I have several processors I am willing to trade. I am looking for working IDE hard drives for both laptops and desktops. I would like 20GB or larger for the notebook drives and 40GB or larger for the desktop drives.
Intels include (all socket 478): -1.5 GHZ Pentium 4 (desktop) -1.7 GHZ Celeron (desktop) -1.8GHZ Mobile Pentium 4 -2.0GHZ Mobile Pentium 4
The mobile cpus work great in desktop boards, provided they support Intel Speedstep technology, otherwise they default to 1.2GHZ.
I also have a few AMD processors. My best is an Athlon XP 2200+ in the 462 socket (socket A). I also have some Athlon 1200 CPUs in the same socket.
I know I have some reading problems, but I went back and made sure that the highest number I saw was 2.0 GHz (clearly less than 2.8 GHz)...unless we're using a reference point of 3.0 GHz, in which the absolute value of 2.0 is much greater than 2.8.
(I think I broke a couple math rules in that sentence)
_________________ "I'm ur sister, I'm ur sister!!" *shkeekit! shkeekit*
visit my deviantART page for humor and one more step toward insanity.
Oh, and this is what it shows when you click "Learn More". The third column is a little interesting; doesn't change the point, but still good to know. Have fun.
peace
_________________ All I'm here to do is live my life and try to help others on the way.
Post subject: Re: Intel and AMD Processors For Trade
Posted: Fri 04-03-2009 8:06AM
Lieutenant General
Joined: Fri 09-05-2003 10:24AM Posts: 3589 Location: Oklahoma! Where the wind comes sweeping down the p l a i n s !
Source: Fidelity
So, he has Mobile Pentium 4-M's, which aren't the same.
P4-M's use a FC-PGA 478 form factor while P4's use a FC-PGA2 478 Form factor. These are technically compatible (software-wise), but need an adapter in order to be properly implemented physically, and good luck finding a heat sink that can tolerate that kind of height adjustment.
AMDphreak wrote:
...unless we're using a reference point of 3.0 GHz, in which the absolute value of 2.0 is much greater than 2.8
Also, since when is 2.0 greater than 2.8, absolute value or not? And where is 3.0 GHz coming from? Because if you are talking about considering 3.0 GHz as a baseline of comparison as opposed to the traditional and effective 0 Ghz, then you are adding nothing to the discussion and continuing to build your reputation as a troll.
_________________ Ever get that feeling of deja vu?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum