Dual Core Vs P4

[Indy500]

The 3.6 and 3.8 Prescotts were well over 100W, IIRC.

 

[helmutcheese]

So what they're hot, they work fine upto 70- 75 C overclocked, and soemtimes fine upto 80C @ stock.

I don't care what sites say, I've used a p4/PD myself since northwood was out, till just 6 months ago, p3's were good yes, but I wouldn't care monkey's what review sites said, I've used pretty much all cpu's existant briefly for testing, as I'm free to test whatever my dad has in stock, and even the prescotts clocked FAR higher than (socket A ) amd's and performed much better in the end.

90 watts is no where near a nuclear power station, I wounder why nobody complained about the early AMD X2's and the core 2 quads, wich produce more heat ( just happened to have well designed coolers from start) . It's logical the cpu's overheat if people use some cheap thermal paste that dryes up in a few weeks, along with a tiny aluminium block on it and a low rpm fan. Stick a good cooler or even an average cooler on a scott like the 92mm zalman flower or an AC freezer 4 and you have a cpu that is just 40 C, that's approx 25 C of headroom for overclocking.

A p4 is better than the p3, that's a fact, show me a p3 cpu wich performs same as a 5 ghz p4 in various stuff including games .
Sure the design was better, I'm not denying that I've owned 4 P3's in my own personal pc's ( upgraded step by step offcourse) and kept the last 1 ghz p3 I had till northwoords were out and the first p4 I got was a 1.8 gig NW ( I knew the willamettes were carp and never had any myself).

I never said a p4 was better than a c2d, I'm just saying it's not crap, it does the job and it runs everything, still to this day. If they'd really be crap and useless as you seem to think then I'm woundering why there are millions of them still in use, and why my school has recently ordered Pentium D's 2.8 ghz ?
They are cheaper than c2d's and do the job...

Also that THG video is a bit stupid, what complete nutter in north america or europe has his case sitting in 38 C ?
Aside that, the thermal pads have long been replaced by better thermal material by intel, I haven't seen such a cooler with that pad in years. And when they applied their own thermal paste, they placed it like complete noobs, used WAY too much. And besides, who buys that kind of cheap goo? Even the cheap tital 2 € paste that comes in the 10 ml tubes does the job much better and there's no sane reason someone would buy such a poor unbranded paste as they've used in that video.



How have you mounted the tuniq, I've had a mere freezer 7 and was running a pentium D 925 @ 4ghz for half a year and it never surpassed 65C.

The ordinary p4/d is not slower, they are just as efficient per clock ( or inefficient better said ), but they just run hotter and use more power, due to having a 90nm die...



Irrelevant test, you're comparing a 30 € cpu vs a 75 € cpu .

A 3.2 ghz Pentium D vs a 2160 would be pretty much equal though, even though the PD can be had cheaper 2nd hand, it's only when the C2D is overclocked that it show's it's true potential.

You dont care what a site says and I DO NOT CARE what your DADDY says, now grow up and be your own man.


You really are clueless, in the fact a P3 was not faster, I said it was a better CPU (efficient and like for like better), also the Intel EE's were not 90watt.

There is nothing great about a P4 running 5GHZ compaired to a 2GB CD2, and I highly doubt Games needed a 5GHZ CPU back then, infact most were GPU Dependant.

Get your facts correct before coming back with nonsense, and you have again got the thread oftopic after it was back on topic.

 

[steve258]

How have you mounted the tuniq, I've had a mere freezer 7 and was running a pentium D 925 @ 4ghz for half a year and it never surpassed 65C.

The ordinary p4/d is not slower, they are just as efficient per clock ( or inefficient better said ), but they just run hotter and use more power, due to having a 90nm die...

Later when I removed the cooler I found that the AS5 didn't cover the entire IHS but just the middle, so the convexed IHS must have been the reason for the high temp. It was stable for the short time I've tested, ran Orthos in the background while playing games (COD4 & supreme commander) and although temp was high it was very stable and there was no noticeable fps drop in games.

Also I pushed the voltage to 1.45V so that might be why it was running so hot as well.

 

[steve258]

sorry guys didnt expect it to kick off quite so much over a simple question lol sorry let me clarify the situation

basically i want to have 1 pc which i use for games and the other which i use for my media centre, now i know the spec isnt great so im not going to be able to play all the latest games but im sure it will do me anyway

basically i have the bellow PC's which i own both of and at present dont have any money to upgrade them

3.4Ghz "Prescott" P4
1.5Gb DDR400 RAM
Nvidia 9500 256Mb Graphics card
160gb IDE HDD running Vista

1.86Ghz C2D
1Gb DDR2 PC5300 Ram
Onboard graphics (the only graphics card i have i could use in this is an old fx5200 pci card which doesnt fit as the pc is small form factor
80Gb Sata2 Hdd also running vista

now im pretty sure the PSU on the first pc is on its way out as ocasionally it will make an odd "hissing" sound but works the majourity of the time i just need to get the PSU swapped out it also runs very hot and its quite noisy even though ive got a large heatsink fitted (recommended to me by this forum some time ago) and a 120MM fan attached but even at idle it will be high 40's low 50's

so from what ive read here im starting to think the older machine would be better to run games on and use the new one as my media centre? Thanks for all the help

Does the new machine have a PCI-E slot? if so it's a better games machine, all you need to do is get a bigger case and maybe a new PSU as well (and an extra gig of ram would help while you're at it). And it's a very decent games machine.

But if you don't intend to spend any money then the first P4 machine maybe better depending what onboard graphics you have in your second C2D machine.

Also I do believe you are referring to ATI Radeon 9500? Nvidia 9500 is not out yet :-/

 

[T180985]

well ive managed to get someone to get me another 2Gb of ram so will have a total of 3Gb in the C2D machine, do you know how you adjust how much ram the onboard grahpics has access to in vista?

tbh im not sure if its a PCI-E slot or not do they generally look the same to a standard PCI slot? sorry as i say its been a long time lol and i may have got the card wrong sorry its quite a few years old now though

 

[steve258]

There should be options in the BIOS to adjust the amount of video ram.

 

[T180985]

hmmm these HP boards are a bit limited in features and i dont remember seeing anything about video ram in there but will have another look

 

[Indy500]

Not always possible - depends on the individual system. However, I've known HP to use MSI motherboards often so you might be in luck.

 

[T180985]

well just had another look and things arnt looking good, oh well it might just use a set percentage

 

[T180985]

sorry to keep bothering you all but i just wondered how usefull the windows vista rating tool is as since ive put in the new ram my graphics rating has gone from 1 to 3.7 which is higher than i got in the p4 machine with the gfx card

 

[Indy500]

Vista automatically adds shared system ram to the graphics.

 

[matt100]

just to be devils advocate, I worked with pcs when the 5 series P4s were about and had a few myself, a 540 and a 570 and both ran without issue on the stock coolers because I live in england and the ambient is well below 38 for all but maybe 1 day a year if you're very lucky.

Then the 6 series came along and they were tons better, a good 20 degrees cooler than the 5s in a lot of cases.. so the last P4s actually clocked amzingly well and ran quite cool. Just no one noticed because we were all "oooh X2 AMDs! wow" then we all went for c2ds lol.

P4 wasn't bad at all, it was just that AMD were slightly better in a lot of situations. Just like how AM2 cpus aren't rubbish, its just C2d is better.

 

[Indy500]

Well when a 1.8Ghz Athlon 64 is quicker than a 3.8Ghz P4 in some applications, why would people have bothered with the P4 at the time?

 

[helmutcheese]

Does not change the fact, the P3 was better architecture, and the fact the last of the P4's inc the Pentium D 800 (yes its 2x P4's) sucked up 130watts, and Throttled due to heat.

Some new info BTW.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/12/28/intel_cpu_power_consumption/

 

[matt100]

I'm not trying to say they were more efficient by any stretch but when people say "the last of the netburst" etc they often (as you appear to be doing) quote 8 series duals and 5 series singles, whereas the true last of the line cpus the 9 series duals and 6 series singles were actually ok.

Yes a hot but nowhere near throttling at stock speeds on stock coolers, also I would seriously question any suggestion that a lot of the older ones throttled at stock too, I had a lot of these chips and never experienced throttling.

 

[JackRegan]

I remember upgrading from a P3 1.4ghz on Win 98SE to a P4 1.7 on ME. In the early days the P3 was better than the P4. (Not to mention the OS - not my best purchase )

The P4's started and finished badly IMO, but there was a few gems produced in between.

 

[daz]

The Northwood P4s were great when they came out (the 1.6A was especially good for overclocking, most people achieving ~50% overclocks) and the early Northwood B 533mhz processors was also extremely good value for money (2.4B). At the end of the day when you buy a new processor you buy the one that's most value for money at the price point within your budget at that particular time. At certain times it would have been an Athlon XP, other times a Northwood P4, other times an Athlon 64. It's the ebb and flow of new technology being released, and the way of the world.

They had their day though, and when you can get an E2xxx for less than £50 and overclock it stupidly high you really have to think about an upgrade.

 

[Duke]

http://www.tomshardware.com/2007/12/28/intel_cpu_power_consumption/

Good article that, interesting

I had a P4 2.4 'B' and then 'C'. The 2.4c was a fantastic overclocker - good for 3.2GHz - the current highest stock P4 at the time was 3.0GHz The Prescott and Pentium Dual Cores were pretty dire.

 

[T180985]

sorry just want to put out the 3.4Ghz prescott while it does run hot on idle somewhere around 40* normally but i think thats partly due to the poor airflow i dont remember ever seeing it being throttled however the 3ghz northwood i had before it was a better chip imo seemed to overclock well and was about 10* cooler

just want to say how great this C2D is though i dont think ive ever had a pc so quiet before and its not even getting that hot


another quick question ive had a look about and some people are saying that have got this C2D cpu i have to 3ghz+ would that really be possible if i were to upgrade my mobo to a half decent one?

 

[mralw]

god this place is full of trainspotters....

do you all wear anoraks?