CPU Compatibility

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
B

bill

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
1,834
0
19,780
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Does anyone know the fastest P4 that's compatible with Intel's 865PERL mobo?
Also, is it compatible with Prescotts and Intel's P4 Extreme series? TIA.
 
B

bill

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2004
1,834
0
19,780
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Jim" <james@the-computer-shop.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jANwe.10807$iT1.10543@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...


>
> PS: I build exclusively on AMD gear, as it's cheaper and I know some
> tricks to keeping those things running stone cold.
>

Just out of curiosity, do you find that the Athlon 64s run cooler than the
older Bartons?
 
J

Jim

Distinguished
Mar 31, 2004
2,444
0
19,780
Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Bill wrote:
> "Jim" <james@the-computer-shop.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:jANwe.10807$iT1.10543@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>
>
>
>>PS: I build exclusively on AMD gear, as it's cheaper and I know some
>>tricks to keeping those things running stone cold.
>>
>
>
> Just out of curiosity, do you find that the Athlon 64s run cooler than the
> older Bartons?
>
>
>

very much so. Particularly when running a 32-bit OS, where I'm not using
the 64-bit extensions, the processor is never going to be running at
full capacity. Plus the fact that the overall power consumption is
piddling compared to P4:

CPU Idle(W) Capacity(W)*
P4HT 75 130
AMD64 3 38
Barton 45 68.3

*Values are typical on factory clocked chips. Figures from various
sources, including Tom's Hardware.

So it can be seen, that while the P4HT has the advantage over Barton in
idle consumption, both the Barton and the AMD64 run rings around it at
peak running 32-bit platforms; the AMD64 peaks around 50-52W when
running 64-bit platforms, which is comparable to an overclocked K6/II.

--
Cheers, http://www.dotware.co.uk
Jim http://www.dotware-entertainment.co.uk

Are more people violently opposed to wearing fur than leather because
it's easier to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs?
 
G

Guest

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

Jim wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
>> "Jim" <james@the-computer-shop.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:jANwe.10807$iT1.10543@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>>
>>
>>
>>> PS: I build exclusively on AMD gear, as it's cheaper and I know some
>>> tricks to keeping those things running stone cold.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, do you find that the Athlon 64s run cooler than
>> the older Bartons?
>>
>>
>>
>
> very much so. Particularly when running a 32-bit OS, where I'm not using
> the 64-bit extensions, the processor is never going to be running at
> full capacity. Plus the fact that the overall power consumption is
> piddling compared to P4:
>
> CPU Idle(W) Capacity(W)*
> P4HT 75 130
> AMD64 3 38
> Barton 45 68.3
>
> *Values are typical on factory clocked chips. Figures from various
> sources, including Tom's Hardware.

I don't know what conditions those sources used to create those numbers but
specification sheet numbers are, in descending order

Intel P4 Extreme, 660, 670 max 115 Watts
Athlon 64 3500+, 3800+, 4000+ max 89 Watts
Intel P4 630, 640, 650 max 84 Watts
Barton 3200+ max 77 Watts
Barton 3000+ max 68.3 Watts

For a 2400MHz Athlon 64 3500+ to be at 39 watts you'd be running the P3
state at 1800MHz, similar to Intel's Enhanced Speed Step approach of
lowering clock and Vcore for power savings.

> So it can be seen, that while the P4HT has the advantage over Barton in
> idle consumption, both the Barton and the AMD64 run rings around it at
> peak running 32-bit platforms; the AMD64 peaks around 50-52W when
> running 64-bit platforms, which is comparable to an overclocked K6/II.

A stock 550 Mhz K6-II is 18 watts max but I have no idea how you'd get it
to 50-52W, and keep the smoke inside.

>
 
G

Guest

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

> Intel P4 Extreme, 660, 670 max 115 Watts
> Athlon 64 3500+, 3800+, 4000+ max 89 Watts
> Intel P4 630, 640, 650 max 84 Watts
> Barton 3200+ max 77 Watts
> Barton 3000+ max 68.3 Watts

If these are the "thermal design limits" then they are the maximum
power the designer wanted the motherboard folks to be able to supply
to the chip. It is an "outside" number meant to make sure that the
companies put a beefy enough power regulator on the mobo. Predicting
the idle power from the above is going to be difficult.

Here is the power measured at the wall plug for idling systems I have
access to:

28w ppro-150 (idle, bsd 150Mhz)
88w Athlon64 3200+ BP venice (idle, redhat, cpuspeed at 1Ghz)
129w Athlon64 3200+ CG (idle, bsd, 2Ghz)
129w Athlon 1.1Ghz Thunderbird (idle, bsd, 2Ghz)

Notably the old athlon machine takes exactly the same power as the
older athlon64. The venice chip, especially when clocked down, beats
them both.

-wolfgang
--
Wolfgang S. Rupprecht http://www.wsrcc.com/wolfgang/
 
G

Guest

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

Wolfgang S. Rupprecht wrote:
>>Intel P4 Extreme, 660, 670 max 115 Watts
>>Athlon 64 3500+, 3800+, 4000+ max 89 Watts
>>Intel P4 630, 640, 650 max 84 Watts
>>Barton 3200+ max 77 Watts
>>Barton 3000+ max 68.3 Watts
>
>
> If these are the "thermal design limits" then they are the maximum
> power the designer wanted the motherboard folks to be able to supply
> to the chip.

It's what the cooling solution must be able to handle for the particular
processor.

> It is an "outside" number meant to make sure that the
> companies put a beefy enough power regulator on the mobo.

That's a different specification which usually includes requirements for
'future processors'.

> Predicting
> the idle power from the above is going to be difficult.

"Max" numbers are obviously not, nor intended to be, 'idle' power
consumption figures.

>
> Here is the power measured at the wall plug for idling systems I have
> access to:

One would imagine those numbers are more than just processor power.

> 28w ppro-150 (idle, bsd 150Mhz)
> 88w Athlon64 3200+ BP venice (idle, redhat, cpuspeed at 1Ghz)
> 129w Athlon64 3200+ CG (idle, bsd, 2Ghz)
> 129w Athlon 1.1Ghz Thunderbird (idle, bsd, 2Ghz)
>
> Notably the old athlon machine takes exactly the same power as the
> older athlon64. The venice chip, especially when clocked down, beats
> them both.

I'm not sure what the point is. How much power a computer consumes when
doing nothing?

Under that performance criteria they all reduce to 0 Watts with power
removed ;)

>
> -wolfgang
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom