"P4 Northwood and Prescott Comparison at 4.1 GHz "

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20 [...] tt-03.html


I previously critisized the article on the dual Xeons....and now....

Will you please browse to the link I provided above....You will find the CPU-Z captured images of BOTH the Prescott and the Northwood CPUs....

The article says BOTH were 3.2GHZ CPUs......however check the CPU-Z data of the NORTHWOOD....:

IT SAYS : 3.4GHZ !!! AND THE MULTIPLIER IS : 16 !!????

What the heck....this cant be just a simple typo...that's a Screen Capture and not typed???

What's going on??

Tom's wouldn't have fudged the 3.4 part on the 3.2, and CPU-Z does make mistakes reading codes. 16x is the proper multiplier for a 3.2.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

yeah i wonder when we wil see the amd overclcoking article on tom's stil havent seen one since the original athlon fx one, but that was comparing against an intel chip. id like to see one with the athlon 64, fx, or even opterons...

No one have see that a ES sample multiplier can be change.
Toms have use lower multiplier.When you overclock a AXP 2500= to 2.X it still say 2500+.

i need to change useur name.

Yes, it's possible Tom's is using an ES 3.4 with the multiplier set at 16x in BIOS, but I've also seen CPU-Z and WCPUID report some wierd stuff, including a 360MHz bus on my Tualatin Celeron (on a BX board at that!).

An ES 3.4 at 16x would give the same performance numbers as a standard 3.2, but might overclock higher. That's irrelavent in this comparison, which only compares the PERFORMANCE of the Northwood core to the Prescott, and in order to be a fair comparison both cores would have to use the same multiplier.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

ouch that was harsh lol

If YOU had wisdom you'd realize who you're talking to and avoid the quips. I just glanced at it, I didn't care either way at the time.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

"Yes, it's possible Tom's is using an ES 3.4 with the multiplier set at 16x in BIOS,"

Didnt Tom say they're using TWO 3.2GHZ CPUs??

"We used two conventional 3.2-GHz processors that can be bought at retail channels for this test. They thus reflect performance results that can be achieved with commercially available processors."

What is mean is those are simple Core with unlock multiplier.Those are the same as retail CPU.Intel have use special core for IDF overclocking test often.Toms was refering to this.

i need to change useur name.

Yes, the whole point of the Prescott was to create a new core which could reach 5GHz with negligable performance impact to the core change. The problem is, the people who designed the core probably couldn't forsee the problems Intel is having moving to 90nm.

Personally I would have left the Northwood alone and tried moving that design to 90nm. But Intel likes to have a little breathing room in case things don't go as planned (which they apparently didn't).

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>