wirerogue
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2012
- Messages
- 458
Last edited:
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Intel processors prior to the Core i-series didn't have integrated memory controllers, so it was the chipset that was paired with the processor that determined the RAM. The Socket 423 Pentium 4 processors debuted paired with the Intel 850 chipset, which used RDRAM, but the 845 chipset was later released that used SDRAM and DDR(1). The 850 chipset also supported Socket 478.this the socket with the RD Ram?
Intel processors prior to the Core i-series didn't have integrated memory controllers, so it was the chipset that was paired with the processor that determined the RAM. The Socket 423 Pentium 4 processors debuted paired with the Intel 850 chipset, which used RDRAM, but the 845 chipset was later released that used SDRAM and DDR(1). The 850 chipset also supported Socket 478.
The 850 wasn't the first Intel chipset to use RDRAM either, Intel had previously released some chipsets targeting Socket 370 (the Pentium3) that used RDRAM memory.
socket 423 is somewhat collectible now. mostly because it wasn't around for long.So are 423's now in the collectible/vintage/hard to find category? I still have my dad's old Willamette 1.7 system that I used as a Linux backup for a number of years. It had DDR memory, but was still slower than dirt.
TrailRunner I have an Asus P3C (820 chipset) dual Slot 2 P3 Xeon system with RDRAM in it.
Yeah the 820 camino chipset, that ended up getting up getting killed off as it had some bad flaw in the chipset.
Socket 423....
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.
At that time, I decided to just keep pushing my 440BX way further than it was ever intended to. Ended up running a modded slotket with a Tualatin Celeron at 1600mhz.
Outside of the 300A and some of the Celery's from that era, the bulk of Celery's that came after that were all crap due to having insufficient L2 cache to be competitive with Pentium II/III/IV CPU's even when clocked the same. I had a 1.8GHz Celery that would do 3.0GHz and still couldn't match my Pentium IV 2.4GHz at stock settings in most applications and games.still ouch...I remember having a celeron 533 in a slocket that would OC to 1ghz and it was still terrbile. 440bx was legendary though.
Technically speaking, any computer equipment older than 15 years is considered "retro", which has been kind of the defacto standard by the retro community starting around 2010.So are 423's now in the collectible/vintage/hard to find category? I still have my dad's old Willamette 1.7 system that I used as a Linux backup for a number of years. It had DDR memory, but was still slower than dirt.
TrailRunner I have an Asus P3C (820 chipset) dual Slot 2 P3 Xeon system with RDRAM in it.
Agreed, I do not miss Netburst at all.The Willamette P4...and we thought Bulldozer was bad...
So these are somehow desirable? I do believe a certain chipset from this generation used RDRAM.
It was a garbage architecture throughout the 2000s, and it is a garbage architecture now
Now with retrocomputing as it is, I agree, especially since there are far more Pentium 4 systems available now than even Pentium III systems.yes and maybe, the reason it's kind of more useful now than it was even back then is it's got decent windows 98 support (drivers etc), so if you want to play old games P4s are going to be wayyyyy cheaper than PIII stuff is now... so it doesn't matter if a P4 1.7ghz can't outperform a 1.4GHz PIII since it's going to cost you 1/10th the price now
Sounds about right for a Celeron. I had an 800MHz model that was painfully slow compared to a Pentium III clock-for-clock. I think it was about as fast as a 500-550MHz model. The halved L2 that was only 4-way set associative really killed performance.still ouch...I remember having a celeron 533 in a slocket that would OC to 1ghz and it was still terrbile. 440bx was legendary though.
Sounds about right for a Celeron. I had an 800MHz model that was painfully slow compared to a Pentium III clock-for-clock. I think it was about as fast as a 500-550MHz model. The halved L2 that was only 4-way set associative really killed performance.
You mean the Mendocino models? Those were actually decent up until 333-366MHz where they were more or less dead even with a Pentium II. I have a 433MHz one kicking about somewhere. I'd have to dig to make sure it didn't get lost in the last move.Only good celerons were the dual ones in the Abit BP6, that made up for a lot of their shortcomings. I know I used mine for a long time with windows XP, and it was a quick and snappy system. I had a gig of ECC memory and a SCSI hard drive on it.
You mean the Mendocino models? Those were actually decent up until 333-366MHz where they were more or less dead even with a Pentium II. I have a 433MHz one kicking about somewhere. I'd have to dig to make sure it didn't get lost in the last move.
Maybe it’s me remembering them with rose colored glasses , but I remember the Coppermine Celerons being pretty decent too once you overclocked the shit out of them.