Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Prescott Mobo's

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 7, 2003 3:56:52 PM

We all know that Canterwood will support Prescott when its released. But will the new Prescott chips that come out next year with socket 775 will they work on Canterwood Mobos with 478? Or do we all have to buy the new Grantsdale Mobos?

More about : prescott mobo

June 7, 2003 4:56:38 PM

The ones with the new socket will not be compatible with canterwood/springdale.

<b><font color=blue>I agree with that solution ... because it is a logical one.</font color=blue></b>
June 7, 2003 10:22:55 PM

Nice move on Intel's part. They get everyone excited about Canterwood an Prescott. So what do the do they give you new chipset knowing it will not work with Canterwood. So if you want Prescott with fastest Ghz you have to buy Grantsdale. What a waste of money on Canterwood.
Related resources
June 7, 2003 11:57:53 PM

It still will be compatible with prescotts up to 3.6ghz
June 8, 2003 2:14:39 AM

Ya I know. I was looking to upgrade to Prescott next June or later. Looking at 4 Gig plus by than. But!!! by that time Intel will launch Grantsdale. So there is no reason to buy Canterwood. I mite as well go with Springdale save money on Mobo. Than upgrade to Grantsdale.
June 17, 2003 1:06:38 PM

Yeah, pick Springdale. Especially now when PAT can be enabled on it :p 

My system: AMD Athlon XP 3000+ / TwinMOS 1Gb DDR400 / Soltek 75FRN-RL /
Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro / Antec True Power 550W / Western Digital Raptor / Hercules GTXP SC /
Samsung DVD / Lite-On CDRW
June 18, 2003 4:15:05 AM

Ya I'm going with Asus P4P800 for that reason an not Canterwood.
June 18, 2003 10:26:39 AM

Yeah, really, the performance difference between C-wood and Springdale is so small that ECC support and with some boards Gbit lan are the only reasons to buy Canterwood, as I see it.

My system: AMD Athlon XP 3000+ / TwinMOS 1Gb DDR400 / Soltek 75FRN-RL /
Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro / Antec True Power 550W / Western Digital Raptor / Hercules GTXP SC /
Samsung DVD / Lite-On CDRW
June 18, 2003 3:14:33 PM

Quote:
Yeah, really, the performance difference between C-wood and Springdale is so small that ECC support and with some boards Gbit lan are the only reasons to buy Canterwood, as I see it.

That's exactly the point though. It was never about the performance difference. It was about the features that you get with each. Most i865s are pretty stripped down. Hardly any of then even support Gigabit CSA ethernet.

Where as most i875s are pretty buffed with features. You get Gigabit CSA LAN, extra RAID controllers, etc., etc. I've even seen one with onboard SCSI.

The reasoning between Springdale and Canterwood is all features, not about performance.

"<i>Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they <b>ARE</b> your equals.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>
June 18, 2003 3:25:14 PM

Right. The 875P has some extra features over 865PE that if you need them, go for Canterwood, otherwise, pick Springdale. My pick was P4P800, which is on the way by mail to me. This board supports SATA and even RAID 0 for SATA, which is the only feature I needed, because I bought the WD Raptor disk the last week ;) 


My system: AMD Athlon XP 3000+ / TwinMOS 1Gb DDR400 / Soltek 75FRN-RL /
Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro / Antec True Power 550W / Western Digital Raptor / Hercules GTXP SC /
Samsung DVD / Lite-On CDRW
June 18, 2003 3:35:11 PM

Quote:
This board supports SATA and even RAID 0 for SATA, which is the only feature I needed, because I bought the WD Raptor disk the last week ;) 

That sounds sweet. Expensive, but sweet.

I'm still paranoid about RAID 0 though. :(  I'd really prefer something like RAID 5 so that I have data recovery without losing a whopping half of my HD space.

"<i>Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they <b>ARE</b> your equals.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>
June 18, 2003 3:51:59 PM

Definitely more expensive, about $100 more, but that's what you pay to get about the same perf out of a CPU, so to me that sounded reasonable ;)  (Not the same kind of performance of course)

Agreed, though RAID 5 requires 3 hard disks and RAID 0 only needs 2. Am I right? You get the same performance with RAID 0 as you do with RAID 5, don't you? And the difference being that you don't lose the data of the other drive(s).

Sure RAID 5 is better, but with two working disks and a CDRW or some backup unit, RAID 0 is better than nothing. But I totally agree of course, RAID 5 is certainly better, but I'll be running RAID 0 at first I think. (I only have one Raptor disk right now, but planning to buy another one later).


My system: AMD Athlon XP 3000+ / TwinMOS 1Gb DDR400 / Soltek 75FRN-RL /
Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro / Antec True Power 550W / Western Digital Raptor / Hercules GTXP SC /
Samsung DVD / Lite-On CDRW
June 19, 2003 3:29:55 AM

Now that you own Intel what did you do with your AMD rig?
June 19, 2003 7:32:04 AM

I'm still with the AMD system, might get the Intel system today, or on Monday (ordered it).

I have a friend who wants to buy the AMD stuff, so I'm selling it to him as soon as I get the Intel system.

My system: AMD Athlon XP 3000+ / TwinMOS 1Gb DDR400 / Soltek 75FRN-RL /
Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro / Antec True Power 550W / Western Digital Raptor / Hercules GTXP SC /
Samsung DVD / Lite-On CDRW
June 19, 2003 1:01:10 PM

Quote:
Definitely more expensive, about $100 more, but that's what you pay to get about the same perf out of a CPU, so to me that sounded reasonable ;)  (Not the same kind of performance of course)

That's actually pretty good logic. If the 10K RPM hard drives came in sizes that were closer to their 7200 RPM counterparts, I'd consider it myself. But being on a budget I just can't sacrifice that much hard drive space for just a small increase in speed. (Which is also why my next PC will probably be a P4C 2.4 or 2.6, at least to start.) I'd definately love to have some Raptor drives if I could afford them though.

Quote:
Agreed, though RAID 5 requires 3 hard disks and RAID 0 only needs 2. Am I right? You get the same performance with RAID 0 as you do with RAID 5, don't you? And the difference being that you don't lose the data of the other drive(s).

You're right. I think RAID 5 with 3 drives should have <i>slightly</i> more performance than RAID 0, but then what with the PCI bus bottlenecking it all, it gets to the point where it doesn't really matter. Heh heh. Personally I would prefer to do the RAID 5 over the RAID 0 just for the data recovery ability. I've lost too many important things just to single hard drive crashes, so making two hard drive's data dependant on either crashing just scares me.

Of course a SCSI RAID 5 using five 15K hard drives on motherboard running a 64-bit PCI-X bus would totally slaughter. :)  One day I hope to have a setup like that. ... Or better. :)  It'll probably be another two years though. :( 

And yeah, a good CD burner (or better, a good DVD burner) would really be good enough to backup the few important files. RAID 0 wouldn't be so scary then. I just know that I'm a lazy person though who will probably never back up my important data like I'm supposed to. Heh heh heh.

Actually though, one of the plans I had was just to have a 7200 RPM drive there and every so often just copy the data from a 10K RAID 0 setup to that 'slow' drive. It'd go a lot faster than burning a CD and could even be automated to run in the backround at midnight or something. :)  And since the hard drive wouldn't be used for anything other than the backup, it wouldn't be under heavy use and thus should last a <i>long</i> time before ever failing. That was my cheap alternative concept anyway. :) 

"<i>Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they <b>ARE</b> your equals.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>
June 19, 2003 2:02:08 PM

Quote:
So if you want Prescott with fastest Ghz you have to buy Grantsdale.

I don't see that in such a negative way, 'cause you might just get lots of advantages in grantsdale to warrant a full-blown upgrade... some grantsdale boards might support DDR-II. That's a big difference. And also, some specs show grantsdale as possibly supporting DDR-II 533 by 2004, which is highly suggestive of a possible move to <i>1066Mhz FSB</i>. If AMD competes with Intel like its fanboys want it to, then we might just see Grantsdale platforms with dual-channel DDR-II 533Mhz and 1066Mhz FSB and 4Ghz Prescotts by 2004 or something. :smile: Grantsdale is supposed to have PCI Express slots too, for graphics and other devices. Not bad, eh?

Of course, that's just a best case scenario, but it's interesting nonetheless. DDR-II should be made available by 2004 if this is going to happen.
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Mephistopheles on 06/19/03 10:10 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
June 23, 2003 1:33:37 PM

Ya thats what I've read. That's why I'm buying Springdale than sometime next year move to Grantsdale. Don't know if Intel will have 4+ Gig CPU by years end. Heck I could wait till early 2005. But Tejas is due than. The race goes on.
June 24, 2003 3:17:34 AM

Let us know how your new Intel system is working? When you get it up an running.
June 24, 2003 9:43:31 AM

Got it now, performance is about the same as for the XP3000+, as expected, a little bit better with the P4 though.

However I got a crash yesterday in a game after I've enabled PAT, don't know what caused it though. It could be because of PAT, it could be because of anything else. However, if it indeed crashes because of PAT, I might get disappointed enough to switch it to a 875P based board.


My system: Intel Pentium 4 2.8, 800 FSB / TwinMOS 1Gb DDR400 / ASUS P4P800 / Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro / Antec True Power 550W / Western Digital Raptor / Hercules G.T XP /
Samsung DVD / Lite-On CDRW
June 24, 2003 3:34:28 PM

Quote:
That's actually pretty good logic. If the 10K RPM hard drives came in sizes that were closer to their 7200 RPM counterparts, I'd consider it myself. But being on a budget I just can't sacrifice that much hard drive space for just a small increase in speed. (Which is also why my next PC will probably be a P4C 2.4 or 2.6, at least to start.) I'd definately love to have some Raptor drives if I could afford them though.

I just ordered that second Raptor drive. Just got a new temporary job, and thought to spend some of those money on computer upgrades, came to think of another Raptor just two weeks after I bought that first one. Ouch, I hope I'm not sounding like one of those boastful creeps here. :p 

The P4 2.4C and 2.6C are both excellent choices. Hope you can afford one soon. After the 2.8C, you start to lose the price/performance ratio anyway.

Quote:
You're right. I think RAID 5 with 3 drives should have slightly more performance than RAID 0, but then what with the PCI bus bottlenecking it all, it gets to the point where it doesn't really matter. Heh heh. Personally I would prefer to do the RAID 5 over the RAID 0 just for the data recovery ability. I've lost too many important things just to single hard drive crashes, so making two hard drive's data dependant on either crashing just scares me.

Of course a SCSI RAID 5 using five 15K hard drives on motherboard running a 64-bit PCI-X bus would totally slaughter. :)  One day I hope to have a setup like that. ... Or better. :)  It'll probably be another two years though. :( 

And yeah, a good CD burner (or better, a good DVD burner) would really be good enough to backup the few important files. RAID 0 wouldn't be so scary then. I just know that I'm a lazy person though who will probably never back up my important data like I'm supposed to. Heh heh heh.

Actually though, one of the plans I had was just to have a 7200 RPM drive there and every so often just copy the data from a 10K RAID 0 setup to that 'slow' drive. It'd go a lot faster than burning a CD and could even be automated to run in the backround at midnight or something. :)  And since the hard drive wouldn't be used for anything other than the backup, it wouldn't be under heavy use and thus should last a long time before ever failing. That was my cheap alternative concept anyway. :) 

Of course. RAID 5 is the very best alternative, hands down. If the quality RAID controllers went down in price, not expensive, but not cheap, and if I could get a THIRD Raptor drive (shrugs at the thought :p ) then I'd undoubtely think it'd be a good idea. ;)  Is RAID 5 much faster than RAID 0? You tell me, because I really don't have a clue.

ugh. 5 drives on 15K RPM. Wow... :p 
It'd definitely take some time before I could afford that. ;)  But, even 72 gigs comprised of two Raptors, and my Lite-on Cdrw OFTEN used for data safety is nothing I am nothing but very proud over, and I should be. I just hope it ain't too bothersome to other people that I, and some others have these powerful rigs. But I guess I just don't have a life sometimes :p 

Ack. Backing up data is important you know :p 

That idea to use a simpler harddrive as backup is another good alternative, to use it for storing all those big files we all have ;)  And if you have the most important and often used files, games or programs on the faster hard drive, you will have both a system that could speed up the loading times when you need them, and also one that could store tons of big files, patch files and the like.


My system: Intel Pentium 4 2.8, 800 FSB / TwinMOS 1Gb DDR400 / ASUS P4P800 / Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro / Antec True Power 550W / Western Digital Raptor / Hercules G.T XP /
Samsung DVD / Lite-On CDRW<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by sabbath1 on 06/24/03 11:36 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
June 24, 2003 7:48:31 PM

Quote:
I just ordered that second Raptor drive. Just got a new temporary job, and thought to spend some of those money on computer upgrades, came to think of another Raptor just two weeks after I bought that first one. Ouch, I hope I'm not sounding like one of those boastful creeps here. :p 

Nah. If I wasn't married I'd be spending a lot more money on my computer.

Quote:
The P4 2.4C and 2.6C are both excellent choices. Hope you can afford one soon. After the 2.8C, you start to lose the price/performance ratio anyway.

Yeah. I'm leaning towards the 2.6C. It's kind of like the 19" monitor that I want to get. It's not the 21" that I'd prefer, but it's better than a 17". :)  It's that whole darned middle road logic.

Quote:
Of course. RAID 5 is the very best alternative, hands down. If the quality RAID controllers went down in price, not expensive, but not cheap, and if I could get a THIRD Raptor drive (shrugs at the thought :p ) then I'd undoubtely think it'd be a good idea. ;)  Is RAID 5 much faster than RAID 0? You tell me, because I really don't have a clue.

You know, for three drives I'm not entirely sure. Generally I see four or five or so in a RAID5. When most people are spending that much, they don't just get three drives. Heh heh. I'm pretty sure that three in a RAID5 would be faster than two in a RAID0 though, but I doubt that it'd be by much. I'll have to ask my network admin friend. He'd know.

Quote:
ugh. 5 drives on 15K RPM. Wow... :p 
It'd definitely take some time before I could afford that. ;) 

Yeah. No kidding. It'd be a lifetime before I could save up <i>that</i> much at the rate that I'm going at. :(  It'd sure be sweet though. :)  Get a nice Xeon dualie mobo with built in SCSI and pick up a crap load of 15K RPM SCSI drives. It'd be RAID heaven, and for only four grand! :o  I wish I could afford that. Hell, my next car loan might not even be for that much.

Quote:
But, even 72 gigs comprised of two Raptors, and my Lite-on Cdrw OFTEN used for data safety is nothing I am nothing but very proud over, and I should be.

Damn straight. Two Raptors in a RAID0 is just nasty. And backing up your data is something to always be proud of. (Well, at least if you have data worth backing up it is. Heh heh.)

And DFI just released some new LANParty mobos with some new funky RAID 1.5. The mobos are darned expensive, but RAID 1.5 sounds like a good idea. It's a cross between RAID1 and RAID5. Take two hard drives, stripe them for speed, and store backup data while you do it. That way if a drive crashes you can recover. You get slightly better than RAID1 performance and data recoverability (although much slower than it takes to rebuild a RAID1), but without the massive loss of hard drive space of RAID1. Sure, you still lose <i>some</i>, but not a whole hard drive. The main downfall is that if you have to recover it's slow. Oh darn. Heh heh. I hope that some SATA RAID cards support this soon. (As well as some mobos maybe.) I'd have no qualms running Raptors in a RAID 1.5 array. :)  It sounds like a great notion to me, like RAID1 but without nearly as bad of a loss of storage space.

And if I had the mind to I'd burn important crap onto a CD more often. I just never remember. :( 

Quote:
I just hope it ain't too bothersome to other people that I, and some others have these powerful rigs. But I guess I just don't have a life sometimes :p 

Eh. Life is all about choices. You spend money on your computer. Someone else spends money on pimping out their car. I spend money on my wife. It's all good. I always love hearing about cool setups. You have to have something to dream about. :) 

Quote:
Ack. Backing up data is important you know :p 

I know. Good grief I know. It's a lesson that I've had to learn repeatedly. Yet I still forget. That's why I like RAID setups with recoverability. It's like the good backup practice fairy for people who keep forgetting. :) 

Quote:
That idea to use a simpler harddrive as backup is another good alternative, to use it for storing all those big files we all have ;)  And if you have the most important and often used files, games or programs on the faster hard drive, you will have both a system that could speed up the loading times when you need them, and also one that could store tons of big files, patch files and the like.

It's a handy trick. :) 

"<i>Yeah, if you treat them like equals, it'll only encourage them to think they <b>ARE</b> your equals.</i>" - Thief from <A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/daily.php?date=030603" target="_new">8-Bit Theater</A>
June 24, 2003 11:15:34 PM

Hey,

How much of a difference does it make if you have 2 raptors vs. 2 segate 80 gig SATAs on the RAID 0 config.?
I am thinking of getting a RAID 0 config but I don't know what 2 hard drives to get.

Of course the best might be 2 raptors, but how much of a performance increase will there be? Has there been benchmarks or comparison tests done? any article?

Thanks
!