1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

    Dismiss Notice

Advice on Athlon XP-M, please?

Discussion in 'CPUs' started by clemenzina, 13 Apr 2006.

  1. clemenzina

    Associate

    Joined: 12 Apr 2006

    Posts: 27

    At the moment I'm stuck with an ASRock K7VT2 266fsb running Athlon XP 2000+. I'd like to speed it up a little bit but the 266fsb 2600+ (max the board will take) is hard to find. Could you explain if the M version should fit, or is it a thin CPU that requires the seating to be filed down so that the heatsink will fit closely enough? (I've been reading, you see ;) )

    OR... just wondering if you think I could overclock existing? I did it years ago with a K6-III 450+ on a GA5AX, but am a bit rusty and nervous, and I don't know if this board is flexible.

    I've haven't got DDR Ram, but the board would take it (if you think that would significantly improve performance). Ages ago I tried adding a second stick of 512 SDR in but it wouldn't boot.

    Any advice appreciated,

    clemenzina
     
  2. MikeTimbers

    Soldato

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 7,405

    Location: New Eltham, London

    I wouldn't bother putting a mobile in that mobo. Plenty of good bargains around for socket A so I'd look out for a good clocker and a used mobo. Also bear in mind what mobiles are selling for these days. I sold one just recently for nearly £80!
     
  3. Mattus

    Capodecina

    Joined: 30 Sep 2003

    Posts: 10,916

    Location: London

    It should fit fine. Newer CPUs like Athlon 64s have heatspreaders on the desktop versions but not on the mobiles, so some messing around is required to get mobiles working on the desktop. But Athlon XPs don't have heatspreaders anyway so the desktop and mobile chips are visually identical.
     
  4. clemenzina

    Associate

    Joined: 12 Apr 2006

    Posts: 27

    Thanks, Mattus, I was hoping a WiseGuy would say that. As for getting another board, when I do I'll probably go for a 754 because there are some bargains to suit me, it's just that I can't afford mobo/DDR/CPU at the moment.

    However, browsing eBay last night I came across this pic attached to an Athlon XP-M 2600+ (seller's photo of test) and it's given me second thoughts about the mobile:
    [​IMG]
    My XP 2000+ runs at over 1.67GHz!

    Mike, where do I find bargain Socket A CPU's significantly faster than the one I've got? Used ones are going for £50+++++ on eBay (266fsb) - a lot of them are 'untested, no refunds' - and new ones are no longer retailed.

    I'm grateful for you advice on this humble topic ;),

    clemenzina
     
  5. MikeTimbers

    Soldato

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 7,405

    Location: New Eltham, London

    Clemenzina, I meant good socket A motherboards easily available; chips I agree are getting expensive since AMD stopped making them. The forums here have a Members market but you are way short of the requirements to be able to see it. For what it costs to buy a decent socket A chip at auction, you could buy:

    AMD Sempron 64 2800+ 1.6GHz (Socket 754) CPU - Retail (CP-138-AM) - £52
    Abit KU8 ULI M1689 (Socket 754) Motherboard (MB-081-AB) - £43
    Crucial 512MB DDR PC3200 CAS3 (CT6464Z40B) (MY-024-CR) - £32

    Keep everything else you have. The Sempron is the one with 256K L2 cache and some people have reported very good overclocking results (as much as 50%)
     
  6. clemenzina

    Associate

    Joined: 12 Apr 2006

    Posts: 27

    That's exactly the sort of setup I've been looking at. Thanks!

    c.
     
  7. manveruppd

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 24 Feb 2004

    Posts: 1,086

    Location: Leeds/Cyprus

    The speed in the screenshot sounds about right for an XP-M at default, though most people overclock them straight to 3200 speeds so they never even see them running that low!:p
    I doubt you'll be able to get the most out of it on that mobo. It's got an unlocked multiplier so you could try though.
     
  8. cuscus97

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 28 Oct 2004

    Posts: 373

    Location: In a galaxy far far away

    XP-M 2600 Stock is more like 2ghz than 1.67ghz. The 2500 runs at 1.8ghz so the 2600 is a wee bit higher.
     
  9. manveruppd

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 24 Feb 2004

    Posts: 1,086

    Location: Leeds/Cyprus

    I stand corrected then! (I'm also one of the people who never saw it running at stock:p)
     
  10. ajgoodfellow

    Capodecina

    Joined: 24 Dec 2004

    Posts: 11,343

    Location: Shirley, Solihull, UK

    It's also got the Barton core which is faster clock for clock than the Palamino core in your XP2000+ and it has twice the cache :)

    Going for a cheap Sempron 64 system with 256KB cache (don't get the 128KB cache CPUs) and clocking it would be a cost effective upgrade
     
  11. clemenzina

    Associate

    Joined: 12 Apr 2006

    Posts: 27

    I think I'll try to get the Biostar TForce6100 (Skt 754, they do a 939 too) - I've been reading buyers' reviews at Newegg.com and they report onboard graphics and sound to be good quality and superb overclocking BIOS.

    When you think of it, that's such a cheap option! No video or sound card to buy, and the board will play all but the most recent games (not that I play any but it speaks for the quality of the graphics).

    You see, the only reason I need to upgrade is so's I can let my brother have my CPU and stop him using my PC for converting files and stuff that makes his crash. Except... I've also got the urge to upgrade, and I can blame him so he doesn't scowl at me for spending money ;)

    c.
     
  12. FatRakoon

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 10,185

    Location: Behind you... Naked!

    I got a 3100 thats got a 256k Cache. I have had 2.7 out of it without too much hassles, although I am running it at stock right now.

    Just before that I made a HUGE mistake of getting a 3300 and thats only got a 128k cache... What a fowl CPU that is.

    I also got a Newcastle 3000 and thats got 512k but TBH there isnt all that much between them both when run at 2GHZ.... Games are a tad better with the 512K but only some.

    Anyway, the bottom line, is that the Semprons do seem to clock very well indeed, and come to think of it, every one of the S754 CPUs that I have, or have had, all clock way above their spec, and the only one I have not bothered to clock at all, is the ClawHammer 3700 and thats only cos its already 2.4 and plenty fast enough for its tasks, and it cost so much I dont want to risk it yet.

    The 939s also clock, but they are irrelevant to this topic.

    Hang on... So are S754 CPUs! - the XPM is Socket A!!!

    Ok, well, the XP2000 does indeed run at 1.67Ghz... Erm, I also got one of those too!
     
  13. clemenzina

    Associate

    Joined: 12 Apr 2006

    Posts: 27

    I meant to mention how grateful I am for that advice - I might not have noticed otherwise, and sometimes the info is lost in the mist!

    clemenzina
     
  14. clemenzina

    Associate

    Joined: 12 Apr 2006

    Posts: 27

    Sempron 64 - Is L1 Cache 128kb, L2 Cache 256kb OK?

    c.
     
  15. VeNT

    Capodecina

    Joined: 9 Jan 2003

    Posts: 20,694

    Location: Cornwall

    don't bother with semperon, they suck ass
     
  16. ajgoodfellow

    Capodecina

    Joined: 24 Dec 2004

    Posts: 11,343

    Location: Shirley, Solihull, UK

    That's fine. It's the ones with 128KB L2 cache that you need to avoid :)

    They're fine for budget PCs, particuarly the Sempron 64 chips which are based on the Athlon 64 chips just with half of the cache
     
  17. FatRakoon

    Capodecina

    Joined: 18 Oct 2002

    Posts: 10,185

    Location: Behind you... Naked!

    Yes, but the bottom line is that its still a sempron.

    You can give it as many bits as you like, its still a sempron.

    For a few extra quid, you can get much better.
     
  18. james.miller

    Capodecina

    Joined: 17 Aug 2003

    Posts: 19,397

    Location: Woburn Sand Dunes

    the difference between a *new* sempron and an a64 is 256k of l2 cache, or about 150-200mhz or performance per clock at the most. assuming you can get a sempron cheap enough, they are bargains. *** socket A semprons? well just avoid those altogether.

    But then, i coudltn recommend any upgrade for socket A now concidering the price the cpu's are going for these days.
     
    Last edited: 18 Apr 2006
  19. m3csl2004

    Hitman

    Joined: 17 Jun 2005

    Posts: 621

    Location: Sheffield

    i like the semprons, there very fast for the money and nice clockers

    [​IMG]

    For this test we took a Sempron 2600+ (128KB L2 cache), a Sempron 3100+ (256KB L2 cache), an Athlon 64 3000+ (512KB L2 cache), and an Athlon 64 3400+ (1024KB L2 cache) and set the clock rate of each processor to 1.6GHz. The CPUs were tested on the following testbed:

    * DFI LANPARTY UT nF3 250Gb mainboard (Socket 754, NVIDIA nForce3 250Gb);
    * 2x512MB Corsair CMX512-3200XLPRO DDR400 SDRAM (with 2-2-2-10 timings);
    * PowerColor RADEON X800 XT graphics card (AGP 8x, 500MHz/500MHz);
    * Western Digital Raptor WD740GD hard disk drive (Serial ATA-150).

    just to put things in perspective :)

    taken from x-bit labs, i would have linked but the advertised some computer hardware and i was 50/50 wether they were competitors or not
     
  20. james.miller

    Capodecina

    Joined: 17 Aug 2003

    Posts: 19,397

    Location: Woburn Sand Dunes

    an opteron with 1mb L2 would be 10fps faster than a sempron at the same speed in both farcry and doom according to that (more or less). There isnt a lot in it lol