| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 47898 | 2004-08-08 10:47:00 | XP2400 runs slow | willie_M (5608) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 259595 | 2004-08-09 00:43:00 | I'm starting to think we got shafted here.... 256k cache just doesnt cut the mustard... So whats the deal on the mobo. Cos its 2x133 does that mean its gonna run just as good? That'll teach me for getting cheapie cheapie... Ahm... my dads a WinXP whore like you guys... :D And it wasen't a cclean install but he'd wanna try anything else before he did a clean install... I remember with my new mobo, win2k bluescreened using the same install from the previous mobo... |
willie_M (5608) | ||
| 259596 | 2004-08-09 00:47:00 | O, the rest of the system... Just the A7VL-VM, XP2400, 512MB DDR400 RAM, thats all you need to know isn't it... Why do you need the core speed? I set the DIP switch on the mobo to run at 133mhz and then the processor was going at 2000mhz in the bios |
willie_M (5608) | ||
| 259597 | 2004-08-09 00:50:00 | You didnt get shafted,You simply put a modern cpu into an old board using an old install of the OS,im surprised it runs at all,and i would expect it to be a piglet. As to the cpu,It is what it is,an ass-kicker in its day and still a powerful item for a normal use PC. The board is the issue,acording to the article it only runs at 100mhz,and i presume uses good old pc100 sd-ram....You have crippled the cpu. Replace the board and ram,format the drive and do a clean install,anything else is just strokin it. |
metla (154) | ||
| 259598 | 2004-08-09 00:51:00 | oh,seems the article is wrong then. Ignore my last post if you will. |
metla (154) | ||
| 259599 | 2004-08-09 01:08:00 | Check you gave the correct model for the motherboard. From the Asus site on that motherboard here (www.asus.com) it shows that it only has SD RAM and is not designed to run the XP series of Athlon. | Pheonix (280) | ||
| 259600 | 2004-08-09 01:10:00 | Or the model no given for the board is wrong. Asus's description of the A7VL-VM includes PC133 DIMMS not DDR. | PaulD (232) | ||
| 259601 | 2004-08-09 02:55:00 | > I'm starting to think we got shafted here.... 256k > cache just doesnt cut the mustard... So whats the > deal on the mobo. Cos its 2x133 does that mean its > gonna run just as good? Could you please explain why 256k doesnt cut the mustard? The Athlon architecture hardly benefits from the extra cache. Let me guess you've seen P4's with 1mb of cache and think that because a P4 has it the Athlon should too? If so it might be a good idea to do some research, you'll be surprised to find that the Athlon is a completly different chip to the P4 its like comparing apples to oranges. The Athlon doesnt benefit from a high FSB and large lvl2 cache like the P4. |
Pete O'Neil (250) | ||
| 259602 | 2004-08-09 09:46:00 | >Or the model no given for the board is wrong. Asus's description of the A7VL-VM includes PC133 DIMMS not DDR. Ahh fork! I havent written that model number through the whole thread have I? My bad.... the model is ASUS A7V8X-MX i got confused with another thread I started about my dads old gear and BIOS problems... I shoulda gone to school longer. >Could you please explain why 256k doesnt cut the mustard? The Athlon architecture hardly benefits from the extra cache. Let me guess you've seen P4's with 1mb of cache and think that because a P4 has it the Athlon should too? Whoa! Easy tiger! I aint the kind to go and wish I had a P4.... screw P4's.... overrated overpriced branded monopolism in a box.... My XP2600 has 512K cache and I was wondrin why the XP2400 doesn't... I just realised... I ran all the pentium processors out of this house... hehe. We got: XP2600 XP2400 Duron 800 |
willie_M (5608) | ||
| 1 2 | |||||