Matrox PCI orATI AGP?

[Neil Barras]

Hi all,

I have a choice of two cards for a small file/print server that I will have
on my home network.

HP Vectra VE6 Series 8

266MHz Celeron (Can I go faster CPU wise?)
256MB RAM
36GB 10kRPM SCSI HDD
CD-ROM

It currently has an ATI Rage IIc 2MB AGP card. I have an old Dell
Workstation 400 for spares, with a Matrox Millenia II PCI in it. To my
understanding, these were 8MB? Which would be better? I currently cannot
go 1024x768 in 32bit colour on the ATI, only 800x600 32, or 1024x768 16.
Would the Matrox allow 1024x768 32?

Thanks,

Neil

 

[kony]

Hi all,

I have a choice of two cards for a small file/print server that I will have
on my home network.

Due to the low demand of the use, it really doesn't matter
which you choose. My following comments would be about an
"optimal" setup that is absolutely not needed.

HP Vectra VE6 Series 8

266MHz Celeron (Can I go faster CPU wise?)

Yes but why? Unless you have a Gigabit lan, the lan is the
bottleneck not the CPU. If it is the (L2) cacheless CPU, it
"might" be a bottleneck but those weren't as common. You'd
need to get the model numbers off the CPU to check on this,
or possibly use a windows program like WCPUID or CPU-Z to
determine if there's L2 cache or not. In that case, you
could upgrade up to a Celeron 533, but the main benefit is
the L2 cache, for your uses the CPU need not be 533MHz and
if the HP uses passive cooling without ACPI power management
then it's going to just run hotter at higher frequency.

If on the other hand you do have Gigabit lan (and NIC
installed in that system too) then do upgrade the CPU to at
least Celeron 400 -533 (Mendocino, not Coppermine).
http://www.karbosguide.com/hardware/module3e03.htm#SX

256MB RAM
36GB 10kRPM SCSI HDD
CD-ROM

It currently has an ATI Rage IIc 2MB AGP card. I have an old Dell
Workstation 400 for spares, with a Matrox Millenia II PCI in it. To my
understanding, these were 8MB? Which would be better? I currently cannot
go 1024x768 in 32bit colour on the ATI, only 800x600 32, or 1024x768 16.
Would the Matrox allow 1024x768 32?

Why do you need high resolution or color depth for a box
that can run headless, no monitor at all? I'd set it to the
lowest res and color depth regardless of what it supports.

Even so, the AGP card is theoretically better for
performance because it keeps that video traffic off of the
PCI bus. In actual use you'd probably never notice a
difference, so if the resolution and color depth is most
important, go ahead and use the PCI card.

Yes, an 8MB card such as that Maxtrox will allow
1024x768x32bpp.

 

[Neil Barras]

<snip>

Kony,

Thanks for the reply...It was extremely helpful. I ran CPUZ on the PC and
it is running a cacheless Celeron. In another unworking PC that I have, it
has a 333MHz Deschutes P2. I want to swap this with the Celeron, but it is
in that black cartridge which is the wrong shape to fit the Slot in the HP.
The Celeron is just the chip on a PCB, with a HS on it. Can the cartridge
be taken off the P2 so it fits the other HP? Or is it a no go? I want to
try and use it because it has a slightly higher clock speed and a 512K L2.

Thanks,

Neil

PS. I am going to stick with the ATI AGP Card

 

[kony]

<snip>

Kony,

Thanks for the reply...It was extremely helpful. I ran CPUZ on the PC and
it is running a cacheless Celeron. In another unworking PC that I have, it
has a 333MHz Deschutes P2. I want to swap this with the Celeron, but it is
in that black cartridge which is the wrong shape to fit the Slot in the HP.
The Celeron is just the chip on a PCB, with a HS on it. Can the cartridge
be taken off the P2 so it fits the other HP? Or is it a no go?

No, the Deschutes P2 (actually all P2) have the CPU directly
soldered onto the slot-1 shaped board and have BGA contacts-
there is no reasonable way to convert it.

I want to
try and use it because it has a slightly higher clock speed and a 512K L2.

The first 128K of L2 is a whole lot more important than the
next 384K, 512K on a P2 is only marginally faster than the
same MHz speed Celeron (so long as it has the 128K L2).

You might set the box up, get it running and see if there
are performance problems as even a cacheless Celeron may be
enough for a lightly loaded fileserver on 100Mb lan, but
again it's certainly not sufficient for Gigabit lan. The
best replacement for that CPU is as mentioned previously,
anything from a Celeron 300A to a 533, with the higher
speeds being a little harder to keep cool if that HP box
uses a passive CPU 'sink instead of one with a fan on it.

 

[Neil Barras]

No, the Deschutes P2 (actually all P2) have the CPU directly

soldered onto the slot-1 shaped board and have BGA contacts-
there is no reasonable way to convert it.

I managed to remove the Retention Mech for the Celeron and fitted the P2
one. All works fine excpet the CPU is still @ 266, with a FSB of 66 and Xer
of 4.0. Is there a way to change that?

The first 128K of L2 is a whole lot more important than the
next 384K, 512K on a P2 is only marginally faster than the
same MHz speed Celeron (so long as it has the 128K L2).

You might set the box up, get it running and see if there
are performance problems as even a cacheless Celeron may be
enough for a lightly loaded fileserver on 100Mb lan, but
again it's certainly not sufficient for Gigabit lan. The
best replacement for that CPU is as mentioned previously,
anything from a Celeron 300A to a 533, with the higher
speeds being a little harder to keep cool if that HP box
uses a passive CPU 'sink instead of one with a fan on it.

Are fans available for the Slot 1 CPUs?

Thanks for all your help

 

[kony]

I managed to remove the Retention Mech for the Celeron and fitted the P2
one. All works fine excpet the CPU is still @ 266, with a FSB of 66 and Xer
of 4.0. Is there a way to change that?

Oh, I misunderstood what you meant, thought you had a socket
370 celeron.

"Most" P2 were multiplier locked. If yours is a very early
one that isn't, and your board supports changing the
multiplier, you could probably get it running at 300MHz or
so but even then it might require a voltage increase. Early
Klamath P2 were hard to overclock as their L2 cache was
running near it's limits already, they even had different
cache timings for the different MHz CPUs just to keep the
cache stable.

I don't know what chipset your motherboard uses and so I
don't know if you could get 100MHz FSB working or not.

Even if you could, it is unnecessary for a light-duty
fileserver. You have not mentioned the full detail on the
network but again the network is generally the bottleneck,
not CPU or FSB.

Are fans available for the Slot 1 CPUs?

Sure, if it has a 'sink that can accept one... many of the
passive type wouldn't, as they had no mounting holes or
slots for one. There are a lot of hack jobs that could get
a fan mounted like taking off the plastic cartridge and heat
spreader/fins, then using nylon wire-ties to hold a socket
370 'sink on it, or drilling tiny holes in it, but generally
there is no need if it runs cool enough... something you can
easily enough check when the system is up and running.

 

[Neil Barras]

I found on the HP site a PDF that said there is a set of switches on the
MoBo...Sorted that...Now have a P2 333MHz.

According to CPU-Z, the Chipset is an Intel i440LX. Can this be
unlocked to 100MHz FSB? Or is it not recommended?

Thanks,

Neil

 

[kony]

I found on the HP site a PDF that said there is a set of switches on the
MoBo...Sorted that...Now have a P2 333MHz.

Have you checked it with software like CPU-Z?
Merely setting the jumpers may cause the opposite of your
intention, can actually cause it to run in a "limp" mode at
a lower speed like 133MHz... was common on Intel retail
boards with locked P2 CPUs.

According to CPU-Z, the Chipset is an Intel i440LX. Can this be
unlocked to 100MHz FSB? Or is it not recommended?

No, 440LX will not run at 100MHz FSB... and you have no
reason to do it, as again, there is no performance benefit.
I kept mentioning Gigabit lan but you never told us whether
you're using gigabit or not. If not, your primary
limitation is lan, and secondary might be hard drive (if
hard drive is anywhere near as old as the rest of the
system).

To be a light duty fileserver/printserver, the performance
requirement is extremely low. If a 486 box had ATA133 (and
USB if that's what the printer requires), it would be
sufficient for 100Mb lan use. Gigabit lan with jumbo
frames benefits from around (roughly) 400MHz CPU, or up to
1GHz without default 1.5K frames.

 

[Neil Barras]

No, 440LX will not run at 100MHz FSB... and you have no

reason to do it, as again, there is no performance benefit.
I kept mentioning Gigabit lan but you never told us whether
you're using gigabit or not. If not, your primary
limitation is lan, and secondary might be hard drive (if
hard drive is anywhere near as old as the rest of the
system).

To be a light duty fileserver/printserver, the performance
requirement is extremely low. If a 486 box had ATA133 (and
USB if that's what the printer requires), it would be
sufficient for 100Mb lan use. Gigabit lan with jumbo
frames benefits from around (roughly) 400MHz CPU, or up to
1GHz without default 1.5K frames.

I have a WiFi enabled network, running at the most 6 computers running off
it. The server will be on a cable. It will be running a USB printer. I
think the Hard Drive must be fairly new, becuase it looks in good nick and
is a 10k rpm SCSI drive.

 

[kony]

I have a WiFi enabled network, running at the most 6 computers running off
it.

Wifi is such an extreme bottleneck that there is nothing you
can possibly do to the server to increase performance, that
would make a difference.

The server will be on a cable. It will be running a USB printer. I
think the Hard Drive must be fairly new, becuase it looks in good nick and
is a 10k rpm SCSI drive.

Somewhat pointless to put a high-end drive in such srvice,
but what the heck since you have it available. My primary
focus for such a system would be optimizing the cooling.
Not maximizing it but rather ensuring just enough but no
excess, as-in excess noise, fan wear or dust accumulation
(unless it's filtered, but even then there's the maintenance
interval for filter cleaning). Towards that end, you may as
well just return the P2 to default speed or even underclock
it.