What is the best processor, athon xp, p4?

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CrawlingEye

Originally posted by: Rainsford


Um, and about specs. Look at the specs for the P4. Looks good, right? Then why is it only saved by high clockspeeds? According to those specs you posted, the P4 should whoop the Athlon XP even at the same clockspeed. They sound great, don't they? But the P4 looses very badly at the same clockspeed as the Athlon XP (none of this SSE2 stuff since I don't see programs supporting it popping out of the walls). Now how would anyone know that from those great sounding features you posted if neither of these products were released? Specs can be made to "prove" anything.

For someone claiming to know so much about architecture, you've yet to hear of IPC yet, haven't you?
The AXP's have faster ALU's and a shorter pipeline, which limits their scalability (as well as how well they OC).

The smartest thing AMD's doing with the Hammer is putting the heatspreader on it.

I do not claim to know so much about architecture, stop putting words in my mouth. But I know exactly what IPC is, and I know that the AXP's is a lot higher than the P4's. That is why I said the P4 is only saved by high clockspeeds. My point is that without posting the IPC of the P4, it would be very easy to use some of the P4 specs to make it look super fantastic when compared clock for clock to an AXP. That is why you cannot look at specs of yet to be released processors as if they actually mean anything about real performance. Specs can be twisted, good benchmarks (and real use by real people) can't.

Heatspreader on the Hammer is a good idea to prevent some people from chipping the cores, and that's it. The heatspreader does not help cooling (at least I don't see how it possibly could). It is only protection against chipping the cores, something you should never do if you take your time putting on a heatsink.

Edit 2: Eh, nevermind

 

[jbond04]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Heatspreader on the Hammer is a good idea to prevent some people from chipping the cores, and that's it. The heatspreader does not help cooling (at least I don't see how it possibly could). It is only protection against chipping the cores, something you should never do if you take your time putting on a heatsink.

Actually... I don't remember who it was (it was either Wingznut PEZ or pm), but one of them posted about how the heatspreader actually disperses the heat over a larger surface area, thus allowing the heatsink to dissipate that heat more rapidly then a processor without a heatsink.

 

[CrawlingEye]

Originally posted by: jbond04

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Heatspreader on the Hammer is a good idea to prevent some people from chipping the cores, and that's it. The heatspreader does not help cooling (at least I don't see how it possibly could). It is only protection against chipping the cores, something you should never do if you take your time putting on a heatsink.

Actually... I don't remember who it was (it was either Wingznut PEZ or pm), but one of them posted about how the heatspreader actually disperses the heat over a larger surface area, thus allowing the heatsink to dissipate that heat more rapidly then a processor without a heatsink.

Yup, allowing it to dissipate heat faster and more efficiently.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: jbond04

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Heatspreader on the Hammer is a good idea to prevent some people from chipping the cores, and that's it. The heatspreader does not help cooling (at least I don't see how it possibly could). It is only protection against chipping the cores, something you should never do if you take your time putting on a heatsink.

Actually... I don't remember who it was (it was either Wingznut PEZ or pm), but one of them posted about how the heatspreader actually disperses the heat over a larger surface area, thus allowing the heatsink to dissipate that heat more rapidly then a processor without a heatsink.

But the heat still comes from the core of the CPU, so the "bottleneck" is just the CPU core to heatspreader vs CPU core to heatsink, right?

I mean the heat is produced by the core, not the heatspreader or the heatsink. So that heat must be transfered through the surface area of the core to another medium. In an AXP the core heat is transfered to the heatsink directly, in the P4 is goes through the heatspreader first. But the bottleneck is still going to be the interface between the core of the CPU and whatever is above it. Unless the heatspreader conducts heat better than a heatsink I don't see how it would help cooling any.

 

[SSXeon5]

Originally posted by: yodayoda

Well even a $240 2.26GHz can beat a 2200+ nowso your, and stop trying to look smart and calling people names.

SSXeon

ok, here's a deal: i'll stop trying to look smart if you stop trying to look stupid.

Hey even a 2.0a 512MB PC-800 i850 GF4Ti4600 scores better then a 2100+ 1.5GB DDR333 MSI KT3 Ultra GF4Ti4600. And that myfriend is sad So im being fair with a 2.26/2200+ comparison. Stupid? Nope very right in my point acually

SSXeon

 

[SSXeon5]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
SSXeon, your comparisons don't make a whole lot of sense. You can't compare future prices to current prices. And simply comparing one price level means nothing. If I have $170 to spend on a CPU I can get an Athlon XP 2100+ or an Intel P4 1.8A (and save $5). Assuming I don't overclock, the Athlon is a much better deal. However, as I said before, value really depends on how much you want to spend.

As for what Intel will be pitting against Hammer, neither product is out yet. It doesn't matter what some hardware site thinks or says about either chip. It doesn't matter what you post, I could say that Hammer will be released at 20ghz and that wouldn't make one bit of difference to anyone on this board (or it shouldn't at any rate). The only kind of hardware I care about is the kind I can hold in my hand and buy from Newegg. Hardware that exists in some testing lab and/or on paper does not make my box any faster. CPU's that have yet to be released do not make the current crop any cheaper.

As far as I'm concerned, the bottom line is this. Right now what do we have? The Athlon XP 2200+ Tbred and the P4 2.53 ghz. Given all the different factors that come into play when choosing parts, it would be very hard to argue that either chip is "better" for everyone. If you want absolute fastest (in the desktop and Windows market) and money is no object, P4 is the way to go. If you have less money and are concerned with value and never buy top of the line anyways, AMD is probably a better choice. I could go on and on about what each is good at, but the point is that right now it's very hard to declare an all around "winner". Now as far as what might come out later, who knows? Judging performance of yet to be released products is almost impossible, and being so sure based on some specs released by the company that makes the product is foolish. If/when I see Anand do an article that shows Intel's whatever beating Hammer into the ground, then I'll agree with you. Until then, no amount of numbers you throw out is going to convince me of anything (and those numbers shouldn't have convinced you either).

Um, and about specs. Look at the specs for the P4. Looks good, right? Then why is it only saved by high clockspeeds? According to those specs you posted, the P4 should whoop the Athlon XP even at the same clockspeed. They sound great, don't they? But the P4 looses very badly at the same clockspeed as the Athlon XP (none of this SSE2 stuff since I don't see programs supporting it popping out of the walls). Now how would anyone know that from those great sounding features you posted if neither of these products were released? Specs can be made to "prove" anything.

Ok lets just wait for the 2.66GHz and 2.8GHz, when they come im getting a $240-250 2.53Ghz p4. But fine lets just wait, And "saved by high clockspeeds?" Well i wouldnt pull that Mhz sh*t, we all know its crap. A 2.26GHz CAN Beat a 2200+ and even if its faster Mhz it still is the same price and speed. Why not go intel and oc up to 3ghz if you want? Well cuz you all are fan boys, hell im an intel Zelot and I admit it. I can care less of the inferior company AMD, or what there mac/voodoo like fan base is like. I do like to see intel kicking ass again, in the Overclocking/speed/price/stability

SSXeon

 

[CrazySaint]

Originally posted by: SSXeon5
A 2.26GHz CAN Beat a 2200+ and even if its faster Mhz it still is the same price and speed.

Yes, a 2.26GHz P4 CAN beat a 2200+ and a 2200+ CAN beat a 2.26GHz. Second, they are NOT the same price. At newegg, a 2.26 costs $270 whereas an XP2200+ costs $210 (not $240).

Why not go intel and oc up to 3ghz if you want?

Yes, if you are a serious OC'er, then Intel is absolutely King (although those new stepping XP 1600s are looking nice for a budget OC rig).

Well cuz you all are fan boys, hell im an intel Zelot and I admit it.

Which is why you refuse to buy AMD even when they beat Intel. It is also why you make silly claims about CPUs that haven't been released yet.

I can care less of the inferior company AMD, or what there mac/voodoo like fan base is like.

I do like to see intel kicking ass again, in the Overclocking/speed/price/stability

Well, I certainly can't blame you for that, since AMD was King for so long

Hey even a 2.0a 512MB PC-800 i850 GF4Ti4600 scores better then a 2100+ 1.5GB DDR333 MSI KT3 Ultra GF4Ti4600. And that myfriend is sad

Scores better at what?! Just saying "it scores better" is meaningless. Yes, I'm quite certain you could find benchmarks where a 2.0A beats a 2100+ and I'm quite certain I could find benchmarks where a 2100+ beats a 2.53GHz P4.

 

[SSXeon5]

Originally posted by: CrazySaint

Yes, a 2.26GHz P4 CAN beat a 2200+ and a 2200+ CAN beat a 2.26GHz. Second, they are NOT the same price. At newegg, a 2.26 costs $270 whereas an XP2200+ costs $210 (not $240).

Pentium 4 2.26GHz Retail $239.00

Pentium 4 2.26GHz Retail $239.00 Looks like $240 to me

Which is why you refuse to buy AMD even when they beat Intel. It is also why you make silly claims about CPUs that haven't been released yet.

Silly claims .... ok just wait, and we can bench each others systems, tho i will only have a 8500 I refuse to buy those cheap chips for alot of reasons, when i dont have to worry about VIA/core cracks(only on older cpus with organic packages)/Thermal protection, I mean 60* C is all we see with the new TBreds too. I can go get a RETAIL! 2.26GHz for $240 and dont have to worry about a full copper heatsink. And that $210 2200+ XP is OEM do you know what that means? Well it means you will need to go buy a $20-30 HSF to cool that volcano. So at that point the ARE the same price

Well, I certainly can't blame you for that, since AMD was King for so long

Stability? ahahahahah Price/overclocking i can see, but 800MHz-1200Mhz out of the box at $150 yea right!

Scores better at what?! Just saying "it scores better" is meaningless. Yes, I'm quite certain you could find benchmarks where a 2.0A beats a 2100+ and I'm quite certain I could find benchmarks where a 2100+ beats a 2.53GHz P4.

Maximum PC's benchmarks ...

-SYSmark2002
-Premiere 6.01
-Audiograbber
-Music Match
-Jedi Knight II
-3DMark2001 SE

And I can find benchmarks where a P4 1.6a beats a 2200+ Tbred, so wooptiedoo

Next time remember who your talking to.....

SSXeon

 

[SSXeon5]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

But the heat still comes from the core of the CPU, so the "bottleneck" is just the CPU core to heatspreader vs CPU core to heatsink, right?

I mean the heat is produced by the core, not the heatspreader or the heatsink. So that heat must be transfered through the surface area of the core to another medium. In an AXP the core heat is transfered to the heatsink directly, in the P4 is goes through the heatspreader first. But the bottleneck is still going to be the interface between the core of the CPU and whatever is above it. Unless the heatspreader conducts heat better than a heatsink I don't see how it would help cooling any.

Originally said by: Crawlingeye

The larger heatspreader will allow a larger surface area, thus increasing the 1w/1m dissipation rate, thus lowering the temps and allowing the cpu to run more efficiently and cooler, so forth raising OC's, although it's unlikely that it'll raise them a noticable amount. The gains of the heatspreader will likely just be accredited to the core of the hammer. Sad, isn't it?

SSXeon

 

[CrazySaint]

Originally posted by: SSXeon5

Originally posted by: CrazySaint

Yes, a 2.26GHz P4 CAN beat a 2200+ and a 2200+ CAN beat a 2.26GHz. Second, they are NOT the same price. At newegg, a 2.26 costs $270 whereas an XP2200+ costs $210 (not $240).

Pentium 4 2.26GHz Retail $239.00

Pentium 4 2.26GHz Retail $239.00 Looks like $240 to me

Ok, I misread your original statements, I thought you said the 2200+ costs $240.

Which is why you refuse to buy AMD even when they beat Intel. It is also why you make silly claims about CPUs that haven't been released yet.

Silly claims .... ok just wait, and we can bench each others systems, tho i will only have a 8500

lol Well, I've only got a 7500 Though hopefully I'll have upgraded to something decent by the time Hammer/Prescott are out. Also, you assume that I'll buy a Hammer, but I'll buy whichever one happens to be better at the time because I'm not a zealot But what makes your claims silly isn't that you think that Prescott will beat the Hammer (predicting that Hammer will spank the Prescott would be just as silly), what's silly is claiming TO KNOW which will be best!

I refuse to buy those cheap chips for alot of reasons, when i dont have to worry about VIA/core cracks(only on older cpus with organic packages)/Thermal protection, I mean 60* C is all we see with the new TBreds too.

If you don't like VIA chipsets, you can get the nForce/nForce 2 which are both very nice chipsets. AMD now requires all motherboards to have thermal protection, though I will grant you that AMD currently lags far behind Intel on thermal protection. I really hope that Barton or Hammer will rectify the situation

I can go get a RETAIL! 2.26GHz for $240 and dont have to worry about a full copper heatsink. And that $210 2200+ XP is OEM do you know what that means? Well it means you will need to go buy a $20-30 HSF to cool that volcano. So at that point the ARE the same price

Actually, you don't have to spend $20-$30 on a HSF. You can get perfecty acceptable HSFs like the SVC Golden Gate for about $6, so its only $215

Well, I certainly can't blame you for that, since AMD was King for so long

Stability? ahahahahah Price/overclocking i can see, but 800MHz-1200Mhz out of the box at $150 yea right!

Uhhh, not only are you contradicing yourself, you are messing up your timeframe references. First off, AMD chips are just as stable as Intel chips. Second, you contradict yourself by conceding Price/overclocking then mentioning the 800-1200MHz OCs. Third, the Northwoods are what marked the end of the AMD's reign, so using them to say that AMD wasn't King is silly. The fact is, AMD held the performance crown for a good long while.

Scores better at what?! Just saying "it scores better" is meaningless. Yes, I'm quite certain you could find benchmarks where a 2.0A beats a 2100+ and I'm quite certain I could find benchmarks where a 2100+ beats a 2.53GHz P4.

Maximum PC's benchmarks ...

-SYSmark2002
-Premiere 6.01
-Audiograbber
-Music Match
-Jedi Knight II
-3DMark2001 SE

I don't have MaxPC to see your benchmarks, but I did just check Anand's review of the 2.53GHz P4 (which included the full line of Athlons and P4s in the benchmarks and used PC800 on the A chips and PC1066 on the B chips) and the 2100+ beat the 2.0A paired with PC800 at 7 out of 11 benchmarks. In addition, a 2.0A PC800 system will still be more expensive than an XP 2100+ DDR system.

And I can find benchmarks where a P4 1.6a beats a 2200+ Tbred, so wooptiedoo

Next time remember who your talking to.....

SSXeon

Well, of course you can! That's my very point, that just pointing at X benchmark and saying A CPU beats B CPU is absolutely meaningless (unless, of course, X benchmark uses app Z which you use 5 hours a day and knowing which CPU is faster at that exact app is very important to you). Second, WTH difference does it make who I'm talking to?

 

[SSXeon5]

Originally posted by: CrazySaint

Ok, I misread your original statements, I thought you said the 2200+ costs $240.

Its ok

lol Well, I've only got a 7500 Though hopefully I'll have upgraded to something decent by the time Hammer/Prescott are out. Also, you assume that I'll buy a Hammer, but I'll buy whichever one happens to be better at the time because I'm not a zealot But what makes your claims silly isn't that you think that Prescott will beat the Hammer (predicting that Hammer will spank the Prescott would be just as silly), what's silly is claiming TO KNOW which will be best!

Im Just saying, im pretty sure it will, am i 100% sure ... hell no!

If you don't like VIA chipsets, you can get the nForce/nForce 2 which are both very nice chipsets. AMD now requires all motherboards to have thermal protection, though I will grant you that AMD currently lags far behind Intel on thermal protection. I really hope that Barton or Hammer will rectify the situation.

Well you need 2 sticks of ram for nforce right? So its just as bad as all the crap with the RDRAM and the p4

Actually, you don't have to spend $20-$30 on a HSF. You can get perfecty acceptable HSFs like the SVC Golden Gate for about $6, so its only $215

For a 1.8GHz TBred? Yea sh*t I have to agree with you, I love SVC and they make damned good HSF's. And the Golden gate is $10-15 for a whole HSF ... ie fan included So $225

Uhhh, not only are you contradicing yourself, you are messing up your timeframe references. First off, AMD chips are just as stable as Intel chips. Second, you contradict yourself by conceding Price/overclocking then mentioning the 800-1200MHz OCs. Third, the Northwoods are what marked the end of the AMD's reign, so using them to say that AMD wasn't King is silly. The fact is, AMD held the performance crown for a good long while.

I dont call hot cpus stable True about the 800-1200Mhz thing, but for 7-8monthes the P4s are the Price/Overclocking kings. Tho yes amd was, but were on par with the pentium 3 E's with ocing

I don't have MaxPC to see your benchmarks, but I did just check Anand's review of the 2.53GHz P4 (which included the full line of Athlons and P4s in the benchmarks and used PC800 on the A chips and PC1066 on the B chips) and the 2100+ beat the 2.0A paired with PC800 at 7 out of 11 benchmarks. In addition, a 2.0A PC800 system will still be more expensive than an XP 2100+ DDR system.

True, but a 2.0a with DDR333/400 cas2 will kill the PC800 system too

Well, of course you can! That's my very point, that just pointing at X benchmark and saying A CPU beats B CPU is absolutely meaningless (unless, of course, X benchmark uses app Z which you use 5 hours a day and knowing which CPU is faster at that exact app is very important to you). Second, WTH difference does it make who I'm talking to?

lol .... im warning you ... YOU HAVE CROSSED THE LIKES OF SSXEON .... ok im wasted and its 6am here .... i need sleep ... well I had a good flame war CrazySaint Ill catch you around I know i will

SSXeon

 

[absolutiza]

wat a toughie..

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: SSXeon5

Originally posted by: Rainsford

But the heat still comes from the core of the CPU, so the "bottleneck" is just the CPU core to heatspreader vs CPU core to heatsink, right?

I mean the heat is produced by the core, not the heatspreader or the heatsink. So that heat must be transfered through the surface area of the core to another medium. In an AXP the core heat is transfered to the heatsink directly, in the P4 is goes through the heatspreader first. But the bottleneck is still going to be the interface between the core of the CPU and whatever is above it. Unless the heatspreader conducts heat better than a heatsink I don't see how it would help cooling any.

Originally said by: Crawlingeye

The larger heatspreader will allow a larger surface area, thus increasing the 1w/1m dissipation rate, thus lowering the temps and allowing the cpu to run more efficiently and cooler, so forth raising OC's, although it's unlikely that it'll raise them a noticable amount. The gains of the heatspreader will likely just be accredited to the core of the hammer. Sad, isn't it?

SSXeon

Gah, that is the biggest piece of marketing BS I've ever heard. The larger heatspreader does not create a larger surface area. Well...I guess it does, but so does a heatsink. That's how cooling works. I fail to see why having a heatspreader between the CPU core and the heatsink increases heat dissipation. Ok, apparently the name "heatspreader" is throwing you, so let's make it simple with an example.

1) I have two CPUs (let's call them A and B), both of them have a core that is 1cm squared with a socket size of 4 cm squared
2) I take a piece of metal that is 4 cm squared and attach it to the top of CPU A so it is flush with the core
3) I take two identical heatsinks and attach them to CPU A and B so that they are flush with the piece of metal over A and the core of B
4) I turn both computers on, the CPUs start producing heat
5) In B heat flows through the core into the heatsink where it spreads out and dissapates into the air
6) In A heat flows through the core into the heatspreader where it spreads out
7) From the heatspreader the heat flows into the heatsink where is spreads out further and then dissapates into the air

Now, what is the limiting part of this process? Before the heat goes anywhere it has to flow off the surface of the core, regardless of what material is above it. Now, the rate at which it can do this is determined by the material that the core and the heatspreader/heatsink are made out of. If the cores are identical and the heatspreader is made of the same stuff as a heatsink, that rate would be exactly the same. I fail to see what about putting part of the heatsink on the core will allow heat to dissapate faster.

 

[Rainsford]

As far as Intel vs AMD, I've been pulled in by SSXeon's love of a good argument. The truth is that I think both are good and I will buy an Intel processor again when they get one thing right. In my price range, AMD offers much better value than Intel. For what I spend I get a faster processor. Why in the world would I care about the high end when I can't afford it? Sure, Intel has the fastest CPU out right now, but that's doesn't help me any when I don't want to spend that much on a CPU. My Athlon XP 1800 was $100 retail. Please point me to a competing Intel solution in my price range that's better. Oh wait, it doesn't exist. If I wasn't a poor college student I might support Intel more, but I don't have tons of money to spend on computers, and in my price range AMD beats Intel hands down. The day I can buy an Intel CPU in my price range that is both cheaper and faster than the competing AMD chip is the day I start buying Intel again.

 

[alexruiz]

Guys, I have a question (cool minded). Do you really believe the Maximum PC benchmarks??? We had a similar discussion in another thread and I pointed that fact. I used to believe them when they had something called bootmark, but now they are using sysmark.... plus Q3A plus Jedi knight (based in the Q3A engine).....

Somebody told me about Q3A "because is a defacto benchmark" Why is it a defacto??? Popularity??? Go grab Unreal Tournament or Counter-cheat, I mean, Counter-Strike that are far more popular (and they show the Athlon on top) Stress the system?? Well, if even a budget CPU with budget video card breaks the 100 fps barrier at a high resolution (1024x768 at least) that is not stressing the system.

If you want newer games, Comanche 4 is a good one (and that favors the P4, so I am not being biased here). Another good one?? Serious Sam, both first encounter and second encounter. Run a extreme quality script and see your system scream..... ah, not to mention it is a great game and is only $10 for first encounter, $19 for second encounter.... Go get your copy and when you finish shooting hundreds of baddies you can run benchmarks

Also, if you want to talk about benchmarks by the "official media" go and read pcworld, a magazine with more coverage than "minimum PC, maximum BS"....their benchmarks paint a different story.

I also stressed some scientific/ technical applications such as Nastran for FEA, Unigraphics for CAD and PSpice/mentor graphics for electrical/circuits design and simulation. Check the results in science mark.

I just wanna clarify the point that some benchmarks favor one CPU, some favor a different one. Being honest, I think the PR rating of the Athlons is still conservative. Overall, I would place the tbread 2200+ at about a P4 2.35 GHz. The 2100+ had a head to head match with the P4 2.2 and the sites claimed victory for the Athlon (check Anand and TRs reviews). When the northwood came out, the AXp 2000+ had a fierce battle with the 2.2 northwood and that match was claimed a tie. I am not talking about the biggest gun in the P4 camp, the P4 2.53 has no match right now.... so I am not being biased. But even a P4 2.4 with DDR will have a hard time defeating an Athlon XP 2200+ overall (forget your quack 3 and sysmark, I am talking several different benchmarks).....

 

[SaintGeorge]

The fact is some of you are dissing a CPU that is a long way away from being sold and has not really that much information known about it, just like the P5 also. Its real funny that these people are already shouting negative things about something they know very little about, also funny that most of them are Intel zealots. The XP2200+ outperforms a 2.26b in a lot of situations if maybe you tried prying your eyes away from Intel biased sites for a few minutes you'd be able to see that. The fact is its cheaper too.

Out of the box, AMD is a far better deal in any situation. If you consider overclocking however, it opens up so many new arguments things become impossible. Intel CPU's and generally MB's are more expensive, and because AMD chips are cheaper you can afford some serious cooling for the same money. Of course, the NW overclocks generally much better than the XP does.

So many combinations. Argh.

Whats the point in comparing things that don't cost the same?

OMFG MY FERRARI IS FASTER THAN UR SKODA!!!

Mark

 

[alexruiz]

I have some question about the heat disipation. The athlon runs much hotter (nobody is going to disagree) but the electrical power consumption is about the same!!! (check the docs)

If the total electrical power consumptions is almost the same, the heat produced should be the same (W=VI, W=I^2R, W=V^2/R....). It think obviously the P4 is more effient taking the heat out. Why or how??? Formulas welcome.

Alex

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: alexruiz
I have some question about the heat disipation. The athlon runs much hotter (nobody is going to disagree) but the electrical power consumption is about the same!!! (check the docs)

If the total electrical power consumptions is almost the same, the heat produced should be the same (W=VI, W=I^2R, W=V^2/R....). It think obviously the P4 is more effient taking the heat out. Why or how??? Formulas welcome.

Alex

Doesn't the P4 have a larger core than the AXP? I mean not counting the heatspreader (which I don't think matters a lot), isn't the real core on the P4 larger?

 

[CrawlingEye]

Originally posted by: SaintGeorge
The XP2200+ outperforms a 2.26b in a lot of

Lets see your SiSandra benchies, I'll show mine at default speeds.

 

[CrawlingEye]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: SSXeon5

Originally posted by: Rainsford

But the heat still comes from the core of the CPU, so the "bottleneck" is just the CPU core to heatspreader vs CPU core to heatsink, right?

I mean the heat is produced by the core, not the heatspreader or the heatsink. So that heat must be transfered through the surface area of the core to another medium. In an AXP the core heat is transfered to the heatsink directly, in the P4 is goes through the heatspreader first. But the bottleneck is still going to be the interface between the core of the CPU and whatever is above it. Unless the heatspreader conducts heat better than a heatsink I don't see how it would help cooling any.

Originally said by: Crawlingeye

The larger heatspreader will allow a larger surface area, thus increasing the 1w/1m dissipation rate, thus lowering the temps and allowing the cpu to run more efficiently and cooler, so forth raising OC's, although it's unlikely that it'll raise them a noticable amount. The gains of the heatspreader will likely just be accredited to the core of the hammer. Sad, isn't it?

SSXeon

Gah, that is the biggest piece of marketing BS I've ever heard. The larger heatspreader does not create a larger surface area. Well...I guess it does, but so does a heatsink. That's how cooling works. I fail to see why having a heatspreader between the CPU core and the heatsink increases heat dissipation. Ok, apparently the name "heatspreader" is throwing you, so let's make it simple with an example.

1) I have two CPUs (let's call them A and B), both of them have a core that is 1cm squared with a socket size of 4 cm squared
2) I take a piece of metal that is 4 cm squared and attach it to the top of CPU A so it is flush with the core
3) I take two identical heatsinks and attach them to CPU A and B so that they are flush with the piece of metal over A and the core of B
4) I turn both computers on, the CPUs start producing heat
5) In B heat flows through the core into the heatsink where it spreads out and dissapates into the air
6) In A heat flows through the core into the heatspreader where it spreads out
7) From the heatspreader the heat flows into the heatsink where is spreads out further and then dissapates into the air

Now, what is the limiting part of this process? Before the heat goes anywhere it has to flow off the surface of the core, regardless of what material is above it. Now, the rate at which it can do this is determined by the material that the core and the heatspreader/heatsink are made out of. If the cores are identical and the heatspreader is made of the same stuff as a heatsink, that rate would be exactly the same. I fail to see what about putting part of the heatsink on the core will allow heat to dissapate faster.

Next you're going to tell me how a peltier is inefficient and vapochill is poor cooling. Do your research on a peltier and how it works.
I'll dumb it down for you, a peltier works because there's two surfaces that are nearly equally as large, one of them of a different temperature than the other. We'll say one's A (hot) and one's B (cold).

B would be your hsf, and A would be your cpu heatspreader.

If one is not playing it's role, you'll have a horrible outcome.

You need to learn something about cooling before you go spouting jibberish from your mouth.

If you'd like, I'll go more into detail about how the peltier works and how it's applicable to a hsf/core comparison.

 

[CrawlingEye]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: alexruiz
I have some question about the heat disipation. The athlon runs much hotter (nobody is going to disagree) but the electrical power consumption is about the same!!! (check the docs)

If the total electrical power consumptions is almost the same, the heat produced should be the same (W=VI, W=I^2R, W=V^2/R....). It think obviously the P4 is more effient taking the heat out. Why or how??? Formulas welcome.

Alex

Doesn't the P4 have a larger core than the AXP? I mean not counting the heatspreader (which I don't think matters a lot), isn't the real core on the P4 larger?

No, the problem is that the AXP's .13u has decreased the size, making the 1w/1m dissipation rate even slower. That's why Tbred's don't OC worth a damn.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CrawlingEye

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: SSXeon5

Originally posted by: Rainsford

But the heat still comes from the core of the CPU, so the "bottleneck" is just the CPU core to heatspreader vs CPU core to heatsink, right?

I mean the heat is produced by the core, not the heatspreader or the heatsink. So that heat must be transfered through the surface area of the core to another medium. In an AXP the core heat is transfered to the heatsink directly, in the P4 is goes through the heatspreader first. But the bottleneck is still going to be the interface between the core of the CPU and whatever is above it. Unless the heatspreader conducts heat better than a heatsink I don't see how it would help cooling any.

Originally said by: Crawlingeye

The larger heatspreader will allow a larger surface area, thus increasing the 1w/1m dissipation rate, thus lowering the temps and allowing the cpu to run more efficiently and cooler, so forth raising OC's, although it's unlikely that it'll raise them a noticable amount. The gains of the heatspreader will likely just be accredited to the core of the hammer. Sad, isn't it?

SSXeon

Gah, that is the biggest piece of marketing BS I've ever heard. The larger heatspreader does not create a larger surface area. Well...I guess it does, but so does a heatsink. That's how cooling works. I fail to see why having a heatspreader between the CPU core and the heatsink increases heat dissipation. Ok, apparently the name "heatspreader" is throwing you, so let's make it simple with an example.

1) I have two CPUs (let's call them A and B), both of them have a core that is 1cm squared with a socket size of 4 cm squared
2) I take a piece of metal that is 4 cm squared and attach it to the top of CPU A so it is flush with the core
3) I take two identical heatsinks and attach them to CPU A and B so that they are flush with the piece of metal over A and the core of B
4) I turn both computers on, the CPUs start producing heat
5) In B heat flows through the core into the heatsink where it spreads out and dissapates into the air
6) In A heat flows through the core into the heatspreader where it spreads out
7) From the heatspreader the heat flows into the heatsink where is spreads out further and then dissapates into the air

Now, what is the limiting part of this process? Before the heat goes anywhere it has to flow off the surface of the core, regardless of what material is above it. Now, the rate at which it can do this is determined by the material that the core and the heatspreader/heatsink are made out of. If the cores are identical and the heatspreader is made of the same stuff as a heatsink, that rate would be exactly the same. I fail to see what about putting part of the heatsink on the core will allow heat to dissapate faster.

Next you're going to tell me how a peltier is inefficient and vapochill is poor cooling. Do your research on a peltier and how it works.
I'll dumb it down for you, a peltier works because there's two surfaces that are nearly equally as large, one of them of a different temperature than the other. We'll say one's A (hot) and one's B (cold).

B would be your hsf, and A would be your cpu heatspreader.

If one is not playing it's role, you'll have a horrible outcome.

You need to learn something about cooling before you go spouting jibberish from your mouth.

If you'd like, I'll go more into detail about how the peltier works and how it's applicable to a hsf/core comparison.

Edit: Can we do this without flames? I know I was a little, um, enthusiastic, in my post but I'm going to try a non-flaming post and I'd like it if you could stick to that too

Please do into more detail, because I'm not getting it. A peltier is powered and uses special properties of the peltier material to cool one side while making the other side hot (as is my understanding), I don't see what that has to do with how a heatspreader works. But maybe I'm missing something.

It's not like air cooling (or any kind of cooling for that matter) is rocket science. The whole idea of heatsinks is to give the CPU a larger surface area to aid in cooling since the heat must transfer to the air to cool the CPU. I do not see how attaching another piece of metal between the CPU and the heatsink aids in doing this. You could really build a heatspreader for any chip, it's just a piece of metal attached to the CPU. Unless you can show me how a heatspreader is different from the bottom of a heatsink I will continue to think that it makes no difference in cooling. But of course I could be wrong.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: CrawlingEye

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: alexruiz
I have some question about the heat disipation. The athlon runs much hotter (nobody is going to disagree) but the electrical power consumption is about the same!!! (check the docs)

If the total electrical power consumptions is almost the same, the heat produced should be the same (W=VI, W=I^2R, W=V^2/R....). It think obviously the P4 is more effient taking the heat out. Why or how??? Formulas welcome.

Alex

Doesn't the P4 have a larger core than the AXP? I mean not counting the heatspreader (which I don't think matters a lot), isn't the real core on the P4 larger?

No, the problem is that the AXP's .13u has decreased the size, making the 1w/1m dissipation rate even slower. That's why Tbred's don't OC worth a damn.

Heh, don't be so quick to disagree with me. That's what I said. The P4 has a larger core size, so it's better at getting rid of heat. At least that's my understanding.

 

[Duvie]

Overall, I would place the tbread 2200+ at about a P4 2.35 GHz. The 2100+ had a head to head match with the P4 2.2 and the sites claimed victory for the Athlon (check Anand and TRs reviews). When the northwood came out, the AXp 2000+ had a fierce battle with the 2.2 northwood and that match was claimed a tie. I am not talking about the biggest gun in the P4 camp, the P4 2.53 has no match right now.... so I am not being biased. But even a P4 2.4 with DDR will have a hard time defeating an Athlon XP 2200+ overall (forget your quack 3 and sysmark, I am talking several different benchmarks).....

NOt if that p4 with ddr is running 400+ddr like many around here...my 1.6@2.4 with 150fsb and 400+ddr scores in bandwidth right there with the pc1066 rdram...Read Tomshardware review and when you see p4 2.4ghz (400fsb/400mem) compare that as a common ddr system around here...many of us score higher bandwidth numbers then pc800 which is the 2.4ghz 400fsb/400mem at THG. It beat s the 2200+ in majority of test...go see for yourself!!!

 

[CrazySaint]

Originally posted by: SSXeon5

Originally posted by: CrazySaint

lol Well, I've only got a 7500 Though hopefully I'll have upgraded to something decent by the time Hammer/Prescott are out. Also, you assume that I'll buy a Hammer, but I'll buy whichever one happens to be better at the time because I'm not a zealot But what makes your claims silly isn't that you think that Prescott will beat the Hammer (predicting that Hammer will spank the Prescott would be just as silly), what's silly is claiming TO KNOW which will be best!

Im Just saying, im pretty sure it will, am i 100% sure ... hell no!

Hey! You admitted you aren't 100% sure, there's hope for you yet!

If you don't like VIA chipsets, you can get the nForce/nForce 2 which are both very nice chipsets. AMD now requires all motherboards to have thermal protection, though I will grant you that AMD currently lags far behind Intel on thermal protection. I really hope that Barton or Hammer will rectify the situation.

Well you need 2 sticks of ram for nforce right? So its just as bad as all the crap with the RDRAM and the p4

Actually, you only need 2 sticks if you're going to use IGP, which very few of us are interested in doing. With only 1 stick, you still get the full 2.1GB/s of memory bandwidth that the Athlon can use.

Actually, you don't have to spend $20-$30 on a HSF. You can get perfecty acceptable HSFs like the SVC Golden Gate for about $6, so its only $215

For a 1.8GHz TBred? Yea sh*t I have to agree with you, I love SVC and they make damned good HSF's. And the Golden gate is $10-15 for a whole HSF ... ie fan included So $225

Uh oh, now you're agreeing with me, this can't be a good sign!

Uhhh, not only are you contradicing yourself, you are messing up your timeframe references. First off, AMD chips are just as stable as Intel chips. Second, you contradict yourself by conceding Price/overclocking then mentioning the 800-1200MHz OCs. Third, the Northwoods are what marked the end of the AMD's reign, so using them to say that AMD wasn't King is silly. The fact is, AMD held the performance crown for a good long while.

I dont call hot cpus stable True about the 800-1200Mhz thing, but for 7-8monthes the P4s are the Price/Overclocking kings. Tho yes amd was, but were on par with the pentium 3 E's with ocing [/quote]

Eh, you're confusing temps and stability. Stable means that it doesn't crash. If it was stable at 100c it would still be stable - freakin' hot, but stable. Having said that, I would consider lower temps an advantage, and don't forget that the Willy cores weren't exactly ice cubes, either

I don't have MaxPC to see your benchmarks, but I did just check Anand's review of the 2.53GHz P4 (which included the full line of Athlons and P4s in the benchmarks and used PC800 on the A chips and PC1066 on the B chips) and the 2100+ beat the 2.0A paired with PC800 at 7 out of 11 benchmarks. In addition, a 2.0A PC800 system will still be more expensive than an XP 2100+ DDR system.

True, but a 2.0a with DDR333/400 cas2 will kill the PC800 system too

Ok, yes, that's a good point, and is one of the reasons that the P4 is currently King for the enthusiast crows (although AMD is still the sub-$150 CPU value King).

Well, of course you can! That's my very point, that just pointing at X benchmark and saying A CPU beats B CPU is absolutely meaningless (unless, of course, X benchmark uses app Z which you use 5 hours a day and knowing which CPU is faster at that exact app is very important to you). Second, WTH difference does it make who I'm talking to?

lol .... im warning you ... YOU HAVE CROSSED THE LIKES OF SSXEON .... ok im wasted and its 6am here .... i need sleep ... well I had a good flame war CrazySaint Ill catch you around I know i will

SSXeon

lol Count on it