I do believe they fixed that in the Rev 4 boards?
(not that It matters all that much to me, my K7S5A has a 1700+ on it)
-JB
I do believe they fixed that in the Rev 4 boards?
(not that It matters all that much to me, my K7S5A has a 1700+ on it)
-JB
You are correct - and it wasn't a problem on the
early revision boards either. Also - it wasn't
a problem when running SDR, only DDR on fast Tbirds.
Still I thought it worth mentioning as nothing sucks
worse than buying a new mobo and finding all your
files corrupted after a couple of days use. I even
rang my ISP to ask if they were doing weird stuff on
the network because I couldn't get a clean download.
iksteh
> > > The K7S5A will not work stably with non-XP CPUs.
> <snip>
> > I do believe they fixed that in the Rev 4 boards?
> > (not that It matters all that much to me, my K7S5A has a 1700+ on it)
> You are correct - and it wasn't a problem on the
> early revision boards either. Also - it wasn't
> a problem when running SDR, only DDR on fast Tbirds.
> Still I thought it worth mentioning as nothing sucks
> worse than buying a new mobo and finding all your
> files corrupted after a couple of days use. I even
> rang my ISP to ask if they were doing weird stuff on
> the network because I couldn't get a clean download.
Dan
Yeah - I should correct myself...(now that I
went back and read it all again)
The problem existed on rev 4/6 motherboards
and not on 0,1,2 or 3. There is a lot of
information about it at the URL below and yes
it is a "some boards do it and some don't" kind
of problem. Apparently it first showed up as
an inability to burn cds properly.
http://pub65.ezboard.com/fk7s5amotherboardforumfrm10.showMessage?topi...
Reducing the resistance seems to solve the problem
in most boards.
iksteh
It's truly comical that Boswell notices the SSE speed differences between
AMD CPU's yet totally ignores what SSE2 and a P4 do to AMD CPU's....hehe
http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/palomino/
> > When averaging performance out, you have to include _all_ code.. this
> includes
> > things that use SSE, which will be a HELL of a lot faster on a
> Pally/Tbred,
> > and those will push up the average.. helloooooo
> Yup and as I'm getting tired of saying and you not accepting... The 1600XP
> is not on average 10% faster, it's between 2% & 5% faster depending on
> application which on average says about 3.5% faster.
> > "on average the Palomino is 10% faster than Tbird" does NOT mean "The
> Palomino
> > is always 10% faster than Tbird"
> Show me a site anywhere that claims that the Palimino is on average 10%
> faster!
> > > The Tbird doesnt run SSE code as I'm sure your aware, but that still
> doesnt
> > > change the fact that in games that the 1500XP is slower
> > Unless of course the game is SSE optimised...... (or data prefetch
> friendly)
> Perhaps you would be kind enough to name those games where SSE optimizations
> & the prefetch let the Palomino "scream out ahead" of the Tbird!
> > yes, instances exist of the Pally being slower than a Tbird, instances
> also
> > exist of it screaming out ahead... the 10% figure I quoted was a rough
> > average......
> Yes and there are even more instances where it is no more than 2% faster &
> you still havent explained why a 1500Xp is slower than a 1.4tbird, or are
> you just hoping I will forget that AMD's naming convention doesnt seem to
> tally.
> Oh yes & I can *sigh* as well, *sigh*
1) there's more SSE code out there right now than SSE2 code
1a) The Clawhammer will have SSE2 code BTW :)
2) we were talking about the Palomino compared to the Thunderbird (eg, the P4
is totally irrelevent to the discussion)
3) I made a post earlier today in which I stated that the P4 wins if SSE2 code
is used, but the Athlon beats it senseless for pure x87 code
Thankyou and goodday (ya damn troll)
-JB
Yada yada yada....hehe
Isn't that what you said in the previous post?
-JB
Still would be more substance than what you post.....hehe
Now that's just an outright falsehood, and you know it.
-JB
Yeah..ok...hehe