Yo all, I was reading a couple of reviews on the prescott 2.8ghz pentium iv processor, and I read that the Prescott is 64bit for 64bit applications (no duh )? Is this true? Also, does it have Hyper Threading? I assume it does but I have not been able to find it in writing. Unless I didn't look well enough. Thanks!
No, Prescott does not have 64-bit capabilities. Will you see a desktop Intel processor with 64-bit? Yes, but Prescott is not it. Does it have HyperThreading? Yes.
Thanks. http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=2026&p=4 Where I read about 64bit capabilities. Maybe I misread it. Not questioning your answer, but could you explain that for me. Cheers.
Basically, the means to make 64-bit work are there, but it's not hooked up--something only Intel can do. The earliest you can expect to see the change is likely when the new i9xx chipsets hit with the LGA775 (Socket T). From the initial looks of it LGA775 has some problems with the pins breaking. FYI LGA775 takes the pins that are traditionally on the CPU packaging and puts them on the motherboard socket. The issue with this is the pins breaking after a few CPU installs. The CPU has contact pads instead of pins. With the Tejas core recently dropped by Intel (the successor to Prescott), LGA775 might not have a long lifespan.
BigB: why did they put the pins on the board ? what's the advantage compared to the "old" way ? I guess there must be a significant one if they did this, right ?
There is a reason, and I know kinda what it is, but not enough to where I can explain it. I think Anandtech has something on that. If not, I'm sure I'll run across it.
Something to do with temperature I'm pretty sure. I was told but I can't remember excatly. It makes more sense to have pins on the board as the mobo's heat is transfered up and away from the cpu as opposed to through it. If I remember, I'll post it, but I think it's partly to do with the temperature. Oh yeah, to save a new thread, my new pc: 2.8 hhz prescott, 512 pc3200 ddr400 kingston radeon 9800pro 128mb maxtor 200 gig hd. asus deluxe or something and the rest needed, all for under £700. I am having the less ram and non flagship gfx card (x800 etc) so it will be a beast for a while, then I can upgrade. What do you think?
The heat on the Prescott is pretty bad. While it does have a 1MB cache instead of the 512kB on the Northwood, the longer pipelines of the Prescott negate the effect the extra cache has on it. The 64-bit part of the CPU isn't enabled, and to get one, you'll have to buy one. In short, you're only getting a hotter CPU. The Deluxe versions of the Asus boards have more features, but, obviously cost more. If you're not going to be using them, then you're wasting your money. The P4P800 is the i865PE (Springdale) and the P4C800 is the i875P (Canterwood). Abit's IS7 series (Springdale) and IC7 (Canterwood) are also something to consider.
I heard about the extra heat, but the company that are building it (that i trust completely) assured me that the temperature could get to 90 degrees before i had to worry. he also said that it is 'blisteringly fast'. Plus if i'm not happy, i get a full refund/can exchange processsor/whatever. I'll post a benchmark or something.
But it's not any faster than the Northwood Pentium. Yes, it can hit 90 degrees before it stops working, but you don't want it getting close to that just to be safe. Kinda like, yes, you can drive your car with the tachometer in the red, but that doesn't mean you should keep it that way. Just because somethings new doesn't mean it's better.
You definitely know your stuff about everything pc ish, and I thank you for the all the advice, but I'm gonna try the prescott. If it turns my pc into a towering inferno, I guess you were right. It's like the time some one recommended me an AMD instead of a pentium. Sounded good, but two days later it crashed and I had to get it replaced. May have been a dodgy chip or what not, but I replaced it with a pentium, and no problems. It's all down to opinion in the end I guess. Thanks for all the advice
You might wanna give them a shot again. The chips themselves are fine, but AMD really doesn't put out chipsets for their stuff like Intel does. There were only Via, SiS, and ALi for AMD early on, and none really offered good chipsets. Via has had their share of problems, but they've come out and fixed it for the most part. SiS is getting there, but I'm not quite to the point where I'd use one. If you buy an Intel chip, don't settle for anything less than an Intel chipset...although SiS and Via have some really nice contenders, and ATi's Radeon 9100IGP is pretty slick.
Well I'd go XP here also though or maybe with a 2.4C but I don't think the prescott is a good choice. I really think you should put your money on the graphic card because they are really faster than the previous gen and I bet you will somewhat regret it in a couple of months. My idea here is to spend less on the cpu/mobo and more on the graphic card because the 9800 Pro will become an upper mid-range card compared to the X800 Pro. Also, nvidia might be a good choice here, I'm not sure though.
I'd wait on the graphics upgrade. You might find the Radeon 9600XT to be a solid pick if you're going to wait out for the X800. Unless you play with AA and AF tweaked out, then the 9600 will run anything out there at a nice resolution.
