Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Toms p4 800mhzfsp review

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 14, 2003 5:12:01 PM

"Compared to the previous Pentium 4 3.06 GHz (133 MHz FSB), the new P4 3.00 GHz (200 MHz FSB) succeeds in making significant performance gains in applications with frequent memory access. With this, Intel has scored a significant jump on its arch rival AMD. In addition, Intel can boast AGP 8X, Dual DDR400 and integrated Serial ATA (including RAID). "

WTF??? It barely beats the original 3.06ghz! Maybe if thats all you do is play games and run sythetic benchmarks to get a hardon and doesn't mean anything it is almost very dissapointing.

Why in Gods name would i spend a 1000 dollars on upgrading my computer to the "800mhz fsb" to LOSE 2seconds off where if i just spend 400 dollars on a new cpu upgrade it would accomplish the samething.

The motherboard itself is probably 200 bucks to begin with. then the what, 400 dollars for the processor and the 180 for 2x256 DIMMS thats 800 dollars where i can just spend half that to accomplish the samething.

But i will say, give it 6 months and it'll be pretty dominating platform. Never buy new technology i say lol!

what did you think of the benchmark. I'll have to look on other sites to compare. As tom is starting to produce a reputation that is very bad.

Life is irrelivent and irrational.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>

More about : toms 800mhzfsp review

April 14, 2003 5:26:00 PM

Went to anandtech and this is pretty damn cool! Setting up raid without any data loss! talk about amazing! This is why Intel rocks! lol!

"Where Intel is able to offer some additional value over the competition is in their RAID Application Accelerator drivers. Normally when you want to upgrade from a single drive to a dual drive RAID 0 array, you have to backup all of your data and create the RAID 0 array, which ends up destroying all the data you had on the original drive. Intel's solution simply requires you to enable Intel RAID in the BIOS, even when you only have one drive, and upon upgrading to a second drive you simply tell the Application Accelerator driver to create a RAID 0 array and the array is created in the background without any data loss."

Life is irrelivent and irrational.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
April 14, 2003 5:37:26 PM

First of all, I don't think the P4-3.0/800 is going to cost anywhere near as much as you think, considering they are selling at $417 per 1000--meaning they'll probably cost around $499 retail, if that. I would think we'll be looking at closer to a $700 investment than a $1000 investment. Now, if and when the 3.2 gig /800 FSB P4 comes out, THAT will probably be expensive. Secondly, the benchmarks are pretty impressive when you consider the following:

-The 3.0 gig P4 consistently beats the 3.06 gig P4--sometimes handily--despite running 67 mhz slower. Considering that there is NO difference in the two cores, the entire increase in performance must be attributed to the extra memory bandwidth and improvements in core logic. Is it an awesome increase in performance? No. But when considering that the only changes made were in core logic, it's pretty good.

-The Canterwood motherboard has a lot of great features which is not something that could always be said about Intel chipsets. It is also the first chipset to include integrated SATA AND integrated SATA RAID on the Southbridge, so Intel gets kudos for that.

-Hardware sites always make a big deal about 5-10% performance increases. If the 400 FSB Barton provides a 5-10% increase in AMD's performance, they'll make a big deal out of that too.

AMD might be in a position to make a good impression with the 3200+, for a couple reasons. First, the chip will feature a 33 MHz increase in processor speed along with the jump to 400 MHz FSB (in synchoronous operation with DDR400.) Secondly, nVidia is supposedly about to release a revision of the nForce2 chipset, which will hopefully provide some additional performance increases.

So I could see the 3200+ having around a 7-12% increase in performance over the 3000+. And some hardware sites will cream all over themselves. I wouldn't take it too seriously.

<-----Insert witty sig line here.


<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Twitch on 04/14/03 01:46 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
Related resources
April 14, 2003 5:43:15 PM

AMD has really fallen behind. They better put out a new processor because Intel is leaving them in the dust. I hope the Athlon64 performs great because if Intel is back on top with no competition, the prices will sky rocket.
April 14, 2003 5:57:46 PM

I just got my GMSV email and they say that Intel has delayed shipping of this chip due to flaws found this weekend while testing...bummer...glad they found them now though.

__________________________________________________

<b>
Bug report beats new Pentium 4 to market: A technical glitch has temporarily delayed the delivery of a new version of Intel's Pentium 4 microprocessor. Intel had planned to bring the chip, which boasts an 800 megahertz system bus, to market today, but discovered a flaw in it during testing over the weekend. It expects the problem to be fixed in a couple of weeks. "[We've] seen some anomalies, and we're going to put [the 3GHz Pentium 4] on ship hold, temporarily," said George Alfs, a company spokesman. "We're investigating [the problem] and hope to be shipping soon." An embarrassing turn of events to be sure and one that will leave a raft of new high-end PCs from the likes of Dell, Hewlett-Packard and Gateway processor-less for at least a while
</b>
April 14, 2003 8:28:24 PM

ya you got a point ... which if you read my reply to myself there a lot of good things about it. Also the point that i didn't take into consideration is the lack of proper drivers!

Life is irrelivent and irrational.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
April 14, 2003 11:47:14 PM

I'm with you on this one, I was left disappointed as well. Yeah it is 66MHZ behind (then why didn't they try showing us per clock performance?), though suppose we added that: Is a 50% increase in FSB and memory, PLUS a new chipset PLUS a performance enhancer by latency reduction really worth this much only?

If Twitch is right on 499$ retail, then add from here the 150$ mobo, and 180$ RAM, you are far more than 700$.

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden. :smile:
April 15, 2003 12:10:54 AM

I guess the reason I'm not disappointed is that I wasn't expecting a huge performance boost out of Canterwood. I mean, there's only so much that can be done by tweaking core logic. The processor is still 95% of the equation.

As far as the money goes, I didn't figure in the price of RAM, because that's something you would have to buy whether you bought an AMD or an Intel system. I was looking at it in terms of the motherboard/processor combo.

I think the Canterwood motherboard will probably cost around $200. Maybe more. Intel chipsets are always pricey. Now, I'm looking at this from my own personal point of view. I want to upgrade soon. I already have a gig of Corsair PC3500 RAM. I'm thinking of buying a couple 80 GIG SATA hard drivesr. Rather than buy a SATA RAID controller, I can use the RAID 0 controller on Canterwood--if I decide to go that route. That's why I'm so interested in seeing some benchmarks on the benefits of Canterwood's integrated SATA. Maybe I won't buy SATA at all...but I won't decide until I see the benchmrks.

Like I said, I didn't expect Canterwood to boost P4's performance by 25% or anything like that. It does provide a nice little performance boost, however, and the integrated features are sure nice. Plus, Canterwood is Prescott-ready.

Now I'm waiting to see how well the 3200+ Barton with 400 FSB performs. I also like the recent price-drops on the existing Bartons--so I've really got some tough decisions to make--especially since there's a rumor that nVidia is about to release an nForce2 core revision to boost performance a bit.

I have every component for my new upgrade except the CPU, MB, Hard Drive(s) and graphics card.


<-----Insert witty sig line here.


<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Twitch on 04/14/03 08:13 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
April 15, 2003 12:14:09 AM

lol ya so i was guessamating ... 1000 was off but i was guessing.

The good points is that the new chipset has a bunch of neat features. I'm still gonna wait though. Because DDR-II will be out the following year after springdale and just blah. I'd be happy with the 3.06ghz lol! Then in 3 years i'll be set for tejas at 7ghz lol!

but ya as far as what i do though. 3d and video Rendering. It wasn't noticable. as far as games, dude i don't need to run quake at 400 billion fps lol ok! ans synthetic benchmarks, who cares about those?

Life is irrelivent and irrational.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
April 15, 2003 12:28:00 AM

www.newegg.com claims to have the 800FSB P4 in stock. $515. So I was $16 low on my guess.

Wonder how long before they remove the "in-stock" status?

<-----Insert witty sig line here.
April 15, 2003 3:03:21 AM

The delay in the 3.0Ghz P4 800 does not bother me at all. I had no idea it was do out. All I read about was P4 3.2 Ghz 800 FSB Northwood. Prescott 3.4 GHZ. So I'm waiting to see the tests on Mobos before I buy Canterwood. Then decide on witch CPU. I might go with 2.4B chip right now or 2.53. Than wait a year an buy Prescott. That way I can keep the MOBO an just upgrade CPU. Without spending big Bucks.
April 15, 2003 8:00:34 AM

First of all, why are you guys nagging about the price of the baby? This thing is a top-performance solution from Intel, and as history tells, those things are expensive. Compare the system we are talking about (3.0C + i875p + 512 MB DDR3200) to the previous top-notch system, based on the i850e, and I think you'll end up with an even more expensive system. Concerning the (supposedly) relatively high price of the motherboard, I think the feautres it boasts, do justify it. Especially the fact of its Prescott-compatibility, makes it a very interesting option, IMHO ...

Quote:
but ya as far as what i do though. 3d and video Rendering. It wasn't noticable. as far as games, dude i don't need to run quake at 400 billion fps lol ok! ans synthetic benchmarks, who cares about those?

Come on, Skater, what are you doing on a forum like this, if benchmarks are not your point of interest? Ok, they are just more or less a reflection of reality, but hey, how are reviewers supposed to show us the performance of a system in an ore objective ways than through benchmarking? I hope you were just kidding in the quote above ...

Greetz
Bikeman

<i>Then again, that's just my opinion</i>
April 15, 2003 11:06:47 AM

i found the following on www.anandtech.com about the delay on the 3.0c processor:

"Intel has just informed us that they have discovered a bug in the 3.0GHz Pentium 4 in the final stages of validation and are suspending shipments of the processor. As you can guess by the late notification this was as much of a surprise to us as it was Intel. Needless to say, you won't be able to purchase the Pentium 4 3.0GHz anytime soon but seeing as the bug should not effect our benchmark results we're leaving the review up as a preview. Intel is being very tightlipped about the nature of the bug as it is definitely a blemish in what has been a trouble-free recent history for the chip maker. We'll keep you updated as soon as we get more information, as far as we've been told this delay will not push back the release of other scheduled 800MHz FSB CPUs but that could very well change depending on the severity of the issue at hand.

For the record, we did not encounter any issues during our testing that were out of the ordinary. Our motherboard labs did encounter some issues early on and we'll be investigating to see if they could possibly be related, but without being told any symptoms or the nature of the issue it's going to be very difficult for us to figure out what's causing it. Luckily none of these CPUs should have made it into the hands of any end-users, which is a relief. Intel insists that the problem is limited in nature, only time will tell how much that holds true."
April 15, 2003 11:31:26 AM

One could ask himself if it isn't some Intel tactic to reduce competition and allow AMD to move a bit so competition rolls...

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden. :smile:
April 15, 2003 1:32:38 PM

Quote:
One could ask himself if it isn't some Intel tactic to reduce competition and allow AMD to move a bit so competition rolls...

So AMD threatens an Athlon64 sneak-attack. (Even though the last officially stated date is a while away, if AMD can release an Opteron, they could theoretically sneak in a surprise-attack with a suddenly early Athlon64.)

Intel releases 800MHz FSB CPUs early instead of waiting for Prescott. (And also pushing forward the motherboards needed for an 800MHz FSB CPU.)

AMD ends up not sneak-attacking with Athlon64.

Intel says "Oh, wait, you can't actually <i>have</i> one of those 800MHz FSB CPUs." because now that there is no sneak-attack threat from AMD, Intel can happily wait for an 800Mhz FSB with Prescott instead of with Northwood.

<font color=blue><pre>I'm proud to be an American,
who served my country in the US Air Force,
to protect the rights of my fellow Americans,
to hold protests against others like me.</pre><p></font color=blue>
April 15, 2003 4:28:10 PM

seeing that your just a member and i'm a faithful member i think your attack is not only ignorant but rather dumb too.

you've totally took what i read the wrong way. I wasn't even complaining about the price. I was happy how it's going down and the new chip is relativly cheaper then usual.

I said sythetic benchmarks first of all!!

and i said based on toms review that there was no benefit in video and 3d animation. If you actually read toms review you would see that.

and i hope you arn't being a fascist or fanaticl extremist by telling me what i can say and what i can't say?

You just need to learn how to read, serisouly. If you don't like the criticism don't criticise!

Life is irrelivent and irrational.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
April 15, 2003 5:44:20 PM

Wow ... excuse me ... (I do mean that, I didn't mean to attack you ...)

No I'm not fascist at all. Far from it, in fact. And yes, maybe I did misinterpret the things you wrote. But I saw them as if you were saying they were more expensive, and it lookes to me you were complaining. And if I do, maybe there are others that do just the same thing. So I reply to it, saying what I think of it. And that is what fora are for, no? Saying what you think? I say it again, I didn't mean to offend you, really, though you could also have replied in a more 'calm' way, I guess ...
About the synthetic benchmarks you are right, though ... The PCMark and SiSoft-stuff isn't really relevant, though it can be used to explain real-world performance. A processor with weak x87-performance, for example, should be picked out veru easily with SiSoft, for example. But my remark actually referred to the 400 billion fps-thingie ... Though it is clear you are joking there, I looked as if you were critisising on nearly all benchmarks.
For the record, I did read the entire review at THG, as I did with the two reviews at AnandTech. Talking about Anandtech, take a look at <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1810&p=23" target="_new">this page, comparing the performance of 533 MHz FSB CPU's to 800 MHz FSB CPU's</A> and you'll see that video encoding performance (if that is what you mean by video rendering, though it could be something else, too ...) as well as 3D rendering performanc does jump ahead by a respectable percentage. Talking about comparing a cpu on a i850e and on a i875p, there it is slightly different (look <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/chipsets/showdoc.html?i=1811&p..." target="_new">here</A> and <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/chipsets/showdoc.html?i=1811&p..." target="_new">here</A>), though maybe the 3D-benchmarks could be influenced by the driver issue Anand mentions.
Ok, Skater, I hope you take no offence in my, I admit, quite frankly expressed comments. And I hope you didn't mean that member-faithfull poster thing ... Howmany posts a person does, is not really proportional with how much he/she knows, or what his or her intelligence is, I think ... Not that I pretend to know everything, and that I do not respect the 'permanent members' of this forum, but I actually don't use their title to decide how to reply to a post. But again, I apologize.

Greetz,
Bikeman

<i>Then again, that's just my opinion</i>
!