Quote:
This is applying to the Springdale, so we'll scratch that off your reasons to go Canterwood.
The reasoning that the P4 is a better product applies to Springdale as well, I was comparing it to the Athlon.
Quote:
If you'd like to have a good read on ECC, the RAM forum can provide it.
Short and sweet: ECC creates more latency because it is looking for errors. If you just said you wanted maximum performance, and you now may need a feature that home users, INCLUDING ENTHUSIASTS, won't need because it lowers performance, then I do not see this as a reason, so we'll scratch that, and FAST!
I won't use ECC now, but maybe in the future, for even better stability, this is only eventually though, and I wouldn't want any performance setback right now of any kind. But when I'm upgrading to Prescott or the like, ECC memory won't delete the perf advantage offered by Prescott, and it will add stability, so I might consider ECC by then. Also, I've heard that ECC is used in cache to "protect"? Protect from damage? Can ECC for main memory "protect" as well?
Quote:
Springdale offers the same.
Integrated SATA was also meant as comparing to my current AMD setup.
Quote:
If we assumed THG used the best of the best of each chipset, this is extremly debatable. Considering at the moment, the Asus P4P800 IS the best performer of all 865PE mainboards, then you can't go wrong, it is only 0.06% less performing than Canterwood Asus, which btw is ALSO at the top of the fighters.
Another very convincing reason for Springdale, is the MSI Neo, which overclocks by itself. So, not only do you get higher performance which negates Canterwood possible increases, but you pay LESS!
Sabbath, you are open minded and pretty intelligent because you think before you write, so I am asking you to look at it logically. I just DO NOT see Canterwood ATM as being any better.
Please think it over, and research a lot and make sure that your conclusion is that THG has the bad benchmarks, even when the test setups of different HW sites were very similar. And remember, the PAT benefits are likely to be weaker at 2.8 than 3, considering that low latency is more important at higher speeds. But that's a very minor issue and it's pointless, so ignore that.
Same thing here. A small performance increase with the 2.8 compared to the 3000+.
At THG, the Springdale is very much on par with the Canterwood, but on AnandTech, Tech-Report and Lost Circuits, the Canterwood pulls out anywhere from 0.1-10% perf increase. Reversely, at Hexus today, the Springdale was, for some incredible reason faster than Canterwood.
While the dynamic overclocking of the MSI may appeal to some, or many people, my plans was to run at stock speed, because I've had some issues with overclocking recently.
I sure will think it over. Also will think about maybe saving my money one more month and then go 3.2 GHz, to make a really big perf increase. But it's settled. I'll *definitely* go Canterwood/Springdale with at least 2.8 800 FSB P4 in the nearest weeks. That's a 100%.
Important But Silly Question: Will Springdale support Prescott and equally well?
My system: AMD Athlon XP 3000+ CPU / TwinMOS 1Gb DDR400 / Soltek 75FRN-RL /
Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro / Antec True Power 550W / Maxtor 80Gb ATA-133 / Hercules GTXP SC /
Samsung DVD / Lite-On CDRW<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by sabbath1 on 05/22/03 07:11 PM.</EM></FONT></P>