I am considering an Intel CPU *gasp*

[Overclocker550]

p4s are only good cause some of em OC like mad. I would need to OC the p4 50% or its a waste of my money

 

[Silversinksam]

p4s are only good cause some of em OC like mad. I would need to OC the p4 50% or its a waste of my money

Even though were m8's I think your last statement was a bit well....crazy

But to each thier own, I am an Intel guy and thats my preference, but that doesn't make me right nor wrong

 

[micamica1217]

Even though were m8's I think your last statement was a bit well....crazy

But to each thier own, I am an Intel guy and thats my preference, but that doesn't make me right nor wrong

what is so wrong with wanting a 50% OC????

I feal that he should have the right to want anything that is well within reason for his money.

then again, I could have missed something.

I know that I truly wanted a 50% OC from the crappy 1.8a that I just sold. I hated that cpu so much, that I ebayed it...I could never sell that POS to anyone here.

yet I'm happy with the cpu that I have now....only a 25% OC.
go figure.

mica

 

[Silversinksam]

what is so wrong with wanting a 50% OC????

Absolutely nothing my point is that there is a difference between 'wanting' and saying it must OC 50% or its a waste of money.

Just an example, my 2.26bo will do 3.09, using the 'it must' overclock 50% theory would mean I'd have to hit 3.39

Its very rare to find a 2.26bo that will hit 3.39 (average in the database for a 2.26bo is 2858 Mhz, highest is 3289mhz) its not a waste of money as I see it. Does that make me right or wrong? who knows Im just making a point

 

[micamica1217]

Absolutely nothing my point is that there is a difference between 'wanting' and saying it must OC 50% or its a waste of money.

Just an example, my 2.26bo will do 3.09, using the 'it must' overclock 50% theory would mean I'd have to hit 3.39

Its very rare to find a 2.26bo that will hit 3.39, sure some will, but most won't (average in the database for a 2.26bo is 2858 Mhz) its not a waste of money as I see it. Does that make me right or wrong? who knows Im just making a point

not to nit pick, but, I thought he said...

I would need to OC the p4 50% or its a waste of my money

this sounds like the 50% OC is what "he" needs....

I too do not have a 50% OC....and I'm very happy.

mica

 

[Silversinksam]

not to nit pick, but, I thought he said...



this sounds like the 50% OC is what "he" needs....

I too do not have a 50% OC....and I'm very happy.

mica

I'm happy too even though I'm not at 50%, what he 'needs' is a c1 1.8 to be happy it sounds like

 

[Burning Phoenix]

Well i guess according to the 50% overclock idea the AMD chips are even worse waste of money.

 

[lutjens]

Looks like I'm late to this discussion, but here's my $0.02...

Both companies speed bin CPUs (clock high speed chips as lower speed chips to satisfy demand for the lower speed chips). While AMD has had some good overclockers, Intel has the edge in this category, as refinements to the CPU's design are incorporated across the product line right away. An inprovement in the P4 would be valid for the Xeon and Celeron as well (for the most part). Also, due to Intel's cooler running chips, overclocking is easier as opposed to the high power consumption Athlons. AMD seems to have to introduce a new stepping for each new step forward in clock speed.

Intel is almost always first to move to a new process and is able to gain experience with the new process and refine it before AMD. Thus, their chips on a certain process will overclock better than AMD's chips on the same process. An example of this is the Thoroughbred A vs the Northwood. No contest as to who is the better overclocker. Thoroughbred B is better (as AMD gains experience with 0.13), but still can't hold a candle to the Northwood OCwise. By the time AMD has figured out what they are doing on the 0.13 process, Intel will have moved to 0.09 and the whole cycle repeats again...

My $0.02...

 

[ol' man]

Looks like I'm late to this discussion, but here's my $0.02...

Both companies speed bin CPUs (clock high speed chips as lower speed chips to satisfy demand for the lower speed chips). While AMD has had some good overclockers, Intel has the edge in this category, as refinements to the CPU's design are incorporated across the product line right away. An inprovement in the P4 would be valid for the Xeon and Celeron as well (for the most part). Also, due to Intel's cooler running chips, overclocking is easier as opposed to the high power consumption Athlons. AMD seems to have to introduce a new stepping for each new step forward in clock speed.

Intel is almost always first to move to a new process and is able to gain experience with the new process and refine it before AMD. Thus, their chips on a certain process will overclock better than AMD's chips on the same process. An example of this is the Thoroughbred A vs the Northwood. No contest as to who is the better overclocker. Thoroughbred B is better (as AMD gains experience with 0.13), but still can't hold a candle to the Northwood OCwise. By the time AMD has figured out what they are doing on the 0.13 process, Intel will have moved to 0.09 and the whole cycle repeats again...

My $0.02...

Intel should not have held out for copper interconnects though. The tbird left them in the dust cause of that for awhile.

 

[lutjens]

True enough. But it's likely that the delay in Intel adopting copper interconnects had some basis in Intel's validation of the reliability of the copper interconnect itself.

They wouldn't release it without knowing that they were 100% reliable. What really gets me is the infamous P3-1.13. How that ever got released is beyond me. Probably marketing pushing it out before it was ready...

 

[Overclocker550]

Ok guys lets do the math. I refer to pricewatch for the lowest prices:

1. (SOCKET 478) Pentium® 4 2.0GHz NORTHWOOD P4 - 400MHz FSB - 512K $147
2. Pentium® 4 Northwood A - 512K Cache - Socket 478 - 1.8GHz (1800MHz) $122

athlons:

1. ONLINE ORDER ONLY -
Athlon XP 1700 Palomino 1.47GHz 3D NOW! (Socket-A) 266FSB Processor - CPU $51.30
2. ONLINE ORDER ONLY -
Athlon XP 2100 Palomino 1.73GHz 3D NOW! (Socket-A) 266FSB Processor - CPU $85.24

Ok lets put overclocking aside.

I can get a 2100+ athlon for $85.24
a 1.8GHz northwood is $122! without overclocking, the Athlon wins heads down! If I OC the 1.8 to 2.4 a 33% OC its maybe 10% faster than the 2100+ athlon, but costs 43% more! I did byt a 550MHz celeron back in the days because the cheapest athlon was like $200 for the 500MHz and the 450MHz p2 was like $200 also. The k6-2 were cheap but sucked at games, so it was logical. but the tables have turned to AMD. I may just get an Athlon in a few months unless Intel lowers their prices. $122 is expensive, even as good OC as it may be, I dont need 2.7GHz and the hassle of trying to OC and using expensive RDRAM and an expensive Intel mobo no wonder why I like amd

 

[micamica1217]

Ok guys lets do the math. I refer to pricewatch for the lowest prices:

1. (SOCKET 478) Pentium® 4 2.0GHz NORTHWOOD P4 - 400MHz FSB - 512K $147
2. Pentium® 4 Northwood A - 512K Cache - Socket 478 - 1.8GHz (1800MHz) $122

athlons:

1. ONLINE ORDER ONLY -
Athlon XP 1700 Palomino 1.47GHz 3D NOW! (Socket-A) 266FSB Processor - CPU $51.30
2. ONLINE ORDER ONLY -
Athlon XP 2100 Palomino 1.73GHz 3D NOW! (Socket-A) 266FSB Processor - CPU $85.24

Ok lets put overclocking aside.

I can get a 2100+ athlon for $85.24
a 1.8GHz northwood is $122! without overclocking, the Athlon wins heads down! If I OC the 1.8 to 2.4 a 33% OC its maybe 10% faster than the 2100+ athlon, but costs 43% more! I did byt a 550MHz celeron back in the days because the cheapest athlon was like $200 for the 500MHz and the 450MHz p2 was like $200 also. The k6-2 were cheap but sucked at games, so it was logical. but the tables have turned to AMD. I may just get an Athlon in a few months unless Intel lowers their prices. $122 is expensive, even as good OC as it may be, I dont need 2.7GHz and the hassle of trying to OC and using expensive RDRAM and an expensive Intel mobo no wonder why I like amd

Oh boy, were do I begin.....

first your statments over the past few days has changed so many times, I just don't know what you are looking for.

it is no wonder that by now it is going to get harder to understand "what" you want.

just yesterday you "needed" a 50% OC or it would not be worth it.
now you do not need 2.7ghz from a 1.8a, and a 2.4ghz is all that you would do (yeah, like you would not run that cpu at 3.0ghz if you could.) .

I do not understand you comments on rdram or the price of intel mobos.
pc800 rdram OCs great, is cheaper then xms3200 and is far easyer to OC then DDR.

at this time I do not see why you would not go DDR anyway.
if you realy look at newegg or googlegear, you will see that intel mobos cost about the same as a comparable amd mobos.
thies DDR mobos use the same memory, so price is not a concern.

now onto the cpu's.....

yes it costs more for the 1.8a, yet just what do you think you could get with the amd chip you have picked???

do you realy think that once you OC that 2100+ you could match a OCed 1.8a????

you do realise that once you lower the multiplyer in order to rise the FSB you loose a lot of the benifits of the amd chip.(although it does get faster)

maybe what you realy need is to see the real performance of an OCed P4.
may I sugjest you look at the fastest seti times here at OC.com,
also look at the fastest scores of 3dmark2k1, and pcmark2002.

could you tell me where are the AMD chips in the rankings of the above tests???

I as well as others have posted scores for UT2K3, Comanchie 4 demo, Q3A, as well as other games.

I could go into other reasons that would justify intels higher price, yet they are already listed in this post.

if you ask me, AMD chips are great...and at the default speed they hold up to a Intel chip at about the same default speed.

yet once you OC it, everything changes.....I could give you a long list, yet I think that most of the replys are again listed somewere in this post.

don't listen to the AMD hype....get informed.

mica

 

[Overclocker550]

1.8GHz at 3GHz is not realistic, very slim odds. I said 2.4GHz since this is a 60% chance. at 2.7GHz thats like 20% chance. sure it could happen but its a gamble and if I lose I pay more for less. I could play it safe on an athlon 2100+ or gamble on a P4 1.8GHz and hope I get lucky. If I get it to 2400MHz I still lose cause its only 10% faster than a 2100+ and I pay hundreds more. If I use ddr on a p4, then I lose another 15% performance! P4s are only fast if lucky overclocking. Maybe ill buy one already overclocked to 2.7GHz that someone isnt happy with for cheap and he can buy another cpu and try again

 

[micamica1217]

1.8GHz at 3GHz is not realistic, very slim odds. I said 2.4GHz since this is a 60% chance. at 2.7GHz thats like 20% chance. sure it could happen but its a gamble and if I lose I pay more for less. I could play it safe on an athlon 2100+ or gamble on a P4 1.8GHz and hope I get lucky. If I get it to 2400MHz I still lose cause its only 10% faster than a 2100+ and I pay hundreds more. If I use ddr on a p4, then I lose another 15% performance! P4s are only fast if lucky overclocking. Maybe ill buy one already overclocked to 2.7GHz that someone isnt happy with for cheap and he can buy another cpu and try again

ware do you get your numbers from???

I would say you have a 95% chance of hitting 2.4ghz and about 50 to 60% chance of hitting 2.7ghz with a B0 stepping....maybe higher, but there have been a few duds lately.

you have about 90% chance of hitting 2.7ghz with a retail C1 stepping.

you most sertanly do not loose 15% when using DDR, unless you can't hit 133fsb. something I just don't see hapening.

forget sandra....look at the other benchies....
DDR can keep up with RDRAM....Oh, I remember the day when I used to say the reverse.

also, please tell me what tests show that the 1.8a, OCed to 2.4ghz is only 10% faster then the xp2100+.

I think you are still listening to the hype.

just a thought....you could get a 2.0ghz celly. they seem to do 3.0ghz easy. not as fast as a P4, yet cheap.
I still would go with a 1.8a C1....2.7ghz easy, and a good chance for more.
by the time you are ready, DCDDR will be cheap.
oh my, now how is AMD going to keep up then????

if you think that anything I or anyone else said is too good to be true, show us what you know that we don't.

mica

 

[lutjens]

I'm forced to agree with Mica.

The added benefit of buying an Intel CPU is Intel quality. They are among the most reliable CPU's on Earth. The first time you screw up putting a heatsink on an Athlon or lose the fan on your heatsink, whatever you save by going AMD you lose, since your chip is dead.

A P4 shrugs such an event off. No need for fancy motherboard CPU protection, the CPU does it automatically independently of the motherboard.

Also, VIA, NVidia and SiS chipsets, while perhaps capable, just aren't in the same league as an Intel chipset. You do get what you pay for and if you pay the little extra for an Intel CPU and an Intel chipset, you are buying a better product that is fast, reliable and proven.

Enough said...

 

[sunnydale45402]

Intel all the way it isnt always the speed of the chip it is reliablity too!

 

[micamica1217]

OC550,

I have to also agree with what lutjens said.

infact, I thought that I already spoke about the intel chipsets.

looking at your siggy...I see that you have tryed alot of intel chipsets.
well, let me say that you have no idea what you might be getting into with the 4in1 drivers from via. sometimes they are great, sometimes not.
and sometimes they flat out stink.

I know, i've used them for both intel and amd and I'm glad I'm back with intel chipsets.

again, intel chip mobos are no more money then an amd via or nforce2 mobo.

if money is real tight, then maybe going AMD is better for you.
yet if you are a die hard OCer, then you almost can't loose with intel.

just a word about OCing an AMD....

get plenty of screaming delta fans to put on and in your case...
a good set of ear plugs might help too.
my friend lives in coney island, yet you would think that his computer room is right by JFK airport....yes, his OCed AMD rig is that loud.

mica

 

[PhobMX]

OC550,

I have to also agree with what lutjens said.

infact, I thought that I already spoke about the intel chipsets.

looking at your siggy...I see that you have tryed alot of intel chipsets.
well, let me say that you have no idea what you might be getting into with the 4in1 drivers from via. sometimes they are great, sometimes not.
and sometimes they flat out stink.

I know, i've used them for both intel and amd and I'm glad I'm back with intel chipsets.

again, intel chip mobos are no more money then an amd via or nforce2 mobo.

if money is real tight, then maybe going AMD is better for you.
yet if you are a die hard OCer, then you almost can't loose with intel.

just a word about OCing an AMD....

get plenty of screaming delta fans to put on and in your case...
a good set of ear plugs might help too.
my friend lives in coney island, yet you would think that his computer room is right by JFK airport....yes, his OCed AMD rig is that loud.

mica

you are right, but there can be silent and well oced comps like mine... its in my living room and it does a little whoose, still has a gr8 oc... 1.8ghz is hard to get with athlonxp 1600 and i can push it even more, just wait till i get my corsair and unlock the chip..

 

[micamica1217]

you are right, but there can be silent and well oced comps like mine... its in my living room and it does a little whoose, still has a gr8 oc... 1.8ghz is hard to get with athlonxp 1600 and i can push it even more, just wait till i get my corsair and unlock the chip..

looking good.

I have to say that maybe in the summer you might have to fight heat....

yet here in the winter my friends and I have to fight room temps around 24C-26C.

we get a lot of heat here in New York, and we all like lower temps then normal.

good luck with getting your cpu higher, you sound like your doing great.

mica

 

[PhobMX]

looking good.

I have to say that maybe in the summer you might have to fight heat....

yet here in the winter my friends and I have to fight room temps around 24C-26C.

we get a lot of heat here in New York, and we all like lower temps then normal.

good luck with getting your cpu higher, you sound like your doing great.

mica

hehehe, also note all the stuff was for around $700... luck of the draw i guess, i got this chip before newegg started to specificaly sell agoia steppings

I'm also good with high tems, as long as full load wont be higher than 55º (good ol hot tems here in mex) im ok, heck im going to use this chip for only 3 years, not 8...