may be able to get the 333 MHz memory
> to run faster
> | > because you can lower the timings on the memory. A
> timing of 2-2-2-6
> | > would be possible by a 333 MHz memory chip underclocked
> to 266, whereas,
> | > a 266 may not be able to reach those latency timings.
> | >
> | > The downside here is that most OEM computers (Dell, HP,
> etc.) have
> | > limited BIOS that will not allow you to change these
> settings. I have a
> | > Dell Latitude D800, and it has the Pentium M 735 with
> DDR333 memory in
> | > it. It runs great, and I have not had any problems
> except no possibility
> | > to overclock
> | >
> | > Nathan McNulty
> | >
> | > Nick Burns wrote:
> | >
> | > > As long as you are running at 266, you are not going
> to see improvement.
> | > >
> | > > "Willy Nilly" <nilleigh@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> | > > news:2eudna4kZ422oHXdRVn-iQ@adelphia.com...
> | > >
> | > >>A recent thread in this group (started by Rodney
> Chelius) discussed
> | > >
> | > > whether
> | > >
> | > >>it was necessary or advantageous to use PC2700 memory
> (333 MHz) vs.
> | PC2100
> | > >>memory (266 MHz) on a HP Pavilion zt3000, which has a
> Pentium-M CPU.
> | The
> | > >>conclusion seemed to be that the motherboard limited
> the speed to 266,
> | and
> | > >>so there was no advantage to the faster memory.
> | > >>
> | > >>Since that discussion was some months ago, and it is
> now possible to get
> | a
> | > >>2.0 GHz Dothan Pentium-M on this model, I wonder if
> this still holds
> | true.
> | > >>That is, are the faster models still built on the same
> motherboard and
> | > >
> | > > still
> | > >
> | > >>limited to 266 MHz? Perhaps it is a dumb question,
> but I wonder if the
> | > >>Banias mobo is different from the Dothan?
> | > >>
> | > >>TNX
> | > >>
> | > >>
> | > >
> | > >
> | > >
> |
> |
>
>
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram