what's the difference between these 2 intel chips?

[eurovw]

intel Pentium 4 530J Prescott 800MHz FSB 1MB L2 Cache LGA 775 Processor AND
intel Pentium 4 630 Prescott 800MHz FSB 2MB L2 Cache LGA 775 EM64T ?
which one is better overall, and better for OC?

 

[volrath]

I think they should be the same but the 630 will have 64 bit support and double the L2 cache. I would get the 630.

 

[Keyvan]

if i'm not mistaken, the second one has the 64 bit instruction set so you can run WinXP 64-bit version... so I guess it makes it a little more futureproof

I'd personally just go for the 530 (i have the 550 myself) since the apps I use and will use for the next few years will most probably be in 32 bits...


edit: didn't realize they had different cache levels!

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

The P4 6xx series does have 64-bit support and a bigger L2 cache, but for some reason it hardly performs any better than the 5xx series. Since the performance gap is barely noticeable, it isn't worth the price premium. The only reason you should buy one is if you plan on taking advantage of future 64-bit applications, something we've been expecting for years but nobody has yet delivered.

This article has some specific benchmarks: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050221/index.html

 

[nick1985]

i gotta be the first to say it...



get an AMD!!!

 

[eurovw]

Originally posted by: nick1985
i gotta be the first to say it...

get an AMD!!!

Why reply if you haven't read the title?
If I wanted AMD, I'd get one.
Thanks

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: eurovw

Originally posted by: nick1985
i gotta be the first to say it...

get an AMD!!!

Why reply if you haven't read the title?
If I wanted AMD, I'd get one.
Thanks

fiesty this one is, since what i replied was simply a joke.


but seriously, what are you using the computer for?

 

[eurovw]

applications, video, audio, programming, DVR, no or little gaming

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

On that note, I've been a bit unsure about why Athlon 64s are supposed to be better than P4s for anything other than gaming. Practically every A/V benchmark I see is won over by Intel. I don't think AMD makes bad CPUs or anything, but why would you get one if you're not a gamer?

 

[fatty4ksu]

Get that AMD #%!% outta here!!!

:|

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
Get that AMD #%!% outta here!!!

:|

oh, this is too rich.

 

[fatty4ksu]

AMD?

more like AM(Dumb)

LMAO!

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
AMD?

more like AM(Dumb)

LMAO!

wouldnt the company still be called AMD then?

FORD...more like FOR(Dumb). this still makes the company called FORD, no matter what you want the last letter to stand for. so, by saying "more like", you implied that the name should be completely changed. in short, you owned yourself.

 

[eurovw]

and yet one practical thought. except for the first 2.
I don't want to start a war between AMD and intel users. I decided it'll be Intel chip, but I am not sure which one. $250 top.

 

[fatty4ksu]

intel?

more like OUTtel!!
lmao!

 

[eurovw]

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
intel?

more like OUTtel!!
lmao!

so mature.

 

[imported_Kensai]

The 5xxJ series *does* support 64 bit instructions as per the "J" in it's designation.

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Originally posted by: eurovw
I decided it'll be Intel chip, but I am not sure which one. $250 top.

As long as it's on an 800 MHz bus, I'd say go for whichever is the best deal. You might even want to go with socket 478. Remember back when the Prescott first came out, and the Northwood actually performed better clock-for-clock? Well, those numbers haven't changed. If you're getting a 3.2 GHz or slower model, I'd go with socket 478.

 

[hurtstotalktoyou]

Originally posted by: Kensai
The 5xxJ series *does* support 64 bit instructions as per the "J" in it's designation.

The "J" denotes execute disable bit (NX). The 5xx and the 5xxJ series do not support 64-bit instructions.

There was some talk about adding a "1" designation for 64-bit support, but I think that was limited to the Celeron D, and not intended for the Pentium 4 5xx.

 

[SlitheryDee]

The one with the smaller cache would probably be better for overclocking and it would offer the better price/performance ratio between the two. If kensai is correct about the 64 bit compatibility then it's also as "futureproof" as the 6xx CPU.

 

[stevty2889]

As others said, the 630 has EM64T, and 2mb of cache, but it's other advantage is that it runs a bit cooler as well, making it a better choice if you plan on overclocking as well.

 

[imported_Kensai]

Well, okay probably what the other guy said. I really didn't keep track of Intel parts and their designations. (Another one of Intel's stupid ideas)

 

[Googer]

Originally posted by: volrath
I think they should be the same but the 630 will have 64 bit support and double the L2 cache. I would get the 630.

I second that,
but wtf why do you want intel anyways? Any AMD processor will blow it away, including the 3000+ venice core.

 

[shoRunner]

i heard about his great site...they have some benchmarks of the 630 vs some AMD processors its called anandtech.com, you should check them out. also here. you'll see that a 3200+ is about the same in the encoding benchmarks winning some, losing others. AMD is still quite competitive in things other than gaming.

 

[eurovw]

Originally posted by: Googer

Originally posted by: volrath
I think they should be the same but the 630 will have 64 bit support and double the L2 cache. I would get the 630.

I second that,
but wtf why do you want intel anyways? Any AMD processor will blow it away, including the 3000+ venice core.

Well, first of all, please, read the title of this thread.
Second, I am tired of this AMD suggestion. I said I didn't want it, still, I am suggested to get AMD. If some people cannot read straight then I 'll have to ask myself: Am I in the right place to ask for help?