Can you please explain which processors go in which sockets as I am totally confused by socket this and slot that!
The first Celerons and all Pentium II and Pentium III processors come in Slot 1 packages. Intel, however, now favours socketed interfaces, and uses the Socket 370 for all but the oldest Celerons and also offers new Pentium 1lls in this form factor. Note that there are two versions of CPUs that use the Socket 370: Plastic Pin Grid Array (PPGA) and Flip Chip-Pin Grid Array (FC-PGA). PPGA was used on Celerons up to the 533MHz model at which point Intel switched to the FC-PGA design, which is also used exclusively for socketed Pentium Ills. While an FC-PGA motherboard can also talk to PPGA CPUs, a PPGA motherboard will not accept FC-PGA CPUs. AMD introduced its Athlon CPU in a cartridge like the original Pentium II, but the connection is electrically incompatible -AMD calls it SlotA. With the launch of the Duron CPU and new Athlons with the enhanced Thunderbird core, AMD has also gone socket-crazy, opting for a 462-pin design called Socket A. While historically confusing, the situation today is that all new Intel Celeron and Pentium Ills will work in an FC-PGA motherboard, while all Duron and Thunderbird Athlons work in a Socket A motherboard.
Can I upgrade the 500MHz Socket
370 Celeron that my laptop runs on? Also, can you change the FSB (front-side bus) speed on a laptop?The new 566MHz Celerons -and above -employ an FC-PGA design, which is probably incompatible with your notebook's PPGA socket, and it'll be too cramped for an adaptor. Also, even if you could increase the FSB, you would be overclocking your Celeron close to or beyond the limits of its manufacturing process. Consequently, it looks like you're stuck with your 500MHz chip.
I'm running a dual-processor Pentium III/550 on a Gigabyte GA6-BXD motherboard, with Windows 2000. I have two CPU chips installed which show up in the BIOS and such, but Windows 2000 only recognises one of them. I looked in the help files, which mention a multiprocessor kernel and a single-processor kernel. To enable the second chip, should I upgrade my motherboard BIOS, or is there a way to make Windows 2000 see the other processor?
There's a possibility that upgrading the motherboard BIOS would cure this problem. Unfortunately, you haven't told me if Windows 2000 has installed the multiprocessor kernel, thus indicating that it can see the processor, or whether it can't see the processor at all. If it has, chances are that the fault lies with the processor itself, and possibly the motherboard BIOS, although that's less likely. If it hasn't installed the kernel, that means it can't see the processor in the first place and the problem is almost certainly the motherboard BIOS, or even a fault on the motherboard itself. You need to find out what sort of system Windows 2000 thinks its running on. To do that, follow these steps:
1 Head for the My Computer icon, right-click on it and select the Properties menu item.
2 Click on the Hardware tab to select it, and then on the Device Manager button in the Device Manager frame.
3 When the Device Manager dialog appears, click on the + sign next to Computer and read the string that appears.
If it says MPS Multiprocessor PC, or ACPI MultiProcessor PC, then Windows 2000 has recognised the system as one equipped with more than one processor, so the fault could lie in the hardware or the system BIOS.
If it says something like MPS Uniprocessor PC, or ACPI Uniprocessor PC, or Standard PC or Advanced Configuration and Power Interface (ACPI) PC, then Windows 2000 thinks that your system only has one processor, and that's more likely to be a system BIOS problem, or a hardware-related one.
Assuming you find a cure, you're left with the choice between re-installing Windows 2000 or installing an updated driver if Windows 2000 thinks you have a single-processor PC.
Try the driver route first by following these steps'
1 Look at the Device Manager dialog again and right-click on the string under Computer.
2 Select the Properties menu item and when that dialog opens, click on the Driver tab and then on the Update Driver button. 3 When the Wizard starts, click on the Next button, and then on the 'Display a list of the known drivers for this device so that I can choose a specific driver' option button.
4 Click on the Next button again.
5 Click on the 'Show all hardware of this device class button' You 'll see the model types listed in the right-hand pane. Select the one appropriate to your system and follow the Wizard to the end.
Don't do this without being absolutely sure that you know which model type to select: if you get this wrong, there's a chance that your system may not start at all make sure you back up any important data before going down that route. Even re-installing Windows 2000 can cause problems, so you'd be advised to do a complete backup before that as well.
The reason that Nuts and Bolts reports that Dave Parry has only a 250MHz Cyrix processor ('Mistake And Chips', Helpfile, Shopper 145) is because he has a 250MHz Cyrix Processor. The quoted clock speed with Cyrix 6x86/MII processors is only a PR rating -its performance compared with a Pentium/PII class processor. My '300' MHz chip only runs at 233MHz and I suspect Dave Parry's is similar.
Thanks for the comment -yes, I should have mentioned that, but this is only half of the answer. A Cyrix PR333 processor runs at 250MHz (3x83MHz) and a PR350 processor should be running at 285MHz (3x95MHz). The real reason Dave wasn't getting the performance advertised was the false specifications of the M590 motherboard. For completeness, settings for the faster Cyrix/IBM II processors are:
PR466 4x 100 = 400
PR450 4x 95 = 380
PR433 3.5x 100 = 350
PR400 3.5x 95 = 333
or 4x 83 = 333
PR380 3x 100 = 300
PR366 3.5x 83 = 292
PR350 3.0x 95 = 285
PR333 3x 83 = 250
PR300 3x 75 = 225
I am trying to purchase an AMD K6-3 450MHz CPU. However, having checked out all the advertisements in Computer Shopper, it turns out that AMD has stopped producing these in favour of the Athlon and the K6-2 which, strangely, is still being produced. AMD could not tell me anywhere in the UK or Ireland that is still selling the K6-3.
I find this very annoying. I have been an AMD convert since the K5, and am currently using a K6-2 350 CPU in my PC, in a motherboard that will take K6-3s up to 500MHz. Now it looks like I will have to do a major upgrade to either an Athlon or Pentium III at great expense, just because AMD has decided to pull the plug on the K6-3 in favour of the superior (but expensive to set up) Athlon, and the inferior K6-2 series.
Anyway, I would be really grateful if you could let me know of anywhere in the UK or Ireland that is still selling K6-3 CPUs. I am fairly desperate at this stage!
Having phoned around, no company in the UK seems to have any K6-3s, nor do they hold any prospect of getting them as the chip has been discontinued. As such, your choices are limited. Computer fairs often turn up components that have been consigned to the discontinued list, and prices are normally very competitive, but you may have little guarantee that the chip is in working order. Alternatively, searching an online auction site such as eBay (www.ebay.com) may prove to be fruitful, but be prepared to pay a premium as you are bidding against other people that want the same product.
On the other hand, the K6-3 may not be as dead as it appears. AMD is set to release the K6-2+, which is, you guessed it, the K6-3 (with a few extra 3DNow! instructions). In other words, although the K6-3 name has died, it effectively lives on, and the K6-2 will be phased out. The good news is that the K6-2+ should be on the shelves by the time you read this.
I have just ordered myself a new Duron 750MHz and Abit KT7 motherboard to upgrade my existing K6-2 450M Hz and TMC T15VG+. The other day, a friend of mine mentioned that I may need a new case to go with it, because of the similarity between Athlons and Durons. I have always understood that it was the PSU that was the issue, not the case, and I already have a 25OW PSU in my ATX midi tower. Do I need to buy a PSU, and if so, what are the pitfalls involved?
When the Athlon first appeared, AMD gave big warnings about the need for a good power supply, even suggesting that anything less than 300 watts would be inadequate. That seems to be rather overstating the issue -AMD was more worried about the quality of power supplies and didn't want its new processors to get a bad reputation because system assemblers were putting them into systems made with cheap, sub-standard components. Now the company has modified its position to recommending that end users select a power supply from AMD's list of approved power supplies. The list doesn't include many 250-watt power supply units: it is the quality of the units that matters.
More information is available at http://www1.amd.com/duron/config
More important is good cooling -both the use of a high-quality fan, thermal paste to ensure good heat transfer and adequate ventilation inside the case to circulate the air. All these issues are discussed at the above website.
I was about to part with almost £1,500 for a new Athlon 1.1GHz PC when I came across a Pentium 4 for about £200 more. I know the Athlon is better than the Pentium III, but what about the Pentium 4? Apart from the processor, the system I was going to get had a much better spec (ie GeForce2 GTS compared to GeForce2 MX and DVD/CD-RW drive compared to DVD). On the other hand, I don't want my PC to be out of date before I even buy it. What would you recommend?
At the moment the price of the Pentium 4 processor both 1.4GHz and 1.5GHz versions -is extortionate. The story is the same whenever Intel launches new processors but with the P4, a totally new generation processor, the premium is much more - if it had a sensible price, no-one would buy Pentium Ills, would they? Because of this premium, at the moment you'll be able to get a lot more kit for a lot less money if you opt for a Pentium III or, as you've found, an Athlon. Furthermore, at the moment there is little to indicate that the Pentium 4 is actually a superior processor to the Athlon. We can speculate that it is and that, when software is written to address its new instructions, there will be a noticeable performance gain from the Pill - but as yet this is just speculation. Certainly none of the benchmarks we've seen has been conclusive enough to suggest that other than a clock speed advantage the P4 is actually a technologically superior processor. However, it probably is and this will no doubt become and more evident with time.
As for your current 'P4 or not P4' quandry, you'd probably be better off spending less and going for the Athlon. You'll see better performance in the short term courtesy of the vastly superior graphics card (especially in games). Then, when the P4 does begin to make the most of software, you'll be in a position to make the decision as to whether or not you want to upgrade -with that £200 still in your back pocket. You'll need a new motherboard and P4 processor, but by the time this becomes an issue prices should have settled down to a more sensible level.
Furthermore, your GeForce2 GTS graphics card will always be better than a GeForce2 MX and you'll also have the advantage of a CD-RW drive. If you play your cards right, and prices follow the usual trend, you'll end up with a better PC in both the short and long terms, and you won't be left out of pocket for adopting a new technology before there is any real benefit to be gained.
I have a Pentium 200 (non-MMX) computer, bought about three years ago. It was top spec then, but I feel it could do with a little breath of extra life. I'm finding demo games now which insist on MMX.
Not wanting to undergo a major upgrade just yet, I have been considering an Evertech upgrade chip, since I now see that 333MHz and 400MHz versions are available.
Any advice on this? Any experience of similar upgrades being done?
These upgrade processors are usually a very workable but relatively expensive solution. You pay for the tech support that stands behind the product and helps you overcome any problems, such as Bios incompatibilities. For example, since I believe these upgrades use an AMD processor, Windows 95 will need the patch for AMD 350 or above. I suspect this is included in the kit. You may also need a Bios upgrade. When you compare costs, you may find it cheaper to buy a new motherboard and processor. You will need to check that your present memory fits the new board. It will probably be much faster to fit the upgrade than a new motherboard, but new motherboards will have other advantages, such as better support for new hardware.