[SOLVED] Which processor AMD Athlon does I have, based on lshw and dmesg informations...?
Linux - HardwareThis forum is for Hardware issues.
Having trouble installing a piece of hardware? Want to know if that peripheral is compatible with Linux?
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
it has to be a version with Barton core and since we know that the CPU's multiplicator is 11 (1100MHz CPU clock speed / 100MHz FSB clock speed) it can either be an AthlonXP 2500+ (1833MHz/166MHz) or an AthlonXP 3200+ (2200MHz/200MHz).
Since your mainboard doesn't seem to support the models with 200MHz FSB I would go with setting the FSB to 166MHz in the BIOS, this way the CPU will run fine.
Quote:
The reason is: should I buy a quicker one in eBay.. or not necessary?
Even if you find a quicker one, it is not worth to spend any money on that system. The quicker versions that are supported by your machine will not be much quicker, so save your money on that.
AthlonXP with 2.5GHz rating, 1GB of RAM, a fine system for a distro with XFCE or something lighter, I would think.
It might be beneficial to update the bios of your motherboard so that your processor is recognized.
The AthlonXPs have no in-built name or speed string, so even an up-to-date BIOS would not recognize it properly. One of the disadvantages from that time.
The only way to be certain is to look physically on the processor. I also considered that it could be a xp 2500+ or 3200+ but it can also be that the frontside bus multiplier is in his default position. and that the processor actually a higher multiplier can handle.
Distribution: Debian /Jessie/Stretch/Sid, Linux Mint DE
Posts: 5,195
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD
Even if you find a quicker one, it is not worth to spend any money on that system. The quicker versions that are supported by your machine will not be much quicker, so save your money on that.
I have been running Athlon XP for years. Most of them were seriously underclocked in order to reduce power dissipation, cooling requirements and energy consumption. I never noticed the difference with clocking the system right. Conclusion: a faster CPU [alone] does next to nothing for performance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD
AthlonXP with 2.5GHz rating, 1GB of RAM, a fine system for a distro with XFCE or something lighter, I would think.
Not at all. I have one of those Athlon machines left with a decent NVIDIA VGA card. I run Debian Wheezy with kernel 3.0 and KDE 4.6. It doesn't come near to feeling sluggish.
If it weren't for the fan noise I wished I had more of those machines.
with my board I can choose any multiplier I want GA-7VAXP the processor obviously does not like all multipliers but it works for different multipliers.
As stated before, on an unmodified AthlonXP the multiplicator is hardware-locked. No way for your board to change that. But may be you have a modified XP, they could be unlocked with a pencil or silver conductive paint, connectin the right bridges on the CPU.
I have been running Athlon XP for years. Most of them were seriously underclocked in order to reduce power dissipation, cooling requirements and energy consumption.
While overly simplified, theres some truth in that.
Not that the 80 odd watt TDP on even the fastest of athlon XPs is that high compared to the 3GHz+ P4s, and power consumption for the athlon is a lot better than the P4.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlinkels
I never noticed the difference with clocking the system right. Conclusion: a faster CPU [alone] does next to nothing for performance.
Thats a bold conclusion to come to. What was your 'wrong' clock and your 'right' clock?
You might not notice the any difference from X.XGHz and Y.YGHz when you are comparing the same CPU.
I ran a lot of athlon and athlon XP CPUs. There was a big difference between the T'Bird 1200C (1.2GHZ, 133MHz FSB, 256k cache) and the T'bred 2200+ (1.8GHz, 133MHz FSB, 256k cache). Less difference but still pickable was between T'bred 2200+ and Barton 2500+ (1.83GHz, 166MHZ FSB, 512k cache).
*edit- the OP is running 1100MHZ @ 100MHz FSB, there should a big difference in performance compared to 1833MHz @ 166MHz FSB. IMO that is more than enough of a clocking difference that a user should be able to tell the difference in at least some cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlinkels
If it weren't for the fan noise I wished I had more of those machines.
Getting hard to find now but its stil possible to get decent socket 'A' coolers.
Cheap and nasty fix- remove the heatsink (after all this time, the paste would be dead anyway), remove the stock craptacular fan, and replace it with a good 80/92/120mm fan, held on with whatever works. I've used woodscrews, wire and zipties in the past.
It ends up either much cooler, much quieter or both, depending on what fan you use and the stock heatsink.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TobiSGD
As stated before, on an unmodified AthlonXP the multiplicator is hardware-locked. No way for your board to change that.
Nope, the board can change that. Some nForce2 chipset boards unlocked the multi on T'bred and Barton socket 'A' CPUs. Gah, finding a good reliable link to info that old wont be fun.
IIRC some KT400/KT600 chipset boards can also unlock. I cant remember for sure, by the time the KT400 was out I'd decided to avoid VIA for at least a while.
Nope, the board can change that. Some nForce2 chipset boards unlocked the multi on T'bred and Barton socket 'A' CPUs. Gah, finding a good reliable link to info that old wont be fun.
IIRC some KT400/KT600 chipset boards can also unlock.
A link would be fine, I would like to know how the boards unlocked a hardware-locked CPU.
Distribution: Debian /Jessie/Stretch/Sid, Linux Mint DE
Posts: 5,195
Rep:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9
While overly simplified, theres some truth in that.
Not that the 80 odd watt TDP on even the fastest of athlon XPs is that high compared to the 3GHz+ P4s, and power consumption for the athlon is a lot better than the P4.
It is all relative. I have replaced all computers in my home office with 1.6 GHz Athlon N510 in a fanless case. I am still running Debian Squeeze + KDE 4.4 and this is fully acceptable for office work, but not blazing fast. I use LibreOffice, Opera, Chrome, QCAD, Okular, Inkscape etc. I am sure the NVIDIA Ion contributes to the feeling that the machine is not sluggish.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9
Thats a bold conclusion to come to. What was your 'wrong' clock and your 'right' clock?
At that time I was using Athlon 1800+ and 2200+ and I ran them everywhere between 1100MHz/100MHz and full speed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9
You might not notice the any difference from X.XGHz and Y.YGHz when you are comparing the same CPU.
I ran a lot of athlon and athlon XP CPUs. There was a big difference between the T'Bird 1200C (1.2GHZ, 133MHz FSB, 256k cache) and the T'bred 2200+ (1.8GHz, 133MHz FSB, 256k cache). Less difference but still pickable was between T'bred 2200+ and Barton 2500+ (1.83GHz, 166MHZ FSB, 512k cache).
*edit- the OP is running 1100MHZ @ 100MHz FSB, there should a big difference in performance compared to 1833MHz @ 166MHz FSB. IMO that is more than enough of a clocking difference that a user should be able to tell the difference in at least some cases.
I am sure difference is noticable for certain applications. Rendering PDF's in Okular is slower than on other computers. It is also psychological whether or not you accept delay in performance. Highly personal. Knowing that your computer uses 20 Watts does make you more tolerant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cascade9
Getting hard to find now but its stil possible to get decent socket 'A' coolers.
Cheap and nasty fix- remove the heatsink (after all this time, the paste would be dead anyway), remove the stock craptacular fan, and replace it with a good 80/92/120mm fan, held on with whatever works. I've used woodscrews, wire and zipties in the past.
It ends up either much cooler, much quieter or both, depending on what fan you use and the stock heatsink.
I thought I was the only one tie-wrapping 80 mm fans to oversized heatsinks
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.
