which chipset/mobo platform for P4 3.2E Prescott CPU?

[Sunny129]

i wasn't sure which forum to post this in - i thought about posting in either the motherboard forum or PCU's & Overclocking forum, as my general question pertains to both. on the other hand, this isn't a "troubleshooting" type of help question either. i'm seeking more of a general advice response concerning the overall system platform (CPU/mobo/chipset combo). so like the title says, i'm looking to pair a mother/chipset with my P4 3.2E Prescott CPU.

now i've done what i think constitutes a decent amount of the leg work already, combining what i already know with other research to get me somewhat back up to speed. you see, i first discovered AnandTech.com back in '99, joined the boards in 2000, learned a boatload about computer hardware, and purchased parts and built myself a nice system around a PIII 700MHz Coppermine CPU. it overclocked very well, and i learned alot in the process. a few years later, i came back to do more research and built myself yet another system, this time based around a P4 2.6C Northwood CPU. i paired it with an Abit IS7, so naturally it OCed very well. and, in the process i learned alot about working with the 865 chipset. i've also had quite a bit of experience OCing using my brother's Abit IC7 board (875 chipset). after 6 years of dedicated service (and i wasn't easy on her), my IS7 took a dump on me. i have since built myself another system around AMD's Phenom II 1090T. at any rate, what i took away from this experience is that intel's 865 and 875 chipsets OC very well and are probably the best all-around chipsets for P4 CPUs.

i've had a spare P4/Celeron platform lying around for a while now (ex-GF's old system), and ever since the P4 3.2E Prescott core CPU has come into my possession, i've had the opportunity to finally get a home office computer up and running. i plugged in the CPU and turned the machine on, and quickly realized that the CPU was only running at half its rated frequency (1.6 GHz), and that the Microstar Int'l MS-6577 ver4.1 mobo only supported a 400MHz fsb (100MHz base clock). i quickly and hastily looked for a mobo with 800fsb and Prescott support, and ended up getting myself an Intel D865GVHZ mobo, mainly b/c i wanted a mainboard with rock solid reliability & stability, something Intel mainboards have always been known for - and something i've always experienced with them, despite their absolute lack of OCing features, which is understandable. not long after installing the Intel board, i read AnandTech's ATI 9100 IGP PRO: Optimized for Prescott article. not only did i then realize that i couldn't leave well enough alone and just had to OC my new home office PC , but i realized that things had changed dramatically yet again in the computer world since i'd built my P4 2.6C Northwood system, and that there was finally a P4-supporting chipset that rivaled intel's 865 and 875 chipsets - AND, it was optimized for the Prescott core CPU i had just gotten my hands on. as excellent as ATI's 9100 IGP PRO chipset looked, i believe only 6 or 7 boards using that chipset ever came to market. and on top of it, no motherboard reviews were done on any of those mainboards here at AnandTech. i was able to find an article at hardwarezone.com - ATI RADEON 9100 PRO IGP Motherboard Shootout - which was helpful in narrowing down my 9100 IGP PRO mobo choice to the Gigabyte GA-8TRS350MT, should i choose to go that route.

well, if you've stuck with this long-winded story thus far, you're probably thinking that i've done enough research to come to my own conclusions...and between the 865, 875, and 9100 IGP PRO chipsets, i have. what i don't know enough about in order to come to my own conclusions at this point, is the Intel 945G chipset. b/c the chipset was designed primarily for late model 775-pin P4's and other LGA775 CPUs that followed them, reviews of 478-pin mobos utilizing the 945G chipset are virtually noexistent. while i'm sure the fact that very few 478-pin 945G mobos were ever produced, such reviews would have proven useful for all those folks with 478-pin Prescott CPUs looking to upgrade to features like PCI express, DDR2, high fsb speeds, etc., and still hang on to their Prescott CPUs a while longer. needless to say, newegg.com currently has two 478-pin mainboards for sale that use the 945G chipset, yet i can't find any reviews of them at the popular computer hardware review sites OR their respective forums. i'm beginning to understand that it wasn't a popular P4 Prescott platform...at least for the Prescotts of the 478-pin design. but i think the main reason for this is that the 945G chipset design focused more on the newer LGA775 CPUs and enjoyed its popularity with those CPUs.

the 945G still had 478-pin Prescott support built in, and i'd ultimately like to know how a 478-pin P4 Prescott paired with a 945G mobo performs, specifically in comparison to the same CPU paired with an intel 865/875 chipset or an ATI 9100 IGP PRO chipset:

- even though the 945G chipset has 478-pin Prescott CPU support, it was primarily designed for use with LGA775 CPU's - should i expect my Prescott to not perform as well on a 945G mobo as it would on an 865/875/9100 IGP PRO chipset b/c of this? or will the higher DDR2 memory speeds and faster PCI & front side buses more than make up for it?

- how does the 945G chipset overclock? i must admit this is one area where my research was lacking. b/c i couldn't find a review of the 945G on a 478-pin socket mobo, i didn't really bother to look at any of the reviews on LGA775 boards with the 945G chipset either. if the general concensus is that the 945G chipset doesn't OC quite as well as the other chipsets i'm considering, that would be enough to sway me away from it. after all, the later and greater technologies that enabled increased bus speeds and faster memory clocks aren't going to make up for sheer CPU processing power via OCing.

in closing, i should mention that, while this is going to be a home office PC, it will also be number crunching for Einstein@Home full-time. i will not do any gaming on this system, hence the above considerations of chipsets w/ integrated graphics. in the case i end up with an 875 chipset mobo, i have an AGP video card lying around that i can put to use. i will not be doing much multi-tasking on her...no more than two apps at a time, like surfing the web and checking email. Einstein@Home will always be running in the background. despite the antiquity of this system, i'm not looking for those kinds of responses telling me to just forget it and upgrade the whole system to something current. i already have enough older equipment at my disposal, and for a minimal investment in a mobo, i can have a decently quick and capable home office PC. so again, how does Intel's 945G chipset (when paired w/ a P4 478-pin Prescott CPU) compare to Intel 865/875 chipsets or the ATI 9100 IGP PRO chipset using the same CPU?

mods, if there is a better place for this thread, feel free to tow it. i was tempted to cross post to see if i'd get different responses in different forums. even though i couldn't find anything about it in the forum rules, i decided against it since its typically against the rules on most message boards.


thanks everyone,
Eric

 

[RebateMonger]

A friend had a failed capacitor on his motherboard containing one the later P4 processors.

I looked at alternative motherboards and decided to forget a new motherboard. The later, higher-power, P4 chips won't run on any of the $50 motherboards. You need the $100 boards. That means it's the same price to buy a brand-new Core2-capable motherboard and one of lower-end Core2 processors than it is to just buy a replacement P4 motherboard that can provide the power needed for the P4 chip.

A new Core2 motherboard and CPU will be faster, quieter, and no more expensive than just getting a motherboard for a high-power P4 processor. I'd dump the procesor on eBay if you can.

 

[Sunny129]

The later, higher-power, P4 chips won't run on any of the $50 motherboards. You need the $100 boards. That means it's the same price to buy a brand-new Core2-capable motherboard and one of lower-end Core2 processors than it is to just buy a replacement P4 motherboard that can provide the power needed for the P4 chip.

on the contrary, BIOSTAR and ASRock each have a 478-pin P4 Prescott-supporting motherboard based on the 945GC chipset available @ newegg:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813138174

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16813157216

...and they're both right around the $50 mark. hence my original question of how the 945 chipset performs in comparison to the 865/875/9100 IGP PRO chipsets regarding stability and OCing. at any rate, i'm not sure i follow your logic, seeing as how even if a replacement board for my P4 ends up costing me ~$100, the cheapest Core 2 CPU on newegg is over $100 ($125 to be specific), and i'd still have to find a mobo to go with it.

A new Core2 motherboard and CPU will be faster, quieter, and no more expensive than just getting a motherboard for a high-power P4 processor. I'd dump the procesor on eBay if you can.

again, i'm not sure how this could be true, unless i'm missing something that's right under my nose. perhaps you could point out the pricing i seem to be overlooking. you also have to keep in mind that this is for a home office PC, which will see some occasional web surfing, word processing, spreadsheet creation, distributed computing, and very little multitasking at that. and so i'm more interested in making my current hardware work than i am in spending money on a new platform (let alone a Core 2 platform, which was on its way out so long ago that it provides little in the way of upgrading down the road...granted, i understand that my current setup is even older and less upgradable - but that just helps me solidify my decision to not spend money on yet another platform that can't be upgraded). add to that the fact that home office computing needs haven't changed much in the last decade, and won't change much more in the coming decade (i.e. people have been doing the same old things on their home office/spare PC and continue to do so, myself included). in other words, if my P4 system was more than adequate for my home office/spare PC needs (not to mention my PIII system before that lol), then i certainly don't need a faster Core 2-based system...especially if it can't be done for the same price of a replacement P4 mobo.

i appreciate your opinion, and i appreciate even more that you stuck with my long-winded story, but i'm really more interested in knowing how the 945 chipset compares to the 865/875/9100IGP PRO chipsets so that i can make an informed decision on whether to opt for or stay away from boards utilizing the 945 chipset.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Overthink much?

Really, if you want to use that CPU, just pick ANY S478 mobo, there aren't many to choose from. Overclocking a P4 isn't going to give you all that much more speed. Just get it running, period.

Or get a C2D, the cheapest is an E3300 Celeron dual-core. I don't know why you seem to think that the cheapest C2D is $125.

 

[RebateMonger]

3.2E draws up to 103 Watts:
http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollection.aspx?codeName=1791

BIOSTAR Supported CPUs. Doesn't list any CPU above 82 Watts and the 3.2E isn't on the suported CPU list.
http://www.biostar.com.tw/app/en/mb/cpu_support.php?S_ID=440

ASROCK Supported CPUs. Doesn't list 3.2E. BUT it does list the 3.4, which also draws 103 Watts Max TDP:
http://www.asrock.com/mb/cpu.asp?Model=P4i945GC

As I noted, I looked at this a while back. The problem is that the $50 motherboards aren't typically designed to power the 100W-plus CPUs. At the time, I couldn't find a $50 board that would support the higher-power versions of the Prescott. It looks like the ASROCK board may, though. If so, great. Just keep a careful eye on the power-handling specs for any candidate motherboards.

And, as I noted, the Prescott 3.2E has about half the Passmark CPU score as a $50 Intel chip that burns 65Watts max. power. At the time, I chose the Intel 5200 CPU, which delivered around 1600 Passmarks versus the 3.2E which delivers around 850 Passmarks. Total cost was around $110 when I made the purchases.

But there are different choices today. I bought several Intel Celeron E3300 CPU/MSI motherboard combinations early this year for $35 for the entire package at Frys. The Intel E3300 also delivers around 1600 Passmarks and draws VERY little power. It also supports 64-bit and VT virtualization, which the 3.2E Prescott doesn't. But, as you note, those features aren't needed for a PC used to send email and web browse.

Hey. If you can find a $50 P4 motherboard that supports that CPU (I'm not saying it's impossible. I just couldn't find one when I looked pretty hard a couple of years ago), then great. It'll be hotter, louder, can never be upgraded, and will be about half as fast at best, but I wish you the best of luck.

 

[Sunny129]

Overthink much?

Really, if you want to use that CPU, just pick ANY S478 mobo, there aren't many to choose from. Overclocking a P4 isn't going to give you all that much more speed. Just get it running, period.

Or get a C2D, the cheapest is an E3300 Celeron dual-core. I don't know why you seem to think that the cheapest C2D is $125.

sorry...i didn't realize the Celeron Dual-Core's were considered C2D processers, despite having two cores. so then that makes the cheapest C2D CPU's ~$50 - about the same price for a brand new 945GC mobo that'll support my P4 Prescott. but then i still have to invest in a mobo that supports the C2D, raising the price of the upgrade well beyond what it would cost me to just get my P4 system up and running. that may look like a good deal to someone looking to significantly increase the speed of his/her system, but i'm just looking to get a bunch of old parts that i know work together up and running with the simple purchase of an older mobo. i'm not looking to seriously upgrade the system, especially if its going to cost me more than the ~$50 it would cost me to get a P4 mobo replacement.

i understand the situation regarding the availability of socket-478 mobos. aside from the very few new socket-478 mobos out there (i only found two on newegg, both utilizing the 945GC chipset), the older 865 and 875 mobos are fairly easy to come by, granted they're all on eBay.

i can see, based on the length of my original post, and based on the fact that i'm not trying to get the highest OC possible or squeeze every last bit of performance out of her, how it would appear that i'm overthinking things. nevertheless, my original question still stands. if i were looking to upgrade and spend $100+, your point of view makes sense...but as you can see, that's not what i'm looking to do.

 

[Sunny129]

3.2E draws up to 103 Watts:
http://ark.intel.com/ProductCollection.aspx?codeName=1791

BIOSTAR Supported CPUs. Doesn't list any CPU above 82 Watts and the 3.2E isn't on the suported CPU list.
http://www.biostar.com.tw/app/en/mb/cpu_support.php?S_ID=440

ASROCK Supported CPUs. Doesn't list 3.2E. BUT it does list the 3.4, which also draws 103 Watts Max TDP:
http://www.asrock.com/mb/cpu.asp?Model=P4i945GC

As I noted, I looked at this a while back. The problem is that the $50 motherboards aren't typically designed to power the 100W-plus CPUs. At the time, I couldn't find a $50 board that would support the higher-power versions of the Prescott. It looks like the ASROCK board may, though. If so, great. Just keep a careful eye on the power-handling specs for any candidate motherboards.

And, as I noted, the Prescott 3.2E has about half the Passmark CPU score as a $50 Intel chip that burns 65Watts max. power. At the time, I chose the Intel 5200 CPU, which delivered around 1600 Passmarks versus the 3.2E which delivers around 850 Passmarks. Total cost was around $110 at the time.

But there are different choices today. I bought several Intel Celeron E3300 CPU/MSI motherboard combinations early this year for $35 for the entire package at Frys. The Intel E3300 also delivers around 1600 Passmarks and draws VERY little power.

But, hey. If you can find a $50 P4 motherboard that supports that CPU (I'm not saying it's impossible. I just couldn't find one when I looked pretty hard), then great. It'll be hotter, louder, can never be upgraded, and will be about half as fast at a minimum, but I wish you the best of luck.

thanks for the links and the additional info...i feel like i'm getting somewhere now. believe me, i think it sucks too that i have a system built around a power-hungry, heat-generating P4 Prescott, when there are newer, cheaper CPUs out now (and they're Celerons at that!) that'll outperform my P4 Prescott all while consuming less power and generating less heat. i just wasn't sure i wanted to spend the money to upgrade the platform...but if the numbers you speak of are real, and those deals can still be had if i look in the right place, then maybe i am wasting my time with the Prescott. i just didn't see it before b/c i wasn't finding deals on newer CPU's and mobos for the same price. actually i still found them, but i guess i just have to keep looking.

i suppose what i need to do is hold off on buying an OCable P4 mobo and stick with the Intel board i'm suing now, until i've done enough research on C2D platforms. again, thanks for the advice - i think i'm beginning to "see the light" lol.

 

[RebateMonger]

i suppose what i need to do is hold off on buying an OCable P4 mobo and stick with the Intel board i'm suing now, until i've done enough research on C2D platforms. again, thanks for the advice - i think i'm beginning to "see the light" lol.

Again, good luck. I was telling you what "I" decided when I looked two years ago. At the time, it looked like the spare Prescott that I had could be sold on eBay and would just about pay for the entire 5200+motherboard combination. I never got around to selling it....but, hey, it's the thought that counts. Heck, I've still got a 3.4GHz Pentium EE (Enhanced Edition) that sold for $1000 at one time. With a brand-new compatible Intel motherboard. Gotta' sell that one, too.

You are technically correct about the $50 Dual Core CPUs not being Core2. But most agree that the architecture is substantially similar and they ARE fast. Intel uses the Dual Core versus the Core2 monikers to help distinguish the products in their marketing efforts to justify the pricing differences.

 

[Sunny129]

Again, good luck. I was telling you what "I" decided when I looked two years ago. At the time, it looked like the spare Prescott that I had could be sold on eBay and would just about pay for the entire 5200+motherboard combination. I never got around to selling it....but, hey, it's the thought that counts. Heck, I've still got a 3.4GHz Pentium EE (Enhanced Edition) that sold for $1000 at one time. With a brand-new compatible Intel motherboard. Gotta' sell that one, too.

are the Passmark results you mentioned above indicative of the kind of performance increase i'll see when crunching numbers for Einstein@Home? remember, i don't need a fast computer to do the basic tasks i'll be doing on my home office PC. but if a dual core Celeron will significantly improve on the time it takes to process an E@H work unit, then that's another reason to consider a C2D platform, in addition to the lower temps and lower power consumption.

also, got any tips on how to look out for good deals @ FRYS.com? i'm used to shopping newegg, but not so much FRYS. they've got the E3300 for slightly less than newegg is selling it for, but its still $50, which is more than the $35 you paid for that CPU + a mobo. i can't seem to find a link for "combo deals" when i shop a particular item @ FRYS. are combo deals just not as popular @ FRYS as they are @ newegg?

 

[RebateMonger]

Unfortunately, I think most of the "super" Frys combos are limited to in-store. I have a Frys six miles away. Maybe a Microcenter near you? They seem to have a lot of in-store-only stuff. No Microcenters here.

Sorry, I don't know the relationship between folding scores and Passmark scores. Folding may not be a "typical" application as far as CPU performance. Maybe you can try the "Distributed Computing Forum" here.

I'm guessing that the Prescott has a larger cache than the E3300, which may help the Prescott in that particular comparison. But that's only a guess. There's probably a "CPU versus Folding Score" database out there somewhere.

Edit:
Here's one discussion of P4 versus Dual Core versus Core 2:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/244686-28-pentium-dual-core-dual-core-core

One quote:
"For reference, Pentium 4 < Pentium D <<< Pentium Dual-Core < Core 2 Duo"

Another quote:
"I'll make it simple:

Pentium D = two P4s
Pentium Dual Core = Core 2 Duo with less L2 cache.

The Pentium D 920 is two Pentium 4 620s put side-by-side under one metal heat spreader. The 530J will probably be roughly as fast as the D 920 in single-threaded tasks, if not edge it out by a hair. The D 920 will be faster than the 530J for multithreaded applications. The D 920 will be a little warmer than the 530J at full-load.The Core 2-based Pentium Dual Core and the Core 2 Duo are much faster than the P4 530J and PD 920. The 1.8 GHz Pentium Dual Core will outperform most every P4 and Pentium D out there, except for maybe the 3.60, 3.73, and 3.80 GHz units. It will do this while throwing off 2/3 to 1/2 as much heat as those chips as well. The Core 2 Duo E6550 is the fastest CPU on your list by quite a bit and isn't excessively expensive nor run much warmer than the Pentium Dual Core, so that's what I would spring for if you want to spend the money to get it, otherwise the Pentium Dual Core would be a good budget chip. Forget the Pentium 4 and Pentium D. "

Again, results can be application-specific. Older apps that are single-threaded and highly-cache-sensitive might be faster with the fastest GHz clock speed CPU and with the largest cache.

 

[Sunny129]

Unfortunately, I think most of the "super" Frys combos are limited to in-store. I have a Frys six miles away. Maybe a Microcenter near you? They seem to have a lot of in-store-only stuff. No Microcenters here.

Sorry, I don't know the relationship between folding scores and Passmark scores. Folding may not be a "typical" application as far as CPU performance. Maybe you can try the "Distributed Computing Forum" here.

I'm guessing that the Prescott has a larger cache than the E3300, which may help the Prescott in that particular comparison. But that's only a guess. There's probably a "CPU versus Folding Score" database out there somewhere.

bummer...the nearest FRYS or Microcenter is in northern Georgia...at least 10 hours away from central/south FL where i am.

as regards distributed computing, i'll have to do more research about that. there's no doubt that a C2D platform would help my electric bill and allow me to worry less about system temperatures, but it would be a nice plus to find out that a C2D Celeron has a distinct advantage over the P4 3.2E Prescott...i'll have to head over to the DC forum and research it more...