videoclone
Golden Member
- Jun 5, 2003
- 1,465
- 0
- 0
I still dont think it will stand up to WindowsXP64 with an Athlon64 + 64bit games it will get smoked ... even now its being smoked in 32bit games.
Originally posted by: videoclone
I still dont think it will stand up to WindowsXP64 with an Athlon64 + 64bit games it will get smoked ... even now its being smoked in 32bit games.
Originally posted by: lookin4dlz
That will be cool pastorjay! I want to upgrade to a HT chip, but will now wait a couple of weeks to see how well the Prescott's do. I'd hate to buy a Northwood because of a couple of naysayers, then find out the Prescott's a jewel.
Originally posted by: tallman45
The price cuts really make this a difficult decision now. At $430 for a 3400+ vs $220 for a 3.0C is the 5% better gaming performance of the AMD and the likely better (30%) 64bit gains when a 64bit and apps become available worth $200 (50%) more than a 3.0C ?
It would seem that for the same $$ for a 3400+, one could build a 3.0C rig, oc it a bunch and get themselves a 74gb Raptor still for the price of the 3400+ alone.
Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
not meOriginally posted by: JustStarting
...Who's buying??
But as of right now I would buy a A64 3000+ if I needed to upgrade.
-Por
Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Originally posted by: Freejack2
What a piece of crap this processor is, I think I'll stick to my Northy at 2.8ghz or look into an Athlon 64.
This hunk of junk doesn't overclock, runs hot as hell, and slow as crap. Maybe if this thing could do a guaranteed 3.6ghz overclock it might be worthwhile but Hardocp and Toms hardware said it was a piece of crap overclocker.
I'm gonna save this post of yours and post it again 6 months from now to remind you how stupid it was today.
Originally posted by: Cat
What the f? It's a flop now, but is built for later. Did you not understand that?
Originally posted by: MadRat
People labelling it a flop forget the huge increase in the cache system. I'll give up 15W for an extra 512K of L2 cache AND out-of-the-box 4GHz potential any day of the week...
Originally posted by: THUGSROOK
its just that so far things dont look so good, especially for OCers.
Don't see why. With the engineering samples achieving 4GHz w/o voltage increase and on air, I wonder how much the temps would increase? If I recall on my 1.8a, there wasn't a big increase in temp when I achieved the max overclock on default settings. I think at max voltage my chip increased temp by 6% (30C to 32C) to get a 53% overclock & if I recall at default voltage the temp didn't increase to get whatever overclock I got.
If the Prescott can get to 4GHz on default settings but unlike the Northwood the temperature does increase by say 10%, then we have 49.5C at idle. Is that too hot? I don't know, but I remember reading that the Prescott starts to slow down the chip at 73C. Okay, so X-bit is reporting that at default settings the idle temperature of a Prescott increases 36% under full load (compared to 60% for a Northwood). So now we're up to 67C on default settings and have a 4GHz chip. Is that too hot? I don't know AMD chips seem to run pretty hot & people cope with that.
So what, I have a Northwood that hits 4GHz. That's cool, but at least one of the Prescott reviews stated that about 3.6GHz the Prescott become faster than the Northwood for the same clock speed. So, the 4GHz Prescott will probably be faster than the 4GHz Northwood - running current software. Once optimized software appears, the Prescott above 3.6GHz will have an even greater advantage.
But wait, you also get these Ginsu knives, err... better hyperthreading now plus PCI express & DDRII when the new Intel chipsets come out in a couple of months. I have a feeling that by the middle of summer, a Prescott with the new chipset will be THE system to have.