Pentium4 3.2 Ghz with 2 MB Cache is out!!!!

[Johnbear007]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: videoclone
AMD's Athlon FX51 is the number 1 Ranked Home Desktop CPU on Earth for the time being and it may not be faster in all the tests but it sure blows away the Pentium 4 when it comes 2 Gaming and really what else matters 2 us more!!!!

Actually gaming doesn't mean crap to me...I do not game at all...

For multimedia and rendering with my system I am sure the P4 is the best platform. Now that I have first hand seen the Hyperthreading in action I would have to see something a bit more special from AMD in terms of much higher clock speed....By the weekend I have a 2.4c coming that was tested to run 3.5ghz (1.6v). I got that for 180.00 shipped!!! The FX has nothing on me...

The world and aka "average joes" are not majority of them gamers....Just remember you are a small market segment and hence your purchasing power for AMD has shown why they can't seem to capture more the 23% of the Home PC market....

If you dont game your opinion doesnt count.

 

[Johnbear007]

Originally posted by: Megatomic

Originally posted by: orion7144

Originally posted by: w00lyMamm0th
Now I notice the C, no doubt standing for Celeron. Enough said.:evil:

You are definetly a computer illiterate person since you do not know what a P4C is. Not a Celeron that is for sure.

hehehe

w00lyMamm0th, the P4C is an 800MHz FSB Pentium 4 with 512KB of L2 cache, not a Pentium 4 Celeron...

lol


what is all this xp5500 nonsense? what does that even mean?

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: w00lyMamm0th
Faster than my XP5200? Or this coming Monday's XP5500-6000?

Let's have a little competition. How many MIPS do you get with sandra? I get over 10,000 with my "slow" computer. Or how about multimedia? I get 30% faster than the newest Opteron, again with the "slow" computer.

You game?

Hmmm...Junior member with 7 post spouting this...Sounds like someone is trolling...


POst some pics of this overclock....I don't believe it yet. You are either running some sort of liquid nitorgen cooling but i see a air cooling system so once again I say BS!!!!

Probably runnning "soulkeeper" vcore and it will dead shortly...have fun while it last....


Also I can only imagine how ludicrous the AMD PR raing is at that speed...I am laughing thinking about it and how fast it went from good at 2800+xp to 3200+ barton....

PUT UP OR SHUTUP.....

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: CheapTOFU

Ok, so its expensive. But, how much would it cost say for a FX51, Motherboard to support it, and ECC Registered DDR to get the FX working? When I can just plop the P4EE in My existing 865 board with current ram. Didn't look at it that way, did yaz...

P4EE is only 32bit..
A64FX is 64bit..

It is wasting money if you buy a $1000 32bit CPU that won't work with 64bit linux or 64bit windows or any other 64bit software...

There is no 64bit windows, linux sucks for home users, and there is no 64 bit software for windows, because there is no 64 bit windows.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: w00lyMamm0th
(also I won't be able to match the RDRAM speeds on the 875).

Don't believe me? On another machine, I'm already getting completely stable XP5200 speeds (by stable I mean running both 3dmark2003 and cpuburn-in together all night) and have even gotten XP5500 speeds from an XP3000 Barton, 512 MB of XMS Performance hand-picked 400 DDR Corsair (advertized as pre-tested at 500 MHz on some sites and 550 MHz on others but if you read the small print that's only on an $800 Intel 875 mobo, so I'll never buy Corsair again), Asus NForce2 Deluxe, SLK 9000, etc... .

-RDRAM hasnt been around for 18 months. Last chipset was I850E.

-The I875 is Dual Channel DDR400

-XP5200 speeds are impossible, even if your CPU was running on liquid O3 cooling.

-the 550mhz rating on the DDR is the DDR speed, actual clock is 225mhz.

-The most expensive I875 mobo out there isnt higher than $300

-The Pentium 4 C is not a celeron, only someone who knew NOTHING about building PCs would even assume this. As the Pentium 4 C is the newer revision of the CPU, out for over 8 months now. It refers to the 800mhz fsb, HT enabled CPUs.

-Show me ONE screenshot of your perfectly stable XP5200+ and ill bother replying to you again. Otherwise, im sure ill see you again soon, Troll.

Originally posted by: w00lyMamm0th
Faster than my XP5200? Or this coming Monday's XP5500-6000?

Let's have a little competition. How many MIPS do you get with sandra? I get over 10,000 with my "slow" computer. Or how about multimedia? I get 30% faster than the newest Opteron, again with the "slow" computer.

You game?

Bring it on, ill post my scores right here, at stock speed, and slaughter you at that P4 weighted synthetic benchmark, you idiot.

 

[Mikewarrior2]

Originally posted by: w00lyMamm0th
You are correct. The 875 uses DDR which makes it kind of silly since no DDR comes anything close to 800 FSB. The one I was talking about was some sort of dual processor Canterwood[sp?]. And I'm 99% sure that a similar one was advertized for $875 on pricewatch 2 days ago. I'm referring to serious server boards not consumer products. Correct me if I'm wrong again.

Really? you're comparing your single processor motherboard to some dual cpu 875P board. Wow, really fair dude. You really know how to make your comparison work.

And since you obviously dont' know, the P4 800mhz fsb is quad-pumped off a 200mhz system bus, so PC3200 ddr is needed for a Canterwood board, not some insane DDR8400 .

I am by no means saying get a p4-EE. Get a P4C and overclock the snot out of it for an mid-range enthusiast. In terms of price, i could have gone nf7-s/2500+barton/1gb PC3500 Hyperx for ~$75 less than a P4C 2.6/is7 mb/1gb pc3500 hyperx. For me, the $75 was worth the benefits of Hyperthreading (bot only for me).

I think a lot of people fail to realize that there are other components when building a computer than just a CPU, and that hte price difference isn't as much as some people would like to make it out to be.

Mike

 

[Megatomic]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
There is no 64bit windows, ... , and there is no 64 bit software for windows, because there is no 64 bit windows.

What are you going to counter with when WinXP-64 comes out?

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Megatomic

Originally posted by: Acanthus
There is no 64bit windows, ... , and there is no 64 bit software for windows, because there is no 64 bit windows.

What are you going to counter with when WinXP-64 comes out?

Ill worry about it in the middle of next year, and my response will more than likely be along the lines of: There is no 64 bit software for windows.

Dont get me wrong, i know 64 bit is coming, im not playing any sides of the fence here. I'm saying buying an A64 now TO USE A YEAR FROM NOW on 64 bit windows is stupid. There will be far superior A-FX and A-64 chips out by then. Or even if you were to buy the same chip when 64-bit windows is released, you would still come out on top because you will probably save $600+ (chip price decrease, motherboard price decrease, not having to use ECC Reg. memory). Not to mention in 6 months or so the motherboards will have matured enough to not blow.

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: Megatomic

Originally posted by: Acanthus
There is no 64bit windows, ... , and there is no 64 bit software for windows, because there is no 64 bit windows.

What are you going to counter with when WinXP-64 comes out?

The vast majority of applications running as fast or faster in 32-bit mode under WinXP-32, while using less memory and having less worries with drivers.

 

[dnuggett]

Faster than my XP5200? Or this coming Monday's XP5500-6000?

WTF are you talking about? Ohhhh, that's right you were already run off. Go spout your nonsense on another board you troll.

 

[w00lyMamm0th]

Yes, when it comes to Intel my "knowledge" is 2 years old. I stand corrected.

 

[dnuggett]

Originally posted by: w00lyMamm0th
Yes, when it comes to Intel my "knowledge" is 2 years old. I stand corrected.

Ok your Intel knowledge is weak... but it appears your AMD knowledge is lacking as well. That's 99.999999% of the procs out there...... maybe you should stop challenging people on this board and read posts from those of us who know what we are saying. Not a great way to welcome yourself to this board. That being said.... welcome to AT. I'm sure if you stick around you will learn a lot.

 

[w00lyMamm0th]

Acanthus,

What would you like? CPUID, CPUIDZ, Sandra, 3dmark99, 3dmark2001, 3dmark2001SE, 3dmark2003, UT2003 or some other benchmarks? The one benchmark where it's far behind a top of the line Intel with the right memory and mainboard is in memory transfer speeds.

And I assume you'd like to get screenshots as jpg's. Not a problem. When overclocking I do it in intervals of 5 then 2 MHz on the FSB and adjust the voltage to be as low as possible. Let me start.

And as early as a few more components and a Lian-Li case arrives, I'll show you what a Gigabyte A7NNXP combined with 4200 OCZ DDR can do (supposedly pre-tested in combination at 250 MHz FSB but I've heard of higher FSB's and also ones that can only manage 190 MHz). Read some reviews of the A7NNXP: it's even got a semi-hidden bios just for overclocking although the FSB and multiplier can be adjusted while in Windows. For voltage adjustments, I'll be using an Antec TruePower 550 which uses one 5.25 slot with a special panel for precise adjustments. My only worry is using the SLK9000 copper beast without bolts: I think it might be too heavy. So I also ordered the new Thermaltake Volcano 12 just in case.

You shall see, oh skeptic that calls me a troll.:camera:

 

[w00lyMamm0th]

Originally posted by: dnuggett

Originally posted by: w00lyMamm0th
Yes, when it comes to Intel my "knowledge" is 2 years old. I stand corrected.

Ok your Intel knowledge is weak... but it appears your AMD knowledge is lacking as well. That's 99.999999% of the procs out there...... maybe you should stop challenging people on this board and read posts from those of us who know what we are saying. Not a great way to welcome yourself to this board. That being said.... welcome to AT. I'm sure if you stick around you will learn a lot.

Hey, some of my posts last night while under the influence of 8% beer were indeed incorrect and some were perhaps innapropriate. Come on, give me a break. My blood alcohol level was probably at least 0.2.

And I do realize that I'll learn a lot here and am looking forward to it. Thanks for the advice.
:beer:

 

[Socio]

Here is a Athlon64 FX VS P4EE review!

Athlon64 FX vs P4EE

 

[Socio]

Originally posted by: Acanthus[/i
There is no 64bit windows, linux sucks for home users, and there is no 64 bit software for windows, because there is no 64 bit windows.

Yes there is 64Bit Windows XP edition and it has been out since August I believe, however it can only be obtained through OEM when buying a Itanium Processor workstation or through MSDN download.

Windows XP 64bit edition

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: kamper

(limit 3 per customer)

from newegg site

They must be going fast, now the limit is 2 per customer

 

[VIAN]

Athlon FX kills everything Intel's got in most tests besides the content creation and encoding, even the massively over-hyped 2MB or L3 cache. The Athlon 64 even beats the EE. And the FX doesn't need 64-bit to woop Intel's butt.

In most tests:

Athlon 64 FX > Athlon 64 3200+ > Pentium 4 3.2 EE > Pentium 4 3.2 > Pentium 4 3.0C > Pentium 4 2.8 C > Pentium 4 2.6 C > Penitum 4 2.4 C > Athlon XP 2800+ > Athlon XP 2500+

Looking at price/performance, IMO:

Athlon 64 3200+ > Pentium 4 3.0 C > Pentium 2.4 C > Athlon XP 2500+

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: VIAN
Athlon FX kills everything Intel's got in most tests besides the content creation and encoding, even the massively over-hyped 2MB or L3 cache. The Athlon 64 even beats the EE. And the FX doesn't need 64-bit to woop Intel's butt.

In most tests:

Athlon 64 FX > Athlon 64 3200+ > Pentium 4 3.2 EE > Pentium 4 3.2 > Pentium 4 3.0C > Pentium 4 2.8 C > Pentium 4 2.6 C > Penitum 4 2.4 C > Athlon XP 2800+ > Athlon XP 2500+

In overall its more like this:

Athlon 64 FX > Pentium 4 3.2 EE > Pentium 4 3.2 > Athlon 64 3200+

 

[VIAN]

check anandtech's review on the fx. The athlon 64 wins a lot over the EE and sometimes the regular 3.2 wins over the EE, what a disgrace- for over 1000.

 

[myocardia]

In overall its more like this:

Athlon 64 FX > Pentium 4 3.2 EE > Pentium 4 3.2 > Athlon 64 3200+[/quote]

I have to agree with Accord99. The Athlon64 non-FX isn't really what AMD is trying to pretend it is, although it might be, when we will finally be able to try it out in 64bit mode. C'mon Unreal Tournament 2004!!

Hey, did anyone but me notice that newegg lowered the limit on the P4 3.2EE (2MB L3 cache) to 1?

 

[echow87]

Dudes...

Its only a cpu and most of you here are not going to get a FX or EE soon anyways. So just leave it be. But seriously, right now the p4 ht cpus are the best bang for the buck. The memory bandwidth is almost doubled of a overclocked 2500+ vs. a overclocked 2.4c

Both the FX or EE is good in particular areas. For ex, the P4s' are very good for video editing software however, the XPs' are not.

Does anyone know if them overclocked P4 to insane speeds of around 4.5ghz could beat the FX51?

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: echow87
Dudes...

Its only a cpu and most of you here are not going to get a FX or EE soon anyways. So just leave it be. But seriously, right now the p4 ht cpus are the best bang for the buck. The memory bandwidth is almost doubled of a overclocked 2500+ vs. a overclocked 2.4c

Both the FX or EE is good in particular areas. For ex, the P4s' are very good for video editing software however, the XPs' are not.

Does anyone know if them overclocked P4 to insane speeds of around 4.5ghz could beat the FX51?

Dude, that's what my next system will be comprised of, after a few 64 bit apps have come out, and if anandtech or others verify that it actually makes a difference. Oh, and I agree with you about the P4 2.4C and 2.6C being the best buys for the money, as far as extreme overclocking, but I think you'd have to get a P4 above 3.2Ghz to beat my Athlon XP running at 2.4Ghz...

Oh, and just because a processor stayed "stable" enough to be able to get a screenshot doesn't mean that it would actually run at that speed!

 

[echow87]

Actually, you are wrong. This dude has a P4 2.4c or 2.6c (forgot which one) but his was running at 4.4ghz at stock voltage!!!. It was mentioned on another forum that has to do with phase change. If you do not know what I mean, its them vapochill/prometeia/custom made phase change coolers that cools cpu down to negative temps such as -30c under load.

Man I wish I had his chip. If he does sell it, I bet people would pay over $200 for it

Oops forgot something: It was also stable.

 

[VIAN]

Like I'll ever pay that much for a cpu, Hah. I will laugh in the face of death first. 500 is top I am willing to spend on cpu when making a new computer.