Intel is cutting off making the Prescott???

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

< < < <Prescott is a
< < < <runt, as evidenced by the fact that Intel have already canned the
< < < <development on it.

Really?

What the hell is this ?

http://processorfinder.intel.com/scripts/details.asp?sSpec=SL82U&ProcFam=483
&PkgType=ALL&SysBusSpd=ALL&CorSpd=ALL

We're already 200 MHz away from 4 GHz.
Yet, ppl claim we are still hanging around the 3 GHz range.

My guess is that there's already a 4 GHz chip @ prototype stage, and it's
possible
that there is something faster that's not far from the prototype stage..


Temps, it's not all that new of a thing for a Pentium 4 or Pentium 4 Based
CPU runs hot.
When I get the parts I need for my Xeon's, the temps are listed on Intel's
site as being about the
same.
Intel did do (Very, Very) well at keeping the Prescott's temps down.
Compare 77 Watts = 72ºC for my Xeon's
with 115 Watts for the Prescott and the same temps for both, or close to.
More power, and a much smaller design, and Intel was somehow able to keep
temps down that much..
Another link. This one goes to the page with my Xeon's on it, and thermal
temps.

http://processorfinder.intel.com/scripts/details.asp?sSpec=SL73M&ProcFam=528
&PkgType=ALL&SysBusSpd=ALL&CorSpd=ALL

Now, before more ppl complain about the temps of the Prescott, keep this in
mind.
Intel somehow managed to keep the same temps even though the speed is a bit
different,
and it's power use.
115 - 77 = 38 So that's already 38 Watts more then my Xeons.
Next
3800 - 2660 = 1140 MHz more then my Xeon's.
So as for Thermal problems,,, What thermal problems.
Last..



This is a question, Thermal Spec
72°C

What does intel mean by this, the hottest, or under load?
Hmm..
I Just know they both have about the same Thermal Specs.
Means Intel did a good job..

Denny. ;-)

Denny. ;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

"dennis e strausser jr" <wayoutthere@iamhere.com> wrote in message
news:JsednWo5wtWIjEjcRVn-jQ@comcast.com...
> < < < <Prescott is a
> < < < <runt, as evidenced by the fact that Intel have already canned the
> < < < <development on it.
>
> Really?
>
> What the hell is this ?
>
>
http://processorfinder.intel.com/scripts/details.asp?sSpec=SL82U&ProcFam=483
> &PkgType=ALL&SysBusSpd=ALL&CorSpd=ALL
>
> We're already 200 MHz away from 4 GHz.
> Yet, ppl claim we are still hanging around the 3 GHz range.
>
> My guess is that there's already a 4 GHz chip @ prototype stage, and it's
> possible
> that there is something faster that's not far from the prototype stage..
>
>
> Temps, it's not all that new of a thing for a Pentium 4 or Pentium 4 Based
> CPU runs hot.
> When I get the parts I need for my Xeon's, the temps are listed on
Intel's
> site as being about the
> same.
> Intel did do (Very, Very) well at keeping the Prescott's temps down.
> Compare 77 Watts = 72ºC for my Xeon's
> with 115 Watts for the Prescott and the same temps for both, or close to.
> More power, and a much smaller design, and Intel was somehow able to keep
> temps down that much..
> Another link. This one goes to the page with my Xeon's on it, and thermal
> temps.
>
>
http://processorfinder.intel.com/scripts/details.asp?sSpec=SL73M&ProcFam=528
> &PkgType=ALL&SysBusSpd=ALL&CorSpd=ALL
>
> Now, before more ppl complain about the temps of the Prescott, keep this
in
> mind.
> Intel somehow managed to keep the same temps even though the speed is a
bit
> different,
> and it's power use.
> 115 - 77 = 38 So that's already 38 Watts more then my Xeons.
> Next
> 3800 - 2660 = 1140 MHz more then my Xeon's.
> So as for Thermal problems,,, What thermal problems.
> Last..
>
>
>
> This is a question, Thermal Spec
> 72°C
>
> What does intel mean by this, the hottest, or under load?
> Hmm..
> I Just know they both have about the same Thermal Specs.
> Means Intel did a good job..
>
> >
>
>
From whats here, Intel is a little behind.
The Gallatin - P4EE
They had said they will still make some old 130nm line yet.
But this is not on the market.
Fsb = 1066 MHz or by a good guess 266 MHz FSB (266.5)
The first Prescotts of 2005 are supposed to use this bus too.
Before it gets replaced by the,,,, it's in here..

http://www.a1-electronics.net/Intel_Section/CPUs/Roadmap.shtml

Their not Scrapping the Prescott, it's just almost reached it's end.
Q1 of 2005 will be the last new Prescott's, then SmithField will take it's
place.

This is, in a very real way, the same thing that happened when they first
released the P4.
It really wasn't that fast a chip, then they made some advances to it's
core.
100 MHz FSB or 400 MHz total bus was the same as a lot of the PIII's of that
same time.
And as a matter a fact, some of the P3's were faster then the P4's @ the
time.


Denny. ;-)

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

> Their not Scrapping the Prescott, it's just almost reached it's end.
> Q1 of 2005 will be the last new Prescott's, then SmithField will take it's
> place.

Prescott is hardly a year old and it's already over? Sounds like sCRAPping
to me. Prescott should never have seen the light of day.

 

[Spajky]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 21:57:55 -0000, "Richard Hopkins"
<richh@dsl.nospam.co.uk> wrote:

>> 100 MHz FSB or 400 MHz total bus was the same as a lot of the
>> PIII's of that same time.
>
>Lol, you're really stupid! Even the original P4's system bus is *waaaay*
>faster than anything the Pentium!!! had. The 133MHz Pentium!!! bus ran at
>1.06GB/sec (and was hitting the buffers), while the P4's started at
>3.2GB/sec and had scalability designed in.

real life performance has not much to do with theorethical max
bandwith on the same real clock, since a waste majority of
calculations pass thru chipset & memory & real life performance of it
matters (not its theoretical max bandwith); how certain chipsets &
memory really perform per clock; see my site under comp/benches (first
"new") ... sure, higher real clock better performance ..
>
>> And as a matter a fact, some of the P3's were faster then the P4's
>> @ the time.
>
>Yeah, they were, but that was mainly because the P4's had much longer
>pipelines than the Pentium !!!'s. The lengthened pipeline was implemented to
>enable the P4 core to scale to much higher clock speeds, but the downside
>was that, clock for clock, a Pentium!!! would have better performance.
>Exactly the same situation pertains when comparing Northwood (20 stage
>pipeline) with Prescott (31 stages).....

yes, the efficiency dropped with that marketing pumping up clock; now
happens contrary (I mean P-M) - enhancing the previous P-3 core with
some P4 features (peripherals) .. you can see in % per clock
efficiency on the same my site, but second "new" ..

Happy New Year, Richard!
--
Regards & Happy Holidays Everyone, SPAJKY ®
& visit my site @ http://www.spajky.vze.com
"Tualatin OC-ed / BX-Slot1 / inaudible setup!"
E-mail AntiSpam: remove ##

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

"Minotaur" <antnel@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:41d8e0c4$0$5112$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> dennis e strausser jr wrote:
>> "Richard Hopkins" <richh@dsl.nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:41d5d3b3$0$19162$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...

<snip bleedin' snip>

> Apple, never LOL they don't even have an e-mail client capable of
> connecting to an Exchange Server correctly.
>
> Intels problem in the future shall be the choke on the system bus, from
> multicore processors.
>
> AMD is it! Intel might make a come back when the Marketing dept isn't in
> charge of CPU development. Server sales of Opterons are going through the
> roof, while Itanium sales sit idle. Not worth mentiong Apple, they have no
> 'real' server sollutions and never shall.

Hang on a mo' - can we get the terms of reference of this "Pissing
Contest" - namely alt.comp.hardware.overclocking back into focus.

Correct me, but underlying it all is getting the biggest bag for your
buck/quid/eurineo...

So: (personally) I don't give a flying fart how many of who's GHz it does -
its results that matter - isn't it?

Much against my better judgement I got blagged into delving into 939
territory by my local clan of the AYBABTU/CS2 mob. So we have (burning in
behind me as I write):

939 Winchester 3000+
Asus A8V ver2.0
2 x generic DDR400
300 Watt PSU (Ebuyer) !!! )

On stock air with a little tweaking and squeezing the ram timings a little:

CPU-Z - HTT 280MHz and 2520MHz
Super-Pi - 34s
Everest - Memory read @ 6.060Ghz and latency @ 44.7ns
32 degC at rest and 50 degC folding

..... OK so the rig still gets smoked by a whole stack of P4 whatevers - but
not for only ~200 hundred quid all in it don't!!

)

Pete

For further data I need to negotiate about getting my heavily modded 9700pro
back out of my son's box!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

"Immuno" <immunodevice@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:crcnr2$s00$1@titan.btinternet.com...
>
> "Minotaur" <antnel@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:41d8e0c4$0$5112$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> > dennis e strausser jr wrote:
> >> "Richard Hopkins" <richh@dsl.nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> news:41d5d3b3$0$19162$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
>
> <snip bleedin' snip>
>
> > Apple, never LOL they don't even have an e-mail client capable of
> > connecting to an Exchange Server correctly.
> >
> > Intels problem in the future shall be the choke on the system bus, from
> > multicore processors.
> >
> > AMD is it! Intel might make a come back when the Marketing dept isn't in
> > charge of CPU development. Server sales of Opterons are going through
the
> > roof, while Itanium sales sit idle. Not worth mentiong Apple, they have
no
> > 'real' server sollutions and never shall.
>
> Hang on a mo' - can we get the terms of reference of this "Pissing
> Contest" - namely alt.comp.hardware.overclocking back into focus.
>
> Correct me, but underlying it all is getting the biggest bag for your
> buck/quid/eurineo...
>
> So: (personally) I don't give a flying fart how many of who's GHz it
does -
> its results that matter - isn't it?
>
> Much against my better judgement I got blagged into delving into 939
> territory by my local clan of the AYBABTU/CS2 mob. So we have (burning in
> behind me as I write):
>
> 939 Winchester 3000+
> Asus A8V ver2.0
> 2 x generic DDR400
> 300 Watt PSU (Ebuyer) !!! )
>
> On stock air with a little tweaking and squeezing the ram timings a
little:
>
> CPU-Z - HTT 280MHz and 2520MHz
> Super-Pi - 34s
> Everest - Memory read @ 6.060Ghz and latency @ 44.7ns
> 32 degC at rest and 50 degC folding
>
> .... OK so the rig still gets smoked by a whole stack of P4 whatevers -
but
> not for only ~200 hundred quid all in it don't!!
>
> )
>
> Pete
>
> For further data I need to negotiate about getting my heavily modded
9700pro
> back out of my son's box!
>
>
>
This thing started with a Prescott subbject.
I couldn't see Intel scrapping the thing.
Yeah well if they do.

I also asked a question about how far I might be able to overclock
my Xeon's.
I'm @ 3.2 GHz right now..
Xeon 2.66 @ 3.2 GHz

NNE_Here...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

"NNE_Here" <None@NoWhere.com> wrote in message
news:41da1e76$1_3@alt.athenanews.com...
> "Immuno" <immunodevice@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:crcnr2$s00$1@titan.btinternet.com...
>>
>> "Minotaur" <antnel@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:41d8e0c4$0$5112$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>> > dennis e strausser jr wrote:
>> >> "Richard Hopkins" <richh@dsl.nospam.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >> news:41d5d3b3$0$19162$cc9e4d1f@news-text.dial.pipex.com...
>>
<snip>
>>
>>
> This thing started with a Prescott subbject.
> I couldn't see Intel scrapping the thing.
> Yeah well if they do.
>
> I also asked a question about how far I might be able to overclock
> my Xeon's.
> I'm @ 3.2 GHz right now..
> Xeon 2.66 @ 3.2 GHz
>
> NNE_Here...
>

Yeah, I know - your quite right. It just started to get a bit
"introspective". )

Nice O/C on the Xeon tho'

Pete

 

[Thomas]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Frank wrote:
> POS? Not even close. I'm running a Prescott 2.8 oc'ed to 3.7 air
> cooled idle temp 41c on a P4C800ED.

Idle doesn't say much, what's your stressed temp?
--
Thomas

 

[frank]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Thomas wrote:
> Frank wrote:
>
>>POS? Not even close. I'm running a Prescott 2.8 oc'ed to 3.7 air
>>cooled idle temp 41c on a P4C800ED.
>
>
> Idle doesn't say much, what's your stressed temp?
Highest I've seen is 122F. And yes idle does say a lot.
Frank

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

"Frank" <fb@nospam.com> wrote in message news:NSwLd.741$Tt.497@fed1read05...
> Thomas wrote:
> > Frank wrote:
> >
> >>POS? Not even close. I'm running a Prescott 2.8 oc'ed to 3.7 air
> >>cooled idle temp 41c on a P4C800ED.
> >
> >
> > Idle doesn't say much, what's your stressed temp?
> Highest I've seen is 122F. And yes idle does say a lot.

All idle says is that you spent $100+ on case fans and your PC sounds like a
jet.

My 2.6Ghz Northwood running at 3.2Ghz idles at 24'C and is dead silent
(except for the HDD). Under load it might hit 40'C. It can run Prime95 for
DAYS without errors.

How long will your machine run Prime 95 without reporting any errors - and
at what temp?

 

[frank]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

Noozer wrote:
> "Frank" <fb@nospam.com> wrote in message news:NSwLd.741$Tt.497@fed1read05...
>
>>Thomas wrote:
>>
>>>Frank wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>POS? Not even close. I'm running a Prescott 2.8 oc'ed to 3.7 air
>>>>cooled idle temp 41c on a P4C800ED.
>>>
>>>
>>>Idle doesn't say much, what's your stressed temp?
>>
>>Highest I've seen is 122F. And yes idle does say a lot.
>
>
> All idle says is that you spent $100+ on case fans and your PC sounds like a
> jet.
>
> My 2.6Ghz Northwood running at 3.2Ghz idles at 24'C and is dead silent
> (except for the HDD). Under load it might hit 40'C. It can run Prime95 for
> DAYS without errors.
>
> How long will your machine run Prime 95 without reporting any errors - and
> at what temp?
>
>
"$100 on a case fans"...never, not in mt life time! "Sounds like a
jet"...not any of my six!
What planet are you from and how long have you been oc'in?
You sound like a newibe or a blind squirrel who just happened to get
lucky and find an acorn.
Frank

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.overclocking (More info?)

"Frank" <fb@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:l6kLd.4369$bu.2512@fed1read06...

> POS? Not even close. I'm running a Prescott 2.8 oc'ed to 3.7 air cooled
> idle temp 41c on a P4C800ED.
> Frank

I have home made watercooling so I am interested how would prescott work
with watercooling and how high would the temps go? Does enyone have any
expirience with combination of prescott and watercooling?