I'm using the old Corvette/Palomino core in my build. It runs anywhere between 300 to 1600 mhz as a 1200mhz chip. I don't see the need in faster chips as this is plenty fast for any 9x game. Newer games ought to be ran on XP which the Athlon XPs are then quite weak.

This is the chip I'm running:
https://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K7/AMD-Mobile% … M1200AQQ3B.html

Oh and it cost me $5.

Even when knowing stepping and production dates, it's still a silicon lottery. To put it this way, there's nothing so special about the 2800+ that it would induce me to pay more than 10% higher than what I could get "any old" but functioning 2600+ for.

ptr1ck wrote on 2023-03-24, 18:37:

I'm using the old Corvette/Palomino core in my build. It runs anywhere between 300 to 1600 mhz as a 1200mhz chip. I don't see th […]
Show full quote

I'm using the old Corvette/Palomino core in my build. It runs anywhere between 300 to 1600 mhz as a 1200mhz chip. I don't see the need in faster chips as this is plenty fast for any 9x game. Newer games ought to be ran on XP which the Athlon XPs are then quite weak.

This is the chip I'm running:
https://www.cpu-world.com/CPUs/K7/AMD-Mobile% … M1200AQQ3B.html

Oh and it cost me $5.

That's a good point considering that 98SE is going to be my target operating system. I too agree that XP needs a stronger CPU. I'm using AM3 as my platform of choice, there's nothing like seeing Crysis on High at 1600p on a monsterous 1100T. Pic related.

BitWrangler wrote on 2023-03-24, 18:37:

Even when knowing stepping and production dates, it's still a silicon lottery. To put it this way, there's nothing so special about the 2800+ that it would induce me to pay more than 10% higher than what I could get "any old" but functioning 2600+ for.

Ha, what if they're both the same price? I'll probably just go with the 2600+, I can't see there being that much difference either.

It depends on if you want to overclock using the bus speed or not and what the max fsb your motherboard is stable at.

The mobile CPUs are multiplier unlocked so if you are planning on overclocking, it shouldn't matter that much.

If you are just planning on running at stock speed, then get the faster clocked one.

For a point of reference.. on Windows 98Se, a GeForce FX5950U is CPU limited up to around 3.2-3.3Ghz on a Core 2 x6800.

cyclone3d wrote on 2023-03-24, 21:32:

It depends on if you want to overclock using the bus speed or not and what the max fsb your motherboard is stable at.

The mobile CPUs are multiplier unlocked so if you are planning on overclocking, it shouldn't matter that much.

If you are just planning on running at stock speed, then get the faster clocked one.

Yes sir, indeed, I'm running at 166Mhz reference clock and I shall be overclocking, so I will need to utilize the wire trick to unlock higher multipliers. I have a few other unlocked Athlons, mostly Thoroughbreds and Thortons, and one Barton. All fail to satiate my hunger.

cyclone3d wrote on 2023-03-24, 21:32:

For a point of reference.. on Windows 98Se, a GeForce FX5950U is CPU limited up to around 3.2-3.3Ghz on a Core 2 x6800.

Oh wow, but dependent on resolution too? Still that's incredible horsepower. I love the FX line.

The 5950U was with 3DMark 2001 at I think 1280x1024which was the resolution I played games at for years.

cyclone3d wrote on 2023-03-24, 22:44:

The 5950U was with 3DMark 2001 at I think 1280x1024which was the resolution I played games at for years.

Do you know if the bus speed I use will affect the maximum multiplier that will be stable? Another way to ask, would I reach a higher speed if I ran 333 instead of 400? Thanks for your candor.

It just depends on how far you can push the CPU in Mhz.

I would rather have a little less CPU speed over less bus speed.

You will always be giving up one speed for the other unless you have a motherboard and other components that can run really high fsb and you can dial in the max CPU Mhz close to the max fsb the board can handle.

cyclone3d wrote on 2023-03-25, 00:07:

It just depends on how far you can push the CPU in Mhz.

I would rather have a little less CPU speed over less bus speed.

You will always be giving up one speed for the other unless you have a motherboard and other components that can run really high fsb and you can dial in the max CPU Mhz close to the max fsb the board can handle.

My problem is that I have only 2 working socket A motherboards and neither do a 400Mhz bus, and only one of them will take DDR400 asynchronously with a 333Mhz bus. Both boards are VIA chipset and the better one is a KM400 I think.

I've attached a thread which starts on page 2 from where I got the notion that the 2600+ is better. I'm relying on the opinion of the user c627627, who seems to have made credible posts throughout this thread which are backed by the XP-M identified within his signature block.

https://www.overclockers.com/forums/threads/a … n.603465/page-2

There was also different thread, I think it was on this same forum, which listed the steppings of various mobiles and then people submitted their CPUs tested for maximum frequency. There was a whole list of them and they had sections for the 2400, 2500 and 2600 but not the 2800+, and for the life of me I can't find it now, it was a such a useful thread too.

I've got a KT7A running. With a 2800+... The motherboard seems to be limiting me to around 2.2 Ghz
though. I'm guessing the power circuitry can't supply enough amperage to run the CPU faster.

As for asynchronous RAM, you probably won't gain much from running the RAM at a higher speed than the bus speed due to extra wait states having to be there.

I do have some better boards for overclocking socket A, but haven't messed with them at all as I was requiring an ISA slot.