Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

P4 A & B ?

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • Chip
Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 14, 2002 6:33:47 PM

This may be stupid...

But what is with the designations with P4 chips?

What's the difference between a chip with no letter A or B?

Also a lot of people are mentioning proc. prices are dropping in Sept. Where do you guys find that information? Or is everyone being sheep because someone said so? =)

Cooj

More about : question

August 14, 2002 6:58:09 PM

No letter means Willamette, A means Northwook, and B is Northwood with 533MHz FSB.

<i>Past mistakes may make you look stupid, but avoiding future ones will make you look smart!</i>
August 14, 2002 8:17:13 PM

Actually I noticed that B only existed with the 533 Mhz FSB and A only with 400Mhz FSB. I just didn't put 2 and 2 together, Thanks!

However I have another question for you now.

I noticed that the Willamette 1.7Ghz is cheaper than the 1.6A Ghz Northwood. Why is that? Are the Northwoods far superior ro the Willamettes? What's the difference? Overclocking abilities? Or something else?

Cooj
a b à CPUs
August 14, 2002 8:24:11 PM

The Williamette core doesn't perform as well as the Northwood, it also can't be overclocked as far and requires both more power and produces more heat. It only has half the cache. It was always a turd of a processor.

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
August 14, 2002 8:34:37 PM

Willamettes are hotter and have less L2 cache. (They're also built on a .18 micron process.) Currently they are arguably the worst CPU design seen in the last two years.<font color=blue>*</font color=blue> They come only in 100MHz FSB.

Northwoods are cooler and have twice the L2 cahce of a Willamette. (They're also built on a .13 micron process.) On top of that, Northwoods have a few tweaks and nudges that improve the core logic slightly over the Willamette. They come in 100MHz FSB (P4A) and 133MHz FSB(P4B) versions.

Wilty's (Willamette Celerons, aka Celeron at or above 1.7GHz) are Willamettes with half the L2 cache of a Willamette, pure and simple. (Or in other words, cheap and crappy.) They're purely 100MHz FSB chips. As such, they beat even the Willamette for bad CPU design.

<font color=blue>* The only real contenders for the worst CPU design in the two five years are the Willamette, the Wilty(the Celeron Willamette), and VIA's C3 processor. Others may have existed, but they don't market anymore and therefore are excluded from the race because no one could accidentally buy one.</font color=blue>

<A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/comic/171.htm" target="_new">The corpse you find may be your own.</A> - Black Mage
August 14, 2002 10:23:33 PM

Hey, at least the MHz names convinced people to buy the *wilties*.

<i>Past mistakes may make you look stupid, but avoiding future ones will make you look smart!</i>
August 15, 2002 4:10:36 PM

Sadly, that's very true. :( 

I couldn't imagine a much worse system than a Wilty paired with PC100 SDRAM and an on-board 8MB 3D <font color=blue>*</font color=blue>decelerator that uses system memory for itself.

It scares me that Intel would even allow a P4 to be run with SDRAM, and that they would market a cache-stripped Willamette as a 'Celeron'. They must be proud of themselves to screw customers so badly.

<font color=blue>* Because it has no actual memory of it's own, the 3D accelerator actually becomes a 3D decelerator. (Since it is eating up considerable amounts of the already horrible memory bandwidth, thus bandwidth-starving the P4 even further.)</font color=blue>

<A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/comic/171.htm" target="_new">The corpse you find may be your own.</A> - Black Mage
August 15, 2002 4:48:29 PM

Or....they could do what they did originally with the Celeron based on the pentium 2 and give it <b>no</b> cache...*thinks* hmm...A celeron with an 8kb L1 and trace cache, minus the L2. Or just drop all of it, and advertise it at 2.0Ghz with a 400Mhz FSB. Bet that sells just as well. Imagine that with a 2Mb graphics card and Pc-66 Cas3 Sdram. *shudders* the i845 at it's worst

True dumbass:
aha!! it has some kind of cuts, hehehe"
have you ever seen smoke from a seagate?
August 15, 2002 4:51:58 PM

Ahhh yes, let's see how badly we can screw consumers :tongue: . Very good plan eh? :smile:

<i>Past mistakes may make you look stupid, but avoiding future ones will make you look smart!</i>
August 15, 2002 5:49:23 PM

Thank the powers that be that Intel, even in their greed, is not stupid/evil/insane enough to do away with the L2 cache entirely.

And thank them powers that be as well for making PC66 RAM at least very difficult to find in an OEM machine anymore.

<A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/comic/171.htm" target="_new">The corpse you find may be your own.</A> - Black Mage
August 16, 2002 5:15:16 AM

hehe yeah. a wilty plus sdram was my Sig for a while :smile:
oh, and dont forget the 5400rpm HDD and INSUFFICIENT (128mb) sdram PC100 cas3 with winXP :wink:


<b>Before visiting THG i was a clueless noob. Now im still clueless, but look at my nice title!<b>
August 16, 2002 5:24:50 AM

testing rehash of old sig... yep... looks good. my next dream system LOL

<b>P4 'Wilty' Celleron 1.7, 128Mb PC100 Cas3 SDRAM, 5400rpm HDD, Integrated everything. YUM!<b>
August 16, 2002 1:24:07 PM

Oh. come on.. 128MB SDRAM?? That's too much for even a dream system :tongue: ...

BTW, Celeron has 1 *L*... :wink:

<i>Past mistakes may make you look stupid, but avoiding future ones will make you look smart!</i>
August 16, 2002 3:40:31 PM

Quote:
oh, and dont forget the 5400rpm

Even better: Take two older (and thus even slower) laptop drives and put them in a RAID array for data integrity. (Not for speed, as that might actually speed up the system.) And there must be a way to configure the drives to be accessed in some slow antiquated format...

Quote:
and INSUFFICIENT (128mb) sdram PC100 cas3 with winXP

Oooh! Not just CAS3, but ECC and registered as well! That should <i>really</i> slow it down. ;) 

<A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/comic/171.htm" target="_new">The corpse you find may be your own.</A> - Black Mage
August 17, 2002 3:42:58 AM

Hmm I think most didn't even think about it, but as long as we are talking about using 1/3rd of the P4's 400MHZ FSB, you guys missed out on the real killer here, RDRAM PC266!!!
In case you didn't know, RDRAM doesn't perform as good at the same bandwidth as DDR, and since as Raystonn said, the higher RDRAM goes in clock, the lower the latency (but more dramatical on it), then that means RDRAM DCed for 1.06GB/sec only, must suck even more than SDRAM PC133, which means THIS is the lowest point you could equip a P4 with!!! Registered ECC RDRAM PC266 with latency skyrocketing!
Using a notebook Hard Disk, this thing promises to open your e-mail so fast, you haven't even finished connecting!

--
Is the opportunity to earn money by working, free?
!