Some Intel Questions 16 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

Shintsu

For the glory of Helghan

50 XP

9th April 2005

0 Uploads

12,926 Posts

0 Threads

#1 13 years ago

Ok, I use a Socket 478 P4, and I wanted to know what the real difference between what socket I use and the LGA 775, aside from the fact that the Extreme Edition uses the LGA 775, enabling you to get more high-performance motherboards capable of using PCI Express than the Socket 478. (There's only one PCI-Express Motherboard for the 478 on Newegg, whereas the 775 has over 70) Also, whats the difference between this processor, and this one? Which of the two would perform better for games? Whats the difference between the Smithfield with BTX and the one without? I believe thats all the questions I have for now, thanks for any and all responses. (Also, no AMD Fanboys posting in here saying Intel sucks please, thanks)




Agentlaidlaw

Pie

50 XP

21st February 2005

0 Uploads

3,801 Posts

0 Threads

#2 13 years ago

The Pentium D is dual core so its having to processors built in so it would be a lot faster.




Shintsu

For the glory of Helghan

50 XP

9th April 2005

0 Uploads

12,926 Posts

0 Threads

#3 13 years ago
AgentlaidlawThe Pentium D is dual core so its having to processors built in so it would be a lot faster.

Ok, if such is the case, why does a 3.4 GHz P4 with 64 bit cost more than the 2.8 GHz Dual Core 64 Bit Processor? The clock speed I am assuming?




Agentlaidlaw

Pie

50 XP

21st February 2005

0 Uploads

3,801 Posts

0 Threads

#4 13 years ago

Because on gaiming the 3.4 would be faster but on every thing else the P4 D would own it BIG TIME lol.




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#5 13 years ago
ShintsuAlso, no AMD Fanboys [/quote] AMD fans, not fanboys, we like technology that works best. [quote=Shintsu]saying Intel sucks please, thanks

dude, they diddnt always, but since the A64's, x2's, and FX's there really just best. im puzzled why you wnat to buy one at all, i mean if your getting a new mobo and cpu, jsut get a 3700+ or something. i found a 3700+ 1meg L2 san deigo for 168 bucks, for 100bucks less than that intel and its much, much better. just trying to save you money. unless you doing video and audio "encrypting" there is really no point. the extreme edition even isnt best, and its price is outrageous. im not flaming intel, nor am i a "fanboy", i find it very disturbing what intel does to its employees, im hoping they will come out with a gaming chip soon. if intel wins over the gamers, they will have the market. since its only gamers than buy AMD's anyway. troublesome, but, i make very true, logical, and valid points.




C38368

...burning angel wings to dust

50 XP

14th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,013 Posts

0 Threads

#6 13 years ago
ShintsuOk, I use a Socket 478 P4, and I wanted to know what the real difference between what socket I use and the LGA 775, aside from the fact that the Extreme Edition uses the LGA 775

The biggest difference is in the packaging. S478 uses a form known as "pin grid array", which is essentially a bunch of pins that stick down from the processor into the socket and allow communication between the CPU and motherboard. LGA775 uses what is known as a "land grid array", which basically just moves the pins off of the CPU and onto the motherboard. I've heard different reasons for this switch, the two most common being greater efficiency (though oddly enough, an LGA775 Prescott of a given spec with run hotter in socket T trim than the same core in S478 trim) and the cynic's take: pins are easy to bend, so Intel moves some luser-error risk to the mobo manufacturers by putting the pins on the socket. You're incorrect about EEs, though: the early P4EEs were S478 parts based on the Gallatin core (this was basically a repackaged Xeon), and certain Pentium 4 "C" cores shared this heritage also, but lacked the extra cache. The newer P4EEs are all LGA775, however (including the latest and greatest, clocked at 3.73GHz). Finally, there's the new Smithfield "Pentium Extreme Edition". This is a dual-core LGA775 part. It's identical to any "Pentium D" of the same clock speed, but has Hyperthreading.

Also, whats the difference between this processor, and this one? Which of the two would perform better for games? Whats the difference between the Smithfield with BTX and the one without?

The first CPU is a single core Prescott (LGA775) unit. It features 2MB L2 cache, EM64T (64-bit extentions), SpeedStep, and Hyperthreading. The second CPU is the slowest of the new Smithfield dual core CPUs. It's also an LGA775 CPU, has 1MB L2 cache per core, and is EM64T-enabled. However, it lacks Hyperthreading and SpeedStep. Because of the latter, the Pentium D 820 has issues running on many motherboards based on pre-Smithfield core logic (i875, 915, 925, nForce4).




Shintsu

For the glory of Helghan

50 XP

9th April 2005

0 Uploads

12,926 Posts

0 Threads

#7 13 years ago

Well, I'm a gamer, and I certainly have had no amount of good luck with any AMD I've ever used. I've even used some of those 3000+ etc AMD 64s. My friend has one, and it gives him nothing but trouble. He's very well educated on the computers, and he still constantly has it overheating, even though he's got an aftermarket cooler on it, and a ton of fans on his case, and its in a pretty well air conditioned area. I don't know if he overclocked it or not, all I know is he has many problems with it staying cool, and as I have a heating issue with my current setup, I cannot afford a processor thats going to be worse on the heating. The AMDs I've had was a 1.2 Athlon XP which I'd say lasted fairly well, it got me through BF42 until I started playing FH. Then I got a 2800+, and after 2 months I wanted it gone. It gave me nothing but lock ups and other various errors. I tried a 3000+, no better. My other friend had ultimate faith in AMD and got himself a 64 3500+, and he had problems as well. I'm not saying that I'm not doing something wrong, but come on, my friends aren't idiots, they know their way around a computer, and build them all the time and sell them. How can that many AMDs go wrong? What possible evidence is there to make me, the screwed over consumer, believe they don't still have problems? I've hardly had any problems with my P4. This is more of something that just tends to be true, but I'm not saying its impossible, but how can it be better and cheaper? I know lots of tech savvy people who buy Intels, very well aware of AMDs, and they are looking for gaming as well. At one point, I started becoming interested in AMDs, then I talked to various people, all knowledgeable in computers as well, and they advised me against it, many from personal experience. It's going to take some pretty solid evidence to make me consider repurchasing an AMD again. I mean, try it from my perspective. AMDs that have always crashed. Intels that have rarely ever. I currently have an Intel Board, and an 3.0 GHz P4 if thats not obvious. Why should I waste $250+ buying a new processor (from a company I dislike and distrust and have had no luck with) AND a brand new motherboard, with more than likely, PCI Express, which will cost me more , being I'll need a new graphics card. Sure, I could just get one that supports everything I have now but thats designed for an AMD, but whats the point? Eventually I'll need to switch over to PCI Express, and that would be the perfect time to. Not only that, WHY should I believe that 3500+ means its equal to a 3.5? That would be the same as me saying "Its really a 3.0 liter but its called a 5000+ because it's equal to a 5.0 liter!" That sounds merely like an attempt to figure out their coding for the processors. Give me a good reason to switch, as well as proof, and then I'll think about it. Until then, Intel will be who I buy from.




Pyroshane

I want to be like the Admins

50 XP

16th December 2004

0 Uploads

233 Posts

0 Threads

#8 13 years ago
Not only that, WHY should I believe that 3500+ means its equal to a 3.5? That would be the same as me saying "Its really a 3.0 liter but its called a 5000+ because it's equal to a 5.0 liter!" That sounds merely like an attempt to figure out their coding for the processors.

By actually doing research on the products you buy before you buy them. They are not equal, in fact, it ranks just below the P4 3.4Ghz EE in most benchmarks.

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2004q3/athlon64-3500/index.x?pg=1

I have no clue if AMD intended on the processor name to be used to equate the "speed" of their processors with Intel processors, but they are really only roughly equivelent in most cases. To top it off, the new X2 processors still use the numerical naming of the standard A64 processors, but the numbers mean nothing other than higher is better.

As far as all the problems you and your friends have had, no clue whats up there. I have used AMD exclusively for the past 6 years and never had a problem with them crashing or overheating. In fact, I currently have a 3500+ with stock cooling and only one case fan, and I even keep it in a cabinet under my desk for sound issues, and the temp is rarely above 45C, even when gaming.




Agentlaidlaw

Pie

50 XP

21st February 2005

0 Uploads

3,801 Posts

0 Threads

#9 13 years ago

ShintsuWell, I'm a gamer, and I certainly have had no amount of good luck with any AMD I've ever used. I've even used some of those 3000+ etc AMD 64s. My friend has one, and it gives him nothing but trouble. He's very well educated on the computers, and he still constantly has it overheating, even though he's got an aftermarket cooler on it, and a ton of fans on his case, and its in a pretty well air conditioned area. I don't know if he overclocked it or not, all I know is he has many problems with it staying cool, and as I have a heating issue with my current setup, I cannot afford a processor thats going to be worse on the heating.

The AMDs I've had was a 1.2 Athlon XP which I'd say lasted fairly well, it got me through BF42 until I started playing FH. Then I got a 2800+, and after 2 months I wanted it gone. It gave me nothing but lock ups and other various errors. I tried a 3000+, no better. My other friend had ultimate faith in AMD and got himself a 64 3500+, and he had problems as well.

I'm not saying that I'm not doing something wrong, but come on, my friends aren't idiots, they know their way around a computer, and build them all the time and sell them. How can that many AMDs go wrong? What possible evidence is there to make me, the screwed over consumer, believe they don't still have problems? I've hardly had any problems with my P4.

This is more of something that just tends to be true, but I'm not saying its impossible, but how can it be better and cheaper? I know lots of tech savvy people who buy Intels, very well aware of AMDs, and they are looking for gaming as well. At one point, I started becoming interested in AMDs, then I talked to various people, all knowledgeable in computers as well, and they advised me against it, many from personal experience. It's going to take some pretty solid evidence to make me consider repurchasing an AMD again.

I mean, try it from my perspective. AMDs that have always crashed. Intels that have rarely ever. I currently have an Intel Board, and an 3.0 GHz P4 if thats not obvious. Why should I waste $250+ buying a new processor (from a company I dislike and distrust and have had no luck with) AND a brand new motherboard, with more than likely, PCI Express, which will cost me more , being I'll need a new graphics card. Sure, I could just get one that supports everything I have now but thats designed for an AMD, but whats the point? Eventually I'll need to switch over to PCI Express, and that would be the perfect time to.

Not only that, WHY should I believe that 3500+ means its equal to a 3.5? That would be the same as me saying "Its really a 3.0 liter but its called a 5000+ because it's equal to a 5.0 liter!" That sounds merely like an attempt to figure out their coding for the processors.

Give me a good reason to switch, as well as proof, and then I'll think about it. Until then, Intel will be who I buy from.

Thats very strange. I run a 3500+ and I out beat most 3.6ghz Intels. My processor stays cooler than any Intel that I know of. Just now I put my hand on my heatsink and my heatsink isnt even hot, a little warm but not even hot. AMD is made for 3D app games when Intel is post to be made for every day use. AMD are clocked lower but perform better than Intels because AMD have a shorter pipe lines, Memory controller built in, and some more stuff. If your happy with Intel and don't really want to get another AMD because you had problems in the past then get an Intel again. There both good chips just AMD is faster in this time frame. But yeah lets not turn this into another AMD vs Intel thread...




C38368

...burning angel wings to dust

50 XP

14th February 2004

0 Uploads

5,013 Posts

0 Threads

#10 13 years ago
ShintsuWell, I'm a gamer, and I certainly have had no amount of good luck with any AMD I've ever used. I've even used some of those 3000+ etc AMD 64s. My friend has one, and it gives him nothing but trouble. He's very well educated on the computers, and he still constantly has it overheating, even though he's got an aftermarket cooler on it, and a ton of fans on his case, and its in a pretty well air conditioned area. I don't know if he overclocked it or not, all I know is he has many problems with it staying cool, and as I have a heating issue with my current setup, I cannot afford a processor thats going to be worse on the heating.

Off topic, but the problem you describe is very consistent with improperly-applied thermal compound, or failure to remove the protective plastic that sometimes ships applied to the base of aftermarket heatsinks.

The AMDs I've had was a 1.2 Athlon XP which I'd say lasted fairly well, it got me through BF42 until I started playing FH. Then I got a 2800+, and after 2 months I wanted it gone. It gave me nothing but lock ups and other various errors. I tried a 3000+, no better. My other friend had ultimate faith in AMD and got himself a 64 3500+, and he had problems as well.

I'm not saying that I'm not doing something wrong, but come on, my friends aren't idiots, they know their way around a computer, and build them all the time and sell them. How can that many AMDs go wrong? What possible evidence is there to make me, the screwed over consumer, believe they don't still have problems? I've hardly had any problems with my P4.

Couple of things: you sound like an Intel fanboy. Leave it at that, because I'm not here to start a debate on the subject, but it is very rare that a piece of hardware will cause lockups. It virtually never happens with something like your CPU unless it overheats and throttles down (which presents itself as a lockup for all practical purposes).

This is more of something that just tends to be true, but I'm not saying its impossible, but how can it be better and cheaper? I know lots of tech savvy people who buy Intels, very well aware of AMDs, and they are looking for gaming as well. At one point, I started becoming interested in AMDs, then I talked to various people, all knowledgeable in computers as well, and they advised me against it, many from personal experience. It's going to take some pretty solid evidence to make me consider repurchasing an AMD again.

Cheaper AMD units outperform more expensive Intel units because Prescott, quite simply, sucks. Or, put another way, to get to X level of performance with a Prescott-based CPU, you need a higher yield piece. It doesn't help you or I that the average consumer equates bigger numbers (3.6, 3700+, etc) with better performance, so Intel (and, to a lesser extent, AMD) can charge a premium. Lastly, Intel has enough market share to charge more, because people know their name and they get better margins on it. AMD needs to build market share, and are willing to accept thinner margins to get their products out there.

I mean, try it from my perspective. AMDs that have always crashed. Intels that have rarely ever. I currently have an Intel Board, and an 3.0 GHz P4 if thats not obvious. Why should I waste $250+ buying a new processor (from a company I dislike and distrust and have had no luck with) AND a brand new motherboard, with more than likely, PCI Express, which will cost me more , being I'll need a new graphics card. Sure, I could just get one that supports everything I have now but thats designed for an AMD, but whats the point? Eventually I'll need to switch over to PCI Express, and that would be the perfect time to.

Sorry, but you don't have much experience if this is your case. Older (K6) AMDs were notorious for problems, no doubt. And some of the early nForce chipsets were finicky to no end, but that wasn't AMD's fault directly. But have you ever heard of the MTH bug? Intel shipped an entire chipset that was not--and could not be made to be--stable. They literally recalled millions of units because of this flaw.

At any rate, you should bust your budget and move to a new socket because S478 is dead as far as upgrades are concerned.

Not only that, WHY should I believe that 3500+ means its equal to a 3.5? That would be the same as me saying "Its really a 3.0 liter but its called a 5000+ because it's equal to a 5.0 liter!" That sounds merely like an attempt to figure out their coding for the processors.

Because AMD drastically redesigned their core architecture for K8, and clock for clock, K8 CPUs are 25-30% faster than their K7 (AXP) predecessors. The numbers (3500+ or whatever) refer to a K7 of that speed, in megahertz (thuz, a 3500+ performs "as well or better" than a 3.5GHz K7, not P4).

Give me a good reason to switch, as well as proof, and then I'll think about it. Until then, Intel will be who I buy from.

I have a better idea: just buy another Intel and stop trying to antagonise the AMD loyalists, which is really all you've done with this post. If you actually, truly, honestly want more information on new AMD processors, check out some of the enthusiast sites out there. You'll see, in very short order, that the top contenders for performance are AMD-based. This is for a reason.




  • 1
  • 2