• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

P3 vs. P4

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.

funnyperson1

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2001
The same way in that the Athlon beats the P4, the PIII does more work per clock, so when PIIIs get higher clocks speeds they beat the crap out of P4s clocked similarly...for example the cpu in my sig could outclass a P41.7-1.8 easily...
 

Cooler666

Disabled
Joined
Jan 30, 2002
with that kind of thinking i would get a AMD, but don't. The Intel Pentium 3 celeron has 4 times less Cache than a Pentium 4 Northwood 1.8 and the Northwoods can be overclocked by at least 400mhz-600mhz easily.
 

funnyperson1

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2001
bang for the buck i would recommend a Tualatin celeron which has 256 cache and is basically a PIII and with the .13 micron manifacturing process overclocks like crazy.....Cpu should cost you 70$ and mbo 80$ and in the end would perform like a P4 1.9

but the P41.6A with 512cache is also extremely good it is also .13 micrn....after ocing it should perform like an Athlon 2000+/or a Celeron Tualatin clocked at 1.6-1.7.....cpu costs aroun 140$ and mob around 130$.....

depends on how much you want to spend.....
 

funnyperson1

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2001
Cooler666 said:
with that kind of thinking i would get a AMD, but don't. The Intel Pentium 3 celeron has 4 times less Cache than a Pentium 4 Northwood 1.8 and the Northwoods can be overclocked by at least 400mhz-600mhz easily. so much for your biased comparisons.

no the Celeron Tualatins have 256cache....go to the debates section and check the "intel sucks" thread on the last page i posted my benchies....
 
OP
Black Hawk

Black Hawk

Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2002
Location
The Petrochemical and Oil Refinery state.
funnyperson1 said:
bang for the buck i would recommend a Tualatin celeron which has 256 cache and is basically a PIII and with the .13 micron manifacturing process overclocks like crazy.....Cpu should cost you 70$ and mbo 80$ and in the end would perform like a P4 1.9

but the P41.6A with 512cache is also extremely good it is also .13 micrn....after ocing it should perform like an Athlon 2000+/or a Celeron Tualatin clocked at 1.6-1.7.....cpu costs aroun 140$ and mob around 130$.....

depends on how much you want to spend.....


Well, I'm just looking at performance ATM, if that helps you with a recommendation.
 

funnyperson1

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2001
Black Hawk said:



Well, I'm just looking at performance ATM, if that helps you with a recommendation.

ok then a P4 1.6A oced to 2.2(about average for this chip with air) is really the best performance you can get for less than 160$.......paired with an ASUS P4T-533 and some 1066 RDRAM that system would be beastly.....

if you want to go all out get a Northwood2.0...but i dont suggest it because of price.....
 

funnyperson1

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2001
Re: Hm....

Black Hawk said:
Sounds good. But why not a 1.6A, Soyo Dragon Ultra, and 512MB of Kingmax 2700 RAM? Sound be about the same, since DDR only begins to bottle neck P4's around 2.4Ghz....

yeah but wouldnt you like to upgrade to a 4GHZ 133mhz bus P4 when it comes out?
 

funnyperson1

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2001
Re: Well, yeah...

Black Hawk said:
True. But I don't think the Mobo and RAM are out yet. If they are, do you know of a good place to buy them from?

(Note: One more post and I hit 250...... I'm so happy!)

hmm...my bad then...look for an RDRAM board with a 1/4 divider or better and new Samsung ram because i believe they have been retooling for 1066 ram if i am wrong please correct me.....
 

funnyperson1

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2001
Re: Heh...

Black Hawk said:
Well, I certainly wouldn't know if your wrong, but I'll look into it. Just one thing: If P3's beat P4's, why are you suggesting a P4? :D


Edit: Just one more post......

they beat P4s clock/clock.....not overall..the fastest P4 is faster than the fastest PIII....wait...are just trying to spam;)
 

funnyperson1

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2001
Re: Well

Black Hawk said:
Oh Okay. And if you are referring to me, I'm not trying to spam. Anyhow, P4-T, 1.6A, 2x256MB Samsung PC 800 sound good?


Edit: WOOT! 4 STARS!!!!!!!!!:D :cool: :) :p

i know im just messing with you...:)....yeah sounds good to me...just try to make sure it newer Samsung....
 

vlovich

Registered
Joined
Dec 13, 2001
You are very corerct when you say that P3 is better clock per clock (maybe even a bit more) but to get the same results you have to o'c the system which could cause instability. Even if it is stable, you have to buy good thermal paste, a good fan, and a decent mobo that is stable and supports the higher bus speeds. Then you need to buy ram that will be stable at the high speed, video cards that can handle the higher agp bus, sound cards, modem and other expansion cards that can handle the higher pci bus. Then, if you even manage to get the Celeron Tuatalin to even a 133 bus (some people manage to get to 140 max) or a P3 Tuatalin up to approximately 160 (if it gets that high) you won't get nearly the same performance as with a P4. The reason is that the P3's use sdram while the P4's use ddr sdram/rdram. Furthermore, the p4's use something like a quad-pipelined architecture so the effective bus speed is approximately 400. The actual processor on a p3 system might be better, but the memory subsystem on a p4 is way superior. Furthermore, the p3's probably won't go any higher than they are right now (1.4) as Intel probably doesn't like the competetion the p3 could give the p4. Also, the p4 can get much higher clock speeds than the p3 so the clock per clock argument is useless because the newer p4's will blow the p3's out of the water. The only reason AMD could make that argument is becuase the Athlon XP not only is better clock per clock but can also outperform those processors that are 200-400+ mhz faster than them. The p3's can't make that claim. AMD also has support for 3dnow, 3dnow!, mmx, sse, and i'm not sure but possibly mmx+. Back to the p3/celeron, the series is coming to an end and the same with p3/celeron upgradability. Go with the p4; at least then you could upgrade to faster and faster processors. However, if you are intent on getting a pentium 3 or celeron, go with the pentium 3; less overclockability but more performance. Or better yet, go with the Athlon XP (no offence intel fans; somewhat one myself but hope the underdog comes through)
 

batboy

Senior Moment
Joined
Jan 12, 2001
Location
Kansas, USA
Vlovich makes some good valid points. Also, some of this misinformation about P-III and Athlon CPUs beating up the P-4 in benchmarks stems from comparing them against the older Willamette P-4's, which was an embarassment to even most hardcore Intel fans. Look back at my posts from last summer and you'll see that I discouraged people from buying those early versions of P-4 because they sucked. It was true a few months ago that P-III's and Athlons were beating up the Willamettes. Now that the P-4 Northwood has arrived, it's a whole different ballgame. They are truly the performance king right now, but they're not exactly cheap.
 

vlovich

Registered
Joined
Dec 13, 2001
When i said the athlon beat up the p4, i meant the northwood as well. If you look at the 2.0+ northwood benchmarks compared to the athlon xp 2000+ and up benchmarks, the xp beats the 2.0 in almost every single benchmark and gets close to the 2.1 p4. However, haven't seen it compared to the 2.2. Also haven't seen the 2100+ benchmarks. But if you look at the amd tech specs, the athlon xp performs 9 operations per clock cycle while the the p4 (if amd is to be trusted) does only 6. That means the athlon xp is 50% more efficient than the p4. Go to http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_756_3734^3759,00.html for more details (i think the p4 info is correct but if you are paranoid and distrust them because they are the competition i want to see you find the same comparisons on the intel site). Another interesting thing is that when amd talks about benchmarks they compare their top-off the line processors to intel's top of the line. When intel compares benchmarks, they compare their top-of the line processor to slower intel processors to try and show how much better the new one is. This says to me any number of things
1. AMD is fighting a mhz don't matter battle with Intel
2. Intel doesn't take AMD as a serious competitor in desktop processors or
3. Intel is afraid of comparing their processors to AMD
 
OP
Black Hawk

Black Hawk

Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2002
Location
The Petrochemical and Oil Refinery state.
Well...

I really don't care which chip beats which. They each have certain advantages/disadvantages. I just really chose intel because I like the motherboards for Intel. The other thing is that I could run EQ on an Intel 200MHZ w/ 6MB EDO ram, and not have a single problem (besides shoddy graphics and exruciating loading times, both really have to do with having an original 3DFX card and a 28.8K connection...). I don't believe that AMD could pull it off.

So, I'll stick with what works, since it will definetly be better than 333MHZ.