Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.mainboard.asus (
More info?)
On Tue, 05 Apr 2005 00:59:10 -0400, nospam@needed.com (Paul) wrote:
>In article <h214515lr0etg0rvgnil1alnt170u99eru@4ax.com>, Oliver Costich
><olc-caNOSPAM@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> I have a P4B266 ver2 with a Pentium4 2 GHz. I am using Photoshop a lot
>> and want to upgrade for least cost. I can get a socket 478 motherboard
>> and a 3.0/3.0 processor for not too much or spend another $150 for a
>> socket T + processor+ power supply + video card. I already have 1GB of
>> Crucial PC2700 memory.
>>
>> Which makes more sense? Which board would you recommend for either
>> case?
>
>When I look at your current system, the P4B266 has single channel RAM.
>A newer dual channel board, will give you additional memory bandwidth,
>which will help with Photoshop.
>
>The S478 platform is certainly "over the hill", but you could upgrade
>to a P4P800 or P4C800 family board. At FSB800, you are allowed to run
>RAM at PC3200, PC2700, or PC2100 (DDR400, DDR333, DDR266). That
>means you can reuse your RAM, and as long as the RAM is reasonably
>matched (both 512MB sticks have 16 chips), the board will run the RAM
>in dual channel mode.
>
>Of the P4P800/P4C800 family, a Northbridge chip type of 875P,
>865PE, or 865G are recommended. Those chips will not compromise
>your memory or the video performance of your old AGP card. A 848P
>based board is single channel, and a 865GV board has no AGP slot
>for a video card.
>
>The cheapest motherboard I would recommend are P4P800 SE ($97).
>The P4C800-E Deluxe is $183 by comparison, and the main feature
>it would offer you, is the ability to use unbuffered ECC memory
>if you want. If this was a single home computer, connected to the
>Internet via ADSL or cable modem, the network interface differences
>wouldn't matter much. If you have a bunch of gigabit networking
>equipment, then you might consider the P4C800-E as a solution.
>
>If you go with the P5P800 ($98), it is like a P4P800 family board
>(uses 865PE Northbridge), but the one difference it has, is the
>LGA775 processor socket. That would allow you to use a more expensive
>LGA775 3.8GHz processor on your new board.
>
>Since the current generation of LGA775 (socket T) boards are
>not "dual core ready", I don't see the current LGA775 boards as
>being a good long term investment. At least for you, as a Photoshop
>user. A LGA775 with a single core 3.8GHz processor, will blow the
>doors off a dual core 3.2Ghz processor for ordinary usage, but
>Photoshop has been able to use extra processors/threads for a number
>of years.
>
>For your new board, I personally would buy this S478 Northwood
>3GHz ($197). It might offer slightly cooler idle operation.
>http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-116-163&depa=0
Why not the S478 3.0E or 3.2E with i1MB cache?
>
>The next most desirable processor, would be a LGA775 540J Prescott
>($222). You could use that on the P5P800. The idle current is
>31 amps, which is pretty close to the Northwood Vcore current demand.
>
>http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=19-116-201&depa=0
>
>On the 540J, my explanation of why, is here:
>http://groups.google.ca/groups?selm=nospam-3003050304340001%40192.168.1.178
>
>In terms of obsolescence, the P5P800 (with single core LGA775
>processors) and the P4P800/P4C800 (with single core S478 processors),
>are roughly in the same situation. There will still be new processor
>offerings in the LGA775 form factor, which gives the LGA775 an
>advantage, but I wouldn't really expect to seem much more in the
>way of core clock improvements (at prices you could afford at least).
>
>Someone might also suggest an Athlon64 platform, but as I haven't
>seen any Photoshop benchmarks, I don't know how a S939 processor
>compares to a P4.
>
>OK, this one compares an A64 3200+ to a P4 3.2GHz. At this level,
>the P4 looks like a winner. But the different processors are good
>at different Photoshop filters, so you really need to see the
>detailed numbers, to compare the two platforms.
>
>http://www.geocities.com/sw_perf/PSBench.html
>
> Paul
Thanks. You've been very helpful.