Should I have bought a faster E or should I have went with C?
Also, my load temp is about 62°C. Is this normal for a "E"?
Also, my load temp is about 62°C. Is this normal for a "E"?
Did I screw up buying a 3.0E?
- Thread starter BroadbandGamer
- Start date
yes its normal for an E. prescotts run hotter then its current northwood. unless you get a cpu thats at least 3.5GHz stock, then stick with the northwood. its faster.
So a 3:0C is faster and cooler then a 3.0E? I went with the E because of the extra cache and instructions built into it.
Does it really matter if it runs a little hot if I don't overclock and it stays within the rated temps?
Thanks,
Does it really matter if it runs a little hot if I don't overclock and it stays within the rated temps?
Thanks,
I think the jury is coming in slowly but in favor of the E. It seems to run a little hotter, but noone can prove its a bad thing. It outruns the C in encoding and offers a stronger featureset. Plus it seems to have more headroom for overclocking.
I dunno, I think you're good.
I dunno, I think you're good.
Where is everyone getting this idea that the prescott is 64 bit but disabled?
Please, Intel is the masters at marketing, had they had 64 bit in the prescott we would have heard and seen it by now.
That being said, I don't much care for the Prescott. Extra cache is good, extra instructions require code to use those instructions before you can say that it's a good thing, but extending the pipeline another 11 stages only makes it less effecient.
Please, Intel is the masters at marketing, had they had 64 bit in the prescott we would have heard and seen it by now.
That being said, I don't much care for the Prescott. Extra cache is good, extra instructions require code to use those instructions before you can say that it's a good thing, but extending the pipeline another 11 stages only makes it less effecient.
MiniDoom
Diamond Member
- Jan 5, 2004
- 5,305
- 0
- 76
It may be built-in but Intel said that it won't activate the 64-bit functionality in the Socket 478 variants--only in the LGA 775 ones.
Do LGA 775 P4's run cooler then s478 E's?
Is Intel going to use LGA 775 with their dual core CPU's when they come out?
Is Intel going to use LGA 775 with their dual core CPU's when they come out?
Soulkeeper
Diamond Member
- Nov 23, 2001
- 6,732
- 155
- 106
Agreed.
If you've got a 32-bit 3.4GHz Prescott, Intel would much rather sell you a new 64-bit 3.4GHz Prescott than enable that feature on the one you've already got.
Early P4s (and even late-model P3s supposedly) had some form of HT, but you don't see Intel going back to enable that.
So how long of a life is LGA 775 going to have if Intel is moving to dual core processors? Aren't they going to have to change the socket again?
IMHO, planning ahead for dual cores is exactly the reason that Intel has introduced 775. It's absolutely pointless for current P4 cores, so they must have something planned down the road.
Actually I think the point of 775 was PCI-E and such. I would bet that there will be a new socket for dual-core; those CPU's won't be out until mid-2005 at the earliest.
As for the OP, there is a very obvious answer as to what to get instead of a Prescott, but I'm not going to say it as it will cause a flame war.
The P4 will not have 64-bit capabilities any time soon. Intel has clearly stated that they feel there is no need for it as this time, or any time in the near future. If you want a cooler running CPU with 64-bit capabilities, there really is only one option...
PCI-E is a function of the north/southbridges, having little or nothing to do with the actual CPU interface. (S939 mobos will be produced with PCI-E down the road with no need to change the socket.)
Totally agree with you there, though!
You are 100% correct, but you're forgetting something about intel. They LOVE to bring out new sockets. It forces people to buy new motherboards and CPUs which makes them gallons of money. Imagine how many people would have simply bought 775 boards and dropped in their P4 CPUs if they hadn't changed the socket. Or conversely, imagine how many people would keep the same motherboard for 2 years and just keep upgrading their CPU if the socket remained the same.
The architecture of the P4 has not changed all that significantly since it was launched a couple of years ago; certainly not enough to warrant 3 or 4 socket changes IMO.
Do you remember when the celeron went from a Slot-1 design to Socket-370 back in the day? That's a prime example of intel's strongarm business practices. There is also the example of the BX chipset celeron motherboards not working with the P3 chips or the Tualatins, despite the fact that they were pin compatible. With simple mods, the chips could run in the boards. This proves that intel was being shady IMO.
I have heard the 3.0e is a good ocer. I am looking to get the new 3.2e D0 stepping. From the results I have seen so far they look good. They ones I have seen hit in the 230's on stock vcore.
Ah, very very true. Intel does love to make you buy a new mobo/CPU every chance they get.
Still, the last Intel Socket change (423->478) only added 55 pins. Even Socket A->754 only added 292 pins and most of the extras were for the 184-pin DDR interface. LGA 775 represents the single largest addition of pins that I'm aware of, adding 297 pins (or ball grids, whatever) over the previous socket.
You're right, I wouldn't be surprised if Intel does change sockets again just for the additional revenue(maybe I was giving them too much credit before). But at the very least, the nearly 300 extra pins could probably support a second core for their techs to work the bugs out of Engineering Samples. Otherwise, what would be the point of adding so many pins? Pissing mobo manufacturers off, maybe?
Still, the last Intel Socket change (423->478) only added 55 pins. Even Socket A->754 only added 292 pins and most of the extras were for the 184-pin DDR interface. LGA 775 represents the single largest addition of pins that I'm aware of, adding 297 pins (or ball grids, whatever) over the previous socket.
You're right, I wouldn't be surprised if Intel does change sockets again just for the additional revenue(maybe I was giving them too much credit before). But at the very least, the nearly 300 extra pins could probably support a second core for their techs to work the bugs out of Engineering Samples. Otherwise, what would be the point of adding so many pins? Pissing mobo manufacturers off, maybe?
I honestly have no idea as to why they added pins to the processor without changing its internal architecture. They must have something planned for the future.
As for pissing off the mobo manufacturers, that wasn't their intent with the 775 chipset, but it indeed was the result. The pins are now on the socket; the CPU just has holes in it. Intel wanted to eliminate people returning CPUs with bent/damaged pins. Now they will have to RMA a big heavy motherboard instead. I swear intel has no concept of how to protect the environment, nor do I think they even care. They have got to be the most wasteful tech company I have ever seen.
That's what I meant. They're not x86-64 instructions, therefore they may be "there" and "disabled" but they are also of no use/purpose.
I'm hoping Intel goes further with the Dothan core, maybe my slow 533 fsb'll be back in style!
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 Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter