Athlon xp to sempron

[san]

I have a MSI KT3 Ultra(MS-6380) Mainboard that can support up to an athlon
xp 2600+ chip.
I have at the moment a athlon xp 1400+ chip and want to upgrade, can I use
the new sempron 2600+ chip on the mainboard?. or do I have to stick to the
XP chip.

Thanks
Brendan

 

[_Vanguard_]

I have a MSI KT3 Ultra(MS-6380) Mainboard that can support up to an
athlon xp 2600+ chip.
I have at the moment a athlon xp 1400+ chip and want to upgrade, can I
use the new sempron 2600+ chip on the mainboard?. or do I have to
stick to the XP chip.

Thanks
Brendan

Why would you want to sideways-grade to an Sempron processor? The
Sempron is a "value processor" (i.e., slower than the "business/game
processor"). "The majority of Semprons, right now, are renamed Athlon
XP processors ..."
(http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q3/sempron/index.x?pg=1); i.e., you
get a throttled Athlon XP processor.

"Sempron Socket A AMD has developed a new 32-bit processor, and
TechwareLabs has it in the lab for a few rounds of intensive testing.
Named Sempron, it is AMD's answer to the Intel Celeron "D" processor.
This means that we don't expect the Sempron will break any land speed
records for gaming, however, it should handle office applications and
workstation duties quite well"
(http://www.techwarelabs.com/reviews/processors/sempron/). AMD's
Sempron was made to compete against Intel's Celeron and as a replacement
to AMD's Duron (i.e., Sempron is a value processor), not as an
improvement over their Athlon XP. Semprons have a 256KB L2 cache
whereas Athlon XPs with the Barton core have 512 KB (i.e., AMD disabled
half the cache already present on the Sempron-named Athlon XP so they
could market the Sempron in the "value" processor niche). They
introduced the "new" Sempron (and practically discontinued the Athlons
XP) to protect their newer Athlon64 line (because the new Athlon64 chips
aren't more powerful in 32-bit mode than the Bartons). This is a common
business strategy to pull down the current line so they can sell a newer
one. I'm sure lots of consumers also got screwed by the MX versions of
the GeForce video cards, too, because of the higher model number they
could use to mislead that the video card had that level of performance.

Hmm, get a:

Sempron 2600+ 1.833GHz FSB333 256KB ($85 retail; incl. heatsink & fan)

or get an:

Athlon XP 2500+ Barton 1.833GHz FSB333 512KB ($85 OEM; processor only)

Guess I'd upgrade from the AXP 1400+ to the AXP 2500+ Barton for the
same money (prices from newegg.com) and get my own choice for cooling
(or pay another $15 for a retail version). I'm not into overclocking so
it is possible you could crank up the Sempron to be faster despite its
smaller L2 cache, like some folks did to the Duron instead of getting an
Athlon XP (but end up spending a chunk of the price differential on much
better cooling to get rid of all the extra heat).

Newer doesn't mean better. You'll have to check if your mobo supports
the 333MHz CPU bus speed in its BIOS (read the mobo's manual) to enable
running the Sempron at that higher bus speed than you use for the old
AXP 1400+ FSB200. Semprons are 32 bit while the Athlon64 are 64 bit, so
AMD is trying to send the message that 32-bit chips should now be
considered as budget chips (i.e., "value" processors), a great marketing
ploy to convince consumers to spend. Sempron is to Athlon64 what MX was
to GeForce.

"Sempron (roughly translated) means 'always pornographic'"
(http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q3/sempron/index.x?pg=1) although AMD
might prefer the translation of "always budget processor"
(http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2139).

 

[Cuzman]

" I have a MSI KT3 Ultra(MS-6380) Mainboard that can support up to an
athlon xp 2600+ chip. "

The KT3 Ultra can support up to a 266FSB 2600+. You'll be luckt to find one
around, so the best you'll probably get is a 2400+. All the Semprons run at
333FSB, so your motherboard will not support them.

http://www.msi.com.tw/program/products/mainboard/mbd/pro_mbd_detail.php?UID=11

 

[_Vanguard_]

" I have a MSI KT3 Ultra(MS-6380) Mainboard that can support up to
an athlon xp 2600+ chip. "

The KT3 Ultra can support up to a 266FSB 2600+. You'll be luckt to
find one around, so the best you'll probably get is a 2400+. All the
Semprons run at 333FSB, so your motherboard will not support them.

http://www.msi.com.tw/program/products/mainboard/mbd/pro_mbd_detail.php?UID=11

"100/133 (200/266)MHz clocks are supported". Well, that definitely
limits what the OP can use as a replacement processor.

 

[san]

These are from my local store as you can see it says the
athlon xp 2600+ has a FSB OF 333Mhz, I know when I bought the mainboard it
did`t support a xp2600+, but with the new bios I flashed onto the pc it now
supports a xp2600+ chip does this mean the FSB is now 333Mhz ?.

AMD Athlon XP 2600+ Tray
2,075ghz, 512kB cache, Socket A, FSB333,

AMD Athlon XP Prozessor 2600+ (1,917 GHz) Tray, Sockel A, FSB 333, 462 pin

CPU AMD Athlon XP 2600+, 333MHz, Sockel A Barton

Thanks
Brendan

 

[_Vanguard_]

These are from my local store as you can see it says the
athlon xp 2600+ has a FSB OF 333Mhz, I know when I bought the
mainboard it did`t support a xp2600+, but with the new bios I flashed
onto the pc it now supports a xp2600+ chip does this mean the FSB is
now 333Mhz ?.

AMD Athlon XP 2600+ Tray
2,075ghz, 512kB cache, Socket A, FSB333,

AMD Athlon XP Prozessor 2600+ (1,917 GHz) Tray, Sockel A, FSB 333, 462
pin

CPU AMD Athlon XP 2600+, 333MHz, Sockel A Barton

Well, an AMD Athlon XP 2600+ might be:

AXP 2600+ FSB333 512K 1.9GHz
or
AXP 2600+ FSB333 512K 2.08Ghz

I think you'd want the higher bus rate over a higher multiplier: the
effective internal clock rate is the same but the higher external bus
speed makes transfers faster outside the CPU. Remember that the FSB is
usually at the double rate, so FSB333 really means running the bus at
166MHz. The AXP 2600+ at 166MHz with a 12.5 multiplier gives you the
2.08GHz effective internal clock rate.

While a BIOS flash update might give your more multipliers, I doubt it
will miraculously increase the max frequency you can use for the bus, so
you end up going up for the multiplier (of the BIOS updates give you
higher multipliers). On the 133MHz bus, you would need to up the
multiplier to 15.5 (or 16). F x M = R, where F is frequency, M is
multiplier, and R is the effective internal clock rate. So you can have
different combos of F and M that give you the same R but you want the
highest F for the best performing system external to the processor.
However, I really doubt the BIOS update upped your F so you'll have to
up the M.

However, whether you can go to 166MHz for the CPU bus (333MHz) also
depends on what memory you have installed. Does your memory support
166MHz, or is it back at 100MHz? If it is only 100MHz then you would
need to use a multiplier of 20 to get the 100MHz up to 2Ghz. Uffda.
After the update, does your BIOS now have a multiplier table that goes
up to 20? If your memory only supports 100MHz then you might want to
replace it with 166MHz memory sticks so you can up the CPU bus speed and
lower the multiplier. Some mobos let you use async settings between CPU
bus and memory bus speeds but typically I see that as a *not*
recommended setup since it incurs waits by the memory which nullify the
async settings. See http://www.dslreports.com/faq/9223.

So check what FSB your memory sticks will support. You could try
overclocking them (when you up the CPU bus speed from 100MHz to 166MHz)
but it depends on the quality of the memory sticks and whether they
simply marked some PC133 memory as PC100 to sell it in that market
niche.

Currently I'm running the AMD Athlon XP 2500+ Barton with an FSB of 333
(166MHz) but might try overclocking it to FSB400 (200MHz) and then might
even play with the multiplier thereafter (and probably have to tweak the
voltages up) but that'll wait until I decide that I really need it, want
to waste the money on much better cooling, and am willing to risk
shortening the MTBF of the processor. However, I was smart to get
PC3200 memory sticks to support FSB400 (200MHz); i.e., the memory sticks
were rated higher (200MHz) than the processor (166MHz) when I got the
parts. This lets my keep the CPU bus and memory bus speeds synchronous
(if the CPU handles the increase from 166MHz to 200MHz).

At this point, you'll have to look in your newly flashed BIOS to see
what clock speeds (CPU) are available, the ratio for CPU-to-memory
settings you have, and what multipliers you have and what is the highest
setting. Then you'll get a clue as to how you might end up configuring
for the AXP 2600+. You might ask in an MSI newsgroup
(alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.msi-microstar) to see how someone else with
your version of BIOS, or later, setup their system to use an AXP 2600+.

 

[san]

I Got this from the front of the mainboard:
KT3 Ultra MS 6380E
and this is from the MSI site:
http://www.msi.com.tw/program/products/mainboard/mbd/pro_mbd_cpu_support_detail.php?UID=11&kind=1
I guess the chip has two different FSB`s I`ll try to find the one with a
133/266 FSB if it`s worth my while?.

Thanks
Brendan

 

[_Vanguard_]

I Got this from the front of the mainboard:
KT3 Ultra MS 6380E
and this is from the MSI site:
http://www.msi.com.tw/program/products/mainboard/mbd/pro_mbd_cpu_support_detail.php?UID=11&kind=1
I guess the chip has two different FSB`s I`ll try to find the one with
a 133/266 FSB if it`s worth my while?.

I had already found that page but it is under the page that Cuzman
already reported to you. That why I said in my reply to Cuzman that the
statement there of "100/133 (200/266)MHz clocks are supported" means you
won't be able to support the FSB333 (166MHz) Sempron and that you are
limited to whatever processors will support 100 or 133 MHz for a clock
rate. The CPU page shows processors which your current mobo will
support. Notice that all the 166MHz/FSB333 CPUs are shown as "NO"
(i.e., not supported). You need to use a CPU that supports 100 or 133
MHz (FSB200 or FSB266). *IF* your memory supports 133MHz (FSB266) then
you can get a replacement CPU also rated for that. According to AMD's
Family6 PDF spec sheet at http://snipurl.com/axp2500_pdf, the max
multiplier is 12.5. That means you could get 12.5 x 133MHz = 1.67GHz
which is the equivalent of an AXP 2000+ running at 133MHz/FSB266. So,
yeah, the AXP 2600+ is supported but it won't run full blown at its max
rated spec and instead runs equivalent to something less. Of course, if
you plan to later upgrade the mobo then, sure, you could get the AXP
2600+, run it at 133MHz/FSB266, let it run at less than its rated max,
and then use it at its max when you later upgrade the mobo. But then
you are limiting your future mobo upgrade with what is already an old
processor.

It is possible your AXP 2600+ is unlocked for its multipliers but not
likely. It is possible that there are bridges atop the CPU that you can
cut and short to change the multiplier but that requires some expertise.
It is possible that your mobo will support increment frequencies higher
than its rated max of 133MHz but not likely. Since you never mentioned
overclocking your current setup, I won't bother getting into what you
might be able to do for overclocking. If you are not into overclocking,
and if you want to go to a CPU that your current mobo doesn't support to
its *fullest* stock specs, then you need to get a new mobo.

You really want to go to the expense of buying a new mobo and maybe
having to buy better memory, too? Do you have real requirements for the
speed boost? If you are considering getting a faster CPU, a better mobo
to support it, and faster memory, then you might as well as try
overclocking what you have now. I don't know if you are currently
running at 100MHz/FSB200 or 133MHz/FSB266. If 100MHz/FSB200, you could
try upping the multiplier (if your CPU isn't locked but probably is) or
incrementally upping the clock rate, if possible. Again, asking in the
MSI newsgroup might find users already familiar with that particular
mobo who know what its BIOS has for overclocking, if anything. You sure
a better video card might not give you the boost you need, especially if
you are using your computer as an expensive gaming host?

Hmm, interesting ...

Pays to read the documentation. What, you didn't do this already? I
happened to scan through the online manual for your mobo and its BIOS
supposedly supports CPU bus speeds from 100 to 220 MHz. Well, that is
definitely above the 100-133 MHz range they state on their product web
page. Does your mobo really let you go higher than 133MHz for the CPU
clock? If so, problems are all solved since you could set it to
166MHz/FSB333 for the AXP 2600+ (or even to 200MHz/FSB400 for even
better CPUs) so you can run it at its max rated spec - provided your
memory also supported the higher clock rate. There isn't much for
overclocking and I didn't see a BIOS setting to run the CPU and memory
at asynchronous clock speeds (per some CPU:memory ratio) plus that is
NOT recommended, especially for AMD processors. So maybe you can use
the AXP 2600+ but you might need to also replace your memory. You never
mentioned what you had for memory. If the online manual is more correct
than their product page, looks like you could upgrade to the AXP 2600+.
Guess you'll need to contact MSI to find out which is correct, their
product page or their online manual. Or you could just go spend the $90
on the AXP 2600+ OEM and see if you can truly use 166MHz/FSB333 with a
multiplier of 12 to get the 1.99GHz required to run that processor at
its full rated spec.

Maybe it will work - *if* the online manual is truly correct (which
means the product page is incorrect) in that you can set the CPU clock
up from 100 to 220 MHz.

 

[~misfit~]

Why would you want to sideways-grade to an Sempron processor? The
Sempron is a "value processor" (i.e., slower than the "business/game
processor"). "The majority of Semprons, right now, are renamed Athlon
XP processors ..."
(http://techreport.com/reviews/2004q3/sempron/index.x?pg=1); i.e., you
get a throttled Athlon XP processor.

"Sempron Socket A AMD has developed a new 32-bit processor, and
TechwareLabs has it in the lab for a few rounds of intensive testing.
Named Sempron, it is AMD's answer to the Intel Celeron "D" processor.
This means that we don't expect the Sempron will break any land speed
records for gaming, however, it should handle office applications and
workstation duties quite well"
(http://www.techwarelabs.com/reviews/processors/sempron/). AMD's
Sempron was made to compete against Intel's Celeron and as a
replacement to AMD's Duron (i.e., Sempron is a value processor), not
as an improvement over their Athlon XP. Semprons have a 256KB L2
cache whereas Athlon XPs with the Barton core have 512 KB (i.e., AMD
disabled half the cache already present on the Sempron-named Athlon
XP so they could market the Sempron in the "value" processor niche).
They introduced the "new" Sempron (and practically discontinued the
Athlons XP) to protect their newer Athlon64 line (because the new
Athlon64 chips aren't more powerful in 32-bit mode than the Bartons).
This is a common business strategy to pull down the current line so
they can sell a newer one. I'm sure lots of consumers also got
screwed by the MX versions of the GeForce video cards, too, because
of the higher model number they could use to mislead that the video
card had that level of performance.

Hmm, get a:

Sempron 2600+ 1.833GHz FSB333 256KB ($85 retail; incl. heatsink & fan)

or get an:

Athlon XP 2500+ Barton 1.833GHz FSB333 512KB ($85 OEM; processor only)

I doubt his board supports 166Mhz FSB, that's why it states the XP2600 as
the fastest CPU. It was originally released in a 133Mhz FSB version.

 

[~misfit~]

Maybe it will work - *if* the online manual is truly correct (which
means the product page is incorrect) in that you can set the CPU clock
up from 100 to 220 MHz.

That's all well and good but what will the AGP and PCI clocks be running at
with a 166Mhz FSB? I suggest that if the manual says it supports 100/133Mhz
FSB's then it doesn't have dividers for higher FSB frequencies. The ".....
to 220Mhz" thing is only of interest to overclockers who are prepared to
risk potential corruption of HDD data, destruction of AGP cards etc.

I haven't looked in here in a while, this group used to be so good.

 

[_Vanguard_]

That's all well and good but what will the AGP and PCI clocks be
running at
with a 166Mhz FSB? I suggest that if the manual says it supports
100/133Mhz
FSB's then it doesn't have dividers for higher FSB frequencies. The
".....
to 220Mhz" thing is only of interest to overclockers who are prepared
to
risk potential corruption of HDD data, destruction of AGP cards etc.

I haven't looked in here in a while, this group used to be so good.

I didn't see mention in the BIOS settings of using a ration between CPU
and PCI bus clocks, but then I didn't look in the online manual for
that. At one time, there used to be a ratio, like 1:1, 1:2, or other
such values so you could up the CPU clock but keep the PCI clock lower
(although often it wasn't exactly at 33MHz). However, lots of boards
don't have that ratio anymore because the PCI bus is locked at 33MHz.
So changing the CPU clock won't have any effect on the PCI clock and you
don't have to worry about modems, SCSI and IDE controllers, sounds
cards, and the like not working because of overclocking.

In my Abit mobo, you set the AGP frequency separate of the CPU clock,
and it can be anywhere from 66MHz to 99MHz. I'd probably try
overclocking the video card itself, like using the Rage3D utility on ATI
cards, before bothering to up the AGP clock (which I don't think will
help nearly as much as overclocking the video card's own clocks).

How well you can overclock depends on what settings are available in the
BIOS. That's why I got the Abit mobo (NF7-S v2) because it seems a
decent overclocker mobo. I got the memory to handle 200MHz/FSB400
(because it was only $2 more than the slower sticks) and saved on the
AXP 2500+ Barton and later I'll check on how overclockable it is. My
last mobo was like what you mention where if you overclocked the CPU bus
then the PCI (and AGP) also got overclocked. But the Abit and several
other mobos that I've looked at now lock the PCI at 33MHz and start the
AGP at 66MHz (and let you tweak it) but they are no longer tied to the
CPU bus speed. The simple fact that I have *separate* settings for the
CPU and AGP frequencies shows that they are not locked together like
they used to be. I can set the CPU clock from 100 to 237 MHz and I can
set the AGP clock from 66 to 99 MHz, and one setting isn't dependent on
the other. The MSI mobo for the OP has a few settings but it doesn't
really seem setup for overclocking except for some basics (which are
almost only provided to support the various CPUs and core types). I
didn't check if the MSI mobo for the OP was one of the old ones that
locked the CPU clock to the PCI and AGP clocks.

There might still be a CPU/DRAM ration setting in BIOS and that is where
you get to make the mobo be asynchronous between CPU and memory clock
speeds. It is not recommended for AMD processors (and doesn't seem to
give much for Intels, either) due to the introduction of waits. What I
don't get is why there are ratios which are synchronous but look like
3:3, 4:4, 5:5, and 6:6. Wouldn't these all be synchronous and the
equivalent of 1:1? With my Geils that are PC-3200 and can run at 200MHz
but my Athon 2500+ only rated for 166MHz, I would need a ratio close to
166/200 (0.83) which would be 5:6 (0.83) *if* I ran them asynchronously
(but I won't). In my case, I'll keep them synchronous and incrementally
up the FSB from 166MHz (FSB333) towards 200MHz (FSB400) on the CPU to
overclock it. Too bad when upping the clocks there isn't an easy and
sure way of knowing just how much to up the voltages, too.

 

[kony]

I didn't see mention in the BIOS settings of using a ration between CPU
and PCI bus clocks, but then I didn't look in the online manual for
that. At one time, there used to be a ratio, like 1:1, 1:2, or other
such values so you could up the CPU clock but keep the PCI clock lower
(although often it wasn't exactly at 33MHz). However, lots of boards
don't have that ratio anymore because the PCI bus is locked at 33MHz.
So changing the CPU clock won't have any effect on the PCI clock and you
don't have to worry about modems, SCSI and IDE controllers, sounds
cards, and the like not working because of overclocking.

In my Abit mobo, you set the AGP frequency separate of the CPU clock,
and it can be anywhere from 66MHz to 99MHz. I'd probably try
overclocking the video card itself, like using the Rage3D utility on ATI
cards, before bothering to up the AGP clock (which I don't think will
help nearly as much as overclocking the video card's own clocks).

How well you can overclock depends on what settings are available in the
BIOS. That's why I got the Abit mobo (NF7-S v2) because it seems a
decent overclocker mobo. I got the memory to handle 200MHz/FSB400
(because it was only $2 more than the slower sticks) and saved on the
AXP 2500+ Barton and later I'll check on how overclockable it is. My
last mobo was like what you mention where if you overclocked the CPU bus
then the PCI (and AGP) also got overclocked. But the Abit and several
other mobos that I've looked at now lock the PCI at 33MHz and start the
AGP at 66MHz (and let you tweak it) but they are no longer tied to the
CPU bus speed. The simple fact that I have *separate* settings for the
CPU and AGP frequencies shows that they are not locked together like
they used to be. I can set the CPU clock from 100 to 237 MHz and I can
set the AGP clock from 66 to 99 MHz, and one setting isn't dependent on
the other. The MSI mobo for the OP has a few settings but it doesn't
really seem setup for overclocking except for some basics (which are
almost only provided to support the various CPUs and core types). I
didn't check if the MSI mobo for the OP was one of the old ones that
locked the CPU clock to the PCI and AGP clocks.

There might still be a CPU/DRAM ration setting in BIOS and that is where
you get to make the mobo be asynchronous between CPU and memory clock
speeds. It is not recommended for AMD processors (and doesn't seem to
give much for Intels, either) due to the introduction of waits. What I
don't get is why there are ratios which are synchronous but look like
3:3, 4:4, 5:5, and 6:6. Wouldn't these all be synchronous and the
equivalent of 1:1? With my Geils that are PC-3200 and can run at 200MHz
but my Athon 2500+ only rated for 166MHz, I would need a ratio close to
166/200 (0.83) which would be 5:6 (0.83) *if* I ran them asynchronously
(but I won't). In my case, I'll keep them synchronous and incrementally
up the FSB from 166MHz (FSB333) towards 200MHz (FSB400) on the CPU to
overclock it. Too bad when upping the clocks there isn't an easy and
sure way of knowing just how much to up the voltages, too.

Presuming it's KT266A chipset based board, it supports 1/4
PCI divider or lower. Around 150-something MHz FSB the IDE,
network, and USB will start crapping out. Via socket A (at
least through KT600, not sure about KT880) didn't have AGP
or PCI locks at all, it was always a divider-range based on
FSB. While memory and FSB might be set asyc, it's not a
good idea, performance would be best leaving them sync'd and
raising CPU multiplier if necessary/possible/reasonable.

 

[~misfit~]

Presuming it's KT266A chipset based board, it supports 1/4
PCI divider or lower. Around 150-something MHz FSB the IDE,
network, and USB will start crapping out. Via socket A (at
least through KT600, not sure about KT880) didn't have AGP
or PCI locks at all, it was always a divider-range based on
FSB. While memory and FSB might be set asyc, it's not a
good idea, performance would be best leaving them sync'd and
raising CPU multiplier if necessary/possible/reasonable.

Thanks Dave, the voice of reason. If this board is running an XP1400 or
whatever it is of a vintage that isn't going to have AGP/PCI locks. Good to
see you're still here my friend. Merry Xmas.