P4 4 EE 3.4GHz 800MHz 2MB S478 CPU

[apoppin]

it is under warranty?



good luck

intel never could get more than P4e EE @ 3.73G [the prescott EE] ... and the 3.4 EE [gallatin] was faster, anyway
if you want 4.0Ghz ... you gonna need to super cool it ... and then you probably will need your fast timing RAM

mine is running at stock vcore for 3.74G ... in BIOS it shows 'more' but the IC7 is known to read them high ... it is 'right on' in Windbond's HW doc.

i have just a "stock" Prescott cooler so my temps run in the hi 40s at idle ... low 50s normally ... up to 64C absolutely maxed coming out of STALKER with the Video card and HSF fan screaming ... i believe the EE starts to clock-throttle after 67C ... so i am just "OK" with my "budget" upgrade.


it is worlds better than my 2.80c @ 3.31Ghz

Btw, STALKER is *awesome* ... i just got one of the two "true" endings {one is easy, the other rivals FarCry's Volcano Level .... so i am still working on that one} ... runs awesome on my rig

 

[state 08]

My overclock.

 

[apoppin]

you are undervolted ... 1.575 is intel's recommended

i bet you can get more

 

[state 08]

Originally posted by: apoppin
you are undervolted ... 1.575 is intel's recommended

i bet you can get more

Yeah, I know I can get more, but my Motherboard (Asus P4P800-E) doesn't like to keep a consistent VCore, unless I do a mod, so I purposfully set it to 1.565v in the settings. Although, that's not what I get. In 30 seconds span, I see:

1.600, 1.616, 1.552, 1.632, 1.536.

So yeah, it just happend to be 1.536 when i took a screenshot. Even at the setting 1.565, my temps (+/- 1C) with my Zalman AlCu7000b are:

Idle: 33C
Normal Usage: 36C
Load: 46C

And people say if you use Asus, add 5C... but I like to pretend my temps are accurate.

 

[JonnyBlaze]

you got me thinking about grabbing one to replace my p4 3.0 northwood.

i could never get this chip + my ic7-g over 225fsb stable so a 3.4 would be a decent upgrade if i could overclock it.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: state 08

Originally posted by: apoppin
you are undervolted ... 1.575 is intel's recommended

i bet you can get more

Yeah, I know I can get more, but my Motherboard (Asus P4P800-E) doesn't like to keep a consistent VCore, unless I do a mod, so I purposfully set it to 1.565v in the settings. Although, that's not what I get. In 30 seconds span, I see:

1.600, 1.616, 1.552, 1.632, 1.536.

So yeah, it just happend to be 1.536 when i took a screenshot. Even at the setting 1.565, my temps (+/- 1C) with my Zalman AlCu7000b are:

Idle: 33C
Normal Usage: 36C
Load: 46C

And people say if you use Asus, add 5C... but I like to pretend my temps are accurate.

you wouldn't like my temps

i get up to 67C ... under extreme load
[coming out of Oblivion's SI with everything maxed and my x1950p screaming]

normally they are in the hi-40s/low 50s

and JonnyBlaze, they are mostly gone ... you really have to look at what's left ... now for more than $119 now, generally

 

[evolucion8]

I want to upgrade to 2GB but I got a question appopin, what can offer better overclockability, performance and stability? 4 RAM sticks of PC4000 512MB (4x512) or 2 Sticks of PC4000 1GB each, (2x1GB).?

 

[apoppin]

i think it depends on your MB ....

and i don't think system RAM makes a very big difference as any good PC3200 can run the FSB needed for 3.8Ghz

 

[Stumps]

hmmm I think this thread needs to be retitled to "The official Socket 478 P4EE overclocking thread" or something similar...plenty of interesting info in regards to overclocking these old CPU's.

 

[apoppin]

done

and the P4 Extreme Edition celebrates it's 3rd birthday tomorrow [Apr 13 - Fri!]

it was released exactly 3 years ago tomorrow .... not bad for an old single-core CPU

happy birthday
:gift:



and STALKER doesn't need multicore

3D Performance with S.T.A.L.K.E.R.- Part 2 *updated* @ FS -- *CPU Performance *

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: apoppin
done

and the P4 Extreme Edition celebrates it's 3rd birthday tomorrow [Apr 13 - Fri!]

it was released exactly 3 years ago tomorrow .... not bad for an old single-core CPU

happy birthday
:gift:



and STALKER doesn't need multicore

3D Performance with S.T.A.L.K.E.R.- Part 2 *updated* @ FS -- *CPU Performance *

yes it does...trust me..it does...it runs nice on a single core like a high end P4 or A64...but it runs really sweet on a C2D.

I spent the last day reinstalling Windows XP on my E4300 and while it wasn't stable at 3ghz(which is odd considering how stable Vista Ultimate had been for the last 3 weeks...I might look in to it later on), at 2.66ghz (296x9 1.3v) Stalker runs damn sweet at 1280x960 with HDL and Maximum everything..it looks damn nice too.

I couldn't go back to playing on my 2.87ghz A64 now after today...a single core just doesn't cut it any more for me...shame, that A64 is a pretty sweet setup, now it's become my file server and will probably not see any more gaming for awhile.

 

[apoppin]

you didn't read the article:

i get 40s for frame rates with my system, most everything maxed

do i care if it's 60's ?

:roll:


Firing Squad's enlightened conclusion:

Picking the right CPU for S.T.A.L.K.E.R. really is going to come down to what kind of graphics card you?re currently running. Based on our benchmark results, if you?re running one of the mainstream graphics cards like the GeForce 7900 GS, the CPU doesn?t play as great a role in your overall game performance: regardless of the CPU used, performance was basically the same across all systems at the resolutions of 1280x1024, 1600x1200, and 1920x1200. Perhaps if we?d tested at lower screen resolutions (or ran the game with static lighting) the results would have been different, but most gamers are probably going to want to play S.T.A.L.K.E.R. at 1280x1024 or better, and as we showed you in our first article, there?s a huge difference in image quality between static lighting and dynamic lighting.

With a faster GPU setup CPU performance becomes more important. The GeForce 7900 GTX SLI config clearly ran best with the Core 2 processors, with the Core 2 Extreme X6800 delivering the best overall performance in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. thanks to its 2.93GHz clock speed. The nearest Athlon 64 X2 processor, the X2 6000+, trails the Core 2 Extreme by 8%. Clearly this isn?t a huge difference, but it\\s plausible this gap would increase with a faster setup like a pair of GeForce 8800 cards running in SLI. Of course, you can?t do this until NVIDIA releases their updated S.T.A.L.K.E.R. driver for GeForce 8 cards. Hopefully that should occur any day now.

big deal

you exaggerate

 

[Stumps]

Originally posted by: apoppin
you didn't read the article:

i get 40s for frame rates with my system, most everything maxed

do i care if it's 60's ?

:roll:


Firing Squad's enlightened conclusion:

Picking the right CPU for S.T.A.L.K.E.R. really is going to come down to what kind of graphics card you?re currently running. Based on our benchmark results, if you?re running one of the mainstream graphics cards like the GeForce 7900 GS, the CPU doesn?t play as great a role in your overall game performance: regardless of the CPU used, performance was basically the same across all systems at the resolutions of 1280x1024, 1600x1200, and 1920x1200. Perhaps if we?d tested at lower screen resolutions (or ran the game with static lighting) the results would have been different, but most gamers are probably going to want to play S.T.A.L.K.E.R. at 1280x1024 or better, and as we showed you in our first article, there?s a huge difference in image quality between static lighting and dynamic lighting.

With a faster GPU setup CPU performance becomes more important. The GeForce 7900 GTX SLI config clearly ran best with the Core 2 processors, with the Core 2 Extreme X6800 delivering the best overall performance in S.T.A.L.K.E.R. thanks to its 2.93GHz clock speed. The nearest Athlon 64 X2 processor, the X2 6000+, trails the Core 2 Extreme by 8%. Clearly this isn?t a huge difference, but it\\s plausible this gap would increase with a faster setup like a pair of GeForce 8800 cards running in SLI. Of course, you can?t do this until NVIDIA releases their updated S.T.A.L.K.E.R. driver for GeForce 8 cards. Hopefully that should occur any day now.

big deal

you exaggerate

hey a few weeks ago I would have argued that a single core(especially a certain 2.87ghz A64) was more than enougth for any game and application...now, however I have had my eyes opened to the world of dual core...and I wonder how I ever got along with out one.

a C2D is a huge improvement over a single core A64 in gaming (espcially STALKER) so it would be an even bigger improvement over a lowly P4EE.

Unless the next AMD cpu to be released is a considerably better than a Core 2 processor, I think I'll be sticking with Intel for awhile.

 

[apoppin]

isn't your LCD resolution rather much higher than mine?


that is the *only* thing that would readily explain it

the benchmarks support my getting 40 FPS in STALKER ... and excellent FPS in Oblivion's Shivering Isles with *everything maxed* [even grass density]

i don't need a faster CPU or else i would *also* need a faster GPU

it is a nicely balanced system for 06-07 games - so far

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Stumps

hey a few weeks ago I would have argued that a single core(especially a certain 2.87ghz A64) was more than enougth for any game and application...now, however I have had my eyes opened to the world of dual core...and I wonder how I ever got along with out one.

a C2D is a huge improvement over a single core A64 in gaming (espcially STALKER) so it would be an even bigger improvement over a lowly P4EE.

Unless the next AMD cpu to be released is a considerably better than a Core 2 processor, I think I'll be sticking with Intel for awhile.

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/video/dualcore.html]

"Dual-Core Processors in 3D Games" is an excellent new article about the lack of benefit of DC right now
they conclude a little *differently* then you do:

Conclusion
We must admit that the results obtained did not always come up to our expectations. We saw performance gains where we did not expect them and no performance gains in games that were supposed to provide them. In the first case, we've got the effect of NVIDIA ForceWare optimizations for dual-core processors. It seems to us that unexpected performance gains have to do with these optimizations. The tests reveal that dual-core processors can yield some performance gains in modern games even when applications were written for single-core processors.

So here are two main conclusions from our test results:

1. Performance gains from the second core are generally not very large right now ? about 10-15%. Many games either don't benefit from the second core at all or performance gains are very small ? 5-7% and smaller. This small performance gain is reached owing to video driver optimizations and more efficient distribution of background and system processes between CPU cores. Only special multi-threaded games provide significant performance gains, if you install a dual-core processor - up to 40-50% in modes that are not limited by video card's performance.


2. We've detected some relationship to release dates of a game ? newer applications use the second CPU core much more efficiently and can gain more performance from it. A part of such performance gains may have to do with video driver optimizations for dual-core processors. But such games as Rainbow Six: Vegas based on Unreal Engine 3 and Quake 4 based on DOOM 3 Engine (optimized for multi-processor configurations) illustrate importance of the second CPU core for future games. That is, the number of games supporting multiple CPU cores will grow in future.

the future is indeed multi-core

not yet

 

[BadThad]

Made some major changes to properly accomodate my 3.4EE today. Moved my Asus P4B800E Deluxe into a "free" AR Ultra case from a Hot Deal. Pulled the trusty old 3.06 in and put in the 3.4EE with a BIGAZZ cooler. Now I have this baby running at 3.707GHz (218 fsb) with my ram at 1:1 @2-2-2-5. I did have to bump the Vcore to 1.5875 (1.600 BIOS) because it was rebooting in XP randomly. Looks to be stable now with 100% load temp (Rosetta@Home) of 38°C (Asus PC Probe).

I think I'm going to leave it here since this is just my "secondary" PC at my desk. Long live S478!

 

[Cookie Monster]

Looks like its all out of stock. Or im just not looking hard enough?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: BadThad
Made some major changes to properly accomodate my 3.4EE today. Moved my Asus P4B800E Deluxe into a "free" AR Ultra case from a Hot Deal. Pulled the trusty old 3.06 in and put in the 3.4EE with a BIGAZZ cooler. Now I have this baby running at 3.707GHz (218 fsb) with my ram at 1:1 @2-2-2-5. I did have to bump the Vcore to 1.5875 (1.600 BIOS) because it was rebooting in XP randomly. Looks to be stable now with 100% load temp (Rosetta@Home) of 38°C (Asus PC Probe).

I think I'm going to leave it here since this is just my "secondary" PC at my desk. Long live S478!

not bad ... it is a decent increase over stock ... mine is also at 1.6v in the BIOS which is really 1.575 - what intel actually recommends as measured by HW Doctor.

i will exit out of Shivering Isles at 64-66C at 3.74Ghz .... mine is running close to the 'edge' ... i probably could use a better cooler
:Q

Shivering Isles is graphically 'splendid' ... i'm running absolutely everything maxed at 14x9 --and the Quest IS better than Oblivion's MQ

 

[BadThad]

Had to back it down a hair, got a few errors in Rosetta@Home. Seems perfectly happy now:

Current OC

Discovered I have a strange issue with this P4B800E. No mater how much I increase the core voltage in BIOS, Probe and CPUz alway show the Vcore at 1.536-1.568. I went as high at 1.65 in BIOS! The BIOS seems to simply report whatever value I set it at, like it's not even doing an actual measurement.

 

[Auric]

Threw one in for giggles. At default V it manages 3841 (226 FSB): worst Intel overclock evar! Seriousry, I'm used to having the low-end of a new process and enjoying a nice OC (300A @ 464, 533A @ 825, 1.1A @ 1500, 2.4C @ 2900, 3.0E @ 3600). No change in 3DM05 results versus the 3.0E. AVC decode is 10% weaker at the same clock. Meh. These things are supposed to be 10% faster gaming but alas, I guess my 7600GT was not CPU limited. Not exactly a shocker there. As said, the EE is a bad upgrade (if at all) versus spending the same moolah on the next best viddy card but at least if/when I do get one perhaps it will have a li'l more room to run (if I keep the EE, that is).

 

[apoppin]

you need a better video card [period]

that 7600GT is totally holding back your games

but something IS wrong ... it should kick your 3.0E @3.6's ass all over the place and in every bench ... like everyone here before you has reported

memory divider slip? ... timings right on ... check your BIOS ... L3 cache 'enabled' ?

running hot ?... it does clock throttle below 80c

 

[Auric]

Ja, there just isn't a viddy card which is particularly compelling to me at the mo'. All I want is something which performs like the XT in a smaller form factor with 512MB, significantly lower power useage and a much lower price... is that so much to ask?

Divider is still 1:1 and timings are 2-3-3-6. L3 can be disabled? :Q No such option in my mobo's setup. If CPU-Z actually reads the cache data from the CPU (as opposed to simply listing it from known features) then the L3 is active.

Temps are no problemo. Everything is normal, methinks.

Did anyone else really side-grade frequency-wise and report a significant boost in 3DM05 results with a card in this class? Maybe that benchmark just doesn't show the difference as games and 3DM03 do in those various old reviews -that is, it is more focussed on the GPU and as long as that isn't held back then the CPU has little additional affect on the result?

 

[apoppin]

yeah ... read thru the thread

and what *is* your 3DMark05 scores - especially the CPU scores

i went from 2.80c @ 3.31Ghz ... a lbit less than your 3.6 Prescott

i was getting 6,000 in 3DMark05 with it and x850xt ... 6500 with 7800GS OC

going to x1950p/512M with that *same* oc'd 2.80c got me 8,000

simply upgrading to 3.4EE @ 3.74 gets me 9280 ... and FEAR is finally playable at 14x9 with no FPS below 25

i think that P4 "bottleneck" thread by Paratus in Video also showed some more powerful and less powerful CPUs with the x1950p

 

[VinDSL]

Damn it!

Current OC

Soooo close!!!

 

[Cookie Monster]

Hmm, most of you guys jumped ship to the EE.

Any of you guys have a spare NW thats >3ghz on the shelf or in the box? Ill be interested in buying one.