|
pc
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AMD Athlon 64 (and Pentium)
I was wondering what you all thought about AMD Athlon 64 (probably just a 3000+). I am in the process of upgrading my motherboard/processor and am considering this combo (with ABit AV8 Pro). One of my friends is trying to talk me out of the AMD; he's a Pentium man and doesn't think the AMD is reliable or trustworthy. He says he has friends that have had problems with it. Does anyone have experience with it? Is it reliable? Also, will it cause any problems with software/hardware I currently have? I use Linux but I also use Windows XP Pro (because I'm a World of Warcraft fanatic) and I've got a basic nVidia 5500 FX w/ onboard 256mb memory. (The main RAM is 512mb, soon to be DDR400 1Gb) If anyone has any input on that mess, I would greatly appreciate it. I've been browsing things on the web most of the day and haven't found too much to sway me away from the AMD; just thought I would ask the experts here first. :) Thanks again, jab3
Show quote
Hide quote
"jab3" <jab3@_del_linuxmail._del_org> wrote in message Not saying I'm an expert but I've been using a couple of AMD CPUs (Athlon news:_b2dnZHpBpKZ7dnfRVn-jA@comcast.com... > Hello everyone, > > I was wondering what you all thought about AMD Athlon 64 (probably just a > 3000+). I am in the process of upgrading my motherboard/processor and am > considering this combo (with ABit AV8 Pro). One of my friends is trying > to > talk me out of the AMD; he's a Pentium man and doesn't think the AMD is > reliable or trustworthy. He says he has friends that have had problems > with it. Does anyone have experience with it? Is it reliable? Also, > will > it cause any problems with software/hardware I currently have? I use > Linux > but I also use Windows XP Pro (because I'm a World of Warcraft fanatic) > and > I've got a basic nVidia 5500 FX w/ onboard 256mb memory. (The main RAM is > 512mb, soon to be DDR400 1Gb) > > If anyone has any input on that mess, I would greatly appreciate it. I've > been browsing things on the web most of the day and haven't found too much > to sway me away from the AMD; just thought I would ask the experts here > first. :) > > > Thanks again, > jab3 > MPs) in my home machine for over 3 years now and I've yet to find any compatibility or reliability issues associated with it. I too was a dedicated Intel fan before I moved over to AMD but there's no looking back now (I still have a couple of older Pentium 3 machines as well). Remember it was Intel who came up with the Pentium 90 maths bug - I've yet to hear of a biggie like that from AMD. I think that there's allot of scaremongering against AMD because comparatively they've not been around as long as Intel and some people don't like taking risks with "new" things. Between the P4 desktop CPU/Heater unit and AMD Athlon 64 of similar ratings the Athlon is faster and you'll have the option of upgrading to a 64 bit OS down the track (with all that entails). You'll also get more "bang for the buck" with a sweet-spot AMD CPU (not sure about the lowly 3000+ though). The biggest thing that puts me off the fastest Pentium 4 CPUs is the phenomenal amount of heat they dissipate (which is wasted energy/electricity), the high end AMD CPUs have lower total maximum power consumption (even though they're faster in most cases) and they have something called Cool'n'Quiet which means they can throttle down speed to suit working loads, reducing power consumption and heat production. Paul > If anyone has any input on that mess, I would greatly appreciate it. I've Your friend is full of crap.> been browsing things on the web most of the day and haven't found too much > to sway me away from the AMD; just thought I would ask the experts here > first. :) The only difference the typical user will notice is less money in their pocket if they are using a P4. The AMD 64 is a fine CPU.
Show quote
Hide quote
"Dave Zass" <sendmespam@volleyball.net> wrote in message Couldn't have put it better my self.news:3ajem9F69ati4U1@individual.net... >> If anyone has any input on that mess, I would greatly appreciate it. >> I've >> been browsing things on the web most of the day and haven't found too >> much >> to sway me away from the AMD; just thought I would ask the experts here >> first. :) > > Your friend is full of crap. > > The only difference the typical user will notice is less money in their > pocket if they are using a P4. The AMD 64 is a fine CPU. > -- Derek On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 15:09:38 -0500, jab3 wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > Hello everyone, The Athlon 64s are much better processors then the P4s. They are faster> > I was wondering what you all thought about AMD Athlon 64 (probably just a > 3000+). I am in the process of upgrading my motherboard/processor and am > considering this combo (with ABit AV8 Pro). One of my friends is trying to > talk me out of the AMD; he's a Pentium man and doesn't think the AMD is > reliable or trustworthy. He says he has friends that have had problems > with it. Does anyone have experience with it? Is it reliable? Also, will > it cause any problems with software/hardware I currently have? I use Linux > but I also use Windows XP Pro (because I'm a World of Warcraft fanatic) and > I've got a basic nVidia 5500 FX w/ onboard 256mb memory. (The main RAM is > 512mb, soon to be DDR400 1Gb) > > If anyone has any input on that mess, I would greatly appreciate it. I've > been browsing things on the web most of the day and haven't found too much > to sway me away from the AMD; just thought I would ask the experts here > first. :) > > > Thanks again, > jab3 and considerably less power hungry. I have two A64 systems, a 3400+ laptop and a 3800+ desktop, both running Fedora Core 3. They are completely stable. My recommendation is that you get a 3400+ system (make sure that you get the 1M cache version, it makes a huge difference, my 3400+ is twice as fast as my 3800+ on Verilog simulations even though it has only one memory bus instead of two and a slower clock, the 3800+ has only a 1/2M cache and that cripples it). The 3400+ is a 754 pin part so make sure that you get motherboard that uses the 754 pin socket). On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 08:47:16 -0500, General Schvantzkoph
<schvantzk***@yahoo.com> wrote: >The Athlon 64s are much better processors then the P4s. They are faster Well the 1MB cache is going to be a huge difference on apps>and considerably less power hungry. I have two A64 systems, a 3400+ laptop >and a 3800+ desktop, both running Fedora Core 3. They are completely >stable. My recommendation is that you get a 3400+ system (make sure that >you get the 1M cache version, it makes a huge difference, my 3400+ is >twice as fast as my 3800+ on Verilog simulations even though it has only >one memory bus instead of two and a slower clock, the 3800+ has only a >1/2M cache and that cripples it). The 3400+ is a 754 pin part so make sure >that you get motherboard that uses the 754 pin socket). that need it, but many don't. "Usually" (as-in, most common apps on a PC) moving from 256K to 512K is less than 10% difference, even less from 512K to 1MB. jab3 wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > Hello everyone, I have been an AMD user for some time now, the last Intel I had was the > > I was wondering what you all thought about AMD Athlon 64 (probably > just a 3000+). I am in the process of upgrading my > motherboard/processor and am considering this combo (with ABit AV8 > Pro). One of my friends is trying to talk me out of the AMD; he's a > Pentium man and doesn't think the AMD is reliable or trustworthy. He > says he has friends that have had problems with it. Does anyone have > experience with it? Is it reliable? Also, will it cause any > problems with software/hardware I currently have? I use Linux but I > also use Windows XP Pro (because I'm a World of Warcraft fanatic) and > I've got a basic nVidia 5500 FX w/ onboard 256mb memory. (The main > RAM is 512mb, soon to be DDR400 1Gb) > > If anyone has any input on that mess, I would greatly appreciate it. > I've been browsing things on the web most of the day and haven't > found too much to sway me away from the AMD; just thought I would ask > the experts here first. :) > > > Thanks again, > jab3 Celeron 366. To me, AMD offers the best bang for the buck, and every system I have built with AMD has been very stable. I am currently running the Athlon 64 3500+ Winchester core, on an MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum Nforce3 socket 939 mb. I have it overclocked to 2.55 ghz, and it is running solid as a rock. Runs Prime95 overnight with no errors. Also, I dual boot with Windows XP Pro64 , and it runs well on it also... It would take a pretty large blunder by AMD to get me out of their camp. -- Don Burnette "When you decide something is impossible to do, try to stay out of the way of the man that's doing it." jab3 wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > Hello everyone, Thanks everyone for your answers. I feel better about the AMD now. Of> > I was wondering what you all thought about AMD Athlon 64 (probably just a > 3000+). I am in the process of upgrading my motherboard/processor and am > considering this combo (with ABit AV8 Pro). One of my friends is trying > to talk me out of the AMD; he's a Pentium man and doesn't think the AMD is > reliable or trustworthy. He says he has friends that have had problems > with it. Does anyone have experience with it? Is it reliable? Also, > will > it cause any problems with software/hardware I currently have? I use > Linux but I also use Windows XP Pro (because I'm a World of Warcraft > fanatic) and > I've got a basic nVidia 5500 FX w/ onboard 256mb memory. (The main RAM is > 512mb, soon to be DDR400 1Gb) > > If anyone has any input on that mess, I would greatly appreciate it. I've > been browsing things on the web most of the day and haven't found too much > to sway me away from the AMD; just thought I would ask the experts here > first. :) > > > Thanks again, > jab3 course I thought it would be fine before, just wanted some extra support. Now I'll just figure out which processor I can afford to buy. But I'm looking forward to it either way. -jab3 On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 15:09:38 -0500, jab3
<jab3@_del_linuxmail._del_org> wrote: Show quoteHide quote >Hello everyone, Issues of reliability typically hinge around whether corners> >I was wondering what you all thought about AMD Athlon 64 (probably just a >3000+). I am in the process of upgrading my motherboard/processor and am >considering this combo (with ABit AV8 Pro). One of my friends is trying to >talk me out of the AMD; he's a Pentium man and doesn't think the AMD is >reliable or trustworthy. He says he has friends that have had problems >with it. Does anyone have experience with it? Is it reliable? Also, will >it cause any problems with software/hardware I currently have? I use Linux >but I also use Windows XP Pro (because I'm a World of Warcraft fanatic) and >I've got a basic nVidia 5500 FX w/ onboard 256mb memory. (The main RAM is >512mb, soon to be DDR400 1Gb) > >If anyone has any input on that mess, I would greatly appreciate it. I've >been browsing things on the web most of the day and haven't found too much >to sway me away from the AMD; just thought I would ask the experts here >first. :) > > >Thanks again, >jab3 were cut on motherboard, power supply, etc, NOT which CPU is in the system. Since AMD has lower-end chips with higher performance than Intel's (lower-end) the lowest-end budget self-built systems are often AMD, and hence often more problematic because of the other parts selections. kony wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 15:09:38 -0500, jab3 That makes sense. Hopefully I didn't skimp too much on the other parts. I> <jab3@_del_linuxmail._del_org> wrote: > >>Hello everyone, >> >>I was wondering what you all thought about AMD Athlon 64 (probably just a >>3000+). I am in the process of upgrading my motherboard/processor and am >>considering this combo (with ABit AV8 Pro). One of my friends is trying >>to talk me out of the AMD; he's a Pentium man and doesn't think the AMD is >>reliable or trustworthy. He says he has friends that have had problems >>with it. Does anyone have experience with it? Is it reliable? Also, >>will >>it cause any problems with software/hardware I currently have? I use >>Linux but I also use Windows XP Pro (because I'm a World of Warcraft >>fanatic) and >>I've got a basic nVidia 5500 FX w/ onboard 256mb memory. (The main RAM is >>512mb, soon to be DDR400 1Gb) >> >>If anyone has any input on that mess, I would greatly appreciate it. I've >>been browsing things on the web most of the day and haven't found too much >>to sway me away from the AMD; just thought I would ask the experts here >>first. :) >> >> >>Thanks again, >>jab3 > > Issues of reliability typically hinge around whether corners > were cut on motherboard, power supply, etc, NOT which CPU is > in the system. Since AMD has lower-end chips with higher > performance than Intel's (lower-end) the lowest-end budget > self-built systems are often AMD, and hence often more > problematic because of the other parts selections. bought the ABit AV8 Pro motherboard w/ VIA K8T800 chipset and I've got a Thermaltake 420W psu, but I may have to upgrade that. What do you think? Is 450W too little? And is the motherboard poor? Thanks, jab3 On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 00:58:19 -0500, jab3
<jab3@_del_linuxmail._del_org> wrote: >> Issues of reliability typically hinge around whether corners Abit boards are usually pretty good, can't speak for that>> were cut on motherboard, power supply, etc, NOT which CPU is >> in the system. Since AMD has lower-end chips with higher >> performance than Intel's (lower-end) the lowest-end budget >> self-built systems are often AMD, and hence often more >> problematic because of the other parts selections. > >That makes sense. Hopefully I didn't skimp too much on the other parts. I >bought the ABit AV8 Pro motherboard w/ VIA K8T800 chipset and I've got a >Thermaltake 420W psu, but I may have to upgrade that. What do you think? >Is 450W too little? And is the motherboard poor? one in particular but the odds are in your favor. Thermaltake PSU are a good value, upper median quality. Some are designed to have more 5V/3V amperage than 12V so are better suited for older systems, though I'd imagine they've updated/modernized some models too... i just haven't had any of them to scrutinize, the newest models that is. 420W in a name-brand is sufficient for any typical system. Overclocking and very high-end video card configurations might require more careful selection based on amperage per rail capabilities, and if the Thermaltake is older design with only 18A on 12V rail, it is conceivable for it to be a limit but you'd need a fairly loaded system to cause it... though "loaded" is relative, one of the highest speed P4 is quite a load on 12V these days, but you went AMD so you have a little more breathing room. The PSU is sufficient enough capacity and quality that I"d take a try-it-and-see approach rather than planning replacement at this point. kony wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 00:58:19 -0500, jab3 Well that makes me feel a little better. I think the ThermalTake is> <jab3@_del_linuxmail._del_org> wrote: > > >>> Issues of reliability typically hinge around whether corners >>> were cut on motherboard, power supply, etc, NOT which CPU is >>> in the system. Since AMD has lower-end chips with higher >>> performance than Intel's (lower-end) the lowest-end budget >>> self-built systems are often AMD, and hence often more >>> problematic because of the other parts selections. >> >>That makes sense. Hopefully I didn't skimp too much on the other parts. >>I bought the ABit AV8 Pro motherboard w/ VIA K8T800 chipset and I've got a >>Thermaltake 420W psu, but I may have to upgrade that. What do you think? >>Is 450W too little? And is the motherboard poor? > > > Abit boards are usually pretty good, can't speak for that > one in particular but the odds are in your favor. > > Thermaltake PSU are a good value, upper median quality. > Some are designed to have more 5V/3V amperage than 12V so > are better suited for older systems, though I'd imagine > they've updated/modernized some models too... i just haven't > had any of them to scrutinize, the newest models that is. > > 420W in a name-brand is sufficient for any typical system. > Overclocking and very high-end video card configurations > might require more careful selection based on amperage per > rail capabilities, and if the Thermaltake is older design > with only 18A on 12V rail, it is conceivable for it to be a > limit but you'd need a fairly loaded system to cause it... > though "loaded" is relative, one of the highest speed P4 is > quite a load on 12V these days, but you went AMD so you have > a little more breathing room. The PSU is sufficient enough > capacity and quality that I"d take a try-it-and-see approach > rather than planning replacement at this point. semi-new; it's the Purepower 420W. Though it does only have 18A on the 12V rail. I've got a decently loaded system; Sony DVD-burner; Creative DVD-ROM; Soundblaster (older); 2 Maxtor hard drives (40G, 160G); and an nVidia FX 5500-256MB. I do play World of Warcraft more than I should (that's a recent thing), but that's the only game I play. Also, the new case I bought (ThermalTake Soprano) has 3 fans in it, 2 are 6" I believe. Will that cause a large increase in load on the PSU? Thanks, jab3 On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 20:08:35 -0500, jab3
<jab3@_del_linuxmail._del_org> wrote: Show quoteHide quote >> 420W in a name-brand is sufficient for any typical system. No, besides the moment they're spinning up the fans and>> Overclocking and very high-end video card configurations >> might require more careful selection based on amperage per >> rail capabilities, and if the Thermaltake is older design >> with only 18A on 12V rail, it is conceivable for it to be a >> limit but you'd need a fairly loaded system to cause it... >> though "loaded" is relative, one of the highest speed P4 is >> quite a load on 12V these days, but you went AMD so you have >> a little more breathing room. The PSU is sufficient enough >> capacity and quality that I"d take a try-it-and-see approach >> rather than planning replacement at this point. > >Well that makes me feel a little better. I think the ThermalTake is >semi-new; it's the Purepower 420W. Though it does only have 18A on the 12V >rail. I've got a decently loaded system; Sony DVD-burner; Creative >DVD-ROM; Soundblaster (older); 2 Maxtor hard drives (40G, 160G); and an >nVidia FX 5500-256MB. I do play World of Warcraft more than I should >(that's a recent thing), but that's the only game I play. Also, the new >case I bought (ThermalTake Soprano) has 3 fans in it, 2 are 6" I believe. >Will that cause a large increase in load on the PSU? > >Thanks, >jab3 drives you have aren't a very significant load relative to CPU, motherboard, then video card. I'd expect your PSU to do fine. Abit has a good reputation and I have built 2 systems using their boards
with no problems (though I personally would have gone with the NVidia chipset). The PSU you have appears to be ThermalTake's "Standard" power supply. Adequate for the job, but not top of the line. There are no SATA power connectors (which doesn't mean you can't run SATA drives), and the wires aren't sleeved. The really important part- clean, efficient power is adequate, but....it's nice to have dual +12V rails with the AMD64, especially if you are going to run a power hungry video card. I have a first generation AMD64 (754 pin) motherboard with a 3200+ processor and an ATI 9800 PRO video card. My Antec 430W power supply runs the system fine. Fitz Fitz wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > Abit has a good reputation and I have built 2 systems using their boards I've got the ThermalTake Purepower and it does have SATA power connectors. > with no problems (though I personally would have gone with the NVidia > chipset). > > The PSU you have appears to be ThermalTake's "Standard" power supply. > Adequate for the job, but not top of the line. There are no SATA power > connectors (which doesn't mean you can't run SATA drives), and the wires > aren't sleeved. The really important part- clean, efficient power is > adequate, but....it's nice to have dual +12V rails with the AMD64, > especially if you are going to run a power hungry video card. I have a > first generation AMD64 (754 pin) motherboard with a 3200+ processor and an > ATI 9800 PRO video card. My Antec 430W power supply runs the system fine. > > Fitz I don't think I have a really power-hungry graphics card (since there is no power connector for it) - it's an nVidia FX 5500-256MB. I ended up getting the AMD64 3200+, 939 pin. Do you think the PSU can handle that setup? (I've also got 2 optical drives, 2 hard drives, soundcard - slightly more details in message to Kony) Thanks, jab3 >Do you think the PSU can handle that setup? < I've never used a Themaltake PSU. I've read that AMD64's like 20A on the 12V rail. My Antec 430 W is rated at 26A (The 9800 Pro video card does have it's own 12V plugin). Since I've never used that particular PSU, and I haven't used any supplies with that small an amp rating on an AMD64 (or recent Athlon XP builds), I'll bow out and say I'm not qualified to give you a definitive answer. Fitz On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 17:28:21 -0900, "Fitz"
<akf***@mtaonline.net> wrote: >>Do you think the PSU can handle that setup? < As always we can look at the thermal design power of the CPU> >I've never used a Themaltake PSU. I've read that AMD64's like 20A on the 12V >rail. My Antec 430 W is rated at 26A (The 9800 Pro video card does have >it's own 12V plugin). Since I've never used that particular PSU, and I >haven't used any supplies with that small an amp rating on an AMD64 (or >recent Athlon XP builds), I'll bow out and say I'm not qualified to give you >a definitive answer. and other components and get a sum. Supposing CPU design power is 70W, that's 5.8A of 12V power, plus maybe 93% efficiency of the onboard regulation circuit so 6.3A Typical drive consumes a little less than 500mA of 12V while running, maybe 1.5A at spin-up. CDROM is similar and fans might as well be ignored. A system with video card not using 12V power at all could run fine from a _good_ 12A @ 12V PSU, one rated for sustained output at actual operating temp, that has reserve, peak power sufficient to spin up drives particularly at POST, when system turns on. It's becoming harder and harder to merely look at amperage figures to determine fitness of a PSU for any particular use, even moreso when factors not-so-often-mentioned can make a difference. kony wrote:
> I think you are greatly overestimating the efficiency of the.... snip ... > > As always we can look at the thermal design power of the CPU > and other components and get a sum. Supposing CPU design > power is 70W, that's 5.8A of 12V power, plus maybe 93% > efficiency of the onboard regulation circuit so 6.3A onboard conversion. Just allowing for the 0.7 v. drop of the rectifiers into 3.3 v. show 21% losses, for a max efficiency of 79%. And that is only forward drop, with no switching losses. If the diodes are schottky, with an 0.3v drop, the max efficiency is still no better than 90% and the reverse and transformer/inductor losses still have to be accounted for, also the input switcher losses. -- "If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on "show options" at the top of the article, then click on the "Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 06:28:17 GMT, CBFalconer
<cbfalco***@yahoo.com> wrote: >kony wrote: MOSFET voltage drops can be much lower than 0.7V, under .2V>> >... snip ... >> >> As always we can look at the thermal design power of the CPU >> and other components and get a sum. Supposing CPU design >> power is 70W, that's 5.8A of 12V power, plus maybe 93% >> efficiency of the onboard regulation circuit so 6.3A > >I think you are greatly overestimating the efficiency of the >onboard conversion. Just allowing for the 0.7 v. drop of the >rectifiers into 3.3 v. show 21% losses, for a max efficiency of >79%. IIRC. I did see a figure of 93% "somewhere" but at the moment I can't recall where/what/who/etc... maybe too vague to make assumptions about, I may know more specifics in the future. If I get a chance I'll look into this further, though I don't think it's possible for the max to be as low as 79%. For one thing the parts aren't 'sinked anywhere near well enough to dissipate that much heat on modern systems/CPU, not do that AND stay as (relatively) cool running as they do. >And that is only forward drop, with no switching losses. If I do intend to spend more time on digging up data but for>the diodes are schottky, with an 0.3v drop, the max efficiency is >still no better than 90% and the reverse and transformer/inductor >losses still have to be accounted for, also the input switcher >losses. the moment I"ll concede that I can't (yet) factually support the 93% figure, but that I'm MUCH more confident that over 85% is reasonable, so at 85% that's still only 6.8A total for the aforementioned example CPU. Although the course in electronics is interesting, I have neither the
expertise nor training to interpret a lot of it. My approach is a little more basic....Overkill. A PSU from a reputable manufacturer with a reputation for quality and a good warranty. Enough power to meet any demand I may place on it, and a check of a few reviews to verify the advertised specs are met. Take into consideration noise levels and looks and make a choice. I probably spend more money using this approach than I need to, but so far it's worked. If this was my system, I would opt for a more potent PSU (not necessarily the 420W rating, but specifically the amperage values on the 12V rail...and since dual +12V are available, I'd go that route). Not knowing the OP's budget, I said I didn't know if it was adequate. Personally, I'd replace it. Fitz kony wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > <cbfalco***@yahoo.com> wrote: I'm not quite as dogmatic as I was yesterday. Use of FETs for> >kony wrote: >>> >>... snip ... >>> >>> As always we can look at the thermal design power of the CPU >>> and other components and get a sum. Supposing CPU design >>> power is 70W, that's 5.8A of 12V power, plus maybe 93% >>> efficiency of the onboard regulation circuit so 6.3A >> >> I think you are greatly overestimating the efficiency of the >> onboard conversion. Just allowing for the 0.7 v. drop of the >> rectifiers into 3.3 v. show 21% losses, for a max efficiency of >> 79%. > > MOSFET voltage drops can be much lower than 0.7V, under .2V IIRC. > > I did see a figure of 93% "somewhere" but at the moment I > can't recall where/what/who/etc... maybe too vague to make > assumptions about, I may know more specifics in the future. > > If I get a chance I'll look into this further, though I don't > think it's possible for the max to be as low as 79%. For one > thing the parts aren't 'sinked anywhere near well enough to > dissipate that much heat on modern systems/CPU, not do that > AND stay as (relatively) cool running as they do. > >> And that is only forward drop, with no switching losses. If >> the diodes are schottky, with an 0.3v drop, the max efficiency is >> still no better than 90% and the reverse and transformer/inductor >> losses still have to be accounted for, also the input switcher >> losses. > > I do intend to spend more time on digging up data but for > the moment I"ll concede that I can't (yet) factually support > the 93% figure, but that I'm MUCH more confident that over > 85% is reasonable, so at 85% that's still only 6.8A total > for the aforementioned example CPU. switching into an inductor could avoid most of the diode drop losses, getting down to the 0.2 to 0.3 v. area, possible for dc/dc conversion of a single voltage. This could also allow those drops to apply to the source, rather than the destination, voltage. There is no getting around inductor losses, nor supervision circuitry. -- "If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on "show options" at the top of the article, then click on the "Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 00:58:19 -0500, jab3 <jab3@_del_linuxmail._del_org>
wrote: >That makes sense. Hopefully I didn't skimp too much on the other parts. I I have an Athlon 64 3000 (OC'd a bit ;-)), MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum, 512mb>bought the ABit AV8 Pro motherboard w/ VIA K8T800 chipset and I've got a >Thermaltake 420W psu, but I may have to upgrade that. What do you think? >Is 450W too little? And is the motherboard poor? > > >Thanks, >jab3 Geil Golden Dragon 3500, Radeon 9550 256mb, NEC DVD Burner, floppy, case w/4 fans/lightingFX and a Thermaltake 420 watt PSU. All is well. The PSU has super long leads so make sure you have plenty of wire ties. regards Dud -- Salmon Day: A Day in which you spend the entire day swimming upstream only to get screwed and die in the end. Duddits wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 00:58:19 -0500, jab3 <jab3@_del_linuxmail._del_org> Cool. I have a semi-similar setup. Hopefully the ThermalTake will run like> wrote: > >>That makes sense. Hopefully I didn't skimp too much on the other parts. >>I bought the ABit AV8 Pro motherboard w/ VIA K8T800 chipset and I've got a >>Thermaltake 420W psu, but I may have to upgrade that. What do you think? >>Is 450W too little? And is the motherboard poor? >> >> >>Thanks, >>jab3 > > I have an Athlon 64 3000 (OC'd a bit ;-)), MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum, 512mb > Geil Golden Dragon 3500, Radeon 9550 256mb, NEC DVD Burner, floppy, case > w/4 fans/lightingFX and a Thermaltake 420 watt PSU. All is well. The PSU > has super long leads so make sure you have plenty of wire ties. > > regards > > Dud > a charm. :) -jab3 
Other interesting topics
AMD 1800 to 3000 upgrade
Computer Set Up Question hardware scanning STOP BEING SUCH A PRICK KEN MALTBY Creative Labs Settlement re: 24bit/96Hz Deceptive Marketing quick cooling question Take a look at these cheesy cases Configure MX900 mouse buttons w/o using Logitech bluetooth hub? ps/2 serial adapter I'M trying to install W2k but my bios can't find the harddrive. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
