1.2G Coppermine vs 1.4G Tualatin

[limey]

I run a digital recording studio and my DAW system currently runs a PIII-1.2 Coppermine CPU on an Asus TUSL2-C mobo under Win XP Pro. At this time I don't want to upgrade to a P4 system, but I have been reading some interesting postings on my software user sites about the increased performance I could get out of a PIII-1.4G Tualatin chip on my existing mobo. Using a test program and comparing my results on my present system to other users results using this chip seems to indicate a significant increase in performance. Any advice on this subject would be much appreciated

 

[Mordy]

1.2 coppermine ? is it overclocked?

 

[limey]

No, mine is not overclocked and neither is the 1.4G system that i'm comparing it too. I'd prefer not to overclock at this time although I do recognize the potential in both chips.

 

[Crashman]

You don't have a 1.2G Coppermine, as none exist! What you have is the 256k Tualatin, which you want to compare to a higher speed 512k Tualatin. Both are Tualatin. You would most likely see around 15% more performance from the 1.4G 512k is certain applications that make good use of the extra cache, and 10% better performance in others. The PIII does not scale 1:1 with speed mostly due to it's single data rate CPU bus. In fact, overclocked CPU's tend to give better results than stock clocked CPUs of the same speed because they have a higher bus speed.

<font color=blue>By now you're probably wishing you had ask more questions first!</font color=blue>

 

[eden]

Awkwardly enough, P3 Coppermines after 900MHZ speeds seemed to compete better against Athlon Tbirds, noticed that? Even with DDR266 and 266MHZ FSB, it seemed to have less-wide difference over the P3 when it wins.

--
The sound of determination is the echo of will...

 

[Crashman]

PIII Tualatin 256k and Coppermine should have exactly the same performance, clock for clock. The 512k helps a little.

<font color=blue>By now you're probably wishing you had ask more questions first!</font color=blue>

 

[eden]

Yes but that isn't what I am talking about. I am saying how the 750EB MHZ CuMine for example, didn't have much to offer against Athlons, but upon 1GHZ, the chip was competing the Tbirds quite well, though still not enough, but a bit better than before, at least in my eyes.

--
The sound of determination is the echo of will...

 

[Crashman]

It was the bus speed. The 100MHz bus speed didn't scale well past 600MHz. The 133MHz bus speed didn't scale well past 1000MHz, but well enough to make the PIII Tualatin a viable option. The added cache catches the Tualatin up with the XP, meaning that the 1400 competes well with the 1600+. Because they are handicaped by bus speed, bus speed overclocking yields excelent results with the Tualatin.

Even at 100MHz bus speed, the Athlon still had a DDR bus for the PIII to contend with. There was a lot of room in the PIII for improvement when Intel quit developing it.

<font color=blue>By now you're probably wishing you had ask more questions first!</font color=blue>

 

[Unolocogringo]

The tualatin also has hardware prefetch added to the die . This also helps performance a little,

I aint signing nothing!!!

 

[chuck232]

But instead, Intel decided to go the marketing way by making CPUs that scale extremely well, therefore convincing more than 80% of the market to buy their CPUs!

:lol: Finally, I get a capitalized title!! WOOT!! :lol: