They planned on scaling prescott to much higher clockspeeds, so much like they did when the P4 first came out they had to make the pipeline longer to achieve this. Unfortunately the extra heat generated by transistor leakage on the new process prevents them from scaling the clockspeed up higher. Remember, at one point Intel was saying that netburst would be hitting 10Ghz(Nehalem) in about 2 or 3 more years and 5 Ghz(Tejas) this year.
They planned on scaling prescott to much higher clockspeeds, so much like they did when the P4 first came out they had to make the pipeline longer to achieve this. Unfortunately the extra heat generated by transistor leakage on the new process prevents them from scaling the clockspeed up higher. Remember, at one point Intel was saying that netburst would be hitting 10Ghz(Nehalem) in about 2 or 3 more years and 5 Ghz(Tejas) this year.
I prefer my 3.0c @ 3.6 over my 560. The 560 does my encoding and the 3.0c does the general purpose stuff. The 560s temps have scared me away from overclocking it and it needs to run quiet anyway for its media center use. I've sold my AMD gaming rig and am replacing it and the 3.0c with an X2 4400+. The 3.0c is going to replace the first week, lemon of a chip, 3.0e in my file server.
This northwood and the IC7-MAX3 are going on 2 years now and sadly aren't much slower than Intel's best offerings. Intel will strike back though, but the 3.0e and 560 I've purchased have convinced me to never again buy the first version of thier offerings. Waiting for the revised and cheaper versions with established motherboards seems much wiser than getting burned for the third time.
This northwood and the IC7-MAX3 are going on 2 years now and sadly aren't much slower than Intel's best offerings. Intel will strike back though, but the 3.0e and 560 I've purchased have convinced me to never again buy the first version of thier offerings. Waiting for the revised and cheaper versions with established motherboards seems much wiser than getting burned for the third time.
Unless you're looking at overclocking or multitasking the P4 @ 3.4GHz still packs some punch. I'd save up for dual core as I would use it to multitask, however if that isn't necessarily your thing I'd probably just sit tight for the time being, unless I needed a new platform for PCI-e.
Right, where's the SLI? Fun to mess around with? No. Good for gaming? Processor to processor yes, but its still stuck on Dothan/old P4 platforms which are even worse for gaming than new P4 stuff...
Keep what you have. What memory do you have ) You can run that at 3.6 on air and be fast for an intel setup. If you really want to upgrade water cool what you have and run at 3.9+ Not sure were your cieling is on that but 3.9 should be easy if you got a good core. you won't believe how fast you well be. It well be right there with the FX55(stock speed)
Out of Intel, the only thing fast enough for a real major upgrade would be dual-core. A 670 just wouldnt be enough of a boost.
Actualy unless he is running multi-threaded programs, or doing a lot of multitasking, a dual core would be a downgrade, as the fasted intel dual core is 3.2ghz..and a 3.6 or 3.8 prescott won't be significantly faster in most cases either, with the exception of video encoding.
If your limited to Intel, then definately stay with what you have until the end of next year...
Then, it will depend on how good the Conroes actually are...
For the Photoshop stuff, you might look at increasing your ram instead.
StrangerGuy
Diamond Member
- May 9, 2004
- 8,443
- 124
- 106
No LGA775 CPU is going to be significantly faster than your 3.4GHz Northwood, except the Pentium D if you are a really heavy multitasking guy.
Preachers talk about intangibles like faith in the divine...
Assholes like me ignore your preacher's comment and rely on cold hard facts
/soapbox.
Assholes like me ignore your preacher's comment and rely on cold hard facts
/soapbox.
LTC8K6
Lifer
- Mar 10, 2004
- 28,520
- 1,576
- 126
He obviously already knows that AMD's chips are faster or he wouldn't have said what he did in the OP.
I also readily acknowledge that AMD is faster, but I like Intel.
I readily acknowledge that lots of cars are better than Chevrolets too, but I like Chevrolets.
I also readily acknowledge that AMD is faster, but I like Intel.
I readily acknowledge that lots of cars are better than Chevrolets too, but I like Chevrolets.
Markfw
Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
- May 16, 2002
- 27,235
- 16,106
- 136
Well, so is my Opteron 170@2.7 (I don;t like the high vcore and temps, so I usually run 2600).
But he doesn;t want to hear about AMD, and I doubt he plays games, so in other apps, the Dothan is weak against the AMD dual-cores. (or single cores for that matter @2.7-3.0)
Do you do technical type trading? I might start trading again but it would take me years to build up the courage to try it again.
I wouldn't mind knowing how someone can make a living at it.Originally posted by: Zebo
X2's are the next "two year chip"
That's the only chip you can buy which is signifigantly faster than a 3.4C in every single benchmark.
True.
Originally posted by: forumposter32
Do you do technical type trading? I might start trading again but it would take me years to build up the courage to try it again.
check out Investor's Business Daily. On a $10,000 investment you can trade stock and make 5% a month and sell call options and make another $500 a month.
Honestly, unless you do video encoding, you wont notice a real world difference in anything. No joke, Intel or AMD, the only thing that will be faster is dual core. The only way you will see a difference with dual core is if you have applications that are multithreaded that can use both, or you do extreme multitasking.
No matter which way you cut it, the 3.2C is great, and id stick with it until a better chip comes along (Intel Merom/Conroe, or AMDs up-and-coming new socket and die shrink).
64 bit is still hype for the most part
Dual core is heavily underutilized for most users
the minor clockspeed differences will be completely un-noticeable across the board (except for encoding, where you can shave some time off of a multi-hour encode)
So, in my humble opinion, stick with what you have. If you need better gaming performance, grab a new graphics card, itll make a much larger difference. If you dont game, definately dont upgrade at all.
No matter which way you cut it, the 3.2C is great, and id stick with it until a better chip comes along (Intel Merom/Conroe, or AMDs up-and-coming new socket and die shrink).
64 bit is still hype for the most part
Dual core is heavily underutilized for most users
the minor clockspeed differences will be completely un-noticeable across the board (except for encoding, where you can shave some time off of a multi-hour encode)
So, in my humble opinion, stick with what you have. If you need better gaming performance, grab a new graphics card, itll make a much larger difference. If you dont game, definately dont upgrade at all.
I am looking for a cpu that will run at OCed gains as well as my celeron Northwood 2.4 400mhz FSB@533mhz (3.2ghz) on a socket 478 because of low L2 (128). How ever $ for $ seams that it is time for me to consider new RIG...What kind of results are you getting with the 3.4GHZ Northwood and what dose it have for L2?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter