Socket 754 motherboards can use PC2100, PC 2700 or PC3200 RAM, so you should be OK. Your performance would suffer dramatically with the slower memory, however.
Non-ECC/unbuffered memory is standard RAM modules. The ECC/buffered modules use an error checking technology, are higher quality, higher latency and higher cost, and are designed for server application where increased data protection is a must. Only the Socket 940 boards for AthlonFX processors require it. Socket 754 for Athlon64 and Socket 939 for Athlon64/AthlonFX can use standard RAM modules.
Catweazle
Grandad
4,335 posts since Mar 2004
Reputation Points: 229
Solved Threads: 149
nForce3 250 is the better chipset - better performance, better stability and compatibility.
That motherboard will use the full 'FSB' capacity of the processor. You have the understanding of it quite wrong. Current A64 processors use a 200MHz fsb setting, and the processor itself does the 'tricky' bits, so long as the motherboard chipset allows it to. It works a different way to previous processors and motherboards - the memory controller is on the processor, not on the motherboard, so the limitiation of FSB isn't really comparable to other technologies.
Hypertransport should NOT be confused with dual-channel (effective 'doubling' of memory speed) or with Hyperthreading (simulation of a dual-processor for Pentium4 chips). Hypertransport is the name used to denote the memory controller technology of A64 processors. It doesn't get 'enabled' to double anything at all - it's there and working to allow processor and RAM to communicate.
NForce3 250 chipset motherboards have the ability to utilise the full capability of A64 processors, allowing the full 16 bits each way at 800MHz that the processor is capable of.
Catweazle
Grandad
4,335 posts since Mar 2004
Reputation Points: 229
Solved Threads: 149
Both those Motherboards will. I said "the full 16 bits at 800MHz each way" . That's two times 800MHz of dataflow, and what does that make when you add it up?
It's still gonna be a 200MHz setting in BIOS, and with only PC2100 memory to install, you're still gonna have a significant performance drop to start with. The thing that will allow you the 'full potential' of the processor will be PC3200 RAM. Like I said, the concept of 'front side bus' is different for AMD64 processors, because the memory controller is on the processor. Better RAM, better processor performance ;)
But an Athlon64 processor coupled with an nForce3 250 chipset motherboard is about the beastliest desktop system there is at present!
Catweazle
Grandad
4,335 posts since Mar 2004
Reputation Points: 229
Solved Threads: 149
Yes, each data fetch will still be 16 bits, as I understand it. The 64 bits refers to the amount of data processed at a time. I could be a tad wrong there, because that's starting to get quite technical in regard to the inrenal architecture of the processor, and I'm no engineer.
But the 1600MHz fsb figure is a 'fiddled about with' value derived from the amount of data processed at a time, the speed its processed at, the amount of data sent in a single operation, and the number of operations performed in each clock cycle of the processor. All to technical to bother about really, just rest assured that the motherboards you mentioned will be capable of utilising the full potential of the processor, and the better your RAM. the better it will work.
And yes, to achieve that '1600MHz' the basic setting is 200MHz. Thats the speed of the memory chips on the RAM module, and the number of fetches, operations and whatnot per clock cyle multiplies it to get bus speed.
The 'core clock multiplier' multiplies the basic speed setting to get the core clockspeed of the processor.
But really, all of that is very much a simplification, because as I said earlier, 'front side bus' isn't applicable to Athlon64 processors in the same way it is with other processors. The architecture is different, the memory controller is on the processor, the data being manipulated isn't as tightly restricted as it is for a system with separate processing and memory controller and the need to travel down a 'bus' and create a potential bottleneck. It's more truly a cpu core/memory interface than a bus as such.
Current Athlon64 processors take that interface up to 800MHz (or 1600 MHZ effective) and the nForce3 250 chipset utilises all of it. Future Athlon64 processors will take that interface even further in terms of speed, and there will be future chipsets to cater to that when it happens.
Catweazle
Grandad
4,335 posts since Mar 2004
Reputation Points: 229
Solved Threads: 149
As I understand it, dual-channel memory configuration is not a feature of Socket 754 Athlon64 motherboards. You'd need to move up to (the more expensive) Socket 939 platform for that.
Socket 754 processors have more cache memory, so there's no real performance drop with them so don't stress about it ;) Check prices would be the best move. Sometimes you can find that 2 x 512Mb modules might be less expensive than a single 1Gb module.
If your game problem is framerate, then the Celeron would be contributing a bit, but hey:
You've been discussing processor and motherboard change. Is that to improve games performance? Processors are only a minor consideration for games. The display card is by far the more important factor. What card have you got? If your display card is weak, no processor/motherboard in the world is gonna fix your gaming ;)
Catweazle
Grandad
4,335 posts since Mar 2004
Reputation Points: 229
Solved Threads: 149
It's PC3200 (400MHz) modules ;)
And if you can detect a performance difference between using 2 x 512Mb modules and using 1 x 1Gb module, then you've a good 'measuring tape' and a mighty fine pair of eyes ;)
Anyway, why are you worrying about tiny little insignificant considerations like that when you have a rather run-of-the-mill display card in your system? In terms of sheer speed, a 9600XT is not really any better than a Gf4Ti4200, (although you can get better image quality out of it) and it's certainly not even up to the standard of the rather cheap GeForce FX5900XT.
If you've a mind to the future, that card isn't gonna cut it, I'm sorry to say. It might be a worthy companion to your Celeron, but it'd be a performance bottleneck for gaming on an Athlon64 system.
Catweazle
Grandad
4,335 posts since Mar 2004
Reputation Points: 229
Solved Threads: 149
I'd consider a 9800 Pro to be a far better value purchase than a 9800XT. You don't get enough extra performance from the XT to justify the extra dollars, and most Pros overclock to XT levels quite easily.
Be wary, though to get a 9800 Pro with "256-bit memory interface'. There are several companies sell '9800 Pros' with a crippled 128-bit memory interface. They only have half the bandwidth, and perform only a tiny bit better than the 9600XT, which makes them a rip-off.
A full-featured 9800 Pro is obtainable quite cheaply nowadays.
ATi Radeon 9xxx cards often have stability issues with AGP 8X, and you might need to set AGP to 4X anyway to get the card to run stable. Disabling AGP fast writes is another thing many people have had to do. AGP 8X doen't improve performance anyway, so it's not a problem to set the interface back a bit.
The new generation cards are much better, although a bit more expensive, and NVidia have regained credibility and the 'crown'.
The 6800 standard is a quite good card, and outperforms a 9800XT quite noticeably. The 6800GT is the current best-value card amongst the high-end options available, and is an extremely good card which outperforms even the ATi X800XT in most situations.
Catweazle
Grandad
4,335 posts since Mar 2004
Reputation Points: 229
Solved Threads: 149
