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
|
|||
|
|||
L2 cache question
Hi,
I buried my cpu, just tinkering to raise temp to my custom cooling. My 512kb l2 cahe p4 died at same spot as an intel p2 i had..(close to it). Multithreading better than ever? Anyhow, my friend had the 1mb l2 cache p4 on same 533 bus, it did alot of work more before same choking. Prioritizing didn't seem to exist! (this is only after truly conquering heat to an extreme) the only drawback is the cpu killed his mobo and was very hot runner at loaded. Is the 800FSB better with 1mb l2 cache or does it matter? I like the 533 and only want increase of L2, but I don't know all the facts, and can't find an end users result.Any advice appreciated. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
L2 cache question
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 02:42:57 GMT, "bgd"
wrote: Hi, I buried my cpu, just tinkering to raise temp to my custom cooling. My 512kb l2 cahe p4 died at same spot as an intel p2 i had..(close to it). Multithreading better than ever? Anyhow, my friend had the 1mb l2 cache p4 on same 533 bus, it did alot of work more before same choking. Prioritizing didn't seem to exist! (this is only after truly conquering heat to an extreme) the only drawback is the cpu killed his mobo and was very hot runner at loaded. Is the 800FSB better with 1mb l2 cache or does it matter? I like the 533 and only want increase of L2, but I don't know all the facts, and can't find an end users result.Any advice appreciated. I assume the first couple sentences you wrote are important, but they don't make a lot of sense within the context of the next lines. It would be good to get your cooling ironed out, what good is custom cooling if you kill cpus? Plain old stock cooling has to be better than that. The benefit of a larger L2 cache depends on the task. Some respond better than others and if you have a particular need, certain tasks that stress the CPU most then those would have to be considered. Generally speaking you would want the 800 pseudo-MHz (since it's quad-pumped, 200MHz clocked) for the best performance, or rather, having the memory bus faster than 133MHz / DDR266 as well. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
L2 cache question
pseudo-mhz .. are you a salesman?
By killing cpu, specifically meant burying it, no more functions. I'll stay 533 , next to the smallest 533 cpu with 1mb (2.4a which should have been labeled 2.4E, there IS a 2.26e nowhere to be found...) I built a very silent, very cool setup,with rather large lightweight aftermarket cpu heatsink. the 100w cooling values don't float my boat. It could take it in OEM screaming fan glamour but I don't want to. Yes , I agree some specific programs will use it more, but as far as work's width, multitasking, that was my question.The increase in memory bandwidth is a bonus going to 800. This 333mhz is so very close to a 133 mhz bus I once ran with similar numbers. I could vomit.I may reconsider for 800fsb, or, I may say to hell with the whole thing and run with my complaints until there is truly a feat of engineering that will keep me enthused. thank you for reply. "kony" wrote in message ... On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 02:42:57 GMT, "bgd" wrote: Hi, I buried my cpu, just tinkering to raise temp to my custom cooling. My 512kb l2 cahe p4 died at same spot as an intel p2 i had..(close to it). Multithreading better than ever? Anyhow, my friend had the 1mb l2 cache p4 on same 533 bus, it did alot of work more before same choking. Prioritizing didn't seem to exist! (this is only after truly conquering heat to an extreme) the only drawback is the cpu killed his mobo and was very hot runner at loaded. Is the 800FSB better with 1mb l2 cache or does it matter? I like the 533 and only want increase of L2, but I don't know all the facts, and can't find an end users result.Any advice appreciated. I assume the first couple sentences you wrote are important, but they don't make a lot of sense within the context of the next lines. It would be good to get your cooling ironed out, what good is custom cooling if you kill cpus? Plain old stock cooling has to be better than that. The benefit of a larger L2 cache depends on the task. Some respond better than others and if you have a particular need, certain tasks that stress the CPU most then those would have to be considered. Generally speaking you would want the 800 pseudo-MHz (since it's quad-pumped, 200MHz clocked) for the best performance, or rather, having the memory bus faster than 133MHz / DDR266 as well. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
L2 cache question
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 04:38:26 GMT, "bgd"
wrote: pseudo-mhz .. are you a salesman? No but intel is. You see, it's not MHz by the industry standards which use clock rate. The clock rate is not 800, it's 200. Ever heard of DDR400? That "DDR" term is there for a reason, in the case of the 800 pseudo-mhz, it should be called QDR800, for quad data rate. By killing cpu, specifically meant burying it, no more functions. I have no idea what you mean. Bury with a shovel in the garden? I'll stay 533 , next to the smallest 533 cpu with 1mb (2.4a which should have been labeled 2.4E, there IS a 2.26e nowhere to be found...) I built a very silent, very cool setup,with rather large lightweight aftermarket cpu heatsink. the 100w cooling values don't float my boat. It could take it in OEM screaming fan glamour but I don't want to. I agree, loud heatsink fans are not so nice to use long-term. Yes , I agree some specific programs will use it more, but as far as work's width, multitasking, that was my question.The increase in memory bandwidth is a bonus going to 800. This 333mhz is so very close to a 133 mhz bus I once ran with similar numbers. I could vomit.I may reconsider for 800fsb, or, I may say to hell with the whole thing and run with my complaints until there is truly a feat of engineering that will keep me enthused. thank you for reply. Well one need not be enthused, only to realize that whatever tasks they're doing either do, or do not, benefit enough from an upgrade to make it worth the time or money. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
L2 cache question
In article 63UHf.3100$lG.1823@trndny01, "bgd" wrote:
pseudo-mhz .. are you a salesman? By killing cpu, specifically meant burying it, no more functions. I'll stay 533 , next to the smallest 533 cpu with 1mb (2.4a which should have been labeled 2.4E, there IS a 2.26e nowhere to be found...) I built a very silent, very cool setup,with rather large lightweight aftermarket cpu heatsink. the 100w cooling values don't float my boat. It could take it in OEM screaming fan glamour but I don't want to. Yes , I agree some specific programs will use it more, but as far as work's width, multitasking, that was my question.The increase in memory bandwidth is a bonus going to 800. This 333mhz is so very close to a 133 mhz bus I once ran with similar numbers. I could vomit.I may reconsider for 800fsb, or, I may say to hell with the whole thing and run with my complaints until there is truly a feat of engineering that will keep me enthused. thank you for reply. I think the substance of this thread, is you are looking for a computer with good performance, low heat, and low cost. I would say pick two of three, because the pricing structures of things usually means you will pay a lot more for the privilege of a cool running system. To a first order approximation, the first thing to optimize is core clock rate. A 3.8GHz processor with a crippled cache structure is still going to crush a 2.4Ghz processor with a slightly nicer cache on it. When you keep the core frequency constant, and then mess with the front side bus or the cache, you are dealing with secondary effects. FSBs up to a certain point now, are free, in the sense that there is no reason for a price premium between FSB533 and FSB800. Intel still charges a premium for FSB1066, but there doesn't seem to be too much advantage going all the way to FSB1066. If you look at the AMD P.R. rating system, you can see that doubling the cache size, maybe adds 200-300Mhz to the effective computing rate. When you compare a Prescott to a Northwood, the cache change cannot be compared directly, as the core engine of the two processors is different - the larger cache was put on the Prescott, not to give you twice the cache performance, but to help to compensate for the characteristics of the Prescott. You would need some careful benchmarks of the two processors, to work out what the doubling is buying in that case. Remember that some early benchmarks found the Prescott slower for some things than the Northwood, and faster at other things. So a direct comparison is difficult. On socket 478, there are a couple of solutions with better cooling performance. These solutions will not work optimally well in any arbitrary S478 board, but they are solutions nonetheless. The first one is the Mobile Pentium4. If you take a mobile chip (and there are several different kinds, so you have to be extremely careful when shopping for these - I know, because I got the wrong one), and put it in a desktop motherboard, it runs 1200MHz core clock at FSB400. It doesn't matter what the nominal speed marked in the device, they all do the same thing (it is because they are using the Speedstep "low gear"). If you stick one of those processors in a motherboard with an 875P Northbridge, you can raise the FSB to FSB1200. The core of the processor runs at 3.6GHz as a result. Even low rated mobiles (like 1.8Ghz), can be raise to 3.6GHz. There were people on Abxzone who were doing this stuff. The processor stepping is important, and the D1 stepping is the one required. The A and B steppings are not good candidates, because they don't overclock all the way to 3.6GHz. The primo processor for this, was the SL726. You can search for that with your favorite search engine, or go to Abxzone and read up on it there. The processor is supposed to run cool, even at 3.6GHz. You can enter SL726 on processorfinder.intel.com for more info. http://processorfinder.intel.com/scr...sp?sSpec=SL726 A second option, is to use a Pentium-M processor in an Asus S479 to S478 socket adapter (CT479). In this case, the processors are expensive, but the operating power is around 30W at stock speed. A limited number of Asus motherboard models have modified BIOSes provided by Asus to make this work. As for your claims to killing the P4 processor. The P4 family has a couple of protection features. When the temperature goes over 70C, the processors can throttle back the effective computing rate. The clock inside the processor is gated off for short intervales, which helps to control the temperature. In the event that the heatsink falls off a P4 or an Athlon64, I believe both platforms are now protected by overheat detection. The latest Pentium4 processors will turn off the computer when they hit 90C. Some earlier processors turn off at 135C or so (the IC package can take more heat, and that is why the temp is set higher). So, yes, you may have killed your processor somehow, but I don't see how it can be temperature related. Paul |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
P5A motherboard, socket 7 | [email protected] | Asus Motherboards | 21 | August 24th 04 05:02 PM |
Strange beeps: Can L2 cache be faulty on Pentium III? | Roger | General | 1 | January 11th 04 02:26 PM |
IBM white paper on Opteron | Yousuf Khan | General | 115 | November 7th 03 03:04 AM |
Enabling write cache for a Maxtor DM9 160 GB PATA on a GigaRAID(ITE) or Sil3112? | Robert Renner | Storage (alternative) | 0 | September 28th 03 03:35 AM |
New Hard Drive: 2MB cache vs. 8MB Cache | Purp1e | Storage (alternative) | 9 | September 18th 03 05:52 AM |