P4 520-570 series vs. P4E vs. P4C?

[DuckTape]

Hello folks.

Would someone be so kind as to tell me what the below P4 series is?

Are these "revised" "E"-series Prescotts?

<< Pentium 4 570 3.8GHz
Pentium 4 560 3.6GHz
Pentium 4 550 3.4GHz
Pentium 4 540 3.2GHz
Pentium 4 530 3.0GHz
Pentium 4 520 2.8GHz >>


(More questions below...)


Crashman wrote in July 2004:

<< The Northwood core is a bit more efficient than the Prescott (E) due to it's shorter pipeline. The Prescott was designed to clock higher, not perform better. >>

<< Intel does things to make processors clock higher that at the same time comprimise performance. >>


Crashman and all --

Do the P4 520-570 CPUs have these same "performance and efficiency issues" as the P4 Prescott "E" CPUs?

(Have these issues been eliminated to any degree with the P4 520-570 series? And I probably should also ask -- Do the P4 520-570 CPUs have any other significant problems, issues, etc.?)

Finally, most importantly -- Would you recommend the P4 Northwood "C" CPU's over the P4 520-570 CPUs for reason of these issues (or for any other reasons)?

Thank much!
DuckTape

 

[HardWareBoss]

Stick with the P4s. How soon before you do an upgrade?

 

[Crashman]

The 2.8E uses the same core as the 520. All those CPU's you listed are Prescotts. The "E" refers to a processor generation/bus speed.

All the Prescotts are having the same performance and heat problems, this is why Intel has decided to discontinue them. They will continue to produce them at current speed ratings until they have something else for the market. That means no new Prescotts. Intel's loss of faith in this technology reflects what enthusiast have known for a long time: The thing runs too hot, even at stock speed, while consuming too much power and too little performance.

I expect Intel to push up the release of new cores as quickly as possible because of this blemish. I believe they originally targetted Fall 2005, but since their announcement will probably try to push things up to Spring, at least for the "paper launch".

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[endyen]

All of the 500 series chips are socket T prescotts.
What do you use your computer for? you may be better off getting an A64 system.

 

[HardWareBoss]

Ah yes the ole paper launch. Can we really see dual core cpus by springtime? That would be something for Intel to pull off.

 

[DuckTape]

HardwareBoss,

I will hopefully be building a computer from scratch by January 2005.

Thanks much!
DuckTape

 

[DuckTape]

endyen,

<< What do you use your computer for? you may be better off getting an A64 system. >>

Besides office applications and internet, I think I will be using my computer for:

- digital audio/music sampling, recording, sequencing, editing, and music notation
- digital video capturing, recording, and editing (consumer-level and maybe prosumer-level software)
- graphic design and layout
- and maybe a little simple 2D Animation

Thanks much!
DuckTape

 

[Crashman]

Yes, I'm hazarding a guess for June.

My guesses are usually fairly good, except for that guess about how long it would take AMD to hit $24 a share...

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>

 

[Imp]

At stock speed I just turn down the voltage to the CPU. Idles at 27, loads to 35 w/ 1.1-1.2 Vcore. Not prime stable, but runs everything pretty well. Going with AMD from now on though, tired of Intel's marketing schemes.

 

[endyen]

You would see some benefit from going Amd now. As progs come out for 64 bit you would see ferther gains.
At the same time, you would be saved the heat issues of the prescotts. If you can spend the money, an opteron workstation would be your ultimate.