It depends on chipset. I believe <b><A HREF="http://www.intel.com/design/chipsets/845/" target="_new"><font color=red>I-845</A></b></font color=red> chipset is the one that supports DDR-RAM.
Good or Bad have no meaning at all, depends on what your point of view is.
I845D is the fastest
P4X266A
P4X266
SiS645 has memory bandwidth of PC600 but the system overall is slower than the above baords.
I have worked with all the above boards.
SiS650 is the Micro form factor SiS645, also note that the <A HREF="http://www.amptron.com/Images/p4-935lmsd.jpg" target="_new">CPU is not square to the HSF retetion mech</A>. this can be a problem with a lot of aftermarket HSF that put copper core in center.
<A HREF="http://www.amptron.com/Images/P4-925LSD.jpg" target="_new">Via P4M266</A> is also a Micro FF, just like the SiS650 the CPU is not centered.
The original I845 chipset supports PC100/PC133 SDRAM
SDRAM and DDR SDRAM boards are slower than the RDR based motherboards, so go with RDR for best performance.
Yeah Right... the i845D is the fastest?
i guess Anandtech, toms hardware Guide, Tech-Report, Xbitlabs and a buch of other Hardware web sites dont know how to benchmark...
the I845D - is the best for overclocking maybe.
This post is best viewed with common sense enabled
First of all you're new here but I will assume to passed by the front page of Tom's Hardware. You said you roamed some articles, and I believe you did not. Not to be rude or anything but don't people at least check the articles before asking such questions? Anywhere you go in CPU guides, you will have the answer more detailed than any of us could do, and they provide 2nd details like the chipsets that do them and the types recommended. Please read the THG articles next time before jumping to the Community like that, I consider it rather disrespectful to ignore Tom's website and going to the community that reads it and discusses it.
--
The other day I heard an explosion from the other side of town.... It was a 486 booting up...
You never know if Ali will release a good rev like the C one!
Then there is VIA, and SiS, but I really like SiS for doing such a low price high performant chipset for P4, it truly is attractive, is 100$ CDN less than Asus P4T with i850s and DDR 333 is just a glimpse higher than RDRAM so it really should make P4 more affordable and attractive. But not for me anyway, it's still underperforming...
--
The other day I heard an explosion from the other side of town.... It was a 486 booting up...
As most of you know I punnished these boards, oveclocking was just one aspect. I reported the problems I saw and listed issues that needed to be fixed.
Intel application accelerator is needed on Intel based motherboards, and if its not loaded by the review sites then all benchmarks will be wrong with lower scores than normal. Kinda like having bad 4 in 1 drivers loaded.
This is an easy way to show AMD in favorable light in benchmarks by not loading this application.
Dude, I'd like some bench proof to see the increase and if it is this much.
And second, even in SSE 2 optimized apps, the AXP was able to compete and win, so Intel has to go further than that if they want a powerful set of instructions to work even at lower clock speeds. This shows that it's pointless to buy low speed P4s anytime.
--
The other day I heard an explosion from the other side of town.... It was a 486 booting up...
A little off topic here but based on personal experience the Intel App Accel DOES make a large difference.. I have used and not used it to test it on my pee 3\800eb and not only does it bench better when installed , there is a noticable difference across the board when doing actual work \ games with it installed .. one side note though .. on my system ( the pee 3, I also have a p-IV northwood, soyo dragon sis 645 based rig) Clonecd will not record correctly to my old yamaha 16x recorder with it installed
lagger
<b><font color=blue>Checking under my north AND south bridges for trolls</font color=blue>
Just as Intel updates their chipset-supporting software, so do all other chipset makers, therefore, you will constantly get a range of benchmarks depending on the version of the software you use. I notice a lot of difference when moving from one version of the 4-in-1s to another, whether for better or for worse.
AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
very true amdman I have had experience with 3 verisons of the intel files .. the first 2 were ata drivers and the 3rd, the app accel replaced those and was by far the fastest of the bunch
<b><font color=blue>Checking under my north AND south bridges for trolls</font color=blue>
I could've sworn that was the name of the app that ran when Defrag started in Win98. It was also called Intel App Launch Accelerator with the Intel logo on Defrag. Is there any relation to both and also why hasn't this app been more known or advertised if it's so revolutionary? Do you think this actually unlocks some P4 performance, or P4 is still worse per clock?
--
The other day I heard an explosion from the other side of town.... It was a 486 booting up...
Fugger, are you saying that they don't use App Accelerator? Do you have any proof to back up that statement? In any case, as any other chipset support driver, performance will vary depending on the system.
AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
I am in total agreement, everyone knows what fugger is, and where he should stick his advice.
But I do not care about what he says enough to bother refuting his crap anymore. He can call me names in other threads all he wants, and he can post bs, I will calmly reply he is wrong, and move on.
Flaming the trolls just dosent help anything.
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months. If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.