Does 98 automatically recognise upgrade CPU

[gavin]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Hi,

I've upgraded a p2 400 mhz to p3 550mhz.

The device manager box in 98 still says it has a Intel p2 with mnx
technology. I can't work out whether this has been written into the
software, or whether 98 needs to be told of the new cpu?

On boot up everything seems ok.

Cheers
Gavin

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Gavin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've upgraded a p2 400 mhz to p3 550mhz.
>
> The device manager box in 98 still says it has a Intel p2 with mnx
> technology. I can't work out whether this has been written into the
> software, or whether 98 needs to be told of the new cpu?
>
> On boot up everything seems ok.
>
> Cheers
> Gavin
>
>

as long as the motherboard can run that CPU at that speed, then win98
will use it at that speed.

--
spammage trappage: replace fishies_ with yahoo

I'm going to die rather sooner than I'd like. I tried to protect my
neighbours from crime, and became the victim of it. Complications in
hospital following this resulted in a serious illness. I now need a bone
marrow transplant. Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow
transplant, too. Please volunteer to be a marrow donor:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Gavin" <gavin_masonNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I've upgraded a p2 400 mhz to p3 550mhz.
>The device manager box in 98 still says it has a Intel p2 with mnx
>technology. I can't work out whether this has been written into the
>software, or whether 98 needs to be told of the new cpu?

The information is gathered from the CPU somehow. It cannot be written
into the software. Since there is no such thing as (user installed) CPU
drivers, you can be sure Windows looks at the CPU.

Your CPU and hard disk drive are two components which Windows
automatically detects (except for hardware setup).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

John Doe wrote:
> The information is gathered from the CPU somehow. It cannot be written
> into the software. Since there is no such thing as (user installed) CPU
> drivers, you can be sure Windows looks at the CPU.

That's actually not true (well it is in this case, but not in a general
sense). There are user installed CPU drivers, for example:

AMD Athlon™ 64 Processor Driver for Windows XP, Version (exe) 1.1.0.18
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/TechnicalResources/0,,30_182_871_9706,00.html

I only knew this because I have an Athlon 64 and the manual says to
download the driver for Windows XP. Also, I know it's arguable whether
it's technically a driver or not (as Windows works without it) but a lot
of other hardware works without the drivers in the same way, i.e. not to
it's full feature set (e.g. all graphics cards will work without a
driver, just to standard VGA res/colour depth).

Cheers,


Andy

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Andy Jeffries <news@andyjeffries.co.filth.uk> wrote:
>John Doe wrote:

>> The information is gathered from the CPU somehow. It cannot be
>> written into the software. Since there is no such thing as (user
>> installed) CPU drivers, you can be sure Windows looks at the CPU.
>
>That's actually not true (well it is in this case, but not in a
>general sense). There are user installed CPU drivers, for example:
>
>AMD Athlon™ 64 Processor Driver for Windows XP, Version (exe)
>1.1.0.18
>http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/TechnicalResources/0,,30_182_871
>_9706,00.html
>
>I only knew this because I have an Athlon 64 and the manual says to
>download the driver for Windows XP. Also, I know it's arguable
>whether it's technically a driver or not (as Windows works without
>it) but a lot of other hardware works without the drivers in the
>same way, i.e. not to it's full feature set (e.g. all graphics
>cards will work without a driver, just to standard VGA res/colour
>depth).

I don't know about Intel, but I've never had to hassle with AMD CPU
drivers to get the most out of the CPU.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Andy Jeffries wrote:

> John Doe wrote:
>
>> The information is gathered from the CPU somehow. It cannot be written
>> into the software. Since there is no such thing as (user installed)
>> CPU drivers, you can be sure Windows looks at the CPU.
>
>
> That's actually not true (well it is in this case, but not in a general
> sense). There are user installed CPU drivers, for example:
>
> AMD Athlon™ 64 Processor Driver for Windows XP, Version (exe) 1.1.0.18
> http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/TechnicalResources/0,,30_182_871_9706,00.html
>
>
> I only knew this because I have an Athlon 64 and the manual says to
> download the driver for Windows XP. Also, I know it's arguable whether
> it's technically a driver or not (as Windows works without it) but a lot
> of other hardware works without the drivers in the same way, i.e. not to
> it's full feature set (e.g. all graphics cards will work without a
> driver, just to standard VGA res/colour depth).
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Andy

Read the description, though. That is not to enable the CPU to operate as a
CPU nor to identify it properly (the OP's problem) but to "automatically
adjust the CPU speed, voltage and power combination that match the
instantaneous user performance need."

It's a power management 'feature' that is not a normal windows function.

 

[jad]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Bios recognizes the cpu/speed gives that info to the OS for a simple id of
it. When you change major components it is important to /RESET CONFIGURATION
DATA. in the cmos setup routine. Its the mainboard that recognizes first,
then the OS just picks up the data for identification. Drivers for the cpu?
I guess in the loose sense of the word that's true, but hardly a user
concern as long as the Device manager has no unidentified system resources.
Leave it to AMD to require 'drivers' and user responsibility for them.



"Gavin" <gavin_masonNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:422617eb$1@news.greennet.net...
> Hi,
>
> I've upgraded a p2 400 mhz to p3 550mhz.
>
> The device manager box in 98 still says it has a Intel p2 with mnx
> technology. I can't work out whether this has been written into the
> software, or whether 98 needs to be told of the new cpu?
>
> On boot up everything seems ok.
>
> Cheers
> Gavin
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

David Maynard wrote:
>>> Since there is no such thing as (user
>>> installed) CPU drivers, you can be sure Windows looks at the CPU.
>>
>> That's actually not true (well it is in this case, but not in a
>> general sense). There are user installed CPU drivers, for example:
>>
>> AMD Athlon™ 64 Processor Driver for Windows XP, Version (exe) 1.1.0.18
>> http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/TechnicalResources/0,,30_182_871_9706,00.html
>
> Read the description, though. That is not to enable the CPU to operate
> as a CPU nor to identify it properly (the OP's problem) but to
> "automatically adjust the CPU speed, voltage and power combination that
> match the instantaneous user performance need."
>
> It's a power management 'feature' that is not a normal windows function.

I agree, however it's an additional driver that you have to install to
allow the hardware to operate with the full functionality available.

I know it doesn't help in this case (at all), I just wanted to ensure
that John Doe (and all the other John Does out there) are aware that
there is such a thing as a CPU driver, which is the opposite of what he
stated.

You could argue that the Nvidia drivers aren't such as my GeForce 6800
GT will act as a graphics card without it!

Cheers,


Andy

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

John Doe wrote:
>>That's actually not true (well it is in this case, but not in a
>>general sense). There are user installed CPU drivers, for example:
>>
>>AMD Athlon™ 64 Processor Driver for Windows XP, Version (exe)
>>1.1.0.18
>
> I don't know about Intel, but I've never had to hassle with AMD CPU
> drivers to get the most out of the CPU.

You will if you have an Athlon 64 and want Cool'n'Quiet to work under
Windows.

Cheers,


Andy

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Sounds like the bios might be set to "not auto detect" CPU?
It's probably still running as your previous CPU.
Go into bios & change the settings to auto or if you can't (& in many old
one you can't), set it manually to 100 by 5.5 (multiplyer).
Also on some early boards it was done by changing the jumper on the board.
To be perfectly honest I wouldn't touch anything until I found & read the
manual for that board.
You got a brand & number & rev of it?



"John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.is.the.real.thing.com> wrote in message
news:Xns960E9A7F4DC3Ewisdomfolly@151.164.30.42...
> Andy Jeffries <news@andyjeffries.co.filth.uk> wrote:
> >John Doe wrote:
>
> >> The information is gathered from the CPU somehow. It cannot be
> >> written into the software. Since there is no such thing as (user
> >> installed) CPU drivers, you can be sure Windows looks at the CPU.
> >
> >That's actually not true (well it is in this case, but not in a
> >general sense). There are user installed CPU drivers, for example:
> >
> >AMD AthlonT 64 Processor Driver for Windows XP, Version (exe)
> >1.1.0.18
> >http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/TechnicalResources/0,,30_182_871
> >_9706,00.html
> >
> >I only knew this because I have an Athlon 64 and the manual says to
> >download the driver for Windows XP. Also, I know it's arguable
> >whether it's technically a driver or not (as Windows works without
> >it) but a lot of other hardware works without the drivers in the
> >same way, i.e. not to it's full feature set (e.g. all graphics
> >cards will work without a driver, just to standard VGA res/colour
> >depth).
>
> I don't know about Intel, but I've never had to hassle with AMD CPU
> drivers to get the most out of the CPU.
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Andy Jeffries <news@andyjeffries.co.filth.uk> wrote:
>David Maynard wrote:

>>>> Since there is no such thing as (user installed) CPU drivers,
>>>> you can be sure Windows looks at the CPU.
>>>
>>> That's actually not true (well it is in this case, but not in a
>>> general sense). There are user installed CPU drivers, for
>>> example: AMD AthlonT 64 Processor Driver for Windows XP, Version
>>> (exe) 1.1.0.18
>>> http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/TechnicalResources/0,,30_182_
>>> 871_9706,00.html
>>
>> Read the description, though. That is not to enable the CPU to
>> operate as a CPU nor to identify it properly (the OP's problem)
>> but to "automatically adjust the CPU speed, voltage and power
>> combination that match the instantaneous user performance need."
>> It's a power management 'feature' that is not a normal windows
>> function.
>
>I agree, however it's an additional driver that you have to install
>to allow the hardware to operate with the full functionality
>available.
>
>I know it doesn't help in this case (at all), I just wanted to
>ensure that John Doe (and all the other John Does out there) are
>aware that there is such a thing as a CPU driver, which is the
>opposite of what he stated.
>
>You could argue that the Nvidia drivers aren't such as my GeForce
>6800 GT will act as a graphics card without it!

Your argument is well understood. Thanks for the link. If I buy and
Athlon 64, I probably will use the drivers.

You are talking about power/thermal management, not the
functionality/performance given by an appropriate video card
driver.

Let's just hope it's not a trend. Having to install CPU drivers
would be a step backwards, in my opinion.

Assuming power/thermal management is a good thing for the Athlon 64,
the lack of Windows support follows Microsoft's typical poor support
for power management. Power management has always been a bear to me
on desktop PCs.

Have fun.




>
>Cheers,
>
>
>Andy
>
>Path: newssvr30.news.prodigy.com!newsdbm05.news.prodigy.com!newsdst02.news.prodigy.com!newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newscon02.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.net!news.glorb.com!news.addix.net!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.ntli.net!newsrout1-gui.ntli.net!ntli.net!newsfe4-gui.ntli.net.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
>From: Andy Jeffries <news andyjeffries.co.filth.uk>
>User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20050129)
>X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
>Subject: Re: Does 98 automatically recognise upgrade CPU
>References: <422617eb$1@news.greennet.net> <Xns960DE3B406815wisdomfolly@151.164.30.42> <h8FVd.3581$Ol3.1224@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net> <112g3iijeacg34c@corp.supernews.com>
>In-Reply-To: <112g3iijeacg34c@corp.supernews.com>
>X-Enigmail-Version: 0.89.5.0
>X-Enigmail-Supports: pgp-inline, pgp-mime
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>Lines: 32
>Message-ID: <OxZVd.477$EQ3.78 newsfe4-gui.ntli.net>
>Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 13:38:54 GMT
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.7.113.111
>X-Trace: newsfe4-gui.ntli.net 1109943534 82.7.113.111 (Fri, 04 Mar 2005 13:38:54 GMT)
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2005 13:38:54 GMT
>Organization: NTL
>Xref: newsmst01a.news.prodigy.com alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:430752
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Andy Jeffries wrote:
> David Maynard wrote:
>
>>>> Since there is no such thing as (user installed) CPU drivers, you
>>>> can be sure Windows looks at the CPU.
>>>
>>>
>>> That's actually not true (well it is in this case, but not in a
>>> general sense). There are user installed CPU drivers, for example:
>>>
>>> AMD Athlon™ 64 Processor Driver for Windows XP, Version (exe) 1.1.0.18
>>> http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/TechnicalResources/0,,30_182_871_9706,00.html
>>
>>
>>
>> Read the description, though. That is not to enable the CPU to operate
>> as a CPU nor to identify it properly (the OP's problem) but to
>> "automatically adjust the CPU speed, voltage and power combination
>> that match the instantaneous user performance need."
>>
>> It's a power management 'feature' that is not a normal windows function.
>
>
> I agree, however it's an additional driver that you have to install to
> allow the hardware to operate with the full functionality available.

It's a close call, granted, but there are, for example, third party
programs to reduce power on other CPUs, like rain, although that's now
built into Windows ACPI.

What distinguishes it, IMO, is that 'power management' is not fundamental
to operation of the CPU. It's an 'extra' thing, for power management, and
not every one would necessarily want it installed.


> I know it doesn't help in this case (at all), I just wanted to ensure
> that John Doe (and all the other John Does out there) are aware that
> there is such a thing as a CPU driver, which is the opposite of what he
> stated.
>
> You could argue that the Nvidia drivers aren't such as my GeForce 6800
> GT will act as a graphics card without it!

Without the "driver" it won't operate 3D at all, which is a defining
function of what a "3D graphics card" is, and it won't operate in 2D
properly either; only in a 'fail safe' mode (which is using a default
"driver").

>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Andy

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Howdy!

"Gavin" <gavin_masonNOSPAM@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:422617eb$1@news.greennet.net...
> Hi,
>
> I've upgraded a p2 400 mhz to p3 550mhz.
>
> The device manager box in 98 still says it has a Intel p2 with mnx
> technology. I can't work out whether this has been written into the
> software, or whether 98 needs to be told of the new cpu?

Written into the software.

Windows uses a table that says "If you get this pattern, it's this
processor". The P3 isn't in the table for 98 Gold. So it IDs it as the
most compatible one, a P2/MMX . 98SE understands the P3, BTW B)

RwP