VIA C3 on Slot 1 board

Hi

Is it safe to assume that if the motherboard can run a Tualatin with
Tualatin mod then it will run a C3 on a regular slocket?

I'm basing it on the fact that tualatin requires low voltages to operate,
around the same range as the C3.

Anyone that can confirm this?

/Morten

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 14:47:11 +0100, "Morten Lundstrøm"
wrote:

Hi

Is it safe to assume that if the motherboard can run a Tualatin with
Tualatin mod then it will run a C3 on a regular slocket?

I'm basing it on the fact that tualatin requires low voltages to operate,
around the same range as the C3.

Anyone that can confirm this?

/Morten

I thought there were other issues, signal changes and BIOS support
needed though I could be wrong and it would depend on the particular
motherboard. I don't understand why you would want to run a C3 on a
board that can support a Tualatin though, even an underclocked
Tualatin (therefore low-heat) will outperform a C3.


Dave

snip
I thought there were other issues, signal changes and BIOS support
needed though I could be wrong and it would depend on the particular
motherboard. I don't understand why you would want to run a C3 on a
board that can support a Tualatin though, even an underclocked
Tualatin (therefore low-heat) will outperform a C3.

The issue is power consumption, I want it to be very economical concering
electricity.
It's going to sit in a linux server running fileserver/print server, so
processing power isn't much of an issue here.
I know I could base it on a P-200 MMX and get a economical system as well,
but when I can get a processor running 1000 MHz having the same power
consumption as a P-200 MMX I'd rather go for the 1000 MHz :-)

/Morten

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:09:52 +0100, "Morten Lundstrøm"
wrote:

snip
I thought there were other issues, signal changes and BIOS support
needed though I could be wrong and it would depend on the particular
motherboard. I don't understand why you would want to run a C3 on a
board that can support a Tualatin though, even an underclocked
Tualatin (therefore low-heat) will outperform a C3.

The issue is power consumption, I want it to be very economical concering
electricity.
It's going to sit in a linux server running fileserver/print server, so
processing power isn't much of an issue here.
I know I could base it on a P-200 MMX and get a economical system as well,
but when I can get a processor running 1000 MHz having the same power
consumption as a P-200 MMX I'd rather go for the 1000 MHz :-)

/Morten


That's what I was beginning to mention... Take a Tualatin Celeron
1GHz, underclocked to 66MHz FSB, with default voltage (think it's
1.45V?) the wattage would only be 10-15W at full load. Assuming your
OS has ACPI/HALT cooling it's going to mostly be sitting idle
generating under 5W, which is about the same as a C3 except higher
performance. Well, considering the use of the system, it might be
closer to equal, the reduced memory bus speed might help the C3 a
little, but it's going to be relatively close, and the Celeron's much
larger cache won't hurt.

On the other hand, if you have the ability to reduce the Celeron's
voltage, since it'd likely run stable at lower than 1.45V at 667MHz
(given the 1GHz stock part as the example) it could be running even
cooler. There really isn't going to be much difference except that
you know the Tualatin works, and if you needed more performance
someday the Tualatin could be reclocked to stock speed again.


Dave

"Morten Lundstrøm" wrote in message
k...
snip
I thought there were other issues, signal changes and BIOS support
needed though I could be wrong and it would depend on the particular
motherboard. I don't understand why you would want to run a C3 on a
board that can support a Tualatin though, even an underclocked
Tualatin (therefore low-heat) will outperform a C3.

The issue is power consumption, I want it to be very economical concering
electricity.
It's going to sit in a linux server running fileserver/print server, so
processing power isn't much of an issue here.
I know I could base it on a P-200 MMX and get a economical system as well,
but when I can get a processor running 1000 MHz having the same power
consumption as a P-200 MMX I'd rather go for the 1000 MHz :-)

/Morten

A 600 celeron will only use 12.5 watts and less when idle with comparable
performance. C3s are a scam.

Lane

snip
I know I could base it on a P-200 MMX and get a economical system as
well,
but when I can get a processor running 1000 MHz having the same power
consumption as a P-200 MMX I'd rather go for the 1000 MHz :-)

/Morten

A 600 celeron will only use 12.5 watts and less when idle with comparable
performance. C3s are a scam.

Just like AMD's are a scam...

A 1Ghz C3 does not mean 1Ghz performance and neither does a AMD 2500 mean
2.5Ghz performance.

The C3 is good for what it does. The problem is that people should stop
using clock speed to rate the capabilities of a CPU. Unfortunately, nobody
has created a better system of comparison.

snip
That's what I was beginning to mention... Take a Tualatin Celeron
1GHz, underclocked to 66MHz FSB, with default voltage (think it's
1.45V?) the wattage would only be 10-15W at full load. Assuming your
OS has ACPI/HALT cooling it's going to mostly be sitting idle
generating under 5W, which is about the same as a C3 except higher
performance. Well, considering the use of the system, it might be
closer to equal, the reduced memory bus speed might help the C3 a
little, but it's going to be relatively close, and the Celeron's much
larger cache won't hurt.

On the other hand, if you have the ability to reduce the Celeron's
voltage, since it'd likely run stable at lower than 1.45V at 667MHz
(given the 1GHz stock part as the example) it could be running even
cooler. There really isn't going to be much difference except that
you know the Tualatin works, and if you needed more performance
someday the Tualatin could be reclocked to stock speed again.

Ah, I see... Well then I'll probably invest in a 1000 MHz Tualatin celly and
make it run with FSB 66, I'll have to check if my motherboard can go lower
than 1.45, I think it's capable of running 1.35, but won't the processor
just draw more amps or is this locked in some way?

/Morten

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 15:28:23 GMT, kony wrote:

That's what I was beginning to mention... Take a Tualatin Celeron
1GHz, underclocked to 66MHz FSB, with default voltage (think it's
1.45V?) the wattage would only be 10-15W at full load. Assuming your
OS has ACPI/HALT cooling it's going to mostly be sitting idle
generating under 5W, .......

Tualatins IMHO do not respect much about HLT instructions ... :-(

better if he would take one of the coppermines Celly´s on 100Fsb &
downclock them to 66MHz & lower them Vcore to 1,5Vcore & since they
respect well HLT command, use that too! /than also putting a HSF on
+5V would be supersilent too ..

-- Regards, SPAJKY
& visit site - http://www.spajky.vze.com
Celly-III OC-ed,"Tualatin on BX-Slot1-MoBo!"
E-mail AntiSpam: remove ##

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:15:00 +0100, "Morten Lundstrøm"
wrote:

snip

That's what I was beginning to mention... Take a Tualatin Celeron
1GHz, underclocked to 66MHz FSB, with default voltage...

snip

On the other hand, if you have the ability to reduce the Celeron's
voltage, since it'd likely run stable at lower than 1.45V at 667MHz
(given the 1GHz stock part as the example) it could be running even
cooler.

snip

Ah, I see... Well then I'll probably invest in a 1000 MHz Tualatin celly and
make it run with FSB 66, I'll have to check if my motherboard can go lower
than 1.45, I think it's capable of running 1.35, but won't the processor
just draw more amps or is this locked in some way?

/Morten


With a voltge reduction it'll draw fewer amps, which makes the
motherboard run cooler too.


Dave

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:36:51 GMT, "Phrederick"
wrote:

snip
I know I could base it on a P-200 MMX and get a economical system as
well,
but when I can get a processor running 1000 MHz having the same power
consumption as a P-200 MMX I'd rather go for the 1000 MHz :-)

/Morten

A 600 celeron will only use 12.5 watts and less when idle with comparable
performance. C3s are a scam.

Just like AMD's are a scam...

A 1Ghz C3 does not mean 1Ghz performance and neither does a AMD 2500 mean
2.5Ghz performance.

The C3 is good for what it does. The problem is that people should stop
using clock speed to rate the capabilities of a CPU. Unfortunately, nobody
has created a better system of comparison.


It's not a scam because of the naming, it's a scam because it's
marketed as low-heat when any semi-modern CPU can have similar heat
output at same performance level, but aren't so cheaply made that
they're incapable of higher performance at all, as is the case with
the C3.

There is one way a C3 is better, that it allows that low heat with
high memory bus, so it's good for integrated video (with shared
memory). Even then it's only worthwhile for the smallest and quietest
of MPEG playback systems, a C3 is underpowered for high-res MPEG4
though and any normal system can easily cope with the heat output of a
Coppermine or Tualatin and do so quietly.


Dave
Via saw a niche and filled it... CPUs that are cheap to make.