Prescott
Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2004 12:38 pm
I've heard that Prescott performs worse than a Northwood with the 512 kB L2 cache and the same clock frequency. Is this true?
Page 1 of 1
Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2004 1:16 pm
Yes.
Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2004 1:45 pm
The first P4's had the same problem when they first came out.
Wait for the later versions.
Wait for the later versions.
Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2004 4:26 pm
Soso -- check out Intel's New Weapon: Pentium 4 Prescott @ Tom's Hardware.
Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2004 4:41 pm
this would be a perfect time for AMD to release higher-clocked chips, but no...
Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2004 5:21 pm
AMD plans to release a 2.6GHz by the end of this year and a 4.8GHz by the end of 2006.
True AMD fans know that GHz is not everything, AMD's biggest lead is their huge Cache 1 and onboard memory controller.
If you put these into the spin and look at performance, AMD will actually beat Intel at the end of 2004.
Athlon 64 4000 (Socket 939, 512KB Cache 2, 2.6GHz)
Athlon 64 FX-55 (Socket 939, 1MB Cache 2, 2.6GHz)
Since the only difference between the A64 4000 and the A64FX-55 is the Cache 2 doubles, then add 300 MHz Points - 4300MHz Performance Quality.
300 instead of 200 because the memory controller performs better in higher GHz envionments since if it would have a FSB, it would be the speed of the CPU itself.
But it doesn't have a FSB because the memory controller is on the CPU.
True AMD fans know that GHz is not everything, AMD's biggest lead is their huge Cache 1 and onboard memory controller.
If you put these into the spin and look at performance, AMD will actually beat Intel at the end of 2004.
Athlon 64 4000 (Socket 939, 512KB Cache 2, 2.6GHz)
Athlon 64 FX-55 (Socket 939, 1MB Cache 2, 2.6GHz)
Since the only difference between the A64 4000 and the A64FX-55 is the Cache 2 doubles, then add 300 MHz Points - 4300MHz Performance Quality.
300 instead of 200 because the memory controller performs better in higher GHz envionments since if it would have a FSB, it would be the speed of the CPU itself.
But it doesn't have a FSB because the memory controller is on the CPU.
Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2004 6:32 pm
Totally forgetting that Intel will have prescott in the 5 GHz range if they decide AMD is a threat.
-Krom
-Krom
Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2004 8:40 pm
Nope. Prescott is a good chip. I just got a 2.8GHz to 3.2 with a plain old FSB crank. Core sits at 42.5C at idle, stock 1.525 vCore. Managed to get it to 3.5GHz with a 5:4 RAM ratio - but the best performance is always with a synchronous FSB.
Thing runs like a champ. Remember, Prescott isn't pushed as a super ANYTHING. It's around the SAME performance as a Northwood P4 until you get into the apps which like cache - then the Prescott kicks Northwood rump.
However, I'd say that it's pointless to upgrade to one, given the very short lifetime of Prescott on the Socket 478 platform. Building a new system though - **** yeah - why not? Here in NZ they are $9 (wholesale) more than a Northwood.
I'd hazard a guess that once the new socket is unleashed, and Prescott hits 4+ GHz, it'll be leaving Northwood in the dust, clock-4-clock, just like Northwood did to poor Williamette.
If you do a lot of encoding, and Photochopping, then Prescott is a no-brainer.
Thing runs like a champ. Remember, Prescott isn't pushed as a super ANYTHING. It's around the SAME performance as a Northwood P4 until you get into the apps which like cache - then the Prescott kicks Northwood rump.
However, I'd say that it's pointless to upgrade to one, given the very short lifetime of Prescott on the Socket 478 platform. Building a new system though - **** yeah - why not? Here in NZ they are $9 (wholesale) more than a Northwood.
I'd hazard a guess that once the new socket is unleashed, and Prescott hits 4+ GHz, it'll be leaving Northwood in the dust, clock-4-clock, just like Northwood did to poor Williamette.
If you do a lot of encoding, and Photochopping, then Prescott is a no-brainer.
Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2004 1:13 am
Just make sure you have an LN2 cooling setup for the CPU and it's mosfets.
http://www.overclockers.com/articles952/
http://www.overclockers.com/articles952/
Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2004 5:10 am
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Aggressor Prime:
<b> AMD plans to release a 2.6GHz by the end of this year and a 4.8GHz by the end of 2006.
True AMD fans know that GHz is not everything, AMD's biggest lead is their huge Cache 1 and onboard memory controller.</b></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
that really doesn't help AMD much, "True AMD fans" don't buy enough.
There is a difference between being a high-performance CPU at a low price, and a low-priced CPU.
Irregardless of many ISC AMD's CPU's can spit out, Intel has proven steadily they can easily put out a higher clocked CPU thats faster at the finish line.
AMD need to match Intel's clocks if they want to remain competitive.
Which is more impressive:
"This AMD chip runs at the same frequency as the Intel chip, but beats the pants off of it."
or
"This AMD chip performs as well as the Intel chip, but runs at a slower frequency."
<b> AMD plans to release a 2.6GHz by the end of this year and a 4.8GHz by the end of 2006.
True AMD fans know that GHz is not everything, AMD's biggest lead is their huge Cache 1 and onboard memory controller.</b></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
that really doesn't help AMD much, "True AMD fans" don't buy enough.
There is a difference between being a high-performance CPU at a low price, and a low-priced CPU.
Irregardless of many ISC AMD's CPU's can spit out, Intel has proven steadily they can easily put out a higher clocked CPU thats faster at the finish line.
AMD need to match Intel's clocks if they want to remain competitive.
Which is more impressive:
"This AMD chip runs at the same frequency as the Intel chip, but beats the pants off of it."
or
"This AMD chip performs as well as the Intel chip, but runs at a slower frequency."
Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2004 11:19 am
/me seconds flip
Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2004 4:37 pm
Did you know the Prescotts run at 70C in a Water Cooling Environment and 26C in a Vapor Cooling Environment?
Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2004 5:10 pm
70C WTF?!?!?!? i cant even get my 3.06 that hot with crappy airflow
Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2004 5:46 pm
I'm guessing AP is wrong since I can just tell and Mobius already posted his Prescott temps (with air cooling even I'm assuming?).
Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2004 7:39 pm
Considering that AP is our resident mindless AMD fanboy, I doubt hes right. Especially since he didnt quote his source.
Prescotts do put out a lot of heat, but not nearly enough to make a water cooler run that hot. If it was a very poorly-designed unit, maybe. Your basic Koolance unit wouldnt have any issues with it.
Prescotts do put out a lot of heat, but not nearly enough to make a water cooler run that hot. If it was a very poorly-designed unit, maybe. Your basic Koolance unit wouldnt have any issues with it.
Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2004 8:35 pm
70 Watts i'd belive.
Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2004 8:42 pm
More like 103.
"...the TDP (thermal design power) reached a new record: It is 103 Watts for the 3.4E and 3.2E GHz versions."
http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040 ... tt-02.html
"...the TDP (thermal design power) reached a new record: It is 103 Watts for the 3.4E and 3.2E GHz versions."
http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040 ... tt-02.html
Posted: Mon Feb 09, 2004 9:00 pm
Nah. I don't believe 100 watts for the 2.8 core. Sorry. The temps just aren't THAT high on it. Maybe I lucked out and got a "good" one? Who knows? [H] just dig a big OC test on a Prescott 2.8 - so go see what they say about it. They were surprised and impressed - but yeah - they DID melt some plastic standoffs they used! 
Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2004 9:27 am
AMD cpus do alot more work per clock than Intel thats y u could see a 1.4ghz AMD eat a 2ghz Intel up alive, and AMD can OC alot better hell ask krom what are u getting 2.4ghz out of a 1.468 was it?
what are u getting 2.4ghz out of a 1.468 was it?Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2004 12:58 pm
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by Warlock:
AMD cpus do alot more work per clock than Intel thats y u could see a 1.4ghz AMD eat a 2ghz Intel up alive, and AMD can OC alot better hell ask krom what are u getting 2.4ghz out of a 1.468 was it?</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
He got it up to 2.6 IIRC....
AP: How bout a source to go along with your usual bull****?
AMD cpus do alot more work per clock than Intel thats y u could see a 1.4ghz AMD eat a 2ghz Intel up alive, and AMD can OC alot better hell ask krom
what are u getting 2.4ghz out of a 1.468 was it?</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>He got it up to 2.6 IIRC....
AP: How bout a source to go along with your usual bull****?
Posted: Tue Feb 10, 2004 1:26 pm
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Arial" size="3">Originally posted by MD-2389:
AP: How bout a source to go along with your usual bull****?</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
for once its not me feeding BS Like that
AP: How bout a source to go along with your usual bull****?</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
for once its not me feeding BS Like that