Athlon XP / 64

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

At what point do you feel the price difference / price performance
shifts in favor of the Athlon 64?

With each, where is the best bang for the bucks in a retail box
configuration? With so many cores this seems quite complicated.

Background thought: I'll be upgrading from an Athlon XP 1700. Don't
have any specific need for 64 bit but am willing to go that route if
future trends warrant. Only real reason at the moment to upgrade is
unresolved problems with random lockups that appear to be hardware
based. At this point the memory and hard drives come up clean with
diagnostic testing. System is nearly 4 years old.
14 answers Last reply
More about athlon
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    There is a program I use for disk imaging called Power
    Quest Drive Image 2001 - 2002. On my Athlon 1800,
    I could do a 30 gig disk image in about 12 hours. I can
    now do the same 30 gig image on my AMD 64 3000+
    in about 30 minutes. Also, with my ATI 9600XT in
    the old box, 3DMark2001 would bench at about
    9000. Now the same bench on the '64 with an ATI 9800
    is 19000. So , even a very low end '64 will be a super
    good PC in every respect. My system is about 1 year
    old, and is the GA-K8NS mobo with AMD 64 3000+
    and 1 gig ddr400. Video is AGP with ATI Radeon 9800
    Pro. Look at that bundle at mwave.com. Also, note
    that one step up to the 939 version of the same mobo
    will also be compatible with the new dual core '64.
    That is the mobo that I recommend.

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

    johns wrote:

    > There is a program I use for disk imaging called Power
    > Quest Drive Image 2001 - 2002. On my Athlon 1800,
    > I could do a 30 gig disk image in about 12 hours. I can
    > now do the same 30 gig image on my AMD 64 3000+
    > in about 30 minutes. Also, with my ATI 9600XT in
    > the old box, 3DMark2001 would bench at about
    > 9000. Now the same bench on the '64 with an ATI 9800
    > is 19000.

    How can an Athlon 1800 system take 12 hours to copy 30GB when my lowly
    450 MHz Celeron system with Promise ATA-100 HD controller can back up
    over twice as much data in just a few hours?
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    > How can an Athlon 1800 system take 12 hours to copy 30GB when my lowly
    > 450 MHz Celeron system with Promise ATA-100 HD controller can back up
    > over twice as much data in just a few hours?

    Easy. There ain't no way you've got 60 gigs of data
    on anything. Putting that obvious fact aside, you next
    refer to a disk image as a backup ... Now, backup
    programs are much much slower than disk imaging
    programs, so you are essentially claiming that your
    system would do a disk image of 60 gigs in about
    1 hour. So you are claiming that your 450 Celeron
    would run dead even with my AMD 64. And finally,
    I don't really recall ( I could be wrong here ) .. but
    did they ever make a 450 Celeron? So, kid :-) Tell
    me. What is the maximum setting you can use to
    run Far Cry on your computer? Frame rate? And
    what kind of PCI video card do you have. Seagate
    2000 maybe ? Hint: 66 mhz .. think "front side bus"
    .... as opposed to ddr400 ( about a factor of 8x ), and
    add 1 gig ram and SATA ( another factor of 10x ) and
    you'll begin to get the picture.

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

    johns wrote:

    > > How can an Athlon 1800 system take 12 hours to copy 30GB
    > > when my lowly 450 MHz Celeron system with Promise ATA-100
    > > HD controller can back up over twice as much data in just
    > > a few hours?
    >
    > Easy. There ain't no way you've got 60 gigs of data

    This is an 80GB HD, and it definitely has over 60GB of data -- your
    momma posed for a LOT of pictures, as everybody knows, except maybe you
    and your daddy. ;)

    > Putting that obvious fact aside, you next refer to a disk
    > image as a backup ... Now, backup programs are much much
    > slower than disk imaging programs, so you are essentially
    > claiming that your system would do a disk image of 60 gigs
    > in about 1 hour.

    Prove that I said anything about the type of the backup. It was
    file-by-file, done with an older version of Norton Ghost PE (displays
    each file name during its backup, lots of random seeks consistent with
    file copy rather than image copy). I also never claimed that 60GB took
    "about 1 hour". It was more like 4-5 hours for all three partitions,
    and this is consistent with Ghost showing the transfer rate being about
    250MB/minute during the backup.

    > So you are claiming that your 450 Celeron would run dead
    > even with my AMD 64.

    I'm saying that 12 hours for 30GB is so slow that something must be
    seriously wrong with your Athlon 64 system's HD setup. I'm not trying
    to disparage your system. But on another matter. I'm sure that yours
    is much bigger than mine -- that is what you're really worried about,
    isn't it? ;)

    > And finally, I don't really recall ( I could be wrong here )
    > .. but did they ever make a 450 Celeron? So, kid :-) Tell
    > me. What is the maximum setting you can use to run Far Cry
    > on your computer?

    My 450 MHz Celeron is an overclocked 300 MHz Slot 1 Celeron 300A. The
    300A was famous for being very overclockable -- see
    http://firingsquad.com/hardware/celeron566oc/ , but I was never able to
    get reliable operation at 503 MHz or faster.

    I don't have Far Cry or any other games.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Jim" <chief_jim@go.com> wrote in message
    news:l0pqe.13069$hg.8926@fe12.lga...
    > At what point do you feel the price difference / price performance shifts
    > in favor of the Athlon 64?
    >
    > With each, where is the best bang for the bucks in a retail box
    > configuration? With so many cores this seems quite complicated.
    >
    > Background thought: I'll be upgrading from an Athlon XP 1700. Don't have
    > any specific need for 64 bit but am willing to go that route if future
    > trends warrant. Only real reason at the moment to upgrade is unresolved
    > problems with random lockups that appear to be hardware based. At this
    > point the memory and hard drives come up clean with diagnostic testing.
    > System is nearly 4 years old.

    Personally, I usually set a price point and buy the fastest processor I can
    for my budget. I usually stay around $250 for a processor. Anything more is
    not enough processor for my money.

    Right now the Athlon 64 is actually cheaper than the Athlon XP. I can get an
    Athlon XP 3200+ for $245 retail. I can get an Athlon 64 3500+ for $267
    retail. It's a no brainer. The cost of the motherboard is non-issue these
    days too, as you can get very nice ones for the Athlon 64 for about the same
    cost as an Athlon XP board.

    However, in your case, I might investigate the reason for your random
    lockups, and possibly get just another XP processor to upgrade your system.
    I suspect it's power supply related, but you might want to run memtest86 and
    maybe some other diagnostics to see if everything else is up to snuff. I'd
    try and swap the power supply. What manufacturer/model is it? How many amps
    does the +12V line supply? Are the lockups just a recent phenomenon? Did you
    add anything like a new graphics card or new drive? Could it be OS related?
    Have you tried a fresh install of Windows? What about drivers? Did you
    update some drivers recently?
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 19:06:59 -0400, Jim <chief_jim@go.com> wrote:

    >At what point do you feel the price difference / price performance
    >shifts in favor of the Athlon 64?
    >
    >With each, where is the best bang for the bucks in a retail box
    >configuration? With so many cores this seems quite complicated.
    >
    >Background thought: I'll be upgrading from an Athlon XP 1700. Don't
    >have any specific need for 64 bit but am willing to go that route if
    >future trends warrant. Only real reason at the moment to upgrade is
    >unresolved problems with random lockups that appear to be hardware
    >based. At this point the memory and hard drives come up clean with
    >diagnostic testing. System is nearly 4 years old.

    The AMD processors are now a much better value than Intel processors.
    It makes sense to buy an Athlon 64 processor at this point because
    O/Ses are now supporting it. The lastest AMD core is Venice, running
    cooler than previous types. A larger cache in the CPU is always a
    good thing, although that increases cost. When selecting a CPU, pay
    careful attention to your motherboard/BIOS-upgrades making sure of
    compatibility issues.
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    > When selecting a CPU, pay
    > careful attention to your motherboard/BIOS-upgrades making sure of
    > compatibility issues.

    Another good reason to go AMD. You can plonk the new x2 right in any
    old scoket 939 with a bios upgrade at most.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Jason Woods wrote:
    > > When selecting a CPU, pay
    >
    >> careful attention to your motherboard/BIOS-upgrades making sure of
    >> compatibility issues.
    >
    >
    > Another good reason to go AMD. You can plonk the new x2 right in any
    > old scoket 939 with a bios upgrade at most.

    Well, there are reports which say you can't - be careful.

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

    "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote in message
    news:1118588175.856136.79330@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    > johns wrote:
    >
    >> > How can an Athlon 1800 system take 12 hours to copy 30GB
    >> > when my lowly 450 MHz Celeron system with Promise ATA-100
    >> > HD controller can back up over twice as much data in just
    >> > a few hours?
    >>
    >> Easy. There ain't no way you've got 60 gigs of data
    >
    > This is an 80GB HD, and it definitely has over 60GB of data -- your
    > momma posed for a LOT of pictures, as everybody knows, except maybe you
    > and your daddy. ;)
    >
    >> Putting that obvious fact aside, you next refer to a disk
    >> image as a backup ... Now, backup programs are much much
    >> slower than disk imaging programs, so you are essentially
    >> claiming that your system would do a disk image of 60 gigs
    >> in about 1 hour.
    >
    > Prove that I said anything about the type of the backup. It was
    > file-by-file, done with an older version of Norton Ghost PE (displays
    > each file name during its backup, lots of random seeks consistent with
    > file copy rather than image copy). I also never claimed that 60GB took
    > "about 1 hour". It was more like 4-5 hours for all three partitions,
    > and this is consistent with Ghost showing the transfer rate being about
    > 250MB/minute during the backup.
    >
    >> So you are claiming that your 450 Celeron would run dead
    >> even with my AMD 64.
    >
    > I'm saying that 12 hours for 30GB is so slow that something must be
    > seriously wrong with your Athlon 64 system's HD setup. I'm not trying
    > to disparage your system. But on another matter. I'm sure that yours
    > is much bigger than mine -- that is what you're really worried about,
    > isn't it? ;)
    >
    >> And finally, I don't really recall ( I could be wrong here )
    >> .. but did they ever make a 450 Celeron? So, kid :-) Tell
    >> me. What is the maximum setting you can use to run Far Cry
    >> on your computer?
    >
    > My 450 MHz Celeron is an overclocked 300 MHz Slot 1 Celeron 300A. The
    > 300A was famous for being very overclockable -- see
    > http://firingsquad.com/hardware/celeron566oc/ , but I was never able to
    > get reliable operation at 503 MHz or faster.
    >

    Remember those well. 66mhz fsb at 100mhz. You needed a good AGP video card
    to run at 89mhz on the AGP bus. You probably have a P2B MB or similar. Those
    were the OCr's choice for a long time. Probably up until the P3 700b came
    around and the 1g mark was being reached often with those. Ahhh......the
    good ole days.


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

    Ed Medlin wrote:

    > "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote in message
    > news:1118588175.856136.79330@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >
    >>johns wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>>How can an Athlon 1800 system take 12 hours to copy 30GB
    >>>>when my lowly 450 MHz Celeron system with Promise ATA-100
    >>>>HD controller can back up over twice as much data in just
    >>>>a few hours?
    >>>
    >>>Easy. There ain't no way you've got 60 gigs of data
    >>
    >>This is an 80GB HD, and it definitely has over 60GB of data -- your
    >>momma posed for a LOT of pictures, as everybody knows, except maybe you
    >>and your daddy. ;)
    >>
    >>
    >>>Putting that obvious fact aside, you next refer to a disk
    >>>image as a backup ... Now, backup programs are much much
    >>>slower than disk imaging programs, so you are essentially
    >>>claiming that your system would do a disk image of 60 gigs
    >>>in about 1 hour.
    >>
    >>Prove that I said anything about the type of the backup. It was
    >>file-by-file, done with an older version of Norton Ghost PE (displays
    >>each file name during its backup, lots of random seeks consistent with
    >>file copy rather than image copy). I also never claimed that 60GB took
    >>"about 1 hour". It was more like 4-5 hours for all three partitions,
    >>and this is consistent with Ghost showing the transfer rate being about
    >>250MB/minute during the backup.
    >>
    >>
    >>>So you are claiming that your 450 Celeron would run dead
    >>>even with my AMD 64.
    >>
    >>I'm saying that 12 hours for 30GB is so slow that something must be
    >>seriously wrong with your Athlon 64 system's HD setup. I'm not trying
    >>to disparage your system. But on another matter. I'm sure that yours
    >>is much bigger than mine -- that is what you're really worried about,
    >>isn't it? ;)
    >>
    >>
    >>>And finally, I don't really recall ( I could be wrong here )
    >>>.. but did they ever make a 450 Celeron? So, kid :-) Tell
    >>>me. What is the maximum setting you can use to run Far Cry
    >>>on your computer?
    >>
    >>My 450 MHz Celeron is an overclocked 300 MHz Slot 1 Celeron 300A. The
    >>300A was famous for being very overclockable -- see
    >>http://firingsquad.com/hardware/celeron566oc/ , but I was never able to
    >>get reliable operation at 503 MHz or faster.
    >>
    >
    >
    > Remember those well. 66mhz fsb at 100mhz. You needed a good AGP video card
    > to run at 89mhz on the AGP bus.

    No reason to run the AGP at 100 Mhz on a 100Mhz FSB motherboard as they
    support the 2/3 divider and everything is in spec, except for the
    overclocked celeron, of course.

    That was part of the 'magic' to the Celeron 300A overclock to 450: it 'fit'
    to a 'standard'.

    You're probably thinking of trying to run 133Mhz FSB on a BX chipset.
    *That* is when you'd run into the 89MHz AGP issue.

    > You probably have a P2B MB or similar. Those
    > were the OCr's choice for a long time. Probably up until the P3 700b came
    > around and the 1g mark was being reached often with those. Ahhh......the
    > good ole days.
    >
    >
    > Ed
    >
    >
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
    news:11b6ir5j7h8k1b9@corp.supernews.com...
    > Ed Medlin wrote:
    >
    >> "larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote in message
    >> news:1118588175.856136.79330@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >>
    >>>johns wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>>How can an Athlon 1800 system take 12 hours to copy 30GB
    >>>>>when my lowly 450 MHz Celeron system with Promise ATA-100
    >>>>>HD controller can back up over twice as much data in just
    >>>>>a few hours?
    >>>>
    >>>>Easy. There ain't no way you've got 60 gigs of data
    >>>
    >>>This is an 80GB HD, and it definitely has over 60GB of data -- your
    >>>momma posed for a LOT of pictures, as everybody knows, except maybe you
    >>>and your daddy. ;)
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Putting that obvious fact aside, you next refer to a disk
    >>>>image as a backup ... Now, backup programs are much much
    >>>>slower than disk imaging programs, so you are essentially
    >>>>claiming that your system would do a disk image of 60 gigs
    >>>>in about 1 hour.
    >>>
    >>>Prove that I said anything about the type of the backup. It was
    >>>file-by-file, done with an older version of Norton Ghost PE (displays
    >>>each file name during its backup, lots of random seeks consistent with
    >>>file copy rather than image copy). I also never claimed that 60GB took
    >>>"about 1 hour". It was more like 4-5 hours for all three partitions,
    >>>and this is consistent with Ghost showing the transfer rate being about
    >>>250MB/minute during the backup.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>So you are claiming that your 450 Celeron would run dead
    >>>>even with my AMD 64.
    >>>
    >>>I'm saying that 12 hours for 30GB is so slow that something must be
    >>>seriously wrong with your Athlon 64 system's HD setup. I'm not trying
    >>>to disparage your system. But on another matter. I'm sure that yours
    >>>is much bigger than mine -- that is what you're really worried about,
    >>>isn't it? ;)
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>And finally, I don't really recall ( I could be wrong here )
    >>>>.. but did they ever make a 450 Celeron? So, kid :-) Tell
    >>>>me. What is the maximum setting you can use to run Far Cry
    >>>>on your computer?
    >>>
    >>>My 450 MHz Celeron is an overclocked 300 MHz Slot 1 Celeron 300A. The
    >>>300A was famous for being very overclockable -- see
    >>>http://firingsquad.com/hardware/celeron566oc/ , but I was never able to
    >>>get reliable operation at 503 MHz or faster.
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >> Remember those well. 66mhz fsb at 100mhz. You needed a good AGP video
    >> card to run at 89mhz on the AGP bus.
    >
    > No reason to run the AGP at 100 Mhz on a 100Mhz FSB motherboard as they
    > support the 2/3 divider and everything is in spec, except for the
    > overclocked celeron, of course.
    >
    > That was part of the 'magic' to the Celeron 300A overclock to 450: it
    > 'fit' to a 'standard'.
    >
    > You're probably thinking of trying to run 133Mhz FSB on a BX chipset.
    > *That* is when you'd run into the 89MHz AGP issue.

    Yep.............Getting old is hell. I love the "good ole days"...........
    Just can't remember them........:-)

    Ed
    >
    >> You probably have a P2B MB or similar. Those were the OCr's choice for a
    >> long time. Probably up until the P3 700b came around and the 1g mark was
    >> being reached often with those. Ahhh......the good ole days.
    >>
    >>
    >> Ed
    >
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Ed Medlin wrote:

    > "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
    > news:11b6ir5j7h8k1b9@corp.supernews.com...
    >
    >>Ed Medlin wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>"larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote in message
    >>>news:1118588175.856136.79330@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>johns wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>>How can an Athlon 1800 system take 12 hours to copy 30GB
    >>>>>>when my lowly 450 MHz Celeron system with Promise ATA-100
    >>>>>>HD controller can back up over twice as much data in just
    >>>>>>a few hours?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Easy. There ain't no way you've got 60 gigs of data
    >>>>
    >>>>This is an 80GB HD, and it definitely has over 60GB of data -- your
    >>>>momma posed for a LOT of pictures, as everybody knows, except maybe you
    >>>>and your daddy. ;)
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>Putting that obvious fact aside, you next refer to a disk
    >>>>>image as a backup ... Now, backup programs are much much
    >>>>>slower than disk imaging programs, so you are essentially
    >>>>>claiming that your system would do a disk image of 60 gigs
    >>>>>in about 1 hour.
    >>>>
    >>>>Prove that I said anything about the type of the backup. It was
    >>>>file-by-file, done with an older version of Norton Ghost PE (displays
    >>>>each file name during its backup, lots of random seeks consistent with
    >>>>file copy rather than image copy). I also never claimed that 60GB took
    >>>>"about 1 hour". It was more like 4-5 hours for all three partitions,
    >>>>and this is consistent with Ghost showing the transfer rate being about
    >>>>250MB/minute during the backup.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>So you are claiming that your 450 Celeron would run dead
    >>>>>even with my AMD 64.
    >>>>
    >>>>I'm saying that 12 hours for 30GB is so slow that something must be
    >>>>seriously wrong with your Athlon 64 system's HD setup. I'm not trying
    >>>>to disparage your system. But on another matter. I'm sure that yours
    >>>>is much bigger than mine -- that is what you're really worried about,
    >>>>isn't it? ;)
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>And finally, I don't really recall ( I could be wrong here )
    >>>>>.. but did they ever make a 450 Celeron? So, kid :-) Tell
    >>>>>me. What is the maximum setting you can use to run Far Cry
    >>>>>on your computer?
    >>>>
    >>>>My 450 MHz Celeron is an overclocked 300 MHz Slot 1 Celeron 300A. The
    >>>>300A was famous for being very overclockable -- see
    >>>>http://firingsquad.com/hardware/celeron566oc/ , but I was never able to
    >>>>get reliable operation at 503 MHz or faster.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Remember those well. 66mhz fsb at 100mhz. You needed a good AGP video
    >>>card to run at 89mhz on the AGP bus.
    >>
    >>No reason to run the AGP at 100 Mhz on a 100Mhz FSB motherboard as they
    >>support the 2/3 divider and everything is in spec, except for the
    >>overclocked celeron, of course.
    >>
    >>That was part of the 'magic' to the Celeron 300A overclock to 450: it
    >>'fit' to a 'standard'.
    >>
    >>You're probably thinking of trying to run 133Mhz FSB on a BX chipset.
    >>*That* is when you'd run into the 89MHz AGP issue.
    >
    >
    > Yep.............Getting old is hell. I love the "good ole days"...........
    > Just can't remember them........:-)

    Hehe.

    I think it's because in 'the good ole days' it took more than just slapping
    a few settings in BIOS and off you go so there was more a sense of having
    gamed the system and accomplishing something not 'just anyone' could do.

    Probably also explains why I've got this 'never done it before' bur under
    my saddle to design a tube amplifier.

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

    "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
    news:11b8in2njtgc607@corp.supernews.com...
    > Ed Medlin wrote:
    >
    >> "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
    >> news:11b6ir5j7h8k1b9@corp.supernews.com...
    >>
    >>>Ed Medlin wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>"larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote in message
    >>>>news:1118588175.856136.79330@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>johns wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>>How can an Athlon 1800 system take 12 hours to copy 30GB
    >>>>>>>when my lowly 450 MHz Celeron system with Promise ATA-100
    >>>>>>>HD controller can back up over twice as much data in just
    >>>>>>>a few hours?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>Easy. There ain't no way you've got 60 gigs of data
    >>>>>
    >>>>>This is an 80GB HD, and it definitely has over 60GB of data -- your
    >>>>>momma posed for a LOT of pictures, as everybody knows, except maybe you
    >>>>>and your daddy. ;)
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>Putting that obvious fact aside, you next refer to a disk
    >>>>>>image as a backup ... Now, backup programs are much much
    >>>>>>slower than disk imaging programs, so you are essentially
    >>>>>>claiming that your system would do a disk image of 60 gigs
    >>>>>>in about 1 hour.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Prove that I said anything about the type of the backup. It was
    >>>>>file-by-file, done with an older version of Norton Ghost PE (displays
    >>>>>each file name during its backup, lots of random seeks consistent with
    >>>>>file copy rather than image copy). I also never claimed that 60GB took
    >>>>>"about 1 hour". It was more like 4-5 hours for all three partitions,
    >>>>>and this is consistent with Ghost showing the transfer rate being about
    >>>>>250MB/minute during the backup.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>So you are claiming that your 450 Celeron would run dead
    >>>>>>even with my AMD 64.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>I'm saying that 12 hours for 30GB is so slow that something must be
    >>>>>seriously wrong with your Athlon 64 system's HD setup. I'm not trying
    >>>>>to disparage your system. But on another matter. I'm sure that yours
    >>>>>is much bigger than mine -- that is what you're really worried about,
    >>>>>isn't it? ;)
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>And finally, I don't really recall ( I could be wrong here )
    >>>>>>.. but did they ever make a 450 Celeron? So, kid :-) Tell
    >>>>>>me. What is the maximum setting you can use to run Far Cry
    >>>>>>on your computer?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>My 450 MHz Celeron is an overclocked 300 MHz Slot 1 Celeron 300A. The
    >>>>>300A was famous for being very overclockable -- see
    >>>>>http://firingsquad.com/hardware/celeron566oc/ , but I was never able to
    >>>>>get reliable operation at 503 MHz or faster.
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>Remember those well. 66mhz fsb at 100mhz. You needed a good AGP video
    >>>>card to run at 89mhz on the AGP bus.
    >>>
    >>>No reason to run the AGP at 100 Mhz on a 100Mhz FSB motherboard as they
    >>>support the 2/3 divider and everything is in spec, except for the
    >>>overclocked celeron, of course.
    >>>
    >>>That was part of the 'magic' to the Celeron 300A overclock to 450: it
    >>>'fit' to a 'standard'.
    >>>
    >>>You're probably thinking of trying to run 133Mhz FSB on a BX chipset.
    >>>*That* is when you'd run into the 89MHz AGP issue.
    >>
    >>
    >> Yep.............Getting old is hell. I love the "good ole
    >> days"........... Just can't remember them........:-)
    >
    > Hehe.
    >
    > I think it's because in 'the good ole days' it took more than just
    > slapping a few settings in BIOS and off you go so there was more a sense
    > of having gamed the system and accomplishing something not 'just anyone'
    > could do.
    >
    > Probably also explains why I've got this 'never done it before' bur under
    > my saddle to design a tube amplifier.

    This new P5GDC board says it all. It has "OC Profile" settings. Under that
    catagory comes... 5% OC, 10% OC and so on up to 30%. All auto. It also has
    settings for several CPU freqs and memory speeds. My DDR2 533 memory will
    only do 613 without errors, so in that mode I can get something like 3.5+ g
    out of the I-630 (3g) processor. I set it at a 20% auto OC and have left it
    there at 3.6 and it works out well and keeps my memory at 600. It is just
    too easy anymore......:-) There is a manual mode that I will dive into one
    of these days and see what I can really get this to do and stay stable. I am
    just not up to messing with it yet.............

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

    Ed Medlin wrote:
    > "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
    > news:11b8in2njtgc607@corp.supernews.com...
    >
    >>Ed Medlin wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>"David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
    >>>news:11b6ir5j7h8k1b9@corp.supernews.com...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>Ed Medlin wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>"larry moe 'n curly" <larrymoencurly@my-deja.com> wrote in message
    >>>>>news:1118588175.856136.79330@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>johns wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>How can an Athlon 1800 system take 12 hours to copy 30GB
    >>>>>>>>when my lowly 450 MHz Celeron system with Promise ATA-100
    >>>>>>>>HD controller can back up over twice as much data in just
    >>>>>>>>a few hours?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>Easy. There ain't no way you've got 60 gigs of data
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>This is an 80GB HD, and it definitely has over 60GB of data -- your
    >>>>>>momma posed for a LOT of pictures, as everybody knows, except maybe you
    >>>>>>and your daddy. ;)
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>Putting that obvious fact aside, you next refer to a disk
    >>>>>>>image as a backup ... Now, backup programs are much much
    >>>>>>>slower than disk imaging programs, so you are essentially
    >>>>>>>claiming that your system would do a disk image of 60 gigs
    >>>>>>>in about 1 hour.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>Prove that I said anything about the type of the backup. It was
    >>>>>>file-by-file, done with an older version of Norton Ghost PE (displays
    >>>>>>each file name during its backup, lots of random seeks consistent with
    >>>>>>file copy rather than image copy). I also never claimed that 60GB took
    >>>>>>"about 1 hour". It was more like 4-5 hours for all three partitions,
    >>>>>>and this is consistent with Ghost showing the transfer rate being about
    >>>>>>250MB/minute during the backup.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>So you are claiming that your 450 Celeron would run dead
    >>>>>>>even with my AMD 64.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>I'm saying that 12 hours for 30GB is so slow that something must be
    >>>>>>seriously wrong with your Athlon 64 system's HD setup. I'm not trying
    >>>>>>to disparage your system. But on another matter. I'm sure that yours
    >>>>>>is much bigger than mine -- that is what you're really worried about,
    >>>>>>isn't it? ;)
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>And finally, I don't really recall ( I could be wrong here )
    >>>>>>>.. but did they ever make a 450 Celeron? So, kid :-) Tell
    >>>>>>>me. What is the maximum setting you can use to run Far Cry
    >>>>>>>on your computer?
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>My 450 MHz Celeron is an overclocked 300 MHz Slot 1 Celeron 300A. The
    >>>>>>300A was famous for being very overclockable -- see
    >>>>>>http://firingsquad.com/hardware/celeron566oc/ , but I was never able to
    >>>>>>get reliable operation at 503 MHz or faster.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>Remember those well. 66mhz fsb at 100mhz. You needed a good AGP video
    >>>>>card to run at 89mhz on the AGP bus.
    >>>>
    >>>>No reason to run the AGP at 100 Mhz on a 100Mhz FSB motherboard as they
    >>>>support the 2/3 divider and everything is in spec, except for the
    >>>>overclocked celeron, of course.
    >>>>
    >>>>That was part of the 'magic' to the Celeron 300A overclock to 450: it
    >>>>'fit' to a 'standard'.
    >>>>
    >>>>You're probably thinking of trying to run 133Mhz FSB on a BX chipset.
    >>>>*That* is when you'd run into the 89MHz AGP issue.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>Yep.............Getting old is hell. I love the "good ole
    >>>days"........... Just can't remember them........:-)
    >>
    >>Hehe.
    >>
    >>I think it's because in 'the good ole days' it took more than just
    >>slapping a few settings in BIOS and off you go so there was more a sense
    >>of having gamed the system and accomplishing something not 'just anyone'
    >>could do.
    >>
    >>Probably also explains why I've got this 'never done it before' bur under
    >>my saddle to design a tube amplifier.
    >
    >
    > This new P5GDC board says it all. It has "OC Profile" settings. Under that
    > catagory comes... 5% OC, 10% OC and so on up to 30%. All auto. It also has
    > settings for several CPU freqs and memory speeds. My DDR2 533 memory will
    > only do 613 without errors, so in that mode I can get something like 3.5+ g
    > out of the I-630 (3g) processor. I set it at a 20% auto OC and have left it
    > there at 3.6 and it works out well and keeps my memory at 600. It is just
    > too easy anymore......:-) There is a manual mode that I will dive into one
    > of these days and see what I can really get this to do and stay stable. I am
    > just not up to messing with it yet.............
    >
    > Ed
    >
    >

    Yep. That's what I meant, all right.
Ask a new question

Read More

Homebuilt Hardware Windows XP Systems