866 to 1000 mhz no difference?

[Oyeve]

i just got hold of a p3 1000 slot1 and decided to plop it into my system that had a p3 866 flip in a slotket. Know what? I see no speed dif at all! No extra fps, all benchmark scores are the same. I have a Radeon 64ddr which is probably my bottleneck but c'mon! I should at least see SOME improvement, right? This sucker doesnt OC much at all either, can only get 1100 or so even with a server type HS and a 4" fan on it. Good thing I didnt pay for it or i'd be really pissed! Any thoughts?

 

[bjc112]

your right.. you probably wont get much out of it.. once you are over 700 there isnt.. much of a difference.. well noticable at least!

 

[Neprologica]

From 866 to 1000 is just 144 mhz. Thats less than 5% i think.
And off course you have 2 remember that your mb/ is still on 266 or something like that. So cant make a big diff.

 

[Trashman]

probably because the Slot-1 chip runs at 100Mhz FSB whereas the 866 flipchip runs at 133Mhz FSB....not sure if they made a slot-1 EB....if thats the case then that explains why no performance difference...I'd rather have the 866 than.

 

[Wah]

so you think you'd see a diff going from 800e(100mhz) to 1000eb(133mhz)?

 

[NotoriousJTC]

How bout a jump from a 700mhz Duron, to lets say, a 1.0ghz-1.3ghz T-bird? Am i looking at a big difference in performance? Or only minimal gains?

 

[Trashman]

WAH...I'd say you'd see a slight improvement, since the memory would be runnin at 133mhz vs. 100mhz...probably not a huge difference but system would feel a bit more snappier you'd think.

 

[Rankor]

Yup, there are some Slot 1 P3-1000EB procs out there. Gotta look around for those.

I upgraded my iCelery 566->850 to a Slot 1 P3-1000E. From a Celeron to a P3, there is a definite notice in performance.

I also wanted to grab one b/c it's my first 1 Giger proc. I thought I'd never see the day that I'd actually be running one.

With the exception of possibly upgrading the video card to something faster, hopefully this current setup'll keep me going for two years. Then, I'll look into Amd and Intel's offerings.

 

[MrHelpful]

<< From 866 to 1000 is just 144 mhz. Thats less than 5% i think >>


144MHz of 866MHz is 16%.

 

[murdock2525]

Go into photoshop and rotate a picture 180 degrees you might see a little differnce...other than &quot;real computing&quot; Nah, not really.
Thats why OC'ing IMHO is rediculous

 

[BurnItDwn]

NotoriousJTC,

when i went from Duron 700mhz (at 950mhz) to T-bird 1ghz (at 1.2ghz) there was a noticable difference, DivX encoding takes less time, mp3 encoding takes less time, DVDs use less CPU, etc etc ...

its noticable ...

 

[BFG10K]

The percentage difference between the two speeds is ~15%, which is very noticeable and significant. You should easily see a difference in CPU limited tests.

 

[Hyudra]

My duron 750 is definitely a bit slower, noticible too, but once I overclock it to 1GHz, you can tell it's a lot faster.

 

[Zoltarc]

<< NotoriousJTC,

when i went from Duron 700mhz (at 950mhz) to T-bird 1ghz (at 1.2ghz) there was a noticable difference, DivX encoding takes less time, mp3 encoding takes less time, DVDs use less CPU, etc etc ...

its noticable ... >>



I don't think that counts because you went from Duron to TBird.

 

[HappyGamer2]

when I overclock my p3-800E to 988 or 1062, I get significant speed increases with UT benchmarks at 1024x768 glide. but I get very little increases in speed in Quake3 at 1024x768 32bit max. so it depends on the game/ap and the settings

 

[Tuan]

<<
From 866 to 1000 is just 144 mhz. Thats less than 5% i think.
>>



Uhhh.. Someone needs to learn how to do simple math and to just look at numbers and know that is completely wrong.

1000->866 would be a 13.4% DECREASE, now when you want to increase 866->1000 it is going to be MORE than the decrease, hence > 13.4 > 5.

 

[hungrygoose]

i'm trying to figure out y u called the radeon ddr 64mb a bottleneck...........i have the same card and love it ????????????

 

[Syborg1211]

I feel very little difference in overclocking my 700 to 933. I do feel a difference but it wasnt anything drastic. Would I pay for the extra 233 mhz? No, that's why my next cpu upgrade has to be at least 1.5 ghz because anything lower I probably wouldnt witness much of a performance boost

 

[Syborg1211]

hungrygoose- after your cpu gets near ghz or over your graphics card becomes the bottleneck at higher resolutions, there becomes a point where the cpu is too fast for the graphics card and has to wait for the graphics card to finish it's processing of the graphics

 

[Degenerate]

no way unless your work needs every bit of time.

 

[MadRat]

You all just need to run something 24/7 to see the performance difference. Join TeamAnandtech and crack some RC5-64bit blocks with us.

 

[NotoriousJTC]

<< NotoriousJTC,

when i went from Duron 700mhz (at 950mhz) to T-bird 1ghz (at 1.2ghz) there was a noticable difference, DivX encoding takes less time, mp3 encoding takes less time, DVDs use less CPU, etc etc ...

its noticable ... >>



Thanks for the info, it really helped

 

[johneetrash]

send me your p3 866! (or your 1ghz)

 

[quakguy]

overall system performance is really being limited by a number of things now.. small increases in mhz with the same type of processor will yield little gain. (866 p3 to 1ghz p3)

now a 850 celeron to 1ghz p3 will be quite noticeable..

otherwise IMO processors are jumping ahead a little too fast, things like ram speeds, bus speeds, and hard drive speeds need to do some catching up to really get the most out of these 1ghz+ processors.

it's sort of like how the geforce2's can theoretically have staggeringly high performance numbers if it wasn't for the DDR memory bandwidth constraints of current memory types when you go past 1024x768 resolution.. just look at the benchmarks of a geforce2 ultra in high res vs 640x480 or lower If the memory bottleneck wasn't there then we'd be playing all games at 1024x768 res or higher with 4x FSAA without a single hiccup in framerate(rock steady 85fps if monitor at 85hz).

personally I can't wait to see these improvements and wish they would come sooner. The nvidia Nforce is hopefully just the beginning.

I want a motherboard with a minimum of 512mb of ram running at the same clock speed as the processor, a 2nd or 3rd socket built in for a 3d processor instead of having to buy AGP cards. The 3d processors themselves would have on chip 128mb of memory for maximum bandwidth potential.. this would all be connected by the system bus capable of like a terabyte/second or more. There should also be a built in NIC capable of 1gb/sec. There would be no more need for IRQ's/com ports/etc. One other nice thing would be cases with built in solid state disk drives of like 20GB capacity where you install the operating system and other disk intensive apps/games It would all be cheap also!

well one can dream

 

[Jgtdragon]

Well, put it this way. For games, video card is the most important after 700hmz. For day to day applications, after you have 700hmz you won't see a difference. For example, if you have a 2Ghz PC and a 700Hmz PC and ask someone to tell which is faster, they probally won't know which is the 2ghz pc. The hardware is just way ahead of software right now. An example, Windows!