Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Difference between P4 1.8A and 2.4?

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
April 7, 2002 10:53:04 AM

Alright, I need your help. I was just talking to someone over IRC, and I mentioned how a friend of mine got his 1.8A P4 running at almost 2.4 (23??GHz). I said that my friend got a 550 dollar chip for 180, more or less.

Well, some guy says "i hope you realize the p4 2.4 is pretty damn different from the previous ones"

I was like, what are you talking about??? Am I wrong, or is the 2.4 simply another northwood with a multiplyer of 24? (I know that some 2.4s are being produced from 300mm wafers, but I think that's the only difference)

The only thing I can think is that he thought I was talking about getting a willimete to 2.4, or who knows, maybe even a PIII.

So my question is this: Is there any difference (other than the multiplyer) between the 1.8A P4 and the 2.4 P4, such as extra instructions, architecture, or other specialized restructured elements? Thanks.

More about : difference

April 7, 2002 1:58:39 PM

Quote:

So my question is this: Is there any difference (other than the multiplyer) between the 1.8A P4 and the 2.4 P4, such as extra instructions, architecture, or other specialized restructured elements? Thanks.

Performance-wise, no. So, overclocking a 1.8GHz P4 to 2.4GHz will give you the same performance of a 2.4GHz P4, more or less.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
April 7, 2002 3:15:20 PM

The guy was probably drunk :-) , or does not follow news. You are right, it's a Northwood. I don't recall a Willamette ever reaching so high.

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
Related resources
April 7, 2002 4:23:31 PM

Willamette stopped at 2GHZ.

Any mystery devised by mortal mind can be solved therewith
April 7, 2002 10:11:24 PM

Quote:
So, overclocking a 1.8GHz P4 to 2.4GHz will give you the same performance of a 2.4GHz P4, more or less.


If you overclocked by the multiplier, then yes. However, a 1.8A at 2.4 would be on a 133 bus, which would give it a decent performance boost.

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft
April 8, 2002 5:59:19 AM

he overclocked his 1.8A

thats pushing the cpu and bus speed beyond that for which it was designed.

fortunately the 'Northwood' P4 cpu is particulary good at overclocking.

of course, doing so voids it warantee. :smile:

You're an embarrisment to nature you know that?
April 8, 2002 6:01:57 AM

good thing those chips have thermal protection!

<i>My life wasn't complete untill I tried sse-2 optimized pong</i>
April 8, 2002 6:20:33 AM

Just wondering: has anybody OC'd the 2.4? Should be able to get it up around 3.2GHz, no?

:lol:  <b><font color=blue>gnintsakgnirkskir ksron</font color=blue></b> :lol: 
April 8, 2002 6:29:50 AM

good to have sure, specially for the beginner who will try just dumb things, but for the pro... i dunno

with P3's or amd cpu's they just freeze when they get too hot

ive frozen mine countless times with various overclocking scenarios...
think i prefer a freeze to a slowdown honestly.

easier to spot when its getting to hot LOL
and a definitive method. if its still going, its not too hot :smile:

You're an embarrisment to nature you know that?
April 8, 2002 4:29:05 PM

Quote:
with P3's or amd cpu's they just freeze when they get too hot

ive frozen mine countless times with various overclocking scenarios...
think i prefer a freeze to a slowdown honestly.

easier to spot when its getting to hot LOL
and a definitive method. if its still going, its not too hot


Exactly!

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
April 8, 2002 5:30:56 PM

Quote:
ive frozen mine countless times with various overclocking scenarios...
think i prefer a freeze to a slowdown honestly.


I had my P4 hit 70c with no slowdown, you make it seem like you bump the FSB 1MHz and suddenly have a Pentium Pro.

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft
April 8, 2002 11:51:45 PM

lol it was...
but then again my friend was trying to push a 2.0Ghz willmie with a stock heatsink and a crap case.
i imagine it was more than a tad toasty in there. course i never found out what the temps were as the twit didnt even bother with temp monitoring software *sigh*


You're an embarrisment to nature you know that?
a b à CPUs
April 9, 2002 1:49:25 AM

The 1.8A and 2.4 are identicle except for the multiplier, the 1.8A at 2.4 will likely run some apps about 10% faster than the 2.4 at 2.4, because of the higher memory transfer speed associtated with higher bus speeds. The 1.8A would be running at 133MHz bus speed to get to 2.4, the 2.4 still at 100MHz bus speed.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
April 9, 2002 8:18:08 AM

what are you trying to say? that you're a pro? because you sound pretty stupid to me:

Quote:
ive frozen mine countless times with various overclocking scenarios...
think i prefer a freeze to a slowdown honestly...

...easier to spot when its getting to hot LOL
and a definitive method. if its still going, its not too hot

only a fool would agree that.

"<b>AMD/VIA!</b>...you are <i>still</i> the weakest link, good bye!"
April 9, 2002 7:10:11 PM

Quote:
I had my P4 hit 70c with no slowdown, you make it seem like you bump the FSB 1MHz and suddenly have a Pentium Pro.


While that is true, his preference still stands though, I too would prefer a lockup to a slowdown I may not detect, but would affect my benchmarks and performance.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
April 9, 2002 7:25:23 PM

So you'd rather have something lock up and have to reboot than to have a slowdown so small you can't even notice it?

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft
April 9, 2002 7:59:57 PM

Actually a lockup that would resume funcitonality as soon as the temps drop would be nice.

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
April 9, 2002 8:08:00 PM

I want the computer to inform me that it's going to freeze first though. Then, it would freeze until it cools down, then it would unfreeze again. That would be the PERFECT thermal protection technique, IMO.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
April 9, 2002 8:11:01 PM

Ya know, that turns back to the MAIN concept of all this, we need a WARNING sound before thermal thottling or freezing! Thank god non-thermal protected mobos at least use this!

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
April 9, 2002 8:25:32 PM

Unless you are satisfied with a beep coming from the case speaker attached to your motherboard, the processor would be required to execute application code in order for the operating system to display any kind of warning. Thus, what would be best is a slowdown to maybe 1% of normal speed, along with the issuing of a warning message. In fact, simply adding a warning message popup to the Pentium 4's current thermal protection would be the best bet.

This is actually something Microsoft could already do. The hardware support is already there. You simply need the operating system support. They could very easily pop up a warning message or play an audio file that said "Your processor has reached dangerous temperatures and is throttling down its clockspeed to remain safe."

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
April 9, 2002 8:33:18 PM

No gee, haven't I said that 20 times. Yet practically nobody agrees!
A warning is all we need, to at least know what the heck is going on!
If A user who's P4 would thottle (IF, a big IF) was using Word all the time, ya can't help but wonder where does he know his P4 is now at a 486's performance?

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
April 9, 2002 8:41:08 PM

<font color=blue>"In fact, simply adding a warning message popup to the Pentium 4's current thermal protection would be the best bet."</font color=blue>

Years ago I had a Compac Power PC (Motorola CPU) running Windows NT, and it did exactly that! The CPU had a massive passive (rhyme unintentional) heat sink, and was cooled by "ducts" bringing air across the heatsink and being exhausted through the power supply.

Run the PC without the cover, no air moved across the CPU. After about 15 minutes a messagebox appears warning that the system was overheating and should be shut down.

<font color=blue>This is a Forum, not a playground. Treat it with Respect.</font color=blue>
April 9, 2002 9:16:59 PM

Because as we all know, Word is strenuous enough to cause a non-overclocked P4 to overheat enough to throttle.

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft
April 9, 2002 11:53:52 PM

Lol,
but I meant in the event the HSF fails. Wow you just like to put the best simple contexts into play now do you?

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
April 9, 2002 11:58:13 PM

Quote:
If A user who's P4 would thottle (IF, a big IF) was using Word all the time, ya can't help but wonder where does he know his P4 is now at a 486's performance?


You said it, not me. And remember that we've <i>all</i> talked about how a heatsink falling off would take out at least the video card as well. I don't think a heatsink falling off would give slow performance, it would stop the computer from functioning completely.


<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft
April 10, 2002 1:10:17 AM

Quote:
So you'd rather have something lock up and have to reboot than to have a slowdown so small you can't even notice it?



As strange as it sound, yes burger. I do not want my pc throttling when I need it most, and the times I need it most, there is no evidence of throttling(ie video archiving etc etc) just a slower net product. I would rather know that my proc is too hot than possible never know.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
April 10, 2002 1:31:12 AM

Now that would be cool! :cool:

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
April 10, 2002 1:36:52 AM

Nobody said it can't happen!
Why don't you create a prog, like the ATI Max you're doing? Hey man I got a gut feeling you can do this! Just use a code that detects temps, refreshes temp readings by user defined increments and stays in the background with not a tint of memory usage or processing power. That way, as soon as a high temp comes, the code tells it to display a very small byte sized window saying the warning!

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
April 10, 2002 1:44:42 AM

The problem is, I have no idea how to make a program to detect temps.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
April 10, 2002 1:58:10 AM

Hmm well there are progs that detect temps, maybe you can try to relay the code in those progs? Searching and exploring is what brings you further, and doing that ATI driver thing, is beyond my knowledge!

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
April 10, 2002 2:04:14 AM

I would need to decompile these programs. ATIMax is easy, but detecting temps is beyond my knowledge. All ATIMax does it search through the registry, search and delete files, etc. It's really an API-level app, which is easy to program. Detecting temps is probably low-level and would be programmed in assembler language.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
April 10, 2002 2:56:47 AM

Well there is also the motherboard temp reader, which is found from the BIOS. And that chip isn't really big in size, so I suppose coding a temp reader may not be very hard. In any case, you should consider looking around it if you get free time, would be damn sweet!

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
April 10, 2002 3:46:23 AM

So all you're talking about is a program that monitors temps and tells you when they get too high? Gee, why hasn't anybody thought of that before :tongue:

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft
April 10, 2002 5:44:39 AM

honestly i think i would.

but i guess it depends on the extent of slowdown...

will it only be for a tenth of a second every 10 minutes?
or will it be for 5 seconds every minute?

i really dont want my game slowing down right at a critical point, or find that my cure for cancer task is taking 10% more time because it keeps throttling down.



You're an embarrisment to nature you know that?
April 10, 2002 5:49:00 AM

so u agree then melty?

You're an embarrisment to nature you know that?
April 10, 2002 7:22:53 AM

Quote:
so u agree then melty?

no fool! there was only one person who agreed with you while wagging his tail and drooling in ecstasy.


"<b>AMD/VIA!</b>...you are <i>still</i> the weakest link, good bye!"
April 10, 2002 7:47:29 AM

Quote:
As strange as it sound, yes burger. I do not want my pc throttling when I need it most, and the times I need it most, there is no evidence of throttling(ie video archiving etc etc) just a slower net product. I would rather know that my proc is too hot than possible never know.

if the P4 did casually throttle just like you say, then wouldn't we be hearing more from the Van the head Mongrel himself?

why is it that you mongrels can't even come up with a test to prove your fud? oh, that's right it's fud so it can't be proven!

show me some proof(hard data) of a P4 casually throttling up and down and I'll shut up, otherwise stfu already you don't know jack about the P4 you troll.

"<b>AMD/VIA!</b>...you are <i>still</i> the weakest link, good bye!"
April 10, 2002 8:00:26 AM

well my computer hasnt crashed in weeks. must be an idiot at overclocking eh?

my results and your reputation speak volumes.

You're an embarrisment to nature you know that?
April 10, 2002 11:39:56 AM

I got news for ya, Melty suddenly likes Van's Hardware and enjoys the Athlons now!

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
April 10, 2002 3:41:04 PM

Quote:
but i guess it depends on the extent of slowdown...


As I said, <i>if it's not noticeable</i>. All the examples you cited would fall under the "noticeable" category.

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft
April 10, 2002 11:34:33 PM

so what exactly happens with a thermal throttle?

A. your cpu exceeds temp X, due to whatever reaon (extreeme overclock, busted fan etc)
B. some cycles of the cpu are halted until temp falls back below X? but how many? and does it ramp up like some speedstep tech?

You're an embarrisment to nature you know that?
April 10, 2002 11:41:23 PM

Nobody knows exactly what throttling does and what causes it (except for Intel, and they're not exactly shoving the information out the mail slot).

My point is that when throttling isn't noticeable in any way, then it's better than a freezeup. Period.
I'm having a really hard time believing that people are arguing with me over that.

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft
April 10, 2002 11:57:10 PM

Quote:
Nobody knows exactly what throttling does and what causes it (except for Intel, and they're not exactly shoving the information out the mail slot).

My point is that when throttling isn't noticeable in any way, then it's better than a freezeup. Period.
I'm having a really hard time believing that people are arguing with me over that.


Burger, the problem is you CANT have throttling and not be noticeable, it cannot be seperated, so the question itself is illogical.

Throttle=loss of performance.

Throttle < Lockup

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
April 11, 2002 12:02:38 AM

Quote:
the problem is you CANT have throttling and not be noticeable


So since nobody has even made a serious claim of throttling (to my knowledge), it's fairly safe to say the chances of throttling are incredibly small. Therefore, this whole conversation is illogical.

<font color=blue>If you don't buy Windows, then the terrorists have already won!</font color=blue> - Microsoft
April 11, 2002 12:04:59 AM

Quote:

Burger, the problem is you CANT have throttling and not be noticeable, it cannot be seperated, so the question itself is illogical.

Ok, that's illogical. :tongue: If the P4 idles once every 1000 cycles for say 10 cycles to reduce heat then that probably won't be noticable. Before you try to calculate that into MHz/GHz, remember that any processor idles several clock cycles on cache missses and branch mispredictions.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
April 11, 2002 12:09:38 AM

Quote:
So since nobody has even made a serious claim of throttling (to my knowledge), it's fairly safe to say the chances of throttling are incredibly small. Therefore, this whole conversation is illogical.


When comparing throttling to locking up, you already assume the throttling occurs(as with the lockup) thus the conversation is not illogical.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
April 11, 2002 1:01:51 AM

The same will be said to AMD's case with their CPUs, so thermal protection isn't much needed then!

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
April 11, 2002 2:13:21 AM

heh
not arguing that

what we need is some p4 owner to test it out...

turn the fan off their cpu and monitor the system activity/ system slowdown as temps rise.

see if there is a noticable cuttoff point between full speed & partially throttled or a very gradual shift

You're an embarrisment to nature you know that?
April 11, 2002 2:49:52 AM

Well the whole point of THG's video was to show what happens, lol! Quake 3 ran like Doom ran on 33MHZ PCs!

--
For the first time, Hookers are hooked on Phonics!!
April 11, 2002 3:10:47 AM

Quote:
Well, some guy says "i hope you realize the p4 2.4 is pretty damn different from the previous ones"

I was like, what are you talking about??? Am I wrong, or is the 2.4 simply another northwood with a multiplyer of 24? (I know that some 2.4s are being produced from 300mm wafers, but I think that's the only difference)

Thats a pretty big difference. I also found this difference in this <A HREF="http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q2/020402/index.html" target="_new">tomshardware.com article:</A>
Quote:
An interesting new aspect is the shrinking of the die size, which Intel has put into practice starting with the launch of the P4/2400. In decreasing the distance between the individual units by 10% within the CPU core, the manufacturer can lower the production costs. For the user, however, this strategy brings no advantages.

So there is a substantial change. And people are flash overclocking the new 2.4s to 4 GHz, some are reaching 3 GHz with air cooling.

If my response is brief and vague its because the info you provided is too!
!