A7A266: Highest possible CPU?

I have an ASUS A7A266 motherboard
with an Athlon XP 1800+ CPU. I'm
just curious as to the highest possible
speed of Athlon XP CPU that I could
install on this motherboard, if and
when I decide to upgrade?

Thanks,

P.
--
--
Paul Moloney, Technical Writer
http://www.paulmoloney.org Remove the obvious bit to email

"Paul Busby" writes:

To answer my own question it turns
out it seems to be a particular flavour
of the Athlon XP 2600+: 266 MHz FSB,
Model 8.

Let me know if you find an XP2600+ 266 at a reasonable price - plenty of
333s but only MP2600+ 266s. I'm looking to upgrade my XP1800+ (A7V266-E)
to an XP2400+ (60) though probably only just worth the money. An extra
100 for the 2600+ isn't.

Well, I'm not planning to upgrade just yet;
1800+ is fine right now, and I expect it to
be fine for another 2 years at least. Hopefully
those particular CPUs are still available
then.

P.


--
--
Paul Moloney, Technical Writer
http://www.paulmoloney.org Remove the obvious bit to email

On 29 Jul 2003 11:10:53 +0100, (Paul Moloney)
wrote:

"Paul Busby" writes:

To answer my own question it turns
out it seems to be a particular flavour
of the Athlon XP 2600+: 266 MHz FSB,
Model 8.

Let me know if you find an XP2600+ 266 at a reasonable price - plenty of
333s but only MP2600+ 266s. I'm looking to upgrade my XP1800+ (A7V266-E)
to an XP2400+ (60) though probably only just worth the money. An extra
100 for the 2600+ isn't.

Well, I'm not planning to upgrade just yet;
1800+ is fine right now, and I expect it to
be fine for another 2 years at least. Hopefully
those particular CPUs are still available
then.

P.


--

The Barton 3200+ should be $35 by then. ;p

Paul Moloney wrote:

This brings me on to a point; are CPU speeds
far outstripping the requirements
of most users?

After all, I have a 1800+ and as far as I'm
aware, none of the applications I use is
affected by its "lack" of speed.
snip
I can see my 1800+ lasting me for another year
at least, and the 2600+ after for another year
or two. Lord know what the _max_ possible speed
of PC chips will be by then (5Ghz, perhaps?).

The requirements of most users are not defined by the software they use,
but by the hardware the marketing machines convinces they need. It seems
that the joy a computer gives is calculatable in sysmarks and 3dmarks
the cpu and gpu can provide. The higher, the better. And ofcourse, you
really *want* those high score too, don't you?

It was never about what you need, but always about what you want - or
what you are lead to believe you want. If you manage to be happy with
what you've got, you are always by far happier than those who constantly
need the fastest and newest machine to cope with the latest game.

RJT

RJT - typed:
Paul Moloney wrote:

This brings me on to a point; are CPU speeds
far outstripping the requirements
of most users?

After all, I have a 1800+ and as far as I'm
aware, none of the applications I use is
affected by its "lack" of speed.
snip
I can see my 1800+ lasting me for another year
at least, and the 2600+ after for another year
or two. Lord know what the _max_ possible speed
of PC chips will be by then (5Ghz, perhaps?).

The requirements of most users are not defined by the software they
use, but by the hardware the marketing machines convinces they need.
It seems that the joy a computer gives is calculatable in sysmarks
and 3dmarks the cpu and gpu can provide. The higher, the better. And
ofcourse, you really *want* those high score too, don't you?

It was never about what you need, but always about what you want - or
what you are lead to believe you want. If you manage to be happy with
what you've got, you are always by far happier than those who
constantly need the fastest and newest machine to cope with the
latest game.

RJT

My heart always sinks a bit when people state that PCs are already
"plenty fast enough!" When I open a folder with a couple of 100 of my
pics & I don't have to wait several seconds, I'll agree. I bet most
people who are saying this would scream if they had to return to a PII.
Many consider their 20yr old stereo systems to be bloody great until
they hear something newer. What any sensible person does is not upgrade
too often either. I do agree that CPU upgrading alone doesn't achieve as
much as many would like us to believe.

I would urge anyone waiting then waiting some more to upgrade their CPU,
to monitor availability very carefully!

"Paul Busby" writes:

My heart always sinks a bit when people state that PCs are already
"plenty fast enough!" When I open a folder with a couple of 100 of my
pics & I don't have to wait several seconds, I'll agree.

Yes, but wouldn't that depend on the speed of the hard drive
more so than the CPU (anyone?). Faster hard drives, I'm
all for.

P.

--
--
Paul Moloney, Technical Writer
http://www.paulmoloney.org Remove the obvious bit to email

Paul Moloney - typed:
"Paul Busby" writes:

My heart always sinks a bit when people state that PCs are already
"plenty fast enough!" When I open a folder with a couple of 100 of my
pics & I don't have to wait several seconds, I'll agree.

Yes, but wouldn't that depend on the speed of the hard drive
more so than the CPU (anyone?). Faster hard drives, I'm
all for.

I use a pair of WD1000JBs with the pagefile in its own partition at the
beginning of the 2nd & they're still s l o w. The contribution the CPU
makes is not that great - hence my fairly low expectation of installing
an XP2400+ over my current XP1800+. VIA, Intel & AMD have much bigger
marketing budgets than memory manufacturers! Dual processors may add
greater smoothness rather than raw speed or startling benchmark
increases.

Upgrading to the fastest CPU is usually very poor value for money but
generation to generation is usually far more spectacular. Avid
overclockers would probably disagree with us.

"Paul Busby" wrote in message ...
Paul Moloney - typed:
"Paul Busby" writes:
My heart always sinks a bit when people state that PCs are already
"plenty fast enough!" When I open a folder with a couple of 100 of my
pics & I don't have to wait several seconds, I'll agree.
Yes, but wouldn't that depend on the speed of the hard drive
I use a pair of WD1000JBs with the pagefile in its own partition at the
beginning of the 2nd & they're still s l o w. The contribution the CPU

Are these files small? Try using some 15KRPM SCSI drives for frequent
access to small files in random patterns. Also, use a background
process to cache image thumbnails in RAM disks rather than hard
drives. There's more to drives than STR and fine-tuning your system to
suit your particular demands pays great dividends.

Mike Rogers - typed:
"Paul Busby" wrote in message
...
Paul Moloney - typed:
"Paul Busby" writes:
My heart always sinks a bit when people state that PCs are already
"plenty fast enough!" When I open a folder with a couple of 100 of
my
pics & I don't have to wait several seconds, I'll agree.
Yes, but wouldn't that depend on the speed of the hard drive
I use a pair of WD1000JBs with the pagefile in its own partition at
the
beginning of the 2nd & they're still s l o w. The contribution the
CPU

Are these files small? Try using some 15KRPM SCSI drives for frequent
access to small files in random patterns. Also, use a background
process to cache image thumbnails in RAM disks rather than hard
drives. There's more to drives than STR and fine-tuning your system to
suit your particular demands pays great dividends.

My own images are around 2MB d/l'd ones from 50KB.

I've partially solved the problem by deleting the Primary IDE
Controller, rebooting & having DMA mode 5 instead of PIO mode - had
trouble with the power connector but forgot to check the status
afterwards. Ho hum! These discs are still amongst the fastest PATA. I'll
have to check if there's a reg hack for XP to disable automatic mode
relegation.