Is the Sempron a budget line that costs more?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:28:18 GMT, Wes Newell
<w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 11:55:14 +0000, Johannes H Andersen wrote:
>
>> But this has never happened before that a PC CPU is more expensive than
>> it was a year ago AFAIK.
>
>Sure it has. The price of the high end 100MHz (200FSB) Tbirds went up when
>the supply got short. Too bad most perople don't realize they really don't
>have to have these to upgrade. Here's current pricing on pricewatch.
>
>$94 - Athlon 1.4GHz 266
>$149 - Athlon 1.4GHz 200
>$42 - Athlon 1.33GHz 266
>$56 - Athlon 1.3GHz 200
>$43 - Athlon 1.2GHz 266
>$57 - Athlon 1.2GHz 200
>$50 - Athlon 1.13GHz 266
>$61 - Athlon 1.1GHz 200
>$54 - Athlon 1GHz 200
>
>Now consider one could buy a $56 XP 2400+ and run it at 1500MHz (without
>overclocking the FSB) in those old 100MHz boards like the one below and it
>almost becomes comical.

I agree, except that you keep ignoring that many boards
won't run them. I've tried 100MHz FSB boards (like ECS
K7VZM) that won't run anything Palomino or newer, and even
133MHz FSB boards (like MSI K7T266 Pro2) that won't run
T'Bred or newer... "maybe" in later revisions those boards
would, but actual samples which worked 100% fine, simply
won't run these faster chips even at 1500MHz (or whatever
applied per chip tried), with bios released long after the
CPUs were.

 

[jk]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Ed wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:50:48 +0100, "BigBadger" <big_badger@NOSPAM.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Ed" <nosay@home.com> wrote in message
> >news:q6ook0ddkak20vpdfvib7fnluh05d86bts@4ax.com...
> >> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 01:20:41 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Since the Athlon XP chips may start disappearing pretty soon, this might
> >>>not be an issue for very long.
> >>>
> >>
> >> and people who buy retail may like the idea of the NX bit security on
> >> the Sempron and won't mind paying a little more for it.?
> >> Ed
> >>
> >The Socket A Semprons are Athlon T'bred CPU's down to the last transistor...
> >They don't have any new features.
>
> Geez, AMD should of just called those Durons then!

Not really, since the Sempron 3100+ is K8 based. My guess is that the entire
Sempron line will probably move to K8 based chips by the end of 2005, or that
AMD will eventually outsorce the K7 Semprons. I believe AMD has no plans to
move K7 production to 90nm.

>
> Ed

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 19:28:27 +0000, kony wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:28:18 GMT, Wes Newell
> <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:
>>Now consider one could buy a $56 XP 2400+ and run it at 1500MHz (without
>>overclocking the FSB) in those old 100MHz boards like the one below and it
>>almost becomes comical.
>
> I agree, except that you keep ignoring that many boards
> won't run them.

I haven't ignored anything. And what makes you think there are many boards
that won't run them. Every time someone has told me the XX board wouldn't
run them, I've proved them wrong. And this list includes boards from about
all manufacturers.


> I've tried 100MHz FSB boards (like ECS K7VZM) that won't run anything
> Palomino or newer, and even 133MHz FSB boards (like MSI K7T266 Pro2)
> that won't run T'Bred or newer... "maybe" in later revisions those
> boards would, but actual samples which worked 100% fine, simply won't
> run these faster chips even at 1500MHz (or whatever applied per chip
> tried), with bios released long after the CPUs were.

What you mean to say is that you couldn't get them to work. There's a big
difference. Most people couldn't get the 2200+ to work in any board that
had multiplier control when it came out. That doesn't mean it didn't work.
it just meant they didn't know what they were doing.


--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 00:16:50 GMT, Wes Newell
<w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:

<snip>

>I haven't ignored anything. And what makes you think there are many boards
>that won't run them. Every time someone has told me the XX board wouldn't
>run them, I've proved them wrong. And this list includes boards from about
>all manufacturers.
>
>
>> I've tried 100MHz FSB boards (like ECS K7VZM) that won't run anything
>> Palomino or newer, and even 133MHz FSB boards (like MSI K7T266 Pro2)
>> that won't run T'Bred or newer... "maybe" in later revisions those
>> boards would, but actual samples which worked 100% fine, simply won't
>> run these faster chips even at 1500MHz (or whatever applied per chip
>> tried), with bios released long after the CPUs were.
>
>What you mean to say is that you couldn't get them to work. There's a big
>difference. Most people couldn't get the 2200+ to work in any board that
>had multiplier control when it came out. That doesn't mean it didn't work.
>it just meant they didn't know what they were doing.

OK, then tell me why a K7VZM wouldn't run an XP1800 at
100MHz FSB?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 00:16:50 GMT, Wes Newell
<w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:


>I haven't ignored anything. And what makes you think there are many boards
>that won't run them. Every time someone has told me the XX board wouldn't
>run them, I've proved them wrong. And this list includes boards from about
>all manufacturers.
>
>
>> I've tried 100MHz FSB boards (like ECS K7VZM) that won't run anything
>> Palomino or newer, and even 133MHz FSB boards (like MSI K7T266 Pro2)
>> that won't run T'Bred or newer... "maybe" in later revisions those
>> boards would, but actual samples which worked 100% fine, simply won't
>> run these faster chips even at 1500MHz (or whatever applied per chip
>> tried), with bios released long after the CPUs were.
>
>What you mean to say is that you couldn't get them to work. There's a big
>difference. Most people couldn't get the 2200+ to work in any board that
>had multiplier control when it came out. That doesn't mean it didn't work.
>it just meant they didn't know what they were doing.

.... and in the case of the K7T266 Pro2, the board had been
running an XP1600 Palomino o'c to 1.7GHz, then system was
returned to default speed, confirmed still working properly.
Next an XP1900 T'Bred A was tried. System DID post, was
running at correct voltage, multiplier, FSB, Mem, but was
severely instable, even bios screens were quickly locking
up. Do tell what should've been changed? There was no
power supply, heatsink/heat/etc, type of problem, other
factors remained constant.

There was a hack at the time, removing a (resistor?), but
attempt was made prior to and post-removal of the resistor
without success. BTW, the board is still running fine,
person it was sold to uses it every day, nothing else wrong
with board.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 00:41:10 +0000, kony wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 00:16:50 GMT, Wes Newell
> <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>I haven't ignored anything. And what makes you think there are many boards
>>that won't run them. Every time someone has told me the XX board wouldn't
>>run them, I've proved them wrong. And this list includes boards from about
>>all manufacturers.
>>
>>
>>> I've tried 100MHz FSB boards (like ECS K7VZM) that won't run anything
>>> Palomino or newer, and even 133MHz FSB boards (like MSI K7T266 Pro2)
>>> that won't run T'Bred or newer... "maybe" in later revisions those
>>> boards would, but actual samples which worked 100% fine, simply won't
>>> run these faster chips even at 1500MHz (or whatever applied per chip
>>> tried), with bios released long after the CPUs were.
>>
>>What you mean to say is that you couldn't get them to work. There's a big
>>difference. Most people couldn't get the 2200+ to work in any board that
>>had multiplier control when it came out. That doesn't mean it didn't work.
>>it just meant they didn't know what they were doing.
>
> OK, then tell me why a K7VZM wouldn't run an XP1800 at
> 100MHz FSB?

How should I know why the one you tried didn't work. There could be many
reasons. This much I can tell you. It's not because the chipset won't
support it. Specs for the XP cpu are for FSB's as low as 50MHz. It could
be a problem with power, timing or many other things. Now since you don't
have this board any more to try some things, what's the point of me
wasteing my time guessing?

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 02:32:54 +0000, kony wrote:

> ... and in the case of the K7T266 Pro2, the board had been
> running an XP1600 Palomino o'c to 1.7GHz, then system was
> returned to default speed, confirmed still working properly.
> Next an XP1900 T'Bred A was tried. System DID post, was
> running at correct voltage, multiplier, FSB, Mem, but was
> severely instable, even bios screens were quickly locking
> up. Do tell what should've been changed? There was no
> power supply, heatsink/heat/etc, type of problem, other
> factors remained constant.
>
> There was a hack at the time, removing a (resistor?), but
> attempt was made prior to and post-removal of the resistor
> without success. BTW, the board is still running fine,
> person it was sold to uses it every day, nothing else wrong
> with board.

Copied from google groups:

From: Homer J. Simpson (hjsimpson@springfield.usa)
Subject: Re: AMD Palomino 2100Xp CPU

View this article only
Newsgroups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.msi-microstar
Date: 2004-03-18 14:42:50 PST

If you have the K7T266pro2(-RU) MS-6380 V2, and NOT any of the other boards
like the K7T266pro or the K7T266pro2-A series, you can remove a tiny (1mm x
0.5 mm) surface mount capacitor, C37, which will then allow you to run any
266MHz FSB TBred CPU. I made this mod to my K7T266 Pro2-RU Rev. 2 and I'm
currently running an XP2400+ TBred with complete success.

You should also download BIOS Version 3.7 from MSI's web site and reflash
your BIOS. This BIOS version provides proper identification of the TBred's
during POST. This BIOS version also has 48-bit LBA support for large hard
disks. Don't bother with BIOS Version 3.7 beta 4 as it does not have 48-bit
LBA support.

Check out this link at MSI's Forum for much info on this popular mod:

http://forum.msi.com.tw/thread.php?threadid=5723&boardid=13&styleid=1



--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

They will remain at the 'expensive' equivalent price to the Athlon XP until
stocks of the latter have disappeared, then the Sempron prices will drop.
Dealers with stocks of Athlons do not want the cheaper Sempron leaving them
with an Athlon investment that they can't shift. Durons have already mostly
gone. Standard pricing practice.

Any Sempron user experiences out there? The Sempron 2800 looks like a 'good
bang for the buck' CPU if the price came down to more reasonable levels, say
£50 or less.


"David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
news:10knkcfkv6fma9b@corp.supernews.com...
> Fishman wrote:
>
>> "David Maynard" <dNOTmayn@ev1.net> wrote in message
>> news:10kkf3ebv68go8e@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>>Wes Newell wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 00:35:38 +0100, Franklin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I don't kmow how reliable AMD's "+" figure is in idnicating throughput
>>>>>power, so I don't know if I can take at face value that these two cpus
>>
>> are
>>
>>>>>equivalent:
>>>>>
>>>>> 2500+ Sempron (1.75 GHz, FSB 333, T'bred-B core)
>>>>> 2500+ Athlon (1.92 GHz, FSB 333, Barton core)
>>>>>
>>>>>[Data taken from page linked above.]
>>>>>
>>>>>Surely these two are not equivalent in terms of power?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>They aren't. The Sempron, if rated with the same suite of benchmarks
>>>>Athlon XP's are rated with, would rate as a 2100+. All Semprons are
>>
>> rated
>>
>>>>with a set of benchmarks to compare them to Celerons clock speeds and
>>
>> the
>>
>>>>resulting PR number reflects that. not compared P4's or even XP's. IF
>>
>> you
>>
>>>>subtract 400 from every Semprons number, you will get the approximate
>>>>Athlon rating. So a Sempron 2200+ would [erforme the same as an Athlon
>>>>1800+, etc. And you can take that to the bank.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Good info and that explains a LOT.
>>>
>>
>>
>> So that makes them even less value for money then!
>
> True, but it explains why I was having such a hard time making sense of
> the new numbering scheme.
>
>> With computer hardware something new is usually better and often cheaper,
>> doesn't seem to be the case here.
>
> From their vantage point it is because the Sempron replaces the Duron.
>
>> Are AMD in trouble and need to hike the price up on their products?
>
> AMD has always been in price trouble.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 06:32:47 GMT, Wes Newell
<w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:


>> OK, then tell me why a K7VZM wouldn't run an XP1800 at
>> 100MHz FSB?
>
>How should I know why the one you tried didn't work. There could be many
>reasons. This much I can tell you. It's not because the chipset won't
>support it. Specs for the XP cpu are for FSB's as low as 50MHz. It could
>be a problem with power, timing or many other things. Now since you don't
>have this board any more to try some things, what's the point of me
>wasteing my time guessing?

Yes I know the chipset "can" support it, but that's not
quite the same as the motherboard supporting it, or even
working if not "supported".

Point was, it can't be assumed to work, there are examples
of it not working. It's easy to assume that somebody did
something wrong if they don't get same results you did, but
it's not always true, particularly when dealing with
different parts (motherboard).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 06:43:03 GMT, Wes Newell
<w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:


>> There was a hack at the time, removing a (resistor?), but
>> attempt was made prior to and post-removal of the resistor
>> without success. BTW, the board is still running fine,
>> person it was sold to uses it every day, nothing else wrong
>> with board.
>
>Copied from google groups:
>
>From: Homer J. Simpson (hjsimpson@springfield.usa)
>Subject: Re: AMD Palomino 2100Xp CPU
>
>View this article only
>Newsgroups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.msi-microstar
>Date: 2004-03-18 14:42:50 PST
>
>If you have the K7T266pro2(-RU) MS-6380 V2, and NOT any of the other boards
>like the K7T266pro or the K7T266pro2-A series, you can remove a tiny (1mm x
>0.5 mm) surface mount capacitor, C37, which will then allow you to run any
>266MHz FSB TBred CPU. I made this mod to my K7T266 Pro2-RU Rev. 2 and I'm
>currently running an XP2400+ TBred with complete success.
>
>You should also download BIOS Version 3.7 from MSI's web site and reflash
>your BIOS. This BIOS version provides proper identification of the TBred's
>during POST. This BIOS version also has 48-bit LBA support for large hard
>disks. Don't bother with BIOS Version 3.7 beta 4 as it does not have 48-bit
>LBA support.
>
>Check out this link at MSI's Forum for much info on this popular mod:
>
>http://forum.msi.com.tw/thread.php?threadid=5723&boardid=13&styleid=1

Yes, that's the "hack" I saw at the time, which didn't work,
board still very instable... but runs fine with an o'c
Palomino still, today.

If you're going to ignore all the boards that won't work
with newer CPUs, then i guess you can keep claiming all do
work, but that's not very useful to anyone who has a board
that won't work.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Wes Newell <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:

>They aren't. The Sempron, if rated with the same suite of benchmarks
>Athlon XP's are rated with, would rate as a 2100+. All Semprons are rated
>with a set of benchmarks to compare them to Celerons clock speeds and the
>resulting PR number reflects that. not compared P4's or even XP's. IF you
>subtract 400 from every Semprons number, you will get the approximate
>Athlon rating. So a Sempron 2200+ would [erforme the same as an Athlon
>1800+, etc. And you can take that to the bank.

As Athlon PR ratings are supposed to align to the Intel P4 of
comparable performance and Sempron to the equivalent Celeron, this
might imply this "400MHz difference" rule could also be applied to P4s
and Celerons?

Having seen how abysmally Celerons perform in real applications I just
don't buy it!

--
>iv< Paul >iv<

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Matt <matt@themattfella.zzzz.com> wrote:

>> Are AMD in trouble and need to hike the price up on their products?

>I'm sure they set their prices so as to maximize their profit, whether
>they "need" it or not.

>And I doubt they are in trouble. They make great CPUs!

It's somewhat naive to assume a company isn't in trouble just because
it makes great products!

AMD have been making a loss for as long as I can remember but it's
probably fair to say their not in trouble at this moment in time. For
the last year they have reported record sales and, for the first time
I can remember, returning a profit and are sitting on over 1/3
billion$ in cash.

--
>iv< Paul >iv<

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 16:05:26 +0100, Paul Hopwood
<paul@hopwood.org.uk> wrote:

>Matt <matt@themattfella.zzzz.com> wrote:
>
>>> Are AMD in trouble and need to hike the price up on their products?
>
>>I'm sure they set their prices so as to maximize their profit, whether
>>they "need" it or not.
>
>>And I doubt they are in trouble. They make great CPUs!
>
>It's somewhat naive to assume a company isn't in trouble just because
>it makes great products!
>
>AMD have been making a loss for as long as I can remember but it's
>probably fair to say their not in trouble at this moment in time. For
>the last year they have reported record sales and, for the first time
>I can remember, returning a profit and are sitting on over 1/3
>billion$ in cash.

Actually AMD is taking more of the market than past quarters
and are in the black now.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 12:22:27 -0500, Ed <nosay@home.com> wrote:
>
>On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 17:50:48 +0100, "BigBadger" <big_badger@NOSPAM.com>
>wrote:
>
>>The Socket A Semprons are Athlon T'bred CPU's down to the last transistor...
>>They don't have any new features.
>
>Geez, AMD should of just called those Durons then!

That's basically what they're doing, except that the Duron brand name
never really caught on. They are hoping that the new Sempron brand
name will catch on with customers were Duron failed. From a marketing
perspective it's not a bad idea, though most of us techies don't like
it very much.

FWIW the real deal on the Sempr0n line is in their mobile chips.
These look like they should be EXCELLENT bargains. They are all
Athlon64-based, dirt-cheap and are available as low-voltage models
with a maximum power consumption of only 25W.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 15:10:40 GMT, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 16:05:26 +0100, Paul Hopwood
><paul@hopwood.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>It's somewhat naive to assume a company isn't in trouble just because
>>it makes great products!
>>
>>AMD have been making a loss for as long as I can remember but it's
>>probably fair to say their not in trouble at this moment in time. For
>>the last year they have reported record sales and, for the first time
>>I can remember, returning a profit and are sitting on over 1/3
>>billion$ in cash.
>
>Actually AMD is taking more of the market than past quarters
>and are in the black now.

AMD's profit/loss always seems to be more determined by how their
flash business is doing anyway. The CPU line has pretty much always
been hovering right around the break-even point, never making much
money but never losing much.

Flash, on the other hand, sometimes lost AMD boatloads of money, but
at times like right now it is very profitable. This current quarter
should probably see very decent profits for AMD because their flash
business has been doing really well for the past few months.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 15:40:16 +0100, Paul Hopwood <paul@hopwood.org.uk>
wrote:
>
>Aaron R Salp <nomail@thankyou.com> wrote:
>
>>Tom's Hardware points out that AMD wanted a budget line which did not
>>detract from the name "Athlon" and so AMD created the Sempron which are for
>>the most part nothing much more than old-style Athlons.
>
>I always thought that's what the Duron was for.

Consider 'Sempron' as the new name for 'Duron' and things will make
more sense. The 'Duron' brand name never caught on and it was
actually discontinued about a year ago (if you check AMD's website
you'll notice that they no longer sell the Duron and it's listed as a
legacy product alongside the K6 line). Sempron is just a new name but
designed for fill the same market.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 13:41:18 +0000, kony wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 06:43:03 GMT, Wes Newell
> <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> There was a hack at the time, removing a (resistor?), but
>>> attempt was made prior to and post-removal of the resistor
>>> without success. BTW, the board is still running fine,
>>> person it was sold to uses it every day, nothing else wrong
>>> with board.
>>
>>Copied from google groups:
>>
>>From: Homer J. Simpson (hjsimpson@springfield.usa)
>>Subject: Re: AMD Palomino 2100Xp CPU
>>
>>View this article only
>>Newsgroups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.msi-microstar
>>Date: 2004-03-18 14:42:50 PST
>>
>>If you have the K7T266pro2(-RU) MS-6380 V2, and NOT any of the other boards
>>like the K7T266pro or the K7T266pro2-A series, you can remove a tiny (1mm x
>>0.5 mm) surface mount capacitor, C37, which will then allow you to run any
>>266MHz FSB TBred CPU. I made this mod to my K7T266 Pro2-RU Rev. 2 and I'm
>>currently running an XP2400+ TBred with complete success.
>>
>>You should also download BIOS Version 3.7 from MSI's web site and reflash
>>your BIOS. This BIOS version provides proper identification of the TBred's
>>during POST. This BIOS version also has 48-bit LBA support for large hard
>>disks. Don't bother with BIOS Version 3.7 beta 4 as it does not have 48-bit
>>LBA support.
>>
>>Check out this link at MSI's Forum for much info on this popular mod:
>>
>>http://forum.msi.com.tw/thread.php?threadid=5723&boardid=13&styleid=1
>
> Yes, that's the "hack" I saw at the time, which didn't work,
> board still very instable... but runs fine with an o'c
> Palomino still, today.
>
> If you're going to ignore all the boards that won't work
> with newer CPUs, then i guess you can keep claiming all do
> work, but that's not very useful to anyone who has a board
> that won't work.

I'm goimg to ignore a board that one person can't get to work while there
are many others with the same model board that it does work with. So if
jack, James, Tom , Tim , etc. have success, but Dumas doesn't, you
consider that to mean the board doesn't work? I consider it just a
defective board or the person didn't...... If only one person can get it
to work that's proof enough to me, taking in the fact there's abosolutely
no reason it shouldn't work.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 17:07:13 GMT, Wes Newell
<w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:


>> Yes, that's the "hack" I saw at the time, which didn't work,
>> board still very instable... but runs fine with an o'c
>> Palomino still, today.
>>
>> If you're going to ignore all the boards that won't work
>> with newer CPUs, then i guess you can keep claiming all do
>> work, but that's not very useful to anyone who has a board
>> that won't work.
>
>I'm goimg to ignore a board that one person can't get to work while there
>are many others with the same model board that it does work with. So if
>jack, James, Tom , Tim , etc. have success, but Dumas doesn't, you
>consider that to mean the board doesn't work? I consider it just a
>defective board or the person didn't...... If only one person can get it
>to work that's proof enough to me, taking in the fact there's abosolutely
>no reason it shouldn't work.

Except that if that "one person" did nothing differently in
order to get it to work, there is another variable involved.
If you, I, and everyone else can't identify that variable,
then any effected boards can't be assumed to work. I
mentioned a specific board and you yourself had no working
resolution, so why do you expect it would "magically" work
for someone else?

Again, board ran fine, before CPU swap, after original CPU
was reinstall, and still today OC'd, nearly 2 years later.
Voltage, multiplier, FSB, Mem, were all correct and system
ran with same settings except different multiplier and
voltage with the Palomino. It posted, could get into bios
but soon locked up, OS wouldn't load either... severely
instable.

Alluding to a theory that doesn't always work in practice
is normally a reason to reformulate the theory. Vaguely
claiming "someone must have done something wrong" doesn't
quite cut it if you can't identify what was wrong, so
ultimately, in the end it did NOT work.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 13:35:33 +0000, kony wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 06:32:47 GMT, Wes Newell
> <w.newell@TAKEOUTverizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> OK, then tell me why a K7VZM wouldn't run an XP1800 at
>>> 100MHz FSB?
>>
>>How should I know why the one you tried didn't work. There could be many
>>reasons. This much I can tell you. It's not because the chipset won't
>>support it. Specs for the XP cpu are for FSB's as low as 50MHz. It could
>>be a problem with power, timing or many other things. Now since you don't
>>have this board any more to try some things, what's the point of me
>>wasteing my time guessing?
>
> Yes I know the chipset "can" support it, but that's not
> quite the same as the motherboard supporting it, or even
> working if not "supported".
>
i guess that depends on your interpretation of support. AFAIK, there are
no manufactures that make a KT133 chipset board that even claims to
support XP cpu's. But as you know that' doesn't mean they won't work.

> Point was, it can't be assumed to work, there are examples
> of it not working. It's easy to assume that somebody did
> something wrong if they don't get same results you did, but
> it's not always true, particularly when dealing with
> different parts (motherboard).

If I could remember all the KT133 boards that I know do run XP cpu's, the
list would be very long and include boards from drom all the well know
manufactures and some not so well known. All you have to do to verify this
is search back through the AMD news groups for messages from me. Might
take some time though.

Results 1 - 10 of about 12,600 for wes newell. (0.36 seconds)

But starting with Abit, all their KT133/A boards (KT7's) will run all
cores. Asus, all A7V's, MSI K7T's (just upgraded my borthers first model
MSI K7T board to Tbred B core). etc., etc.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.htm

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

>>AMD have been making a loss for as long as I can remember but it's
>>probably fair to say their not in trouble at this moment in time. For
>>the last year they have reported record sales and, for the first time
>>I can remember, returning a profit and are sitting on over 1/3
>>billion$ in cash.

>Actually AMD is taking more of the market than past quarters
>and are in the black now.

Actually, isn't that what I just said? ;-)

--
>iv< Paul >iv<

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Tony Hill <hilla_nospam_20@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>>>AMD have been making a loss for as long as I can remember but it's
>>>probably fair to say their not in trouble at this moment in time. For
>>>the last year they have reported record sales and, for the first time
>>>I can remember, returning a profit and are sitting on over 1/3
>>>billion$ in cash.

>>Actually AMD is taking more of the market than past quarters
>>and are in the black now.

>AMD's profit/loss always seems to be more determined by how their
>flash business is doing anyway. The CPU line has pretty much always
>been hovering right around the break-even point, never making much
>money but never losing much.

Probably true a while ago but their earnings from CPU operations have
been performing better than memory sales for a while now, making
significantly better profits (or lower losses) against marginally
lower revenues.

>Flash, on the other hand, sometimes lost AMD boatloads of money, but
>at times like right now it is very profitable. This current quarter
>should probably see very decent profits for AMD because their flash
>business has been doing really well for the past few months.

It's probably true to say the flash market is more volatile so has a
more severe effect on AMDs financial performance than the (relatively)
stable CPU market. AMD seems to be doing rather well in both markets
at the moment and reporting healthy profits as a result. Their
exposure to both markets is such that a relatively small shift in
either market can make or break the company.

--
>iv< Paul >iv<

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Never anonymous Bud <newskat@katxyzkave.net> wrote:

>>As Athlon PR ratings are supposed to align to the Intel P4 of
>>comparable performance

>AMD has repeatedly said that IS NOT true.

......while consistently managing to make them fairly close and failing
to explain adequately what it's actually based on. Hmmmmmm.. ;-)

--
>iv< Paul >iv<

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Paul Hopwood wrote:
> Never anonymous Bud <newskat@katxyzkave.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>As Athlon PR ratings are supposed to align to the Intel P4 of
>>>comparable performance
>
>
>>AMD has repeatedly said that IS NOT true.
>
>
> .....while consistently managing to make them fairly close and failing
> to explain adequately what it's actually based on. Hmmmmmm.. ;-)

They've explained in excruciating detail what the 'XP' rating is based on:
a suite of benchmarks comparing it to the performance of the classic athlon
and what clock rate the 'classic' would have to run at, if it could, to
match the performance of the XP processor being tested.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 18:47:55 +0100, Paul Hopwood
<paul@hopwood.org.uk> wrote:

>kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>>>AMD have been making a loss for as long as I can remember but it's
>>>probably fair to say their not in trouble at this moment in time. For
>>>the last year they have reported record sales and, for the first time
>>>I can remember, returning a profit and are sitting on over 1/3
>>>billion$ in cash.
>
>>Actually AMD is taking more of the market than past quarters
>>and are in the black now.
>
>Actually, isn't that what I just said? ;-)


then i agree?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking.amd,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,uk.comp.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

>>>>AMD have been making a loss for as long as I can remember but it's
>>>>probably fair to say their not in trouble at this moment in time. For
>>>>the last year they have reported record sales and, for the first time
>>>>I can remember, returning a profit and are sitting on over 1/3
>>>>billion$ in cash.

>>>Actually AMD is taking more of the market than past quarters
>>>and are in the black now.

>>Actually, isn't that what I just said? ;-)

>then i agree?

Funny that.. so do I. ;-)

--
>iv< Paul >iv<