Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Cpu from bad to good.

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 25, 2001 6:28:36 AM

It sometimes seem funny to read the threads concerning muscle/cpu power. A lot of people out there still have 500mhz celly/k6-2. I´m pretty sure even a 1.3ghz on a 845mb would be quite an improvement.

My advice don´t forget what you are upgrading from, don´t let the mhz fight get the better of you.

One question....
Which cpu runs at the lowest temperature.
1.7ghz p4
1.4ghz t-bird
I live in a small room and all my gear is constantly turned on (tv-stereo-computer ect.) Every bit of lower temperature counts.

More about : cpu bad good

September 25, 2001 7:07:19 AM

the P4 runs at lower temps with out the need for extravagant cooling solutions and has a beautiful thermal protection mechanism that will save your investment.

"<b>AMD/VIA!</b>...you are <i>still</i> the weakest link, good bye!"
September 25, 2001 7:56:19 AM

Last time I checked, the most I could gather was that the Athlon 1.33GHz (.18u) consumes slightly more power than the P4 1.7GHz (.18u). Even that was a rough guesstimate based on an nth-best-polynomial calculation--info was hard to get from either company at the time.

If you want low heat dissipation, I suggest you get a Pentium III. P4's and Athlons at .18u probably consume about the same amount of power to get the same amount of work done--whereas PIII's at .18u consume about half the wattage as an Athlon and only benchmark slightly worse, clock-for-clock. Tualatins should draw even less wattage.

Kelledin

"/join #hackerz. See the Web. DoS interesting people."
Related resources
September 25, 2001 12:07:34 PM

Iwas wondering if anyone has any comment to my statement, that the for most prople the ghz race is pure overkill..

Thx. for the info on temp...
I´m probably going to upgrade to an intel cpu of somekind.
P3/P4 ( and yes i´m sticking with sd-ram for now!!!!)
September 25, 2001 12:10:31 PM

Get a 1ghz tbird, its temps are fine and wont overheat your room, and it will have tons of power. Your only other choice is a 1.3-4ghz p4(in the same heat range) and those chips both suck ass. AND cost twice as much.

~Matisaro~
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
~Tbird1.3@1.5~
September 25, 2001 4:43:53 PM

I recommend getting Tualatin or Northwood. Tualatin is out now, Northwood should be out soon. Both will generate less heat than an Athlon, or original P3/P4.

Most of us realize that MHz/GHz isn't the only measure of speed. That's ceased to be a debate point (thankfully). But the issue of Intel vs. AMD is something that rages on. Be careful, you don't want to step in the...

<font color=green>In memory of all the Americans that died 9/11/01
Rest in peace</font color=green>
September 25, 2001 7:50:18 PM

Do you know any sites i can find that says something about cpu temp...
(don´t say tom´s I´m not going to remove the heatsink) lol...
September 26, 2001 12:31:56 AM

Both Intel and AMD post datasheets about power consumption et al for their CPUs. Intel's datasheets are usually easy to find at <A HREF="http://support.intel.com/" target="_new">http://support.intel.com/&lt;/A> (you'll need Acrobat Reader), but AMD's datasheets have become rather harder to get lately. To get AMD's datasheets, you need two plugins--an Acrobat Reader plugin for your browser, then a SmartPDF plugin for Acrobat. Most of us (including me) already have the Acrobat plugin, but not the SmartPDF plugin; I for one really can't be arsed to go d/l another plugin right now. :tongue:

Kelledin

"/join #hackerz. See the Web. DoS interesting people."
September 26, 2001 12:43:09 AM

I for one do not think it is overkill. While I do understand that MHz does not translate directly into usable speed, I need all the speed I can get. I'm running a 4 pass mpeg2 to mpeg4 conversion which can take up to 24hours of CPU time at 100% CPU load on a 1.3GHz for one 3 hour movie. More power Scotty!
September 26, 2001 5:53:25 AM

My statement about overkill was obviously not intended for people who did mpeg4 conversion. I meant people doing word/outlook what ever.

I for one am totally hooked on power
"let the Mhz roll" (P4/t-bird)
September 26, 2001 6:03:41 AM

possibly.
pure Mhz for Mhz sake (dare i say p4 2Ghz) is a waste.

for those that just cruze the web, read emails, play a bit of music, write word documents, a 500 - 1000Mhz processor sould be more than adequate.

for high end apps and games though grunt is needed... and will continue to be needed as games increase in complexity and eye-candy volume :) .


but yes... i think the Mhz race is/was a bit pointless

and intel intentionally designing a processor that runs faster but sacrifices efficency is not good design in my books.

Religious wars are 2 groups of people fighting over who has the best imaginary friend.
September 26, 2001 6:30:55 AM

The Intel site to download P4 specs
<A HREF="http://developer.intel.com/design/pentium4/datashts/" target="_new">http://developer.intel.com/design/pentium4/datashts/&lt;/A>
The 1.5GHz P4 in the 478 mpga package consumes 57.9W.

I wanted to see what all the hype was about around the 845 chipset so I upgraded my PIII 866 D815EEA combo to a P4 1.6 D845WN combo.
I thought about going to a P4 and the 850 chipset but that had two downfalls. 1) I couldn't reuse the 512Megs of SDRAM I already had and 2) I would have to use the soon to be discontinued 423 zif socket.
What I have now:
P4 1.6GHz 478 mpga
D845WN mobo
512MB PC133 SDRAM
Radeon VE video card
Soundblaster Live Value
20GB Quantum Fireball 7200rpm ATA100 hard drive
Panasonic CD-RW
Panasonic DVD
ZIP 100
300W Sparkle Power Supply
Two case fans 1)intake 1)exhaust

The P4 1.6 system compared to my old PIII 866 system using the same components listed above tested with SiSoft Sandra 2001 and Mad Onion 3D Mark 2001 has a 45% performance rating increase.
When comparing my system using SDRAM and the ATI Radeon VE video card on the Mad Onion web site it is on par to systems using a P4 1.4GHz and RDRAM and the Radeon VE.
I did install the Intel Application Accelerator and it did make boot and shut down time faster and application loading faster. The benchmark tests were done with the IAA installed.
I know you are concerned about heat so these are my system temperatures.
My old PIII 866 system had cpu temps of 28C no load and 42C full load.
The new P4 1.6 system has cpu temps of 32C no load and 47C full load. Average room temp is 23C.
Before I give my benchmark scores and people start laughing their a$$es off they must realize the systems are not high end gaming boxes, they used the Radeon VE video card which is middle to low end video solution and really knocks down the 3D benchmarks. When the Radeon 7500 becomes available at my local retailer I will be picking one up.

The PIII 866 system:
SiSoft Sandra 2001 Performance Rating was 1020
Mad Onion 3D Mark 2001 was 1072

The P4 1.6 system:
SiSoft Sandra 2001 Performance Rating is 1914
Mad Onion 3D Mark 2001 is 1951

I suggest waiting for the Northwood P4 and mate it with RDRAM, ATI Radeon 8500 and Windows XP. It will be twice the price of an AMD box and about 10% faster. You have to be nuts to do it but I never said I was normal. " :eek:  "


<A HREF="http://www.disconnect.net/underground/archives/frosted1..." target="_new">They're Grrrrreat!</A>
September 26, 2001 8:53:38 AM

Got any kind of evidence to back up that twice the performance of amd statement?



~Matisaro~
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
~Tbird1.3@1.5~
September 26, 2001 9:18:27 AM

Read again!!! My post says:
Quote:
I suggest waiting for the Northwood P4 and mate it with RDRAM, ATI Radeon 8500 and Windows XP. It will be twice the price of an AMD box and about 10% faster.

Your post says:
Quote:
Got any kind of evidence to back up that twice the performance of amd statement?

" :lol:  "


<A HREF="http://www.disconnect.net/underground/archives/frosted1..." target="_new">They're Grrrrreat!</A>
September 26, 2001 9:25:40 AM

Ack, my bad.

~Matisaro~
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
~Tbird1.3@1.5~
September 26, 2001 3:22:11 PM

Quote:
The PIII 866 system:
SiSoft Sandra 2001 Performance Rating was 1020
Mad Onion 3D Mark 2001 was 1072

The P4 1.6 system:
SiSoft Sandra 2001 Performance Rating is 1914
Mad Onion 3D Mark 2001 is 1951



Which specific Sandra test is that?

<font color=green>In memory of all the Americans that died 9/11/01
Rest in peace</font color=green>
September 26, 2001 7:29:10 PM

SiSoft Sandra Version 2001.5.8.11 (2001te Standard) was used on my old PIII system and the new P4 system.

The performance rating value is estimated and read from the System Summary Wizard.

I tried the Sandra Processor and Memory Benchmark Wizards but I don't know how to interpret the results.
I mean I don't know which result is for my system and which is the comparison result. The way the results are displayed is confusing.
At least with the Mad Onion 3D Mark 2001 the score is dispalyed very clearly after the tests complete.
Any help with trying to figure out the Sandra cpu and memory benchmark scores would be appreciated.


<A HREF="http://www.disconnect.net/underground/archives/frosted1..." target="_new">They're Grrrrreat!</A>
September 26, 2001 7:52:15 PM

There's two different CPU tests. I was wondering which is which. The top bar (without the pull-down menu next to it) is your score, the other four are the comparision scores.

<font color=green>In memory of all the Americans that died 9/11/01
Rest in peace</font color=green>
September 26, 2001 10:32:26 PM

I ran the Sandra benchmarks again. Thanks for helping me decipher which numbers applied to my system. " :smile: "

Sandra CPU Benchmark:

My System: P4 1.6
Dhrystone ALU: 3018 MIPS
Whetstone FPU/SSE2: 949/1964 MFLOPS

Reference System: Athlon 4 1.33
Dhrystone ALU: 3750 MIPS
Whetstone FPU: 1848 MFLOPS

Sandra Memory Benchmark:

My System: Intel 845/PC133 CL3 SDRAM
Int ALU/RAM Bandwidth: 596MB/s
Float ALU/RAM Bandwidth: 602MB/s

Reference System: Intel 815/PC133 CL2 SDRAM
Int ALU/RAM Bandwidth: 397MB/s
Float ALU/RAM Bandwidth: 468MB/s

Reference System: VIA KT133A/PC133 CL2 SDRAM
Int ALU/RAM Bandwidth: 507MB/s
Float ALU/RAM Bandwidth: 565MB/s

When compared to PC800 RDRAM the results were a little less than 1400MB/s.
The 845 SDRAM chipset for P4 appears to be very well designed.
The D845WN motherboard so far has been very stable with WinME installed. The system failed to boot one time when I improperly installed the Intel Application Accelerator but so far that has been the only problem I have had and I was to blame for causing the problem. So far no lockups or "blue screens of death".
The system does not compete with DDR SDRAM and RDRAM solutions for speed but I have to say so far it has been the most stable system I have put together. I think once Intel releases the DDR 845 boards in Q1 02 those systems will be very impressive.


<A HREF="http://www.disconnect.net/underground/archives/frosted1..." target="_new">They're Grrrrreat!</A>
September 26, 2001 10:48:52 PM

Quote:
Reference System: VIA KT133A/PC133 CL2 SDRAM
Int ALU/RAM Bandwidth: 507MB/s
Float ALU/RAM Bandwidth: 565MB/s


My results on a KT7a-RAID with generic PC133 CAS3 RAM are about 100 higher on each one. Sandra gives averages for some benchmarks, and maximums for others, it seems like.

<font color=green>I post so you don't have to!
9/11 - RIP</font color=green>
September 26, 2001 10:52:51 PM

I still have a PIII 800 and a TNT2 Ultra, which is posting 1700 2001 3d Marks. (With PC100 SDRAM). So it suits be well enough. Has served me well etc etc. All the same I almost feel attached to it. Will be sorrow to put it out to grass when that 2.2 GHz Northwood and a dual channel DDR solution comes along some time next year. (Please God)

But as a newly started Electronic Eng. Student, it me old system can't quite hack running some of the hard core simulation programmes.
!