Recent mobos for Barton?

[Dinski]

Are there any K7 mobos that will be suitable for Barton? The biggest difference (by AMD revelations) is the increased cache size. SO after a simply BIOS upgrade KT-400 mobos might support Barton? Or not? Due to trade reasons they could make it running on a different socket, yeah? Just look at Intel's sock and slot migrations.......

<font color=orange>ÃÎËßÌ ÇÀËÚÊ ËÀÏÍÈ, ÃÎËßÌÀ ÙÀÍÃÀ ÂÄÈÃÍÈ!</font color=orange>

 

[SammyBoy]

I'm pretty sure that the Barton will fit in the current crop of KT333 boards. Really, it's all depends on the motherboard, and specifically, the socket. It has to be wired right, and there has to be enough in the way of electrical regulation to keep the proc humming. AMD has been hammering away at the tier one board makers to make sure that the sockets are up to the most recent specs. I'd say that anything current from MSI, Gigabyte, ABit, and maybe Asus (they had "issues" with some boards working with the XP proc) would probably work. I think that the socket itself will not change much until it goes the way of the dodo in 12-18 months. The only things that should hold boards back from today for tomorrow's procs are a lack of BIOS updates (those will be needed) and an inability to offer the core voltage that the proc needs.

-SammyBoy

 

[function9]

with a bios update on any board newer than the kt133 boards should be fine. i wouldn't put my money one a board with the kt133(a) chipset working with the chip.

 

[eden]

I thought someone would have made it clear, but AMD has stated and we all know, Socket A is NOT going anywhere until Hammer. There will be no other sockets than the new Hammers, period.
If they were to do that, not only will those currently owning K7 boards not be able to upgrade, but it would increase costs, and AMD would not win anything in the end.
It is unknown if you really need a BIOS flash for the new cache to be recognized, but for FSB, probably.

--
Is the opportunity to earn money by working, free?

 

[Dinski]

Wait! Did AMD state the bus will not running at 133 MHz? Or maybe at 166 MHz? Is that sure?

<font color=orange>ÃÎËßÌ ÇÀËÚÊ ËÀÏÍÈ, ÃÎËßÌÀ ÙÀÍÃÀ ÂÄÈÃÍÈ!</font color=orange>

 

[eden]

It is unknown as well. This is all wishful rumoring, and I do hope it will end up true. They could do two modes to a CPU, where if it detects the mobo cannot use the new FSB, it will lock itself at the proper multiplier for 133MHZ FSB, then if it is 166MHZ supported, it will lock itself to the lower multi of the same clock speed. It'd be quite cool, a chip that works in both environment.

--
Is the opportunity to earn money by working, free?<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 08/19/02 02:34 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[eden]

It is unknown as well. This is all wishful rumoring, and I do hope it was true. They could do two modes to a CPU, where if it detects the mobo cannot use the new FSB, it will lock itself at the proper multiplier for 133MHZ FSB, then if it is 166MHZ supported, it will lock itself to the lower multi of the same clock speed. It'd be quite cool, a chip that works in both environment.

--
Is the opportunity to earn money by working, free?