P4 Speed?

[Turner]

So, if I get say, a 2.4gig P4, am I going to notice it being any slower than say, a 2.8gig? And how does the Hyper-Threading fit into the mix?

I've been looking at buying a new computer, (see this thread) and really want a 3.06gig Processor. But it's a bit cheaper to get a slightly slower processor. I just don't know if the speed issue is going to be that big a deal. Or rather, for how much longer it won't be that big of a deal.

My wife doesn't want me to buy a new computer in two years. That's pretty much been the cycle, here. Got one in Oct 99, a new one in March 01, and now it looks like in Sept. 03 I'll be getting my next one. So she doesn't mind me spending the extra for the fastest rig out there. On the other hand, while I can afford $1800 for a new 3.06 Dell machine (or will in Sept.), the $1400 Dell means I can get my flat screen now, instead of waiting until January. (Student loans, in case you're interested.)

In fact, as the old man is retired from IBM, I'll probably buy a Netista, or ThinkCentre, whatever the difference is between those. But throw in my 5% student discount at Dell. . .it's going to be a close one.

 

[CruddyLeper]

That's going to be a good time to buy (Sept 03) because Intel should be releasing latest incarnation of the P4 at the time (and will want to compete/beat the new Apple G5).

You won't notice a huge difference in speed if all you are doing is word processing. The difference on games isn't that great - maybe an extra 10 frames per second on the Doom3 demo. If, however, the machine was rendering 3D graphics for days on end, then the speed difference becomes significant.

Myself, I would just go fot the 2.4 in Sept (should get an even bigger discount) and make sure the motherboard can take a faster version - say a 3.2 - in 2 years time. If not, well yes you could get a whole new computer in 2 years - but my primary aim would be to keep the wife happy, not about competing with net nerds.

Hyperthreading is essentially an on-chip scheme to improve multitasking (running many programs at once) so is more of a server concern than an everyday user concern. As most games don't multitask it's not really an issue there. I'm fairly sure programs need recompilation to make use of it anyway.

Hope this helps

 

[gonzo_for_civ]

The P4 2.4C, which uses the faster FSB would be your best bet. It's an underclocked chip which runs well, and can be OCed to well over 3 Ghz w/just water cooling if you're up to it.

If not, then at least you got a cheap chip, that runs quick and cool, OCed or not. The 800 Mhz system bus used will also give you excellent upgrading capability. The 3.06s just may not be worth it right now, and the 533 Mhz bus they use is most likely not going to see any more use with the 800 being intel's new baby.

 

[Turner]

Thanks, CL, it does help.

Maybe I'm not understanding HT properly, but I (fuzzily) understand that it's supposed to allow better usage of the CPU when processor intensive apps are running. So I run SETI@Home, and it eats my processor up. WinXP automatically downgrades it when I'm trying to do something else, so I'm not worried about it actually slowing me down (but right now, just browsing this one forum actively and a couple of background process', I'm running 100% utilization) but if HT will run it faster that would be cool.

Plus at home, even with an 850 Athalon (How I wish the AthalonXP was faster!) I notice it takes time to switch between stuff. I'm running 256mb RAM on XP. So this next system I'm starting out with half a gig minimum, with the intention of bumping it up to a gig asap. That still blows my mind. . .a gig of ram.

Good advise on the 2.4. . . that occured to me too. But the thing is, I'm getting this school loan now for the sole intent of buying a puter. I don't want to have to get another loan next year for a faster processor. And right now it looks like it'll be three years or so until I can start saving up for a faster processor. So I might has well just buy the 3.06 right now. I see 3.2s being release, maybe they'll have a 3.5 by the time I buy one. :shrug: I dunno, tho.

Ah well. .. I have to wait until sept anyways, so I don't know why I'm getting so worked up about this now. But by taking three months to decide what system I want I think I'm better off. Gives me time to research instead of just jumping in.

So is this AthalonXP 3200 chip any good? To be honest, it doesn't matter to me what I get, be it an AMD or Intel. Like I said in the first post, I'm looking for longevity here. . . .

 

[gonzo_for_civ]

From what I hear the AMD chips right now are ALL running hotter than pretty much anything intel in the post-pentium pro era. Generally that means shorter life.

As for speed, the 2.4 or maybe going to a 2.8 w/800 Mhz FSB will tide you over fine until your next purchase. The 3.2 should be out before september and would be your best bet as long as it isn't a flop(ya never know). HyperThreading should definately boost performance in your case with the seti@home running in the background. Perhaps AMD will come out with some smoking processor before then and that'll be the better deal, but I definately would not bet the farm on it. Oh yeah, AMD's pr rating is crap, that 3200 can't outrun a 3.0 Ghz, let alone a 3.2 when it's out. Don't get fooled by the number, Mhz doesn't mean much, but a PR rating means even less, especially considering amd's history of bragging about fast their processors launch office applications. If having MS Word up .1 seconds faster means a lot, go with AMD. I used to love AMD, but there's no defending them now, they're fighting a losing battle.....

Edit: stupid mistake.

 

[CruddyLeper]

Thanks for putting me straight gonzo. I had heard about the 533/800 FSB thing but wasn't clear which processor used which!

Yeah, AMDs of a given "XP" number don't have that as a clock rate. It's more a case of evolving very quickly with new chipsets (Thoroughbred, Barton etc). The FSB speed isn't as high as Intels at the mo, so they couldn't compete even if they did have a clock (Hertz rate) that was the same as the P4.

Mind you, give 'em some credit - AMD is cheaper than Intel and helps keep Intel on their toes. They too will be releasing in Sept, although there is very little chance they will be topping Intel at that time. They seem content with grabbing the "low" end of the market.

Don't take this as slap, AMD owners - I've got one myself!

 

[katka]

Well AMD can't stay with the low end of the market forever. They only make about 60-70 dollars per a unit sold when they need to be making close to 100. AMD has backed themselves into a corner. They need Athlon 64 to sell well, scale high, SOI to work right, and around May of next year the swich to .09 Mircon process to go smoothy. I don't really think AMD can pull it off. I mean don't get me wrong I'd take an AMD CPU over an Intel CPU any day, but I just don't think they'll be able to do what they're hoping they can.

About the PR rating. The lower PR ratings (IE: 1700 through 2100) are pretty close, but the higer one ( 2500 through 3200) are no where near close. AMD really gave to much wight to the extra 256KB of L2 Cache and faster FSB.

As for temps, Throughbread Bs and bartons run fairly cool.

Oh and HT just splits up the CPU into two virual CPUs. You still have one CPU and one core, but somehow Intel has been able to get it to process two threads at once. Of course this really only helps when mutil tasking (running many programs at once). You're not going to get much of a speed boost out of it. If you want it though you'll have to get a P4C (the only P4B that has it is the 3.06 Ghz).

Anyway back on topic. If you're going to be buying a computer around September then you might want to wait and see if the Athlon 64 will be any good (they should be released in September so it'll probly be October before you start seeing them).

Edit: Just saw this.

Originally posted by CruddyLeper
Yeah, AMDs of a given "XP" number don't have that as a clock rate. It's more a case of evolving very quickly with new chipsets (Thoroughbred, Barton etc). The FSB speed isn't as high as Intels at the mo, so they couldn't compete even if they did have a clock (Hertz rate) that was the same as the P4.

What do you mean by that. If you had a Athlon XP running at say 3.0 Ghz and a P4 at 3.0 Ghz the Athlon XP would be faster. The reason being is that Athlon XPs do more work per a clock cycle the a P4. The P3 was like this but when Intel made the P4 they designed the P4 with a longer pipeline so that it does less work per clock cycle, but scales higher which sounds better for marketing and sells more CPU to the average computer user that doesn't know any better. I think of it like this, an AMD Mhz is like a US dollar while a Intel Mhz is like a Candian dollar. I do agree however that PR ratings are crap.

 

[CruddyLeper]

Originally posted by katka
What do you mean by that. If you had a Athlon XP running at say 3.0 Ghz and a P4 at 3.0 Ghz the Athlon XP would be faster. The reason being is that Athlon XPs do more work per a clock cycle the a P4.

The AMD would not be faster if it had a slower FSB... It might execute 1 individual instruction faster, but when running complete programs it would fetch and receive code and data from RAM slower.

Get my drift now? Having a whizzy CPU clock speed is all well and good... but if the RAM isn't running as fast in a given system, it slows the whole thing down.

 

[katka]

No even with the slower FSB the Athlon would be faster. The RAM is running about the same speed in either system (assuming that the Athlon is running on a 400Mhz FSB) because DDR ram just can't run at 800Mhz.

You have to remember the real FSB speed in either system would be 200Mhz, but the Athlon double pumps the FSB, where as the P4 quad pumps the FSB. The RAM runs at twice the speed of the FSB because DDR ram also double pumps (or something like it). In the case of the P4 the RAM can't send data faster then 400Mhz. Now the P4 could send data along the FSB at 800Mhz but it's not going to receive data from the RAM at 800Mhz. Even the fastest RAM (the new PC3700 from Corsair) can only run at 475Mhz (might be 500).

Now when DDR2 comes out RAM might scale up to 800Mhz but not right now.

Sorry if it sounds like I'm being an AMD fanboy (even though I kinda am). I'll admit that right now P4s are the fastest. I'm just saying that at the same speed the Athlon would be faster.