Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel 2.8 CPUs

Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 19, 2004 2:01:18 AM

Hello!

I've been looking at putting together a new (Intel P4) system, and am having some confusion about processors. It looks like the 2.8 Mhz CPU's are going to be the best overall deal for me, but there are (at least) 4 versions of them :)  I'm assuming I really want the 800Mhz System Bus over the 533Mhz, bringing the decision down to the 2.8C and 2.8E.


My analysis between E and C is as follows (please correct my logic is faulty or incomplete):

- E has a 1MB Cache, C only has a 512MB cache
- E and C have extremely similar performance levels
- E uses a newer 90nm process
- E has a few (13) new CPU instructions
- E runs much hotter than C
- E and C are basically available for the same price


Neither performance nor price is really a factor between the two, and since C runs much cooler than E, then C is a better choice.

The 90nm process doesn't really translate into any benefit for me, the consumer (although it will allow for Intel to produce more CPU's in the future - which doesn't fit into this equation), and the new instructions are of dubious value since the performance isn't much improved by them.

I hope I brainworked this out correctly :)  What do you think?

More about : intel cpus

May 19, 2004 2:22:26 AM

If you have an INTEL "Jones", get a 2.8mhz 512k-800mhz FSB Northwood CPU. A 2.8C. Get some PC3700 or better and have a party! Overclock to 3.3 in NO-TIME! :lol: 

"I am become death, the destroyer of worlds. Now, let's eat!
May 19, 2004 2:24:06 AM

How soon before you buy? If you can wait buy the Prescott 2.8E with the new DO stepping.
Related resources
May 19, 2004 2:34:18 AM

Heheh - that's the plan! :) 

I'm not familiar with DO stepping - or any stepping for that matter ;)  I guess the question then becomes: how long a wait do you think, and how much of a benefit is this new stepping? New things are generally more expensive, as well, which would make it less attractive a choice, I'd generally think...

Thanks for the advice!
May 19, 2004 2:49:42 AM

Why buy a Prescott right now for anything other than server duty? Prices are not dropping. What are you waiting for?

"I am become death, the destroyer of worlds. Now, let's eat!
May 19, 2004 2:58:21 AM

Aye! I've been putting this off for about 3 years now, I'm still running a P2 450 - Warcraft III load times can be painful :) 

Thanks for the input!
May 19, 2004 3:24:55 AM

Does it have to be Intel? If gaming's one of your considerations, AMD64 is the top choice.
May 19, 2004 4:17:30 AM

The D O stepping, is just a slight rework, and will cost you nothing. It will let the chip run 10 degrees c cooler.
That isn't enough in my books to be worth the wait.
The D O stepping should be out by mid june.
If this is strictly a gaming machine, an A64 on a Nforce3 250 board would be much better.
May 19, 2004 4:40:49 AM

Yip! I guess I should make my intentions a bit clearer then.

Thanks for the knowledge on the stepping, btw = )

I'm looking at building a new system for gaming and general app work, but have also been waiting on this upgrade to get more heavily into image editing and animation / modelling / rendering as I have been severely held back in the past due to system limitations.


I'm looking at the following:

RAM = DDR3200 Crucial 512 stick (getting the pair as cash becomes available) ~$106

Video = ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (128-MB version) ~$222

Case/PSU = Antec plus1080AMG SOHO file server/Antec True430W ~$106

Motherboard = ABIT IC7-G ~$133

CPU = 2.8C GHz P4 ~$179

(Total = ~$746)


I understand the Intel and AMD offerings each perform differently according to the general application being used, but as far as I know the differences aren't astronomical. Since the uses of this system will play to the strengths of both AMD and Intel offerings, I've kind of felt that the benefits would pretty much balance out with either choice.

As for why I then chose Intel? I just personally feel more comfortable with that choice at this point in time, and my current though is that the current price difference and future performance difference is not considerable enough to lure me to the AMD camp at this time.

Now, if the A64 is an obviously better investment for the future, that would definately have me re-running my numbers. But I was under the impression that the 32-bit architecture wasn't going anywhere anytime soon, and that jumping on the only 64-bit processor when the benefits to doing so aren't very clear to me at present - I feel that is a bit unneeded. But then again, it is probable I have totally missed some important point, or that apps will soon require 64-bit CPU's or some other problem I've not realized. I'd be very happy to consider alternatives, but up to now I *think* I've covered all my bases... at least the ones I know about!

:) 

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by WTB_a_clue on 05/19/04 00:43 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
May 19, 2004 8:28:22 AM

If you put off your next upgrade as long, you will regret not getting the A64. By then 64 bit will be very mainsream.
You will want it long before then.
May 19, 2004 1:15:38 PM

I think your forum name is quite misleading, as it seems you already have a pretty good grasp :) 

However, if things are that much in balance between the P4C and A64 on todays apps, I would definately give the 64 bitnesss the benefit of the doubt. That is, if "doubt" is reasonable in this case.

64 bit support is not *needed* today, and probably not strictly required for most things a couple of years from here either, but that is not the issue. The issue is: will it give you a substantial benefit over the next few years ? Considering how long you held on to your P3-450, I'd say the answer is "yes" without the slightest doubt. It may take a year or so, before you'd see initial benefits (mature 64 bit OS, first 64 bit games, a video codec or rendering engine left or right), but 2 or 3 years from here I'm fairly certain you'll be slapping yourselve for having settled for a 32 bit only machine, especially if all other things are roughly equal.

If you want just one example, see my "Tim Sweeny on UE3" post. With 32 bit hardware, you'll be limited to 256 or maybe 512 MB videocards, which would be low end 2 years from here. But obviously, image editing, rendering and animation are also pretty much prime examples of apps that will benefit from both increased address space and better performance (AMD64 mode mode, more GPR register, more SSE2 registers).

IMHO, its a no brainer. Cool& Quiet and NX are just icing on the cake.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
May 19, 2004 1:54:55 PM

Now going with Intel do you need the canterwood Mobo? You don't buy the Abit IS7. Great board for a great price. 64 bit I'm waiting till 2006.
May 19, 2004 5:47:39 PM

This was a good thread for me. I am considering the same type of system. I already have the Crucial RAM (3200) and am considering the IC7-max3 with a 2.8-3.0 c or e. If the DO chips run cooler, I may wait for that since I want to overclock. I know the RAM will be a problem and am budgeting for that. In the meantime, stock 3.0e with a decent video card will be very satisfying. I figure with new RAM, I could get 4GHz by next year out of it (with active cooling). Fast enough?

I'm betting that the system will be interesting for at least 2 years and give 64-bit technology time to flesh out. This will be the closest I get to a full bore 'extreme' box until then. In 2-3 years we'll be putting systems together with quad channel Tbyte RAM, nitrogen cooled mobos, clock speeds exceeding 10GHz, and AI chips controlling optimum system performance (no manual overclocking!) with dynamic system stability BIOS. Haha.

"Devils are those who do evil, or prevent others from doing good, or who do nothing at all" - Goya
May 19, 2004 5:53:29 PM

Don't forget to take into account the sockets. Both AMD and Intel are changing CPU sockets soon, so that may be a consideration in which company you choose and which motherboard you buy.

Athlon XP 1900 (11x200) 42C (Load w/AX-7 & 8cm Tornado) - MSI K7N2 Delta - Corsair Value PC3200 - Gainward GF3 @ 250/550 - 80Gb WD 8Mb Cache -
May 20, 2004 2:00:47 AM

Eh - after these and other responses I am now probably going to be switching up the system specs to an A64, as follows:

RAM = DDR3200 Crucial 512 stick (getting the pair as cash becomes available) ~$106

Video = ATI Radeon 9800 Pro (128-MB version) ~$222

Case/PSU = Antec plus1080AMG SOHO file server/Antec True430W ~$106

Motherboard = MSI K8T Neo-FIS2R ~$121

CPU = A64 3000+ ~$223

(Total = ~$778)


I've heard the 512 mb cache A64's perform very similarly to those with the 1GB cache, so I thought I'd go with the 3000+ over the 3200+ and save myself ~$50.

It's a bit more expensive, but hopefully the A64 will help "future-proof" it for a bit longer as well.

*shrugs*
May 20, 2004 3:38:47 AM

Check this list out with Scottchen. He is running an A64 3200+. You can get a Sapphire 9800Pro with a 360 XT core and Samsung 2.8ns chips for $204.00 at Newegg. I have one and it's bitchin'. :smile:


"I am become death, the destroyer of worlds. Now, let's eat!
!