Author Topic: 800mhz FSB? (Read 1506 times)

Grits · « **on:** January 08, 2004, 04:01:04 PM »

While I'm upgrading should I get an 800mhz MB to go with the P4 or is it worth the difference in AH? Its only another $75.

zmeg · « **Reply #1 on:** January 08, 2004, 05:23:09 PM »

A P4 without the 800Mhz fsb is a joke, if cost is a problem you should think about the AMD route.

Grits · « **Reply #2 on:** January 08, 2004, 05:38:58 PM »

Nope, cost is not a problem. I'd pay more than $75 I just wanted to make sure it was worthwhile and I was not spending money where it was not going to help.

mrblack · « **Reply #3 on:** January 08, 2004, 05:56:05 PM »

I have 2 P4 systems.
Both 2.4 CPUs
One overclocked to 3.6 at 1200FSB
The other overclocked to 3.0 at 1000 FSB.

I enjoy them both and have had no issues with either.

I think you can get the P4 2.4 at http://www.newegg.com
For about 160.00
And a nice Asus p4p800 MoBo for about 100.00

Thats the setup i have in my air cooled machine.
And It works flawless !

Grits · « **Reply #4 on:** January 08, 2004, 10:23:09 PM »

Yep, thats exactly the setup I was looking at, good to hear you are having good results with it.

singh7 · « **Reply #5 on:** January 08, 2004, 11:07:52 PM »

P4 2.8 800MHz FSB or AMD 64 3000+ - best bang for buck

ChasR · « **Reply #6 on:** January 09, 2004, 09:17:13 AM »

Tom's Hardware has an in depth comparison of processors this month. If you're going Intel you simply must have the 800MHz FSB. The P4 2.8 on the 800MHz bus is faster than the P4 3.06 on the 533MHz bus in almost every benchmark.
The P4c 3.0 system below scores 20421 on 3Dmark2001 and 6456 on 3Dmark2003. The overclocked Athlon 64 3400+ in the Tom's review scored 19,768 and 6202 respectively. I just installed the Corsair Hyrdocool last night so the scores are on air cooling. I'm shooting for 3.75GHz on a 1000MHz FSB which I couldn't get on air. The 2.8 and slower processors are better candidates for overclocking because of their lower multipliers (a 2.8 on a 1000MHz FSB runs @ 3.5GHz(250x14)) which can easily be handled by a good cpu heat sink/fan.
None of the overclocking I've done makes any difference in AH. The fps = monitor refresh rate 100% of the time whether overclocked or not. Might make a difference in AH2.
If I were building a dream machine today I'd change one component in the list below, the motherboard. The ASUS P4C800-E Deluxe would be my choice.

bloom25 · « **Reply #7 on:** January 09, 2004, 01:04:37 PM »

What review did you read ChasR?

Edit: You were benchmarking your system. The problem is that you are using a Radeon card and Tom's used a GeForce FX 5900. Directly comparing those results are like apples to oranges. You definately have a very fast system though.

Hardocp tested with a Radeon 9800 XT: http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc1LDQ= if you wanted to get some idea of the Athlon 64 paired with Radeon 9800 Xt.

In that Tom's Hardware article the Athlon 64 3400+ scored 18582 in 3dMark2001SE (overclocked 19768), the Pentium 4 3.2 GHz scored 17115, the 3.0C scored 16837. (http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040106/athlon64_3400-10.html)

In 3dMark 2003 the Athlon 64 3400+ scored 6087 and the P4 3.2C scored 6312. (http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040106/athlon64_3400-15.html) (Which other than Aquamark and Quake 3 was the only test in which the P4 beat the Athlon 64 in gaming.)

Also, Tom's Hardware is still testing with a GeForce FX 5900 Ultra and using older drivers, unlike everywhere else using a Radeon 9800 XT. The tests with the Radeon 9800 XT show a greater lead for the Athlon 64. Look at Anandtech for example: http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1941

This isn't saying the P4 is a poor performer compared to the Athlon 64, on the contrary it does very well in media encoding tasks. However, if there was one main strength of the Athlon 64 though, it would be gaming.

BB Gun · « **Reply #8 on:** January 09, 2004, 01:27:54 PM »

HardOCP has a decent article comparing athlonXP, Athlon64, and P4 all at or above 3 GHz (or in AMD's case 3000+ and above).

Worth a read.

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc1

BB

ChasR · « **Reply #9 on:** January 09, 2004, 01:55:55 PM »

Bloom,
I wouldn't disagree with you. The Athlon 64 bit processors are the top gaming CPUs. But, if you like to tinker around with your computer, you can get Athlon 64 class performance with a relatively inexpensive P4. Of course your computer may sound like a vacuum cleaner, as mine did, until I installed the Hydrocool unit last night.
I didn't think my comparison was completely unfair or apples and oranges because for whatever reason the nVidia cards seem to do quite a bit better on synthetic benchmarks than game benchmarks. There is not much difference for instance in the 9800 pro (44138) and the 5900 Ultra (43082) on the Aquamark 3 triscore even though the 9800pro blows the 5900 U out of the water on the gaming benchmarks. As I recall from the futuremark archives, the same holds true on 3Dmark2003.

Disclousure;
25% of my IRA is invested in Intel stock. But I built a couple of AMD Athlon XP 2500+ boxes for use at my office.

bloom25 · « **Reply #10 on:** January 09, 2004, 02:47:59 PM »

I build a lot of both Intel and AMD systems. I definately have to say that a 2.4 C P4 on an Asus P4P800-Deluxe is a very nice and very overclockable setup.

As for nVidia, they have been caught cheating on 3dMark 2001 and 2003 in the past. ATI cards also lost a bit of performance beyond what would be expected in the last 3dMark 2003 patch. So, I don't really hold much faith in synthetic benchmarks as a fair graphics card comparison anymore.

In actual games, the ATI Radeons tend to beat the GeForce FX series cards in Direct X 9 games by a decisive amount. In Direct X 8 games the Radeon is still a bit faster than the FX (except for AH 2 beta, which seems to have a problem with newer Radeons). In OpenGL games, the GeForce FX cards are faster.

mrblack · « **Reply #11 on:** January 09, 2004, 02:49:46 PM »

I kinda like the looks of that AMD 3400.
Looks like it might just be my next system build.
Bloom what would be the best MOBO for it?
Money not an issue.

ChasR · « **Reply #12 on:** January 09, 2004, 03:15:38 PM »

Tom's hadrware liked the K8T Neo from MSI.Tom's - Motherboards

singh7 · « **Reply #13 on:** January 10, 2004, 12:10:15 PM »

Just a quick question - why do Tom's Hardware Benchmark and Testing always favor Intel processors and why it is so different at other sites. I never know who to trust anymore when looking at benchmarks. WHen I buy now, I normally set my budget then close my eyes and press the purchase button :-)

ChasR · « **Reply #14 on:** January 10, 2004, 01:18:37 PM »

Based on reading the reviews refrenced in this thread, my guess would be that Tom's use of the nVidia 5900 U keeps the Intel processors in the hunt at the high end. Bloom referenced this earlier in the thread. When using the ATI 9800 XT the Athlon 64s have a substantial advantage over the P4. The video card must be the limiting factor in Tom's benchmarks. Choice of motherboard could have a slight influence on the results.