Wheres the P4E's overclocking?

[SinfulWeeper]

Hey Thugs
Seeing your signature I see you finally made the upgrade to a C CPU, you noticing any difference? That is if your using XP yet, or a linux OS...

 

[THUGSROOK]

the C chip is noticably faster, but only if your OC (fsb) matches your ram well.

 

[chorner]

Originally posted by: Zebo
You go boy. Let us know how it goes especially with the zalman.

hahaha, will do .. I shall report back. I'll probably end up ready to slap down my cash at the end of this month, just as LGA-775 is out .. lol then it will make my descision harder.

Definitly going to grab a Prescott though. Everyone is on this stupid heat craze .. get used to it, CPU's aren't getting slower guys

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: chorner

Originally posted by: Zebo
You go boy. Let us know how it goes especially with the zalman.

hahaha, will do .. I shall report back. I'll probably end up ready to slap down my cash at the end of this month, just as LGA-775 is out .. lol then it will make my descision harder.

Definitly going to grab a Prescott though. Everyone is on this stupid heat craze .. get used to it, CPU's aren't getting slower guys

They may with dual core in the next couple years. Scaling is dead. Sure your OC fanatic does'nt care if his phased precott @4.5 is using 200W and he needs a 651W PSU to power his sytem or if it sounds like a leaf blower, but this will not fly for most users or office workers. Lower power, less Mhz, more refined chips faster like the A64 or dothan are a welcome addition.


Anyway best of luck on your overclock. I still recommend getting the thermaltake w/ a 92mm fan though. It cools about 50% better than the Zalman at same fan speeds accoring to overclcokers.com HS database.

 

[Compddd]

I'll take a 939 FX-53 over a 3.6 Prescott LGA-775

 

[Wiz]

People who slam the Prescotts should really get one & try it out first...

Sure you have to pay some attention to your cooling, but it's definitely worth it IMHO.
The one I put together ran fine overclocked, 2.8e running at 3.6 ghz.
On every test I had it ran at least twice as fast as my AMD clocked at 2.1ghz.
I didn't have every cpu to compare against, but I know that using real applications was a lot faster than anything I've ever seen before.
Do they run hotter? yes
Do they run faster? YES
Is price / performance a good ratio? YES

Tests that were important to me:

seti@home:
2.1ghz AMD 350mhz bus 6-2-2-2.0 timings
Average WU time 2hr 15 mins

3.4 ghz Prescott (didn't leave it at 3.6 to reduce heat)
average WU time 1hr 5 mins

DVD2MPEG:
2.1ghz AMD 350mhz bus 6-2-2-2.0 timings
42 minutes to complete

3.4 ghz Prescott
21 minutes to complete (same DVD)

This is not meant to be a gaming rig, it's strictly business. That being said I wouldnt scoff at playing a game on it

Of course I wish I had a northwood to compare it to, this Prescott was my first step back to intel in a long while. My customer wanted intel so I went with this one.

This is admittedly not a scientific test and based solely on my own experience. That being said I doubt there are any 64 bit AMD boxes out there doing work that beats the times of that Prescott and those times were not at it's fastest settings.

I didn't want to spend a lot of money on cooling, this was using the retail HSF and one case side fan pulling air into the case. It's a nice quiet box, the cpu temp was about 55C under full load with two seti processes running. That was totally acceptable, and of course the customer isn't ever going to do anything that comes close to loading the cpu to that degree. It's sitting there in his office running about 44 - 50C depending on the work being done.

 

[THUGSROOK]

Originally posted by: Wiz
People who slam the Prescotts should really get one & try it out first...

what makes you think we havent?

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK

Originally posted by: Wiz
People who slam the Prescotts should really get one & try it out first...

what makes you think we havent?

Ignorance?

Nice o/c Thugs, btw!

 

[Wiz]

"what makes you think we havent?"

I've seen posts of those others here who have tried them recently and liked them very much.
And some others who didn't like them.
Maybe it's a "that was then & this is now" situation. Maybe intel is producing better chips now than they were "then".
Maybe some people are just parrotting what others have said from their bad experience.
Maybe some people are overly in love with their choice of a C chip.

Or maybe there was just one good prescott ever made and I got it. Yeah right...

I've been overclocking everything I could get my hands on since before 1980, so please don't let my "Ignorance? " get you down. I suppose some of you were still in training pants in 1980, or just a gleam in your fathers eye...

My admittedly narrow experience is that the Prescott 2.8E is a great chip when taken to 3.4ghz & above. It rocks and apps that like a big on chip cache really love it. Of course that's an almost quote from the extreme hardware sites, even though it's my own personal experience as well.
Using retail HSF mine OC'd like a dream, I would guess that using some great cooling it would be awesome.

"Ignorance? "
Maybe, maybe not. Maybe those who tried & didn't like them just had a bad experience, used the "wrong" mobo & ram, didn't have good airflow, older chip version, who knows?

Maybe I just had a fluke good experience with a Prescott and the rest of them are pure sh*t.
Maybe the 2.4E chips were crap, but the 2.8E chips are better?

When a 2.8c is the same price as a 2.8e and you can run both at 3.6ghz I know I would pick the Prescott again. If I got a dud then I guess my opinion would change.

 

[ericgl]

My 2.8E hits 3.5 at default voltages on good air. I think there is more in her.

 

[THUGSROOK]

clock for clock ~ northwood is faster and much cooler (10-15*C) then a Prescott.

i just dont think many ppl did thorough comparison between the 2 chips on the same system. (like some of us did)

ive had 2 prescotts ~ a 2.4 and a 2.8.
altho the 2.8 hit 3.5ghz, it was cr@p compared to my northwood.
the 2.4 was complete garbage, only making it to 3ghz with very very poor performance compared to a 2.4b. (northwood)

 

[ericgl]

I don't doubt that the C is cooler or even faster on the on the 865/875 chipset. But, looking at the results from a Prescott optimized chipset (ATI), it appears the Prescott is capable of equal or better performance clock for clock.

I am guessing that it is possible that bios upgrades may well close the gap between Prescott and Northwood if socket 478 lasts a while.

 

[orion7144]

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
clock for clock ~ northwood is faster and much cooler (10-15*C) then a Prescott.

i just dont think many ppl did thorough comparison between the 2 chips on the same system. (like some of us did)

ive had 2 prescotts ~ a 2.4 and a 2.8.
altho the 2.8 hit 3.5ghz, it was cr@p compared to my northwood.
the 2.4 was complete garbage, only making it to 3ghz with very very poor performance compared to a 2.4b. (northwood)

I agree with you Thugs on about the 2.4A but calling the 2.8E "crap" is a little extreme. A few % gap in performace is not crap. I have done similar testing as you did just swapping my old 2.4C @ 3.6 with my Presscott (1st week production) and I was not disappointed. IMO I think the 2.4C is the way to go for the budget minded however this new 2.8 Prescott I just recieved yesterday is just plain eye opening.