ASUSTeK Adapter Pentium M = > Pentium 4

my guess for the mounting of any sort of cooling is that you still have the normal holes or retentions clips you had on the motherboard you're using. Therefore, with some adjustments, regular mounting methods should work :)
Do I hear a cascade knocking on the door? :slobber:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by saaya

but the adapter is comming quite late, i heard there are 915 pentium m mainboards comming out soon, wich are faster than 865/875 boards with an adapter...

but 8657/875 boards are available for really low prices now, so i think its still worth it since the 915 boards arent significatnyl faster :)

---

Isn't 915 DDRII only?

Interesting. Glad I didn't sell my P4P800 yet. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iddqd

Isn't 915 DDRII only?

---

that's good. At least it isn't DDR only ;)

But why? DDRII so far has terrible latencies, although with decent clocks. Nothing some good TCCD can't achieve, though. But either way, with it's short pipeline, Dothan would benefit from a lower-latency memory, much like AMD chips. That's where DDRII is lacking. True, thera are new DDRII memories that can do 2-2-2 at DDRII533 (133MHz)... but there's also added internal latency due to having a quad-pumped signal translated into double data rate signal... so it's simply not as effecient as plain DDR. IMO, it should be either XDR, or nothing :D.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iddqd

But why? DDRII so far has terrible latencies, although with decent clocks. Nothing some good TCCD can't achieve, though. But either way, with it's short pipeline, Dothan would benefit from a lower-latency memory, much like AMD chips. That's where DDRII is lacking. True, thera are new DDRII memories that can do 2-2-2 at DDRII533 (133MHz)... but there's also added internal latency due to having a quad-pumped signal translated into double data rate signal... so it's simply not as effecient as plain DDR. IMO, it should be either XDR, or nothing :D.

---

At the end of the day, it is bandwidth that counts. Whether it is high latency or low latency. It depends on the memory controller whether it likes high clocks or low latencies..etc..etc..etc

In current Intel desktops, DDR2 rules. If AMD adopted DDR2, no doubt you'll see 10Gb/sec Sandra buffered shots easily.

DDR2 is more suited to those with high FSB's (more than 300mhz FSB) on current desktops as for maximum performance, a 1:1 divider for DDR2 needs to be used. Since Dothans mostly stay below the 200mhz mark, we may not see a substantial gain over normal SO-DIMM DDR.

I have seen somewhere that CAS latencies on a laptop when reduced from 3 to 2 failed to procure any performance gains (was that LegitReviews.com ?)

DDR2 also produce a lot less heat - a more crucial point than performance in a laptop.

probably because cas latency doesnt have more than about 2-5% impact on bandwidth with DDR1 (ddr2 too?).

Old SDRAM boards needed tight cas latency to be quicker (and some original DDR boards), but its TRCD and TRP which are important now.

Yeah... try tunning tRcd=0. Some big performance gainst to be had there :). Dunno about Intels, but my 3200+'s memory controller loved zero tRcd... even at 100MHz, the difference was huge between 2 and 0.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xassius

At the end of the day, it is bandwidth that counts. Whether it is high latency or low latency. It depends on the memory controller whether it likes high clocks or low latencies..etc..etc..etc

In current Intel desktops, DDR2 rules. If AMD adopted DDR2, no doubt you'll see 10Gb/sec Sandra buffered shots easily.

DDR2 is more suited to those with high FSB's (more than 300mhz FSB) on current desktops as for maximum performance, a 1:1 divider for DDR2 needs to be used. Since Dothans mostly stay below the 200mhz mark, we may not see a substantial gain over normal SO-DIMM DDR.

I have seen somewhere that CAS latencies on a laptop when reduced from 3 to 2 failed to procure any performance gains (was that LegitReviews.com ?)

DDR2 also produce a lot less heat - a more crucial point than performance in a laptop.

---

What laptop are you talking about? :banana4: ... And why exactly is high bandwidth important for AMD processors? The transition from single channel to dual channel (almost doubled the bandwidth) resulted in about 3% actual performance gains. You could overclock by !80MHz to get that. Or, just get twice as much cache (ClawHammer vs Winchester :D). The only thing that really affects the performance, when scaling the memory clock, would be decreased latency (in ns, not clocks)... which plays along nicely with AMD64 architecture. I imagine it would be the same way for P6 architecture as well... since the design is pretty similar to AMD64.

yep, NO valid reason to use DDR2 apart from intel trying to push it onto everyone :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by iddqd

Yeah... try tunning tRcd=0. Some big performance gainst to be had there :). Dunno about Intels, but my 3200+'s memory controller loved zero tRcd... even at 100MHz, the difference was huge between 2 and 0.

What laptop are you talking about? :banana4: ... And why exactly is high bandwidth important for AMD processors? The transition from single channel to dual channel (almost doubled the bandwidth) resulted in about 3% actual performance gains. You could overclock by !80MHz to get that. Or, just get twice as much cache (ClawHammer vs Winchester :D). The only thing that really affects the performance, when scaling the memory clock, would be decreased latency (in ns, not clocks)... which plays along nicely with AMD64 architecture. I imagine it would be the same way for P6 architecture as well... since the design is pretty similar to AMD64.

---

I was not talking about theorhetical bandwidth...but actual bandwidth. So AMD processors gained 3% more bandwidth going to dual channel (for example)

they gained more bandwidth than that, it doubled.

The bandwidth isnt holding them back, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

they gained more bandwidth than that, it doubled.

The bandwidth isnt holding them back, though.

---

bandwidth didn't double. Theorhetical bandwidth did "double" but not actual bandwidth.

What I define bandwidth is = how much data throughoutput you can access the memory at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alpha0ne

yep, NO valid reason to use DDR2 apart from intel trying to push it onto everyone :rolleyes:

---

if you want the best memory for intel desktops. DDR2 is the way to go.

nahh... you gotta run them at 3:4 ratio then. then your FSB becomes the bottleneck. I say BH5 at 275mhz is good enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xassius

if you want the best memory for intel desktops. DDR2 is the way to go.

---

YES, but ONLY for the crippled preshat that needs all the help it can get

i mean, lets be honest, what is the preshat good for apart from heating in winter :p:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alpha0ne

YES, but ONLY for the crippled preshat that needs all the help it can get

i mean, lets be honest, what is the preshat good for apart from heating in winter :p:

---

AMD needs DDR2 too. Except it can't be bothered annoying customers with yet ANOTHER CPU socket.

I would go for a cpu with hyperthreading any day over an AMD single core (dual core may change it all). Purely for everyday WORK (not games :p: ) and stuff.

Never use 3:4 divider for DDR2.

Something no one has brought up is speedstep. Desktop motherboards can't work with speedstep and they revert to the lowest multiplier, which would be 6 on these chips since the P-M goes down to 6x100. I guess the 133 models would do 133x6, not sure though.

So this adaptor can disable speedstep in the processor so that it keeps the multiplier? Wish they incorporated this in the motherboards we all use now. Oh well. :(

AMD wont be able to use the high-latency, high-bandwidthe of ddr2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by enzoR

AMD wont be able to use the high-latency, high-bandwidthe of ddr2

---

why can't they use better memory?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xassius

why can't they use better memory?

---

<
coz DDR2 sucks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by the_n00b<:o)

<
coz DDR2 sucks

---

coz DDR2 pWns j00. :p:

I fail to see why DDR2 < DDR. Especially when 9Gb/sec+ sandra buffered shots are fully feasible on an intel system.

we've had 10gb/sec+ using DDR1.

Why?

Because latency decreases due to speed of the CPU (memory controller built in) allows it to access data faster.

Between 754 and 939/940 bandwidth doubled, but useable bandwidth didnt change much because of the efficiency of AMD's setup. DDR2 might bring more increases, but its all going to be latency which is going to take some work.. like DDR2 800 @ 3-2-2-x for a starting point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Foxie3a

Something no one has brought up is speedstep.
Wish they incorporated this in the motherboards we all use now. Oh well. :(

---

Have you ever heard of that little company, called AMD?
They happen to do that with Cool'n'Quiet :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xassius

I was not talking about theorhetical bandwidth...but actual bandwidth. So AMD processors gained 3% more bandwidth going to dual channel (for example)

---

No, not 3% bandwidth. They gained 3% overall performance, though. Bandwidth does not translate into performance on a 1:1 ratio ;). Theoretical bandwidth would be 6.4Gb/s (3.2x2). However, in practice it's around 5.9Gb/s, up from 3.1Gb/s from single channel. It's a huge improvement in terms of bandwidth, but a very meager improvement in terms of performance.

Nice, i hope this adaptor will bring like FSB275 Dothans :)

... and nice threadcrapping about AMD/RAM-stuff, guys :P