Are Intels still hot?

[Gomce]

In my PC hardware history, I've only used 2 intel products, Celeron 400mhz and the P4-mobile in my laptop (1.8ghz)

Who is using an Intel these days, are they still hot? Those Prescott cores were very hot, an par or hotter than the first generation of athlons (thunderbird core).

What's happening in the Intel world in general, why do they still sell Celerons?
And why do big corporations underestimate the power of the underdog (AMD).

One more question, when will intel have a decent product on the market?
Even the new dualcores are BS compared to AMD's solution

And one more, who is still using an Intel in this board?

---
This post isn't intended to be a flame bait. Don't post if you intend to flame.

 

[exar333]

who is using Intel still? LOTS OF PEOPLE...dell still only sells Intel-based systems...and many companies still use Intel....

are they still hot? very much so...although they have gotten a little better with the 6xx series...they are still thermal monsters compared to A64's...just look at the stats for the upcoming dual-cores...thermal usage is 2x or so for P4 dual cores

Celerons exists becasue many people still buy based obn Mhz...and for some, a Celeron is a good low-cost choice...does what they need it to so...although I would rather run a XP myself for similar-based perfomance (actually better)

Intel's Pentium-M based desktop processor is in development, could be very interesting...they have some 65 nm processors coming out next year that could be very good, we will have to wait and see

i used an intel 925x board last year...was a good board with a lot of features (HD sound, ect...) but I found the performance a little lacking and didnt like the limited (on air) OC results...so I sold my rig and got a A64 based one...I prefer the cooler running system an, although the P4 (had a 550J) was a good system also...just very warm...

 

[CalvinHobbes]

I have a 3Ghz northwood that runs pretty cool. My game system is A64 because I had never tried anything from AMD.

 

[Oyeve]

I have a 3,0 Prescott and with a good HS/Fan combo and AS5 I get 41c idle and the highest is 57c under full load and playing NFSU2 for hours. I have 3.0 northwood that I may put back in my system as I hear it actually performs better than the Prescott even with less of the L2 cache.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: Gomce

What's happening in the Intel world in general, why do they still sell Celerons?
And why do big corporations underestimate the power of the underdog (AMD).

celerons = cheap office PC's
big corporations like support, which dell can give them, dell only uses intel since they've probably got a pretty good deal on the CPU's, and for the majority of their costumers it would just confuse them if you could choose AMD too.

 

[krcat1]

In order to keep a P4 cool, you need a good HS and good air flow, with a side air vent and fan preferred.

My P43.2E runs at 3.4 and idles at 38C.

The Athlon 64 runs games better than the P4, so it is preferred by many at AT.

 

[MDE]

Originally posted by: Oyeve
I have a 3,0 Prescott and with a good HS/Fan combo and AS5 I get 41c idle and the highest is 57c under full load and playing NFSU2 for hours. I have 3.0 northwood that I may put back in my system as I hear it actually performs better than the Prescott even with less of the L2 cache.

Prescotts don't reach their full thermal potential until you get an LGA775 model.

 

[Nomada]

Intel is known for stability. For this reason many businesses don't deviate from it. I love AMD, but I still get the occaisonal hang that I'm certain is due to 3rd party chipsets and such.

 

[Azsen]

My P4 runs at -12C idle, 10C load.

 

[stevty2889]

I have 2 prescotts and 2 northwoods at the moment. Prescott definatly runs warmer, although it seems to vary from chip to chip. My socket 478 2.8ghz ran at 3.5ghz at around 63c under load, but it was on a differant motherboard than my 3.2 and 3.4, so can't really compare it to them. My 3.2ghz ES @3.6ghz ran at around 60c under load, with a thermalright XP-120 on my abit AS8, while on the same motherboard with the same XP-120 my 3.4ghz was getting in to the low 70's and throttling. I moved the 3.2 to a differant motherboard, (gigabyte 8IP775 or something like that), with a thermaltake jungle 512 and it runs at 57c under load at 3.46ghz. My 3.4 prescott runs at about 55c under load now, using water cooling at up to 3.99ghz. My northwoods run a bit cooler, my 3.06 is running at 3.45ghz with the XP-120 and runs at 52c under full load on a gigabyte 8IK1100, and my old trusty mobile 1.6 @2.1ghz gets to a whopping 44c under load. Meanwhile in a lot of applications the northwood at 3.45 beats the crap outta the prescott at 3.46ghz, and even keeps up with and beats the prescott at 3.82ghz in a lot of things, while lagging behind a good bit in otherse.

 

[stevty2889]

Originally posted by: Azsen
My P4 runs at -12C idle, 10C load.

LOL, according to my friends BIOS, his 3.6ghz prescott is running at -117c at idle, and -93c under load. Motherboard monitor, and speedfan report the same temps..before I updated his bios, it reported temps of 120c at idle, and 150c under load. It also crashed quite frequently. Stopped crashing after the BIOS update, but there is obviously something wrong the the thermal sensors...

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: stevty2889

Originally posted by: Azsen
My P4 runs at -12C idle, 10C load.

LOL, according to my friends BIOS, his 3.6ghz prescott is running at -117c at idle, and -93c under load. Motherboard monitor, and speedfan report the same temps..before I updated his bios, it reported temps of 120c at idle, and 150c under load. It also crashed quite frequently. Stopped crashing after the BIOS update, but there is obviously something wrong the the thermal sensors...

Click on his sig and you will see nothing is wrong with his thermal sensors 😛

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: krcat1
In order to keep a P4 cool, you need a good HS and good air flow, with a side air vent and fan preferred.

My P43.2E runs at 3.4 and idles at 38C.

The Athlon 64 runs games better than the P4, so it is preferred by many at AT.

I think this was the most reasonable reply here.

AMD do not sell to Dell because they simply can't support Dells Demand so they have no way of influencing Dell to get Intel off their butts. As well as IBM and Gateway.

Where do you think those huge corporations, gov't agencies, and educational institutions are going to get their computers from?

 

[RobCur]

Originally posted by: biostud

Originally posted by: Gomce

What's happening in the Intel world in general, why do they still sell Celerons?
And why do big corporations underestimate the power of the underdog (AMD).

celerons = cheap office PC's
big corporations like support, which dell can give them, dell only uses intel since they've probably got a pretty good deal on the CPU's, and for the majority of their costumers it would just confuse them if you could choose AMD too.

why not just drop this celeron crap and let amd dominate this market.
celeron are far more expensive then amd xp or duron still

 

[imported_Kensai]

But, at the prices that Dell is selling them at, for large scale offices. Where will you get a better deal?

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: Nomada
Intel is known for stability. For this reason many businesses don't deviate from it. I love AMD, but I still get the occaisonal hang that I'm certain is due to 3rd party chipsets and such.

Stop posting please.

AMD is known for stability. Don't fall into that trap.

Intel by far has a much larger market share, thus more people are aware of them.

A stock AMD system, is just as stable as a stock Intel board.

 

[Oyeve]

Originally posted by: bjc112

Originally posted by: Nomada
Intel is known for stability. For this reason many businesses don't deviate from it. I love AMD, but I still get the occaisonal hang that I'm certain is due to 3rd party chipsets and such.

Stop posting please.

AMD is known for stability. Don't fall into that trap.

Intel by far has a much larger market share, thus more people are aware of them.

A stock AMD system, is just as stable as a stock Intel board.

Nomada is partially right. On some chipsets AMD has issues. Its common knowledge. AMD and a good chipset = stability. AMD and a bad/so-so chipset = instability.

 

[fstime]

Originally posted by: bjc112

Originally posted by: Nomada
Intel is known for stability. For this reason many businesses don't deviate from it. I love AMD, but I still get the occaisonal hang that I'm certain is due to 3rd party chipsets and such.

Stop posting please.

AMD is known for stability. Don't fall into that trap.

Intel by far has a much larger market share, thus more people are aware of them.

A stock AMD system, is just as stable as a stock Intel board.

Try comparing chipsets buddy.

AMD's are good but intels are fantastic.

HT support helps for multitasking aswell.




To answer your question, NO, the 6 series P4 acually runs cooler IDLE than my A64.

Might be because I am using the xp-120 on one and the xp-90 on the other.

The thing to look for is load temps, if you overclock, the prescot load temps can become a problem.

If your comparing stock cooling, the prescot will tear through that heatsink.

 

[UsandThem]

Originally posted by: Regs

AMD do not sell to Dell because they simply can't support Dells Demand so they have no way of influencing Dell to get Intel off their butts. As well as IBM and Gateway.

Where do you think those huge corporations, gov't agencies, and educational institutions are going to get their computers from?

Dell doesn't sell AMD processors because Intel has Dell in in it's pocket. I am sure Mr. Dell gets a nice yearly bonus from Intel for not carrying AMD based systems.

I always loved when Dell stated that he didn't sell AMD CPU based systems because AMD's CPU was unproven.

Intel is a good CPU and AMD is a good CPU. I just wish AMD could get better OEM deals and the market was 50/50.

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: Oyeve

Originally posted by: bjc112

Originally posted by: Nomada
Intel is known for stability. For this reason many businesses don't deviate from it. I love AMD, but I still get the occaisonal hang that I'm certain is due to 3rd party chipsets and such.

Stop posting please.

AMD is known for stability. Don't fall into that trap.

Intel by far has a much larger market share, thus more people are aware of them.

A stock AMD system, is just as stable as a stock Intel board.

Nomada is partially right. On some chipsets AMD has issues. Its common knowledge. AMD and a good chipset = stability. AMD and a bad/so-so chipset = instability.

Intel and a bad/so-so chipset =instability as well.


Get an Intel board on a rock solid Intel chipset, get an AMD chip on a rocksolide nForce chipset and you won't have any issues...

Everyone knows, bad chipsets lead to stability issues. That doesn't mean Intel is mroe stable than AMD in any way at all.

 

[Oyeve]

Originally posted by: bjc112

Originally posted by: Oyeve

Originally posted by: bjc112

Originally posted by: Nomada
Intel is known for stability. For this reason many businesses don't deviate from it. I love AMD, but I still get the occaisonal hang that I'm certain is due to 3rd party chipsets and such.

Stop posting please.

AMD is known for stability. Don't fall into that trap.

Intel by far has a much larger market share, thus more people are aware of them.

A stock AMD system, is just as stable as a stock Intel board.

Nomada is partially right. On some chipsets AMD has issues. Its common knowledge. AMD and a good chipset = stability. AMD and a bad/so-so chipset = instability.

Intel and a bad/so-so chipset =instability as well.


Get an Intel board on a rock solid Intel chipset, get an AMD chip on a rocksolide nForce chipset and you won't have any issues...

Everyone knows, bad chipsets lead to stability issues. That doesn't mean Intel is mroe stable than AMD in any way at all.

Nope, it just means there are better Intel mobos around.

 

[The Pentium Guy]

Well,

Keeping my bias aside, it's true that an Intel motherboard on an Intel chipset is a stability king. I got a 3.0 northwood that idles at 105 (Fahrenheit) and in HL2 reaches a high at 135F on a 7700AlCu. On stock: 113F idle, 145F load.

New prescotts are really hot. My friend's 3.4 (LGA 775) idles at 140F and on load, roughly 160F or so, on stock. I wish intel still made Northwoods. That was an amazing core. AMAZING core, my vCore's at 1.38, lower than many Athlon64's - heh, except the Venice 😀, that will be a beast! I heard ppl got 800mhz clocks based on MULTIPLIER alone! (BS? Probably not - I got this from some review site)

But then again, AMDs are cheaper, they run cooler.
If only intel decided to upgrade their Northwood instead of sticking with prescott.

Eh. One last comment. I'm pleased with my P4P800-e Deluxe, amazingly stable (i865). Don't really want to start a flame war or anything, just my thoughts.

-TPG

 

[EndGame]

Actually, the new 600 series are quite an advancement even for the Prescott. Power consumtion is down considerably over S478 and 500 series Prescotts. A 4000+ uses 111W and a 660 uses 115W. I recently built one using the 640 and can say that with an XP90 and Panaflo I can keep the temps. around 32/33C..........🙂

 

[aka1nas]

Originally posted by: Oyeve

Originally posted by: bjc112

Originally posted by: Oyeve

Originally posted by: bjc112

Originally posted by: Nomada
Intel is known for stability. For this reason many businesses don't deviate from it. I love AMD, but I still get the occaisonal hang that I'm certain is due to 3rd party chipsets and such.

Stop posting please.

AMD is known for stability. Don't fall into that trap.

Intel by far has a much larger market share, thus more people are aware of them.

A stock AMD system, is just as stable as a stock Intel board.

Nomada is partially right. On some chipsets AMD has issues. Its common knowledge. AMD and a good chipset = stability. AMD and a bad/so-so chipset = instability.

Intel and a bad/so-so chipset =instability as well.


Get an Intel board on a rock solid Intel chipset, get an AMD chip on a rocksolide nForce chipset and you won't have any issues...

Everyone knows, bad chipsets lead to stability issues. That doesn't mean Intel is mroe stable than AMD in any way at all.

Nope, it just means there are better Intel mobos around.

No it just means that some people like to ignore the bad Intel motherboards and focus on the bad AMD ones.

 

[bjc112]

Originally posted by: aka1nas

Originally posted by: Oyeve

Originally posted by: bjc112

Originally posted by: Oyeve

Originally posted by: bjc112

Originally posted by: Nomada
Intel is known for stability. For this reason many businesses don't deviate from it. I love AMD, but I still get the occaisonal hang that I'm certain is due to 3rd party chipsets and such.

Stop posting please.

AMD is known for stability. Don't fall into that trap.

Intel by far has a much larger market share, thus more people are aware of them.

A stock AMD system, is just as stable as a stock Intel board.

Nomada is partially right. On some chipsets AMD has issues. Its common knowledge. AMD and a good chipset = stability. AMD and a bad/so-so chipset = instability.

Intel and a bad/so-so chipset =instability as well.


Get an Intel board on a rock solid Intel chipset, get an AMD chip on a rocksolide nForce chipset and you won't have any issues...

Everyone knows, bad chipsets lead to stability issues. That doesn't mean Intel is mroe stable than AMD in any way at all.

Nope, it just means there are better Intel mobos around.

No it just means that some people like to ignore the bad Intel motherboards and focus on the bad AMD ones.

I agree.. What about people running Dual Opterons and such? Business can easily rely on them.


All i was saying is that if you compare Intel's best chipset, up against AMD's best chipset you will not have ANY stabilty issues, on either platform.