The Ultimate Hardware Guide [Last Update: 4-14-06] - Page 2

Last message on previous page:

This is true but you have to consider that 830 has 130W TDP while both 920 and 930 have 95W TDP. IMO it is more important that you have lower temperatures under heavy load than when your CPU is idle. My temps are 40°C in idle and 60°C at full load with 930 chip while box cooler is running at 1,000 RPM.

For anyone who is not after top models from Intel (940 and above) non-working EIST/C1E doesn't make any difference so they can safely get this revision. Even those who will go after those faster chips with higher TDP will most probably disable those powersaving features if they are into overclocking. Those who care about powersaving should wait for new revision of 9x0 which is due soon (I believe in March) -- they can find S-Spec numbers of the new core steppings in Intel specification update (a.k.a. errata docs).

Another reason why I wouldn't recommend 8x0 series is that they have half the L2 cache 9x0 has, and they don't have Vanderpool Technology (a.k.a. virtualization).

As far as chipsets go, I wasn't suggesting detailed guide with features, etc. What you need is recommendation -- which chipset goes best with recommended CPUs from both vendors.

For example:
Pentium 930 / performance = 955, nForce4 / mainstream = 945 / budget = 915

This thread is locked for Moderator review.

yay jake unlocked it thank you but why was it under moderator review?

oh ok man thx for the info

Please allow me to point out a couple innacuracies :

The first P4 was based on the 180nm Willamette core which ran on the short lived Socket 423, PC-100 SDRAM and PC-800 RDRAM were the norm back then.

A larger cache won't decrease performance in itself but the manufacturers do have to trade off latency in order to implement the larger cache while increasing CPU frequencies.

As you can see Here the L2 cache latency went from 16 cycles for the Northwood to 23 cycles and 27 for the Prescott and Prescott 2M respectively.

That post is sticky material, thanks for spending your time on it

I wouldn't worry about your post not becoming a sticky man. Keep plugging away and just let it be known your hard work is appreciated man

Ahhh... RDRAM. RDRAM was even available for Pentium 3's for a while. Ironic that AMD might just be using XDR RAM in future chips.

Who would have thought?

hey hergie i wont post any bias cause mike asked so nicely ok and watch out for windshear and ycon.

I couldn't resist responding to this... I'm not biased against AMD, AMD makes very good processors, however, I like my Intel P4 better... because it runs cool, and overclocks well, and outperforms AMD's, IMO. Simply a matter of opinion. I'd be happy to use an AMD or recommend it to someone if they weren't going to overclock at all. Just thought I'd clear that up.

so far I like this thread, it's very good.

i don't know why they didn't make this a sticky, if its accurate and informative, your personality shouldn't matter, and your not a noob cause i saw you have an sli website and it looked pretty professional.

And ya, a p4 doesn't know the meaning of cool

I'm not sure where he got that from, the only website I have is my Rubyworks Entertainment, and that server is RAMless right now. He must have saw something else and refrenced it to me, which is fine 'cuz I know enough about SLI I should make my own site ....I probably will..hehe.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

I'm glad you asked WINDSHEAR that. I wanted him to compare to my 3200 venice @ 2.5, since I think a 25% OC is not terrible, but didn't want to turn this into a fanboy war thread.
Not that he has a chance of beating our OCs unless he is using liquid.
Where ever did he get the idea that Amds dont OC?

My rig is an absolute bitch to OC. I can't get above 2.34Ghz. I've narrowed the problem down to 2 things:

1. my PSU is underpowered. it's a 485w enermax and i'm running 2x GTX's in SLI. I think by OC'ing i'm asking too much of it in terms of voltages.

2. I have 4 DIMMs.

Otherwise, I've tried raising timings to 3-4-4-7, decreased HT multiplier to 4, increased voltages to both CPU and RAM. I just can't get this bitch above like 215Mhz.

My ram is leet... 2-3-2-6 DDR400. I should be able to get way more than 15mhz out of those whores with 3-4-4-7 timings. Or maybe not...

Any ideas Mike?

-mpjesse

Peltiers... do ppl still use those? I know back in the late 90's and early 00's they were popular. I haven't seen anyone use them in a while now.

-mpjesse

Sure jesse, I can help you. I just need to know a few things first.

1) How many amps is on the +12v RAIL of your PSU?
2) Is there more than 1 +12v RAIL?
3) How much overclocked is each GTX?
4) What size is each stick of RAM in those Modules?
5) Who is the manufacturer of the RAM?
6) What CPU do you have and what Motherboard?

One I know those, I can determine how much of an OC you should be able to get. But even from what you told me, you should be able to hit 10% OC from your CPU (2200 to 2420 for example) with stock voltages on CPU and MINOR volt increase on your RAM.

Here is some average power requirements for system components, see if you have an excess in any:

AGP Graphics Card: 20 to 90 Watts
PCI-E Graphics Card: EST 30 to 120 Watts
PCI Expansion Card: 5 to 10 Watts
SCSI Card: 20 to 35 Watts
Floppy Disk Drive: 5 Watts
Network Card: 4 to 8 Watts
CD-ROM Drive: 10 to 20 Watts
DVD-ROM Drive: 15 to 25 Watts
CD-RW: 10 to 30 Watts
DVD-RW: 18 to 40 Watts
Zip Drive: 10 Watts
Sound Card: 5 to 25 Watts
60/80/120mm Fan: 1 to 5 Watts
USB Devices: 5 Watts
Keyboard: 3 Watts
Mouse: 3 Watts
FireWire Devices: 8 to 10 Watts
RAM: 10 to 15 Watts per 128MB
5400RPM HDD: 5 to 15 Watts
7200RPM HDD: 5 to 25 Watts
10000RPM HDD: EST 10 to 35 Watts
Motherboard: 20 to 60 Watts

BTW: jesse, 2-3-2-5 isn't leet, I can get my RAM to 1.5-2-2-2, that's leet ;D.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

OH and i've got about 5 million devices hooked up to this system. 2x WD Raptors, 1 optical, usb crap, wireless nic, 2 120mm case fans.

But I removed an optical drive (to replace it) last week... and i still get the same results in trying to go over 2.365Ghz... crash.

hey hergie i wont post any bias cause mike asked so nicely ok and watch out for windshear and ycon.

I couldn't resist responding to this... I'm not biased against AMD, AMD makes very good processors, however, I like my Intel P4 better... because it runs cool, and overclocks well, and outperforms AMD's, IMO. Simply a matter of opinion. I'd be happy to use an AMD or recommend it to someone if they weren't going to overclock at all. Just thought I'd clear that up.

so far I like this thread, it's very good. dude i'm not posting any bias and you should'nt either look at your post geez thx lot you ruined mikes unbiased thread

lol calm down Piddy. Everybody here is entitled to their opinion. But as I stated in the first post, I do not want this to be a Fanboy or Flame Thread. Obviously I cannot stop it, but I would hope my request gets respected by both of you and others and we keep this peaceful. I have recently updated the post, I ask those that wish to look it over to see if anything is wrong or you would like me to add anything, thanks.

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

Interesting

Semper Fi Carry^H^H^H^H^H Linux on!

Dual channel came in way later (remember the i845 series ddr and sdr ram chipsets - single channel

AMDs - wheres the Athlon 64 FX series? (unless your talkin bout normal desktop cpus, not high high end)

Otherwise sweet that will teach the noobs, but what we need here is an INTEL AMD history chart with there battles eg first to reach 1ghz, series to compete with the other series (eg Intel P3 vs K6-3 -> AMD K7 -> Intel Coppermine -> AMD Thunderbird -> Intel P4's etc) - we need the charts to end the flamewars and show the truth!!!

your prolly right

ok man sorry if you see anymore biased posts ask the admin to delete them so noobs dont get confused or one sided

welp, the DIB (dual inline bus) on xeons is a good idea for a crap cpu (or two), but there basically the same cpu (with extra cache and higher quality), out of interest - has anyone had the chance to overclock an Itanium or Xeon? iv never thought bout it, but if the xeons are like opterons, they must fly... but then again there a diffrent core with more cache...

wasnt that cause of the excess latency from the larger cache?

I believe it was a Xeon 3.4GHz OC'd to 3.9GHz (Single CPU) w/ 1MB Cache vs. a Pentium 4 3.4 GHz w/ 1MB Cache on Socket 478 and the P4 was still faster by about 8%. I wouldn't really blame the cache, since they're the same.

Atol: I don't care about the "Core Duo".

~~Mad Mod Mike, pimpin' the world 1 rig at a time

what is the diffrence then? higher latency at the cost of stability or a diffrent chipset?

ah either way there too dang expensive to do anything with.

.
In other words, the chip can not access the fsb, so it is at best, in a minimal activity mode.
We wont get into how netbust's need for bandwidth affects this.

How in the world can the chip with 2MB L2 starve while FSB is inaccessible?!?
You AMD fankids are really the worst PR spin-doctors on this decaying planet.