Conroe versus Prescot?

I

InorganicMatter

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 19, 2004
Messages
15,461
I want to see how much difference I will get going from my 3.2GHz Prescot to my Core 2 E6600. I'm sure it will be night and day, but are there any benchmarks that specifically compare these two?
 
i didnt know enthusiasts were still using preshotts. im guessing over 200% increase, prescotts suck.
 
viper650 said:
i didnt know enthusiasts were still using preshotts. im guessing over 200% increase, prescotts suck.
Click to expand...


That's such BS. Prescotts DO NOT suck. Is there better out there? Sure... but it's still a good processor. I ran a 660 prescott (3.6 2mb) in my main system for about a year and a half and was never dissapointed. I had it clocked to 3.73/1066 (EE speeds) and the thing ran like a champ. It would run about 50c at load. I went from that to a Conroe XE (see sig) and while yes... the Conroe is better, I doubt that NOTICABLE speed increases is at 200%.
 
Poncho said:
snip...............
Click to expand...

Dude i've just pre-orderd Intel Core 2 DUO Extreme Edition X6800 and currently own the D975XBX (REV 3.04), do they work togther well ?, any problems ?, also going from a D925XCV & P4 550 (3.4) will I see much improvement ?,

cheers
 
lowrider007 said:
Dude i've just pre-orderd Intel Core 2 DUO Extreme Edition X6800 and currently own the D975XBX (REV 3.04), do they work togther well ?, any problems ?, also going from a D925XCV & P4 550 (3.4) will I see much improvement ?,

cheers
Click to expand...

Yea, it's a great combo. While I wouldn't spend the cash on the XE.... if you want the "best" it's the only way to go. My e-penis increased substantially with this setup. :D You'll definitely see an improvement. I can't say that I'm too thrilled with the overclocking of this board, kind of a pain the way you have to swap a jumper every time it doesn't like a new setting.... though others have been pretty pleased with it's abilities. I'm not really into overclocking so it's not a huge deal for me. Great setup though....
 
Poncho said:
Yea, it's a great combo. While I wouldn't spend the cash on the XE.... if you want the "best" it's the only way to go. My e-penis increased substantially with this setup. :D You'll definitely see an improvement. I can't say that I'm too thrilled with the overclocking of this board, kind of a pain the way you have to swap a jumper every time it doesn't like a new setting.... though others have been pretty pleased with it's abilities. I'm not really into overclocking so it's not a huge deal for me. Great setup though....
Click to expand...

Cool thanks for that. (gets ready for e-penis extension)
 
Still waiting for people to give me reasons why Prescotts suck. Or did everybody just jump on the bandwagon with no experience to back them up? :rolleyes:
 
InorganicMatter said:
3.2GHz Prescot to my Core 2 E6600. I'm sure it will be night and day
Click to expand...

You answered your own question.... you're sure its night & day, why bother with #'s. It will be a WHOLE hell of a lot faster.
 
lacklin said:
I hope you were being sarcastic.
Click to expand...

Dude prescotts are pretty good chips, I dont know why you hate them so much. Currently I use a PD 950 but also have a spare 670 and i can tell you that its a great chip. Yes the conroe would bitch slap the Prescott, but it would also bitchslap every other chip too...so no big deal.
 
Prescotts dont suck. They arent nearly as efficient but so what? At high clockspeeds they are pretty fast and quite cheap now. The power consumption/transistor leakage is the only thing that sucks about them, netburst wasnt THAT bad...
 
Poncho said:
Still waiting for people to give me reasons why Prescotts suck. Or did everybody just jump on the bandwagon with no experience to back them up? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No need, everyone knows they suck except you. Tell us why it doesnt suck first, then maybe we'll get off our high horse and tell you exactly why it sucks.
 
forcefed said:
No need, everyone knows they suck except you. Tell us why it doesnt suck first, then maybe we'll get off our high horse and tell you exactly why it sucks.
Click to expand...


LOL... well, I thought I already had. I gave my personal, real life experience on the chips... thought that was sufficent. :rolleyes: One more time.... my 660 prescott ran EVERYTHING that I could throw at it without complaint or hesitation. Played all my games with the graphics and "enhancements" turned up... never had a problem. Was running an 850XT PE by the way. I really didn't notice it running that hot, usually idled around 50c and maybe 65ish during useage. Oh... and my case is set up for quiet operation with 4 80mm, 80mm's are not quiet I know but I ran them at REAL low speed. Let's just say that my case was not set up for cool operation with the 850 and 5 hard drives including 2 raptors. Heat was never an issue. Also... I was able to overclock it to 4.5/~980fsb and ~3.9/1200+ fsb. Not sure of the exact figures, it was a while ago, but they were both stable. Yea... that sounds like a crappy processor. :rolleyes: Ok... your turn.
 
WHY THE PRESCOTT SUCKS:

It runs hot.
It sucks a ton of juice.
It gets beaten by every other modern CPU on the market in most everything, even when it was first released.
It runs HOT.
Its based on an outdated socket.
It cost too much for too little preformance.
ITS SO FRIGGIN' HOT.

Is that reason enough for you?
 
CHAoS_NiNJA said:
WHY THE PRESCOTT SUCKS:
It runs hot.
Click to expand...

Yea... 50c at idle is a bit warmer than normal, but not unberably so. Never once did my system shutdown or overheat. This is probably the ONLY leg that people have to stand on against prescotts. They are high wattage..

CHAoS_NiNJA said:
It gets beaten by every other modern CPU on the market in most everything, even when it was first released.
Click to expand...

Maybe in benchmarks... but mine never stuttered once in REAL WORLD applications. Walk away from the benchmarks.

CHAoS_NiNJA said:
Its based on an outdated socket.
Click to expand...

Umm.... LGA775 is outdated? Thought that's what Conroe was running on. Guess I'm mistaken. :rolleyes:

CHAoS_NiNJA said:
.
It cost too much for too little preformance.
Click to expand...

That all depends on the person and in all reality... they aren't that expensive. When first released the 600 series were a bit on the pricy side for the top end model, but the lower ones (GREAT overclockers) were very reasonable.

Yea... so we got they run hot. :rolleyes:
 
Poncho said:
Yea... 50c at idle is a bit warmer than normal, but not unberably so. Never once did my system shutdown or overheat. This is probably the ONLY leg that people have to stand on against prescotts. They are high wattage..
Click to expand...

50c at idle is "warmer then normal"? Try egg cooking warm. At high loads the FX chips barely touch that...and for people who live in hot areas with no AC, yeah, Prescotts get a bit warmer then 50c.


Maybe in benchmarks... but mine never stuttered once in REAL WORLD applications. Walk away from the benchmarks.
Click to expand...

I personally hate benchmarks. What I like, however, is for my proc too not suck. I've seen Prescotts in action. My friends 3GHz P4 and 6800Ultra got destroyed by my 3000+ (OCed slightly to 2GHz) and 6600GT in actually game play. CoD2, HL2 and CS:S are not benchmarks, please play again.


Umm.... LGA775 is outdated? Thought that's what Conroe was running on. Guess I'm mistaken. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, because the original Prescott wasn't based on Socket 478 or anything, nope, not at all.


That all depends on the person and in all reality... they aren't that expensive. When first released the 600 series were a bit on the pricy side for the top end model, but the lower ones (GREAT overclockers) were very reasonable.
Click to expand...

Oh hi, my cheapy Athlon beats the living shit out of your expensive and OCed Prescott. Not very much bang for your buck. Please play again.


Yea... so we got they run hot. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yeah, and I get the idea that you won't except any facts that are presented to you, and instead will wave your arms around going "THEY'RE NOT THAT BAD SHU UP I HAT U" right before you stuff your fingers in your ears and sing loudly.

gg
 
CHAoS_NiNJA said:
50c at idle is "warmer then normal"? Try egg cooking warm. At high loads the FX chips barely touch that...and for people who live in hot areas with no AC, yeah, Prescotts get a bit warmer then 50c.




I personally hate benchmarks. What I like, however, is for my proc too not suck. I've seen Prescotts in action. My friends 3GHz P4 and 6800Ultra got destroyed by my 3000+ (OCed slightly to 2GHz) and 6600GT in actually game play. CoD2, HL2 and CS:S are not benchmarks, please play again.




Oh yeah, because the original Prescott wasn't based on Socket 478 or anything, nope, not at all.




Oh hi, my cheapy Athlon beats the living shit out of your expensive and OCed Prescott. Not very much bang for your buck. Please play again.




Yeah, and I get the idea that you won't except any facts that are presented to you, and instead will wave your arms around going "THEY'RE NOT THAT BAD SHU UP I HAT U" right before you stuff your fingers in your ears and sing loudly.

gg
Click to expand...


You.re a chicken. Temperatures never hurt anyone, least of all the CPUs. It only makes chickens afraid :D

Power consumption is no issue. For full system consumption the difference is insignificant.

6600GT beating a 6800U, no way. You.re either a liar or stupid if you try to relate this to the CPUs. Probably a driver issue.

Read the H article on CPUs & Gaming. The advantage A64 has over Prescotts in framerates at low-res means nothing.

Most Prescotts have HT and chrushes A64 single-cores in multitasking. Prescotts are also faster or just as fast as A64 in many applications where time actually means something (encoding etc).

And btw all AMD AM2 CPUs are based on 939 and outdated, aren.t they? With nothing new coming from AMD for a long while.
 
jon67 said:
Temperatures never hurt anyone, least of all the CPUs. It only makes chickens afraid :D
Click to expand...
I would leave the temp issue alone. The only reason people pick on that is because it gives less overclocking room, and it let's AMD guys pretend to be concerned about energy conservation ;)

jon67 said:
Most Prescotts have HT and chrushes A64 single-cores in multitasking. Prescotts are also faster or just as fast as A64 in many applications where time actually means something (encoding etc).
Click to expand...
That's exactly why I went Prescot. My el cheapo Intel setup crushes any A64 on video encoding: it takes less than an hour to encode a full-length movie to XviD.

jon67 said:
And btw all AMD AM2 CPUs are based on 939 and outdated, aren.t they? With nothing new coming from AMD for a long while.
Click to expand...
LOL, poetic irony, no?

CHAoS_NiNJA, your points have been refuted several times, and that last post has some obvious flame bait in it. Since I don't want this thread locked, please move along if you've got nothing better to do than defend A64 :cool:
 
lets just all agree to disagree & move on.

Prescotts REALLY sucked initially (s478) b/c they were hotter & slower than their comparably clocked Northwoods. The 500's were ok.... by the time the 600's came out they had completely worked out the kinks and those Prescotts were actually very good, ran cool, overclocked GREAT, etc...

so Prescotts were both good & sucky, depending on which one you got!
 
chrisf6969 said:
lets just all agree to disagree & move on.
Click to expand...


This thread has me worried that with the release of core duo 2, the intel forum is going to turn into the AMD forum.
 
CHAoS_NiNJA said:
I personally hate benchmarks. What I like, however, is for my proc too not suck. I've seen Prescotts in action. My friends 3GHz P4 and 6800Ultra got destroyed by my 3000+ (OCed slightly to 2GHz) and 6600GT in actually game play. CoD2, HL2 and CS:S are not benchmarks, please play again.
Click to expand...

Feel free to use benchmarks. You do realize not everybody uses their computers soley for gaming. I can give you an extensive list of benchmarks a 3ghz prescott will best your 3000+ in. As far as your 6600gt beating a 6800 ultra? You on 640x480?
 
chrisf6969 said:
lets just all agree to disagree & move on.

Prescotts REALLY sucked initially (s478) b/c they were hotter & slower than their comparably clocked Northwoods. The 500's were ok.... by the time the 600's came out they had completely worked out the kinks and those Prescotts were actually very good, ran cool, overclocked GREAT, etc...

so Prescotts were both good & sucky, depending on which one you got!
Click to expand...

You got it right.

Everyone's opinion in general is that the Prescotts suck. But that was only the Socket 478 variants. All the LGA 775s actually are pretty darn efficient, especially the 600 series. But I guess the early 478 versions pretty much ruined its reputation till the end.

Nevertheless, if it weren't for the Presler and now the Conroe, if I had to build a system today, I'd build it around a 600 series 775 Prescott.
 
ajm786 said:
You got it right.

Everyone's opinion in general is that the Prescotts suck. But that was only the Socket 478 variants. All the LGA 775s actually are pretty darn efficient, especially the 600 series. But I guess the early 478 versions pretty much ruined its reputation till the end.

Nevertheless, if it weren't for the Presler and now the Conroe, if I had to build a system today, I'd build it around a 600 series 775 Prescott.
Click to expand...
Presler and Cedar Mill, as the Cedar Mill is better then Prescott-2M let alone Presler.
 
CHAoS_NiNJA said:
50c at idle is "warmer then normal"? Try egg cooking warm. At high loads the FX chips barely touch that...and for people who live in hot areas with no AC, yeah, Prescotts get a bit warmer then 50c.




I personally hate benchmarks. What I like, however, is for my proc too not suck. I've seen Prescotts in action. My friends 3GHz P4 and 6800Ultra got destroyed by my 3000+ (OCed slightly to 2GHz) and 6600GT in actually game play. CoD2, HL2 and CS:S are not benchmarks, please play again.




Oh yeah, because the original Prescott wasn't based on Socket 478 or anything, nope, not at all.




Oh hi, my cheapy Athlon beats the living shit out of your expensive and OCed Prescott. Not very much bang for your buck. Please play again.




Yeah, and I get the idea that you won't except any facts that are presented to you, and instead will wave your arms around going "THEY'RE NOT THAT BAD SHU UP I HAT U" right before you stuff your fingers in your ears and sing loudly.

gg
Click to expand...


Dude you got your panties all wadded up?

Sure the Prescott gets a bit hot, so did those cheaply old Athlons.

I have 2 buddies that bought a system about a year and a half ago (early 2005). Both spent about the same amount on there systems.
One went AMD Athlon 64 3200+. His possessor cost was $195 then at Newegg.
The other went Intel with a Pentium 4 3.0GHz Prescott. and it was about $200 also at the time.

Sure the AMD 64 3200+ ran games better but in multitasking the old Intel Prescott was smoother.

Heck even my 2.4c was smoother in multitasking then his $200 AMD 3200+. I know the 3200+ is a lot cheaper now. But thats what he paid back then and bought it at Newegg.com.

Don't get me wrong I was impressed with the AMD 64 3200+. Windows xp loaded faster then I ever seen it. But depending on what you did on your pc. Those old Prescott's where sometimes the better choice at the time.
 
Keep in mind: I'm not here to bash Intel, I'm here to bash the Prescott. I'm actually somewhat fond of Cedar Mill to be honest, and I'm very very much looking forward to Conroe, as it most everyone. However, one fact stands clean: Prescott sucks. Period. You can debate that all you want, but one fact stands above all others: this core alone cost intel millions of dollars in loss. You think AMD took as much market share as they have now, simply by chance? Think again.

I've said it, others have said it, programmers have said it, friggin' chip makers have said it. Prescott sucks. Just deal with it.

Also, people bitch "blah blah blah heat isn't such a big deal"....NEWS FLASH, if you run a high clocked prescott in a hot area with no AC, guess what happens? You got that right, shit crashes. Overheating. Its a problem, don't act like its not. Not everyone runs their central air constantly.

Yes, the current AM2 procs are based of 939, which presents the same thing I said about Prescotts orginating from 478. You know the big difference? They're not the same cores.. The Prescott is one core that moved platforms. The AMD procs are not, they simply have the same basic technologies. Now if I were to be bitching about Netburst you'd have a point, but seeing as I'm not...guess what? You lose.

Yeah, it does get my panties in a knot to see people mindlessly stand by outdated and shitty technology. I greatly dislike f4nboi-ism. You all may be thinking "Wow well you're an AMD !!!!!!", but you'd be wrong yet again. Big surprise. I go for what gives me the best preformance for my money. If Conroe comes out and kicks ass, I'll go for that. If AMD uses it Reverse-HyperThreading to pwn Conroe in the ass, I'll be getting a dual core AM2. Whatever has the best bang for the buck.

As for my 6600GT/3(2)00+ beating a 6800U/3GHz P4....you know, I'm not exactly sure how that happened...but it doesn't change the fact that it did.

EDIT: Actually, now that I think about it, its very possible he was running a 6800 vanilla...but I'm not exactly sure. He didn't have a window in his machine so I couldn't really tell, I just took his word for it.
 
CHAoS_NiNJA said:
You can debate that all you want, but one fact stands above all others: this core alone cost intel millions of dollars in loss.
Click to expand...


LMAO... you have NO idea what you are talking about. Prescott made Intel MILLIONS.... even when they did suck (the 478 prescotts) we still sold the shit out of them. Prescott was a moneymaker for Intel... plain and simple.
 
CHAoS_NiNJA said:
I personally hate benchmarks. What I like, however, is for my proc too not suck. I've seen Prescotts in action. My friends 3GHz P4 and 6800Ultra got destroyed by my 3000+ (OCed slightly to 2GHz) and 6600GT in actually game play. CoD2, HL2 and CS:S are not benchmarks, please play again.
Click to expand...

Going to have to call bullshit. I have used close to every modern cpu out, there is no way a 3000 and 66gt will beat a 6800 ultra and 3GHz pentium 4. First of all the differance in performance between the pentium 4 3GHz and 3000+ is only around 20-25% in games, AT LOW RES AND SETTINGS.
 
Poncho said:
LMAO... you have NO idea what you are talking about. Prescott made Intel MILLIONS.... even when they did suck (the 478 prescotts) we still sold the shit out of them. Prescott was a moneymaker for Intel... plain and simple.
Click to expand...


I was about to say, what to do you think OEM were pushing out for a few years....just because the 0.000001% on [H] doesnt buy them doesnt mean intel lsot money.

I dont think there are many, if any CPU's intel lost money on - simply because OEM sucks them up.
 
MrGuvernment said:
I was about to say, what to do you think OEM were pushing out for a few years....just because the 0.000001% on [H] doesnt buy them doesnt mean intel lsot money.

I dont think there are many, if any CPU's intel lost money on - simply because OEM sucks them up.
Click to expand...
QFT!

Hell, every single machine I've built at work these past few years is Prescott. Temps be damned, as long as it's stable with the stock cooling and reasonable performance, that's all an IT guy can ask for.
 
sabrewolf732 said:
Going to have to call bullshit. I have used close to every modern cpu out, there is no way a 3000 and 66gt will beat a 6800 ultra and 3GHz pentium 4. First of all the differance in performance between the pentium 4 3GHz and 3000+ is only around 20-25% in games, AT LOW RES AND SETTINGS.
Click to expand...

You Intel fan ;)
 
MrGuvernment said:
I was about to say, what to do you think OEM were pushing out for a few years....just because the 0.000001% on [H] doesnt buy them doesnt mean intel lsot money.

I dont think there are many, if any CPU's intel lost money on - simply because OEM sucks them up.
Click to expand...

QFT 2nd time!

Each stepping of Prescott got better, folks waiting Presler slowed it sales, just as folks waiting on Conroe now slowed down Presler and Cedar Mill sales.

IT should be Conroe vs Prescott in the first palce. BUT Presler improve quite a bit over Prescott and not as bad of Deal. But that's not fair since unless you're talking about Smithfield/Prescott Dual Core. Otherwise you have talk about Cedar Mill vs Prescott or the Shipping by Q1-07 Core 2 Solo or Conroe L. What the hell is up with the "L" all of a sudden?
 
Donnie27 said:
QFT 2nd time!

Each stepping of Prescott got better, folks waiting Presler slowed it sales, just as folks waiting on Conroe now slowed down Presler and Cedar Mill sales.

IT should be Conroe vs Prescott in the first palce. BUT Presler improve quite a bit over Prescott and not as bad of Deal. But that's not fair since unless you're talking about Smithfield/Prescott Dual Core. Otherwise you have talk about Cedar Mill vs Prescott or the Shipping by Q1-07 Core 2 Solo or Conroe L. What the hell is up with the "L" all of a sudden?
Click to expand...

Conroe Leet Sauce.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top