Installing USB 2.0 on "older" PC

[Steve W]

I've just realised that my AMD Athlon 1.41GHz PC (with 512Mb RAM and XP Pro)
has only got USB 1.1. No wonder I have problems with some of my devices!

Two questions. First, can I simply install a (relatively inexpensive) PCI
card with some USB 2.0 ports, and them run a multiport powered USB 2.0 hub
from there?

Second, I am thinking of getting a USB TV / PVR device (actually KWorld
DVB-T 310U Dongle USB2.0 TV Box) for my PC. This recommends a Pentium IV
1.6GHz, or equivalent. Would my PC do the business?

Thanks
Steve

 

[Gerard Bok]

I've just realised that my AMD Athlon 1.41GHz PC (with 512Mb RAM and XP Pro)
has only got USB 1.1. No wonder I have problems with some of my devices!

Two questions. First, can I simply install a (relatively inexpensive) PCI
card with some USB 2.0 ports, and them run a multiport powered USB 2.0 hub
from there?
Yes

Second, I am thinking of getting a USB TV / PVR device (actually KWorld
DVB-T 310U Dongle USB2.0 TV Box) for my PC. This recommends a Pentium IV
1.6GHz, or equivalent. Would my PC do the business?

Doubtfull. Some PC's may run, others may not.

Keep in mind, that 'recommended' in sales language often means
'absolute minimum'. You may need more computer power to run
smoothly.

Your CPU is well below the recommended level, your USB 2.0 will
be sharing bandwidth with the PCI bus (and possibly also with
your video). So my advice would be: arange with your supplier
that he will take the stuff back if it doesn't run well on your
PC. Otherwise, you may be wasting good money.

 

[Steve W]

Second, I am thinking of getting a USB TV / PVR device (actually KWorld

Doubtfull. Some PC's may run, others may not.

Keep in mind, that 'recommended' in sales language often means
'absolute minimum'. You may need more computer power to run
smoothly.

Your CPU is well below the recommended level, your USB 2.0 will
be sharing bandwidth with the PCI bus (and possibly also with
your video). So my advice would be: arange with your supplier
that he will take the stuff back if it doesn't run well on your
PC. Otherwise, you may be wasting good money.

Thanks, Gerard; I have not been able to find a table which clarifies the
relative CPU speed between an AMD Athlon 1.4 and a Pentium IV 1.6. I always
thought that the Athlons were faster for the same clock speed. But perhaps
the Pentium IV is a later generation...? And so that comaprison is not
valid. Can someone please point me to a valid comparison?

Thanks
Steve

 

[kony]

Thanks, Gerard; I have not been able to find a table which clarifies the
relative CPU speed between an AMD Athlon 1.4 and a Pentium IV 1.6. I always
thought that the Athlons were faster for the same clock speed. But perhaps
the Pentium IV is a later generation...? And so that comaprison is not
valid. Can someone please point me to a valid comparison?

Thanks
Steve

An Athlon @ 1.4GHz is significantly faster than a P4 @
1.6GHz. P4 @ 1.6GHz was one of those chips focused on in
the class-action suit against Intel because they'd sold
these CPUs which weren't even faster than the Pentium 3 in
many tasks.

A direct comparision of clock speed to performance is not
possible though, because these are different CPU
architectures. For the most accurate comparison you would
need to compare benchmarks of the specific applications
you're using (including the versions of those applications,
that is also very significant if not a very recent release).
If you just wanted some random approximation, the Athlon is
probably about 30% faster.

 

[drifter]

An Athlon @ 1.4GHz is significantly faster than a P4 @
1.6GHz. P4 @ 1.6GHz was one of those chips focused on in
the class-action suit against Intel because they'd sold
these CPUs which weren't even faster than the Pentium 3 in
many tasks.

A direct comparision of clock speed to performance is not
possible though, because these are different CPU
architectures. For the most accurate comparison you would
need to compare benchmarks of the specific applications
you're using (including the versions of those applications,
that is also very significant if not a very recent release).
If you just wanted some random approximation, the Athlon is
probably about 30% faster.

I run a 500Mhz AMD K6-2 skip built testing system with 256MB of mixed
100 and 133 memory. It runs XP Pro with all updates on a 4.3Gb hard
drive. In one of the two PCI slots on the mobo I have installed an
Adaptec Duoconnect card with 4 USB v 2 and 2 firewire ports. Device
manager reports it is enhanced USB meaning it is seen and runs at USB 2.
Hope this provides some guidance.

 

[Gerard Bok]

Thanks, Gerard; I have not been able to find a table which clarifies the
relative CPU speed between an AMD Athlon 1.4 and a Pentium IV 1.6. I always
thought that the Athlons were faster for the same clock speed.

Well, the point is, that 'Athlon' is a name, given to an entire
family of AMD products.
Some of them do not even carry the speed in their name but the
corresponding Intel performance.
(E.g. An Athlon 1400+ would mean: this CPU runs some 1100 MHz and
performs like an Intel CPU running 1400 MHz.)

If 1.4 GHz is it's true clockspeed, you may expect performance up
to 25% better than an Intel 1.4 GHz part.
In general, AMD parts are better geared to graphic performance.
But don't take my word for it; I'm not at all an expert on
performance tuning

 

[Steve W]

Well, the point is, that 'Athlon' is a name, given to an entire
family of AMD products.
Some of them do not even carry the speed in their name but the
corresponding Intel performance.
(E.g. An Athlon 1400+ would mean: this CPU runs some 1100 MHz and
performs like an Intel CPU running 1400 MHz.)

If 1.4 GHz is it's true clockspeed, you may expect performance up
to 25% better than an Intel 1.4 GHz part.
In general, AMD parts are better geared to graphic performance.
But don't take my word for it; I'm not at all an expert on
performance tuning

Thanks for that. I understand it is a true 1.4GHz CPU. At least, under
Control Panel, System, it is reported as 1.41GHz.

I am confused - are you now saying that it may not be "well under the
recommended level", as you indicated in your earlier note?

Regards
Steve

 

[kony]

Thanks for that. I understand it is a true 1.4GHz CPU. At least, under
Control Panel, System, it is reported as 1.41GHz.

I am confused - are you now saying that it may not be "well under the
recommended level", as you indicated in your earlier note?

Regards
Steve

Recommended CPU levels are a bit of a misleading spec. More
often what they really mean is "a system new enough that it
has USB2, was sold through OEMs with a certain version of
windows or newer, and a certain expected HDD performance".

Would it be correct to presume this USB tuner uses MPEG
hardware encoding? There was a time when most (if not all)
of them did. If it is still the case (as it might need be,
USB2 is still a bit of a bottleneck in itself to full
resolution uncompressed video), then the CPU load shouldn't
be too bad.

IMO, you should get the tuner and try it. The more
significant issues with them are usually the drivers which
of course may not make the CPU an issue at all.

 

[Gerard Bok]

Thanks for that. I understand it is a true 1.4GHz CPU. At least, under
Control Panel, System, it is reported as 1.41GHz.

I am confused - are you now saying that it may not be "well under the
recommended level", as you indicated in your earlier note?

Sorry! I was not meaning to confuse you.

"well under the recommended level" was referring to AMD's
practice of stating 'equivalent Intel speed', rather than true
clock speed, for some of their CPU's.
If you want to know the true clockspeed, you probably have to get
it from the Bios data. (Clock speed and multiplier)
But if that option is available: try before you buy is an easier
and more reliable way to go

 

[kony]

If you want to know the true clockspeed, you probably have to get
it from the Bios data. (Clock speed and multiplier)
But if that option is available: try before you buy is an easier
and more reliable way to go

Various Windows utilities such as "CPU-Z" (Google for it)
will report the actual CPU clock speed.

 

[Gerard Bok]

Various Windows utilities such as "CPU-Z" (Google for it)
will report the actual CPU clock speed.

So my Athlon 2000+ actually runs at 1300.1 MHz
Nice utility, though.

 

[Steve W]

So my Athlon 2000+ actually runs at 1300.1 MHz
Nice utility, though.

....and my Athlon "thunderbird" runs at 1410 MHz. So I am keeping my fingers
crossed that it will work OK with the TV device and my freshly installed USB
2.0 ports!

Thanks All,
Steve

 

[kony]

So my Athlon 2000+ actually runs at 1300.1 MHz
Nice utility, though.

It usually does pretty good at detecting the right speed,
I'd wonder if your board uses a new(er) skt A chipset or if
it actually is running at the wrong speed, too slow.