gdjacobs wrote:

The problem with all Intel systems prior to P4 was that the FSB paced performance. I'd be amazed if RDRAM was faster, as additional bandwidth could not be directly utilized by the CPU and RDRAM had additional latency cost over more traditional technologies.

There wasn't much of a benefit of using the 820 at all and it often lost to the 815 in benchmarks, the 840 on the other hand is dual channel and really nice for p3 smp builds.

I've got some OEM Pentium4/RDRAM system sitting in my basement. I haven't looked at it in awhile. When I first acquired it, I cracked it open (it's one of those cases that opens like a suitcase) and looked around to see what it was made of. So I know there is RDRAM but beyond that I haven't researched. I'm thinking it's an HP?

clueless1 wrote:

I've got some OEM Pentium4/RDRAM system sitting in my basement. I haven't looked at it in awhile. When I first acquired it, I cracked it open (it's one of those cases that opens like a suitcase) and looked around to see what it was made of. So I know there is RDRAM but beyond that I haven't researched. I'm thinking it's an HP?

That sounds like a Dell clam shell, check for bad caps on the board and the psu in those machines is a time bomb.

nforce4max wrote:

There wasn't much of a benefit of using the 820 at all and it often lost to the 815 in benchmarks, the 840 on the other hand is dual channel and really nice for p3 smp builds.

The 840 suffered from the exact same problem that the 820 did. It's paced by the FSB which is shared on P3 SMP systems. K7 SMP had a point to point bus between each CPU and the north bridge, so it could have benefited from dual channel DDR.

After more then 2 years my Blue Thunder got an update:

I droped the memory size from 4x 512 MB PC800-40 to 4x 256 MB PC800-45. But the new RDRAM heatspreader in blue in compose with the CPU Cooler looks mutch better. And there is no different in the performance between 40 ns and 45 ns.

Kingston | 4x 512 MB | PC800-40:

Samsung | 4x 256 MB | PC800-45:

MadYoshi wrote on 2022-05-24, 21:22:

https://www.vogons.org/download/file.php?id=138025 […]
Show full quote

CPUZ reporting Ranks 0 for the SPD must be wrong and it should report tRCD + tRP + tRAS + the voltages. I suspect my SIV utility will, does it?

I wondered if the latest CPUZ version did better, the Ranks 0 has gone and the DRAM Frequency is back, but that's about it.

That's a great looking system. How the performance of it?

Is there a particular reason you didn't go for PC1066?

That's 400 Mhz FSB CPU on Socket 423 motherboard.

Are 512mb sticks of PC600 actually useful for any RDRAM systems? I refound a pair in my RDRAM box and recall them not working on a Intel 423 board at all.

ODwilly wrote on 2022-05-27, 01:30:

Are 512mb sticks of PC600 actually useful for any RDRAM systems? I refound a pair in my RDRAM box and recall them not working on a Intel 423 board at all.

The 820-based P3 systems should take those.

I still have 1 Asus P3C-E, 2 Asus P4T533-C and one Intel D850EMV2.

I like RD-Rams, they work fine, with ECC. They are not slowing much when using ECC mode. (About %1~2)

To use ECC, there is not much option from SD-Ram side. Without registered ECC only for servers, not possible to find ECC only Ram for them. Checked eBay today, none! (But maybe very small densities, 32, 64MB etc.) I have looked above 256 MB.

820, 850 and 850E chipsets can be used starting from Windows 95 and later. 820 chipset can go with Windows 3.1 I did not try it and I have no need to test with Windows 3.1 but, I know that, Intel 815 chipset has it's Windows 3.1 drivers for onboard graphics. So 820 may run Windows 3.1. I currently have no AGP cards for Windows 3.1 but can find PCI cards. I know Matrox G400 has Windows 3.1 drivers. I have checked nVidia, their website can not found any Windows 3.1 drivers. I did not check ATI.

But, know that Windows 3.1 driver having cards - DO NOT HAVE DIGITAL MONITOR OUTPUT - They have only analog output, 15 pin D-Sub! (Exception: Intel's own 815 chipset mainboard with digital output "module" for DVO plug.)

So if your interest is not with Windows 3.1, 850 chipset is really fine. If you have a 850 chipset with at least 1 GB you can even install Windows 7 as well.

Windows 7 dropped support for non SSE2 processors in 2018, so you "can not" finish installing all updates from internet with 820 chipset. (All Pentium 2's, 3's even Pentium Pro's on Slot adapter) You can successfully install Windows 7 fine, it gets some online updates good, but later screen goes black, after restart, because of the SSE2 requirement! With 850 & 850E chipset, you can also use Windows 7. But, not Windows 8 or Windows 10, because the processors of 850 chipset do not have NX-bit.

Shortly, you can use 820 chipset starting from Windows 3.1 to Windows XP. (Windows 7 problematic.) 850 chipset starting from Windows 95 to Windows 7.