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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
P4 replacement
On Sep 17, 4:58*pm, "Ken Maltby" wrote:
"seth1066" wrote in message ... Let me ask it this way: Which new Intel CPU matches the P4 3Ghz so I can choose one that is faster? ---------------- * The only Intel CPU that "Matches" the P4 3Ghz, is the P4 3Ghz. *How could it be otherwise? * There is no reason for Intel to make a "new" CPU that "matches" one of their old CPUs. * Do you mean a "new" CPU that costs about the same as *the P4 3Ghz? * Do you mean the cheapest one that has similar performance? *(There are new features that the P4 never had and some of them replaced features of the P4, so there is no direct way to match the new to the old.) * For some types of processing a "slower" speed multi- core CPU will out perform a faster single core CPU. *The opposite is true for some others. *Most newer multi- threaded programs and especially those that have been written to take advantage of multi-core CPUs, can show significant improvements. * Most people approach this from a different angle, by establishing not only their minimum performance requirements; *but also some idea of the amount of money they are looking to spend on the upgrade as a whole. *It is a sad fact that one upgrade will often require a number of others to arrive at a working system. * Changing a CPU will often mean a new Motherboard (MB) and often a new type of memory. *Many feel that if they are upgrading their old AGP graphics equipped MB, it is a good idea to replace it with a new PCI-e equipped MB, so a new Videocard may be needed, as well. *Sometimes such a new system will require a new, likely bigger power supply, to meet the requirements of these additions. *So, like most GoogleGroups posters, you seem to be frustrated because your "simple" question doesn't get you an instant response. *And you can't understand why we keep asking you to clarify what it is you really want. *At some point we get tired of playing "twenty questions" to get to the factors that are really in play. Luck; * * Ken I've built many 1088 through P4 boxes over the years and I'm fairly sure that any new Intel CPU, like the one I'm asking about, won't fit in a 478 socket. Just as I'm sure which video card memory to choose etc. Sorry you couldn't see the obvious, which another poster, I'm sure without any clairvoyant abilities, correctly knew it was performance. I mean, just what part of "faster" don't you understand? Did I ask about features? Price? Twenty questions indeed; the singular question I asked was answered by an intelligent poster in 11 words and two links. If you're planning to start a computer help desk, don't give up your day job. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
P4 replacement
On Sep 17, 8:32*pm, Andy wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 07:58:35 -0700 (PDT), seth1066 wrote: Let me ask it this way: Which new Intel CPU matches the P4 3Ghz so I can choose one that is faster? This chart will give you some idea of how CPUs rank: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html http://www.cpubenchmark.net/index.php Thanks, Andy, exactly what I was looking for. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
P4 replacement
On Sep 17, 8:38*pm, Paul wrote:
Ken Maltby wrote: "seth1066" wrote in message .... Let me ask it this way: Which new Intel CPU matches the P4 3Ghz so I can choose one that is faster? ---------------- * The only Intel CPU that "Matches" the P4 3Ghz, is the P4 3Ghz. *How could it be otherwise? snip Ken, what he is trying to determine, is what products are faster than his 3GHz P4. So, to answer the question, if someone tells him what Core2 processor or Athlon64 X2 is the minimum that meets the criterion, then he can shop for something better than that, for his new system. For example, a Core2 processor running at 2GHz or an Athlon64 X2 running at 2GHz, would be roughly equivalent to a P4 at 3GHz. The reason they should be dual core or better, is to give the same "smoothness" that a P4 with Hyperthreading has. (I've been experimenting with this the last couple days, and I still haven't been able to keep a single core Athlon from hesitating, so going dual core is important. My P4 doesn't make the same hesitations that the Athlon one does.) I wanted to post an answer earlier, and offer the charts on Tomshardware as a way to make a selection, except they ruined the only remaining single threaded benchmark. Now, there is no way to make a fair comparison between a P4 and the latest processors. So I gave up on answering the question. My 1.5x number above is based on previous (conservative) estimates of how much more IPC the new processors offer. The Athlon64 X2 is about 1.5x, while the Core2 ranges somewhere between 1.5x, 1.8x or 2.0x, depending on the benchmark being used. I think the Athlon64 X2 3800+ runs at 2GHz, and thus it is the closest thing that won't disappoint the owner of a P4 3GHz previous computer. http://products.amd.com/en-us/Deskto...ail.aspx?id=64 Anything above the E4400 in this chart, would match or exceed the P4 3GHz. http://processorfinder.intel.com/List.aspx?ProcFam=2558 This E8400 is $170, and would be a significant upgrade. It runs at 3GHz, and multiplying by 1.5x gives "4.5GHz+" as the minimum performance level. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819115037 For comparison, this Athlon64 X2 6400+ is $119 on sale. It isn't nearly as good as the E8400, and also uses more power (125W). It runs at 3.2GHz, so on paper at least, is in the same class as the E8400. But the pricing tells you its relative worth. This particular product is an OEM (tray) processor, so you need to purchase a heatsink separately. And at 125W, depending on your aversion to noise, you can probably spend another $50 on your favorite brand of after-market cooling solution. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16819103290 For some comparisons, Pentium 4 3.0Ghz Northwood @ 3000mhz, SuperPI 32M takes 52min 17.57secondshttp://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=616571 Core 2 E8400 (3.0Ghz @ 3000mhz), SuperPI 32M takes 32min 26secondshttp://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=768991 Athlon 64 6400+ X2 @ 3215mhz, SuperPI 32M takes 24min 21.34seconds (And I haven't a clue as to why it is so fast. SuperPI is single threaded.. But it would take me too long to find a better benchmark than this, one that is "pure" and doesn't rely on a graphics card or disk.) http://www.hwbot.org/result.do?resultId=702991 Rather than me try any more data mining on the hwbot site (as I'm pretty bad at it), this page and accompanying chart tells the story pretty well. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...hootout_9.html Here, the E8400 thrashes the 6400+. This is a price / performance chart. http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/d...ditional/price... * * Paul Thanks for these excellent and informative links. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
P4 replacement
On Sep 17, 11:34*pm, kony wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 07:58:35 -0700 (PDT), seth1066 wrote: On Sep 17, 9:28*am, "GT" wrote: "seth1066" wrote in message ... On Sep 16, 7:33 pm, "philo" wrote: "seth1066" wrote in message ... Built a P4 several years ago and was thinking about building a replacment or backup unit. What is equivalent in todays Intel and AMD processor that would equal a P4 478 socket 3Ghz machine? The machine you have should be plenty good for general use and I'd say not to build a new machine unless you really need to. OTOH: If you are running some CPU intensive applications such as Photoshop, then don't even think of some equivalent machine... by all means go with a dual core. As to Intel vs AMD...just go for what gives you the best specs for the money. Which dual core matches the P4 3Ghz? This will give me a starting point for a backup and I can go higher from there if I go the replacement route replacement. Am I missing something? What is the point of building a new machine that will match the old one? Just use the old one! Let me ask it this way: Which new Intel CPU matches the P4 3Ghz so I can choose one that is faster? There's a reason why most people don't pick a CPU like this - because there is no universal translator, it depends quite a lot on the jobs you run, the versions of the applications, how heavily you multitask, whether you entertain any notions of overclocking, etc. Generally the better way to approach the topic is to look at the total budget for the new system and within that budget, determining what is an appropriate CPU such that it is reasonably matched to the rest of the parts. *For example, higher end CPU and 2GB memory isn't such a great match. Lower end CPU and high end video card wouldn't be either. A general recommendation that is a good value might be something like a Q9400 @ $270, or an E8400 @ $170, E7200 @ $120. *To see a rough comparison of the tiering so you can pick relatively, see this chart:http://www.techpowerup.com/img/08-09-06/9a.png Your P4/3GHz would fall (depending on the task/benchmark used to compare) roughly into the "Value 1" segment. Thanks. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
P4 replacement
Andy wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 07:58:35 -0700 (PDT), seth1066 wrote: Let me ask it this way: Which new Intel CPU matches the P4 3Ghz so I can choose one that is faster? This chart will give you some idea of how CPUs rank: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html http://www.cpubenchmark.net/index.php The problem I have with those Passmark charts, is they combine the performance advantage of multiple cores. To avoid disappointment in a new purchase, what you want is a single thread benchmark - that is indicative of how old software will perform on a new processor. To give an example, another poster recently upgraded from an AthlonXP 3200+ overclocked to 3500+ level. Then, they purchase a Phenom quad core, each core around 2200MHz or so. Which means one core on the Phenom is the equivalent to the AthlonXP. When they tried their software, the new processor felt "no faster" than the old one. The thing is, unlike virtually all the benchmarks on Tomshardware, or that Passmark result page, the old software only uses one core. So in terms of "desktop experience", the charts won't be good at predicting the results. That is why I propose a processor with a bit higher clock rate as a selection, in case the software being used isn't multithreaded like all the crap on Tomshardware. I know my softwsre collection has stabilized over the years, and the only thing that really uses multiple cores at once, is Photoshop, or the odd game. The Tomshardware chart would have you believe, that when you upgrade the processor, you change all the software to the latest and greatest. Paul |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
P4 replacement
On Sep 18, 7:08*am, Paul wrote:
Andy wrote: On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 07:58:35 -0700 (PDT), seth1066 wrote: Let me ask it this way: Which new Intel CPU matches the P4 3Ghz so I can choose one that is faster? This chart will give you some idea of how CPUs rank: http://www.cpubenchmark.net/common_cpus.html http://www.cpubenchmark.net/index.php The problem I have with those Passmark charts, is they combine the performance advantage of multiple cores. To avoid disappointment in a new purchase, what you want is a single thread benchmark - that is indicative of how old software will perform on a new processor. To give an example, another poster recently upgraded from an AthlonXP 3200+ overclocked to 3500+ level. Then, they purchase a Phenom quad core, each core around 2200MHz or so. Which means one core on the Phenom is the equivalent to the AthlonXP. When they tried their software, the new processor felt "no faster" than the old one. The thing is, unlike virtually all the benchmarks on Tomshardware, or that Passmark result page, the old software only uses one core. So in terms of "desktop experience", the charts won't be good at predicting the results. That is why I propose a processor with a bit higher clock rate as a selection, in case the software being used isn't multithreaded like all the crap on Tomshardware. I know my softwsre collection has stabilized over the years, and the only thing that really uses multiple cores at once, is Photoshop, or the odd game. The Tomshardware chart would have you believe, that when you upgrade the processor, you change all the software to the latest and greatest. * * Paul Off of that chart I was thinking of something that was around 3 to 4 times the benchmark as the P4 3Ghz, which should equate to faster real world performance and the price point is near what I paid for the P4 about 4 years ago. PhotoShop 7 is my main performance choke point on larger files and will probably upgrade it to CS3 or wait for CS4. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
P4 replacement
Somewhere on teh intarwebs "seth1066" typed:
Built a P4 several years ago and was thinking about building a replacment or backup unit. What is equivalent in todays Intel and AMD processor that would equal a P4 478 socket 3Ghz machine? LOL, an Intel Atom dual core or a Celeron 420. -- Shaun. DISCLAIMER: If you find a posting or message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... ;-) |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
P4 replacement
Somewhere on teh intarwebs "Paul" typed:
Ken Maltby wrote: "seth1066" wrote in message ... Let me ask it this way: Which new Intel CPU matches the P4 3Ghz so I can choose one that is faster? ---------------- The only Intel CPU that "Matches" the P4 3Ghz, is the P4 3Ghz. How could it be otherwise? snip Ken, what he is trying to determine, is what products are faster than his 3GHz P4. So, to answer the question, if someone tells him what Core2 processor or Athlon64 X2 is the minimum that meets the criterion, then he can shop for something better than that, for his new system. For example, a Core2 processor running at 2GHz or an Athlon64 X2 running at 2GHz, would be roughly equivalent to a P4 at 3GHz. The reason they should be dual core or better, is to give the same "smoothness" that a P4 with Hyperthreading has. (I've been experimenting with this the last couple days, and I still haven't been able to keep a single core Athlon from hesitating, so going dual core is important. My P4 doesn't make the same hesitations that the Athlon one does.) I wanted to post an answer earlier, and offer the charts on Tomshardware as a way to make a selection, except they ruined the only remaining single threaded benchmark. Now, there is no way to make a fair comparison between a P4 and the latest processors. So I gave up on answering the question. My 1.5x number above is based on previous (conservative) estimates of how much more IPC the new processors offer. The Athlon64 X2 is about 1.5x, while the Core2 ranges somewhere between 1.5x, 1.8x or 2.0x, depending on the benchmark being used. [snip] Paul, that's all good. However, I benchmarked a Celeron 420 1.6GHz and it came out slightly ahead of an Athlon XP 3200+ (2.2GHz). As the Athlon was faster at most things than a 3GHz P4 then your list of CPUs should start at the Celly 420. As I mentioned earlier, the dual core Atom might even give the P4 a run for it's money. I've been tempted by this for a while now: http://www.ascent.co.nz/productspeci...ItemID=8114843 It's something silly like 2W for the CPU, it doesn't even need a fan. The northbridge has a higher TDP than the CPU. I have a friend who bought one and a single core benchmark comes out at about the same as a Tualatin Celly 1.4GHz, so double that. Would make an awesomely efficient email / newsgroups / web browsing / torrenting...... machine. He says that even the integrated graphics are more than adequate for all 2D stuff he's thrown at it on a 22" LCD. Running XP Pro, a single 2GB stick of RAM that cost $50... I still want one. It'd do 90% or what I use my machine for at about 10% of the power consumption. Cheers, -- Shaun. DISCLAIMER: If you find a posting or message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... ;-) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
P4 replacement
Somewhere on teh intarwebs "~misfit~" typed:
Somewhere on teh intarwebs "Paul" typed: Ken Maltby wrote: "seth1066" wrote in message ... Let me ask it this way: Which new Intel CPU matches the P4 3Ghz so I can choose one that is faster? ---------------- The only Intel CPU that "Matches" the P4 3Ghz, is the P4 3Ghz. How could it be otherwise? snip Ken, what he is trying to determine, is what products are faster than his 3GHz P4. So, to answer the question, if someone tells him what Core2 processor or Athlon64 X2 is the minimum that meets the criterion, then he can shop for something better than that, for his new system. For example, a Core2 processor running at 2GHz or an Athlon64 X2 running at 2GHz, would be roughly equivalent to a P4 at 3GHz. The reason they should be dual core or better, is to give the same "smoothness" that a P4 with Hyperthreading has. (I've been experimenting with this the last couple days, and I still haven't been able to keep a single core Athlon from hesitating, so going dual core is important. My P4 doesn't make the same hesitations that the Athlon one does.) I wanted to post an answer earlier, and offer the charts on Tomshardware as a way to make a selection, except they ruined the only remaining single threaded benchmark. Now, there is no way to make a fair comparison between a P4 and the latest processors. So I gave up on answering the question. My 1.5x number above is based on previous (conservative) estimates of how much more IPC the new processors offer. The Athlon64 X2 is about 1.5x, while the Core2 ranges somewhere between 1.5x, 1.8x or 2.0x, depending on the benchmark being used. [snip] Paul, that's all good. However, I benchmarked a Celeron 420 1.6GHz and it came out slightly ahead of an Athlon XP 3200+ (2.2GHz). As the Athlon was faster at most things than a 3GHz P4 then your list of CPUs should start at the Celly 420. As I mentioned earlier, the dual core Atom might even give the P4 a run for it's money. I've been tempted by this for a while now: http://www.ascent.co.nz/productspeci...ItemID=8114843 It's something silly like 2W for the CPU, it doesn't even need a fan. The northbridge has a higher TDP than the CPU. I have a friend who bought one and a single core benchmark comes out at about the same as a Tualatin Celly 1.4GHz, so double that. Would make an awesomely efficient email / newsgroups / web browsing / torrenting...... machine. He says that even the integrated graphics are more than adequate for all 2D stuff he's thrown at it on a 22" LCD. Running XP Pro, a single 2GB stick of RAM that cost $50... I still want one. It'd do 90% or what I use my machine for at about 10% of the power consumption. Sorry, a better link: http://www.mini-box.com/Intel-D945GC...TX-Motherboard The fan is actually on the northbridge, the CPU is the thing under the passive heatsink next to it. -- Shaun. DISCLAIMER: If you find a posting or message from me offensive, inappropriate, or disruptive, please ignore it. If you don't know how to ignore a posting, complain to me and I will be only too happy to demonstrate... ;-) |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
fan replacement | lamba | Nvidia Videocards | 13 | August 21st 07 11:38 PM |
HP 5L Replacement ? | Howard R. Silverstein | Printers | 4 | April 9th 05 08:36 PM |
Replacement HSF | Mal | Overclocking AMD Processors | 4 | October 4th 04 12:30 AM |
Fan replacement | Mike Ruskai | Ati Videocards | 1 | August 14th 04 04:40 PM |
Fan replacement | hunter | Dell Computers | 0 | April 29th 04 05:00 PM |