Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel Pentium 840 vs Intel Pentium 940

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 7, 2006 10:56:00 PM

I was wondering why anyone would want the Pentium 840 over the 940

From what I gather the 840 costs about $100 more then the 940. Why would anyone still want the 840 when it is bigger and uses more power??
February 7, 2006 11:06:07 PM

I still do not get why anyone would pay that much $$ for teh EE...
February 7, 2006 11:18:51 PM

Well I guess when you take two good cores running @ 3.2ghz (not overclocked) and fully enable HT on them some people take note. The EE Dual core 840 is not a bad offering if you have the cooling for it. They have great overclocking capability in them too since the multipliers were extended.

Again thermals are a concern but can be mitigated by a good aftermarket cooling system.

I would take one. I would also take a new x2 4800 too. Anyone who would like to give one away please do ping me :) 
Related resources
February 7, 2006 11:33:09 PM

Ohhhhhhh I want the 955 EE

What a proc. 1066Mhz FSB, Dual Core, 2x 2mb L2 Cache, extended multipliers that the EE always get. 4 Thread capable per clock cycle since HT is enable on both cores. Their is not a lot that is bad to be said with of course the exception of price. And it is not that hot of a chip.
February 7, 2006 11:34:18 PM

I see true potential in the Pressler and future 65nm chips coming. They are methodically positioning themselves for the kill. :p 
February 7, 2006 11:37:55 PM

Ohhh back on topic sorry.... The 840 is a smithfield with 3.2ghz and right now is a little cheaper bynearly $100.00 on the sites i frequent.

I would think that the 940 based on the Presler core would be the better option.
February 8, 2006 12:05:51 AM

It will be interesting to see how in compares with Intels 9xx series on 65nm. Also, be interesting to see how quick Intel is to ramp up the MHz on the 9xx's with dual core 2x2MB cache on a 81mm die.
If it were not for the design requiring higher latency and longer pipelines than AMD, this chip could really fly, and still could if they can ramp it up to and past 4GHz.
It should OC well, should that is, also should have lower power and heat than the 8xx series.

BTW, Intel should have called the dual 3200 the 820/920 insead of 840, at least you could know the MHz and the last two digits could be useful, withoult having to use BS numbering. Then the 840 is 3400MHz right.
February 8, 2006 12:12:01 AM

The reason why the 840 is more expensive than the 940 is because the 8xx series only had 4 models including the EE. The 9xx series now has 5 which means the the price difference between 2 models is finer. The 940 is obviously the better choice since its cheaper, faster, cooler, and uses less power. The 8xx series are supposed to recieve price cuts for clearance, but that doesn't seem to have happened yet.
February 8, 2006 12:24:54 AM

last post is pretty good on it. The 840 is a discontinued item now too and is disapearing so their prices are falling...upwards. when the 9xx first came out they were more though. One thing to note, the 9xx wont run in an older 8xx mobo though right? The 8xx will run in the 9xx mobo but its not true the other way (I think)

Personally, I think its best to run the Opteron or X2 but thats my .02. My friend has an XPS with 840EE and even dell lets you OC a bit. It is now 3.6ghz. They give you no FSB adjustments and the only multi's available are the stock, +1 and +2 but its better than nothing. No vcore adjustments are allowed but hey, its faster than it was.

Hide
February 8, 2006 12:26:41 AM

A bios update should cure that, since it is based on same design, just less power and heat.
February 8, 2006 12:33:24 AM

Intel has a new stepping of the 9xx in production right now and it will probably be the last Netburst. Intel seems to want to leave Netburst on a high note, or at least as high as possible considering the Prescott architecture. The new stepping will finally enable EIST, Enhanced Halt State and TM2, which in an of itself will reduce the 9xx's temperatures and power usage. The EIST has also been improved over the 8xx's implementation as the processors now have multipliers down to 12 and can downclock to 2.4GHz instead of 2.8GHz as previous. The voltages are also lower due to the 65nm process.

Intel as also improved the 65nm process, and so the new stepping looks to bump all the models down a step in terms of power. Previously only the 920 and 930 fit under the 95W TDP, but now the 940 fits under 95W as well. The lower temperatures and power has allowed Intel to add a new processor the 3.6GHz 960. Intel may decide to update the 955EE to a 3.73GHz 965EE at that time as well. Since current stepping 955EE can overclock easily to 4.26GHz with stock cooling, it'll be interesting if the new stepping and revised 65nm process will allow a stable 4.53GHz overclock on stock cooling.

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/02/01/intel_upgrades_...

These new processors look to be available in April and were suppose to be a refresh to meet the AM2 launch which was then delayed. The addition of the 960 will cause a pricing cascade and the 920 will then be available for $209.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29133

Intel's cheapest dual core will actually be the 805 which will cost around $150 and will be launched February 12th.

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=29327
February 8, 2006 12:36:23 AM

The whole purpose of the 840EE was to open up the mutilpliers... If they are constrained it is by Dell and not Intel. Please do not get me wrong I am not an Intel Fan. I am a fan of Technology. The 840EE is actually a nice proc. I like the 4800 X2 as well. Given that the Top Proc X2 competitor chip from AMD can be had for about 300 cheaper I would definetely go for that myself.
February 10, 2006 1:42:08 AM

cause they're stupid thats why!
February 10, 2006 1:55:37 AM

right it is dell, their bios does not support any FSB or vcore adjustments either. However, they do allow mild OCing. In any 3rd party mobo it'd hit about 4.2 ghz on air. Note however, that the 830 or 840 NON ee will too for FAR less money. They will reach same speeds with FSB adjustments which yeilds more performance at the same clock speeds anywayz...

The o riginal question is 9xx vs 8xx and from what I know, the 9xx requires a new chipset and th erefor mobo...

Hide
February 10, 2006 2:32:31 AM

Quote:
The o riginal question is 9xx vs 8xx and from what I know, the 9xx requires a new chipset and th erefor mobo...

That is not true. The 9xx runs on the i945, i955 or i975 chipsets which is exactly the same as the 8xx. No new motherboard is required, only a BIOS update.

In case you are still considering the 8xx series, now is the best time to buy. Intel just announced massive prices cuts to clear 8xx inventory.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20060208210646...

The largest cut is $80 cut to the 840D. Somehow, that cut has actually increased when implemented by retailers and the 840D is actually $100 cheaper than a week ago and can now be had for $366 or $80 cheaper than the 940D.

http://labs.anandtech.com/alllinks.php?pfilter=2199

The best price performance right now would be the 830D which has dropped $41 in the last week and is now priced at $269 or $70 cheaper than the 930D. It pretty much stands where the 820D used to stand.

http://labs.anandtech.com/search.php?q=intel+830

The 820D itself only costs $213 down $24.

http://labs.anandtech.com/search.php?q=intel+820
February 10, 2006 5:43:57 AM

The real deciding factor is, when will my tax return come?! :twisted:
February 10, 2006 6:13:54 AM

The 9xx are no doubt better than the 8xx series. Granted it has to do with it's 65 nm architecture, it's more effecient. Consuming energy and producing less heat. I have the 840 but I bought last year. The price of the 840 should be going down soon.
!