VOGONS


First post, by tomcattech

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

System Specs
Win 98 SE
Pentium III Socket 370 1000MHz Coppermine \ 133 MHz FSB \ 256k Cache
512 MBytes SDRAM
Motherboard: Tyan S2507T \ Tiger 230T
NVidia GEForce2 GTS / 4x AGP

I've got a new to me Tualatin PIII-s 1400/512/133/1.45 on the way and I have a few questions.

My motherboard docs state that it can handle the new processor but I also know that my current Coppermine CPU runs off 1.7 volts, and the Tualatin runs off 1.45 volts.

I see no jumpers on the board to change voltage, so how does that work?

Also, there are jumpers for "CPU Multiplier" on the board, but the funny thing is they are all empty but the processor is currently running correctly at a x7.5 multiplier in CPUz. (Maybe no jumpers is "Auto" or even more likely the multiplier is "locked" via the CPU?)
The PDF manual hasn't been much help...

So basically, How do I make the change with voltage and multiplier without destroying everything?

Also, Can I use the same heat sink and fan that is currently sitting on my current Coppermine processor? (I'm assuming yes...)

Last edited by tomcattech on 2021-05-26, 03:12. Edited 2 times in total.

Reply 1 of 21, by BitWrangler

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

The CPU requests a given voltage through it's VID pins which are pulled high and low in certain configs for certain voltages. However, in some Tualatin upgrade scenarios, you have to round up the voltage to the nearest the motherboard can cope with, like say 1.5 ... this is either done with an adapter, or with socket tricks or by insulating or connecting various pins on the CPU.

Multipliers are auto selected by the CPU (pins again) or are configurable downwards, not upwards, i.e. you can run at 6x but not 9x.

However the full gamut of everything needed to get a Tualatin working in a given board, "does my head in" as it were, so hoping some ppl that are really up on it are along soon... 'coz I wanna watch and learn too.

2017: Basement full of ancient PC stuff, starting to go through it. 2021: Still starting, heh, many setbacks. So what's this BitWrangler guy's deal ??? >>> Taming the pile, specs to target?

Reply 2 of 21, by tomcattech

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
BitWrangler wrote on 2021-05-25, 03:05:

However the full gamut of everything needed to get a Tualatin working in a given board, "does my head in" as it were, so hoping some ppl that are really up on it are along soon... 'coz I wanna watch and learn too.

That was my original fear as well, but Tyan's documentation gives me the feeling that it should be fairly straight forward as the board should be able to run it out of the box.... no soldering\pin manipulation, etc....

However, I'm taking things slow here.... measure twice\cut once so to speak.

Reply 3 of 21, by darry

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
tomcattech wrote on 2021-05-25, 03:22:
BitWrangler wrote on 2021-05-25, 03:05:

However the full gamut of everything needed to get a Tualatin working in a given board, "does my head in" as it were, so hoping some ppl that are really up on it are along soon... 'coz I wanna watch and learn too.

That was my original fear as well, but Tyan's documentation gives me the feeling that it should be fairly straight forward as the board should be able to run it out of the box.... no soldering\pin manipulation, etc....

However, I'm taking things slow here.... measure twice\cut once so to speak.

Tualatin CPUs are supported by that board . https://web.archive.org/web/20031211040121/ht … ii_celeron.html

Page 20 of manual says : "The CPU voltage will automatically be detected by the motherboard, so there is no need to set any jumpers or BIOS setting "

Filename
m_s2507t_100.pdf
File size
852.83 KiB
Downloads
6 downloads
File license
Fair use/fair dealing exception

As far cooling, your current CPU has a TDP of 29 watts --> https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/p … 33-mhz-fsb.html , whereas the fastest Tualatin has a TDP of 32.2 watts --> https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/p … 33-mhz-fsb.html , which is about 11% more, so you should be fine with reusing your old heatsink/fan (unless it is really crappy and marginal).

EDIT : As for multiplier, there is nothing to change as it is locked . Your board may allow you to override automatic FSB setting, but that should not be necessary .

Reply 4 of 21, by tomcattech

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Thanks Darry!

I totally missed that statement in the manual.

So basically leave the CPU Multiplier jumpers alone (empty.... the correct multiplier of 10.5x isn't even an option via the board jumpers), swap out the CPU with a nice new layer of thermal paste.... add the fan and heat sink and on to upgraded bliss?

I'll let everyone know how it goes.

I might even buy a new CPU fan as it is a bit noisy anyway....

This system has been awesome for playing the older Win9x games and surprisingly stable (knock on wood).

Reply 5 of 21, by tomcattech

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

Update....
So I've gone ahead and ordered a new cooler\fan combo compatible with the FC-PGA2\Tualatin processor (CoolerMaster DP5-5G11A-01) as well as an upgraded NVidia GEForce2 Pro / 4x AGP / 64MB

I'm hoping to see what this all does and it gives me a chance to re-open the case to straighten cables, clean up, etc...

Reply 6 of 21, by tomcattech

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

UPDATE!

Good News and Bad News.

Bad News First:
The Asus V7700 GeForce2 Pro 64 didn't do much of anything.
In fact, the specific Asus drivers are crap. So bad in fact that they wouldn't let me use 4x AGP when installed\configured.
The NVidia Detonator drivers get me back to where I was, but I'm not really seeing any difference in performance from the 32 MB card.
It IS seeing the 64MB on the card, so I'm guessing its a driver issue.

Basically, I'm going to keep looking around for the GeForce2 Ultra.

GOOD NEWS:
The Tualatin is in.... and the improvement is extremely noticeable.
It was well worth the investment.

The only issue was having to coerce the chip cooler and fan due to the CPU's height difference.

Other than that, the motherboard made it easy.

Reply 7 of 21, by BitWrangler

User metadata
Rank Oldbie
Rank
Oldbie

Oh man I wish I had access to a plug and play tualatin board, even just for testing CPUs. Got a 1.1A that I don't know if it works, and there's a mighty tempting 1.2 on offer locally. Less locally there's a guy with a poorly described bunch of slotket stuff, but IDK if he will ship and whether there's anything in there that will help me.

2017: Basement full of ancient PC stuff, starting to go through it. 2021: Still starting, heh, many setbacks. So what's this BitWrangler guy's deal ??? >>> Taming the pile, specs to target?

Reply 8 of 21, by darry

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
BitWrangler wrote on 2021-06-03, 03:45:

Oh man I wish I had access to a plug and play tualatin board, even just for testing CPUs. Got a 1.1A that I don't know if it works, and there's a mighty tempting 1.2 on offer locally. Less locally there's a guy with a poorly described bunch of slotket stuff, but IDK if he will ship and whether there's anything in there that will help me.

If you have a socket 370 board that supports Coppermine CPUs and has flexible VRMs, there is a guy in Korea selling pre-modified Tualatin CPUs (interposer PCB designed by the guy is used) that will work in many Coppermine capable boards .
Prices start at 50ish $US . If you go to the auction site that shall not be names and search for Tualatin Korea , you should find what I am referring to . A list of compatible boards is included in the listings .

If you do take that path. Make sure that

a) your board's VRMs circuit supports sending the proper (low by coppermine standards) voltage to the CPU
b) you provide additional cooling to the VRM circuit on your board as feeding a lower Tualatin-compatible voltage to the CPU will generate more heat than the board designers likely expected when they designed the board for Coppermine voltage requirements .

Reply 9 of 21, by darry

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
tomcattech wrote on 2021-06-03, 03:00:
UPDATE! […]
Show full quote

UPDATE!

Good News and Bad News.

Bad News First:
The Asus V7700 GeForce2 Pro 64 didn't do much of anything.
In fact, the specific Asus drivers are crap. So bad in fact that they wouldn't let me use 4x AGP when installed\configured.
The NVidia Detonator drivers get me back to where I was, but I'm not really seeing any difference in performance from the 32 MB card.
It IS seeing the 64MB on the card, so I'm guessing its a driver issue.

Basically, I'm going to keep looking around for the GeForce2 Ultra.

GOOD NEWS:
The Tualatin is in.... and the improvement is extremely noticeable.
It was well worth the investment.

The only issue was having to coerce the chip cooler and fan due to the CPU's height difference.

Other than that, the motherboard made it easy.

Happy to read the CPU worked. As for the video card, you might me able to go as far as Geforce FX family member while retaining backward compatibility (for the most part). Personally, I looking for a relatively affordable solution, something like a Geoforce 4 Ti 4200 might be a sweet spot to consider .

Reply 10 of 21, by tomcattech

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
BitWrangler wrote on 2021-06-03, 03:45:

Oh man I wish I had access to a plug and play tualatin board, even just for testing CPUs. Got a 1.1A that I don't know if it works, and there's a mighty tempting 1.2 on offer locally. Less locally there's a guy with a poorly described bunch of slotket stuff, but IDK if he will ship and whether there's anything in there that will help me.

Every once in a while you'll see one on ebay for a steal when someone doesn't know what they have.

Also, I know that the "Via" chipset has a bad rep, but it has been just fine for me.... so far at least.

BitWrangler wrote on 2021-06-03, 03:45:

Happy to read the CPU worked. As for the video card, you might me able to go as far as Geforce FX family member while retaining backward compatibility (for the most part). Personally, I looking for a relatively affordable solution, something like a Geoforce 4 Ti 4200 might be a sweet spot to consider .

It's a great idea, but the last time I built a retro rig I had nothing but frustration between video drivers, DirectX and compatibility with the games I wanted to play.

So far this setup has been quite awesome so if it costs me a little time and money to keep up the good vibes, I'm in it to win it.

However, I'll take a look at that GeForce4 as well..... Appreciate the tip.

Reply 11 of 21, by tomcattech

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
darry wrote on 2021-06-03, 04:40:

Happy to read the CPU worked. As for the video card, you might me able to go as far as Geforce FX family member while retaining backward compatibility (for the most part). Personally, I looking for a relatively affordable solution, something like a Geoforce 4 Ti 4200 might be a sweet spot to consider .

Question on the GeForce4 card....
This looks to be a AGP 8x card, which would still work in my motherboard but with a 4x interface.

Do you really think I would see that much of an improvement at that point?

Reply 14 of 21, by ODwilly

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t

A geforce 4 isn't fast enough to saturate agp 4x let agp 8x I'd imagine.

Main pc: AsRock x370 Killer SLI a/c, Ryzen 5 2600, 1tb WD black nvme ssd, 24g ddr4 2400 @2933mhz, rx 480 8gb reference card, 2tb Hitachi Deskstar.
Retro PC: Soyo P4S Dragon, 3gb ddr 266, 120gb Maxtor, Geforce Fx 5950 Ultra, SB Live! 5.1

Reply 16 of 21, by darry

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
tomcattech wrote on 2021-06-04, 01:20:
chrismeyer6 wrote on 2021-06-04, 00:58:

You can use an 8x card in a 4x slot

Agreed, but at the 4x speed downgrade would the purchase be worth it?

That's my concern....

Regarding AGP compatibility, worrying about effective AGP link speed, is for the most part pointless. Everything else being equal, even forcing an AGP 8x capable card to run at 2x is unlikely to significantly affect its performance (except possibly on the last fastest AGP cards to be released, but not with a Geforce 4)

That said there are still 3 (for the most part) important points regarding AGP compatibility.

a) AGP card and AGP port must share a common compatible voltage

b) Certain bus powered (without a dedicated power input) AGP cards will not get get enough power from certain boards with a marginally implented power citcuit

c) Unrelated to a) and b) there exist certain issues of compatibility, especially on motherboards with very early non-Intel AGP implementation . There are also stability issues, which can usually (but not always) be worked out by using specific video card driver and chipset driver combinations or by forcing a lower AGP link speed or by disabling certain AGP features or by a BIOS update (for example, Nvidia drivers for Geforce 6 cards seem to be unstable in Win 9x on 815 based motherboards, but that one has no known fix) . Finally, there are some corner case compatibility issues where specific early revisions of a card or motherboard may not work together (this last one is rather rare).

There are probably other scenarios that I am not thinking about, but for the most part, none of the ones I have mentioned apply to you (as in no need to worry). If curious about point a), see http://www.playtool.com/pages/agpcompat/agp.html

Sorry about the extent of this, I was feeling chatty. 😉

Reply 17 of 21, by tomcattech

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie
darry wrote on 2021-06-04, 01:50:
Regarding AGP compatibility, worrying about effective AGP link speed, is for the most part pointless. Everything else being equa […]
Show full quote
tomcattech wrote on 2021-06-04, 01:20:
chrismeyer6 wrote on 2021-06-04, 00:58:

You can use an 8x card in a 4x slot

Agreed, but at the 4x speed downgrade would the purchase be worth it?

That's my concern....

Regarding AGP compatibility, worrying about effective AGP link speed, is for the most part pointless. Everything else being equal, even forcing an AGP 8x capable card to run at 2x is unlikely to significantly affect its performance (except possibly on the last fastest AGP cards to be released, but not with a Geforce 4)

That said there are still 3 (for the most part) important points regarding AGP compatibility.

a) AGP card and AGP port must share a common compatible voltage

b) Certain bus powered (without a dedicated power input) AGP cards will not get get enough power from certain boards with a marginally implented power citcuit

c) Unrelated to a) and b) there exist certain issues of compatibility, especially on motherboards with very early non-Intel AGP implementation . There are also stability issues, which can usually (but not always) be worked out by using specific video card driver and chipset driver combinations or by forcing a lower AGP link speed or by disabling certain AGP features or by a BIOS update (for example, Nvidia drivers for Geforce 6 cards seem to be unstable in Win 9x on 815 based motherboards, but that one has no known fix) . Finally, there are some corner case compatibility issues where specific early revisions of a card or motherboard may not work together (this last one is rather rare).

There are probably other scenarios that I am not thinking about, but for the most part, none of the ones I have mentioned apply to you (as in no need to worry). If curious about point a), see http://www.playtool.com/pages/agpcompat/agp.html

Sorry about the extent of this, I was feeling chatty. 😉

This is actually great info.

So basically what you are saying is that my AGP 2.0 \ 1.5v board (which I think it is) should run the GeForce4 Ti card with no issues (at least expected issues)

Reply 18 of 21, by darry

User metadata
Rank l33t
Rank
l33t
tomcattech wrote on 2021-06-04, 03:14:
darry wrote on 2021-06-04, 01:50:
Regarding AGP compatibility, worrying about effective AGP link speed, is for the most part pointless. Everything else being equa […]
Show full quote
tomcattech wrote on 2021-06-04, 01:20:

Agreed, but at the 4x speed downgrade would the purchase be worth it?

That's my concern....

Regarding AGP compatibility, worrying about effective AGP link speed, is for the most part pointless. Everything else being equal, even forcing an AGP 8x capable card to run at 2x is unlikely to significantly affect its performance (except possibly on the last fastest AGP cards to be released, but not with a Geforce 4)

That said there are still 3 (for the most part) important points regarding AGP compatibility.

a) AGP card and AGP port must share a common compatible voltage

b) Certain bus powered (without a dedicated power input) AGP cards will not get get enough power from certain boards with a marginally implented power citcuit

c) Unrelated to a) and b) there exist certain issues of compatibility, especially on motherboards with very early non-Intel AGP implementation . There are also stability issues, which can usually (but not always) be worked out by using specific video card driver and chipset driver combinations or by forcing a lower AGP link speed or by disabling certain AGP features or by a BIOS update (for example, Nvidia drivers for Geforce 6 cards seem to be unstable in Win 9x on 815 based motherboards, but that one has no known fix) . Finally, there are some corner case compatibility issues where specific early revisions of a card or motherboard may not work together (this last one is rather rare).

There are probably other scenarios that I am not thinking about, but for the most part, none of the ones I have mentioned apply to you (as in no need to worry). If curious about point a), see http://www.playtool.com/pages/agpcompat/agp.html

Sorry about the extent of this, I was feeling chatty. 😉

This is actually great info.

So basically what you are saying is that my AGP 2.0 \ 1.5v board (which I think it is) should run the GeForce4 Ti card with no issues (at least expected issues)

Indeed, it should work fine . Geforce 4 Ti cards support all AGP voltages, so no issues there and it is very likely that a quality board from the likes of Tyan would have no issues with the relatively low current draw of such a card .

Reply 19 of 21, by tomcattech

User metadata
Rank Newbie
Rank
Newbie

I'm looking at these geforce 4 ti 4200 cards. There are 64 and 128 mb versions. Is there a limitation in my motherboard or OS (windows 98 se) that would cause me to select the 64 over the 128 mb version?