Ok right now I have a celeron 2.2GHz and I want to upgrade to a AMD 64 3200+ I already have the cpu picked out, now I need a motherboard and Ram

This is the motherboard I picked out http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=13-128-241&depa=0

Now what Kind of Ram do I need?
I currently have a stick of 512MB PC2100 can I use that until I get the cash for 512MB x2 PC400?

Also whats Non-ECC memory/unbuffered memory? And Does an AMD 64 require it to run?

13 Years
Discussion Span
Last Post by Catweazle

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.


What chipset should I buy?

Nforce3 250 or VIA K8T800 + VT8237?

and other question

Many high end motherboards say 800mhzFSB I know the AMD 64 can go to 1600MHZ
then some (very few) say 1600mhz FSB
do I need a motherboard with 1600MHZ FSb to get the full speed?

or in reality its only 800mhz but then 1600mhz when u enable hyper transport?
I want to get a motherbaord that allows me to use the full FSB


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.


so with a motherboard that allows 800mhz am I going to lose the other 800mhz of the 1600mhz because the motherboard isnt allowing the cpu to do so?

and the bigger question is will my computer perform alot better with games and burning dvds then my celeron 2.2?

let me just make it easier I was looking at this motherboard http://www.newegg.com/app/viewProductDesc.asp?description=13-180-061&depa=0 will it allow me to use the full potential of the amd 64 3200+?
Im just not understanding what you said sorry.

this is what my pc will look like
AMD 64 3200+
ATI 9600XT 128MB
512MB (soon after 1024 pc400)
350watt PS


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!


you said 16 bits? once windows comes out with a 64-bit version will it be 32bit each way or still 16bit?

and whats gonna be 200mhz in bios? the FSB?


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.


Hmm, I when Im playing Need For Speed Underground online for pc, it says framerate is too low for ranked games. Is that because of my internet connection (DSL)?

Or is it because of my system (2.2Ghz Celeron)?

And should the AMD 64 solve this problem?

BTW thanks for the help,
Im buying a
Soltek mobo with the Nforce 3 250GB chipset
and a AMD 64 3200+

Then is it better to buy dual channel 512 x2 MB PC400
One stick of 1024MB PC 400


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 ;)


I have a 9600XT

So to get 1024Mb I would need 2 PC400 512MB sticks?
Won't that cause lag between the two sticks?


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.


maybe when the current ones go down like the new Nvidia or ATi cards cost $400+ and I dont feel like spending that much for a video card.

Hows a 9800XT, 256MB?

Also right now my 9600XT is only running at 4x because thats what my current mobo allows.

8x should be better.

I just want my games to run smoother then they are now, they tend to slow down and look like they're in slow motion.


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.

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.