Looking for someone to clear up this prescott confusion!

[+c0re-]

I'm in the market for a new cpu to replace my northwood p4 2.4c.

The main one I'm looking at is a prescott 3.0E, 800FSB.

however... I've seen a lot of confusing and conflicting stuff such as: The
earlier prescotts run very hot, but the later ones, D0 stepping run cooler -
is this true?

Prescotts are very close to and sometimes even a bit slower than a northwood
at the same clock. - is this true?

I have a couple of motherboard questions too but I'll ask them later, would
really really appreciate someone answering the above 2 for me, thanks in
advance!

 

[kony]

I'm in the market for a new cpu to replace my northwood p4 2.4c.

The main one I'm looking at is a prescott 3.0E, 800FSB.

however... I've seen a lot of confusing and conflicting stuff such as: The
earlier prescotts run very hot, but the later ones, D0 stepping run cooler -
is this true?

I'd expect all of them to be hotter still, even if minor
improvements have been made.

Prescotts are very close to and sometimes even a bit slower than a northwood
at the same clock. - is this true?

No, it's not "very close to and sometimes even a bit slower... at
same clock", Prescott is almost always significantly slower per
same clock. The key is that it will clock higher. In other
words, it's not very cost effective nor much of a performance
increase to upgrade from what you have to a 3.0, you could just
overclock what you have or buy something faster than 3.0. I'm
not implying that a 3.0 isn't any faster, but not much, a poor
bang for the buck.

I have a couple of motherboard questions too but I'll ask them later, would
really really appreciate someone answering the above 2 for me, thanks in
advance!

Asus Intel 865

 

[+c0re-]

Thanks for the reply and the info!
The board I have now is an intel 865, but it's too old a PCB revision to
support prescotts.

I was going to get an 875 board and a prescott 3 ghz, but from what you've
said this might not be such a good idea afterall...

 

[DaveW]

The summary of site's like www.tomshardwareguide.com is that users are much
better off using an 875 chipset motherboard and a Northwood CPU, than any of
the Prescott's. The Prescott's run HOT, and are slower per clock speed in
applications.

 

[kony]

The summary of site's like www.tomshardwareguide.com
...

<snip>

You linked a squatter.

Correct URL is http://www.tomshardware.com

 

[+c0re-]

Thanks again all for the replies.

So if I'm reading this correctly, the fastest thing to go for would be an
875 mainboard, with a 3ghz northwood?

Is it a case of given time the prescotts will become faster due to
mainboard/bios revisions, or is it basically as simple as that they are
slower and always will be? (possibly excepting the new 915 stuff).

 

[kony]

Thanks again all for the replies.

So if I'm reading this correctly, the fastest thing to go for would be an
875 mainboard, with a 3ghz northwood?

Yes/no/maybe

If your software isn't current generation, optimized for P4
w/SSE2 or video editing, the fastest thing may be an Athlon.
If your highest demand app is multithreaded then fastest thing
may be a dual CPU system.

If you're willing to overclock then fastest thing "could" be the
CPU you already have, if you had high-end memory you could really
crank the FSB up high. Then again, if you bought a Prescott you
"might" be able to o'c that to 4GHz if you wear oven mitts and
put a fire extinguisher close to the case. ;-)
Prescott @ 4GHz would certainly be the fastest thing, but you're
looking at a good water-cooler or very aggressive high-end
air'sink and optimal case to deal with it.

Larger question is why the pressing need to upgrade a 2.4? It's
not quite a slow CPU yet, is there some specific task needing a
boost?

Is it a case of given time the prescotts will become faster due to
mainboard/bios revisions, or is it basically as simple as that they are
slower and always will be? (possibly excepting the new 915 stuff).

It's not a mainboard/bios issue, it's the longer pipeline of the
Prescott, which makes it slower per MHz but that reduction in
MHz-efficiency is offset by higher clock potential, the whole
reason for the longer pipeline. It's similar situation to the
first P4, that it wasn't any better than the P3 on average, but
in particular tasks one or the other showed it's strengths.
Comparing two CPU of different core design always requires
factoring in what performance is needed for, most demanding or
most common use of system per individual user, and the software
optimizations available.

 

[+c0re-]

Thanks again kony,
I've done some reading since you guys pointed this out to me and I'm very
glad you did.

Sorry, I didn't really state what my requirements were for "fastest", I
guess my criteria is that it's a fast system for gaming, I don't run any 3d
design stuff etc. or many intensive business type applications.

I'd like to stick with the intel route, as I have been so pleased with the
P4 system I have now.

My reason for wanting to upgrade is I believe my cpu is the bottleneck in my
system, having just got a geforce 6800GT card. I'm only making that
statement based on seeing a few reviews that used around a 3ghz cpu, and
stated that the CPU was the bottleneck. I guess it's not so much need a
boost, as a bit of extra power would be nice.

My current mainboard is an 865 chipset, if I could get away without
replacing that (i.e stick with a northwood) that would be even better.

Oh, forgot to mention I'll be keeping everything at stock clock speeds
(boring I know!)

many thanks again

 

[kony]

Thanks again kony,
I've done some reading since you guys pointed this out to me and I'm very
glad you did.

Sorry, I didn't really state what my requirements were for "fastest", I
guess my criteria is that it's a fast system for gaming, I don't run any 3d
design stuff etc. or many intensive business type applications.

I'd like to stick with the intel route, as I have been so pleased with the
P4 system I have now.

My reason for wanting to upgrade is I believe my cpu is the bottleneck in my
system, having just got a geforce 6800GT card. I'm only making that
statement based on seeing a few reviews that used around a 3ghz cpu, and
stated that the CPU was the bottleneck. I guess it's not so much need a
boost, as a bit of extra power would be nice.

My current mainboard is an 865 chipset, if I could get away without
replacing that (i.e stick with a northwood) that would be even better.

Oh, forgot to mention I'll be keeping everything at stock clock speeds
(boring I know!)

many thanks again

From your next post it looks like you already settled on a P4
3.0. It's your call, though I'd probably start building a new
2nd system from scratch before upgrading current system. Along
that route a nice ATX/BTX case might be chosen and modded a bit
till you're ready to choose a next-gen motherboard for it. 3GHz
is only 25% higher clock than 2.4GHz, so even less of a gain
would be expected from this CPU upgrade, especially with video
card being such a major factor in gaming performance. It just
doesn't seem worthwhile to me to buy a new CPU for so little
gain, but then I suppose you could always sell the old one, then
it makes more sense.

Level loading would be faster with a WD Raptor HDD, or something
like a Maxtor Maxline III if you want best performance without
sacrificing capacity. Otherwise you pretty much "finished" that
system and it's now time to build the next one.

 

[~misfit~]

No, it's not "very close to and sometimes even a bit slower... at
same clock", Prescott is almost always significantly slower per
same clock. The key is that it will clock higher. In other
words, it's not very cost effective nor much of a performance
increase to upgrade from what you have to a 3.0, you could just
overclock what you have or buy something faster than 3.0. I'm
not implying that a 3.0 isn't any faster, but not much, a poor
bang for the buck.

It's the old P3 Tualatin - P4 thing all over again. Swapping a more
efficient CPU for one that will clock faster. I thought that maybe Intel had
grown past that, the sting of AMD beating them to 1Ghz impelling them to
concentrate on Mhz to the detriment of efficiency. At least they have
returned to, and further developed the Tualatin core and resurrected it as
the Banias (Centrino) and Dothan CPUs.

I just wish the Tualatin had been around long enough for there to be an
outstanding chipset developed for it. Instead it was hampered by kludged
Coppermine chipsets being used, then dropped like a hot coal when Intel
realised they didn't have the technology (at the time) to take the
architechture beyond 1.5Ghz reliably.

I don't see how Intel can justify continuing to manufacture CPUs that are
less efficient with each generation, producing more and more heat and
wasting electicity. It's time they made CPUs like the Dothan available for
desktop, as well as laptop use. The NZ PC World recently tested an Acer
laptop running a Dothan 1.8Ghz (2MB L2 cache) and 512MB of RAM and it got
the second-highest laptop score they ever recorded, beaten only just, by a
laptop running a desktop P4 3.2Ghz with 1GB RAM. And this is with the Dothan
running on a 100Mhz (quad-pumped) FSB and only consuming 21 watts of power!
Dothans are up to 2Ghz now, imagine what you could do with one of those
babies in a decent mobo and a 200Mhz FSB.

PrescHOT? Bah!

 

[~misfit~]

Thanks again kony,
I've done some reading since you guys pointed this out to me and I'm
very glad you did.

Sorry, I didn't really state what my requirements were for "fastest",
I guess my criteria is that it's a fast system for gaming, I don't
run any 3d design stuff etc. or many intensive business type
applications.

I'd like to stick with the intel route, as I have been so pleased
with the P4 system I have now.

Shame, you're writing off the best gaming CPUs available with that one
statement. Don't be afraid of change, and don't embrace the 'megahertz
myth'. It's marketing, pure and simple.

 

[Trent©]

Thanks again kony,
I've done some reading since you guys pointed this out to me and I'm very
glad you did.

Sorry, I didn't really state what my requirements were for "fastest", I
guess my criteria is that it's a fast system for gaming, I don't run any 3d
design stuff etc. or many intensive business type applications.

Did you try setting up a RAM disk?


Have a nice week...

Trent©

What do you call a smart blonde?
A golden retriever.

 

[+c0re-]

Shame, you're writing off the best gaming CPUs available with that one
statement. Don't be afraid of change, and don't embrace the 'megahertz
myth'. It's marketing, pure and simple.

Thanks for the imput misfit, but that's far from what I'm doing. This is the
first intel system I've owned, and I've been so pleased with it's ease of
setup and reliability. I'd like to speed it up a touch so it's able to take
full advantage of my new video card.

 

[~misfit~]

Thanks for the imput misfit, but that's far from what I'm doing.

I don't mean to be confrontational but, unless you've owned an AMD Barton
then you have no frame of reference. It's a faster gaming platform than the
P4's in the range you are talking, especially combined with an
nForce2Ultra400 mobo with dual-channel RAM.

And I won't even begin to talk about the AMD 64-bit CPUs.

This
is the first intel system I've owned, and I've been so pleased with
it's ease of setup and reliability.

Mate, just about every system is easy to set up these days. My girlfriend
built her own Barton 2500+ system and overclocked it to 3200+ specs with
zero previous experience. Maybe previous systems you've owned/built were
from a different era (era's come and go very quickly in the PC field) hence
not being so reliable.

I'd like to speed it up a touch
so it's able to take full advantage of my new video card.

Good luck with whatever you decide.

 

[+c0re-]

I don't mean to be confrontational but, unless you've owned an AMD Barton
then you have no frame of reference. It's a faster gaming platform than the
P4's in the range you are talking, especially combined with an
nForce2Ultra400 mobo with dual-channel RAM.

I have a 3200+ system, running on an epox 8rda3+ mainboard with 1 gig of ram
in dual channel mode, it's a nice machine but I wouldn't say it's
blisteringly fast. It wasn't "hard" to set up, in fact all the issues I had
were related to all the extra stuff they packed onto the mainboard
(firewire/audio ports etc), and what you said about building previous
systems from a different era was spot on

In case there's been any confusion, I wasn't knocking AMD systems in any
way, just stating that I'd prefer to stick with the platform of my personal
preference, but I do appreciate the alternatives being pointed out, thanks

 

[Ken]

The summary of site's like www.tomshardwareguide.com is that users are much
better off using an 875 chipset motherboard and a Northwood CPU, than any of
the Prescott's. The Prescott's run HOT, and are slower per clock speed in
applications.

Pentium 4C Northwood 130nm (512K cache) 3.2GHz (800MHz fsb)
is best buy for the moment.

 

[Charles]

Why buy an 875 Chipset motherboard an 865 is just as fast within about
5% or less. The Asus P4P800 i865 chipset motherboard can run as fast
as a i875 chipset Motherboard. The only thing an i875 chipset
motherboard has is PAT. Just get the fastest 800 FSB Northwood
processor that will work on that motherboard.

Intel is coming out with a new chipset that will reach 1066Mhz FSB.
That will be a significant improvement in speed; especially if coupled
with DDR2. Mid 2005 is the release date (about 12 months).

If you want a 775 chipset motherboard get the fastest processor
possible. The only reason to choose this option is to choose a
processor that is faster than the fastest Northwood by at least 200Mhz
or get a 915 chipset with PCI Express to speed up the video.

 

[JK]

Thanks for the reply and the info!
The board I have now is an intel 865, but it's too old a PCB revision to
support prescotts.

I was going to get an 875 board and a prescott 3 ghz, but from what you've
said this might not be such a good idea afterall...

Since you are thinking about getting a new motherboard, why not get
an Athlon 64 processor and avoid all the confusion? An Athlon 64 3200+
is very close in price to the Prescott 3ghz. It has great performance.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=1


An Athlon 64 3000+ beats an $825 Pentium 4 3.2 ghz EE in Doom 3.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7