Would be best to check bandwidth/latency on those settings... to have an idea what is faster/slower from pseudo-objective point of view.

Yeah there’s definitely something else I need to try. I’ll have a look at some CPU and memory benchmarks

775 - started looking into other tests but not gotten very far. Started doing some tests in Sandra 2001 as it’s the newest version I had to hand that works on win98

In the meantime, I decided to try dual channel at the max overclock using the default 3:2 divider. I’m still on the 5:4 bios but will switch back to the 1:1 bios once I’ve finished my benches with this CPU

With dual channel working fine (but slow) on the 3:2 divider I was able to push 3dmark01se over 21500 points with o/c GPU

Still no e5800. Based on the 1:1 FSB:dram test results so far, It is pretty clear to me now one of those will be faster than this e6700 (not really a surprise is it?) Will be interesting to see how far the e5800 goes at 1:1, for testing at least!

775 - Another CPU in for testing. This time we have an E7500

I could not get it to post this morning. I am still on the 5:4 bios, and I wasn’t sure if it was down to that. but I just needed to remove the CPU, clean the pads and refit.

Et voila!

So this has 1 extra Mb of cache but is quite a bit slower than the E6700, E5800. I don’t expect that cache to make up the difference. But let’s see

Interesting results. E7500 best performing so far in 3dm01se. Forgot to photograph it, but over 22,000 with the GPU overclocked to 425/750. Game 3 (matrix one) in particular sees a big benefit from the extra cache

Edit - I forgot to mention this is with the CPU overlocked to the maximum the board can do - 292 x 11, ~3210MHz. At stock frequency it was still about on the same level as the E6700 clocked at 3.5GHz (292 x 12)

I tried to run aida64 but it crashed. Need to try another version

Wonder how fast an e8600 would be on this board? It will only clock to 2.9GHz, (292x10) but all that cache…

AFAIK, 7.70.7500 is last AIDA64 version that can do x86, while it needs patches it should work on XP.
For Win98 you will need .zip (no installer) one (.exe will not work), if 7.70.7500 won't run maybe try 6.92.6600 ?
Note : ".NET 1.1" might help.

agent_x007 wrote on Yesterday, 20:14:

AFAIK, 7.70.7500 is last AIDA64 version that can do x86, while it needs patches it should work on XP.
For Win98 you will need .zip (no installer) one (.exe will not work), if 7.70.7500 won't run maybe try 6.92.6600 ?
Note : ".NET 1.1" might help.

Thanks for that. The only one I tried so far was the standalone / zip version 7.60.something. It loads and I can view some information, but i get multiple error prompts. After loading again, the computer locked up.

I’ll try the others you mentioned and the dotnet framework. I should have it somewhere

Not had any luck with aida64. Tried multiple versions. Either I get an access violation error (on later versions) or the system locks and I get a blank screen/ screen with coloured lines on it. Tried different ram setups including Down clocking the E7500 to 2.2Ghz. No dice.

Perhaps it’s an indication of the system stability with these 266MHz FSB CPUs…

The only CPU I have with 200MHz FSB is the E4400. Still no E5800. I’m going to have to report the seller

So what have I learned so far then?
E7500 works in version 3.30 of the r2.04 bios
E7500 is as good or better than an E6700 thanks to the Extra 1Mb of cache, despite being 266Mhz (or more) slower

It would be interesting to see how a c2d E6700 or E8600 perform. They would both be slower clocks but have more (or a lot more) cache

I’m going to try some other RAM (which has not arrived yet) I don’t know if this motherboard likes this RAM very much. It’s SPD timings are 3-4-4-8 and even though this is for 266MHz it does not seem that happy running anything tighter than that even down at 200MHz

I know this motherboard is meant to be paired with cl2.5 ddr400, so I’ve purchased some corsair value select ram which should be 2.5-3-3-8 at 200Mhz. I used to have this Ram in my nforce2 based Athlon XP back in ~2005, and even though it was meant to be budget ram, it was still good for 225MHz+ at its stock timings. The sticks I’ve found are 256MB each as well, so hopefully this will give fewer software headaches too