P4 2.8 Prescott vs Northwood

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Given the choice of a P4C or P4E which would you chose and why?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Sal Monella wrote:
>
> Given the choice of a P4C or P4E which would you chose and why?

Damn, that's ugly. What I meant to say in my half awake state was:

Given the choice of a P4 2.8C(Northwood) or P4 2.8E(Prescott), which
would you choose and why?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Sal Monella" <salmonella@idontwantanymail.moc> wrote in message
news:TVGhc.18299$um3.393671@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Given the choice of a P4C or P4E which would you chose and why?
>

Northwood...faster and runs cooler.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Northwood.

The Prescott has a lot of new overhead, which actually makes it
slower than a Northwood at "slow" speeds like 2.8GHz.

This overhead has the promise of allowing even faster speeds
someday (4 GHz??), and that is why it was done. However, it
offers nothing but a penalty today at 2.8GHz.

Also, I bet ya the Northwood is cheaper, no? Not very often
one can get better performance, at a lower price.

Sal Monella wrote:
>
> Given the choice of a P4 2.8C(Northwood) or P4 2.8E(Prescott), which
> would you choose and why?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Walt wrote:
> Northwood.
>
> The Prescott has a lot of new overhead, which actually makes it
> slower than a Northwood at "slow" speeds like 2.8GHz.
>
> This overhead has the promise of allowing even faster speeds
> someday (4 GHz??), and that is why it was done. However, it
> offers nothing but a penalty today at 2.8GHz.
>
> Also, I bet ya the Northwood is cheaper, no? Not very often
> one can get better performance, at a lower price.

It's actually only a few bucks cheaper at newegg. Thanks for verifying.
I thought Northwood looked better than Prescott. Intel can drive a
person nuts sometimes.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Richard Dower wrote:
> "Sal Monella" <salmonella@idontwantanymail.moc> wrote in message
> news:TVGhc.18299$um3.393671@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
>>Given the choice of a P4C or P4E which would you chose and why?
>>
>
>
> Northwood...faster and runs cooler.

That's what I thought, thanks.

 

[gareth]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:28:29 -0400, Walt <NoSpamForWalt@Early.com>
wrote:

>Northwood.
>
>The Prescott has a lot of new overhead, which actually makes it
>slower than a Northwood at "slow" speeds like 2.8GHz.
>

Thanx, sorry for joining this thread after it's over, but at about
what speed do you think the Prescott will be the better option that
the Northwood. I'm not looking to start a war of words, or heated
debate, just a rough guestimate(s)

>Sal Monella wrote:
>>
>> Given the choice of a P4 2.8C(Northwood) or P4 2.8E(Prescott), which
>> would you choose and why?

TIA Gareth
Keep on Groovin'
gareth
http://www.backstage.co.za/gareth/

 

[James]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

I'm not the person you responded to but, from what I have read Prescott
really comes into it's own when it is used in a system with lots of ram and
running several applications at the same time.
Supposedly, the deeper pipelines it has and the larger cache allow it to
work better with several apps running at the same time. Even better than
the current (Northwood) Hyperthreading enabled cpu's.
But, all the tests that I have seen so far don't seem to completely support
that. Very few applications seem to improve when running with a Prescott
proccessor. And on top of that they have a higher operating temp too. The
big thing is that Prescott is supposed to allow for much higher proccessor
speeds. Later on, not now.
Guess we will see.
james

"Gareth" <gareth@freemail.absa.co.za> wrote in message
news:409a4180.6275291@news.freemail.absa.co.za...
> On Thu, 22 Apr 2004 13:28:29 -0400, Walt <NoSpamForWalt@Early.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Northwood.
> >
> >The Prescott has a lot of new overhead, which actually makes it
> >slower than a Northwood at "slow" speeds like 2.8GHz.
> >
>
> Thanx, sorry for joining this thread after it's over, but at about
> what speed do you think the Prescott will be the better option that
> the Northwood. I'm not looking to start a war of words, or heated
> debate, just a rough guestimate(s)
>
> >Sal Monella wrote:
> >>
> >> Given the choice of a P4 2.8C(Northwood) or P4 2.8E(Prescott), which
> >> would you choose and why?
>
> TIA Gareth
> Keep on Groovin'
> gareth
> http://www.backstage.co.za/gareth/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Thu, 06 May 2004 18:35:23 GMT, "james"
<jjames700ReMoVeMe@earthlink.net> wrote:

>I'm not the person you responded to but, from what I have read Prescott
>really comes into it's own when it is used in a system with lots of ram and
>running several applications at the same time.
>Supposedly, the deeper pipelines it has and the larger cache allow it to
>work better with several apps running at the same time.

No, that's not right. On the contrary, the deeper pipe is - as always
- a liability. The bigger cache and improved branchprediction
basically only compensates for the deeper pipeline. It's no added
capability. The deeper pipe eats it all.
An awful lot of expensive and hot transistors, for the sole purpose of
ticking a fast clock. And sofar, it's not even ticking fast. Terrible
design. Intel thinks so too, they won't do it again.

ancra


> Even better than
>the current (Northwood) Hyperthreading enabled cpu's.
>But, all the tests that I have seen so far don't seem to completely support
>that. Very few applications seem to improve when running with a Prescott
>proccessor. And on top of that they have a higher operating temp too. The
>big thing is that Prescott is supposed to allow for much higher proccessor
>speeds. Later on, not now.
>Guess we will see.
>james

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <Lzvmc.9928$V97.5895
@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
jjames700ReMoVeMe@earthlink.net says...
> I'm not the person you responded to but, from what I have read Prescott
> really comes into it's own when it is used in a system with lots of ram and
> running several applications at the same time.
> Supposedly, the deeper pipelines it has and the larger cache allow it to
> work better with several apps running at the same time. Even better than
> the current (Northwood) Hyperthreading enabled cpu's.
> But, all the tests that I have seen so far don't seem to completely support
> that. Very few applications seem to improve when running with a Prescott
> proccessor. And on top of that they have a higher operating temp too. The
> big thing is that Prescott is supposed to allow for much higher proccessor
> speeds. Later on, not now.
> Guess we will see.
> james
>

Latest info I saw is that Intel is abandoning the P4 CPU
in preference of going back to the Pentium M (which is a
reworked P3).

Was an article on Slashdot a few days a go that I didn't
spend much time looking at.