1.3 GHZ PIII?

[Agentbolt]

Just picked up a new laptop today, it's an old Dell C400. The processor is a 1.3 GHZ PIII. I had no idea PIII's scaled that high, what'd they top out at? I thought they stopped at 1 GHZ. I'd have to assume a 1.3 GHZ is roughly equal to a 1.8 or GHZ P4.

 

[SuperNaruto]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentium_III I think 1.4 was the fastest..

 

[piasabird]

1.4 Gig was the highest the official PIII processor went. They ran as good as the first P4 processors.

The Tulatin Core PIII's on the desktop had 512kb L2 Cache and were rated at 133 MHZ Bus. I have a 1.2 gig Tulatin Core Celeron and I run XP with it. The Mobile Counterparts sometimes had larger L2 Cache than a Desktop. The P4-M is built with the same kind of PIII technology. PIII's run cooler to begin with. If they had kept making the PIII's and just used the thinner process core technology they could have kept making them a little better.

 

[MercenaryForHire]

Originally posted by: Agentbolt
Just picked up a new laptop today, it's an old Dell C400. The processor is a 1.3 GHZ PIII. I had no idea PIII's scaled that high, what'd they top out at? I thought they stopped at 1 GHZ. I'd have to assume a 1.3 GHZ is roughly equal to a 1.8 or GHZ P4.

Those are nice units. Bump that puppy up to 1GB of RAM and it'll be a champ.

Or sell it to me and I'll do that to it.

- M4H

 

[merlocka]

Originally posted by: MercenaryForHire

Originally posted by: Agentbolt
Just picked up a new laptop today, it's an old Dell C400. The processor is a 1.3 GHZ PIII. I had no idea PIII's scaled that high, what'd they top out at? I thought they stopped at 1 GHZ. I'd have to assume a 1.3 GHZ is roughly equal to a 1.8 or GHZ P4.

Those are nice units. Bump that puppy up to 1GB of RAM and it'll be a champ.

Or sell it to me and I'll do that to it.

- M4H

Problem is that 1GB of PC133 SoDIMM is almost as much as the laptop are running on ebay.

I LOVE this laptop. I use it to watch TV shows at night. If this laptop would play WoW, I would throw away my desktop.

 

[Steve]

You could even get duallie 1.4GHz P3s. Just stay away from the 1.13s

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: sm8000
Just stay away from the 1.13s

Why? I have dual 1.13s in my server and they're pretty quick.

 

[BladeVenom]

Originally posted by: piasabird
1.4 Gig was the highest the official PIII processor went. They ran as good as the first P4 processors.

If I remember correctly, the Pentium 3 was actually better at the same clockspeed. The Pentium M was based on the Pentium 3.

 

[Captante]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: sm8000
Just stay away from the 1.13s

Why? I have dual 1.13s in my server and they're pretty quick.

Tulatin 1.13ghz P3's were fine but the original Coppermine-based chips were recalled by Intel because they just couldn't handle being clocked that high if I recall correctly.

I still have a Tulatin 1.4ghz/100mhz fsb Celeron in an Abit BE6-2 running Win2k & its decently fast ... havn't used it in awhile though.

 

[conlan]

Running a Tualatin 1.4 in our 3rd system, still pretty fast for all the old apps/games we run on it.

 

[Bateluer]

The tualatin core P3s ran all over the P4s, its why Intel kept the P3 core on the down low. A 1.4Ghz P3 bested a 1.5Ghz Willamette, if memory serves.

 

[Blain]

Dual 1.4's... SWEET

 

[Captante]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
The tualatin core P3s ran all over the P4s, its why Intel kept the P3 core on the down low. A 1.4Ghz P3 bested a 1.5Ghz Willamette, if memory serves.

Actually I think the 1.4ghz/133fsb chips matched P-4's up to 1.7ghz & you are correct in thinking thats why Intel didn't promote it.

I forget where it was but I remember reading a very interesting artical at the time about internal politics at Intel & how the "mhz is king/P-4" camp camp beat out the "pure performance/P-3" camp more with marketing research then anything else ... I'll try to dig it up & post a link if I can find one.

 

[Steve]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: sm8000
Just stay away from the 1.13s

Why? I have dual 1.13s in my server and they're pretty quick.

What Captante said.

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: piasabird
The Tulatin Core PIII's on the desktop had 512kb L2 Cache

Not quite true. Here are the various Tualatins:

100MHz FSB 256k cache = Celeron
133MHz FSB 256k cache = Pentium III
133MHz FSB 512k cache = Pentium III-S

The two different Pentium III chips overlapped on some and not on other clock speeds. The III-S version was intended for servers and supported SMP (dual CPU). The normal P-III did not support SMP.

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
If I remember correctly, the Pentium 3 was actually better at the same clockspeed. The Pentium M was based on the Pentium 3.

It was loosely based on the P3, and the Core 2 Duo was loosely based on the Pentium M.

 

[Blain]

I delivered a low cost system to a couple yesterday that featured a 1.26GHz/512kb P3.
The 815 chipset would only support 512MB of PC-133. But even with that, the rig was quite snappy.

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: Zap

Originally posted by: piasabird
The Tulatin Core PIII's on the desktop had 512kb L2 Cache

Not quite true. Here are the various Tualatins:

100MHz FSB 256k cache = Celeron
133MHz FSB 256k cache = Pentium III
133MHz FSB 512k cache = Pentium III-S

The two different Pentium III chips overlapped on some and not on other clock speeds. The III-S version was intended for servers and supported SMP (dual CPU). The normal P-III did not support SMP.

Originally posted by: BladeVenom
If I remember correctly, the Pentium 3 was actually better at the same clockspeed. The Pentium M was based on the Pentium 3.

It was loosely based on the P3, and the Core 2 Duo was loosely based on the Pentium M.

well partially correct. normal p3s did support dual configuartion up to 1GHz, after the tualatins - 1.13, 1.26 & 1.4Ghz - had the 256k and 512k version and at that point only the 512k versions were smp capable.

so the early p3s like the 733s, 850s, 933s and 1Ghzs could be setup in a dual skt 370 m/b with no issues whatsoever

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: bob4432
well partially correct. normal p3s did support dual configuartion up to 1GHz, after the tualatins - 1.13, 1.26 & 1.4Ghz - had the 256k and 512k version and at that point only the 512k versions were smp capable.

Yup, that's why I specified Tualatins. Also, the PPGA Celerons supported SMP (unofficially).

 

[bob4432]

Originally posted by: Zap

Originally posted by: bob4432
well partially correct. normal p3s did support dual configuartion up to 1GHz, after the tualatins - 1.13, 1.26 & 1.4Ghz - had the 256k and 512k version and at that point only the 512k versions were smp capable.

Yup, that's why I specified Tualatins. Also, the PPGA Celerons supported SMP (unofficially).

my bad, over read...

 

[wetcat007]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
The tualatin core P3s ran all over the P4s, its why Intel kept the P3 core on the down low. A 1.4Ghz P3 bested a 1.5Ghz Willamette, if memory serves.

I believe it actually also was better than a 2GHz one

 

[mithrandir2001]

All the good old days.

I had a 1.4GHz Tualatin Celeron that ran in a PPGA Socket 370 motherboard. Talk about getting your money's worth. When the motherboard (Abit BM6) was released it was made to support 266-400MHz Celerons.

Hopefully the 775 socket will have similar longevity.

 

[Stumps]

I have a 1.4S in one of my rigs...it's a 512kb L2 133mhz FSB model...it performs very similar to a 1.7-1.8ghz Willamette P4...they also overclock like the devil...mine gets upto 1.7ghz with decent air cooling.

 

[Wolfshanze]

Hopefully the 775 socket will have similar longevity.

What do you mean socket 775? I've been getting some MAJOR mileage out of my socket-478 systems... I still have three in the house, all in use (mine in my sig-line). I haven't found a need to go to 775, everything I run (even games) still runs well on our socket-478 systems.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: piasabird
1.4 Gig was the highest the official PIII processor went. They ran as good as the first P4 processors.

The Tulatin Core PIII's on the desktop had 512kb L2 Cache and were rated at 133 MHZ Bus. I have a 1.2 gig Tulatin Core Celeron and I run XP with it. The Mobile Counterparts sometimes had larger L2 Cache than a Desktop. The P4-M is built with the same kind of PIII technology. PIII's run cooler to begin with. If they had kept making the PIII's and just used the thinner process core technology they could have kept making them a little better.

WRONG. The P4-M is a mobile pentium 4 processor (like athlon xp-m was a mobile athlon xp). Pentium M (no 4) is the mobile intel processor you're thinking of.

Oh, and around 1.2ghz to 1.4ghz, I believe the p3 started having overheating problems.
And the p3 as was couldn't have held a candle to the athlon xp. The athlon xp already had a 200 to 300mhz performance advantage at the same clock (with a duron performing about the same as a p3) in many things, had much faster memory in ddr, and was a much more powerful core that would have ripped the p3 apart on media processing and the workstation side of things (assuming any professional organizations actually used the axp). Intel didn't have to go with the p4, but they did need something with a major increase in power and memory performance over the p3. Not to mention that the p3 design had reached a clock speed wall which would still have required a major redesign to get around, the p3 architecture, as far as process shrinks went, was done. (speaking of which, it's really time for amd to design a new architecture, athlon has been stuck between 2 and 3ghz for way too long, since 2002 or 2003)

I think a 1.4ghz pentium 3 match the 1.8ghz p4 in performance, which is pretty poor a 1.4ghz p-m matches with mid 2ghz p4s in many things (though still losing in fp heavy stuff and SIMD). I think the P4 was more expensive, as well, and the faster athlons were cheaper.

 

[Captante]

around 1.2ghz to 1.4ghz, I believe the p3 started having overheating problems.

My 1.4ghz Tualatin ran very cool ... in fact the HS never even gets warm to the touch in an old Acer mid-tower case with marginal cooling & the 1.2ghz chip I sold off worked fine with a tiny 1/4 inch high HS & low-rpm fan... as I recall the AT review of these chips concluded that passive-cooling was a very viable option.