Amiga.org
Amiga News and Community Announcements => Amiga News and Community Announcements => Amiga Hardware News => Topic started by: amigamad on August 05, 2004, 05:35:00 PM
-
A BUG IN THE 1GHz Power PC 750GX means that some instructions won't run at that clock frequency.And the work around is that instead people should run the 1GHz chip at 933MHz.
The link is here theinquirer (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=17680)
-
Those PC users should read the doc, a workaround is possible:
Use a code work-around involving the replacing of mcrf or logical CR instructions with code to move the CR to a general purpose register (GPR), perform the move or logical operation within the GPR, and then write the GPR back to the CR.
-
Even without any workaround, a performance loss of 67 MHz clock for a modern RISC processor is in the order of negligable at best and trivial at worst. And with the workaround, you don't even need to change the clock.
But you can bet it will feed many "PPC sucks!" rants from the x86 crowd. :) Myself, I'll probably wait until PPC gets a bug as huge and embarassing as the Pentium float bug before going there.
-
But you can bet it will feed many "PPC sucks!" rants from the x86 crowd. :)
Probably, just point them to the errata pages for x86 chips.
Or tell them about the 3.6GHz P4, thermal throttling (clockspeed reduction) kicks in when it gets to hot, so much in fact that an older 3.4GHz will run faster. It'll only run at full speed with water cooling!
You can also tell them about the recent Opteron bug (don't remember what exactly though).
So, nothing terribly exciting or unique.
What is surprising is the low number of bugs - only 8!
-
Yet another case of a product not working as advertised. . . . The bugs should be fixed, and the defective chips should be recalled and replaced. Period.
-
Whoops.
Though considering that this is the first I've heard of any PPC bug, and reports about flaws with Intel chips have been released consistently for years now, I think the PPC still has the better track record. Not to mention better power consumption and better instruction efficiency per cycle. ;-)
-
@ Matt_H
Not to mention better power consumption and better instruction efficiency per cycle
Did you factor in the "Pentium M"?
Note with Pentium Classic's FPU bug i.e.
1. a workaround was issued (similar to Erratum 8's remedy). This was deemed to be unacceptable in market place due to nature of legacy software’s bias.
2. replace the product with a new product.
-
Probably, just point them to the errata pages for x86 chips.
Note that, Intel has offered to replaced the flawed products i.e. for Pentium Classic(FPU bug) and early Pentium III 1.13Ghz(factory over-clocking).
I don’t recall AMD was guilty of early PentiumIII 1.13Ghz style factory overclocking for their Athlon chips. Their errata ussually involve with instruction bugs in certain batches e.g. Jpeg bug in certain early K7s batches*(pre-year 2000) and Opteron's REP MOVS** instruction(fixed with micro-code*** update)
*AMD has offered to replace them.
**Mainstream compliers don’t use these instruction combinations.
***Standard practise since P6 days.
-
You can also tell them about the recent Opteron bug (don't remember what exactly though).
Note that, down clocking K8s wouldn’t fix the REP MOVS instruction set issues. This micro-coding update also reveals differences between K7 and K8 core.
AMD has issued a micro-code update (via BIOS distribution) for REP MOVS instruction set. The issuing of micro-code updates was a standard practice since P6 days. After applying microcode update; the fix is transparent enough for every day usage (unlike IBM's remedy).
"Such a combination was likely only to occur when people were creating code in assembler, and not when using compilers" paraphrase from AMD.
-
Note that, Intel has offered to replaced the flawed products i.e. for Pentium Classic(FPU bug) and early Pentium III 1.13Ghz(factory over-clocking).
Not the 1GHz Itanium that had to be run at 800MHz for a similar flaw.
-
Not the 1GHz Itanium that had to be run at 800MHz for a similar flaw.
Note the 'Itanium 2 Processor Replacement' program (e.g. HP).
In Oz, it would be illegal to claim a product can do 1Ghz then say it can’t do 1Ghz and then offer 800Mhz workaround remedy. Breach of Trades Practise Act (TPA) Section 52 and 53.
PS; The new topic is about PPC not other processors.
-
Or tell them about the 3.6GHz P4, thermal throttling (clockspeed reduction) kicks in when it gets to hot, so much in fact that an older 3.4GHz will run faster. It'll only run at full speed with water cooling!
PIV on the desktop works fine at 3.6Ghz; but with appropriate ventilation (as dictated by Intel’s thermal requirements). There's no need for water cooling. Refer to Alienware's Area-51 Extreme PC as an example of doing it right.
Some vendors don’t follow Intel’s guidelines, thus the activation of the safety feature.
Note that Intel’s early PentiumIII 1.13Ghz with PIV-EE’s level of cooling wouldn’t fix the problem.
-
Irrespective of any x86 vs PPC argument, I'd regard any product like this to be faulty (not merely flawed) and unfit for distribution unless rebadged as a 933 MHz processor.
-
Some vendors don’t follow Intel’s guidelines, thus the activation of safety feature.
Some vendors are complete morons. They go by the principle that if the CPU comes with a heatsink and fan, that should solve any overheating problems.
Of course, that's stupid. Air cooling depends on proper ventilation - which a lot of basic systems do not have - in the same way that a water cooler requires a radiator or some means of actually cooling the water itself.
-
Those PC users should read the doc, a workaround is possible:
Those mainstream PC users are only interested in product replacements and micro-code updates (transparent** after applying the BIOS updates).
Code substitution requires a code rewrite on all effected assembler code. How many assembler lines in a typical LinuxPPC distro (e.g. SUSE) again (rhetorical question)?
**Transparent to the existing software’s POV.
-
Though considering that this is the first I've heard of any PPC bug, and reports about flaws with Intel chips have been released consistently for years now, I think the PPC still has the better track record.
Ironically, this same sort of clock-dependent bug bit back when Motorola approached the 500MHz barrier. Either PowerPC vendors aren't vetting their designs properly, or more likely, they've just been forced to 'paper-launch' much earlier than x86 vendors have.
Meanwhile, didn't Intel have to recall their first batch of GHz P4s after squeezing them out under similar pressure? (All proverbial ten they shipped to be able to claim they got there on time?)
Not to mention better power consumption and better instruction efficiency per cycle.
This has changed somewhat with the 970/"G5," especially as you throw things like improved x86 branch-prediction into the mix. Still a very nice (and rather competetive) line of CPUs, when they work.
-
Meanwhile, didn't Intel have to recall their first batch of GHz P4s after squeezing them out under similar pressure? (All proverbial ten they shipped to be able to claim they got there on time?)
IF they replace the flawed products then it’s almost a no issue. Code substituting is required IF IBM intends to transfer the (IBM's own making) bug fixing duties to the software vendors.
A product replacement/micro-coding updates negates that need for third party software vendors to patch their software.
Early Intel Pentium III @1.13Ghz flaws only effects LinuxX86 (an example) but they run reasonably fine with Windows. Intel could have told those Linux users to do a code substitute trick, but the LinuxX86 markets demands product replacement and they got it.
-
bhogget wrote:
Some vendors are complete morons. They go by the principle that if the CPU comes with a heatsink and fan, that should solve any overheating problems.
Not morons, just not following the times. Just a few years ago a heatsink and fan was enough for any tower system; just the flow of air caused by the PSU was enough to keep the insides of the case cool enough. And I can't say I blame them either: the heat of CPUs is fast reaching the point of the utterly ridiculous. In a few years more will vendors be morons because they don't supply the correct liquid freon coolant to shift 100+ watts of pure wasted heat energy out of the tower?
-
@KennyR
CPU vendors have to minimise the cause of heat generation by employing technologies such as Low-K Black Diamond i.e. heat is generated due to electron leakage.
Intel is already at +6Ghz on some section of the PIV chip.
-
@ KennyR,
"In a few years more will vendors be morons because they don't supply the correct liquid freon coolant to shift 100+ watts of pure wasted heat energy out of the tower?"
Like I need another heater in So. California or can afford the waste.
Chris
-
Early Intel Pentium III @1.13Ghz flaws only effects LinuxX86 (an example) but they run reasonably fine with Windows. Intel could have told those Linux users to do a code substitute trick, but the LinuxX86 markets demands product replacement and they got it.
No, that's how the bug was discovered, at that time Linux was an inperceptable part of the market. However according to an on-line news site the kernel would not compile. To Intel who had had a previous perfect record (apart from the P5 bug) this was unacceptable, they recalled the CPU. It was only later re-introduced.
I expect IBM will have to pay out for this as well but you just won't hear about it as it's primarily in the embedded world.
-
Hammer wrote:
CPU vendors have to minimise the cause of heat generation by employing technologies such as Low-K Black Diamond i.e. heat is generated due to electron leakage.
But do you really believe they'll scale down CPUs for less heat when they dump silicon for diamond? The way markets work, they won't: they'll keep the current cooler/fan/tower cooling model and simply use the diamond semiconductor for improved performance.
Which is a pity...because I'm beginning to look for a new x86 machine to replace my ancient Cyrix P200, and so far none I've spotted have an acceptable performance/heat ratio.
-
Ewww. This is going to hurt IBM in sales and status. I hope they fix it.
Imagine if it was an Intel bug and not IBM. How many of us would be slamming the "I told u they were crap" line.
-
To Intel who had had a previous perfect record (apart from the P5 bug) this was unacceptable,
In regards to "previous perfect record", note the micro-code updates and secondary purpose of micro-coding engine in P6 product lines. I still have those micro-code [d]update[/d] patches with my PC-Chips747 CD.
Secondly, Intel has direct competitive pressures coming from AMD i.e. it looks bad on them when they have issues with Linux. During that time Intel was fighting a rear guard action (mindshare). Except from AMD, not one company has the power to affect Intel’s bread and butter(it's core biz) e.g. the iAMD64 extensions on IA-32.
These pressures involve reliability, legacy running (without user intervention code substitutions) and clock speed (the design of Pentium IV** is a response for AMD's K7 clockspeed romp).
My statement on "LinuxX86 markets demands product replacement and they got it." is due to implied market pressure.
**AMD changes the rules of engagement with XP and K8.
-
But do you really believe they'll scale down CPUs for less heat when they dump silicon for diamond?
Refer to the principle of heat generation in fusing wires to each end of a battery i.e. the wire gets hotter. The electron leakage is basically runs on the similar principle.
Low-K Black Diamond promotes lower consumption, hence less heat generation.
Low-K Black Diamond dielectric is already in use on
1. AMD's K8 @90 nm.
2. ATI's DX9 VPU e.g. ATI Radeon 9600.
Note why ATI’s VPU is relatively cooler than their NV counterpart i.e. both has similar transistor count and clockspeeds. This is where AMD and IBM differ in 90nm migration.
Black Diamond Low k is product of Applied Materials Inc.
Reference
http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/sigdev.asp?Symbol=TSM
"Applied Materials' Black Diamond low-k dielectric to provide faster performance and lower power consumption."
Both IBM (PPC970 90 nm) and Intel are on SS (Strain Silicon) camp.
-
Which is a pity...because I'm beginning to look for a new x86 machine to replace my ancient Cyrix P200, and so far none I've spotted have an acceptable performance/heat ratio.
Atm, I don't have specific access to Cyrix P200's Amp and voltages values for comment.
I recall, Cyrix M II @300MHz's max power is at ~24W , 3.0Volts, 8Amp. 16Watt grade Barton(uPGA)(laptop) or Pentium M(laptop) or Apple iBook can this easily.
[edit]
Cyrix
6x86 PR200+ (150MHz),20.77W, 25.20W(Max power)
6x86L PR200+ (150MHz), 14.28W, 17.69W(Max power)
6x86MX PR200 (166MHz),11.50W, 19.10W(Max power)
All easy targets for X86 mobile/PPC32 processor (not including desktop replacement processors).
-
KennyR wrote:
Not morons, just not following the times.
Vendors who don't follow the times are morons. Why should anyone buy anything from a jackass who doesn't know what he's doing?
Just a few years ago a heatsink and fan was enough for any tower system; just the flow of air caused by the PSU was enough to keep the insides of the case cool enough.
Go back far enough and you didn't even really need a heatsink and fan on your CPU. Then again, the CPU wasn't very capable either.
And I can't say I blame them either: the heat of CPUs is fast reaching the point of the utterly ridiculous. In a few years more will vendors be morons because they don't supply the correct liquid freon coolant to shift 100+ watts of pure wasted heat energy out of the tower?
First of all, a large percentage of the extra heat comes from components other than the CPU. GPUs, motherboards and hard drives all generate more heat now than they used to. They all use more power, so the PSU generates more heat too, not all of which is blown out of the back.
As it happens, the technology for active cooling of CPUs has improved a great deal: bigger and more heat conductive heat sinks, bigger and quieter fans, etc. What this needs is unrestricted airflow in cases, and this is where the vendors cut corners. They like to use smaller cases, so they cram them more, but they don't take care to make sure there are no restrictions to airflow. There is little excuse for not using tubular cables any more, and for not tidying up the cabling in such a way that it does not restrict airflow. All done to squeeze that little bit of extra profit in a cut-throat market.
The PPC line has been the cooler one so far, though since the rest of the components in the case still use more power than old systems the advantage is relative.
I'll grant you heat generation has become silly these days, but the CPU is only one factor in this, as it is only one factor in the noise generation produced by cooling systems.
I won't compare it to your Cyrix because quite honestly none of my software would even run on that CPU any more.
-
But do you really believe they'll scale down CPUs for less heat when they dump silicon for diamond?
Refer to the principle of heat generation in fusing wires to each end of a battery i.e. the wire gets hotter. The electron leakage is basically runs on the similar principle.
Low-K Black Diamond promotes lower consumption, hence less heat generation.
Lest anyone be misled, note that 'Black Diamond' is not a diamond substrate itself, but rather a preparation of "CVD carbon-doped oxides."
http://www.chipworks.com/chipnews/2002_i02/interconnect_2.htm (http://www.chipworks.com/chipnews/2002_i02/interconnect_2.htm)
There's some company that's supposedly found the trick to growing vapor-deposited diamond crystals (talking literal bricks, here) at intense purity and cost comparable to Si. Intel were said to have shot them down when they made their pitch, betting on Si processes to continue to scale for the forseeable future. ("Oops?")
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/diamond.html (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.09/diamond.html)
...
Those Cyrixen were quite toasty for their performance at the time, probably owing to both process issues and decisions of design. (Similarly, has there ever been a K7 chip that honors HLT in the manner previously expected?)
Scary numbers from the slot CPU era:
http://grassomusic.de/english/amdk7.htm (http://grassomusic.de/english/amdk7.htm)
(In editing for width, I note that Xoops takes poorly to links containing '?' options.)
...
Ewww. This is going to hurt IBM in sales and status. I hope they fix it.
Imagine if it was an Intel bug and not IBM. How many of us would be slamming the "I told u they were crap" line.
I think everyone hopes they'll fix it, IBM included. However, while it certainly won't *grow* sales... you think PPC customers have ever really had a choice? ;-) (Seriously, it sounds like the post-spinoff Freescale just might warm up the competition, but if what you want is a GHz *G3,* it's not like there's really a second source.) Meanwhile, I'm lost as to how many units they actually sold before this discovery, and bugs in paper launches don't effect reality much.
...
As it happens, the technology for active cooling of CPUs has improved a great deal: bigger and more heat conductive heat sinks, bigger and quieter fans, etc. What this needs is unrestricted airflow in cases, and this is where the vendors cut corners. They like to use smaller cases, so they cram them more, but they don't take care to make sure there are no restrictions to airflow.
Well, you should be enamored with BTX, then, and even I'll give Intel some credit for flipping PCI and AGP dust-collecting-side up.
The P4 does remain in the unenviable position of being the first line to throttle for protection under certified conditions. (I'd say Prescott in specific, but I can't remember if this was first noticed on one or a late-model Northwood?)
There is little excuse for not using tubular cables any more,
Except that most rounded cables are produced by vendors without a single EE on staff, and some actually show a negligible but worrying (as regards integrity) performance hit in practice. Luckily, the SATA/SAS phy rather solves for this anyway.
[...] and for not tidying up the cabling in such a way that it does not restrict airflow. All done to squeeze that little bit of extra profit in a cut-throat market.
Or to provide what consumers want, in which case the world might actually have some demand for (non-watercooled) PPCs.
Actually, it'd be interesting to know whether mainboard draws have dropped significantly on K8 designs; you lose a major portion of one big hot chip, and some of the transistor count that went with it... but, in early designs, do up the number of discrete bridge ICs on board.
-
Except that most rounded cables are produced by vendors without a single EE on staff, and some actually show a negligible but worrying (as regards integrity) performance hit in practice.
Agreed, but if you're really keen on performance you wouldn't be using ATA drives any more.
Luckily, the SATA/SAS phy rather solves for this anyway.
It does. I just don't see every vendor adopting them wholesale just yet. No doubt that will change fairly soon. as there's no significant cost difference, unlike SCSI.
Or to provide what consumers want, in which case the world might actually have some demand for (non-watercooled) PPCs.
Except that consumers want systems which are useful to them, and for the time being PPC systems are of limited use. With this in mind, I doubt there is a massive consumer demand for PPC systems outside Mac and Amiga circles, and I don't see that changing much any time soon. Even Linux users will get more out of x86 and its 64-bit siblings than they will out of PPC systems.
-
bhogget wrote:
I'll grant you heat generation has become silly these days, but the CPU is only one factor in this, as it is only one factor in the noise generation produced by cooling systems.
I won't compare it to your Cyrix because quite honestly none of my software would even run on that CPU any more.
I'd just be happy if I could find a x86 system with the same performance and heat output of this 750GX. The VIA CPUs aren't much more powerful than my Cyrix (even at 800MHz!), and all desktop CPUs are FAR too hot and noisy. I'll be using my Cyrix until one appears, or until the Cyrix dies. Which as you can imagine does rather limit my choice of software...
-
KennyR have you thought about a 35W Athlon XP-M? It'll drop right in any Socket A
motherboard, is cheap, and Nexus makes a 19 db Athlon/Socket A cooler that should keep it very quiet. 19 db is quieter than most "silent" branded PSUs...so it would practically be inaudible.
Im pretty sure I've seen 35W mobiles @ 1.8 GHz, while that's not the "bleeding edge"
it's still decent, especially compared to that Cyrix.;-) And they're very overclockable -
you could easily hit over 2.0 GHz speeds with that Nexus cooler and some good case
ventilation. (Even at 1.8 GHz, I imagine the performance is at least equal to the GX.)
-
Thanks -D-, I'll look into it. 1.8 GHz would do me fine, as long as I could get away with no tower fan. Now I need to research this CPU and see what boards and dealers support it.
-
CPUs with bugs are nothing new, but I find it hard to believe they could release a CPU only to find out later that certain instructions completely fail.
Does this bug reveal itself only when the instructions are used in certain combinations or with particulare operations? That's forgivable. If the instructions all-out fail under all conditions, that's a case of improper testing.
KennyR: I can't say I blame them either: the heat of CPUs is fast reaching the point of the utterly ridiculous.
It's called supply and demand. People want fast chips and they're willing to put up with the heat. Give PPC a few years and you'll see the same thing. The G3 that went in the early PowerMac towers was pretty damn hot, too. It has a cooler the size of a large NIC card and a 120mm fan blowing right on it. The only reason people say that Mac doesn't have "active" cooling is because the fan isn't technically attached to the heatsink. :-)
I'm glad Intel canned the Tejas. 150+ watts is insane.
Still, ALL chips are approaching this cooling barrier. People moan and groan about x86, but fail to realize that many graphics cards, and even some north/southbridge chips are running insanely hot. I replaced the teeny cooler on my Radeon 9800 pro when I felt the board and nearly burned my fingers. With a HUGE cooler on it (about the size of the whole card), it still runs around 30-40 degrees celcius, which is the same as my P4!
Funny to hear all the PPC fanatics herald the cool performance, then throw a Radeon in the case. :lol:
SHADES: Ewww. This is going to hurt IBM in sales and status. I hope they fix it.
Imagine if it was an Intel bug and not IBM. How many of us would be slamming the "I told u they were crap" line.
Yup. Nobody is perfect. Even NASA screws up.
KennyR: ...and all desktop CPUs are FAR too hot and noisy.
I dunno. My P4 is very quiet, and with the fan spinning at 60%, it never goes above 40 degrees no matter how much I torture it. Idle temp is 32.
Keep in mind that most CPU coolers assume your case is crap. If you get a good case with good airflow, you can throttle down the CPU fan a lot and still get decent cooling. If you run a CPU fan at stock RPM... well, no wonder you're complaining about noise!
I have a genuine 2.4Ghz, by the way. My dad has a 1.8 overclocked to 2.4, and it produces about the same heat and noise as mine.
1.8 GHz would do me fine
I work with el-cheapo computers all the time, and those with 3Ghz CPUs still feel like slugs if they have bad hard drives or cheap chipsets. If you get a good mobo and drive, even a 1.8 will perform well.
Just make sure your mobo has CPU fan speed control. It's the best way to cut noise.
-
People want fast chips and they're willing to put up with the heat. Give PPC a few years and you'll see the same thing
Take it from me, you damn well WON'T.
PowerPC has to live in embedded markets where there are tight controls on the heat produced by the chips - the G5 is a joke everywhere except supercomputing and Apple boxes (which are one and the same at the moment.. so..) because of it's incredible heat output.
From Freescale soon and when IBM gets their backsides in gear, you'll see multi-GHz PowerPC processors with more than reasonable (10-20W) power consumption for the featureset.
Maybe a little more than the 3W of the 750CXe or the 10W of the 7447A, but nowhere near 150.
-
@Waccoon
Funny to hear all the PPC fanatics herald the cool performance, then throw a Radeon in the case.
Depends on your radeon. If you buy a gamer's radeon, then you're asking for it. But there are better ones. My 9000 has no fan at all: its passively cooled. Along with the fanless G3, and fanless case, it means my Pegasos is absolutely silent except for the PSU. Now, if only I could get a x86 system like that, even if it was seriously underpowered by modern standards! I'm not going to play Doom3 on it anyway. If its fast enough to play a divx it'll do for me.
-
@http://www.chipworks.com/chipnews/2002_i02/interconnect_2.htm
Refer to
http://www.appliedmaterials.com/products/copper_interconnect_films.html
Applied Materials Inc's Low-K information/marketing material.
-
The VIA CPUs aren't much more powerful than my Cyrix (even at 800MHz!)
Note that both AMD's Geode GX/120x (from Cyrix GX core) and VIA’s C3(from Cyrix M3 core) is based from Cyrix technology.
**Geode NX(PGA Socket A) is based from K7 core (relative of 16W grade Barton uPGA Socket A).
-
Scary numbers from the slot CPU era:
http://grassomusic.de/english/amdk7.htm
(In editing for width, I note that Xoops takes poorly to links containing '?' options.)
Refer to
http://myplc.com/sony/docs/amd_processor_reference.html
for volt and amps values.
PS; The table doesn’t include the latest Sempr0n (Socket A), Barton 400FSB (Socket A), Geode NX (Socket A), Thornton (Socket A), 130nm CG stepping K8 and 90nm D0 stepping K8s,
-
and VIA’s C3(from Cyrix M3 core) is based from Cyrix
C3 is a Centaur processor, completely different from the Cyrix stuff which seems to have been pretty much abandoned years ago.
Cyrix were the last "true" CISC x86 CPUs.
All the VIA CPUs now are done by the group which used to be Centaur, they're still fairly autonomous today.
-
@minator
Refer to
http://news.com.com/2009-1040-251312.html?legacy=cnet
http://www.national.com/news/item/0,1735,329,00.html
VIA's early Cyrix III (Joshua, Jedi, Gobi) was based on native x86 Cayenne core. In was later dropped in 2000 in favor of Centaur's WinChip/C5/Samuel. After employing Samuel core, VIA was still using Cyrix III label but this was shorten to just 'C3'. The C3 that I’m referring to is the x86 Cayenne core.
National's Cyrix group(before the buyout by VIA in 1999)has Cyrix MIII (M3, Jalapeno core, Mojave),
It's was an out-of-order, decoupled design (translate x86 to uops) and it has 11 stages.
The usage of "and VIA’s C3(from Cyrix M3 core) is based from Cyrix" statement is for Kenny’s performance/power ratio.
KennyR’s statement about Cyrix PR200’s performance/power ratios can be easly reach by today’s VIA C3 MPU. Using Cyrix PR200 as an example of performance/power ratio reference would be considered to be very poor in the light of AMD's Geode NX/16Watt&35Watt grades K7-AXPs, Intel's Pentium M and VIA's C3(Nehemiah).
-
Depends on your radeon. If you buy a gamer's radeon, then you're asking for it. But there are better ones. My 9000 has no fan at all: its passively cooled. Along with the fanless G3, and fanless case, it means my Pegasos is absolutely silent except for the PSU. Now, if only I could get a x86 system like that, even if it was seriously underpowered by modern standards!
You have search for an X86 motherboard that can under-clock and under-volt. Most modern Taiwanese K7-XP boards can over-clock an Athlon XP(only with t-bred/barton cores) and same can be true if one wants to under-clocks them.
-
VIA's early Cyrix III (Joshua, Jedi, Gobi) was based on native x86 Cayenne core. In was later dropped in 2000 in favor of Centaur's WinChip/C5/Samuel. After employing Samuel core, VIA was still using Cyrix III label but this was shorten to just 'C3'. The C3 that I’m referring to is the x86 Cayenne core.
I see, so they have 2 completely different CPUs with the same name, and people think the IT industry can be confusing...
I'm referring to the C3 "Ezra", 12 stage, single issue, in-order.