3.0E 1MB cache really worth it?

rive22

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 10, 2004
Messages
4,646
Ok, so I just noticed on newegg a 3.0E is only 20 bucks more than a 3.0C. Does the 1MB cache really make that much of a difference you guys think? If so, in what kind of applications or how would I notice the difference?

Also, if it does really make that much of a difference. Which would give us better performance out of these two then;

P4 3.0C overclocked hopefully at least to 3.6 maybe higher.

OR

P4 3.0E not overclocked.

My tasks include, photoshop, premiere, media player, cakewalk project 5, WinRAR, DVD&CD ripping and burning, MS office, ect.. I also like to do everything at once. :) Oh yeah, and games too of course!

How much hotter do the Prescott's run? So what would give me better performance you guys think then? A 600Mhz. higher clock, or a cache size twice as large?

Is the heat the only reason why so many people aren't overclocking the E's as much?
 

embro

n00b
Joined
Mar 27, 2004
Messages
60
Get a C.
Yes there is a noticable difference between 512k and 1mb cache, but considering this:

1- the infamous heat "problem" (temps do drop a bit with a side panel fan aiming at cpu)
2- they draw more Amps so you might need a new power supply
 

Black Morty Rackham

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 8, 2004
Messages
4,728
The Prescott is great for ripping and such... encoding... yadda yadda. However, an overclocked 3.0C (~3.4-3.8GHz?) will outperform a stock 3.0E in just about EVERYTHING.
 

MontyAC

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 6, 2003
Messages
3,186
Definitely an overclocked 3.0C will out perform a stock 3.0E and with less heat.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
60,422
The extra cache ram is probably to make up for the performance hit the Prescott core takes for having a 31 stage pipeline as opposed to a 20 stage pipeline like the Northwoods have.
 

i3lacKnyte

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2003
Messages
434
Originally posted by mewannafastpc
check sig...:D

which compliments you name perfectly as well.

anyway rive it looks like you arent somebody that upgrades every 6 months. the SSE3 of the prescott might help improve the lifespan of a new computer, as well as the advanced hyperthreading especiailly s ince you do a lot of graphics and audio/ video work. some newer stepping prescotts seem to be running cooler but realistically a faster northwood would probably kick its ass.
 

BillLeeLee

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 2, 2003
Messages
13,486
1 MB cache would help if the Prescott were fast enough to take advantage of the longer pipeline.

Right now, the cache is useful for helping it keep up with the Northwood. Notice I say keep up.

Northwood is the way to go this time around.
 
Joined
Sep 27, 2003
Messages
768
Originally posted by i3lacKnyte
which compliments you name perfectly as well.

anyway rive it looks like you arent somebody that upgrades every 6 months. the SSE3 of the prescott might help improve the lifespan of a new computer, as well as the advanced hyperthreading especiailly s ince you do a lot of graphics and audio/ video work. some newer stepping prescotts seem to be running cooler but realistically a faster northwood would probably kick its ass.

y thank you ;)
 

xonik

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 20, 2001
Messages
10,318
Originally posted by Black Morty Rackham
The Prescott is great for ripping and such... encoding... yadda yadda. However, an overclocked 3.0C (~3.4-3.8GHz?) will outperform a stock 3.0E in just about EVERYTHING.
That's giving the Prescott a lot more credit than it deserves. I've never seen a benchmark where a Prescott at x GHz performs more than 5% better than an x GHz Northwood. Rarely do I see the Prescott holding more than a 3% lead over the Northwood.

Meanwhile, it is drawing more current and expelling more heat, contributing to instability and lowering the operating lives of components in the vicinity (power supply, motherboard, CPU fan).
 
Top