As already mentioned, we don't need to overgeneralize this. It's one board, it has a VRM controller, that determines what it can support. Even a layman can take the numbers off a chip, do a Google search and look at a spec sheet table to see if the chip supports at least low enough voltage to be viable without overheating issues.
- Dec 31, 2007
- 48,582
- 92
- 66,190
Oh gawd, go back through the whole conversation and see how wrong you are. The adapters work on most Coppermine-compatible boards, he's using a Coppermine-compatible board.
The performance difference is so small that it's not worth trying the adapter.
m25
Distinguished
- May 23, 2006
- 2,363
- 0
- 19,780
Oh gawd, go back through the whole conversation and see how wrong you are. The adapters work on most Coppermine-compatible boards, he's using a Coppermine-compatible board.
The performance difference is so small that it's not worth trying the adapter.
OK, I was wrong on the mombo support, but it still isn't worth getting the adapter; he just wants a quick solution and the adapter is the longer path.
m25
Distinguished
- May 23, 2006
- 2,363
- 0
- 19,780
I never have any troubles, and i've run a 1.2Cel/1.3Cel on all kinds of boards with no problems. I have cheap <$10 adaptors from eBay(they have jumpers in the middle for voltage, and chipset). They work on all my 440BX boards, VIA 693A board, etc. :?
wow, and will one of these adapters work on my old Mendocino board, because I have a P3 for it. It has a SiS620 and on the catalog it says you just have to move a jumper for it,...the problem is that the jumper is missing on my board 😀
The performance difference is upwards of 40%, that's non-trivial, might make the difference in playing some video clips for example or be a fairly linear gain in FPS for gaming.
I like the Tualatins for another reason though, you can drop the FSB and core voltage (given a board that suports it) and run them passively while still having a lot more processing power than something like a Via C3 or C7. While I wouldn't buy a combo for this today it makes a reasonable NAS/fileserver/etc on the cheap.
I like the Tualatins for another reason though, you can drop the FSB and core voltage (given a board that suports it) and run them passively while still having a lot more processing power than something like a Via C3 or C7. While I wouldn't buy a combo for this today it makes a reasonable NAS/fileserver/etc on the cheap.
- Dec 31, 2007
- 48,582
- 92
- 66,190
No, the performance difference between the Celeron 1.40 Tualatin and PIII 1000EB is squat, at least in games. I owned both. The PIII works better for its speed due to the 133MHz bus.
In fact, the Tualatin Celeron 1100 at 1466 (overclocked to 133MHz FSB) is around 30% faster in some apps than the Tualatin Celeron 1400. And because of that, I used this configuration.
I also tried underclocking to 66MHz FSB and running passive cooling, using an oversized Pentium MMX passive cooler pulled from an old IBM. It was great, would have made a nice HTPC.
m25
Distinguished
- May 23, 2006
- 2,363
- 0
- 19,780
The most common Socket 370 Tualatin adapter, says Lin-Lin on the box, will also work to adapt Coppermines to pre-Coppermine boards...most of the time. I had one failure, it was on a Gateway 2000 system, it blew the CPU!
Really!!! As I told you, this mombo (ML748MRT, ort what the heck it is) does officially support coppermines by the catalog, they only have crippled it by removing the jumper that switches between celerons and P3s (there were not coppermine celerons at the time the manual was released).
I have tried a Celeron 633 on it; black screen; sure that thing was not glad to boot with 2.0V😀
Could you please recommend me a good site for a cheap and reliable adapter?!
m25
Distinguished
- May 23, 2006
- 2,363
- 0
- 19,780
A 3.0G Northwood is still a respectable chip;If you read well between the CPU chart, you'll see it often takes a 3.2 or even 3.4GHz Prescott P4 to match a 3.0GHz Northwood.Those benchmarks really highlight the inefficiencies of early P4s. Also makes the 3.06 Northwood I have look good,
- Dec 31, 2007
- 48,582
- 92
- 66,190
]
First, it wouldn't be 2.0V, second, it wasn't a voltage issue. Intel changed the pin definitions slightly between the two earlier Celeron cores and the later Coppermine core. Adapters were plentiful.
I can't remember with full clarity, but I believe the early Celeron boards might have used VRM 8.2 as well, 1.80V minimum voltage. Coppermines will run fine at 1.80V as long as you cool them properly, and the Lin-Lin adapter has VID (voltage ID) jumpers to manually modify pin definitions.
A 3.0G Northwood is still a respectable chip;If you read well between the CPU chart, you'll see it often takes a 3.2 or even 3.4GHz Prescott P4 to match a 3.0GHz Northwood.Those benchmarks really highlight the inefficiencies of early P4s. Also makes the 3.06 Northwood I have look good,
I really only use the machine for folding / heating my cold dorm room. I have it OCed to 3.2Ghz and undervolted by a few hundredths, new HSF I got on the cheap coming tomorrow to help drop the temps a bit, and I might be picking up a used 9800 Pro to replace the shite Xabre that I can't install the drivers for without crashing F@H.
It WAS going to be a media server / multimedia box, but the AIW I bought fried upon first install, 🙁
quantumsheep
Distinguished
- Dec 10, 2005
- 2,341
- 0
- 19,790
Fool...Northwood was the best clock for clock mainstream Netburst CPU (not including the Gallatin, quite sad i sold mine...) ever made for gaming, and was only slightly beaten by the Prescott at Media encoding and it used a lot less power even though it was on the 130nm Process.
Fool...Northwood was the best clock for clock mainstream Netburst CPU (not including the Gallatin, quite sad i sold mine...) ever made for gaming, and was only slightly beaten by the Prescott at Media encoding and it used a lot less power even though it was on the 130nm Process.
I want a Gallatin, 🙁 I've been waiting to hear from someone I know that they're getting a new computer, find that it has a Gallatin, and talk them into giving it to me. That's how I got the Northy I talked about above ^
edit - this saddens me:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Intel-Pentium-4-3-4Ghz-800Mhz-478-Extreme-EE-SL7CH-3-4_W0QQitemZ110081302993QQihZ001QQcategoryZ80144QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
quantumsheep
Distinguished
- Dec 10, 2005
- 2,341
- 0
- 19,790
Fool...Northwood was the best clock for clock mainstream Netburst CPU (not including the Gallatin, quite sad i sold mine...) ever made for gaming, and was only slightly beaten by the Prescott at Media encoding and it used a lot less power even though it was on the 130nm Process.
I want a Gallatin, 🙁 I've been waiting to hear from someone I know that they're getting a new computer, find that it has a Gallatin, and talk them into giving it to me. That's how I got the Northy I talked about above ^
edit - this saddens me:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Intel-Pentium-4-3-4Ghz-800Mhz-478-Extreme-EE-SL7CH-3-4_W0QQitemZ110081302993QQihZ001QQcategoryZ80144QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
I've always wanted to overclock one of those Gallatins, but i've never got round too it.
I currently have my 2.8 Northwood 100FSB in my other system running at 3.7 133FSB on the stock cooler, still a very quick CPU for my second system.
quantumsheep
Distinguished
- Dec 10, 2005
- 2,341
- 0
- 19,790
I just have to ask have you ever seen some C7 benchmarks? It's closer to a modern Sempron (2600+?) than any PIII derived CPU (at least the high end 2ghz is anyway).
quantumsheep
Distinguished
- Dec 10, 2005
- 2,341
- 0
- 19,790
m25
Distinguished
- May 23, 2006
- 2,363
- 0
- 19,780
]
First, it wouldn't be 2.0V, second, it wasn't a voltage issue. Intel changed the pin definitions slightly between the two earlier Celeron cores and the later Coppermine core. Adapters were plentiful.
I can't remember with full clarity, but I believe the early Celeron boards might have used VRM 8.2 as well, 1.80V minimum voltage. Coppermines will run fine at 1.80V as long as you cool them properly, and the Lin-Lin adapter has VID (voltage ID) jumpers to manually modify pin definitions.
-I'm sure about the 2.0V because I've seen it in the bios and also checked the CPU tables; Mendocino celerons run on 2.0V.
-Will one of these adapters do the trick on my ancient board?!
- Dec 31, 2007
- 48,582
- 92
- 66,190
You're not sure about anything because the VRM was designed for multiple CPU's. That's like saying I'm sure that Coppermine's run 1.50V because my Celeron 566 (Coppermine) ran 1.50V.
I know for certain the VRM for the earliest Celerons allowed voltages at least as low as 1.80V. Possibly lower, but definately as low as 1.80V.
I know for certain the VRM for the earliest Celerons allowed voltages at least as low as 1.80V. Possibly lower, but definately as low as 1.80V.
m25
Distinguished
- May 23, 2006
- 2,363
- 0
- 19,780
This board, officially supports coppermine Pentium3 CPUs, that run on 1.60-1.75V ; the only problem is they haven't put there the jumper pins to switch voltage and pin function; There are TWO HOLES where the jumper pins should be. Am I clear now :roll:
Fool...Northwood was the best clock for clock mainstream Netburst CPU (not including the Gallatin, quite sad i sold mine...) ever made for gaming, and was only slightly beaten by the Prescott at Media encoding and it used a lot less power even though it was on the 130nm Process. He was talking about the northwood version of the celeron... which IS crap. Sure the northwood P4s were great, I still have one
PS. Prescott Celeron > Northwood Celeron. Because the Prescott has 256KB cache and 533MHz FSB. The Northwood had a 400MHz FSB and 128KB L2.TRENDING THREADS
-
Question No POST on new AM5 build - - - and the CPU & DRAM lights are on ?
- Started by Uknownflowet
- Replies: 13
-
-
Question please help me my new graphics card is causing issues- Started by SophieTheMeh
- Replies: 7
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram