p4 cpus

by **LordShard** » Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:57 pm

Originally posted by Edogg
The extreme edition doesnt have a fsb advantage over the northwood. When the EE came out, the northwoods were already at 800mhz fsb. Also, the advantage of cpu cache is that it is a hell of a lot faster than system memory. Therefore the more data that is stored in cache, the faster the cpu can work on the data. Now the Northwoods have 512k l2 cache, while the EEs have 512k l2 + 2mb l3=2.5mb total cache. Less wait = higher frames per seconds

finally, cpu cache is expensive. Intel knew the EE was for gaming, believe me they wouldnt have included an extra 2mb of cache if it wasnt for better gaming performance. thats the reason why the EE's are so expensive. If the cache had nothing to do with better gaming perfomance, they would have left the 2mb cache out to keep production costs and retail prices down.

WHen gaming the processor will be accessing the same file for long periods of time and that file will most likely be many times larger than the total internal/external cache size. The rest of the system must also be able to access what the cpu has deteermind to be next and it streams that same file from ram to ram nonstop during that time. The main problem is that it is limited by system speed not by processor speed. Unless they have made a way that the whole system can now access the cpu's caches that I'm not aware about.

by **MMmmGood** » Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:59 pm

If you think HT or the EE chip was a marketing scheme to push the same product for more $$$ you have ALOT to learn.

There is a definite benefit with HT enabled using programs that take advantage of it or multitasking applications ( game servers for instance ).

The EE chip benchmarks as the fastest P4 out there, period.

As far as the E chip with 1MB L2 cache versus the C chip with 512k L2 cache, Intel even said dont expect a huge jump in performance, they admitted it.

The C chip and the E chip are both the same price by the way, in case you didnt notice. Hardly pushing the same product for more $$$

by **MMmmGood** » Fri Jun 25, 2004 2:00 pm

Originally posted by LordShard
WHen gaming the processor will be accessing the same file for long periods of time and that file will most likely be many times larger than the total internal/external cache size. The rest of the system must also be able to access what the cpu has deteermind to be next and it streams that same file from ram to ram nonstop during that time. The main problem is that it is limited by system speed not by processor speed. Unless they have made a way that the whole system can now access the cpu's caches that I'm not aware about.

This statement shows again that you have a lot to learn

by **RCinator** » Fri Jun 25, 2004 2:04 pm

Originally posted by MMmmGood
:lol:

If you think HT or the EE chip was a marketing scheme to push the same product for more $$$ you have ALOT to learn.

There is a definite benefit with HT enabled using programs that take advantage of it or multitasking applications ( game servers for instance ).

The EE chip benchmarks as the fastest P4 out there, period.

As far as the E chip with 1MB L2 cache versus the C chip with 512k L2 cache, Intel even said dont expect a huge jump in performance, they admitted it.

The C chip and the E chip are both the same price by the way, in case you didnt notice. Hardly pushing the same product for more $$$

Couldn't have said it more concisely Good . . . :beer:

by **LordShard** » Fri Jun 25, 2004 2:07 pm

Originally posted by MMmmGood
:lol:

If you think HT or the EE chip was a marketing scheme to push the same product for more $$$ you have ALOT to learn.

There is a definite benefit with HT enabled using programs that take advantage of it or multitasking applications ( game servers for instance ).

The EE chip benchmarks as the fastest P4 out there, period.

As far as the E chip with 1MB L2 cache versus the C chip with 512k L2 cache, Intel even said dont expect a huge jump in performance, they admitted it.

The C chip and the E chip are both the same price by the way, in case you didnt notice. Hardly pushing the same product for more $$$

I'm trying to say it doesn't help with games. Most people will have all other programs closed when they game so only services will be running. I already said in office apps and other such things it will help.

by **LordShard** » Fri Jun 25, 2004 2:09 pm

Originally posted by RCinator
Couldn't have said it more concisely Good . . .

I wouldn't trust intel with any information they furnish farther than I coiuld throw a stick. Intel is very good at marketing. Which is the main reason why they are still number one but soon or later there will be more people who know about then don't and intel will have to make a superior product instead of inferior.

by **RCinator** » Fri Jun 25, 2004 2:14 pm

Originally posted by LordShard

As to to hyper threading, if windows detects hyper threading is on during the install it installs extra drivers during the install to take advanatage of it. Unless your doing something made to take advantage of it or you multitask compatible programs it's 5-7% slower.

There are _no_ drivers installed or even needed to take advantage of HT. You can turn HT on and off in every HT-enabled system's BIOS without loading drivers. You do not need to do any installations if you're running a HT-disabled PC and then you decide to turn it on.

This link: http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20021227/hyperthreading-03.html is merely stating the obvious - that if you create a multi-threaded program, it can run faster on SMP systems. What you're missing is that Windows by _itself_ is SMP-enabled and can and will use both virtual processors on its own, with no modifications . . . _even with nothing running_! Windows is constantly processing in the background. Having an HT-enabled processor means you can run your game and, at the same time, windows can schedule threads to run on the second "processor" without blocking or rescheduling the execution of the game's thread. Thread reschduling is called "context switching" and is a very expensive operation in terms of clock cycles. HT enables windows to minimize contxt switching, thus resulting in the increase in performance.

by **LordShard** » Fri Jun 25, 2004 2:24 pm

Well it wouldn't be as bad if the p4 pipeline was shorter now would it? That is the real reason for HT is because the p4 pipeline is 20 stages which actually slows it down.

by **MMmmGood** » Fri Jun 25, 2004 2:31 pm

Originally posted by LordShard
Well it wouldn't be as bad if the p4 pipeline was shorter now would it? That is the real reason for HT is because the p4 pipeline is 20 stages which actually slows it down.

Ugh.

Just stay out of this thread please

by **LordShard** » Fri Jun 25, 2004 2:34 pm

Originally posted by MMmmGood
Ugh.

Just stay out of this thread please

You know I'm right.

Long pipeline=extra cycles it has to go through to set it up. Many of which won't be used.

by **CrazyBri** » Fri Jun 25, 2004 2:35 pm

I'd like to also add that with HT enabled my cpu temp goes from 44 C idle to 30 yay

A temperature monitoring glitch? I don't think so. I just think the cpu is a lot more efficient in HT mode. (although 14 C difference does seem extreme I admit)

by **LordShard** » Fri Jun 25, 2004 2:38 pm

Originally posted by CrazyBri
I'd like to also add that with HT enabled my cpu temp goes from 44 C idle to 30 yay

A temperature monitoring glitch? I don't think so. I just think the cpu is a lot more efficient in HT mode. (although 14 C difference does seem extreme I admit)

Lucky you. My duron heats up real bad when I play games. Makes the room it's in about 90 fairenheight. It's not over cloaked iether. It has a broken fan that needs fixing. (imbalanced because a couple fins came off) I'll get it fixed one of these days. :help:

by **Evan** » Fri Jun 25, 2004 2:39 pm

Originally posted by LordShard
Lucky you. My duron heats up real bad when I play games. Makes the room it's in about 90 fairenheight. It's not over cloaked iether. It has a broken fan that needs fixing. (imbalanced because a couple fins came off) I'll get it fixed one of these days.

Duron? Yuck.

by **Edogg** » Fri Jun 25, 2004 2:41 pm

Originally posted by LordShard
You know I'm right.
Long pipeline=extra cycles it has to go through to set it up. Many of which won't be used.

yes thats right, thats the main reason that prescotts are slower than northwoods. Intel extended the pipelines so they could ramp up the clock speeds. But that isnt what this debate was about.

The EE is targeted at gamers. The only difference between the EE and other p4s is its 2mb l3 cache. They have the same pipeline lengths, same fsb speeds, they use the same instruction set, same instructions per clock(IPC), and they use the same mobo chipsets. Because of the extra cache, the EE is Intels best gaming processor. Thats it. End of story. No more arguing.

by **LordShard** » Fri Jun 25, 2004 2:41 pm

Originally posted by Evan
Duron? Yuck.

Heh. It's cheaper than the equivilent celeron ( 1.6Ghz duron=2.2Ghz celeron?)
ANd it encodes better than a 2.1Ghz pentium 4 which I found interesting. It also gives me the option to upgrade to the fastest XP processors if I want/need to. (Come on. I mean $50 for a processor! Currently $32 on newegg.com I think)

It's been a great processor to bad they are renaming the new one.

p4 cpus

Who is online