Prescott 2.4 BenchMarks

ProfessorFate

Diamond Member
Oct 26, 2001
3,826
0
0
Test System Specs

Intel Prescott 2.4A Prescott, 533FSB, 1MB L2-Cache, Non HyperThreading
Thermalright SP-94 w/ Thermaltake 90MM # 9025A-2B (56CFM/35DB)
Asus P4C800-E Deluxe, Bios 15
2X256 OCZ 3700 Gold, V1
BFG FX5900 @ 470/980
WD 36GB Raptor on Sata 1
Enermax 431watt PSU
XP PRO-SP1, Detonator 53.03s


Let?s dispense with the pleasantries and go straight to Overclock results.

--------------------------------------


Benchmarks @ 190FSB, CPU @3420Mhz, DDR @ 2.5-3-3-7, 4:5 ratio running @ 475Mhz.
CPU vcore @1.5v (1.424-1.456v under load)- this chip likes juice, DDR @2.85v


System running in a Lian-Li PC65 with 4 21CFM Panaflos. For CPU benchmarks this was sufficient but when benching with an O'clocked chip and O'clocked Video card performing graphic benchmarks it was necassary to remove the side panel to keep the FX5900 from crashing to the desktop. I've got some Sunon 40CFM fans coming to see if that will be keep the graphics card happy with the side panels on.


First up some Gamimg Benchmarks:

GunMetal BenchMark 2-BM1:

Min FPS =19.69
Ave FPS = 31.95
Max FPS= 62.07

----------------------------

X2 Rolling Demo, Default settings = 116.98 FPS

----------------------------

3dMark 2001SE, Default settings = 18394

----------------------------

AquaMark3
GFX =5832, CPU =9346, Total Score =44444

----------------------------

Memory Scores:

Aida v3.85 Read/Write = 5356.2037

----------------------------

CPU Scores:

Sandra 2004 CPU Arithmetic
DHRY = 8927
WHET = 2271/4196

---------------------------

Super_PI 2m = 1 min, 33 Sec

--------------------------

POV-Ray 3.5 Benchmark v1.02 = 31 Min, 4 Sec

---------------------------

Pretty solid performance from this chip not sporting Intel's current 800FSB or Hyper Threading technology. CPU temps were reasonable using the top notch SP-94 HSF although things got a little warm when the FX5900 heated up.
Here's a look at CPU and MB temperatures under load. System was loaded running Super-PI 32M and POV-Ray Benchmarks concurrently.

First the sytem was run loaded for 15 minutes with the Lian-Li side Panels removed:

Temps are CPU/MB

15 minutes = 43C/31C

At 15 minutes the side panles were refitted and system was left under load and checked at 30 and 45 minute intervals.

30 minutes = 50C/33C

45 minutes = 51C/34C

-----------------------

PF :beer:
 

myocardia

Diamond Member
Jun 21, 2003
9,291
30
91
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't almost all of those benchmarks considerably lower than a 3.4ghz 2.4C?

edit: BTW, a 2.4ghz Prescott is a 2.4E, not a 2.4A.:D
 

slag

Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
10,473
81
101
Originally posted by: myocardia
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't almost all of those benchmarks considerably lower than a 3.4ghz 2.4C?

edit: BTW, a 2.4ghz Prescott is a 2.4E, not a 2.4A.:D

yeah, they are lower. my 2.6c @ 3275 mhz gets a 10241 cpu score.

 

MDE

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
13,199
1
81
Originally posted by: myocardia

edit: BTW, a 2.4ghz Prescott is a 2.4E, not a 2.4A.:D
No, it's a 2.4A. Look at Newegg's listing.
 

ntrights

Senior member
Mar 10, 2002
319
0
0
Originally posted by: MonkeyDriveExpress
Originally posted by: myocardia

edit: BTW, a 2.4ghz Prescott is a 2.4E, not a 2.4A.:D
No, it's a 2.4A. Look at Newegg's listing.

Yeah its a bit confusing the 533fsb prescott (noHT) got the same name as the first northwood core.
 

Jayczar

Golden Member
Aug 28, 2001
1,628
1
81
Originally posted by: pastorjay
Nice to see the results! THanks PF!



Ditto!

I think Thugsrook has one on the way as well, will be interesting
to see how the chips compare. :p
 

pr497

Junior Member
Jan 19, 2003
22
0
0
Originally posted by: Budman
Looks like a Prescott celeron edition to me,no HT and only 533 fsb. :disgust:

look harder...it still has 1mb cache...
the (new) 2.4A is pretty much the prescott 2.8 w/ 533 bus, minus HT and minus 400mhz.
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,211
50
91
Originally posted by: myocardia
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't almost all of those benchmarks considerably lower than a 3.4ghz 2.4C?

edit: BTW, a 2.4ghz Prescott is a 2.4E, not a 2.4A.:D


Dont forget it has a 533 FSB not 800 like a 2.4C

And yes, Its a 2.4A not 2.4E

 

Budman

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,980
0
0
Originally posted by: pr497
Originally posted by: Budman
Looks like a Prescott celeron edition to me,no HT and only 533 fsb. :disgust:

look harder...it still has 1mb cache...
the (new) 2.4A is pretty much the prescott 2.8 w/ 533 bus, minus HT and minus 400mhz.

I know it still had 1 meg cache,but the P4 loves high fsb & ht really helps.

It just looks like a castrated ver of the Prescott,that's why I called it a celeron edition.;)
 

gwag

Senior member
Feb 25, 2004
608
0
0
the bigger caches L1 and L2 and hypertreading (to make an already inefficient processor more efficient) help it keep up with the older P4's since the pipeline was increased to 31 stage from an already high 20 stages, since it appears there not good for Over clocking and there is no hyperthreading one would be wise to stay away from these chips un less the were cheaper.
 

THUGSROOK

Elite Member
Feb 3, 2001
11,847
0
0
Originally posted by: Thor86
Nice results, now get that thing to 200+fsb already. :p
dont waste your time....

my 2.4a prescott is @ 200fsb ~ performance is ....pathetic!
its slower then a 2.4b clock for clock @ any speed
rolleye.gif


Prescott does nothing for gaming at all.
gamers should not even concider these chips over a northwood.


....itll be for sale by tomorrow :(
 

Budman

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,980
0
0
Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
Originally posted by: Thor86
Nice results, now get that thing to 200+fsb already. :p
dont waste your time....

my 2.4a prescott is @ 200fsb ~ performance is ....pathetic!
its slower then a 2.4b clock for clock @ any speed
rolleye.gif


Prescott does nothing for gaming at all.
gamers should not even concider these chips over a northwood.


....itll be for sale by tomorrow :(

So even at 3.6ghz it's still a dog? :disgust:
 

Budman

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,980
0
0
Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
Originally posted by: Budman
So even at 3.6ghz it's still a dog? :disgust:

its a HOT DOG at that.
70*C during prime95

I wonder how it would run this summer when it's 34c with 42c humidex. !!! :Q
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Originally posted by: slag
Originally posted by: myocardia
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't almost all of those benchmarks considerably lower than a 3.4ghz 2.4C?

edit: BTW, a 2.4ghz Prescott is a 2.4E, not a 2.4A.:D

yeah, they are lower. my 2.6c @ 3275 mhz gets a 10241 cpu score.

only with HT enabled.
 

ntrights

Senior member
Mar 10, 2002
319
0
0
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Originally posted by: slag
Originally posted by: myocardia
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't almost all of those benchmarks considerably lower than a 3.4ghz 2.4C?

edit: BTW, a 2.4ghz Prescott is a 2.4E, not a 2.4A.:D

yeah, they are lower. my 2.6c @ 3275 mhz gets a 10241 cpu score.

only with HT enabled.

Most likely with HT disabled also. Consider 31 stages, 1mb L2 (high latency mind you) and a initiall FSB of 533mhz one word OUCH!
 

slag

Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
10,473
81
101
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Originally posted by: slag
Originally posted by: myocardia
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't almost all of those benchmarks considerably lower than a 3.4ghz 2.4C?

edit: BTW, a 2.4ghz Prescott is a 2.4E, not a 2.4A.:D

yeah, they are lower. my 2.6c @ 3275 mhz gets a 10241 cpu score.

only with HT enabled.


Well yeah. Why would I disable it. It comes with the chip. Why anyone would want to disable HT is beyond me.

Do you remove half the spark plugs from your car before you drive it?

If we are comparing stock chip to stock chip, I wouldn't want to castrate the HT.