Wesley's Tool-Box - Reviews

Optimus mini three + iRocks KR-6600

wesley96@gmail.com (Wesley) — Sun, 17 Dec 2006 01:39:53 +0900

The keys to my Mac

I've been using an interesting combo of input devices lately. Namely, Art Lebedev Studio's Optimus mini three keyboard (left) and I-ROCKS' KR-6600 'nano slim' keyboard. The two keyboards are relatively unique in that the mini three is the first keyboard to implement OLED displays for the keys, and that the KR-6600 is probably the smallest 'full set' keyboard you'll find on the market. It's barely bigger than the Half Keyboard I used for my wearable computer back in the old days.
Continue reading "Optimus mini three + iRocks KR-6600"

The $14 MP3 Player disassembled

wesley96@gmail.com (Wesley) — Sat, 05 Nov 2005 19:39:00 +0900

Guts open

(Continuation of "The $14 MP3 Player")

Curious to find out what made this cheap MP3 player tick, I had to take it apart... carefully, of course, because I wanted to keep using it. You unscrew two tiny metal bolts, then have to unhinge the two plastic hooks that stick the top and bottom pieces together. The plastic hooks were a bit hard to get around, since it looked kind of easy to break. I did manage to do it without breaking anything, and the device revealed its innards.
Continue reading "The $14 MP3 Player disassembled"

The $14 MP3 Player

wesley96@gmail.com (Wesley) — Sat, 05 Nov 2005 17:00:15 +0900

Package arrives...

While Apple iPod is dominant in most of the world's portable MP3 player market, there are always some niche products scattered around. One such class is the MP3 players that are very cheap because they lack any on-board storage. They use the flash memory cards you plug in for the storage instead. If you somehow end up with a flash memory card left over doing nothing useful, these MP3 players may attract you, despite common sense telling you it's money wasted. Here's my story.
Continue reading "The $14 MP3 Player"

X501 vs M4300 in size

wesley96@gmail.com (Wesley) — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 00:41:00 +0900

M4300 was the smallest WM2003-based PDA-phone on the market before X501. X501 is even smaller. Let's see how they compare.

Because X501 has a smaller screen, it's immediately noticeable that the device is narrower than M4300.

Continue reading "X501 vs M4300 in size"

CP-X501 visual overview

wesley96@gmail.com (Wesley) — Mon, 22 Aug 2005 00:16:00 +0900

For those of you still waiting for this device to hit the local shops, here are the photos of what final production model CP-X501 looks like.

One side of the box. It looks a lot like an X301 box, except that it's in colour.

Continue reading "CP-X501 visual overview"

Alpha PAL6035 vs Zalman CNPS3100-Gold (4/4)

wesley96@gmail.com (Wesley) — Thu, 11 Jan 2001 04:00:00 +0900

System Configuration

CPU:	AMD Duron 650@945 & AMD Athlon(T-bird) 750@1113
M/B:	Asus A7V (VIA KT133 chipset) - VIA 4-in-1 v4.27 -
Cooling:	PAL6035 & CNPS3100
RAM:	256MB x 1 OCZ PC150 CAS2 SDRAM
Video:	SUMA GeForce2 GTS 32MB - NVIDIA Det. v6.34 -
OS:	Windows 2000 - Version 5.00.2195 SP1, English -
Else:	Motherboard Monitor 5.03, Seventeam ST-301HR PSU

Update: Kyle of HardOCP is concerned that the temperature reading of Alpha you see here looks wrong. I'm quite aware of the situation and I do believe it is related to the A7V's temperature sensor being a bit inaccurate. But the readings have been quite reproduceable in this system, and since this can be seen as relative comparison, you can still validly determine which one is better.
Update 2: I've confirmed that my temperature reading is actually more representative of the truth since I use external temperature sensor attached directly to the core instead of using temperature sensor inside the CPU socket.

The Benchmark

Chart data was assessed by using interval log option of Motherboard Monitor in steps of 30 seconds for one hour of boot time, then entered into Microsoft Excel to produce the actual chart.

First test was done with Duron 650 overclocked to 945MHz. It is easily recognizable that CNPS3100-Gold pulls ahead of PAL6035 by a comfortable 2 degrees in normal mode. This means that, despite the fan's airflow is distributed to the mainboard in general instead of focused on the heatsink itself, CNPS3100 is effectively cooling the hot overclocked Duron with ease. Silent mode operation is another matter, though. Being 11 degrees higher than normal mode, it is unsuitable for overclocking. However, the fan was very quiet, so it can be useful in non-overclocked environments and CPUs that dissipate less heat than AMD chips, such as Intel Celeron.

Another round of tests were performed with 'Thunderbird' Athlon 750 running at notably high 1113MHz. The CNPS3100 again beats PAL6035, this time in a slightly larger margin. Silent mode of CNPS3100 could not be completed and was not listed here because it promptly caused halting of system within 10 minutes due to overheat.

Conclusions

The ambient temperature was closely monitored with thermometers such as this Hydro-Quebec thermometer that's been rolling around since my Canadian days and I've taken care to make sure that the temperature remained constant during testing to prevent measurement errors.

The verdict of this comparison is clear. While both heatsinks provide good cooling, CNPS3100-Gold comes out superior all the time, winning this round of match. Also, looking at the performance delta between CNPS3100 and PAL6035 and then comparing the results from other hardware sites, while the comparance may not be really so linear, we can safely assume that it can take on the all-copper 'hedgehog' cooler or the monstrous GlobalWin FOP38, both of which are currently taking the performance crown, pretty well. Since FOP38's delta fan is notorious for its near-unbearable noise levels, CNPS3100 with its low-noise fans may be a better alternative.

Finally, I end this review-comparison with testimony from 'Schpankme', a regular at MadOnion's forums and chatrooms(where I am working as a moderator) who is probably the first American to get his hands on the CNPS3100. Yes, I've shipped him the product personally because Zalman doesn't have foreign offices/distributors outside Korea. He is seeking to form a distributor of this product in the USA and I'll be attempting to arrange this with him imminently. Anyone who are interested may contact me.

Update 3: I have now set up international order page for this heatsink [HERE]. Those who were thinking of ordering Zalman heatsinks can rest easy now.

WDSoft,

Thought I'd drop you a quick update on my newly acquired FHS unit from Zalman. The quality is awesome, the size is just right and the clip is easy to install and remove, the fan bracket is a very useful idea for any HSF. I however am NOT impressed with the FAN that came with my unit, and wonder if it actually functions properly or is broke! I am plugging up with the 4-pin adapter, yet it barley puts out enough air to even feel it on your hand. I have replaced the fan with Sunon 80mm x 25mm, 12v, .16 amp, 2.0 watt, 4500 RPM, 36 CFM, 32 dBA, 3 pin. This fan is very quiet inside the case, and as you can see by picture attached to this email, it really does a lot for the cooling potential of this setup. The temps listed are for average usage, which consists of email, web-surfing, and Microsoft cards type game play. Load testing was accomplished using Prime95, ran for 24 hours in conjunction with other apps and games; and at NO times did my temps get above 40C. I must say I really enjoy my newly found prize, and I owe a big thanks to you for trusting me enough to order me one. Now your thinking to yourself, ok pank has a more powerful fan blowing substantially more air across the heat sink surface, so naturally it will be some what cooler. Well, yes you could think that, and it would be correct, but I have also disconnected my 2-side 92mm blow holes, and am running with full covers on the case. I also attribute my understanding of how to lap the Heat Sink, as well as applying the proper ratio of COPPER thermal compound before installation of Heat Sink to CPU Core.

Understand, I am in no-way holding you responsible for the units fan performance or the lack thereof. I would like to know if your fan has what I term the same lackluster performance. One last final note, I wasn't able to send you the sanding cloths we spoke of. It seems the store was out of the assorted packs, and just got them in today. I will however be mailing them off first thing Monday morning ad hopefully you will receive them a few days later!

Thank you again for making me aware of this fantastic FHS Gold-3100. I have decided to import these units into the States for sale, could you be of assistance in knowing the quantity and price breaks I could receive.

Blue Skies;

Schpankme Verimuch

Alpha PAL6035 vs Zalman CNPS3100-Gold (3/4)

wesley96@gmail.com (Wesley) — Thu, 11 Jan 2001 03:00:00 +0900

The Contender - Zalman CNPS3100-Gold

CNPS3100-Gold is a socket HSF from South Korea's Zalman Tech Co., Ltd.. This company is relatively unknown to the computing world because it is an upstart; it was founded in 1999 and started marketing their products for only around 10 months, generally limited to Korean markets. Their flagship product is the patented Flower HeatSink(FHS) as shown above. By forming the heatsink in the likes of a 'flower', it is meant to achieve effective cooling without a fast and noisy fan. This is the basis of their product concept, actually. CNPS in the name of the product stands for 'Computer Noise Prevention System'. This heatsink is the part of Zalman's line of products targeted for low-noise computer systems. Other products they market include FHS for video cards, NP(Noise Prevention) PSUs, and NP Hard Disks. They claim that noise-less computer systems can be built once the person uses all of the products Zalman provides in his/her system. Zalman does sell fully configured systems, also.

CNPS3100 is the latest in the product lines of the Zalman HSFs, just released in the December of 2000. You can read its news release here in Korean (English product page is here). Zalman has yet to revamp its site to provide multilingual support, so the English page is my translation of the Korean counterpart. FHS was initially made in aluminium with a few fins, but over time, to increase its cooling performance, the recent models are made in pure copper. Pure copper rusts over time, so the latest FHS included in CNPS3100 is coated in either pure gold or chrome to prevent rust. The model tested here is the more expensive(and good-looking) version, the CNPS3100-Gold. The Gold version costs about US$10 more than the Chrome coated version. The shape of the heatsink, the FHS, should no doubt be an eye-catcher for most of you.

It is without doubt that the shape of the FHS has intrigued a lot of people. Since it is supposed to operate with slow/silent fan or no fan at all while most heatsinks must have fast fans attached, either the company selling it is out of mind or the heatsink must possess cooling performance that is worth (literally) gold. Let's take a look at its key specs:

Specification
Dimensions(mm):	110 x 52 x 65
Mass (grams):	296
Cooling Fan:	Adda 80mm
Fan Speed(rpm):	3000 ~ 1500(Silent)
Fan Power(cfm):	38.6 ~ 20.2(Silent)
Thermal Resistance:	0.28 ~ 0.35(Silent) C/W

The specifications are already impressive. On their rated thermal resistance, it already beats Alpha PAL6035 in any mode. You will have to see the benchmarks to see if this claim can be backed up, but it would actually be a shame if this massive heatsink weighing in at 70% heavier wouldn't perform at least as good as the competitor. Now the thing that many of you are wondering would be in the form of, "where's the 80mm fan that's listed here? How are you going to install that on the contraption?" Read along and that will be answered.

CNPS3100's Packaging

The image on the left is the original package that CNPS3100-Gold comes in. In case you're wondering what those words at the left-top corner are supposed to say, it means, "Powerful... Silent..." Open the box and you see the contents, as shown on the right. You get the instruction booklet(all in Korean just yet), the heatsink itself, and the clip to attach it on(see left of the heatsink). Like PAL6035, it also comes with thermal paste. It comes in an easy-to-use syringe rather than tube, however. At the bottom of the box, you see the fan that was not seen in the initial photo attached to a metal holder with two sets of screws for attaching the holder onto the system case. Just how is all this going to fit into a system? Watch.

CNPS3100 Installation

Installing the FHS part of the CNPS3100-Gold is not unlike installing a normal heatsink. Put the clip into the FHS(it slides into place) and push the right edge of the clip to snap on. You can use a flathead or philips screwdriver to help installing/uninstalling it, for there are holes on the clip to accomodate such things. Now comes the peculiar part you'll never see while installing conventional heatsinks. Cooling fan comes attached on a metal holder, which is in turn installed onto the case. This is obviously because the FHS does not have a place to attach fans on(actually, fans can be installed directly onto FHS with a small adaptor screwed in place, but Zalman has no plans to market the adaptor yet). You attach the holder by unscrewing top three screws holding the expansion cards, putting the holder in, and screwing them back.

You may notice two things of concern here. For one, the fans don't seem to be aligned with the heatsink well. This is not to worry, as the cooling performance is not affected by the location of the fan once it is almost as close to the FHS as shown in the picture. This is mentioned in the instruction booklet and I have moved around the fans closer/farther and confirmed this. In fact, the cooling fan is intended to double as the northbridge chipset fan, so the installation shown in the picture is rather optimal. You can see the northbridge covered in a small green heatsink below the FHS in the left picture. This chip gets very hot during operation and since most mainboards do not actively cool this important chip, CNPS3100's fan setup is well thought up.

Another concern is that the metal holder leaves no room for installing case fans. This is not so much of a trouble because you can simply attach the case fan on the opposite side to provide same case cooling.

The two heatsinks looks fine now, but how do they really perform?

Alpha PAL6035 vs Zalman CNPS3100-Gold (2/4)

wesley96@gmail.com (Wesley) — Thu, 11 Jan 2001 02:00:00 +0900

The Champion - Alpha PAL6035

PAL6035 is a socket HSF from Japan's Alpha Company Ltd.. Alpha has been producing high quality heatsinks with their 'microforging' technology(hence the URL) that enables them to make create heatsinks of efficient shapes since 1989. PAL6035 is one of the top performing heatsinks they offer, second only to PEP66. Here are some key specs of PAL6035:

Specification
Dimensions(mm):	60 x 60 x 35
Mass (grams):	175
Cooling Fan:	Sanyo Denki 60mm
Fan Speed(rpm):	3800
Fan Power(cfm):	20.0
Thermal Resistance:	0.37 C/W

The specifications reveal that the heatsink is quite a competent model, and it has consistently proven to be well-performing throughout various tests performed by hardware sites such as HardOCP or Tom's Hardware. So we can say it is a good 'reference' high-performance HSF.

PAL6035's Packaging

Alpha PAL6035 comes completely unassembled, in part because you assemble the heatsink as you install it on the CPU. In the picture, you see the black-anodized heatsink with Alpha's unique copper-plated bottom. You also see the heatsink cover for effective airflow, as well as the 20cfm Sanyo Denki 60mm fan. This fan is standard part of the PAL6035MUC package that Alpha sells directly. If you get PAL6035 from other places, it may be replaced with different fans. The clip shown here is the old kind, and Alpha has updated the clip for better compatibility with AMD's SocketA CPUs. However, with a bit of bending, the old clip works with SocketA fine. To wrap up the packaging, there is a set of screws for attaching the fan onto the heatsink and Alpha brand thermal grease in a tube.

PAL6035 Installation

Installing Alpha is something of moderate difficulty, but not confusing. First you put the clip into the heatsink, then attach it onto the processor. Depending on how dexterous the person is, you can push the clip down with a finger and snap it into place, or a small flathead driver may be necessary to aide/guide the clip in. That's the hard part. Then you put on the cover and screw on the fan to finish installation to get it look like the picture above. Unlike the picture, you have to plug the fan connector in to get it work, of course.

Now let's take a look at the contender.

Alpha PAL6035 vs Zalman CNPS3100-Gold (1/4)

wesley96@gmail.com (Wesley) — Thu, 11 Jan 2001 01:00:00 +0900

CPUs are Getting Hotter

Heat in computers have always posed problems to a certain degree. Preliminary electronic computers using vacuum tubes such as ENIAC could not run for more than 30 minutes easily due to burnouts of overheating tubes. Mainframe computers usually operated in air-conditioned rooms. Some modern super-computers operate suspended in a case filled with inert liquid coolant.

However, personal computers traditionally had few heat-related problems because the components never ran fast or hot compared to the state-of-the-art technologies that existed at the time. Few, if any, systems with heatsinks on a 286 or 386 chips appeared, for the chips were only warm to the touch during normal operation.

This trend started to change at around the propagation of 486 chips. They were already becoming too hot to touch, and faster versions of 486 started to have heatsink attached on the ceramic package. The Pentium Overdrive processor, shown on the left and plugged into a 486 system, shows such examples of early heatsink coupled CPUs. First Pentium CPUs, the 60MHz and 66MHz versions, were notorious for excessive heat dissipation and was one of the first personal computer CPUs requiring active cooling by motorized fan. Since then, HeatSink-Fan combo(HSF) became standard attachment to CPU.

The problem did not end there, though. Personal computer CPU development was accelerating day by day and introduction of ever-so-powerful CPUs were frequent. Processing power-wise, top-of-the-line CPUs today are comparable to top 100 supercomputers of only 4 to 5 years ago. In consequence, CPU's heat dissipation rate gradually increased. Smaller manufacturing process does help CPU produce less heat, but this does not help much in reducing the heat dissipation of the most powerful processor on the market. This is because the operating frequency is increasing at a faster rate. One of the hottest(literally and figuratively) chip of today, AMD's 'Thunderbird' Athlon can run without any discernible heat if you run it at 66MHz like the aforementioned early Pentiums. But you don't run Athlon at 66MHz in reality; you run it at up to 1.2GHz, almost 20 times of the Pentium speed.

Where does all this lead to? Need for better and better HSFs. Some overclockers go so far as to install thermoelectric modules(a.k.a. Peltiers) or water cooling on the CPU, and a few extremists even attempts to dip the system in liquid nitrogen to obtain ultimate cooling. This cannot be the solution for everyone, though, because installation of such things without good background knowledge and caution can ruin the whole system. Companies like VapoChill offers powerful cooling solution by effectively bringing in a small refrigerator into the computer case. This method may be safer, but this is out of reach for many, because the cost is too high.

And so, in today's article, I have compared two heatsinks deemed to be among the most powerful HSF solutions out there.

VIA Cyrix III 533, 600MHz (4/4)

wesley96@gmail.com (Wesley) — Tue, 26 Sep 2000 04:00:00 +0900

3D Benches

Benchmark		Celeron	Cyrix III
Benchmark		466MHz	533MHz	600MHz
3DMark 2000	Overall (1024x768 16bit)	1234	972	1029
3DMark 2000	CPU Speed	69	50	53
Quake3 Arena v1.11 (fps)	640x480 HQ	35.0	24.0	25.9
	800x600 HQ	23.6	21.6	22.9
	1024x768 HQ	15.0	15.0	16.2

Let's now look at 3D performance. Duron benchmarks are not available because they were not tested with the same video card. As expected, Celeron easily beats Cyrix III again, despite the fact that Celeron being benchmarked was clocked 12% lower. Take a look at Quake 3 Arena's 640x480 results, which are heavily influenced by CPU performance because it is relatively low-bandwidth, and video card chipset's speed or other subsystem is not much of a bottleneck. That's right - since Q3A's not heavily 3DNow! optimized, Cyrix III's weak FPU performance shows through. In case of 1024x768, though, because of the FSB being twice as wide as Celeron, the score gets slightly better, covering the deficiency in raw power.

This just goes on to show that Cyrix III is certainly NOT meant for gaming. If you're planning to build a cheap, but capable gaming system, there's no better choice than Duron, which is only about $30 more expensive and should offer better performance than even Celeron shown here.

Conclusions and Other Comments

The screen above was taken at the boot time when testing Cyrix III 600MHz. You can see Cyrix III's name on the screen here, but I couldn't get this nor get the system to boot at all. Why? Because BIOS was a bit old and couldn't recognize the chip. Thankfully, I was able to get a more recent BIOS supporting Cyrix III and was able to continue the testing. Just a reminder for those of you planning to get a Cyrix III - get the BIOS updated first.

Alrighty.. This review was meant to be a short 2-page review... sigh. But it is not, as you can see... It's a good thing I'm finally on the last page. Now for the conclusion. For people in the business who'd like to get their systems as cheap as possible should get this chip. As an added bonus(?), the employees would be discouraged from playing games at work while not affecting productivity of the usual business applications. For the average users and people who are already enthusiastic of the computer hardware so much that he/she was actually able to visit/read this page should avoid this chip like plague.

Having said that, you'd probably wonder why I would devote twice the amount of pages to show you such a terrible CPU at work. This is because I was so frustrated in reviewing the chip that I wanted to show you everything I thought about it. Pull out the benchmarks and this could've been a rant. Yawn.. I need sleep again. Oh, yeah, don't forget to type away your opinions on the discussion board!

VIA Cyrix III 533, 600MHz (3/4)

wesley96@gmail.com (Wesley) — Tue, 26 Sep 2000 03:00:00 +0900

System Configuration

CPU:	Celeron & Cyrix III
M/B:	MSI MS-6309 (VIA 694x chipset) - VIA 4-in-1 v4.24a -
Cooling:	Standard Intel Heatsink/Fan
RAM:	64MB x 2 Samsung PC-100 CAS3 SDRAM
Video:	MSI MS-8808 (NVIDIA Riva TNT2 m64) - NVIDIA Det. v6.26 -
OS:	Windows 98 - Version 4.10.1998, Korean -
Else:	DirectX 8 beta2 build 146 installed

Synthetic Benches

Benchmark		Celeron	Cyrix III		Duron
Benchmark		466MHz	533MHz	600MHz	650MHz
d.net client	RC5 Long, opt.core (MKeys/s)	1.312	0.650	0.731	2.230
Sandra 2000 7.6.49	Dhrystone (MIPS)	1262	600	667	1855
	Whetstone (MFLOPS)	627	174	199	876
	Multimedia ALU (it/s)	1438 (MMX)	578 (MMX)	650 (MMX)	2150 (MMX)
	Multimedia FPU (it/s)	670 (FPU)	889 (3DNow!)	1001 (3DNow!)	2751 (3DNow!)
	Memory ALU (MB/s)	122	112	115	423
	Memory FPU (MB/s)	135	166	164	531

Duron benchmarks come from earlier article for reference. What do we have here? Cyrix III's performance is not only easily beaten by a Celeron of lower MHz, but it gets run over flat by other 'value' chip, AMD Duron. A Celeron 466 is posting up to twice the speed of a Cyrix III 600. This is certainly not good. If you look at the Whetstone(FPU) benchmark, Cyrix III's FPU is simply jaw-dropping(the other way around). It is somehow overcome with the implementing 3DNow!, as Multimedia FPU benchmark shows much better score. However, this means that unless an FPU-intensive program such as a game supports 3DNow! well, expect incredible slowdowns.

These results were not very far from the expectations, but as you can see, VIA's decisions on choosing MHz over performance is having some serious whiplash. It's just sad that many customers may fall victim to the 'MHz sells' scheme. The impact is vastly more serious when comparing Cyrix III with AMD's Duron. Once upon a time (about 2 years ago) AMD and Cyrix's offerings had relatively similar performance in general. Now, Duron outperforms Cyrix by about three times on average! Despite the fact that both chips are competing in the same market segment, comparing Durons to Cyrix III looks almost wrong.

What if you take the actual selling price to account? Cyrix III is expected to be selling at around $60 for 600MHz version. Since Celeron sells for about $90~100 for the same MHz, price-performance ratio is similar or slightly bad for Cyrix III. This fact is rather fortunate for Cyrix III, because in the area where raw CPU performance doesn't matter much, such as in general business environment, this looks attractive - you get the performance that you only paid for. The local distributor is not dumb, and this is exactly where they'll focus on the sales of the chip.

VIA Cyrix III 533, 600MHz (2/4)

wesley96@gmail.com (Wesley) — Tue, 26 Sep 2000 02:00:00 +0900

It's a Cyrix, Only that IT ISN'T


Front	Back

Quite a few things have been changed to Cyrix since last year and some of them are obvious on the picture above. You can click on the picture for bigger image. First of all, since VIA owns Cyrix now, the company that produces the chip is VIA, and Cyrix is now just the brand of the chip itself. And why is it 'III' when where weren't a 'Cyrix I' or 'Cyrix II' before? It's possibly because the last Cyrix chip was M-II, which is now marketed as 'VIA Cyrix MII'. Also noticeable is the disappearance of the 'PR' speed rating system which followed with Cyrix chips and for a short time, AMD chips. Now Cyrix is 'proudly' showing its true MHz speed. Let's have a look at the chip's features.

Interface:	Intel's Socket 370
FSB:	133MHz or 100MHz
L1 Cache:	128KB
Inst.Sets:	MMX, 3DNow!
Power:	10W Average
Mfg.Process:	0.18 micron
Availablility:	500, 533, 600MHz

As you can see, Cyrix III is to be plugged into Socket 370, so it's trying to compete directly with Intel's Celeron processor. This move from aging Socket7(or Super7) to widespread Socket 370 means that Cyrix III may please many users as an upgrade option. Support for MMX and 3DNow! would provide decent boost in speed where it's supported, but unfortunately, lack of SSE support means it may fall short of newer Celerons with Coppermine core ('Celemine') which support it. Supporting 100MHz or 133MHz FSB is impressive, nevertheless, because Celerons only support 66MHz. The chips reviewed (533MHz, 600MHz) support 133MHz FSB, while the remaining one (500MHz) supports 100MHz FSB.

But do you spot something missing here? If you've seen the features of the chips that came out since 1999, you should know. This processor does NOT have integrated L2 cache. This is a bigger problem than it was back in Socket7 days when chips with integrated L2 cache was generally non-existent (excluding hard-to-produce AMD K6-III); on a Socket7 motherboard, you can find around 256KB to 2MB of L2 cache installed, but on a Socket 370 motherboard, there is no L2 cache installed because it assumes that the installed CPU already has one. With today's CPUs far outrunning memory in terms of speed, having L2 cache to buffer the memory is crucial in boosting performance. The lack of it in Cyrix III is a rather big mistake.

Something's Missing Here...

Actually, the original chip that was to become Cyrix III, codenamed Joshua and in development at Cyrix at the time of VIA's acquisition, DID have integrated L2 cache. This chip still used the PR speed rating system, but if you drop the PR and put it head-to-head with Celeron, it gave Celeron run for its money, MHz for MHz. What happened now? VIA decided to throw away the original Cyrix Joshua core with Centaur(as I've noted last page, also acquired by VIA) WinChip-based core. WinChip's design lacks L2 cache, is known to have unspectacular performance, but does consume less power, as it is evident on the feature list.

The reason behind this 'stupid' decision is that VIA succumbed to the industry-wide belief that 'the MHz sells' - no matter what the actual performance of the chip is, customers regard MHz as the sole rule of speed and buys whatever that has faster MHz. This is sadly true, even though many power users know this is basically wrong. Centaur design yields higher MHz than Cyrix design (you see a 600MHz version for this review, but the original Cyrix design hardly went beyond 400MHz) even though the actual performance suffers. Because MHz yield is better, VIA was able to take off the PR system from the chip.

To wrap up, you can see that what I have here for the review is not really a 'Cyrix' - manufactured by VIA, based on Centaur design, and plugs into an Intel platform. The only thing 'Cyrix' about this chip is the name. Okay. Now that I've bored you enough, I'll move straight to the benchmark!

VIA Cyrix III 533, 600MHz (1/4)

wesley96@gmail.com (Wesley) — Tue, 26 Sep 2000 01:00:00 +0900

Where has Cyrix been?

The CPU industry for IBM compatible (or non-Mac) personal computers was pioneered by, and still dominated by Intel, the creator of modern microprocessors. Many companies have tried to take a bite out of this ever-growing market with varying success. The most prominent competitors were Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) and Cyrix. These two companies gained notable market shares by attacking value-oriented low-end segment of the industry in the last few years.

Even though Intel tried to cut off the competition by suddenly moving to Slot1 design for processors in 1997, AMD and Cyrix improved the Socket7 design thrown away by Intel to come up with 'Super7', which became a viable and cost-effective alternative to Slot1 and the two companies remained competitive. Seeing their little success in the low-end, many companies like Centaur and Rise sprang up to provide their own version of the Super7 processors.

Unfortunately, though, in 1999, nearly all of the competitors to Intel faced collapse due to many factors such as aging of the Super7 platform and problems with ramping up speed or production target. Cyrix and Centaur was eventually bought by Taiwan's VIA Technologies and Rise switched their target market to internet appliances, disappearing from the PC scene. AMD was on the verge of bankruptcy while their K6-III had trouble producing in volume. That's how Cyrix, Centaur, and Rise virtually disappeared. But...

In case of AMD, however, their unusually high devotion to R&D department in the last couple of years had paid off, and their K7 processor, renamed and now known as Athlon, was able to meet or surpass Intel's high-end offering, the Pentium III on both performance and price-competitiveness. Because of this chip and its siblings that followed such as Duron and 'Thunderbird', AMD made a strong comeback and is now viewed as a significant competitor to Intel. This trend is still picking up the pace - the latest additions to this include Intel's 2000 Q3 earnings warning in which many are thinking that AMD's gain in the market share played a significant role.

So what we are now seeing is that the PC industry is enjoying a true 'duopoly' of Intel and AMD, the two companies' combined market share being more than 99%. The two companies have almost the same line-up of ultra high-end to value low-end processors already in mass production or going into production in a few months, thus overlapping each other in every aspect and having fierce competition. All the while the other PC processor companies remained in virtual silence....

Until now.

Finally - Cyrix Makes Comeback

What you see above is a VIA Cyrix III 600MHz processor in a plastic box that goes inside the retail package. The hollow area on the right of the box is where the heatsink/fan goes in. I was shocked to see this handed to me for a review because I've not heard of Cyrix much since it was absorbed by VIA more than a year ago. I did hear about this chip occasionally, but it was constantly being delayed that I thought I would almost forget about it. This product is going to be available on the market almost immediately, so I can pretty much say that Cyrix has finally made a comeback. It is quite evident that, because of all the spotlight being focused at Intel and AMD, Cyrix's re-entry was rather quiet.

Duron: Green vs Blue (2/2)

wesley96@gmail.com (Wesley) — Mon, 25 Sep 2000 02:00:00 +0900

Unlocking... Again


Before...	After!

Yup! These chips are obviously locked. It's the time for the pencil unlocking again. I've posted a how-to page on this some time ago, so the people who are unfamiliar with what I'm saying can go there. I have, however, attempted to take a better picture on how the chip looks before and after the unlocking is done, so you can click on the above images for a bigger one and pay attention to the orange arrow.

Unlocking finished, I have attempted overclocking at various speeds.

CPU:	AMD Duron 650MHz (Both)
M/B:	Asus A7V (KT-133 Chipset)
Cooling:	Alpha PAL6035MUC Fan/Heatsink
RAM:	128MB x 2 Hyundai PC-133 SDRAM
Video:	SUMA GeForce2 GTS 32MB
OS:	Windows 2000 SP1
Else:	Classified ^_^

Speed	Config	Voltage	Green	Blue
650MHz	100 x 6.5	1.50V	Perfect	Perfect
700MHz	100 x 7.0	1.50V	Perfect	Perfect
735MHz	113 x 6.5	1.50V	Good	Perfect
750MHz	100 x 7.5	1.50V	Boot Stop	Good
800MHz	100 x 8.0	1.50V	POST Stop	Boot Stop
800MHz	100 x 8.0	1.70V	Perfect	Perfect
850MHz	100 x 8.5	1.80V	Perfect	Perfect
892MHz	105 x 8.5	1.80V	Boot Stop	Boot Stop
892MHz	105 x 8.5	1.85V	Perfect	Perfect
900MHz	100 x 9.0	1.85V	Good	Perfect
910MHz	107 x 8.5	1.85V	Good	Perfect
927MHz	103 x 9.0	1.85V	Boot Stop	Perfect
945MHz	105 x 9.0	1.85V	POST Stop	Good
950MHz	100 x 9.5	1.85V	POST Stop	Good
963MHz	107 x 9.0	1.85V	No POST	Boot Stop
1000MHz	100 x 10.0	1.85V	No POST	POST Stop

Perfect = No Crashes Whatsoever
Good = Benchmark Crashes and Freezes Occasionally on Normal Use
Boot Stop = Computer Crashes During Boot or Immediately After Boot
POST Stop = Computer Crashes Before POST finishes
No POST = Cannot Boot At All

Blue IS Better

As the table shows, while the GREEN one hit the ceiling at 892MHz, the BLUE one had no problems up to 927MHz. The latter even showed me 1000MHz on the screen... I think I may try a voltage boost some time to get that 1GHz mark. For now, though, I think I'll stay at this point. BLUE chip overclocking 5.4% higher than the GREEN chip at the same condition is not too shabby.

You should note that the GREEN chip showed almost an identical overclockability as the original green Duron shown at the pencil unlocking article, if you click here. In fact, I almost thought the new green Duron was my old dead one.

But this isn't the end of the story - the two green Durons that went through my hands were all made in WEEK 25, while reports of the blue Durons reveal that they are either of WEEK 27, like mine, or WEEK 22. From this, I think the logical explanations for all this could be either...

1. The blue Durons are somehow made in Dresden, defying the current knowledge. The copper interconnects contributed to the better overclockability of the blue type compared to the green type.

2. The blue Durons are from Austin, but on week 27, they had to use a different polish. The better overclockability may be from the better bin-splits that week had.

Some other speculations are possible, of course. What's your take on the issue? How did your 'blue' Durons fare compared to the 'green' Durons? Let me hear it at my new message board! Click below!

P.S. No, I did not post a benchmark comparing the two.... I thought it's pointless to do it... but if many of you want it, maybe I'll post it.

Duron: Green vs Blue (1/2)

wesley96@gmail.com (Wesley) — Mon, 25 Sep 2000 01:00:00 +0900

I had a Crush(?) on Duron

Durons are fragile.. Durons are fragile.. uh..? To confess, I was not being 'nice' to my Duron. Guess what? It died a painful death... yes... I knew those weird sounds were not good..... The Duron you saw in the last article is no more, sadly.

Why am I saying that there? Because that 'incident' had apparently left me with two Durons for a while.

Confused? You see, because that Duron 'failed', I had sent it back for a replacement. Wonderful replacement policy at that shop I bought the chip, I tell you. While I was waiting for the replacement to arrive, I had to run the machine anyways, so I got another Duron. I was back on track. And after a few days, the replacement finally came. I pulled out the Duron from the system...

Duron on Blue


'Green' Duron, Week 25	'Blue' Duron, Week 27

The surface of the two Durons actually differed! The pictures above were not taken at the same time of the day (sorry about that) but you can clearly see the blue tint on the edges of the core on the right chip while the left chip is generally greenish all around. The 'blue' one was the replacement chip, by the way.

The bluish-greenish tint difference is well-known in the Thunderbird chips. The bluish one is the one from Dresden, and thus using the newer 'copper interconnect' process, while the greenish one comes from Austin, using the normal 'aluminium interconnect' process. The process itself does not account for the colour; rather, the two fabrications use the different polishes and the resulting tint gets different.

Trouble is, Durons are known to be manufactured only at Austin, so normally, Durons are 'green'. But with this 'blue' Duron now at my hand, one would have to wonder what's going on. There's a lot of debate on whether it's really coming from Dresden and using copper interconnects or not, but I just decided to put the two to the test.

What test? Overclocking, of course! Since copper interconnects are known to have better yields of high speed grades, it is possible that the 'blue' one would overclock better than the 'green' one.