Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to EmachineUpgraders. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Upgrade Motherboard for Intel D845GVSR; Work in progress...
Topic Started: Nov 26 2005, 03:07 PM (530 Views)
stevep
Unregistered

Have been researching motherboard replacements for my limited Intel D845GVSR (No graphics slot, 82562ET LAN, and reason to think that some of the newer processors not supported in my early bios version), and have some preliminary findings for the upgraders.

845 chipsets are getting hard to find, so I had a look at available 865 and 915 models. These may require an OEM copy of windows and, I hope, the 25 digit code off the back of the machine to activate. There is a slim chance of using restore disks with the 865G/P/PE chipsets, since the Intel driver is on my disk2.

First off, socket 478 vs. 775. Currently EM64T 64bit extensions are only available for 775 processors. Otherwise there is no compelling reason to upgrade.

865 chipsets come with both types of socket. They offer AGP8x graphics and dual channel memory at DDR266 to DDR400. FSB can be 400, 533 or 800. SATA drives supported, along with 2 IDE channels.

915 chipsets also come with both types of socket and mostly offer Dual DDR2 and PCIEx16 graphics (except for cheaper OEM versions...), but FSB 400 is not supported, and there is only one IDE channel, so SATA is a must.

So, here's my prospect, based on utilising my existing 400FSB Celeron®, DDR266 memory, 478 cpu cooler, 20pin PSU and hard drives:
http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/specpage.html?ASU-P4P80V
Asustek P4P800-VM (Socket 478, 865G chipset, Intel82562EZ LAN.)

Of course owners of Imperial 845 boards with Realtek LAN may feel this is better for them:
http://www.novatech.co.uk/novatech/specpage.html?MSI-865GM3
MSI MS-7037-010 (Socket 478, 865G Chipset, Realtek 8100C LAN.)

The other thing that may interest you is it seems the Celeron D is about 40% faster than the Celeron®, and is only about 15% slower than the equivalent Pentium. A fast 533FSB Celeron D running with dual channel memory is actually as good as an AMD64 3000 according to a recent test I read in a UK magazine, which included gaming. Now there's a surprise, and another reason to keep the upgrade path open!
Quote Post Goto Top
 
TD25x
Member Avatar
Collector of Rocket Widgets
I've heard that the Asus P4P800-VM kicks ass..
T5224
‡ Intel DG33TLM
‡ Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600
‡ 2 x 1GB Crucial PC6400 DDR2
‡ EVGA GeForce 8800GT 512MB
‡ 1- WD 80GB SATA2 10,000RPM Raptor
‡ 1- WD 1.0TB SATA3 7200RPM
‡ Samsung 22x DVD-RW SH-S222L
‡ Corsair AX750W PSU
‡ Win7 Ult x64
‡ Logitech wireless keyboard & mouse
‡ DELL - UltraSharp 2408WFP 24-inch Flat Panel
‡ Bose Companion 3 speakers
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
geophi
No Avatar
CREW MEMBER
[ *  *  * ]
stevep
Nov 26 2005, 02:07 PM
A fast 533FSB Celeron D running with dual channel memory is actually as good as an AMD64 3000 according to a recent test I read in a UK magazine, which included gaming. Now there's a surprise, and another reason to keep the upgrade path open!

That magazine wouldn't happen to be online would it? Any celeron beating any Athlon64 in gaming would be a complete and utter shocker.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TJSEVEN
Member Avatar
OZ ... The Great and Powerful!!
geophi,Nov 29 2005
09:02 PM
stevep,Nov 26 2005
02:07 PM
A fast 533FSB Celeron D running with dual channel memory is actually as good as an AMD64 3000 according to a recent test I read in a UK magazine, which included gaming.

Please..... you're killing me!
THE BLACK PEARL with a new sail!
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ Toledo Core 2MB L2 cache S939
Overclocked to something or other this week!
ASRock 939Dual-SATA2 MOBO
(3 PCI, 1 PCI-E x1, 1 PCI-E x16, 1 AGP, 1 Future CPU Port, 4 DDR DIMM, Audio, LAN)
4 Gig G.SKILL PC3200 DUAL DDR SDRAM
and other Stuff....!
ZOOM>>>ZOOM>>>

I ALWAYS SAY," IF YOU HAVE TO SPEND MONEY TO OVERCLOCK THEN IT ISN'T REALLY AN OVERCLOCK!!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stevep
Unregistered

The Celeron in question was the fastest one running at about 3.4 GHz. It managed 37 frames per second in some game demo (Heck, I know nothing about games...), the AMD 64 3000 managed about 40, and the latest pentiums and AMD64s managed about 50 frames.
The Celeron beat the AMD in all other benchmarks, and got a surprise recommendation at £77.
The mag is at work, and I will look it out tomorrow and give you the reference. I don't make this stuff up, you know... ;)
Quote Post Goto Top
 
TJSEVEN
Member Avatar
OZ ... The Great and Powerful!!
Celerys suck.... who wrote that review ......Charlie and that hog of his???
Quote:
 
Prince Charlie the Lame," Ain't she a beauty"!
THE BLACK PEARL with a new sail!
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ Toledo Core 2MB L2 cache S939
Overclocked to something or other this week!
ASRock 939Dual-SATA2 MOBO
(3 PCI, 1 PCI-E x1, 1 PCI-E x16, 1 AGP, 1 Future CPU Port, 4 DDR DIMM, Audio, LAN)
4 Gig G.SKILL PC3200 DUAL DDR SDRAM
and other Stuff....!
ZOOM>>>ZOOM>>>

I ALWAYS SAY," IF YOU HAVE TO SPEND MONEY TO OVERCLOCK THEN IT ISN'T REALLY AN OVERCLOCK!!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stevep
Unregistered

Nah, what they concluded, is that Semprons are the ones to avoid, they are about 30% slower than the Celeron D. :D
Quote Post Goto Top
 
geophi
No Avatar
CREW MEMBER
[ *  *  * ]
...deleted odd repeat of previous post...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TJSEVEN
Member Avatar
OZ ... The Great and Powerful!!
The original Semprons are Athlon XPs' with a higher FSB.....anyone that says Semprons suck is an idiot. These are the same people who loved the Athlon XP and now criticize it's faster per ghz twin brother....morons and hypocrites. The newer Semprons are slightly, crippled AMDs .....they learned this trick from Intel and the crippled Celerons derived from Pentium chips.
THE BLACK PEARL with a new sail!
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ Toledo Core 2MB L2 cache S939
Overclocked to something or other this week!
ASRock 939Dual-SATA2 MOBO
(3 PCI, 1 PCI-E x1, 1 PCI-E x16, 1 AGP, 1 Future CPU Port, 4 DDR DIMM, Audio, LAN)
4 Gig G.SKILL PC3200 DUAL DDR SDRAM
and other Stuff....!
ZOOM>>>ZOOM>>>

I ALWAYS SAY," IF YOU HAVE TO SPEND MONEY TO OVERCLOCK THEN IT ISN'T REALLY AN OVERCLOCK!!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
geophi
No Avatar
CREW MEMBER
[ *  *  * ]
While I have no doubt the Celeron D can beat AMD in some non-gaming benchmarks, gaming is no contest, and even the Semprons will beat the Celerons silly in that area.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2395&p=6

Admittedly the Celeron tested there was at 3.06 GHz, but it didn't even come close to the Semprons, let alone the Athlon64s.

BTW, I'm not calling you a liar, just absolutely shocked at those results you quoted that are so out of place with all the benchmarks on the net.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TJSEVEN
Member Avatar
OZ ... The Great and Powerful!!
He's not a liar....he's a CellyFanBoy! ;)
BTW...you really have to use the Celerons to know how bad they are... not look at silly benchmarks.
If you use them it's actually painful! :wacko: :blink:
THE BLACK PEARL with a new sail!
AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ Toledo Core 2MB L2 cache S939
Overclocked to something or other this week!
ASRock 939Dual-SATA2 MOBO
(3 PCI, 1 PCI-E x1, 1 PCI-E x16, 1 AGP, 1 Future CPU Port, 4 DDR DIMM, Audio, LAN)
4 Gig G.SKILL PC3200 DUAL DDR SDRAM
and other Stuff....!
ZOOM>>>ZOOM>>>

I ALWAYS SAY," IF YOU HAVE TO SPEND MONEY TO OVERCLOCK THEN IT ISN'T REALLY AN OVERCLOCK!!"
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
stevep
Unregistered

I am no Intel zealot, and I was surprised myself.
It may be that dual-channel memory at 533FSB allows the Celeron D to really take off with full bandwidth, which it could never do on boards like mine at single channel DDR333 (or in practise, DDR320... it is tricky on Intel chipsets).
It may be the game was optimised for 256KB cache.
The poor showing of the Semprons surprised me too.
Anyway, as I say, will get the article tomorrow and you can pick over it...
Quote Post Goto Top
 
stevep
Unregistered

Here is the website with most of the article:
You go to Focus on...Processors, but only get a few clicks before it asks you to register. Clear your cookies to avoid that nuisance.

http://www.computershopper.co.uk/

Three computers were used, socket 754, 939 and 775. 256MB Graphics Sapphire ATI Radeon X700, 1GB memory, 160GB Maxtor SATA disk.

Some sample results at the low end:

Pentium 530.........£119.......4500 pcmark....47 farcry f.p.s.......Prescott 3.0GHZ
Athlon64 3000+....£107.......3600...............46........................Venice 1.8GHz
Celeron D 346.......£77........3900...............39........................Prescott 3.06GHz
Sempron 3000+.....£62.........3300..............26........................Palermo 1.8GHz

There is no mistake in those benchmarks. Reading the previous issue, if Doom3 had been the game, the Sempron would have got about 45fps, the Athlon64 about 55. The Intel offerings would have stayed about the same. FarCry is "processor intensive" according to the magazine. It is clear that Athlon64 is the choice for gamers. So geophi and TJ, I think everyone is reconciled here, thankyou for your input. :)
Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · INTEL · Next Topic »
Add Reply