Athlon to have 333mhz FSB
- Thread starter Utterman
- Start date
Yes I was at that seminar as well....
Got me a free Ratpadz and a REAL P4X333 chip! (keychain). Anyway also other intresting info about that. Kyle was also saying that older chipsets should theroetically support the 166mhz fsb possibely all the way back to KT133A. You guys should see his rig he had VERY impressive. The "Rotten Mac" there are pic on hardocp. Also you guys just might be intrested in some Radeon 9700 numbers seach for my posts on the video fourm.....
Also talking to a Via rep the chipset after KT400 (she reffered to it as KT400A but said that it may not really be the name it gets) will support Serial ATA INTEGRATED into the southbridge... So if you read up the Tom's HW article on Serial ATA you might be able to bypass PCI limitations.
Got me a free Ratpadz and a REAL P4X333 chip! (keychain). Anyway also other intresting info about that. Kyle was also saying that older chipsets should theroetically support the 166mhz fsb possibely all the way back to KT133A. You guys should see his rig he had VERY impressive. The "Rotten Mac" there are pic on hardocp. Also you guys just might be intrested in some Radeon 9700 numbers seach for my posts on the video fourm.....
Also talking to a Via rep the chipset after KT400 (she reffered to it as KT400A but said that it may not really be the name it gets) will support Serial ATA INTEGRATED into the southbridge... So if you read up the Tom's HW article on Serial ATA you might be able to bypass PCI limitations.
That's very interesting that the KT133a maybe able to run the 166mhz FSB. I really hope that will work out since I'm using an A7V133 right now.
That's an unfortunate thing to be saying. Makes it sound as if there's been 166 support there just unused.
Can a lot of chipsets use 166? Yes. Within spec? No. With the ram you have? Maybe.
If you slow down your CAS2 133 ram to CAS3 will it do 166? Maybe. Will it be faster? No.
Will your USB work? Probably not. Will your PCI be out of spec? Yup. Will your machine be faster than before? A little bit. Will it be as stable? Almost certainly not.
Hell, you can shoehorn a Taulantin core Celeron into a BX board and run it at 133mhz FSB. Lot of things we can do, overclockers have known some KT133A can do 166 since they first came out. But like Dulanic said without that PCI divider you're not only out of spec (theoretical or not) you're overclocking your PCI bus as well well as your chipset to do it.
Barton, ok, make it clear this is a 333 chip only for use on newer boards, it's got some changes that might make it actually benefit from the speed and will be the END of socket A chip so go out with a bang and clear marketing distinction. XP's are being bought by a lot of upgraders who see they can plop in a new chip for $70 and away they go. Some of whom read forums like these, a lot don't though. AMD got stuck with a reputation for being unstable because of early 3rd party chipset issues and lack of understanding by casual hobbiests who didn't know to go looking for new drivers and such. Most of that has passed. Bring out a new chip that's going to be making uninformed overclockers of a lot of people and you have all that back just as you're trying to convince the buying public that your new Hammer is the way to go.
Like I said before, I like fast computers. What I don't like is reputations getting made or sullied by a somewhat desperate move like. That's what I'm concerned will happen, as it is if someone wants to unlock their XP and run it 333 with a lower multiplier for the same overall speed they can, as far as I've read that usually works. Anand showed use the gains of a faster fsb on an Athlon before though and they weren't much at all.
Can a lot of chipsets use 166? Yes. Within spec? No. With the ram you have? Maybe.
If you slow down your CAS2 133 ram to CAS3 will it do 166? Maybe. Will it be faster? No.
Will your USB work? Probably not. Will your PCI be out of spec? Yup. Will your machine be faster than before? A little bit. Will it be as stable? Almost certainly not.
Hell, you can shoehorn a Taulantin core Celeron into a BX board and run it at 133mhz FSB. Lot of things we can do, overclockers have known some KT133A can do 166 since they first came out. But like Dulanic said without that PCI divider you're not only out of spec (theoretical or not) you're overclocking your PCI bus as well well as your chipset to do it.
Barton, ok, make it clear this is a 333 chip only for use on newer boards, it's got some changes that might make it actually benefit from the speed and will be the END of socket A chip so go out with a bang and clear marketing distinction. XP's are being bought by a lot of upgraders who see they can plop in a new chip for $70 and away they go. Some of whom read forums like these, a lot don't though. AMD got stuck with a reputation for being unstable because of early 3rd party chipset issues and lack of understanding by casual hobbiests who didn't know to go looking for new drivers and such. Most of that has passed. Bring out a new chip that's going to be making uninformed overclockers of a lot of people and you have all that back just as you're trying to convince the buying public that your new Hammer is the way to go.
Like I said before, I like fast computers. What I don't like is reputations getting made or sullied by a somewhat desperate move like. That's what I'm concerned will happen, as it is if someone wants to unlock their XP and run it 333 with a lower multiplier for the same overall speed they can, as far as I've read that usually works. Anand showed use the gains of a faster fsb on an Athlon before though and they weren't much at all.
Increasing the FSB to 166mhz should boost speeds a bit since it runs in step with PC2700 (also at 166mhz). But what will really make it a 'barn-burner' is increasing the cache to take advantage of higher FSB/memory speeds. The 512k in the Barton should have been perfect. If there was a time to ressurect the Barton, the time is now.
Yeah, AMD has gotta improve their cache. If I'm not mistaken it only uses a 64 bit interface. When Intel moved to the Coppermine they icnreased the cache's interface to 256 bits.
For the longest time I wanted an Athlon because of their high performance, but now I think AMD is slipping behind in technology. I don't want more MHz I want better cache and SSE2.
BTW - I just built an Athlon XP2000 system (Epox 8K3A+) that I"m not happy with and selling to a relative so I can build the P4 that I wanted from the beginning.
For the longest time I wanted an Athlon because of their high performance, but now I think AMD is slipping behind in technology. I don't want more MHz I want better cache and SSE2.
BTW - I just built an Athlon XP2000 system (Epox 8K3A+) that I"m not happy with and selling to a relative so I can build the P4 that I wanted from the beginning.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter