CPU Compatibility

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bill
  • Start date Start date
B

Bill

Does anyone know the fastest P4 that's compatible with Intel's 865PERL mobo?
Also, is it compatible with Prescotts and Intel's P4 Extreme series? TIA.
 
Bill said:
Does anyone know the fastest P4 that's compatible with Intel's 865PERL mobo?
Also, is it compatible with Prescotts and Intel's P4 Extreme series? TIA.
Click to expand...

http://www.pcx.com.ph/showcase/profile.asp?id=511
suggests it is, if the P4E and Prescotts are available in
socket478/PPGA478; the FSB certainly supports the clock speeds (800, 533
and 400FSB)

HTH

--
Cheers, http://www.dotware.co.uk
Jim http://www.dotware-entertainment.co.uk

Unix Sex: { look; find; talk; grep; touch; finger; find; flex; unzip;
mount; workbone; fsck; yes; gasp; fsck; yes; eject; umount; makeclean;
zip; split; done; exit }
 
Jim said:
http://www.pcx.com.ph/showcase/profile.asp?id=511
suggests it is, if the P4E and Prescotts are available in
socket478/PPGA478; the FSB certainly supports the clock speeds (800, 533
and 400FSB)

HTH
Click to expand...

PS: I build exclusively on AMD gear, as it's cheaper and I know some
tricks to keeping those things running stone cold.

--
Cheers, http://www.dotware.co.uk
Jim http://www.dotware-entertainment.co.uk

Unix Sex: { look; find; talk; grep; touch; finger; find; flex; unzip;
mount; workbone; fsck; yes; gasp; fsck; yes; eject; umount; makeclean;
zip; split; done; exit }
 
PS: I build exclusively on AMD gear, as it's cheaper and I know some
tricks to keeping those things running stone cold.
Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, do you find that the Athlon 64s run cooler than the
older Bartons?
 
Bill said:
Just out of curiosity, do you find that the Athlon 64s run cooler than the
older Bartons?
Click to expand...

very much so. Particularly when running a 32-bit OS, where I'm not using
the 64-bit extensions, the processor is never going to be running at
full capacity. Plus the fact that the overall power consumption is
piddling compared to P4:

CPU Idle(W) Capacity(W)*
P4HT 75 130
AMD64 3 38
Barton 45 68.3

*Values are typical on factory clocked chips. Figures from various
sources, including Tom's Hardware.

So it can be seen, that while the P4HT has the advantage over Barton in
idle consumption, both the Barton and the AMD64 run rings around it at
peak running 32-bit platforms; the AMD64 peaks around 50-52W when
running 64-bit platforms, which is comparable to an overclocked K6/II.

--
Cheers, http://www.dotware.co.uk
Jim http://www.dotware-entertainment.co.uk

Are more people violently opposed to wearing fur than leather because
it's easier to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs?
 
Jim said:
very much so. Particularly when running a 32-bit OS, where I'm not using
the 64-bit extensions, the processor is never going to be running at
full capacity. Plus the fact that the overall power consumption is
piddling compared to P4:

CPU Idle(W) Capacity(W)*
P4HT 75 130
AMD64 3 38
Barton 45 68.3

*Values are typical on factory clocked chips. Figures from various
sources, including Tom's Hardware.
Click to expand...

I don't know what conditions those sources used to create those numbers but
specification sheet numbers are, in descending order

Intel P4 Extreme, 660, 670 max 115 Watts
Athlon 64 3500+, 3800+, 4000+ max 89 Watts
Intel P4 630, 640, 650 max 84 Watts
Barton 3200+ max 77 Watts
Barton 3000+ max 68.3 Watts

For a 2400MHz Athlon 64 3500+ to be at 39 watts you'd be running the P3
state at 1800MHz, similar to Intel's Enhanced Speed Step approach of
lowering clock and Vcore for power savings.
So it can be seen, that while the P4HT has the advantage over Barton in
idle consumption, both the Barton and the AMD64 run rings around it at
peak running 32-bit platforms; the AMD64 peaks around 50-52W when
running 64-bit platforms, which is comparable to an overclocked K6/II.
Click to expand...

A stock 550 Mhz K6-II is 18 watts max but I have no idea how you'd get it
to 50-52W, and keep the smoke inside.
 
Intel P4 Extreme, 660, 670 max 115 Watts
Athlon 64 3500+, 3800+, 4000+ max 89 Watts
Intel P4 630, 640, 650 max 84 Watts
Barton 3200+ max 77 Watts
Barton 3000+ max 68.3 Watts
Click to expand...

If these are the "thermal design limits" then they are the maximum
power the designer wanted the motherboard folks to be able to supply
to the chip. It is an "outside" number meant to make sure that the
companies put a beefy enough power regulator on the mobo. Predicting
the idle power from the above is going to be difficult.

Here is the power measured at the wall plug for idling systems I have
access to:

28w ppro-150 (idle, bsd 150Mhz)
88w Athlon64 3200+ BP venice (idle, redhat, cpuspeed at 1Ghz)
129w Athlon64 3200+ CG (idle, bsd, 2Ghz)
129w Athlon 1.1Ghz Thunderbird (idle, bsd, 2Ghz)

Notably the old athlon machine takes exactly the same power as the
older athlon64. The venice chip, especially when clocked down, beats
them both.

-wolfgang
 
Wolfgang said:
If these are the "thermal design limits" then they are the maximum
power the designer wanted the motherboard folks to be able to supply
to the chip.
Click to expand...

It's what the cooling solution must be able to handle for the particular
processor.
It is an "outside" number meant to make sure that the
companies put a beefy enough power regulator on the mobo.
Click to expand...

That's a different specification which usually includes requirements for
'future processors'.
Predicting
the idle power from the above is going to be difficult.
Click to expand...

"Max" numbers are obviously not, nor intended to be, 'idle' power
consumption figures.
Here is the power measured at the wall plug for idling systems I have
access to:
Click to expand...

One would imagine those numbers are more than just processor power.
28w ppro-150 (idle, bsd 150Mhz)
88w Athlon64 3200+ BP venice (idle, redhat, cpuspeed at 1Ghz)
129w Athlon64 3200+ CG (idle, bsd, 2Ghz)
129w Athlon 1.1Ghz Thunderbird (idle, bsd, 2Ghz)

Notably the old athlon machine takes exactly the same power as the
older athlon64. The venice chip, especially when clocked down, beats
them both.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what the point is. How much power a computer consumes when
doing nothing?

Under that performance criteria they all reduce to 0 Watts with power
removed ;)
 
Back
Top