Prescott support

[xenos500]

What, if anything, keeps a prescott P4 from working in any socket 478 Motherboard?

I sold the 2.0 northwood celeron from my secondary computer's Asus P4T533. I wanted to replace it with the prescott 2.4A but Asus didnt claim the P4T533 supported the CPU. I didnt have the time to work it out, and ordered a 2.4C instead. Im almost certain the 2.4A would have worked fine, but couldnt take the chance.

Whats the real deal?

 

[myocardia]

The real deal seems to be that very few motherboards can supply the extra current that a Prescott requires. The only ones that I know of that can are some of the "overclocking" boards, which are built to a higher standard to begin with.

 

[LTC8K6]

The C is faster and has hyperthreading.

Will that board support the C's 800Mhz bus though?

You probably need a 533Mhz bus chip, a B model.

The only B model with HT is the 3.06, and it looks like your board supports that.

 

[xenos500]

well yea...its an i850 chipset.
It doesnt really support 800FSB, but thats of no matter. I can run it at 200fsb with 3/4ths multiplier for the ram bus and run "the bus" at 150mhz.

I used to run a 2.53/133 at 2.85/150 and a ram multiplier of 1/1. It was good to go, with no problems.
The rambus started getting pretty damn fast at 600mhz "FSB" rather than 533 too, it was nice.

 

[THUGSROOK]

the motherboard would need a Prescott bios update, which im pretty sure it didnt get.

a 3.06ghz HTed "B" chip is your best bet on that platform.

 

[xenos500]

the 2.4C and 2.4A are so cheap though....why would I spend that much more money for a 3.06?

 

[Jayczar]

Originally posted by: xenos500
the 2.4C and 2.4A are so cheap though....why would I spend that much more money for a 3.06?

because that is probably your best option for that board.

 

[xenos500]

I still fail to see that.
3.06/533 is 230 dollars with HT
2.40C/800 is 160 dollars with HT
2.40A/533 is 150 dollars without HT and might not work in my board...which means restocking fees and time lost.
2.40B/533 is 145 dollars without HT

I am a big supporter of Hyperthreading, computers that work and of not needlessly spending money.
From that chair, It seems to me that the 2.4C is a pretty good solution in that it will, A. work, B. have hyperthreading, and C. not cost too much money.

Sure the i850 is only really made for 133mhz cpu host clock; that matters not, I say.
That board will run 200mhz to the CPU and 150 to the RDram just fine. For good measure I can even slap a pile of copper in the form of an upgraded heatsink to the northbridge and handle any more heat that higher speed might cause the little champ.

You cant tell me thats bad...since there are plenty of people with 865 and 875 chipsets running 2.XC cpus at 240 through 280mhz. Why not a 850 at 200?


Looking for criticisim if it still exists.

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, if you're sure you can get the 2.4C to perform better in your board than a 3.06B then I say go ahead. :beer:

 

[Jayczar]

since your board does not support the Prescott or the C P4's then the 3.06 is the best option
w/ hyperthreading and w/o overclocking whether you agree or not. But I guess you should buy
whatever you want and prove ASUS wrong.

 

[Spicedaddy]

You might get it to do 200FSB, but I doubt it'll go much higher. So not much overclocking if you get a C chip.

I'd go with a 133FSB B chip. No HT, but the overclocking will make it faster.

The 3.06B would be a good choice because it's 133FSB and also has HT...

 

[LTC8K6]

I don't get the fact that lack of documented support stopped you from buying the 2.4A, but lack of documented support didn't stop you from buying the 2.4C.

If you already have the C, then I guess you've gotta pop it in there and see how it goes.

 

[xenos500]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
I don't get the fact that lack of documented support stopped you from buying the 2.4A, but lack of documented support didn't stop you from buying the 2.4C.

If you already have the C, then I guess you've gotta pop it in there and see how it goes.

Yea, I suppose thats a pretty valid argument.
The only difference is that a 2.4A might not work period....IE never get a video signal no matter what.
Whereas with the 2.4C, worst case scenario is that It has to run alittle slower than 2.4ghz, atleast it will work and I'll have it till I come across another motherboard.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: xenos500

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
I don't get the fact that lack of documented support stopped you from buying the 2.4A, but lack of documented support didn't stop you from buying the 2.4C.

If you already have the C, then I guess you've gotta pop it in there and see how it goes.

Yea, I suppose thats a pretty valid argument.
The only difference is that a 2.4A might not work period....IE never get a video signal no matter what.
Whereas with the 2.4C, worst case scenario is that It has to run alittle slower than 2.4ghz, atleast it will work and I'll have it till I come across another motherboard.

Well, if that's your only argument, then you need to be buying a 2.8C, which is only a few dollars more and will be running faster until you can afford an i865 or i875 mobo for it.

 

[xenos500]

Damn it
You're right, the 2.8 is cheaper than the 2.6 right now. I had a budget...and I got the best I could to stay in the budget, but had I known a meager 12 dollars would have gotten me a 2.8 over a 2.4 I would have done it in a minute.

We must keep in mind that this is my secondary computer, My primary has a Abit IC7 w/ i875 and a 2.6C
I could have gotten the 2.8C for 12 dollars more, used it in my primary and moved my 2.6C to the secondary.

Oh well. The CPU was free me and will be TONS better than the 2.0/100 celeron that was in the secondary computer.
I can't allow myself to get too upset about that.


All good comments, thanks guys