Viewing Thread:
"P4 FSB query"

I'll soon be upgrading my system and I'm going for another P4. I am looking to get a 2.8Ghz processor but have come across two, one with a 800Mhz FSB and one with a 533Mhz FSB.

What I need to know is, apart from the cost and speed, what is the difference? What are the benefits of having an 800Mhz rather than a 533? Where does that extra speed get implemented?

I only ask as I need to know if it is worth it going for the 800 (an extra £82 between systems) - I'm not after all-out speed, just something quick and reliable. No overclocking goin' on, I suppose gaming will be my biggest need for power.

Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks

The fastest Pentium 4 runs hotter than the equivalent or faster (fastest) AMD.

Notorious Biggles wrote:
> adrian: it would have to be a high performance cooling system in an
> AMD system to get it to P4 heat levels. I run FAD and it means my CPU
> is always at 100% utilisation. At that sort of use AMDs normally run
> at 50-55 and in some cases have been known to hit 70+. P4s on the
> other hand under full load are only 45ish.

The Palmino or what ever there called are the ones that run hot. The Bartons and Thoroughbreads are cooler. Doesnt really matter that P4s are a bit cooler. In a hotter country then yes a P4 may be a better option but considering my XP2800 is normally under 43c in a warm room its well with in spec.

I remember seeing a P4 that was overclocked to over 3Ghz back when 2Ghz was the fastest, and it was cooled by liquid nitrogen and could operate at something like -28c :D

I'm not saying "AMD are better then P4" etc.

I was just implying that he may aswell go for an AMD chip for about £70 when the P4's are costing more then £100.

adrian wrote:
> Icarus wrote:
> One thing I'm sure of is that P4 chips are cooler. Their temps are
> around the 35 mark when under load, and AMD chips of similar speed
> is
> at 40 degrees.
>
> Well depends on the HSF used.

Same one.

Well seeing as no one has answered your question I will.

The difference between the chips is that the processor can communicate with the rest of the system faster when the FSB is faster. So it is a system wide performance boost. In theory, that could mean a 50% performance boost.

But it won't really. Very few things require such vast amounts of power that you would notice the difference in the time it takes for stuff reaching the processor from the memory.

If you are not overclocking or tinkering with the PC then there should be no difference in reliability.

If it were me, I would think that £82 of a difference is too much for the performance increase. And I would go with Gamezfreak, I would choose an AMD chip. But you've chosen a P4 and that is fine.

adrian: it would have to be a high performance cooling system in an AMD system to get it to P4 heat levels. I run FAD and it means my CPU is always at 100% utilisation. At that sort of use AMDs normally run at 50-55 and in some cases have been known to hit 70+. P4s on the other hand under full load are only 45ish.

Icarus wrote:
> One thing I'm sure of is that P4 chips are cooler. Their temps are
> around the 35 mark when under load, and AMD chips of similar speed is
> at 40 degrees.

Well depends on the HSF used.

One thing I'm sure of is that P4 chips are cooler. Their temps are around the 35 mark when under load, and AMD chips of similar speed is at 40 degrees.

gamezfreak wrote:
> Don't mean to spoil your thread but you could go for the cheaper AMD
> option.
>
> Seeing as your not too bothered about getting the highest speed - why
> spend money on a (rather expensive) P4?!

Well AMDs are also the fastest in resepects. A XP2800 Barton is comparable to a P4 2.8Ghz, its cheaper and is faster in some places. P4 and XPs arent too comparable in terms of speed as the AMD is a slower clock speed(2.08 Ghz to a 2.8Ghz P4) yet can be faster than the P4. As AMD_Man said its not the old AMD vs Intel.

Both chips are excellent and the AMD is a cheaper option but for gaming it probably is the better processor for most, yet some games run better on the P4. Take alot at reviews comparing the P4 and AMD chips and you'll see that AMD wins half the tests and P4 wins the other half. If you are buying a machine to encode MP3s, Videos etc then a P4 is better. A gaming machine may run slightly quicker with a AMD. For a home machine then either a AMD or a P4 will do.

Personnally i've chosen AMD for the last 2 machines i've built a 1.2 Ghz ages ago and the new XP2800 Barton. I have bought them as they are cheaper than the equivalent P4 and are just as fast and in certain aspects faster.

not the old AMD Vs INtel thing again, The bloke wants a P4, I like P4 chips as i find they seem to be more stable and better at multimedia apps, also for Converting dvd's to divx, It all depends what you do with the computer on wether you will notice any difference, but you should still see a increase in the performance on the 800mhz one.

colin

Don't mean to spoil your thread but you could go for the cheaper AMD option.

Seeing as your not too bothered about getting the highest speed - why spend money on a (rather expensive) P4?!