If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Compaq EN P600 w/i820 chipset upgrade questions
Hi A relative has been given a Compaq EN Series. The case is not a vertical 'tower', but horizontal. The case is meant to be placed right on top of a desk, with the monitor placed on top of it. There is a sticker on the top-front-right hand side of the case that reads: Compaq END/P600/13d/4/128c US Compaq serial NO. 6008 DH95 A134 This PC has the following specs: i820 Chipset 600 Mhz Pentium III (x86 Family 6 Model 8 Stepping 1 GenuineIntel ~597 Mhz) 128 MB PC800 RDRAM (with blank installed for continuity) Disk Drive: 13GB Maxtor 91366U4 IDE Controller: Intel 82801AA Bus Master IDE Controller Video card: Matrox Millenium G400 - English CD-ROM: Compaq CRD-8400D Monitor: Samtron 77V Sound: AC'97 Driver for Intel 82801AA Controller Upgrade Questions MEMORY I would like to remove the 128MB PC800 RDRAM modual and the blank modual, and add two 256MB PC800 moduals, to give a total of 512MB of physical memory. Does this Compaq i820 chipset motherboard require ECC memory, or can I turn ECC off in the BIOS, and install non-ECC RDRAM? Is the motherboard picky, or can I install any non-ECC RDRAM? Also, if I choose to go with PC600 RDRAM, will there be significant drop in performance compared to PC800? BIOS I was told by the original owner that the BIOS in this PC is not stored in a flash ROM but on the hard drive itself. I'm not sure about this myself. I have read about hardware diagnostics, or something to that effect being stored on the drive in some user group postings. If I do a zero fill on the disk, is there an easy way to restore this piece of software? NEWER VIDEO CARD AND INCREASED OVERALL POWER REQUIREMENTS I have an nVidia GeForce 2 32MB (Dell), and a GeForce 3 64MB (OEM) laying around. I was thinking of swapping the Matrox out for one of these cards. Will the PSU handle the extra load of the Geforce 3 without reboots or lock-ups? OS AND APPLICATIONS The eventual goal is to run Windows XP, while being stable, and snappy. The current Windows 2000 Pro install from Compaq has developed some bugs, displays errors a boot, and occasional blue screens after running for a day. Also she would like to try The Sims! 2 which needs more memory and a video card with transform and lighting. Many thanks in advance for a reply to any of these questions. I have tried a few searches in Google, Google Groups, and Compaq's site, and have gotten spotty info. Edward Crismond |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
In response to your questions:
1. Look in the system BIOS setup to see whether or not ECC can be disabled. On desktop/tower non-server systems, it usually can. 2. Stick with PC800, not PC600. You have no assurance that PC600 will work, altho it probably will, because the Intel 820 chipset is THE standard for Pentium 3 RAMBUS motherboards, and the 820 does handle PC600. Once again, you may run into a BIOS limitation. Yes, PC600 will run slower, but not noticably. If you can get your hands on a stick of CHEAP PC600, it's worth a try. 3. The Matrox G400 AGP graphics card is plenty fast, unless you are into video games. Then an nVidia card would be better. But how much faster would a video game run with a 600MHz processor. The G400 has 16MB or 32MB? 4. If the system has a Windows 2000 ceritificate of authentication sticker (COA), why not re-install Windows 2000? Also make sure that all the necessary drivers are installed, starting with Intel's 820 motherboard drivers. Then install the G400 drivers, any network or sound card drivers. FInally, download and install all the available Windows 2000 and IE patches, security fixes, etc. 128MB is a little light for Windows 2000, IMHO, and the lack of memory may be the cause of instability. This class of computer runs far better with Windows 2000 than with the Windows XP bloatware... Ben Myers On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:36:41 -0500, Eddie Crismond wrote: Hi A relative has been given a Compaq EN Series. The case is not a vertical 'tower', but horizontal. The case is meant to be placed right on top of a desk, with the monitor placed on top of it. There is a sticker on the top-front-right hand side of the case that reads: Compaq END/P600/13d/4/128c US Compaq serial NO. 6008 DH95 A134 This PC has the following specs: i820 Chipset 600 Mhz Pentium III (x86 Family 6 Model 8 Stepping 1 GenuineIntel ~597 Mhz) 128 MB PC800 RDRAM (with blank installed for continuity) Disk Drive: 13GB Maxtor 91366U4 IDE Controller: Intel 82801AA Bus Master IDE Controller Video card: Matrox Millenium G400 - English CD-ROM: Compaq CRD-8400D Monitor: Samtron 77V Sound: AC'97 Driver for Intel 82801AA Controller Upgrade Questions MEMORY I would like to remove the 128MB PC800 RDRAM modual and the blank modual, and add two 256MB PC800 moduals, to give a total of 512MB of physical memory. Does this Compaq i820 chipset motherboard require ECC memory, or can I turn ECC off in the BIOS, and install non-ECC RDRAM? Is the motherboard picky, or can I install any non-ECC RDRAM? Also, if I choose to go with PC600 RDRAM, will there be significant drop in performance compared to PC800? BIOS I was told by the original owner that the BIOS in this PC is not stored in a flash ROM but on the hard drive itself. I'm not sure about this myself. I have read about hardware diagnostics, or something to that effect being stored on the drive in some user group postings. If I do a zero fill on the disk, is there an easy way to restore this piece of software? NEWER VIDEO CARD AND INCREASED OVERALL POWER REQUIREMENTS I have an nVidia GeForce 2 32MB (Dell), and a GeForce 3 64MB (OEM) laying around. I was thinking of swapping the Matrox out for one of these cards. Will the PSU handle the extra load of the Geforce 3 without reboots or lock-ups? OS AND APPLICATIONS The eventual goal is to run Windows XP, while being stable, and snappy. The current Windows 2000 Pro install from Compaq has developed some bugs, displays errors a boot, and occasional blue screens after running for a day. Also she would like to try The Sims! 2 which needs more memory and a video card with transform and lighting. Many thanks in advance for a reply to any of these questions. I have tried a few searches in Google, Google Groups, and Compaq's site, and have gotten spotty info. Edward Crismond |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Ben Myers wrote:
Thanks for the reply. In response to your questions: 1. Look in the system BIOS setup to see whether or not ECC can be disabled. On desktop/tower non-server systems, it usually can. There is a setting for ECC in the BIOS. Just asked to make sure. Once again, you may run into a BIOS limitation. Yes, PC600 will run slower, but not noticably. If you can get your hands on a stick of CHEAP PC600, it's worth a try. Ok, I'll consider PC600 as well. It seems like the FSB would be the bottleneck on this system, since the FSB runs at 133Mhz. 3. The Matrox G400 AGP graphics card is plenty fast, unless you are into video games. Then an nVidia card would be better. But how much faster would a video game run with a 600MHz processor. The G400 has 16MB or 32MB? I just did a brief Google search on the G400. Looks like most of the hits mention 16MB SGRAM. Not only does the G400 not have enough memory for The Sims2, I don't think it has hardware transform and lighting. 4. If the system has a Windows 2000 ceritificate of authentication sticker (COA), why not re-install Windows 2000? I may do that, then I might be able to get by with 256MB of memory. I'm also considering Windows 98SE, since 98SE may work better with 128MB than a later Windows version, and RDRAM is still almost prohibatively expensive. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:14:05 -0500, Eddie Crismond wrote:
SNIP 3. The Matrox G400 AGP graphics card is plenty fast, unless you are into video games. Then an nVidia card would be better. But how much faster would a video game run with a 600MHz processor. The G400 has 16MB or 32MB? I just did a brief Google search on the G400. Looks like most of the hits mention 16MB SGRAM. Not only does the G400 not have enough memory for The Sims2, I don't think it has hardware transform and lighting. Oh, yes. The G400 is a 16MB card. The G450 is the 32MB card. 4. If the system has a Windows 2000 ceritificate of authentication sticker (COA), why not re-install Windows 2000? I may do that, then I might be able to get by with 256MB of memory. I'm also considering Windows 98SE, since 98SE may work better with 128MB than a later Windows version, and RDRAM is still almost prohibatively expensive. RDRAM will continue to be more expensive than SDRAM or DDR for some time to come. If anyone is manufacturing it any more, the quantities are small. Intel was the prime supporter of RDRAM with its chipsets and belief that it was the only way to fix the memory access bottleneck that inhibited faster system performance. Then the Rambus company threw patent infringement lawsuits at everyone (except Intel), and the entire industry soured on RDRAM. Intel saw the disenchantment with RDRAM and the high price compared to SDRAM and stopped designing RAMBUS chipsets in favor of today's DDR SDRAM. So expect to pay a premium for RDRAM almost forever, or until demand drops way down to almost zero, whichever happens first. The usual rule of thumb for most memory these days is around $25 for 128MB. RDRAM can't be touched for that sort of price... Ben Myers |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Ben Myers wrote:
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:14:05 -0500, Eddie Crismond wrote: SNIP RDRAM will continue to be more expensive than SDRAM or DDR for some time to come. If anyone is manufacturing it any more, the quantities are small. Intel was the prime supporter of RDRAM with its chipsets and belief that it was the only way to fix the memory access bottleneck that inhibited faster system performance. Then the Rambus company threw patent infringement lawsuits at everyone (except Intel), and the entire industry soured on RDRAM. Intel saw the disenchantment with RDRAM and the high price compared to SDRAM and stopped designing RAMBUS chipsets in favor of today's DDR SDRAM. So expect to pay a premium for RDRAM almost forever, or until demand drops way down to almost zero, whichever happens first. The usual rule of thumb for most memory these days is around $25 for 128MB. RDRAM can't be touched for that sort of price... Ben Myers Such a shame. This phenomenon makes upgrading PCs with these boards a pain. But, as I am typing this message, I just thought of my niece, who has a Gateway PC with an i850 chipset, which uses PC800 RDRAM. It currently has 256MB, and Windows XP. If my sister decides she really needs to play the Sims 2, and the Compaq just isn't cutting it, I can give the RDRAM to my niece. Or keep the Compaq as a Linux test bed |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Pentium 4 systems with the 850 chipset require matched pairs of RDRAM to be
installed, unlike the P3 systems and 820 chipset which allow a single memory stick plus a continuity RIMM (CRIMM)... Ben Myers On Thu, 25 Nov 2004 10:01:22 -0500, Eddie Crismond wrote: Ben Myers wrote: On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:14:05 -0500, Eddie Crismond wrote: SNIP RDRAM will continue to be more expensive than SDRAM or DDR for some time to come. If anyone is manufacturing it any more, the quantities are small. Intel was the prime supporter of RDRAM with its chipsets and belief that it was the only way to fix the memory access bottleneck that inhibited faster system performance. Then the Rambus company threw patent infringement lawsuits at everyone (except Intel), and the entire industry soured on RDRAM. Intel saw the disenchantment with RDRAM and the high price compared to SDRAM and stopped designing RAMBUS chipsets in favor of today's DDR SDRAM. So expect to pay a premium for RDRAM almost forever, or until demand drops way down to almost zero, whichever happens first. The usual rule of thumb for most memory these days is around $25 for 128MB. RDRAM can't be touched for that sort of price... Ben Myers Such a shame. This phenomenon makes upgrading PCs with these boards a pain. But, as I am typing this message, I just thought of my niece, who has a Gateway PC with an i850 chipset, which uses PC800 RDRAM. It currently has 256MB, and Windows XP. If my sister decides she really needs to play the Sims 2, and the Compaq just isn't cutting it, I can give the RDRAM to my niece. Or keep the Compaq as a Linux test bed |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 20:36:41 -0500, Eddie Crismond
wrote: Hi A relative has been given a Compaq EN Series. The case is not a vertical 'tower', but horizontal. The case is meant to be placed right on top of a desk, with the monitor placed on top of it. There is a sticker on the top-front-right hand side of the case that reads: Compaq END/P600/13d/4/128c US Compaq serial NO. 6008 DH95 A134 This PC has the following specs: i820 Chipset 600 Mhz Pentium III (x86 Family 6 Model 8 Stepping 1 GenuineIntel ~597 Mhz) 128 MB PC800 RDRAM (with blank installed for continuity) Disk Drive: 13GB Maxtor 91366U4 IDE Controller: Intel 82801AA Bus Master IDE Controller Video card: Matrox Millenium G400 - English CD-ROM: Compaq CRD-8400D Monitor: Samtron 77V Sound: AC'97 Driver for Intel 82801AA Controller Upgrade Questions MEMORY I would like to remove the 128MB PC800 RDRAM modual and the blank modual, and add two 256MB PC800 moduals, to give a total of 512MB of physical memory. Does this Compaq i820 chipset motherboard require ECC memory, or can I turn ECC off in the BIOS, and install non-ECC RDRAM? Is the motherboard picky, or can I install any non-ECC RDRAM? Also, if I choose to go with PC600 RDRAM, will there be significant drop in performance compared to PC800? BIOS I was told by the original owner that the BIOS in this PC is not stored in a flash ROM but on the hard drive itself. I'm not sure about this myself. I have read about hardware diagnostics, or something to that effect being stored on the drive in some user group postings. If I do a zero fill on the disk, is there an easy way to restore this piece of software? NEWER VIDEO CARD AND INCREASED OVERALL POWER REQUIREMENTS I have an nVidia GeForce 2 32MB (Dell), and a GeForce 3 64MB (OEM) laying around. I was thinking of swapping the Matrox out for one of these cards. Will the PSU handle the extra load of the Geforce 3 without reboots or lock-ups? OS AND APPLICATIONS The eventual goal is to run Windows XP, while being stable, and snappy. The current Windows 2000 Pro install from Compaq has developed some bugs, displays errors a boot, and occasional blue screens after running for a day. Also she would like to try The Sims! 2 which needs more memory and a video card with transform and lighting. Many thanks in advance for a reply to any of these questions. I have tried a few searches in Google, Google Groups, and Compaq's site, and have gotten spotty info. Edward Crismond I don't mean to be snobbish, but you're suggesting a ~ $50 game, a $30 video card, WinXP, and 512MB of RDRAM for an old 600MHz box... That's over $300 worth of upgrade just to end up with a 600Mhz system that will be pretty slow at SIMS2 and just adequate running WinXP at all, let alone more demanding uses, plus the hard drive is going to be older and a slowdown, else even more $$ poured into it. Sometimes the result just isn't worth the cost. You'd have far higher performance just buying a $55 nForce2 motherboard, an Athlon XP2000, and 2 x 256MB PC3200 DIMMs. If the case won't accept these parts you might need a different case too, but the end result is a much faster system. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
kony wrote:
I don't mean to be snobbish, but you're suggesting a ~ $50 game, a $30 video card, WinXP, and 512MB of RDRAM for an old 600MHz box... That's over $300 worth of upgrade just to end up with a 600Mhz system that will be pretty slow at SIMS2 and just adequate running WinXP at all, let alone more demanding uses, plus the hard drive is going to be older and a slowdown, else even more $$ poured into it. Sometimes the result just isn't worth the cost. WinXP and the RDRAM are the only things that could not be transfered over to another system. And because of that, I agree that it is hard to justify the upgrade because of the cost of those two components. But the Sims!2, video card, and even a hard drive (although any modern HD I install will be limited by the IDE controller, which I think is ATA-66 in this PC), could all be used in another system. I also might get some geek satisfaction from taking an old system and making it better. Hey, some people have more expensive hobbies. I am still afraid however, that she may not be happy with the performance of The Sims! 2 + Windows XP/2000 on this 600Mhz system. The Sims! 2 + Windows 98SE may be a consideration. You'd have far higher performance just buying a $55 nForce2 motherboard, an Athlon XP2000, and 2 x 256MB PC3200 DIMMs. If the case won't accept these parts you might need a different case too, but the end result is a much faster system. I may consider building her a new system. I doubt I will be able to use the Compaq EN Series case. The Compaq MB has a PCI riser card. But, I also have a Dell Dimension with Pentium III 866Mhz, 384MB SDRAM, ATA-100 hard disk controller and what ever else I decide to throw in it. This may be more suited for The Sims!2. So trading her the Dell for the Compaq is worth considering. Thanks for your reply |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:39:21 -0500, Eddie Crismond
wrote: WinXP and the RDRAM are the only things that could not be transfered over to another system. And because of that, I agree that it is hard to justify the upgrade because of the cost of those two components. But the Sims!2, video card, and even a hard drive (although any modern HD I install will be limited by the IDE controller, which I think is ATA-66 in this PC), could all be used in another system. I also might get some geek satisfaction from taking an old system and making it better. Hey, some people have more expensive hobbies. I am still afraid however, that she may not be happy with the performance of The Sims! 2 + Windows XP/2000 on this 600Mhz system. The Sims! 2 + Windows 98SE may be a consideration. It's not 2K or XP that'd be slowing it down, it's the CPU and amount of memory, memory bus speed, etc (maybe video card too?). Win2K or XP might need a few dozen more MB of memory than Win98, but putting that into context of a system that has 512MB and SIMM games which are notorious for needing piles of memory (usually 1GB is a good target), and the OS isn't going to be enough of a difference to matter during gaming, expecially due to DirectX/GL the OS itself will have minimal impact. If the IDE is ATA-66, is that a Via 693 chipset board? I ask because that chipset has very poor memory performance already, it's sort of the opposite of the ideal board for SIMMin' even ignoring the slow CPU. In other words an Intel BX or Via 694 chipset board with all other components same might SIMM 10% faster just due to that issue alone. 10% isn't much on a box that can do it @ 50 FPS, but might be on a box that does it @ 14 FPS. You'd have far higher performance just buying a $55 nForce2 motherboard, an Athlon XP2000, and 2 x 256MB PC3200 DIMMs. If the case won't accept these parts you might need a different case too, but the end result is a much faster system. I may consider building her a new system. I doubt I will be able to use the Compaq EN Series case. The Compaq MB has a PCI riser card. You might be able to buy an upgradeware Tualatin Celeron adapter and get the system up to ~ 1.4GHz or so, don't know for sure if the board would be compatible or not. Otherwise it might make a router, fileserver or ??? someday. But, I also have a Dell Dimension with Pentium III 866Mhz, 384MB SDRAM, ATA-100 hard disk controller and what ever else I decide to throw in it. This may be more suited for The Sims!2. So trading her the Dell for the Compaq is worth considering. MIght be though 384MB is a little light for the SIMMS too, someone I know is playing on a box with 768MB and wondering if they should upgrade to 1280MB. 384MB is a nice size for moderate WinXP use though. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Intel 820 chipset, not a VIA chipset. RAMBUS memory, which IS faster than
SDRAM. But still, I share your concern as to whether a slowish CPU with whatever video card will be able to sufficiently meet the demands of a modern video game... Ben Myers On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 23:17:20 GMT, kony wrote: On Wed, 24 Nov 2004 15:39:21 -0500, Eddie Crismond wrote: WinXP and the RDRAM are the only things that could not be transfered over to another system. And because of that, I agree that it is hard to justify the upgrade because of the cost of those two components. But the Sims!2, video card, and even a hard drive (although any modern HD I install will be limited by the IDE controller, which I think is ATA-66 in this PC), could all be used in another system. I also might get some geek satisfaction from taking an old system and making it better. Hey, some people have more expensive hobbies. I am still afraid however, that she may not be happy with the performance of The Sims! 2 + Windows XP/2000 on this 600Mhz system. The Sims! 2 + Windows 98SE may be a consideration. It's not 2K or XP that'd be slowing it down, it's the CPU and amount of memory, memory bus speed, etc (maybe video card too?). Win2K or XP might need a few dozen more MB of memory than Win98, but putting that into context of a system that has 512MB and SIMM games which are notorious for needing piles of memory (usually 1GB is a good target), and the OS isn't going to be enough of a difference to matter during gaming, expecially due to DirectX/GL the OS itself will have minimal impact. If the IDE is ATA-66, is that a Via 693 chipset board? I ask because that chipset has very poor memory performance already, it's sort of the opposite of the ideal board for SIMMin' even ignoring the slow CPU. In other words an Intel BX or Via 694 chipset board with all other components same might SIMM 10% faster just due to that issue alone. 10% isn't much on a box that can do it @ 50 FPS, but might be on a box that does it @ 14 FPS. You'd have far higher performance just buying a $55 nForce2 motherboard, an Athlon XP2000, and 2 x 256MB PC3200 DIMMs. If the case won't accept these parts you might need a different case too, but the end result is a much faster system. I may consider building her a new system. I doubt I will be able to use the Compaq EN Series case. The Compaq MB has a PCI riser card. You might be able to buy an upgradeware Tualatin Celeron adapter and get the system up to ~ 1.4GHz or so, don't know for sure if the board would be compatible or not. Otherwise it might make a router, fileserver or ??? someday. But, I also have a Dell Dimension with Pentium III 866Mhz, 384MB SDRAM, ATA-100 hard disk controller and what ever else I decide to throw in it. This may be more suited for The Sims!2. So trading her the Dell for the Compaq is worth considering. MIght be though 384MB is a little light for the SIMMS too, someone I know is playing on a box with 768MB and wondering if they should upgrade to 1280MB. 384MB is a nice size for moderate WinXP use though. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Compaq FAQ | HH | Compaq Computers | 3 | January 3rd 05 02:31 AM |
Compaq EN P600 w/i820 chipset upgrade questions | Eddie Crismond | General | 21 | November 26th 04 10:17 PM |
Compaq FAQ | HH | Compaq Computers | 0 | November 1st 04 03:54 AM |
Compaq FAQ | HH | Compaq Computers | 0 | July 10th 04 11:39 AM |
A couple of upgrade questions | GeoffC | General | 6 | December 23rd 03 09:40 PM |