Pentium IV "E" ?

**daedal** · 01-13-2005, 03:06 PM

Ok, as I've mentioned in a few earlier posts, I'm looking to upgrade my Celeron to a P4 chip.

Now I'm looking at this one:
Intel Pentium IV E, 3ghz, 800 FSB (1MB) S478

Two questions: What does the "E" stand for? Is it good or bad? Is there better? Second, what is the 1mb? Is that the cache level? Thanks!

**LegendKiller** · 01-13-2005, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by daedal

Ok, as I've mentioned in a few earlier posts, I'm looking to upgrade my Celeron to a P4 chip.

Now I'm looking at this one:
Intel Pentium IV E, 3ghz, 800 FSB (1MB) S478

Two questions: What does the "E" stand for? Is it good or bad? Is there better? Second, what is the 1mb? Is that the cache level? Thanks!

Its a S478 "Prescott" core, which is superior to the "Northwood" or "C" core.

LK

**iLLWiLL** · 01-13-2005, 03:25 PM

dangit LegendKiller! With all the questions i've been asking about cpu's, i wanted to be the one to answer this question!!!

**Bires** · 01-13-2005, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by LegendKiller

"Prescott" core, which is superior to the "Northwood" or "C" core.

At 3GHz? I tend to dissaggree.

**iLLWiLL** · 01-13-2005, 03:55 PM

Originally Posted by Bires

At 3GHz? I tend to dissaggree.

oh yes it is a Prescott, my friend!

i just bought this one: http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_t...97#description

**daedal** · 01-13-2005, 04:47 PM

Cool, so is the Prescott the best Intel buy for that price?
What about the "Extreme Edition" I've been hearing about.

**AlpineJay** · 01-13-2005, 05:35 PM

Originally Posted by iLLWiLL

oh yes it is a Prescott, my friend!

i just bought this one: http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_t...97#description

I think he meant that Prescotts are not the superior core at 3GHz over the Northwood.

**daedal** · 01-13-2005, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by AlpineJay

I think he meant that Prescotts are not the superior core at 3GHz over the Northwood.

So, in lamen's [Sp?] terms..?

**iLLWiLL** · 01-13-2005, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by AlpineJay

I think he meant that Prescotts are not the superior core at 3GHz over the Northwood.

oh...sorry

i've shoulda known, Bires is one of the guys who helped me

daedal...check out the "Intel vs AMD" thread below, alot of my questions were answered there

**LegendKiller** · 01-13-2005, 06:53 PM

Heh, according to everything I have seen they trade off 1st place, but even then by only 1-2%. They definitely OC better.

**AlpineJay** · 01-13-2005, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by daedal

So, in lamen's [Sp?] terms..?

While I've always been under the impression that Prescotts are not as nice of a core speed-for-speed compared to Northwood (the only benefit as I gathered is that the Prescotts operate at a higher clock, but Northwood goes up to 3.2GHz I believe, as well as the availability of PCI-E on the higher end LGA775 Prescotts), apparently LK is saying that Prescotts overclock better. Otherwise I believe Northwood is a better core because it runs cooler which often is related to stability.

So if you wanna overclock, go Prescott (E), if not, then I would personally recommend Northwood (C), at the same clock speeds.

**LegendKiller** · 01-13-2005, 07:45 PM

Originally Posted by AlpineJay

While I've always been under the impression that Prescotts are not as nice of a core speed-for-speed compared to Northwood (the only benefit as I gathered is that the Prescotts operate at a higher clock, but Northwood goes up to 3.2GHz I believe, as well as the availability of PCI-E on the higher end LGA775 Prescotts), apparently LK is saying that Prescotts overclock better. Otherwise I believe Northwood is a better core because it runs cooler which often is related to stability.

So if you wanna overclock, go Prescott (E), if not, then I would personally recommend Northwood (C), at the same clock speeds.

Stability? Are you kidding me? Both of the proc's go out and perform the same way. THe temp may be a *bit* higher for Prescotts, but the difference is drastically overstated. The performance difference between the two swaps depending on the benchmark, some like higher cache, some like more efficient clocks. Overall it doesn't matter jack spit.

LK

**AlpineJay** · 01-13-2005, 09:11 PM

LK, I thought I read in THG that Prescotts run significantly hotter and results in unstable systems without proper cooling. But you're the man on that one and I'm gonna go with what you're saying there.

**LegendKiller** · 01-13-2005, 09:27 PM

Originally Posted by AlpineJay

LK, I thought I read in THG that Prescotts run significantly hotter and results in unstable systems without proper cooling. But you're the man on that one and I'm gonna go with what you're saying there.

There is some temp differences, I will certainly give you that. Its natural that if you keep the same temp + decrease surface area transferring that temp, the transferral will be less, thus increased core temps. Since you go from .13->.09u process, you get a smaller core.

However, I have yet to see any stability issues, that is, unless you have a small, unventilated box in 110 degree weather. I wonder if it was more of a case of THG overblowing things.

People lambasted Intel for creating a slower processor when they released the prescott. However, the performance differences were often less than 1%, well within the logical scientific error of benchmarking.

LK

**daedal** · 01-14-2005, 10:56 AM

Ok.. you guys totally lost me.
I'm not going to overclock the chip seeing as I have a ****ty motherboard, despite the overall cool running temperature in my case. I'm just too cowardly anyhow.