If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
P4 Prescott 3.2GHz
Hiya
I have been given a P4 Prescott 3.2GHz to eval by work. No OVERCLOCKING is happening. I have put it in my 2nd PC which as a ASUS P4P800 mobo with latest bios, that had a P4 3GHz Northwood. Couple of things i have noticed about the Prescott, the temp is bloody high. When idle its 61C / 141F, when 50percent loaded its 69C/ 156F, when 100percent loaded its up to 71C / 159F. All recored with ASUS Probe. Also i find it slower than a P4 3GHz Northwood, i run SETI on it, and when it says a unit will take 4 hours 55 mins, but the Northwood would do this in half the time. What is the best chipset to run a prescott on, intel 865 or 875 ?? Is ther prescott supposed to run this high Temp ?? Is there any settings i should make to bios to speed it up (non - overclocking) ?? Any one else had the same problem ?? Running on WIN XP PRO SP1 Thx Leigh-Anne -- This Email has been VIRUS Checked with Norton AntiVirus 2004 Professional Edition |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The Prescott line does indeed run that hot. It has been reviewed on many
professional review web sites, and the authors are all saying to get a Northwood for now until Intel solves the heat problem. Adding injury to insult, yes the Prescott's run somewhat slower than Northwoods at this stage in their design. That is supposed to be resolved later this year when the faster clock speed, thermally redesigned Prescotts appear. Oh, and the 875 chipset is the fastest and most stable to try running a Prescott on. -- DaveW "Leigh-Anne Mills" wrote in message ... Hiya I have been given a P4 Prescott 3.2GHz to eval by work. No OVERCLOCKING is happening. I have put it in my 2nd PC which as a ASUS P4P800 mobo with latest bios, that had a P4 3GHz Northwood. Couple of things i have noticed about the Prescott, the temp is bloody high. When idle its 61C / 141F, when 50percent loaded its 69C/ 156F, when 100percent loaded its up to 71C / 159F. All recored with ASUS Probe. Also i find it slower than a P4 3GHz Northwood, i run SETI on it, and when it says a unit will take 4 hours 55 mins, but the Northwood would do this in half the time. What is the best chipset to run a prescott on, intel 865 or 875 ?? Is ther prescott supposed to run this high Temp ?? Is there any settings i should make to bios to speed it up (non - overclocking) ?? Any one else had the same problem ?? Running on WIN XP PRO SP1 Thx Leigh-Anne -- This Email has been VIRUS Checked with Norton AntiVirus 2004 Professional Edition |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Leigh-Anne Mills wrote:
Hiya I have been given a P4 Prescott 3.2GHz to eval by work. No OVERCLOCKING is happening. I have put it in my 2nd PC which as a ASUS P4P800 mobo with latest bios, that had a P4 3GHz Northwood. Couple of things i have noticed about the Prescott, the temp is bloody high. When idle its 61C / 141F, when 50percent loaded its 69C/ 156F, when 100percent loaded its up to 71C / 159F. All recored with ASUS Probe. Also i find it slower than a P4 3GHz Northwood, i run SETI on it, and when it says a unit will take 4 hours 55 mins, but the Northwood would do this in half the time. The Prescott is slightly slower for SOME things than a Northwood at the same clock speed, but it's usually never more than 5% (and for some things it's a couple of % faster, as well). "half the time" does not sound right, if you're comparing the same work units. In fact, this benchmark http://forums.hexus.net/showthread.php?t=14693 seems to indicate it's slightly faster clock for clock for SETI (it's an app which obviously likes more cache, if you look at the P4EE scores). The only thing I can think of why it would be only half as fast would be thermal throttling - but that shouldn't happen at 71C. Or maybe misdetection of the cpu by the application, though if that would be the case there surely would be an update available since some time. What is the best chipset to run a prescott on, intel 865 or 875 ?? 875 is slightly faster (unless your 865 has the inofficial PAT-called-differently setting in the bios), doesn't matter if it's a northwood or prescott. It doesn't make that much of a difference however. Is ther prescott supposed to run this high Temp ?? Unfortunately, yes. The thermal/power characteristics of the prescotts are less than stellar. Maybe later stepping will improve this a bit, but for now you're better off with Northwoods - basically the same performance, but run cooler (and thus easier to cool silently). Is there any settings i should make to bios to speed it up (non - overclocking) ?? Make sure the board is running in dual-channel mode (if you have 2 ram sticks). Other than that, you could play with ram settings and the like (though that's also a form of overclocking), but it's probably not worth it. Roland |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
In article pcSqc.25754$gr.2284479@attbi_s52, "DaveW" wrote:
The Prescott line does indeed run that hot. It has been reviewed on many professional review web sites, and the authors are all saying to get a Northwood for now until Intel solves the heat problem. Adding injury to insult, yes the Prescott's run somewhat slower than Northwoods at this stage in their design. That is supposed to be resolved later this year when the faster clock speed, thermally redesigned Prescotts appear. Oh, and the 875 chipset is the fastest and most stable to try running a Prescott on. I've read a couple of articles in the last week, and the issue is, at 90nm feature size, there is an increased effect called "DC leakage current". I hadn't realized just how bad this had become. Normally, all of the current in a CMOS gate, is used to flip states on the output. The energy used is 0.5*C*V**2 and the power is proportional to F*C*V**2. At one time, all that mattered was reducing C, by making the gates smaller. At the gates get smaller, the voltage they operate with is reduced (not sure if this is a breakdown voltage issue, or just the need to reduce power caused by also attempting to increase F at the same time). As the voltages drop, the transistors can no longer be completely turned off by the logic signals coming from the previous stage. One article I just read, referred to "high threshold" and "low threshold" transistors, implying that the latter ones waste power via leakage. It seems that we are headed for maybe 25% of the power wasted as heat and doing no useful work. The industry may in fact be giving up on simply increasing frequency, and instead looking at multiple cores, more parallelism and so on, as further shrinkage using the current material science will only make leakage worse. As for the Prescott performance, I wouldn't give up on the Prescott until there is a decent compiler developed for it. Any time there are architecture changes, it takes a while for the changes to be digested and incorporated into popular compilers. The P4 looked pretty bad after its introduction, and a tweak here and there might bring the Prescott back. I've taken the liberty of extracting all the Intel D875PBZ motherboard results from (beware, this page is a browser crusher, 1.7MB): http://www.specbench.org/cpu2000/results/cpu2000.html Columns are frequency, CINT2000_Base, CINT2000_Peak, processor+compiler_info 3.20 1583 1620 3.2ee Intel C++ 8.0 3.20 1475 1509 3.2ee Intel C++ 7.1 3.20 1583 1620 3.2ee Intel C++ 8.0 2.40 1039 1071 2.4C Intel C++ 8.0 2.60 1104 1138 2.6C Intel C++ 8.0 2.80 1166 1204 2.8C Intel C++ 8.0 3.00 1152 1160 3.0C Intel C++ 7.0 3.00 1164 1200 3.0C Intel C++ 7.1 3.00 1226 1265 3.0C Intel C++ 8.0 3.20 1221 1261 3.2C Intel C++ 7.1 3.20 1287 1330 3.2C Intel C++ 8.0 3.20 1282 1329 3.2C Intel C++ 8.0 3.40 1341 1389 3.4C Intel C++ 8.0 3.40 1342 1393 3.4C Intel C++ 8.0 3.40 1666 1704 3.4ee Intel C++ 8.0 3.40 1666 1705 3.4ee Intel C++ 8.0 2.80 1219 1269 2.8E Intel C++ 8.0 2.80 1219 1268 2.8E Intel C++ 8.0 3.00 1292 1345 3.0E Intel C++ 8.0 3.00 1292 1345 3.0E Intel C++ 8.0 3.20 1363 1420 3.2E Intel C++ 8.0 3.20 1363 1421 3.2E Intel C++ 8.0 3.40 1432 1491 3.4E Intel C++ 8.0 Rearranging by speed versus processor type, and extracting the two entries for each one gives the following (only C++ 8.0 compiler entries used) Freq ___P4-C___ ___P4-E___ __P4-EE___ 2.40 1039 1071 2.60 1104 1138 2.80 1166 1204 1219 1269 3.00 1226 1265 1292 1345 3.20 1287 1330 1363 1421 1583 1620 3.40 1342 1393 1432 1491 1666 1705 In each case, you can see the -E is slightly ahead of the -C and the Extreme Edition beats them both. It is possible that all SETI needs is a recompile for Prescott to beat Northwood. Using the raw data above, you can see what an influence the compiler has on the results. HTH, Paul |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Prescott CPU's | FingAZ | General | 2 | February 14th 05 08:46 PM |
Intel Prescott CPU in a Nutshell | LuvrSmel | Overclocking | 1 | January 10th 05 03:23 PM |
Prescott question | Chris Stolworthy | General | 2 | August 28th 04 06:13 PM |
P4C-E Deluxe: Northwood or Prescott | Z Man | Asus Motherboards | 3 | February 13th 04 04:09 AM |
Prescott 2.8A 533FSB in 845E chipset Gigabyte 8IE533 | greg | Overclocking | 2 | February 4th 04 01:59 PM |