Betamax man has struck again

[TheBoy]

I need a P4 processor.

Easy task I hear you ask?

Only I need a LGA775 socketed one. Still easy?

Only it can't have EMT64...

Anyone know where I can get one? Or anyone got a working one lying around?

[Admin]

You do like your obscure bits of kit don't you Jaime!  :-?

[Martin_1962]

Carefull with thread titles or you will get me and Vectrolosys answering

[TheBoy]

Carefull with thread titles or you will get me and Vectrolosys answering

LOL, its a nickname I used for a mate of mine - if there were 2 competing technologies, I would wait to see what he bought, then I would buy the other, as he always backed the wrong horse

Trouble is, it seems to be me now....  

[supermop]

Main reason I never bought a P4. Too many socket revisions.

I stuck with Socket A.

Second main reason was that they are pretty rubbish  

[TheBoy]

Main reason I never bought a P4. Too many socket revisions.

I stuck with Socket A.

Second main reason was that they are pretty rubbish  

I think you'll find AMD are far worse for socket revisions, although they did stick with Skt A for ages (arguably too long, which hurt their performance).

As to performance, no AMD Socket A chip has ever outperformed the equilivent Intel part in real world tests - though the Athlon does have stunning integer performance.

In 32bit arena, Intel has always been top dog (look at major manufacturers 32 bit workstaion and server offerings, always Intel).  64bit is harder to call, as most 64 bit server/workstations (the only sectors currently needing 64bit) tend to stick to non x86 chips such as SPARC and Itanium.   There aren't many 64bit apps (true 64bit) for x86 chips, and OS wise you're looking at W2k3 or a handful of Linux versions, and Sun appear to have the 64bit Unix sewn up with SPARC/Solaris combination, HP being a close 2nd with Itanium/HP-UX.  That makes Windows Server 2003 and Windows Longhorn Server the deciding factor on whether x86 64bit will be a success, rather than marketing bull.

[theolodian]

Main reason I never bought a P4. Too many socket revisions.

I stuck with Socket A.

Second main reason was that they are pretty rubbish  

I think you'll find AMD are far worse for socket revisions, although they did stick with Skt A for ages (arguably too long, which hurt their performance).

As to performance, no AMD Socket A chip has ever outperformed the equilivent Intel part in real world tests - though the Athlon does have stunning integer performance.

In 32bit arena, Intel has always been top dog (look at major manufacturers 32 bit workstaion and server offerings, always Intel).  64bit is harder to call, as most 64 bit server/workstations (the only sectors currently needing 64bit) tend to stick to non x86 chips such as SPARC and Itanium.   There aren't many 64bit apps (true 64bit) for x86 chips, and OS wise you're looking at W2k3 or a handful of Linux versions, and Sun appear to have the 64bit Unix sewn up with SPARC/Solaris combination, HP being a close 2nd with Itanium/HP-UX.  That makes Windows Server 2003 and Windows Longhorn Server the deciding factor on whether x86 64bit will be a success, rather than marketing bull.

I c u r v gud w/ IT spk  

[nixoro]

Main reason I never bought a P4. Too many socket revisions.

I stuck with Socket A.

Second main reason was that they are pretty rubbish  

I think you'll find AMD are far worse for socket revisions, although they did stick with Skt A for ages (arguably too long, which hurt their performance).

As to performance, no AMD Socket A chip has ever outperformed the equilivent Intel part in real world tests - though the Athlon does have stunning integer performance.

In 32bit arena, Intel has always been top dog (look at major manufacturers 32 bit workstaion and server offerings, always Intel).  64bit is harder to call, as most 64 bit server/workstations (the only sectors currently needing 64bit) tend to stick to non x86 chips such as SPARC and Itanium.   There aren't many 64bit apps (true 64bit) for x86 chips, and OS wise you're looking at W2k3 or a handful of Linux versions, and Sun appear to have the 64bit Unix sewn up with SPARC/Solaris combination, HP being a close 2nd with Itanium/HP-UX.  That makes Windows Server 2003 and Windows Longhorn Server the deciding factor on whether x86 64bit will be a success, rather than marketing bull.

I c u r v gud w/ IT spk  

For those who cant work text jargon like me (above)  - I see you are very good with IT Speak

Sorry had to translate as I could'nt understand it the first time I read it

[TheBoy]

I take that as an insult   - seeing as many people in IT just talk 'dangle berries'. And play Wank Word Bingo all day    

[nixoro]

I take that as an insult   - seeing as many people in IT just talk 'dangle berries'. And play Wank Word Bingo all day    

What insulting TheBoy  :question my convertion  :question

[supermop]

Real-world performance wise, the P4 probably did hold the slight advantage. With the power hungry core they used, I'd be shocked if it didn't! The P4's power consumtion and running temperature was pretty shocking. In comparison, AMD had a neat thing going with the Skt A CPU's. Comparably low power consumtion and a much lower operating temperature with almost on-par performance (excelling in various areas). The Athlon was a great gaming CPU, which was why I stuck with it.

[theolodian]

I take that as an insult   - seeing as many people in IT just talk 'dangle berries'. And play Wank Word Bingo all day    

Sorry TB, but it had 2 b done after a diatribe like that.  We don't want you suffering Stockholm syndrome being with IT knobs all day.  

[TheBoy]

Real-world performance wise, the P4 probably did hold the slight advantage. With the power hungry core they used, I'd be shocked if it didn't! The P4's power consumtion and running temperature was pretty shocking. In comparison, AMD had a neat thing going with the Skt A CPU's. Comparably low power consumtion and a much lower operating temperature with almost on-par performance (excelling in various areas). The Athlon was a great gaming CPU, which was why I stuck with it.

Skt A basically means Athlon XP - probably AMD's worse chip in recent times. Duron (also Skt A) was a good budget chip though.  Athlon XP was hot and power hungry (my own leccy bill reduced significantly when my Athlon XP 2000+ server was replaced with a P4 2.4Ghz one from same era (it was my old desktop), and the heat in that room also dropped. Typical of Athlon XP.

P4 got into heating issues with early 3Ghz and with early Prescotts, but soon fixed this with P4E range (original Prescotts were P4D).  Athlon XP never matched P4 in real world.

For a brief time, Athlon64 did outperform standard P4 (not Extreme) when Intel had to scrap 4Ghz.  'Core' range processors undoubtedly the current desktop chip to have. Yet to see one of those Core Quads running yet....

[supermop]

Athlon was AMD's worse chip in recent times?? It's what bought them back into the market!!

I have always found the P4 chips to be the hot and power hungry ones, which has been shown in all the benchmarks I've seen comparing the two and real life experience (I used to go to a lot of LAN parties - or geek parties if you like).

My 3200+ for example runs at 2.2Ghz and 39 degrees idle to 42 degrees on load, with standard cooling. Will have to fetch the power consumption specs when I'm home.

[bob.dent]

Kinell........am I the only computer illiterate soul that doesn't understand a damn word of this computer jargonated thread?? :-?