"Prescott" Pentium 4 HT 3.4E vs "Gallatin" Pentium 4 EE 3.4
hi there, I would like to know what CPU is the best for games: "Prescott" Pentium 4 HT 3.4E vs "Gallatin" Pentium 4 EE 3.4
Thks for any help, any advice are welcome too.
Thks for any help, any advice are welcome too.
^+1 for sure.
Kind of like asking which of these 2 bicycles would be best for motorcross racing....
Maybe not quite that bad, but really if you are looking to game, give us some details about the system, your build or whatever, and then we can offer you some suggetions.
The new Core 2 processors are twice as fast as these processors at the same clock speed.
hahaha this made me laugh.
u may as well use ur pocket calculator to run crysis it may do a better job
honestly both are very dated any dual core CPU will wipe the floor with that Pentium 4
infact the new cerleron dual cores!! are way faster than those pentium 4's
wont cost much to upgrade to say a e5200/e5300 system with 4gb DDR2 ram and decent GPU and will be many many times faster
I run crysis on high with P4 Prescott 2.8 processor lol so whats the problem dude? wast of time...
ok, I was thinking on "Prescott". "Prescott" work at 90nm distant to the "Gallatin" 130 nm beside this "Gallatin" have L3 2048Kib and L2 512 KiB, L2 is too poor so "Prescott" gives a shot with 1024 KiB on L2.
I know dual core is the best option but only socket 478 is supported.
Mobo: DFI PS83-BL
-Supports Intel P4 Processor with H.T. 800MHz FSB and 533MHz FSB
-Award Bios supports CPU/DRAM oc to 200MHz FSB, AGP/PCI/SATA oc, CPU/DIM ov
There's absolutely no point, unless you are getting it for free, as said above (and I seriously doubt you're running Crysis on high on s478 (including the associated AGP graphics) unless you are only at 1024x768 or something like that).
Literally, for $400-$500 or so, you could build a whole new system that would FLATTEN your current one in every way.
(Oh, and that's the whole system. If you already have a decent case, PSU, etc., you could replace the motherboard, RAM, and CPU with something better for around $150)
Well, the Pentium 4 EE 3.4 "Gallatin" is based off the northood core I believe, hence the 130nm production rather than the 90nm production those Prescots are based off of. Northwood cores overclock better and are generally faster clock for clock than the 90nm Prescots of the same speed, which is why they went to the Northwood core for the first P4 EEs. The P4 EE will be faster and overclock better, but it will also generate more heat. For the same price go with the P4 EE, but if the EE costs more I would only say it's worth it if the difference is $10 or less. I wouldn't spend too much on it though since for under $150 you can get an AMD X2, a decent motherboard, and some RAM that would beat the pants off of either of those P4s in your current system.
thks a lot for everyone u are right cjl about the graphics a little more than you expect on that resolution ATI Radeon HD 2600, P4 Prescott 2.8 @ 3.4 ~30 Fps thks for the advice megamanx00 that info was usefull thks a lot. Yup, does two processors were used so i can have it with a cheap prices like free i refuse to buy another system because is to expensive and i will spend much more than i expect on graphics, cpu, ddr, and so on... this computer is for a few uses and i'm satisfy with the graphics. thks a lot the info was usefull so can close the topic please.
I have a similar situation but I have to choose between the 3.2 ghz HT EE (Sl7AA) or the 3.4 ghz HT Prescott Sl7E6. They are $119 and $79 respectively and are used. I would like to go with a core 2 duo but I do not have $500+ dollars to spend right now and I want to increase the performance of my current machine which is used for gamming, college work (computer science, and electrical engineering), and serving files (my documents share for each user). I am currently running the Prescott 3.0 ghz HT on Abit vt7 in raid 0 configuration. I can not find a single forum that verifies that the SL7CH is compatible with my motherboard and Abit’s web site only lists the SL7AA as being compatible. Please help me make the right decision that will best benefit my gamming experience. This machine runs most games at 1024x768 fairly well but my new game Far Cry 2 requires at least a 3.2 ghz Pentium 4. The game start to drop out when something explodes or is on fire, other than that everything else in the game runs fine. I will do an entire new build once I graduate college. I want to complete this machine and use it as a secondary machine when I build the i7 system. Any suggestions? Which processor will be better in this case?
I am sorry, but I have to disagree with those suggesting to scrap the old single cores or that they have no more purpose.
I am not a CPU genius, but I have been running a Single core 3.2 P4 in an Asus P4c800-E Deluxe, an AGP Nvidia 7600 GS, and 4 gigs of ram on vista 32 bit (it DID operate better on xp...network issues with xp and vista though). That being said, I can successfully run all new titles released to date (2009-2010), there is a frame-rate drop, and a problem with some shader support, but it still pushes frames out.
Before anyone says anything, this is not a gaming rig, but I install and run them from time to time to benchmark it (Dragonage, Crysis, Modern Warfare, Mass Effect *shader prob* and Sims 3 are really stressing her out, but it works. Temp gets pretty hot (not sure if it is a prescott or northwood, know it is not a gallatin, it sells for $17 now is all i know), but I have a pretty descent custom heatsink on it with a vantec tornado mounted on top (used to get way hot with the stock hs and fan, ASUS WAS WRONG on the phone, stock hs and fans are not just as good as aftermarket and custom fabricated components).
The purpose of this machine is a render node. She really doesn't do anything but render all day... for 3 years now... The only problems I have EVER had were when the ATI Radeon 9800XT that burnt out 1 year after its construction (I wanted the Nvidia anyway), and I had a 280W silent purepower power supply burn out and burn the mobo side of the connector (still not an issue). The only complaint I have is that I cannot render specular maps out of mudbox, but she handles 3ds max animation renders just fine. As compared to my core 2 duo with 4 gbs of ram (another render node) there is only a minimal difference, only noticeable over 5-12 hours of rendering, the duo does render faster, but not by much (on board video, but I am uncertain if the VC is utilized during rendering, I know it is in real-time editing.). My i7 puts them to shame, but not more than 55-60% faster. My i7 is the host and editing machine so it is under a heavier load than the others, but still...
However, I would NEVER suggest editing media on these machines since the software appears to be tailored to the newer hardware. Now if I could just get my hands on some good quadros, i think everything would be considerably different.