Intel processor differences

[racolvin]

Ok, here are the two:

3.40E GHz 800 MHz BX80546PG3400E RK80546PG0961M 90 nm
3.40 GHz 800 MHz BX80532PG3400D RK80532PG096512 0.13 micron

I know that the 3.40E has 1MB of cache, and the regular one has 512k. I know the difference in die size makes a difference in terms of cooling (thermal density). Other than those two items is there any difference in how the processors actually work? Pipeline stages, etc?

The reason for asking is that I can get the 3.40E for roughly the same price as the regular 3.4 (within $11, so close as makes no difference). Since more cache is generally a good thing, is there some reason other than temps that I would NOT want the 3.40E version?

Confused,
R

 

[AristoV300]

3.4 E is a Prescott, has longer pipelines and SSE3 instructions along with the other differences you mentioned. Usually tend to overclock higher then the 3.4C Northwood. If you are staying at stock speed then the NOrhtwood is the better performer, but if you overclock then at around 3.6 and higher the Prescott performs much better by taking advantage of the longer pipelines.

 

[racolvin]

Ahhh, that helps tremendously. While I might OC in the future, I won't be doing it for a while, so the extra heat just doesn't seem worth it.

thanx!

 

[gururu]

in spite of all the comments on a prescott's thermal properties, I would take the P4E. Anandtech has done a few wonderful articles on these two products. Early on, they provided for very similar performances. The P4E has now been shown to have some advantages in encoding and in some games like Doom3.

 

[Paratus]

Plus if you are worried about temps see my thread on P4E temps here

They really aren't that bad.

 

[whorush]

dude, get yourself a 90nm AMD Athlon 64 and forget about it.

1) better preformance/price, so an amd chip beats an intel chip at the same price.
2) blocks buffer overrun viruses/worms, etc.
3) runs cooler, uses less power.
4) 64BIT! its shown to make a really big difference, sometimes 10% with just a recompile from 32 to 64 bit code, more if you optimize. but it can also double the speed on some apps!!! if you run linux you can see this gain today, otherwise you'll have to wait till MS turns it on, which could be 6 or so months.
5) super low memory latency because of integrated memory controller, really helps a ton if you do a lot of memory intensive apps and if you do a lot of I/O.

i dont mean to rain on your prescott parade but you should seriously consider AMD before you buy something that does less with less featuers for more money.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: whorush
dude, get yourself a 90nm AMD Athlon 64 and forget about it.

1) better preformance/price, so an amd chip beats an intel chip at the same price.
2) blocks buffer overrun viruses/worms, etc.
3) runs cooler, uses less power.
4) 64BIT! its shown to make a really big difference, sometimes 10% with just a recompile from 32 to 64 bit code, more if you optimize. but it can also double the speed on some apps!!! if you run linux you can see this gain today, otherwise you'll have to wait till MS turns it on, which could be 6 or so months.
5) super low memory latency because of integrated memory controller, really helps a ton if you do a lot of memory intensive apps and if you do a lot of I/O.

i dont mean to rain on your prescott parade but you should seriously consider AMD before you buy something that does less with less featuers for more money.

Yup ! And you can believe those temp numbers ? Check a real site. They are frikiin hot !!!!!

 

[Shenkoa]

I will stay bet that Intel Processors are better at mutitasking as a whole. AMD for games, HAND DOWN!

Any way, go for the E.

 

[AristoV300]

Well my Prescott runs at the same temps as my Northwood even at 3.8Ghz. The D0 steppings run alot cooler.

 

[fbrdphreak]

At this point, go for the E. No point in buying into "old" technology when the performance difference is relatively small. I don't like the design of the Prescott in general, but its changes are coming into effect better with the newer technologies to take advantage of them. If you HAVE to go P4, go Prescott. Or you could wait for NF4 and go 90nm Socket 939 A64, which is the better choice IMO. GL

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: whorush
dude, get yourself a 90nm AMD Athlon 64 and forget about it.

1) better preformance/price, so an amd chip beats an intel chip at the same price.
2) blocks buffer overrun viruses/worms, etc.
3) runs cooler, uses less power.
4) 64BIT! its shown to make a really big difference, sometimes 10% with just a recompile from 32 to 64 bit code, more if you optimize. but it can also double the speed on some apps!!! if you run linux you can see this gain today, otherwise you'll have to wait till MS turns it on, which could be 6 or so months.
5) super low memory latency because of integrated memory controller, really helps a ton if you do a lot of memory intensive apps and if you do a lot of I/O.

i dont mean to rain on your prescott parade but you should seriously consider AMD before you buy something that does less with less featuers for more money.

Yup ! And you can believe those temp numbers ? Check a real site. They are frikiin hot !!!!!

What's a "real site" that measures the D0 stepping?

 

[AristoV300]

I don't know about a "real site" review but I am going off of my personal experience. 38 idle and 45 under full load are my temps on my D0 at 3.8 on air.

 

[dug777]

For f*#ks sake will folks pls stop hijacking threads where people are asking for intel advice and ramming A64 propaganda down their sorry throats- they might have a good reason for getting one- like having an intel MB..or planning to use it for one of those increasingly rare situations where intels still rule the roost, or maybe they just like intel.

The point of this petulant little outburst is that if they have been halfway keeping their eyes open on the forum, we have to assume they can read- and thus are likely perfectly aware of the A64 advantages (almost too numerous to mention as they are )

Fair enuff you folks putting a word in about this- bit of friendly advice so to speak, 'cos you answer his question too- but to jump in and mouth off about the virtues of A64s without even bothering to help the poor guy out is just rude

 

[bim27142]

Originally posted by: whorush
dude, get yourself a 90nm AMD Athlon 64 and forget about it.

1) better preformance/price, so an amd chip beats an intel chip at the same price.
2) blocks buffer overrun viruses/worms, etc.
3) runs cooler, uses less power.
4) 64BIT! its shown to make a really big difference, sometimes 10% with just a recompile from 32 to 64 bit code, more if you optimize. but it can also double the speed on some apps!!! if you run linux you can see this gain today, otherwise you'll have to wait till MS turns it on, which could be 6 or so months.
5) super low memory latency because of integrated memory controller, really helps a ton if you do a lot of memory intensive apps and if you do a lot of I/O.

i dont mean to rain on your prescott parade but you should seriously consider AMD before you buy something that does less with less featuers for more money.

dude?! did you just read the topic???? i think it doesn't contain anything that's comparing intel and amd...

 

[whorush]

hey guys, i read his question, and he didnt say anything about not wanting amd so i figured i would broaden the discourse and leave it up to him to decide. its not surprising that whenever someone wants to build a computer it turns into an AMD/INTEL debate. it should, they both make processors with distinct differences. for these forums to be truly useful, we need to think outside of the box and suggest what we feel is in the best interests of the person we are trying to help, and that's all i did by recommending AMD over INTEL.

 

[whorush]

no need to wait for the NF4 if you don't need PCIe, NF3 250 is great.

 

[Markfw]

This site shows the 3.6 uses 210watts under load. I am sure a fair amount of that is given off as thermal heat. It uses almost twice as much as the 90nm Athlon64. I can;t find the site that I read the actual temperatures about (they didn;t rely on the motherboard, used real measuring devices), but is was 30%-40% hotter than the FX-55 !

 

[jarthel]

still off topic.
----------------------
I'm sure the person who started the thread can easily search this forum and find numerous AMD vs Intel threads without your help.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: jarthel
still off topic.
----------------------
I'm sure the person who started the thread can easily search this forum and find numerous AMD vs Intel threads without your help.

I was replying to Wingznut's wanting to know about the amount of heat put out by Prescott, which I linked to. That IS on-topic, but doesn;t answer exactly which processor to get, but gives pertinent information about why he might want to choose a 'C' P4 instead.

 

[jarthel]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
I was replying to Wingznut's wanting to know about the amount of heat put out by Prescott, which I linked to. That IS on-topic, but doesn;t answer exactly which processor to get, but gives pertinent information about why he might want to choose a 'C' P4 instead.

sorry. I was replying to whorush replies