Weekly Subject-06C- Mobos and Cpus

[greengoose1]

Hi All, 06B was hard to read as the pages were to wide and as the the third time is usually the charm we will continue our discussion here.

We have talked quite a bit about this subject already. The mobo is probably the most important part of the computer as everything in a computer is tied into it some how. The last question was about the slots, and the function of the various cards that will be plugged into the slots.

I would think a simple functional operational block diagram of a computer would be even better. Anyone have one?

If the relationships of the components can be fixed in the mind it can help a person understand their computer even more.

------------------
Seek knowledge and all else will follow


Please post back results - Press Ctl D to bookmark

Information

[This message has been edited by greengoose1 (edited 06-21-2001).]

[bistro]

Not a block diagram, but pretty straightforward:

[greengoose1]

That'll help Bistro.

Oops, we still have posting on last thread. I will tag it again.

Looks like there are three DIMM slots for RAM. Do I put in one stick of RAM or jut fill them up and off we go?

------------------
Seek knowledge and all else will follow


Please post back results - Press Ctl D to bookmark

Information

[bistro]

Old mobos with SIMM slots for the RAM often had to have matched pairs. Can put one, two, etc. for most newer mobos--doesn't matter. Note: Pentium 4 mobos take a different memory--RIMMS (Rambus Memory) and MUST be in pairs. Any empty memory slot must be filled with a CRIMM stick (Continuity Module). Can get quite expensive.

[greengoose1]

Jus' wondering. Rambus any relation to Rambo?


Where we are going with this is that when we are finished you will be able to picture in your mind the mobo and what is plugged in or attached to it. And this will help you in troubleshooting, modding, asking questions and the like. How many times have you asked yourself when reading a question on these forums, "I wonder where that is". Now you will know. You could even copy and paste one of these mobos into a file on your computer for reference or print it and make notes on it.

Back to the mobo. That clears up the RAM question. But what is this Primary and Secondary ports for. It looks like sockets Maybe?


------------------
Seek knowledge and all else will follow


Please post back results - Press Ctl D to bookmark

Information

[Nisus]

could someone explain the difference between pc100, pc133, pc150 ram. or what they are
and pc1600 ddr ram

[bistro]

But what is this Primary and Secondary ports for. It looks like sockets Maybe?

Those are IDE "ports" or connectors :Integrated Drive Electronics--referring to hard drives, CD-ROMS, tape, etc. that all have their controllers built-in.
The Primary IDE port is usually where the hard drive(s) are connected. Secondary for CD-ROMs, etc. With the two ports or connectors, one can put in a total of 4 IDE devices. (2 on each cable; a master and a slave). Some mobos that support ATA (Advanced Technology Attachment) hard drives will have a Primary IDE, a Secondary IDE, and two ATA connectors. That'll give you a total of 8 devices max if desired. Others will have an IDE and an ATA (back to just 4 devices max).

[This message has been edited by bistro (edited 06-21-2001).]

[bistro]

Nisus: Kinda jumping the topic there , but in a nutshell, the number is in mhz--refers to the data transfer rate of the RAM--the higher the number, the faster it is able to transfer data.

BUT, you have to make sure your mobo supports that RAM speed--if not, the RAM will only run at the max speed the mobo is capable of. PC133 on a 100mhz mobo will run at only 100mhz. Some mobos by design won't run PERIOD if the wrong RAM is in there. While some mobos will work with a mix, it's best not to mix RAM speeds. Best to match all your RAM modules by speed/manufacturer.
Note I am not referring to size/amount--on most mobos you can have a mixture of size--that is, on a 3x DIMM mobo, you could possibly have a 128mb stick and 2x 64mb sticks, etc. You need to check your mobo's manual as to what combinations it will accept.



[This message has been edited by bistro (edited 06-21-2001).]

[Shinma]

Note that along with IDE (or EIDE or ATA as they are referred to sometimes) are one type of connectors.
Mobos (motherboards) may also make use of SCSI connectors.
SCSI: Small Computer System Interface, pronounced "scuzzy"

------------------
Cheers.

[jtdoom]

Originally posted by bistro:
Old mobos with SIMM slots for the RAM often had to have matched pairs. Can put one, two, etc. for most newer mobos--doesn't matter. Note: Pentium 4 mobos take a different memory--RIMMS (Rambus Memory) and MUST be in pairs. Any empty memory slot must be filled with a CRIMM stick (Continuity Module). Can get quite expensive.

seems to be quite true...
after the initial disaster with rambus, where Intel encountered problems when you wanted fill the third (of three) memory slot, the design for P4 boards changed.
So now you have pairs...

an example
RDRAM Memory Configuration for the INTEL
Intel ® Desktop Board D850GB
from the Technical Product Specification
ftp://download.intel.com/design/moth...b/A2608002.pdf

When installing memory, note the following:
· The four RIMM sockets are grouped into two banks:
¾ Bank 0 (labeled on the board as RIMM1 and RIMM2)
¾ Bank 1 (labeled on the board as RIMM3 and RIMM4)
· Bank 0 must be populated first ensuring that the RDRAM installed in RIMM1 and RIMM2 is
identical in speed, size, and density. For example, the minimum system configuration would
use two 64 MB RIMM modules of PC600 or PC800 RDRAM.
· If the desired memory configuration has been achieved by populating Bank 0, then Bank 1
should be filled with two Continuity RIMMs.
· If memory is to be installed in Bank 1, the RIMM modules installed in RIMM3 and RIMM4
must be identical in size and density to each other, and match the speed of the RIMM modules
in Bank 0. The RIMM modules do not, however, need to match those in Bank 0 in size and
density. For example, if Bank 0 has two 128 MB RIMMs of PC800 RDRAM, Bank 1 would
require PC800 RDRAM also, however, any other supported RIMM modules such as 64 MB or
192 MB could be used.
· If ECC functionality is required, all installed RIMM modules must be ECC-compliant
Table 5 gives examples of RDRAM component density for various RIMM modules. Component
density (counts) can be identified on the RIMM label.


well, I feel I have to AGAIN SAY it
before you purchase, get the TECHNICAL PRODUCT SPECIFICATION
aka the full MANUAL.
you better believe it, but a motherboard maker worth the name will have it ON-LINE for you.
if you cannot find in depth information from the manufactor, and can only get a promotional flyer, I'd steer away.

Of course, you have to look before you find....

GAAD, how I wish Hans Hanssen frequented these boards.
we's gonna need MEMORY expertise soon.

Just remember folks, a P4 is going to be overkill for a GREAT many.
But, not for all.
Processors like the P4 and its counterpart from direct competitor AMD, are getting sold like candy.

Nisus wrote;

could someone explain the difference between pc100, pc133, pc150 ram, or what they are? And pc1600 ddr ram?

Bistro answered

Nisus: Kinda jumping the topic there , but in a nutshell, the number is in mhz--refers to the data transfer rate of the RAM--the higher the number, the faster it is able to transfer data.

well, up to PC133 it was sorta purely about Mhz.
(in the old days it was nano seconds, and nano seconds are still used in memory module specification sheets. For instance, PC133 CL2 had to be faster than standard PC133. iow, it had to reliably work at about 5 nano rather than 8)

a high quality PC133 module "could" be used @ 150. Overclockers are well aware of it.

And then came a new technology.
Reading memory cells on the + and - side of the cycle doubled the apparent bandwith.
When a wider bus is used, you have an even higher bandwith.
Next, you do some real clock doubling, and you get humongous and "meaningless" numbers.

A more honest number is the amount of data that can actually be transferred/second

as I say, I wish Hans were here.

------------------
Isn't There Always "something entirely different" we'll need to reconsider?
Kind regards, Jaak.

[This message has been edited by jtdoom (edited 06-21-2001).]

[bistro]

Oh Lordy, jtdoom Don't tell "them" about overclocking RAM. I can see it now on CNN..."Thousands of computers worldwide melting down onto the Earth's core! Film at eleven...."

[kallikru]

I think RAM will most likely have it's own "topic of the week" thread , since there are quite a few things that can be said on this matter - and how to use the bios-settings with respect to RAM. Stay tuned...

------------------
Karl, Denmark
---------
"..and may The Force be with you too..."

[jtdoom]

I actually saw burnt 30 pin simms


yeh, that long ago...

[greengoose1]

kallikru, Absolutely right. All mobos are similar in fuctions. Therefore, by taking a good look at the Mobos and CPUs, we can then analyze how other components are tied into the Mobo and discuss the interfacing of components. Then we will look at each component by themselves and what their function or job is and how they affect the overall operation. Knowing the hardware and how it works together will give a person a strong basis for trouble shooting when a problem arises.

Think about it. Most of us, to solve a problem, in the beginning, had to spend extra time to figure these things out. But if you you sit back, close your eyes, and picture your computer in your mind, you will probably find that troubleshooting can be done faster because you are learning the "flow". And take your time and be patient in this endeavor and it will pay big dividends in the future.

------------------
Seek knowledge and all else will follow


Please post back results - Press Ctl D to bookmark

Information

[DrMDJ]

Wow! This is certainly turning out to be a confusing set of set of threads. Oh well, might as well contribute to the confusion cause... Since the bulk of the attention seems to be on motherboards, I'm going to be a anti-establishment and talk a bit (and you know what my "bit" means) about CPUs. I'm not sure they gotten the attention the poor little things deserve. I apologize for any redundancy.

As Shinma originally said, the first thing one has to do before selecting a motherboard is settle on what processor they plan to go with. Obviously the processor is one of the (some may argue the key) components that will determine overall performance/throughput. But in selecting a processor one is also effecting the motherboards they can/must select from, as well as future upgradeability. Choosing a cpu might seem to boil down to simply choosing between one made by Intel vs. AMD (there are other options, but they are less mainstream so we'll skip them) and deciding what the speed will be. But there's more to it than that. To begin with, each company offers a range of viable processors for perspective builders. These differ in certain meaningful ways, ways beyond simply their (apparent) speed. Furthermore, when looking at speed it is not necessarily as simple as looking at a megahertz or gigahertz number associated with a processor.

The first thing many people think about when deciding on what CPU to get is speed, what speed to get. Now let's assume for a minute that speed is speed (more on this later). If processors all cost the same or money was no object then one could simply get the fastest processor available at a given time. But they don't cost the same and money usually is a consideration, so a decision has to be made. So how do you decide on a speed? Ya (obviously) have to take a look at what you do, how often you do certain things, and how long you are willing to wait for those things to get done. There are no hard and fast rules to dictate what speed processor one should get once they have a handle on these things. But there are some considerations and guidelines.

The things you do with your PC should be considered first. Depending on what you do (what applications/tasks you perform), cpu speed may be a/the major factor in determining (other things being equal) how fast you can do them, even whether you can do them. Or, it may be much less important. If all you do is (say) surf the internet and some basic word processing you don't need much horsepower at all. Other things being equal you won't see/know the difference whether you get a 400 or a 800 mhz cpu. On the other hand, if you (say) play a lot of current games, processor speed can very much matter. In fact, and games are one good example, in some cases if your cpu is under-powered things won't just take longer, they will be so slow as to effectively make the application unusable. So on one hand you need to make sure you get a processor that has enough speed to run particular applications (effectively). A starting point for this is to take a look at the minimum requirements specified my application manufacturers. But these will only be guideline. Frequently more speed will be needed for an application to run "acceptably". Games are one good example. Frequently the minimum requirements specified are far below what's need for smooth, full speed play. On the other hand, if you only do certain things with your PC then you can save some money by getting a slower processor, and your ability to do them won't be impacted. I would be reluctant to venture a statement about what the minimum processor somebody needs, or should have, today is. It depends on the individual situation.

The other things to consider when sizing your cpu are how often you do certain things, and how long you're willing to wait for certain things to get done. If you only do certain things occasionally, then it might not matter if they take a little longer than they could. In many cases the speed of the processor will not impact whether something can or can't be done, simply how long it will take. You can encode an MP3 or run a graphics transformation with a 200 mhz cpu the same as you can on a 1 gig cpu. It will just be slower. And if you only do certain things occasionally it may not be worth it to spend more on a faster processor for those rare times its extra speed may come in to play. On the other hand, if you do a lot of CAD work... The bottom line here is that when selecting processor speed a lot of the decision can come down to how much you're willing to wait to do certain things with your PC. And that's an individual choice. Some people want everything yesterday, some don't care and would rather spend less.

So, in the base case, people need to consider the above things when deciding what processor speed to get. There are a couple other (general) guidelines I think people should follow as well. For one, get a processor that at least has some "spare" power. In other words, don't just buy a processor that you think can adequately handle your "average load". Get one that at least has some ability to handle heavier than normal demands/loads. How much more is tough to say, there are a number of factors that might impact what a suitable recommendation would be. If the peak load involves (say) gaming, then you may want the "buffer" to be considerably larger than if it involves encoding an MP3 or two. Also, leave room for growth. You may only need a 600 mhz cpu today, but if in 6 months you might be doing things that would be better done on an 800, get the 800. Get a processor you can "live with" for a while.

I realize all of the above is probably obvious to people, but I thought it was still worth saying. I also realize that a lot of people are probably saying "Even if I do come up with a list of things I'll be using my system for (current and future), how the heck to I figure out what speed processor I should get?" That's a case by case thing. Unfortunately I can't offer a simple "add this, this and this, and voila" formula. One option though is to look at what you do and see if you fall in to one of (say) three use categories: light, medium, or heavy. In the light category I'd say are those people who primarily just surf the net, read mail, do viewing or minor editing of graphics, perhaps burn a few CDs, etc. The medium use people would be those who (also) do a fair amount of MP3 encoding, play a few games that are not super intensive (not fast moving, super graphics oriented), do some intermediate level graphics and/or sound editing, do a moderate level of data analysis and/or manipulation, perhaps compile and occasional program, etc. And in the heavy use category would be those people playing the fast action complicated graphics games, doing sophisticated graphics and/or sound editing (more sophisticated transformation and manipulation), doing more sophisticated (or more voluminous) data analysis and manipulation, doing a fair amount of programming that involves larger and/or more numerous compilation and linking, etc. Now these aren't all-inclusive lists of course, but... In any case, I would say the light user probably needs no more than a 700 mhz processor (and comparable system supporting it), The medium user will likely need something in the 700 mhz to 1 ghz range. And the heavy user will likely need a 1 gz and up. Again, these are just my suggestions/guidelines. Still another option one has is to the time-honored rule of thumb that says "get the fastest processor your budget allows". This is often the best and most practical way to select. It may not give you the "perfect" solution, but it will give you the best solution your money can buy (for what you have or are willing to spend).

OK, so now we're set. We're determined what speed processor to get based on analysis or budget. Now it's just a matter of looking at the mhz/ghz numbers, right? This is all we need to know in accessing how well a cpu will perform, right? Wrong!

Today we look at processors and see numbers like 700 mhz or 1.3 ghz. And commonly these are thought of as the measure of a processor's speed. And they are measures, but they aren't the only measures. Or perhaps more appropriately, they aren't the only measures of the ability of a given processor to get work done, to get a particular type of work done. They do not often provide a complete picture of processor capability, or the differences between processors. The mega or gigahertz rating of a processor is a statement of the internal clock speed a cpu runs at. But that's not all there is to speed, speed in certain types of applications, effective throughput. Going in to all the ins and outs or processors would be a long and hairy undertaking. There are plenty of books and web sites devoted to the subject. But it is important to point out here that there are things about particular processors, those produced by Intel vs. AMD, those within a given company's line, that effect their overall throughput and ability to do certain things better or worse. Things like cache size, cache speed, caching algorithms, particular instruction sets a given processor understands, internal optimizations, die size, processor bus speed, bus width, etc, etc. It can get pretty crazy. But the main point is that one may not want to look at just the mhz/ghz rating on a cpu. Sure, in some cases it's fine. If one is, say, only considering a Duron 600 vs. a Duron 900 then the mhz number is appropriately used for comparison as there are no specific distinguishing factors. But if one is trying to decide between, say, a Duron 800 and A Celeron 766... Or if one thinks they will get the same performance from a Duron 800 as from an Athlon 800... So don't just look at mhz/ghz. When choosing a processor look behind/beyond this. For sure look at the clock frequency used by the processor (more on this to follow). This has a tremendous and far reaching impact. Look at the FSB speeds it supports (discussed below). Look at the size of the cache and the speed it runs at. Go to the various hardware/review web sites. They offer a multitude of information on the "architectural" differences between processors, distinguishing features of processors, what things mean, what things are meaningful. And they also offer numerous benchmarks and head to head comparisons and tests. They can be a big help in sorting things out, making a decision.

One more (quick) note on processor speed. It involves dual processors setups. For those who might consider such systems, don't be led to conclude that either the total "effective" mhz/ghz or the total "effective" throughput is the sum of their respective numbers. This is not the case (as I believe Bistro has already pointed out). Two 900 mhz processors don't give you a 1.8 ghz cpu. The processors don't work in combination on the same operation/instructions. And the work is not just simply split between the processors. A few different factors will determine what you actually get, but the point is two does not equal one.

Ok, so what about a processor has further implications? What will effect other (component) choices one makes or can make? Might as well start with bus speed.

A cpu's mhz/ghz number is the product of two things: clock frequency and a multiplier. This frequency is an "external" clocking, which is then taken and multiplied (internally) to give a processor's internal frequency (the mhz number). The motherboard supplies this frequency. So obviously this is one co-dependency between motherboard and cpu. And it isn't one-way. If you plan to use a processor that depends on being supplied a frequency of 100 mhz, you wouldn't consider boards that can't supply this. By the same token, if you have a processor intended to run with a supplied frequency of 66 mhz then you wouldn't be looking at boards that only have settings for 100 mhz and up. And there's a point that's appropriate to note here. Most current processors are what is know as "multiplier locked". What this means is that despite any settings a motherboard may have for setting the cpu multiplier to be used, the cpu ignores these settings and uses a pre-set multiplier. So you can't necessarily take a given cpu and change the multiplier to accommodate a certain bus speed a motherboard offers. Anyway, the idea here is that when selecting a processor one must be aware of the frequency it uses.

Now there is another reason to consider the frequency a cpu uses, alluding back to something said earlier. Take an example… You can get a 1 ghz Athlon that uses a 100 mhz clock speed.. You can also get a 1 ghz Athlon that uses a 133 mhz clock speed. Both are "1 gig" processors internally. But other things being equal, the later Athlon system will get greater throughput/performance. Why? Because the clocking/speeds of many other important buses/components are tied to the clocking speed set for the processor. And these clockings effect the speeds at which information is moved back and forth. The memory, AGP, PCI (and ISA) buses all operate (or can operate) at a speed tied to the proccessor clock frequency. And if data moves to/from these sub-systems (and the components on them) faster overall system throughput will be increased. It is unproductive when a processor has to go idle because it has to wait for data/instructions to process or other subsystems to finish their operations. Therefore, the faster these other subsystems operate...

Time for another interjection, related to bus speed and frequency. Often times ya see terms like FSB (front-side bus) speed and DDR (double data rate) used in relation to processors (though these aren't just used in this connection). Ya might see references to, say, 200 mhz in relation to an Athlon 900 here, and 100 mhz there. It can be confusing, and there are implications in terms of what's meant. In the example given here, the Athlon in question is using an externally supplied (clock) frequency of 100 mhz. Where the 200 mhz and DDR references come in are in terms of the speed at which "communication" takes place over the FSB, the speed of the FSB. The FSB is simply the cpu's interface to the system memory (actually, the Northbridge, which then connects to RAM). DDR refers to a technique where the speed of the FSB is double the clock frequency the processor uses. Now Athlons support DDR. So keeping with the example here, the Athlon can communicate over the FSB at a 200 mhz rate. What does it all mean? Well first, it does not mean this Athlon requires a motherboard that can supply a 200 mhz clock frequency. This Athlon only relies on an externally supplied clock frequency of 100 mhz. So if the reference was to a 200 mhz Athlon, take half that number when thinking about it's clock speed requirements. Second, it means that it can be used on a motherboard that can accommodate DDR sdram, in this particular case PC1600 SDRAM. It doesn't mean it "has" to be used on such a board, simply that it will be able to effectively make use of the memory's capabilities. A board that only supports PC100 memory is not a problem. Neither is a board that supports PC133 memory, or if you use such memory. The cpu won't mind a bit. As long as the motherboard supports memory, and memory is used, that can run at a speed at least as fast as the clock frequency being supplied the cpu then all will be fine.

What else about a processor matters? As others have mentioned, the socket type it uses. The socket is the connection (type) between the cpu and the motherboard. Just like ya can't put a square peg in a round hole, you can't put socket 370 processor in a slot A motherboard. There are a couple "converters" available, but we'll forget those (not the best idea, certainly not for a new system). So if you have your heart set (say) on on a P3 don't plan on using it in an Asus K7V, and visa versa. There a several socket types used/required by the (what I consider) viable processor alternatives. So remember you're gonna have to match the board you choose with the processor's need. And keep in mind potential upgradeability as well. If you figure you'll just get a slot A Athlon 800 today and later upgrade to an Athlon 1.4, which only comes in the socket A type... Oh, and in case one might think the socket/slot type used has performance implications, it doesn't. The connection type is meaningless when comparing a 1.3 ghz socket A processor to a 1.3 ghz socket 423.

I mentioned dual CPUs before. I'll mention them briefly again here even though they are not appropriate/required by most home users. First, both Pentiums and Athlons can be run in dual-cpu configurations. The issue until now has been that only dual-Intel boards were available. The first dual AMD board are now hitting the market. But if considering a dual-cpu setup remember the OS you intend to run must support dual-cpu configurations too, otherwise the second cpu will be unused. So if you are going to be running Win2k, fine. But if you intend to use Win98... Furthermore, even if the OS supports dual-cpus, the applications you will be running must be written to use a dual-cpu environment, otherwise you will see substantially less or no benefit.

Something else to (just) think about when choosing a processor is the voltage it uses. Obviously the motherboard you choose must be able to supply this voltage. But beyond that, remember that higher voltage (and speed for that matter) will often translate in to higher temperatures the processor runs at. And as was talked about in the cooling topic, a hotter processor may have cooling implications. As other people have mentioned, some processors are known to "run hotter". I'm not saying this should be a deciding factor, but something to keep in mind.

Now it may not be a prime (or any) concern to most, but the issue of overclocking as it relates to the cpu is probably worth mentioning. If you are considering it then the processor you choose has implications (and motherboard, but I'm not dealing with those (now)). There are three ways to overclock a cpu: increase the multiplier it uses, increase the clock frequency, or a combination of the two. For some time now most processors have been, as was referred to before, multiplier locked. This means that, by default, their circuitry is such that they run at predetermined multiplier, and any setting made the motherboard is inconsequential. So in the base case this means that if you were planning to get a (say) Athlon 800 and overclock it to a (say) 1 gig by changing it's multiplier to 10, forget it. This is a locked cpu. On the other hand, the more recent Athlon 1.3 ghz processors (or at least most/certain ones) are not multiplier locked. The point is that short taking other steps (to be mentioned below), if you are thinking of overclocking then find out whether your processor is locked. Furthermore, it would also be a good idea to do some research to find out how "overclockable" your prospective processor is. Processors vary in this regard, no matter what overclocking method is used.

Now though a processor may be multiplier locked, most can be unlocked. It's a matter of altering the circuitry. But the contortions that must be gone through to unlock processors varies. Some are easier than others. With some there are things you can purchase to do the unlocking (eg. Gold Finger devices). So another consideration the potential overclocker may want to keep in mind is how easy a given cpu is to overclock.

I'll wrap up (for now) by talking about the consideration of buying a CPU "OEM" or "boxed retail" CPU. This has been talked about some, but... First, an OEM cpu is an authentic cpu, by the manufacturer (say Intel or AMD). It's not that it's a fake. And it's not a "second". Where it differs from the regular retail version is in the fact that it usually carries a vastly shorter warranty (the precise period varies, can be as little as 20 days) and usually comes without a heatsink/fan (has to be bought seperately). Now the tradeoff for these deficiencies can be a substantially lower price. So if one is comfortable with the warranty period, then an OEM cpu offers a way to save some money (or get a faster cpu for the same money). One note of caution though: buy oem cpus from reputable dealers (investigate). A few have been known to play games. Games like selling an overclocked version of a processor as it's unoverclocked equivalent. This is an undesirable thing for you the buyer. It doesn't happen often, but... Another potential benefit related to buying OEM pertains to the potential overclocker. You can get OEM CPUs that are pre-unlocked. They aren't overclocked, but ready to be overclocked. This saves you the need to mess with any circuitry changes yourself.

Well, that's all I have (for now). They say it's always a good idea to leave the crowd wanting more. I don't know who said that, but obviously I didn't listen to it. Anyway, just my thoughts on CPU considerations.


------------------
Bookmark your post to make it easier to find.
And remember, please post back whether the problem is resolved or not.




[This message has been edited by DrMDJ (edited 06-21-2001).]