Socket 478 Chipsets

[Martta Borromeo]

Withthe AMD Ryzen 600- and 800-series chipsets, all AMD Socket AM5 motherboards are compatible with all AMD Socket AM5 processors. That means you can choose any Socket AM5 board for AMD Ryzen 7000, 8000, and 9000 compatibility. (A BIOS update may be required for Ryzen 8000 and 9000 series processors on 600-series boards)

AMD Socket AM4 features motherboards with DDR4 memory, PCIe 4.0 for NVMe and graphics, plus native SuperSpeed USB 10Gbps support on a chipset. With processor-direct SATA and USB connectivity, configurable for real-world flexibility, the AM4 platform takes advantage of features that gamers and creators crave.

The AMD Socket AM4 platform is for overclockers1 and tweakers who need the very best, the AMD X570 chipset offers comprehensive, low-level control, and supports dual graphics card configurations thanks to two PCIe 4.0 graphics card slots.

For users who need their PC to simply work without hassle, the AMD A520 chipset provides a streamlined, trusted platform with plenty of connectivity and bandwidth options to satisfy demanding home and office users.

The advanced Socket AM4 platform is ideal for overclockers1 and tweakers who need exceptional performance, the AMD X470 chipset offers comprehensive, low-level control, and supports dual graphics card configurations thanks to two PCIe 3.0 graphics card slots.

For overclockers1 and tweakers who need robust platforms, the AMD X370 chipset offers comprehensive, low-level control and supports dual graphics card configurations thanks to two PCIe 3.0 graphics card slots.

To satisfy customers who value the smallest form factors, AMD X300, A300, and PRO 500 chipsets provide processor-direct access for excellent performance. The enthusiast-oriented X300 chipset is perfect for enthusiasts and overclockers1, while the A300 and PRO 500 chipsets are geared toward practical consumer and commercial users who need a simple, small solution.

2023 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. All rights reserved. AMD, the AMD Arrow logo, Ryzen, and combinations thereof, are trademarks of Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. All other product names are for reference only and may be trademarks of their respective owners.

In this project I tried to focus on as many different chipsets as possible but I chose only those with AGP support. I also rejected the ones that are workstation oriented and with dual processor support.

Performance with PCI card seems to be the best on Intel chipsets, especially with Intel i815. SiS 635T has an integrated south bridge thus it can be the reason for performance loss. VIA chipsets are the worse option for a PCI graphics cards, especially on the Appollo Pro266/T chipset.

The most common ones I think are IntelBX, Inteli815 and VIA 694T motherboards. SiS 635T is not that common but appear from time to time. Intel I820, VIA693A are rare. ALI and VIA Apollo PRO 266 are very rare, and ALI is almost impossible to be find.

Great post! It's funny, I just pulled out my Tualatin 1.4-S BX build last night with the intention of doing some benchmarking and now I have some results to compare to. I'm glad you used a Ti 4600 as that is the card that is in my build!

Numbers for the i840 chipset would be interesting: performance-wise it should be better than the i820 and 440BX, and be on par with the Apollo Pro266. Of course, its not widely available, needs adapters to run Tualatins, and only comes--I think--in dual CPU configurations, so I understand why it was not included.

But that SiS 635T! Great stock performance and proper AGP support @ 166FSB?! I never knew such a beast existed! I'll have to get my hands on a board based on that chipset...hopefully one with BIOS-based overclocking.

But in all seriousness, this looks awesome! That 440BX chipset is a absolute beast as is it almost always #1 or #2. A conclusion that really makes sense, when you realize 133mhz is overclocking. I feel, to be more 'fair' i'd exclude it from the results as the overclocking the pci/agp bus makes a big difference in testing.

Just a curiosity, why so much difference between the i815 vs the i820? The d815eea2 I have is looking better than I expected. It's a really great board so long as long as overclocking isn't a big worry, and it was stable as a rock for me.

I'm not so surprised by the SiS 635T performance. From 486 days on, SiS repeatedly made top-notch performing chipsets, let down by bad marketing and worse low-end boards - and a reputation for shitty performance from their integrated VGA solutions. Put a (non-integrated VGA) SiS chipset on a decent board and you can expect really good performance. ECS clearly made exactly the right design choices with the P6S5A(T) and K7S5A - despite being obviously cheap, flimsy boards that retailed for less than any other full-size, non-integrated boards on their platforms at the time of release, they were both also rock solid (at least, after a few embarrassing early BIOS bugs were fixed) and the fastest performers on their respective platforms at that time. Makes you wonder what would have been possible if the high-end board makers had fully embraced SiS as a high-end option afterwards.

When it comes to testing the I840 I don't really mind putting the tests results in this project but I simply do not have any motherboard with that chipset... Get me one and I will do it ;P The same applies to ServerWorks ServerSet chipsets ?

But that SiS 635T! Great stock performance and proper AGP support @ 166FSB?! I never knew such a beast existed! I'll have to get my hands on a board based on that chipset...hopefully one with BIOS-based overclocking.

SiS 635T is really impressive... I was able to get stable 150 MHz with my Tualatin 1400MHz, but no lack so far with this CPU at 166 MHz on any motherboards... So I will have to look after some more batches of SL6BY ?

Yeah, I know that testing 440BX at 133 FSB and comparing it with other is a little bit unfair... but this is how this chipset works... and I could not do anything about it, so in the future projects there will be also test with Tualarin Celeron at 100 MHz ?

Thanks. I really think this chipset deserves more attention today. That is why I will make a separate topic to discuss its weak and strong points. In this thread I want to focus on test results and comparisons of different chipsets instead on focusing on one only ?

You'd think so, but this is where universal AGP will bite you in the ass. I have had or seen, 3.3V AND 1.5V only boards with universal slots as well as 3.3V AND 1.5V only cards with universal keying. While they are not overly common (anymore, for obvious reasons) they do exist and you can come across those. NEVER rely on the physical keying.

ALL intel i440BX are already overclocked at 133 MHz FSB. The AGP bus speed is always 89 MHz in this case... There is no correct divider, it is a chipset limitation and you cannot do anything about it ? That is why most ATI Radeon 9*** cards will not even boot on such a system...

I'm not talking about modding, I'm talking about cards and boards with universal keying despite being fixed voltage. They were sold that way. I recently lost a "universal" AGP board, because despite having the proper slot keying and the chipset supporting 3.3V and 1.5v, the board was designed to only run with 1.5v

The SIS 300 series (300, 305, 315) are notorious for that, virtually all are universal keyed but only do 3.3v, I have had (had being the important word here) at least 2 TNT 2 cards that were fixed voltage despite being universal capable and universal keyed (others had a selector jumper) I had a geforce 2 that for some reason was 1.5v only despite it being universal capable and keyed and I have seen universally keyed geforce 5200 and 6200 despite those not working with 3.3v.

None of them were modded, they were sold that way. They were unbranded and possibly OEM models, (except for the SIS, I have never seen one with correct keying) but that is no excuse for breaking the standard.

I went for broke and Selected 150mhz in the Bios. To my surprise the system booted into windows without problem. I was able to carry out some SiSoft 99 Benchmarks and got the results. The Mem Scores look good at 150mhz! Unfortunately the system would not complete a 3Dmark 2000 pass and would freeze. Probably due to the high AGP bus speed.

Thanks. It was a quick benchmark run to capture those results ? I was interested to see if the board would post at 150mhz FSB, let alone complete the benchmarks! Its interesting to see it is so close to the VIA DDR board in the Memory benchmark you did.

AM4 was launched in September 2016 and was designed to replace the sockets AM3+, FM2+ and FS1b as a single platform. It has 1331 pin slots and is the first from AMD to support DDR4 memory as well as achieve unified compatibility between high-end CPUs (previously using Socket AM3+) and AMD's lower-end APUs (on various other sockets).[3][4] In 2017, AMD made a commitment to using the AM4 platform with socket 1331 until 2020.[5][6][7] AM5 succeeded the AM4 platform in late 2022 with the introduction of the Ryzen 7000 series, however, AMD has continued to release new CPUs for AM4 even after the release of AM5.[8][9][10][11]

Some heat sinks for older sockets are not compatible.[14][15] Some cooler manufacturers, however, are reported to be offering brackets allowing previously manufactured coolers to work with AM4,[16] while other coolers will be redesigned.[17][18] Alternatively, some motherboard makers are including both AM3 and AM4 cooler mounting holes, allowing previous generation coolers to be used.[19] AM4 coolers that use a two-pronged bracket approach (such as the AMD Wraith Prism) to mount the cooler will work with AM4 and all the way back to Socket 754/939.

3a8082e126