Banias 1.6

[Lorenzo Sandini]

Hello,

I have a Banias 1.6 marked "SL6FA" here, that I put into an Asus
P4P800-SE motherboard with BIOS 1011, using the Asus CT-479 adapter. So
fine so good, running all at default setting, I was able to passive cool
it with the computer case open. Here are the CPU details, apparently it
is a 478-pin CPU (!?).

http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL6FA

But here is what CPU-Z reports:

http://personal.inet.fi/private/sandini/banias_cpuz2.jpg

"Socket 479 mPGA"

I haven't counted the pins, but I trust intel on this one.

Since it all works well, I guess I did things correctly. But would this
chip fry if it really is a 478-pin CPU and one puts it in a s478 board ?

I read here and there that it beats some northwoods hands down... well
in this case I benchmarked the Banias 1.6 against the Northwood 2.6 with
Sandra lite 2007 (FWIW), and the Banias is clearly inferior in
arithmetic and multimedia cpu benchmarks. No difference in desktop
application performance as far, but even for light gaming purposes, the
difference is obvious. This machine will be a silent file server, so no
worries here.

Lorenzo

 

[Johannes]

Hello,

I have a Banias 1.6 marked "SL6FA" here, that I put into an Asus
P4P800-SE motherboard with BIOS 1011, using the Asus CT-479 adapter. So
fine so good, running all at default setting, I was able to passive cool
it with the computer case open. Here are the CPU details, apparently it
is a 478-pin CPU (!?).

http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL6FA

But here is what CPU-Z reports:

http://personal.inet.fi/private/sandini/banias_cpuz2.jpg

"Socket 479 mPGA"

I haven't counted the pins, but I trust intel on this one.

Since it all works well, I guess I did things correctly. But would this
chip fry if it really is a 478-pin CPU and one puts it in a s478 board ?

I read here and there that it beats some northwoods hands down... well
in this case I benchmarked the Banias 1.6 against the Northwood 2.6 with
Sandra lite 2007 (FWIW), and the Banias is clearly inferior in
arithmetic and multimedia cpu benchmarks. No difference in desktop
application performance as far, but even for light gaming purposes, the
difference is obvious. This machine will be a silent file server, so no
worries here.

Lorenzo

Probably similar performance to a 90nm Celeron M 1.6 (380), these also comes
with a most un-celeron 1MB cache...

I have build a quiet desktop PC using a Celeron M 1.4 (360) as an internet
front end. Sandra Lite (2004) gives 6051 MIPS/2497 MFLOPS, max motherboard
fsb is 333MHZ, it can't run at 400. In comparison, my 2.8/800 Northwood gives
8551 MIPS/6248 MFLOPS.

Well, I don't think the Sandra MIPS/MFLOPS are realistic, but take them as a
relative comparison.