• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

Pentium III FC-PGA2 Heat Sink & Fan

Agent Orange

Agent Orange

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 24, 2008
Messages
6,647
Location
SE MI
Does any one know if there is any difference in the heat sink and fan specs for the P3 FC-PGA2 package and the P3 FC-PGA? I have a new (retro) project going and I don't seem to have a P3 heat sink or fan in my toy box.

The FC-PGA2 P3 is 1.0 GHz, 1.10 GHz, 1.13 GHz & 1.20 GHz.

The FC-PGA P3 is 533 MHz thru 1.13 GHz.

Edit:

I'm attempting to be correct in this build and use OEM parts or near equivalent when possible.
 
Chuck(G) said:
I thought that the big difference between FC-PGA and FC-PGA2 was that PGA2 included a heat spreader on top of the die allowing you to use the same cooling that you'd use for an FC-PGA.

Have you looked at the datasheets?
Click to expand...

Thanks Chuck, I've got that data sheet. The only fan & heat sink that I can find is for the FC-PGA P3. I suppose I'll be forced to get creative and cobble something together. My motherboard is an Intel D815EGEW NIB but with no fan or heat sink. I was unable to find a reasonably priced boxed version of the P3 FC-PGA2 ,which would include the fan and heat sink, so I went with a new OEM unit.
 
I think I've got a Socket 7 HS and fan on one of my 1.4GHz Tualatins. Works just fine--my approach is to use what fits and then watch the chip temp. My sense is that since the FC-PGA2 chips run at a lower Vcore than the FC-PGA ones, so the heatsink requirements don't change much, since power is a function of the square of the voltage.
 
I wanted to go with the 1.4 Tualatin but the spec's on the D815EGEW mobo classify it as a "server" chip and not supported by the BIOS. There's not much room to hot rod this board but that's okay as it fills a niche in my small collection.
 
Have you actually tried the 1.4 chip in it? Just because Intel says it won't work doesn't necessarily mean that it actually won't work. And even if the 'PIII-S' chips are a no-go, you could still probably use a 1.4ghz Celeron or the non-S version of the PIII.

As for heatsinks, you can use pretty much any S370 heatsink, and also Socket A Athlon coolers (though those are generally larger, so you'll have to make sure you've got enough clearance around the CPU socket). Even Socket 5/7 coolers will physically fit, if you have one with enough metal to keep a PIII cool... an old Pentium heatsink wouldn't do so well, but one designed for a K6 or K6-2 would be sufficient.

The maximum TDP of the S370 chips ranges from about 10W for a low-clocked Coppermine Celeron, up to about 30W for the high-clocked PIIIs. The Tualatin chips were about the same TDP as the upper-end Coppermines, i.e., 25-30W. For comparison, most of the Socket A Athlons were in the 35-70W range, K6 and K6-2s were 15-30W, and P1s were around 5-15W.
 
I also would try it. I've used Celerons for SMP work before even though the Celeron isn't supposed to work for multiple processors (works fine using Powerleap IP3/T adapters).

I've found it typically not what the motherboard company says for processor support, but the chipset support. This is the reason I've seen Dell XPS 410 (Dimension 9200)s that have been upgraded to Core 2 Quads, my Latitude E6400 can be upgraded to a Core 2 Quad QX9800, a Dell Optiplex GX150 I have is running on a 1.2 GHz Celeron (basically the Pentium III with a 100 MHz FSB, same cache), I've used Powerleap cards to add 1 GHz processors to old Compaqs, etc.
 
Thank you Thrash & Chuck for your input. Problem solved - after about 2 hours of gooooooogling I found an 'open' NIB P3 1.2 GHz, fan & heat sink included, so I grabbed it. I should have this project up and running in a few weeks. The only thing that's up in the air is the video card choice. The D815EGEW doesn't have an AGP slot, so what ever goes in will have to be PCI and I have 3 or 4 laying around. I haven't given much thought lately to the best PCI video card to use and I'm open to suggestions. This little box will be a dual boot setup, utilizing an IDE and SATA HD. I intend to load Xp Pro on the SATA and MS-DOS 6.22 on the IDE. Not real big on the quality of the audio at my age, so I'll go with the on-board product. The mobo comes with 1.2 USB which will necessitate eating up a slot with an USB 2.0 upgrade. If you're wondering what I'm going to use this rig for the real answer would be "nothing". I'll just play with it until I get tired of it and then it'll go up on the shelf for a while. BTW, I do have a Tandy Sensation! on the way.
 
Compgeke said:
I also would try it. I've used Celerons for SMP work before even though the Celeron isn't supposed to work for multiple processors (works fine using Powerleap IP3/T adapters).

I've found it typically not what the motherboard company says for processor support, but the chipset support. This is the reason I've seen Dell XPS 410 (Dimension 9200)s that have been upgraded to Core 2 Quads, my Latitude E6400 can be upgraded to a Core 2 Quad QX9800, a Dell Optiplex GX150 I have is running on a 1.2 GHz Celeron (basically the Pentium III with a 100 MHz FSB, same cache), I've used Powerleap cards to add 1 GHz processors to old Compaqs, etc.
Click to expand...

The Intel spec sheet talks about the Tualatin 1.4 as being a 'server' chip and not optimized for a desktop setup. What do you suppose that's all about?
 
It's been, what, 10 years?

What I recall is that the Tualatins use a 1.25V AGTL bus, instead of the more normal 1.5V. Later steppings of the support chipset may support this, but not earlier ones. Also, the Tualatin requires conformance to VRM 8.5. If the support isn't there, the system simply won't boot.

Still, it seems that there should be an adapter out there to handle this sort of thing if your motherboard doesn't. It could be worth the effort as the PIII-S Tualatins were real racehorses. It'b been conjectured that Intel brought them out only because the Xeons weren't ready yet. One can easily outrun an early P4.
 
Last edited:
The Intel spec sheet talks about the Tualatin 1.4 as being a 'server' chip and not optimized for a desktop setup. What do you suppose that's all about?
Click to expand...

What it's about is that Intel was lying through their teeth. They had just released the P4 around that time, and a lot of people realized pretty quickly that it was crap... the Tualatin could match (and in many cases exceed) the P4's performance. So they labelled the PIII as a 'server' chip and jacked up the price to put it out of the market for regular desktop use, so they could force people onto the P4 platform.
 
Old Thrashbarg said:
What it's about is that Intel was lying through their teeth. They had just released the P4 around that time, and a lot of people realized pretty quickly that it was crap... the Tualatin could match (and in many cases exceed) the P4's performance. So they labelled the PIII as a 'server' chip and jacked up the price to put it out of the market for regular desktop use, so they could force people onto the P4 platform.
Click to expand...

I got the feeling that they didn't want to release the P3-S, which would compete directly with the P4. But they'd been promising Xeon and it wasn't ready, so they were forced into it. Otherwise, a lot of the market would have been lost to AMD. But a Tualatin P3-S outruns (easily) a P4 of the same speed, so Intel didn't want to shoot themselves in the foot when it came to the desktop market.

Isn't marketing great? :groan:
 
Either way I've got it covered. I originally ordered the Tualatin P3 1.4 GHz a few days back and then got cold feet. So, when I cobble this thing together we'll see what we see, I suppose.
 
If the Tualatin isn't right for your board (hard to tell, even with manufacturer's specs*), you won't hurt anything--it simply won't boot.

_______________
* The reason for this is that when later steppings of the support chipset became available, the manufacturers simply used them without updating the documentation.
 
Chuck(G) said:
If the Tualatin isn't right for your board (hard to tell, even with manufacturer's specs*), you won't hurt anything--it simply won't boot.

_______________
* The reason for this is that when later steppings of the support chipset became available, the manufacturers simply used them without updating the documentation.
Click to expand...

Well, this mobo uses the 815EG chipset and I believe it was the end of the line for that series of boards.
 
Chuck(G) said:
If the Tualatin isn't right for your board (hard to tell, even with manufacturer's specs*), you won't hurt anything--it simply won't boot.

_______________
* The reason for this is that when later steppings of the support chipset became available, the manufacturers simply used them without updating the documentation.
Click to expand...

The D815EGEW mobo came in today and I fired it up with Tualatin S 1.4 GHz. It posted with an error message that said "processor not for this desktop and will shut down in 20 seconds", which is exactly what it did. So, I'll have wait until Friday when the 1.2 GHz PGA2 package get here.
 
Interesting, the fact that it booted with the processor tells me that Intel decided to add a restriction to not allow use of that processor so you have to buy a more expensive board.
 
If your system supports the proper Vcore, then try reflashing the BIOS with the earliest version you can find. Several vendors, Dell particularly, added this message and a halt to later BIOS revisions.

People have reported this issue when using one of these adapters.
 
Chuck(G) said:
If your system supports the proper Vcore, then try reflashing the BIOS with the earliest version you can find. Several vendors, Dell particularly, added this message and a halt to later BIOS revisions.

People have reported this issue when using one of these adapters.
Click to expand...

I will do exactly that but I need to get a chip to boot the thing. At first I thought that there may be a problem with the voltage (1.45 vs 1.75), however the D815EGEW BIOS seems to dictate what the proper voltage is tp be, and I can find no jumpers on the mobo to experiment with.

Edit: The adapter doesn't seem to support the 815 chipset - it hits on either side;, i.e. the 810 & 820. What do you suppose is going on with that?
 
Last edited:
Compgeke said:
Interesting, the fact that it booted with the processor tells me that Intel decided to add a restriction to not allow use of that processor so you have to buy a more expensive board.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Intel was right up front on that point in the spec sheet. Makes you wonder what the big deal was about a simple upgrade path. You're probably right on about Intel wanting to get deeper in your pockets. All that being said, they do make a nice product though . . .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top