Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Athlon 1.2G 266 vs. 1.3G 200

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
June 13, 2001 4:07:17 PM

I am building a new system and have the option of using an Athlon 1.2G 266FSB or a 1.3G 200FSB (same price). Is there any reason I should go with the 266 FSB? Motherboard is a KT7A-RAID.

Thanks
Josh

More about : athlon 266 200

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
June 13, 2001 6:11:14 PM

I would take 1200(266)
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
June 13, 2001 6:12:30 PM

or if one is AXIA take that one
Related resources
June 13, 2001 6:19:50 PM

AXIA is good, but I wouldn't take an AXIA 1.3/200 over a different 1.2/266. Unless you have VERY good memory and AGP/PCI stuff. Then you can overclock it up to 266 (if you're lucky). A slightly lower clocked processor with a faster bus with always beat a slightly higher processor with a slower bus.

Apple? Macintosh? What are these strange words you speak?
June 13, 2001 6:33:00 PM

Yep I forth that,
and all Tom's benchmarks prove that as well. Go with the 266 bus.

Look at it way.
It's a 33% increase in bandwidth or
an 8% increase in processing power.


<font color=blue>Smoke me a Kipper, I'll be back for breakfast!</font color=blue>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
June 13, 2001 6:40:10 PM

Thanks all,
Here is what I have decided on my system (and can't wait).

Athlon 1.2G 266
KT7A-RAID
256M C2 PC133 SDRAM
30G ATA 100 7200rpm disk
RAID setup of 4 10G 7200 WD Caviars (I already have these)
Leadtek GeForce2 Ultra
DVD Drive 16x/40x w/WinDVD Playback
Full Tower 400W
Soundblaster Live Value
Netgear FA310TX 10/100 PCI Card

Total cost is ~$730.

Anything I am doing wrong here?

BTW Now if I could only get my DSL installed

Josh
June 13, 2001 6:53:58 PM

266 be good... mmm munch... me want 266... me will have 266 very soon... hehehe

you do not strengthen the weak by weakening the strong
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
June 13, 2001 7:03:40 PM

I have a lead on a similiar system. Let me know if you are interested.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest thing. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling, which thinks that nothing is worth war, is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he cares about more than his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

John Stuart Mill
June 14, 2001 1:45:26 AM

Go for the 1200 C.
add some kingmax pc150 like i did
unlock your multipliers or find one "pre-unlocked"

im running 8 x 150 at full CAS 2.
nuff said.


This behavior must not continue! Feel the BURNING STARE of my HAMSTER... and change your ways!
June 14, 2001 8:02:12 AM

Quote:
AXIA is good, but I wouldn't take an AXIA 1.3/200 over a different 1.2/266. <b>Unless you have VERY good memory and AGP/PCI stuff</b>. Then you can overclock it up to 266 (if you're lucky).

Sorry for asking, but why did you say that?

:smile: Good or Bad have no meaning at all, depends on what your point of view is.
June 14, 2001 11:11:04 AM

i might be wrong, but i thought to get the effects of a 266 fsb from your processor you need to couple that with pc2100 ddr ram.

life is what happens while you are making other plans
June 14, 2001 12:40:19 PM

Not to sound mean or anything, but you are wrong. The Athlons use a double-pumped clock, making their litteral FSB only 133MHz. So using PC133 memory in them works just as well as PC2100. (In many cases, almost litterally as DDR really offers only a small performance boost, if it offers any at all.)

Frankly, I think it's the motherboard itself that offers the majority of the performance gain we see from Athlon DDR systems. If you look at the benchmarks from THG's review of some new motherboards, you'll see that some of the new ones using single-rate PC133 memory can end up performing better than some of the DDR SDRAM setups. That says to me that it isn't really the memory that is making the difference in most cases, it's the motherboard.

In any event, PC133 memory works just fine with AthlonCs.

There are probably even motherboards that would allow you to put PC100 memory into a system with a 133MHz FSB because the memory clock doesn't have to match the processor clock. Really though, what would be the point since now a day it wouldn't really save you any money to go that route anyway? Just because it could be done doesn't mean that there is a good reason to.

If the opposite of pro is con, what is the opposite of productivity? Ground first.
June 14, 2001 1:21:48 PM

If you have a kt7a get the 1.3(200) then set the clock multiplier lower and set the chip to 266 it WILL RUN, and you have the best of both worlds, the chip will be unlocked already and you probably will have one hell of an overclocker in that axia

~Matisaro~
"Friends don't let friends buy Pentiums"
~Tbird1.3@1.55~
June 14, 2001 2:44:44 PM

Ok, when you increase a frontside bus (eg from 100/200 to 133/266), you also overclock the bus speeds on your RAM, PCI, AGP, and I would assume ISA (since you have a KT7a-RAID). Now, it's set up as a ratio, not a strict amount, so you can overclock it more than it seems, but hardly any PCI cards will go more than a few MHz before crashing your system. Also, if you overclock your AGP more than a couple of MHz, it'll go from 4x to 2x, and negate the overclock.

As for DDR, it gives a good perfomance boost. Think of it as AMD versus Intel (from a strictly FSB perspective). A 266 Athlon will have a 266 bus speed (effectively), but a P3 has a 133 bus. Obviously, having twice as fast a bus will give you faster performance.

As for setting the chip to a 266 FSB...no, because of the reasons I described above. Also, what's the point of raising the FSB and lowering the multiplier to end up where you'd be if you bought the 1.2/266? It's a lot easier to raise the multiplier on a 1.2/266 (since it's a low multiplier in the first place).

BTW, this is kind of strange. I have a KT7a-RAID, 1.2/266 Athlon, etc...and my name is Josh too.

AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;) 

Apple? Macintosh? What are these strange words you speak?
June 14, 2001 2:53:48 PM

Um no fat burger youre dead wrong.

when you get the 1.3 at 200 it will be set to 13x100fsb
set the MOBO fsb to 133/33/66(the kt7a raid has that setting i know i have a kt7a with a 1.33(266)@1.55) when you set the fsb to 133 you will now have a 13x133=1733mhz cpu, which would not run(unless you had a vapochill or a pelt waterblock system) but if you change the clock multiplyer to 10(from the default 13) you will have a 1.33(266) chip. With pci/isa/agp ALL IN SPEC.

so he can get a 1.2(266) chip, or use his brain and have a 1.33(266) chip, AND since its axia it will probably overclock to 1.5 like mine.

hope I cleared up your misunderstanding.

~Matisaro~
"Friends don't let friends buy Pentiums"
~Tbird1.3@1.55~
June 14, 2001 2:56:38 PM

AND the reason to lower the clock multiplier and raise the fsb is to increase performance, and he will have a 1.33 ghz chip(thats the chips rated speed).

~Matisaro~
"Friends don't let friends buy Pentiums"
~Tbird1.3@1.55~
June 14, 2001 3:02:30 PM

While on paper there is a difference between tbirdc and tbird b, in reality I have never(or heard of in this forum) seen a tbird b which wouldnt do a 266 fsb, and when you lower the clock multiplier(so you dont OC your chip to hell) there is no difference between a B and C chip.
for example
Tbird 1.33C
Tbird 1.3B
If you put those chips in a KT7A board with the fsb at 133 and the multiplier at 10 BOTH will run fine, they perform identically and for all intents and purposes are the same chip.
So if a 1.3b is the same price as a 1.2c buying the 1.2c is a waste of money because the 1.3b will run just like a 1.3c


PS: how many posts do I have to make to become something OTHER THAN A NEWBIE@!

~Matisaro~
"Friends don't let friends buy Pentiums"
~Tbird1.3@1.55~
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
June 14, 2001 4:01:20 PM

why the 266 over the 200? I have a 200 running at 300 stable on an ABIT KT7A + Raid.. I just have PC133 CL2 ram...

or am I missing something here? will the 266 run faster at 300 than the 200 would at 300?

Old addage: "Users never prosper" :o ) Long live the tweakers
June 14, 2001 4:24:09 PM

<b>when you increase a frontside bus (eg from 100/200 to 133/266), you also overclock the bus speeds on your RAM, PCI, AGP, and I would assume ISA (since you have a KT7a-RAID).</b>
I think you're mistaken. Abit KT7A-Raid is KT133<b><font color=red>A</b></font color=red> chipset and it has AGP divider of 1/2 of FSB and PCI's of 1/4 when FSB at 133MHz. You wouldn't overclock them at all, AGP still is at 66MHz and PCI's 33MHz.

:smile: Good or Bad have no meaning at all, depends on what your point of view is.
June 14, 2001 5:16:02 PM

Wow. I don't think I've heard more things wrong in a single post in a long time.

"<font color=blue>Ok, when you increase a frontside bus (eg from 100/200 to 133/266), you also overclock the bus speeds on your RAM, PCI, AGP, and I would assume ISA (since you have a KT7a-RAID).</font color=blue>"
That motherboard should have a way to change the dividers so that running at 133FSB isn't in any way out of spec.

"<font color=blue>As for DDR, it gives a good perfomance boost.</font color=blue>"
I'm not sure what your definition of good is, but DDR gives barely any performance improvement. And in fact some DDR systems perform worse than some SDR systems. DDR is much more hype than reality.

"<font color=blue>A 266 Athlon will have a 266 bus speed (effectively), but a P3 has a 133 bus. Obviously, having twice as fast a bus will give you faster performance.</font color=blue>"
This one is wrong on so many levels. I hardly know where to begin. First off, Athlons have a double-pumped 133MHz FSB, not a 266MHz FSB. The whole concept of a 266Mhz FSB is a myth made up by marketting to make the chip sound better than it really is. The Athlons still run on a 133MHz clock. As such, they have NO performance gain in this regard over an Intel chip. Yes, Athlons perform better, but that is mostly because of their better FPU and has <i>nothing</i> to do with their FSB.

"<font color=blue>what's the point of raising the FSB and lowering the multiplier to end up where you'd be if you bought the 1.2/266?</font color=blue>"
There really isn't much point for uppercuts. The idea though is that AthlonBs are able to perform as AthlonCs if you overclock the FSB and underclock the multiplier to give you the same GHz rating, but now with a better FSB. Sometimes you can pick up the Bs for cheaper than the Cs, and in those cases, it makes perfect sense to do this.

If the opposite of pro is con, what is the opposite of productivity? Ground first.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b V Motherboard
June 14, 2001 6:37:45 PM

I would say Yes, you did something wrong, if you want your network card to work reliably easily and forever, I would buy a 3COM
June 14, 2001 9:40:19 PM

Quote:
"A 266 Athlon will have a 266 bus speed (effectively), but a P3 has a 133 bus. Obviously, having twice as fast a bus will give you faster performance."
This one is wrong on so many levels. I hardly know where to begin. First off, Athlons have a double-pumped 133MHz FSB, not a 266MHz FSB. The whole concept of a 266Mhz FSB is a myth made up by marketting to make the chip sound better than it really is. The Athlons still run on a 133MHz clock. As such, they have NO performance gain in this regard over an Intel chip. Yes, Athlons perform better, but that is mostly because of their better FPU and has nothing to do with their FSB.

I've got to call bs on this. If your logic held out, the P4 is only actually running a 100mhz fsb which is nowhere NEAR capable of the bandwidth available from the RDRAM, it would perform worse and its memory bandwidth would show up the same as PC100 on all tests, which it does not.
the Socket A motherboards are ALL DDR FSB, it is not done at the processor, it is done at the northbridge.
if what you said were true, we would have another 820 here, performance is identical or worse, but we don't, there is actually a 10% improvement, not huge, but its there. If the motherboard itself wasn't running a double pumped FSB, you would see no improvement whatsoever over SDRAM, if nothing else, the extra .5 hit of latency would slow it down.

----------------------
Independant thought is good.
It won't hurt for long.
June 15, 2001 4:40:26 AM

Can someone clear something up for me?

1. The Athlon's bus is double-pumped. At 133 mhz the bus can theoretically tranfer data at twice the rate of a bus that is not double pumped. Hence, the 266mhz FSB label.

2. DDR SDRAM is also doubled-pumped. Data is also double rate, theoretically.

3. The Northbridge of the KT133A chipset cannot handle data at 266 mhz because it is not double-pumped. The Northbridge handles data internally at 133 mhz (assuming FSB speed is set to 133 Mhz). This is a major bottleneck for current Athlon DDR motherboards but it is also reason the same chipset works with SDRAM (the single data rate flavor, that is).

4. The new KT266 chipset is supposed to address the bottleneck problem and support much higher data rates.

Are these correct facts?
June 15, 2001 11:26:13 AM

1. Yes although the SD ram will not be able to take advantage of this.
2.Yes, and for all intentes and purposes ddr ram performs as well as sdram 2 times as fast(IE ddr 133 performs as sd 266) this does not generally translate into that kind of system performance boost(usually about 10%) but it is there.
3.Yes the kt133a can go to about 150mhz before craping out, but the kt133a doesnt use ddr ram, so it dosent have to.
4.Not sure, but if youre going ddr get an amd761 chipset, or the sis chipset on toms review, ::D osent trust sis::.

~Matisaro~
"Friends don't let friends buy Pentiums"
~Tbird1.3@1.55~
June 15, 2001 2:41:16 PM

Good rebuttal, but I do of course have to point out the flaws in it. :) 

The P4 <i>is</i> running on a 100MHz FSB. FSB refers entirely to frequency. Just because a system is capable of performing operations both at the rise and the fall of the wave (or in the P4's case, the peak, the trough, and the two middle points, I'd assume) does not mean that the frequency of the wave is in any way different. The FSB itself is still 100MHz or 133MHz because it's measured in frequency, not in bandwidth. Therefore there is <i>no</i> such thing as a 266MHz FSB. (At least not yet.)

The P4 also is entirely different from the Athlon in one major respect, the P4 performs I/O operations with the chipset on each pumping. So it is <i>externally</i> quad-pumped.

The Athlon on the other hand only performs internal calculations on each pumping and I/O only once per FSB cycle. So it is only <i>internally</i> double-pumped. It's I/O with the chipset is still only at single-pumped 133MHz speed.

No, I don't have any engineering blueprints or anything to prove this, but it is very evident in the performance of the systems. If you read my explanations below, it becomes very evident that this is indeed the case.

I/O between the CPU and memory occurs very often and so effectively doubling the bandwidth should give a considerably noticably performance boost. It shouldn't be double, but it should be more than just 10% in <i>some</i> applications. (And far less in others.) Yet so far we have not seen any significant performance boost. In fact, there are SDR motherboards outperforming DDR motherboards. How can you possibly explain that if we are to believe that the DDR motherboard is faster because it has twice the bandwidth?

It is my belief (which has pretty strong benchmark evidence right on THG) that the performance gain that we are seeing from DDR systems has almost nothing to do with the memory bandwidth, but simply in a more efficient motherboard design.

Look at the performance of VIA's Intel chipsets compared to Intel's chipsets. Why do Intel's perform better with the same memory and CPU? It's because of the efficiency of the chipset and mobo itself.

So why did <i>some</i> DDR systems (but certainly not all) perform slightly better than SDR systems when they first came out? Again, motherboard and chipset efficiency.

AMD itself made a DDR chipset. Who else in the world could possible have known how to better design a chipset that supports a double-rated FSB to match the I/O of the Athlon to the I/O of the memory? Yet did we see anything even closely suggesting that the I/O bandwidth between the CPU and memory was doubled? Not unless the memory was slower than mud. If anything, the AMD chipset motherboards performed better simply because VIA sucks badly at tweaking the performance of chipsets.

So if no one, including AMD, could make a DDR chipset bridge the gap between the I/O of the Athlon and the I/O of the DDR SDRAM, then the flaw is hardly likely to be in the chipset. I mean honestly, what would it have served AMD to have made a single-rate chipset for a DDR CPU and DDR memory? No one gains money by cutting the performance of their technology in half.

And we know that the flaw isn't in the DDR SDRAM either. The flaw is quite simply that the benefits of the Athlon's double-pumped bus are internal only and that the Athlon's I/O speed is still only 133MHz.

And yes, DDR motherboards and memory will still have a small performance gain over SDR even when used with a CPU that doesn't support DDR I/O simply because of <i>synchonization</i>. The CPU asks for data from the memory. The memory responds. In a SDR system the memory's response might not be until two cycles later because it could just barely miss responding in one cycle because it's performing at the exact same speed as the CPU, but has to perform paging and send the data across the bus. Yet with DDR memory, now it's giving it's responses in half the time, so that the response is always only one cycle away from when the CPU asked for it because it's response is only half a cycle away from the CPU's I/O so that the slight time accumulated from paging and transfer still won't put the response time more than one cycle away from when the CPU asked for it.

It's the same reason why putting 133MHz SDRAM (clocked at 133MHz) into a system with a 100MHz FSB gives a performance gain. In theory if everything were synced perfectly, there would be no performance gain at all because the CPU would still be accessing the memory only at 100MHz. In practice though, there is a minor performance gain simply because the memory responds to the chipset faster now so that the CPU doesn't have to wait when the memory misses it's synchonization slightly.

And this is why the P4 gains a quite noticable performance from faster memory. The P4's I/O is quad-pumped so that each clock cycle in the chip internally is able to send and recieve data from the chipset. And the chipset able to send and recieve data that fast as well. So the faster the memory, the sooner the CPU gets what it wants. There are less internal clock cycles of the CPU wasted waiting for it's next I/O cycle like there is with a single-pumped I/O cycle.

Hopefully AMD will fix this oversight with their CPUs and soon we'll see DDR systems that actually show the benefits of DDR memory.

From my deductions though, it's quite clear that it's the Athlon CPU itself that is still operating externally only single-pumped, just as the P3 does, making the 266MHz FSB not only a scientifical misnomer, but also a complete myth.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a fan of AMD and the Athlon. I'm no Intel zealot spewing nonsense just to badmouth them. I am simply giving every shred of evidence I have why the 266MHz FSB is just a load of marketting BS. Technically so is Intel's 400MHz FSB, but at least Intel's is only scientifically misnamed and not completely a false advertisement.

If the opposite of pro is con, what is the opposite of productivity? Ground first.
June 16, 2001 2:23:03 PM

I/O between the CPU and memory occurs very often and so effectively doubling the bandwidth should give a considerably noticably performance boost. It shouldn't be double, but it should be more than just 10% in some applications. (And far less in others.) Yet so far we have not seen any significant performance boost. In fact, there are SDR motherboards outperforming DDR motherboards. How can you possibly explain that if we are to believe that the DDR motherboard is faster because it has twice the bandwidth?

How much data does the cpu need to run a program considering cache etc, 3d games use the videocard, however, ddr platforms show signifigant improvement in video apps(mpeg encoding etc) because those apps call for large streams of data from system ram using the higher bandwidth. When you run programs only rarely will the cpu require large amounts of data quickly(due to the design, thats just how tbirds work) when apps are being used which do need large amounts of data quickly(video etc) the ddr boards generally score higher. If your conveyor belt runs at 266mhz but you only need 100mhz worth of data, you will see no benifit above 100mhz system ram.

Hope i made sense, just got off work and am very tired. NIGHT ALL.

~Matisaro~
"Friends don't let friends buy Pentiums"
~Tbird1.3@1.55~
June 16, 2001 3:05:06 PM

Dude you are so wrong you are starting to look silly. You may actualy want to check your facts before making assumptions such as this:

<font color=red> It's I/O with the chipset is still only at single-pumped 133MHz speed.</font color=red>

AMD's implementation of the Alpha EV6 bus is 64bit thus at 133mhz and 8Bytes (8bits*8Bits=64bits) and being that it is a Double Data Rate bus (DDR, transfer data on rising and Falling edges of Xfer) it is simple math (133X8X2=2.184 or 2.1GB/s).
your wrong...got it? WRONG! This conclusively proves your I/O theory incorrect.

<font color=red>No, I don't have any engineering blueprints or anything to prove this, but it is very evident in the performance of the systems.</font color=red>

Perhpas you should actually find evidence before posting such bogus information.

<font color=red>I/O between the CPU and memory occurs very often and so effectively doubling the bandwidth should give a considerably noticably performance boost. It shouldn't be double, but it should be more than just 10% in some applications. (And far less in others.) Yet so far we have not seen any significant performance boost. In fact, there are SDR motherboards outperforming DDR motherboards. How can you possibly explain that if we are to believe that the DDR motherboard is faster because it has twice the bandwidth?</font color=red>

I have already addressed this with you in another post, one in which you choose to ignore and post your FUD yet in another thread.

The modest increase in performance ( your words) is explanable do to the fact that only the bandwith has been addressed while the latency remains the same. Thus we only see increases in performance in apps that were bandwith limited to begin with. Latency continues to be the bottleneck much more so than bandwith. This very issue was addressed in the p4 by going to a dual channel memory controller and will be addressed in the nforce as well along with a hardware prefetch.
Your observations about the inherent worth of DDR vs Sdram and the performance increase may be debateable, however your conclusions about the I/O operations of the cpu to northbridge of the athlon are totally incorrect.



A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!
June 16, 2001 3:30:17 PM

Quote:
Theoretically DDR-SDRAM provides double the bandwidth of normal SDRAM. At 100 MHz memory clock it's able to supply a data bandwidth of 1600 MB/s, at 133 MHz it goes up to 2100 MB/s. That is why 'Team DDR' decided to call the specs of those two DDR-memory types 'PC1600' and 'PC2100'. However, I have to disappoint you, if you should think that DDR-SDRAM is simply twice as fast as SDRAM at single data rate. The basic reason is rather simple. While DDR-SDRAM is indeed able to provide double the peak bandwidth of normal SDRAM, it has still the same (CL2 DDR-SDRAM) or even a slightly worse latency (CL 2.5 DDR-SDRAM) than its older sibling. The result is that in worst-case situations DDR-SDRAM can be as slow or even slightly slower than normal SDRAM. At the same time DDR-SDRAM can easily outperform single data rate SDRAM under ideal conditions. In average, systems with DDR-SDRAM are most certainly faster than systems with normal SDRAM, but the gain depends on the application and can hardly ever reach more than 20%.

<A HREF="http://www6.tomshardware.com/mainboard/01q1/010104/amd-..." target="_new">http://www6.tomshardware.com/mainboard/01q1/010104/amd-...;/A>

Quote:
One of the most important new features of AMD760 is the support of 133 MHz front side bus. This increases the data transfer bandwidth of Athlon's bus from 1.6 GB/s to 2.1 GB/s, which makes perfect sense, because PC266/PC2100 DDR-SDRAM can supply data at 2.1 GB/s as well. The only other noteworthy new feature of AMD760 is the ATA100-support. All the other specs are listed in the table above.

<A HREF="http://www6.tomshardware.com/mainboard/00q4/001030/athl..." target="_new">http://www6.tomshardware.com/mainboard/00q4/001030/athl...;/A>

If you really want to see what is happening I suggest you take a good look at the following article:

<A HREF="http://www.hardocp.com/articles/memory/ddrovr/" target="_new">http://www.hardocp.com/articles/memory/ddrovr/&lt;/A>

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!
!