Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

Old Processor

Last response: in CPUs
Share
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 12:40:19 AM

I am currently running a celeron tualatin on my desktop

I looked this processor up and i read some pretty disturbing things.

I have heard that it is pretty much an OCed rebranded PIII, is this true?

and i have been planning to build a new rig for a while now and i just got into video editing, what kind of processor should i get from AMDfor my new rig. My budget is under 700 USD.

my following specs are

AMD Regor 240......58
DDR3 patriot 133 mhz RAM.......44
gigabyte mobo AM3 HD4200............90
LG Optical drive........29
HIS Radeon 5750.....142
Hanns-G monitor 21.5'.........150
SATA II 250 gb 7200 RPM........47
Corsair 450watt.........80

total: 640 USD

Is hanns-g a reliable montior brand?

what is the difference between SATA and SATA II? I know about the 6 gb/s data transfer rate of SATA II is double of SATA but is it noticeable?

More about : processor

December 19, 2009 1:40:08 AM

LOL UR CPU SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
sorry i just had to put that out there.
other than that great UPCOMING setup exept go for at least 320gb HDD
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 2:11:03 AM

i know right, can't do anything on it thankfully i have a better laptop that i can use, a C2D processor

m
0
l
Related resources
a c 172 à CPUs
December 19, 2009 2:16:02 PM

Upendra09 said:
I am currently running a celeron tualatin on my desktop
I looked this processor up and i read some pretty disturbing things.
I have heard that it is pretty much an OCed rebranded PIII, is this true?

I do not understand your concern. Is the P3 Tualatin Celeron based on the P3 Tualatin core? Yes, just like the P4 Celerons were based on the corresponding P4 microarchitectures. OC'd? The P3's were all multiplier locked and binned at their rated speeds. Rebranded? I do not know what you mean here. They are all Intel CPU's.


Upendra09 said:
what is the difference between SATA and SATA II? I know about the 6 gb/s data transfer rate of SATA II is double of SATA but is it noticeable?

The SATA III's are 6 Gb/s devices. After that, google is your friend.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 19, 2009 3:01:43 PM

I mean, i thought my processor was better than a PIII. by rebranded i meant was the tualatin celeron just an overlcocked PIII that git renamed as a celeron because it was faster but older?

i am basically asking more info on this proccesor like what can it be used for today? and more info on its arch. If there is anything good about this piece of crap
m
0
l
December 19, 2009 5:10:18 PM

dude why does it matter? your sayin ur pissed that ur cpu is like a P3, well like w.e it still sucks as a celeron,
lets say if it was like amd quad core and u found out it is a ctually crappy triple core then there is sometin to be dissapointed to be bout
m
0
l
a c 899 à CPUs
December 20, 2009 1:47:50 PM

Upendra09 said:
I mean, i thought my processor was better than a PIII. by rebranded i meant was the tualatin celeron just an overlcocked PIII that git renamed as a celeron because it was faster but older?

i am basically asking more info on this proccesor like what can it be used for today? and more info on its arch. If there is anything good about this piece of crap

It can run office applications. Tualatin was the last generation of P III and celerons based on them. Biggest difference was that the Tualatin P III had 133mhz fsb and the celerons 100mhz. If the motherboard used for the celerons supported 133mhz people got 33% overclock on those celerons just by raising the fsb to 133.
m
0
l
December 20, 2009 3:42:41 PM

Upendra09 said:
I am currently running a celeron tualatin on my desktop

I looked this processor up and i read some pretty disturbing things.

I have heard that it is pretty much an OCed rebranded PIII, is this true?

and i have been planning to build a new rig for a while now and i just got into video editing, what kind of processor should i get from AMDfor my new rig. My budget is under 700 USD.

my following specs are

AMD Regor 240......58
DDR3 patriot 133 mhz RAM.......44
gigabyte mobo AM3 HD4200............90
LG Optical drive........29
HIS Radeon 5750.....142
Hanns-G monitor 21.5'.........150
SATA II 250 gb 7200 RPM........47
Corsair 450watt.........80

total: 640 USD

Is hanns-g a reliable montior brand?

what is the difference between SATA and SATA II? I know about the 6 gb/s data transfer rate of SATA II is double of SATA but is it noticeable?


recommandation: you need 500w or above if you want to to run on quad core + 5700. 450w seems to be not enough

PS: i remember these taulatin celeron were once trumple the sale of pentium 4 s423 based platform and some performance can even rival to high end pentium 4 at the time...and more powerful and effecient than p4 celeron w128.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 21, 2009 1:40:58 AM

what?

your saying that the PIII celeron is actually competitive to the P4?

and thanks for the recommendation, its funny people were saying an efficient 450 watt should be fine but thanks for the input
m
0
l

Best solution

December 21, 2009 3:27:35 AM

Upendra09 said:
what?

your saying that the PIII celeron is actually competitive to the P4?

and thanks for the recommendation, its funny people were saying an efficient 450 watt should be fine but thanks for the input


yes by far. tualatin core was pwned p4's sale really bad until intel discontinue it. a celeron 1ghz will take a p4 northwood at 1.6ghz to comptete the performance. willamette will have to oc'ed to 2.4ghz to tie the difference. so far that celeron you have was the best processor for money at the time(2000-2002) it ultterly beat p4 at cost/performance. but of cause tualatin p3 is far greater than celeron and even beat athlon in many benchmark. saddly intel discontinue it because of stupid megahertz myth had took over these leadership's brain space.....
Share
a b à CPUs
December 21, 2009 7:09:13 PM

could you elabotate more on why this is so good? like microach, cache, and how it was able to beat a P4?
m
0
l
December 21, 2009 7:34:42 PM

Upendra09 said:
could you elabotate more on why this is so good? like microach, cache, and how it was able to beat a P4?


tualatin celeron has 64 k l1(32k+32k), 256k /512k(pentium 3) l2 compare to willamette pentium 4's 8k l1 + 12kuops trace engine, 256k l2. coppermine's 32k l1(16k+16k), 256k l2, tualatin hand down. in cache size.

for bus, taulatin is basically the same as coppermine in i/o buss as that limit pentium 3's banwidth vastly. pentium 4 trumple pentium 3 in quad data rate of 400mhz compare to p3's single channel. but pentium 3 was relativily cheap and maintain the same performance with p4 that is in much higher clockrate with narrow banwidth.


pentium 4 was expansive and low performance.



m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 21, 2009 7:42:32 PM

cheesesubs said:
yes by far. tualatin core was pwned p4's sale really bad until intel discontinue it. a celeron 1ghz will take a p4 northwood at 1.6ghz to comptete the performance. willamette will have to oc'ed to 2.4ghz to tie the difference. so far that celeron you have was the best processor for money at the time(2000-2002) it ultterly beat p4 at cost/performance. but of cause tualatin p3 is far greater than celeron and even beat athlon in many benchmark. saddly intel discontinue it because of stupid megahertz myth had took over these leadership's brain space.....


Well, i was about to say sound like something wrong here but once i found this....


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/benchmark-marathon,...

He is right.


man...... this hurts my head. to many old cpu's :lol: 
m
0
l
December 21, 2009 11:31:33 PM

warmon6 said:
Well, i was about to say sound like something wrong here but once i found this....


http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/benchmark-marathon,...

He is right.


man...... this hurts my head. to many old cpu's :lol: 



tualatin would pwn pentium 4 (willamette and some early model of northwood)only if support front speed bus and ddr.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 22, 2009 12:33:22 AM

why didn't intel use tech from tualatin into P4? would have owned Athlons then
m
0
l
a c 899 à CPUs
December 22, 2009 1:11:36 AM

Upendra09 said:
why didn't intel use tech from tualatin into P4? would have owned Athlons then

In the Netburst years Intel gathered a team in Israel that worked on a different architecture which finally got them the performance lead with the introduction of core2duo which was based on their centrino technology which was based on their P III architecture.
m
0
l
December 22, 2009 4:28:53 AM

rolli59 said:
In the Netburst years Intel gathered a team in Israel that worked on a different architecture which finally got them the performance lead with the introduction of core2duo which was based on their centrino technology which was based on their P III architecture.



yeah randy steck and his loser teammate should got their a$$ out of intel in 2002-2003, and most important key people of netburst project- craig barretts ould have be fired as early as well. these idiot honest believe raw clockrate can bring performance..

netburst sucks..
m
0
l
December 22, 2009 2:08:28 PM

cheesesubs said:
recommandation: you need 500w or above if you want to to run on quad core + 5700. 450w seems to be not enough

PS: i remember these taulatin celeron were once trumple the sale of pentium 4 s423 based platform and some performance can even rival to high end pentium 4 at the time...and more powerful and effecient than p4 celeron w128.

Ya, this is a lie. I penned the vast majority of the wiki article on Celeron, and I can tell you this: no Taulatin Celeron ever outperformed a Williamette based P4 Celeron. Lower power consumption, yes, but never was the Tualatin actually faster.
m
0
l
December 22, 2009 2:31:00 PM

cheesesubs said:
yeah randy steck and his loser teammate should got their a$$ out of intel in 2002-2003, and most important key people of netburst project- craig barretts ould have be fired as early as well. these idiot honest believe raw clockrate can bring performance..

netburst sucks..

You seem to have forgotten the Northwood days, when the A and B series were neck and neck with the Athlon XP processors, both performing the same, but with Intel CPUs consuming much less power and running much cooler. Then, Northwood C processors came along, with hyper threading, and virtually dominated AMD's Athlon XP. The XP 3200 could only compete with the 2.6C Northwood on most benchmarks, and only in a few games could it perform closer to the 3.0C. It was dark times for AMD then, they limped along selling their midrange CPUs for peanuts, and only when the Athlon64 was finally launched, and in sufficient quantity, did AMD have a competitive cpu line up once again. We all know what happened next: Intel's failure with Prescott and their fall from dominance for the next two years (2004-2006). It is Prescott that stains the Pentium 4 name. Cedar Mill was a much improved design and overclocked very well, but unfortunately it was overshadowed by the looming presence of Core 2 Duo's launch, with the preview on March 2006 sending shockwaves throughout the performance community.
m
0
l
December 22, 2009 7:07:48 PM

Apart from Fsb=100MHz vs 133MHz and L2=256kB vs 512kB, Tutu celerons have another difference with Tutu PIII, in that their signal voltages allow them to use older mobos and chipsets.

That is, Celerons were really designed to modernize older computers that couldn't have worked with a Tutu PIII.

-----

My PIII 1400MHz brings as much computing performance (7z, SuperPi and so on) as a P4 2000MHz, except in games. The few SSE instructions more by the P4 probably don't explain it, but the very slow write speed of sdr-sdram is a good explanation. It writes about half as fast as it reads, as opposed to ddr-sdram, giving a factor of 4 or much more in favour of the P4.

The Tutu celeron 1400/100MHz I tested had slightly less computing performance with my PIII 1400/133MHz but even less performance in games. So overclock it to 133MHz at least, as this will keep the AGP at normal frequency.

Also notice that Ram speed has a BIG impact on Tutu performances, as opposed to a C2D for instance. CL3 to CL2 gives a 10% general improvement. Northbridge is even more important, with the i815ep (step B) giving a 30% faster computer than Via for instance.

-----

Nearly a PIII Tutu with quad-pumped Fsb does exist. It's called a Pentium-M and was used for laptops. Very good stuff: low power and fast (within the P4 epoch).

The Pentium-M is an ancestor of the Core which is an ancestor of the Core 2, so in some sense the Tutu has children whereas the Netburst is dead.

-----

Don't understand me wrongly: my newer C2D @4GHz (before raising voltages) is 6 to 20 times faster than my older Tutu @1.5GHz, even on single-task applications. But I completely skipped the P4 step because of limited improvement over the PIII and because of huge power consumption.

Now, you have the Atom, which gives performance similar to the Tutu but with ddr-sdram, Sata, Usb2, sometimes Pci-E. A new mobo with Cpu +Ram is about as expensive as a used Tutu +Mobo +Ram.
m
0
l
December 22, 2009 7:27:52 PM

joefriday said:
You seem to have forgotten the Northwood days, when the A and B series were neck and neck with the Athlon XP processors, both performing the same, but with Intel CPUs consuming much less power and running much cooler. Then, Northwood C processors came along, with hyper threading, and virtually dominated AMD's Athlon XP. The XP 3200 could only compete with the 2.6C Northwood on most benchmarks, and only in a few games could it perform closer to the 3.0C. It was dark times for AMD then, they limped along selling their midrange CPUs for peanuts, and only when the Athlon64 was finally launched, and in sufficient quantity, did AMD have a competitive cpu line up once again. We all know what happened next: Intel's failure with Prescott and their fall from dominance for the next two years (2004-2006). It is Prescott that stains the Pentium 4 name. Cedar Mill was a much improved design and overclocked very well, but unfortunately it was overshadowed by the looming presence of Core 2 Duo's launch, with the preview on March 2006 sending shockwaves throughout the performance community.


another major issue that held back tualatin's performance is lack of instruction set, floating-point and banwidth. and they did only support crappy synchronous sdram which make unfair to compare to p4 line.

and northwood is running cool? really? i had a northwood 2.6ghz fsb400 with pc800 and it ran above 60c when idle and 95c under full load with stock cooling. that is what you called "cool"? but indeed it is cooler compare to prescott and willamette. but no where near tualatin 1.4ghz's idle temp of 40c(for 180nm that is impressive.)

Pointertovoid said:
Apart from Fsb=100MHz vs 133MHz and L2=256kB vs 512kB, Tutu celerons have another difference with Tutu PIII, in that their signal voltages allow them to use older mobos and chipsets.

That is, Celerons were really designed to modernize older computers that couldn't have worked with a Tutu PIII.

-----

My PIII 1400MHz brings as much computing performance (7z, SuperPi and so on) as a P4 2000MHz, except in games. The few SSE instructions more by the P4 probably don't explain it, but the very slow write speed of sdr-sdram is a good explanation. It writes about half as fast as it reads, as opposed to ddr-sdram, giving a factor of 4 or much more in favour of the P4.

performance with my PIII 1400/133MHz but even less performance in games. So overclock it to 133MHz at least, as this will keep the AGP at normal frequency.

Also notice that Ram speed has a BIG impact on Tutu performances, as opposed to a C2D for instance. CL3 to CL2 gives a 10% general improvement. Northbridge is even more important, with the i815ep (step B) giving a 30% faster computer than Via for instance.

-----


The Tutu celeron 1400/100MHz I tested had slightly less computing Nearly a PIII Tutu with quad-pumped Fsb does exist. It's called a Pentium-M and was used for laptops. Very good stuff: low power and fast (within the P4 epoch).

The Pentium-M is an ancestor of the Core which is an ancestor of the Core 2, so in some sense the Tutu has children whereas the Netburst is dead.

-----

Don't understand me wrongly: my newer C2D @4GHz (before raising voltages) is 6 to 20 times faster than my older Tutu @1.5GHz, even on single-task applications. But I completely skipped the P4 step because of limited improvement over the PIII and because of huge power consumption.

Now, you have the Atom, which gives performance similar to the Tutu but with ddr-sdram, Sata, Usb2, sometimes Pci-E. A new mobo with Cpu +Ram is about as expensive as a used Tutu +Mobo +Ram.


agree!
m
0
l
December 22, 2009 7:42:57 PM

Pointertovoid said:
Apart from Fsb=100MHz vs 133MHz and L2=256kB vs 512kB, Tutu celerons have another difference with Tutu PIII, in that their signal voltages allow them to use older mobos and chipsets.

That is, Celerons were really designed to modernize older computers that couldn't have worked with a Tutu PIII.

You'll have to elaborate on this to truly prove your point. Tualatin Celerons ARE NOT pin compatible with older socket 370 boards. Hell, even coppermines will not work in early socket 370 boards built for the Mendocino Celeron. The ONLY thing the Taulatin celeron had going for it in terms of backwards compatibility is the 100MHz fsb. Due to pin reassignments, the Tualatin Celeron would not work in any motherboard that did not have a modern enough chipset to support it, and since the Tualatin line launched after the P4, very few boards were produced that supported Tualatin. Specifically, only later revisions of the 810e 815 chipsets had support. VIA offered the apollo 133T, and 266T (with DDR ram support). SIS and Ali also each had a chipset with Tualatin support at the end, but you can't think that you can simply slap a Tualatin Celeron in place of a 633MHz coppermine on an i810 chipset mobo and expect the thing to work. It won't happen, not without an adapter (such as the rare Lin Lin adapter, of which I happen to own two). Without an adapter, a lot of hardware hacking was involved to make a Tualatin work in a non-Tualatin board. You need to look at the Lunchbox website (saved from the Geocities website) that deals with all the modifications that must take place to make a Taulatin work in an older board. I've done it myself, using a 1200MHz Tualatin Celeron in an HP Pavilion 6835 motherboard (i810 chipset). If I remember correctly, I had to break off the pins, and then short about 18 others to make it work in that board. Hardly plug and play compatible.

My own experience with Tualatins:
1. Modded 1200MHz tualatin celeron in HP Pavilion 6835
2. Modded 1300MHz Tualatin Celeron in Dell Dimension r450 (on a slocket)
3. 1266MHz Tualatin Pentium-IIIs with Lin Lin adapter on Intel 810e chipset mobo.

Lunchbox website:
http://home.graffiti.net/RoseBaker/



m
0
l
December 22, 2009 7:56:17 PM

cheesesubs said:

and northwood is running cool? really? i had a northwood 2.6ghz fsb400 with pc800 and it ran above 60c when idle and 95c under full load with stock cooling.

Then you either had a faulty motherboard sensor, or a poor chip, or perhaps a poorly ventilated case. My own Northwood CPUs (a 2.0 Celeron @ 3.0GHz, a 2.4B, a 2.4C undervolted to 1.3vcore, and a 2.6C), all idled at mid to high 20's, and loaded in the mid thirties Celcius (edit: these were running in a basement with ambient air temp of 65 F), all with stock thermal solutions. But yes, the Northwood CPU was the coolest running P4 of them all, and ran cooler than any Athlon XP it competed against. Even more telling is the power consumption figures. Tell me, did you ever measure the system power consumption of your Northwood computers? Well, I did, and I was surprised to find idle power consumption of 50-60 watts, with loads at close to 100 watts (the undervolted 2.4C idled at 45 watt and loaded at 66 watt). In comparison, a 1200MHz AMD Duron idled at 80 watts, and loaded at 130, while an AMD Athlon XP 2800 Barton core idled at 70 watts, and loaded at 125. I used the same PSU, hard drive, and graphics card on both Intel and AMD setups, so the only true difference to account for the power consumption is in CPU and motherboard. If you are curious, the temps in my AMD systems idled in the high 40's/ low 50's, and loaded in the high 50's / lower 60's. They also sounded like jet engines with their 5,500 rpm fans.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 22, 2009 8:16:10 PM

500 gigs is only a few dollars over the 250 so go with 500

Since you are planning on video editing, I suggest going with the Athlon II 630... should cost around 110$

4 gigs of ram recommended on new builds and something like a Thermaltake 500W, that should give you a great up to date machine.

___________
Edit

Nice read on P3's... I skipped from Older Celeron 850 to an AthlonXP2400... Very satisfied with that chip... The future upgrade to Barton3000 didn't do a big difference but still fair for the price.



m
0
l
December 22, 2009 8:47:47 PM

cheesesubs said:
but no where near tualatin 1.4ghz's idle temp of 40c(for 180nm that is impressive.)

The Tualatin is 130nm, just like the Northwood P4.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 23, 2009 1:11:47 AM

C00lIT said:
500 gigs is only a few dollars over the 250 so go with 500

Since you are planning on video editing, I suggest going with the Athlon II 630... should cost around 110$

4 gigs of ram recommended on new builds and something like a Thermaltake 500W, that should give you a great up to date machine.

___________
Edit

Nice read on P3's... I skipped from Older Celeron 850 to an AthlonXP2400... Very satisfied with that chip... The future upgrade to Barton3000 didn't do a big difference but still fair for the price.


Thanks, but i don't need more than 250 gigs, i currently am using 35 gigs of my 40 gig maxtor HDD on my tualatin desktop, and i may look at the propus

just for discussion sake my specs are;

1.2ghz tualatin
512 mb of SDRAM
40 gig Maxtor HDD
Phillips and maxtor optical drives
i815 chipset w/ 8 mbs max vid mem :heink: 
one AGP slot and three PCI slots
floppy drive
m
0
l
December 23, 2009 9:30:36 PM

Tutu celerons use the same signalling voltages as Coppermines, enabling adapters to just pass the signals from the Cpu to the Northbridge. Tutu PIII use still different signalling voltages which shouldn't have been mixed with older Northbridge, though in practice it worked.

But I globally agree that Intel made a huge mess with its PIII sockets. This was one of the factors that favoured Amd. Intel hasn't learnt from that, if you see the even bigger mess they're doing right now with the sockets.

-----

At 250GB disks, you can have one side of a 500GB platter, important for contiguous throughput. At least the 7200.12 does it, I didn't check the Spinpoint F3.

-----

I also jumped from PIII-Sdrsdram-Agp-Pata-Pci to C2D-Ddrsdram-PciE-Sata. Of course, I wanted some minimum form of compatibility, that is for the hard disks.

My experience is: do not choose a mobo for its Pata port. Added controllers are bad, waste boot time, and waste one PciE lane. Use Pata-to-Sata adapters for the few times you need them.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 23, 2009 11:19:34 PM

what kind of ports do UltraDMA HDDs have? that is the technology on my hdd
m
0
l
December 24, 2009 5:21:32 AM

PATA. Aka IDE. Ultra DMA jsut means the hard drive can interface at 66MB/s with the IDE controller, provided the IDE controller is also ultra DMA and you are using an 80 pin ribbon cable.

Honestly, for a guy who bashes Intel left and right, you sure don't know much of anything...
m
0
l
December 24, 2009 5:27:01 AM

Pointertovoid said:
Tutu celerons use the same signalling voltages as Coppermines, enabling adapters to just pass the signals from the Cpu to the Northbridge. Tutu PIII use still different signalling voltages which shouldn't have been mixed with older Northbridge, though in practice it worked.


That is utterly false. There was no difference in the pinout or voltages between tualatin Celerons and Tualatin PIIIs. Please, look at the Lunchbox webiste linked further up in this page.
m
0
l
December 24, 2009 2:30:04 PM

Upendra09 said:
I am currently running a celeron tualatin on my desktop

I looked this processor up and i read some pretty disturbing things.

I have heard that it is pretty much an OCed rebranded PIII, is this true?

and i have been planning to build a new rig for a while now and i just got into video editing, what kind of processor should i get from AMDfor my new rig. My budget is under 700 USD.

my following specs are

AMD Regor 240......58
DDR3 patriot 133 mhz RAM.......44
gigabyte mobo AM3 HD4200............90
LG Optical drive........29
HIS Radeon 5750.....142
Hanns-G monitor 21.5'.........150
SATA II 250 gb 7200 RPM........47
Corsair 450watt.........80

total: 640 USD

Is hanns-g a reliable montior brand?

what is the difference between SATA and SATA II? I know about the 6 gb/s data transfer rate of SATA II is double of SATA but is it noticeable?



Hi there, I understand what you are asking before for myself I done tons of film projects and the CPU you are looking for and the right one. I have a Hanns-G 19inch monitor and \I love it and Yes reliable brand
I have just a few in mind but I'd want to think about your pockets as well. I know that you don't want to spend much on a new CPU but if you do have a 775 socket these candidate item will be my choice

CPU
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103288

You are going to need some with
Virtualization Technology Support
Hyper-Transport Support
64 bit Support
MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a,3DNOW!
m
0
l
December 24, 2009 6:04:07 PM

i still remember craig barretts said 64bit(x64) is unnecessary back in 2002. he was actually believe the processor will push to 10ghz and all system will only need 1 gb of rambus dram for all performance.

clockrate is non important. only for stupid overclocker who had nothing to do for their life. pentium m and core 2 pwn the crap out of netburst architecture and support more ram. raw clockrate dont do jack$h1t
m
0
l
December 24, 2009 6:46:12 PM

Quote:
The AMD Phenom 9650 2.3GHz is a awful performer the threadstarter can buy an Athlon II 620 based on the Phenom II architecture for $99, that is a better investment.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E168...

Personally with $700 the threadstarter should be looking @ the Phenom II X4 925/945/955/965.



That is true, BDD is right
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
December 26, 2009 2:23:12 PM

i would like a quad core but then it would get too expensive
m
0
l
December 26, 2009 2:42:42 PM

Upendra09 said:
i would like a quad core but then it would get too expensive



e8400 can pwn most of mid range quad core from amd. some time even phenom II. and it's just a dual core...
m
0
l
January 4, 2010 10:53:51 PM

cheesesubs said:
i still remember craig barretts said 64bit(x64) is unnecessary back in 2002. he was actually believe the processor will push to 10ghz and all system will only need 1 gb of rambus dram for all performance.

clockrate is non important. only for stupid overclocker who had nothing to do for their life. pentium m and core 2 pwn the crap out of netburst architecture and support more ram. raw clockrate dont do jack$h1t

Craig Barretts was right, in 2002. Hell, even now, I don't use my 64bit extensions. I have 2GB ram and a 512MB graphics card, and get along fine on Vista Ultimate 32 bit. Only now, with ram prices so cheap and OS bloat so prevalent, is the average user beginning to approach the 32 bit limitations on memory addressing. Only in the server space was 64 bit actually needed, and Intel already had Itanium to cover that (we could debate about the superiority of Itanium in processing true 64 bit code, but, just like in this last discussion, I don't think you'll be able to go toe to toe with me on that!).
m
0
l
January 4, 2010 11:21:00 PM

Upendra09 said:
i would like a quad core but then it would get too expensive

Hey, I'm using a Regor 240 right now and I really like it. I have it overclocked to 3.5 GHz, still on stock voltage, using the stock hsf. I could go higher, but I only wanted 3.5, so I never pushed it further. I also undervolt/underclock it severely when it is idling using K10stat. I have 5 different CPU multiplier settings: "low", "max" "Normal" "web" and "Pentium III". Based on what I'm doing I can set it for the appropriate speed. Right now I'm using "Pentium III" setting, which limits max speed to just 1.25GHz and 0.8375 volts, and lets it idle at 500MHz/0.7125 volts. Only on my "Max" setting does the CPU overclock to 3.5 GHz, where it is always stuck at 3.5GHz/1.4 volt, never idling down (I find it's more stable for games). My "Web" setting idles at 500MHz and maxes at about 2.2GHz, as that's about all the power I need to do anything on the web. "Normal" limits max speed to 2.8GHz with just 1.1 volts, and of course, "low" locks the CPU to 500MHz. Playing with the CPU multi and vid are the best things about K8 and K10 CPUs, because just like the old Pentium M, the multiplier can be pushed down real low, and a huge range of VIDs are available to fine tune the vcore for each speed. That's just not possible on Intel's Core 2 line of CPUs. And, if you looked at Tom's article on CPU undervolting (its now been yanked from the site, I wonder why?), the regor 240 ended up having the same power consumption of the Core 2 Duo CPU once undervolted! So you can have your cake (overclocked) and eat it too (power efficiency)!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 4, 2010 11:33:08 PM

do you always have to go to BIOS to change it though?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 4, 2010 11:36:27 PM

^ I know that is what i don't understand

does he reboot everytime to do something different?

:heink: 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 4, 2010 11:42:58 PM

yeah but my question is does he restart his computer to change the setting just so he can do something more demanding?
m
0
l
January 5, 2010 1:49:54 AM

joefriday said:
Craig Barretts was right, in 2002. Hell, even now, I don't use my 64bit extensions. I have 2GB ram and a 512MB graphics card, and get along fine on Vista Ultimate 32 bit. Only now, with ram prices so cheap and OS bloat so prevalent, is the average user beginning to approach the 32 bit limitations on memory addressing. Only in the server space was 64 bit actually needed, and Intel already had Itanium to cover that (we could debate about the superiority of Itanium in processing true 64 bit code, but, just like in this last discussion, I don't think you'll be able to go toe to toe with me on that!).


do you actually believe 2gb ram can be enough for future use? i had vista ultimate x86 on my old pentium d 805 bitterrent downloader with 2gb ddr2 667 kingston vlp and it is slow as hell. so dont tell me that 32bit addressed is enough, to you? maybe. but to me, that is garbage performance. even today people still not willing to give up their crappy pentium 4 for core i5/i7 or lower range like core 2/ pentium/celeron. they were blinded to believe these processor were outclass by their pentium 4 and not worth to buy it because of "clockrate". then here we go. they rather stick with lower ram size and high clockrate processor but also with high latency and extremely low instruction by cycle and performance. these average folk are happy the way they are now. and still are, just like you.

PS: that is why it cause intel downfall, satifition of present 32 bit technology and blinded by general user that doesn't know what performance is.

and as i said way above, IPC and x64 extensions are the future and even amd must obey this rule.
m
0
l
January 5, 2010 3:26:11 AM

cheesesubs said:
do you actually believe 2gb ram can be enough for future use? i had vista ultimate x86 on my old pentium d 805 bitterrent downloader with 2gb ddr2 667 kingston vlp and it is slow as hell. so dont tell me that 32bit addressed is enough, to you? maybe. but to me, that is garbage performance. even today people still not willing to give up their crappy pentium 4 for core i5/i7 or lower range like core 2/ pentium/celeron. they were blinded to believe these processor were outclass by their pentium 4 and not worth to buy it because of "clockrate". then here we go. they rather stick with lower ram size and high clockrate processor but also with high latency and extremely low instruction by cycle and performance. these average folk are happy the way they are now. and still are, just like you.

PS: that is why it cause intel downfall, satifition of present 32 bit technology and blinded by general user that doesn't know what performance is.

and as i said way above, IPC and x64 extensions are the future and even amd must obey this rule.

lol. I'm sorry, but if you're not even going to try, then I don't see any point discussing this matter with you further.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 5, 2010 3:38:50 AM

cheesesubs said:
do you actually believe 2gb ram can be enough for future use? i had vista ultimate x86 on my old pentium d 805 bitterrent downloader with 2gb ddr2 667 kingston vlp and it is slow as hell. so dont tell me that 32bit addressed is enough, to you? maybe. but to me, that is garbage performance. even today people still not willing to give up their crappy pentium 4 for core i5/i7 or lower range like core 2/ pentium/celeron. they were blinded to believe these processor were outclass by their pentium 4 and not worth to buy it because of "clockrate". then here we go. they rather stick with lower ram size and high clockrate processor but also with high latency and extremely low instruction by cycle and performance. these average folk are happy the way they are now. and still are, just like you.

PS: that is why it cause intel downfall, satifition of present 32 bit technology and blinded by general user that doesn't know what performance is.

and as i said way above, IPC and x64 extensions are the future and even amd must obey this rule.


I'm sorry but i tried to understand what you wrote but i couldn't please use grammar, i think you have a valid point somewhere in there
m
0
l
January 5, 2010 3:47:45 AM

Upendra09 said:
yeah but my question is does he restart his computer to change the setting just so he can do something more demanding?

No, it's simply a power state, a lot like on Vista where you can choose between "power saving", "balanced", and "performance". K10stat gives you 5 customizable power states, where you can set your minimum, maximum and in between frequencies for each power state, AND set the voltage for each frequency. When I need to do something more demanding, I just change my performance state by right clicking the little K10stat icon in my toolbar and selecting the performance state I need, then it automatically changes, right on the fly. Check out this blog for more info on how k10stat operates:
http://www.underclocking.net/2009/08/phenom-ii-x4-940-s...

What I did is overclock the cpu through bios, from 200 to 250 bus speed, to give me a max speed of 3.5GHz. Even with cool and quiet disabled in the BIOS, K10stat can enable and change the multipliers and vids on the fly, giving you an even better cool and quiet experience while still overclocking!
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
January 5, 2010 3:58:13 AM

that is pretty aweesome, does that come with every Regor or did you download that?
m
0
l
January 5, 2010 4:06:49 AM

It's a small, simple download, like cpu-z. It doesn't even need to be installed. Just unzip the download and run the .exe. One word of advice: the k10stat program must always be open to have it be working. It can be minimized with a little tab on the system tray, but you just can't exit the program or it'll turn off K10stat. It's just a little bug in an otherwise great program. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like k10stat is being actively worked on right now. That's too bad too, because I would give the author of the program a few paypal bucks just as incentive to continue to tweak the program to make it even more user friendly (such as auto starting, starting in a specific power state, and saving the option for ganged vs unganged cores).
m
0
l
!