Now working properly with the 210w power adapter it demands. The likely original battery warks with very limited runtime.
Running 2x128GB SanDisk X300S MLC SSDs in RAID 0. Has a hardware raid controller onboard. Crystaldiskinfo cannot see any drives though, anyone know why?
Apparently the FCM slot only accepts 2 or 4,gb drives to cache the hdds, not msata drives. But there's forum posts showing you can shove 2242/2230 SSDs in them with a $2 adapter, and the FCM slot and wwan slot are both going to be without use otherwise so perhaps I'll put SSDs in them for lolz.
I got a 4x4gb Kingston kit for this from eBay but organ rejection occured when I installed them. I added another 8GB of ram from a sandy bridge latitude and it's running great with 12gb total now.
Machine came with Vista from the factory. I was interested to revisit Vista since quite frankly it's been over a decade since I used it on my desktop of the time, a blazing slow Celeron 450 powered Dell Inspiron. I installed Vista Ultimate and had to mess with activation for awhile since the key on the bottom is for Vista business not ultimate. Will use for awhile and report.
It REALLY needs more CPU horsepower for the modern Internet. 360ee under vista for YouTube pegs the CPU and is slow. An QX9300 is on its way.
The slot loader also could use some attention. It works great but it makes grumpy noises.
Um, remind me, what is CMT in this context?
Cluster multi threading. Threads are grouped in pairs on FX rather than being standalone. If both threads in a pair are active, they get to fight over shared resources (FPU/cache), and it makes them each a lot slower than they would be individually.
A scheduler which is aware of this will prioritize tasks so that they're spread out and won't both threads in a cluster at once unless it has to, so the cores get full performance. Imagine you're running a game which uses 2 cores like crysis, it would ideally put them on separate clusters and use the second core on those respective clusters for background tasks etc that won't use many resources.
Often times games of this era will actually run faster on FX CPUs if you flat out disable half of the threads, forcing each core to have full performance available. Tbf, this is sometimes true for Intel CPUs with hyperthreading too (think i7 920 or something), but the benefit to disabling that is usually a lot less since it's more due to overhead and less due to a cost cut design.
Windows XP is far older than bulldozer and is unaware of the design quirks it needs to deal with. Windows 7/10 are aware of FX and have at least some level of optimizations to maximize scheduling and CPU performance.
That being said...
Windows XP doesn't understand what a CMT is. You will be missing some performance due to that.
Granted though, not tested myself mid range/high end FX-class AM3+ CPUs under it.
I'm not sure it really matters. An FX6300 is very powerful relative to your average windows XP computer. It's to the point where that the lower performance due the basic scheduler in XP probably doesn't matter, besides some of that downside is eaten up by XPs lower system demand naturally. Realistically even the most demanding of XP era titles like crysis will still run well on a 6300, so it really doesn't matter that the CPU will not quite be operating at full performance.
Honestly nothing in XP will need more than 3 cores, OP probably could disable multi threading and then most of the lack of optimizations go away.
