intel p4 540 vs 630

D

delusion_2005

Gawd
Joined
Mar 8, 2005
Messages
805
Hey guys i was wondering which one is better the 540 or the 630, its a 32bit chip againts a 64bit the 540 is a 3.2 while the 630 is a 3ghz so which one is better and faster?? :confused:
 
The 540 is faster in 32 bit mode... However I wouldn't rule out the possibility of the 630 being faster in many applications once they are ported to 64 bit. Which is why I would advice the 630 over the 540 anyway (it's not like the performance difference in 32 bit will be big anyway).. more future-proof (Windows XP 64 may be with us in just a few months time, better to be ready for it).
 
There will be a longhorn for 32 bit afaik... but obviously the 64 bit version will perform a bit better.
I'd go with the 630 to be future-proof.
However, you could also get the faster 32 bit CPU now, and upgrade to 64 bit later, if you get the right motherboard (Intel 925XE chipset or such), you should only have to swap the CPU, and you have a 64 bit system.
But personally I've not had good experiences with CPU-upgrades, so I'd get 64 bit right away :)
 
The other thing to consider is bandwidth. What is the bandwidth of the 630 over the 540? That will still make a difference in 32bit apps (as we've seen with the A64). It won't be a lot, but there will still be a difference. Then with 64 bit Windows (you used to be able to download WinXP 64 bit for free, but I haven't seen it in quite a while now) the gap will be wider.

Myself, I would go with the 630. Like another poster said if nothing else you will be future proof. I am pretty sure, though, that you will see a performance advantage to some degree now.
 
SirKenin said:
The other thing to consider is bandwidth. What is the bandwidth of the 630 over the 540? That will still make a difference in 32bit apps (as we've seen with the A64). It won't be a lot, but there will still be a difference.
Click to expand...

They use the same motherboards/chipsets/memory, so the bandwidth is the same.
 
Scali said:
They use the same motherboards/chipsets/memory, so the bandwidth is the same.
Click to expand...
I was thinking internally to be honest.
 
Scali said:
They use the same motherboards/chipsets/memory, so the bandwidth is the same.
Click to expand...

Well, the 600 series has 2Mb L2 cache so its overall bandwidth will be a little higher, b/c of the higher bandwidth between 1Mb & 2Mb.

Plus, if you're going to be overclocking the 600 series is a newer stepping and everyone seems to be doing really well with them (OC'ing wise)
 
SirKenin said:
The cache and what not.
Click to expand...

In that case, I suppose the 540 has more 'internal bandwith', since it has a lower latency cache, and operates at a higher clockspeed.
 
Scali said:
There will be a longhorn for 32 bit afaik... but obviously the 64 bit version will perform a bit better.
I'd go with the 630 to be future-proof.
However, you could also get the faster 32 bit CPU now, and upgrade to 64 bit later, if you get the right motherboard (Intel 925XE chipset or such), you should only have to swap the CPU, and you have a 64 bit system.
But personally I've not had good experiences with CPU-upgrades, so I'd get 64 bit right away :)
Click to expand...

I would not advise this path, as 915 and 925 do not support dual core. Support for Smithfield and Presler will only be in 945 and 955 (Google for Glenwood and Lakeport), new chipsets coming Real Soon Now. I would not spend many $$ on an Intel system only to find that my mobo isn't dual core ready and will have to be replaced. Smithfield will be here by the end of the year, although Intel does not anticipate supplying many of them at first, and expects dual core adoption to become more wide spread about the time that Presler becomes available. Then again, Prescott was supposed to truck right along past 4 GHz like Northwood blew away 3 GHz, and that didn't happen.
 
Scali said:
In that case, I suppose the 540 has more 'internal bandwith', since it has a lower latency cache, and operates at a higher clockspeed.
Click to expand...
Would you suppose that the larger cache would help more though? I agree with you that lower latency is a good thing. I have always pondered about the cache, especially when I was considering buying this Prescott over the Northwood.
 
Anandtech's recent review of this showed the cache as being good and bad. It can have as much as a 17% latency decrease in some apps, but a 43% increase in one (Maya) and maybe more in the future. Check it out:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2353&p=2

I need to pick up an Intel setup, mainly because I'm looking for a machine to do all the media encoding and be the general home system, and more importantly I'll be working with some Intel guys and can't have them thinking I'm an AMD only nut. I was thinking of doing the 630, but I'm going to wait as long as I can to try to get a dual-core mobo. Anyone know of any accurate timeframes?
 
I ended up going to the Intel 640 (3.2 GHz) because waiting for dual-core is not a viable option for me (ailing 1400 Thunderbird). Due to the buggy nForce4 and KT890 chipsets, I also shied away from the AMD camp this time around.

If I had to do it all again, and time and money weren't limiting factors, I would have picked up an Opteron on the nForce4 Pro chipset which appears to have none of the failings of it's non-Pro brethren.

If you must go Intel, and if you are really going to wait for dual-core, my WAG would be 945/955 chipsets RSN and dual-core chips within two to four months. I know someone working at Intel who may give me an official date but I don't think he will (so don't hold your breath).
 
caracaovazio said:
i don't know. will they make a longhorn for 32bit cpus??
Click to expand...


They must do, look at all those 32bit systems out there... most companies i work with still have intel chips and not the 600 series...
 
MalfurionStormrage said:
I ended up going to the Intel 640 (3.2 GHz) because waiting for dual-core is not a viable option for me (ailing 1400 Thunderbird). Due to the buggy nForce4 and KT890 chipsets, I also shied away from the AMD camp this time around.
Click to expand...

Guess I'm not the only one who's going back to Intel Inside after some less-than-successful AMD endeavours.
 
Scali said:
Guess I'm not the only one who's going back to Intel Inside after some less-than-successful AMD endeavours.
Click to expand...

I just look at a PC i bought my friend over two years ago, P3.00ghz and now today - seems intel has hardly moved forwards... i know clock speed isn't everything but it seems intels progress has been a bit slow recently ?? I'd like to hear from people who don't agree.. because maybe i'm wrong !!

But moving to a 10,00rpm HD i've found makes so much difference :)
 
MicroUK said:
I just look at a PC i bought my friend over two years ago, P3.00ghz and now today - seems intel has hardly moved forwards... i know clock speed isn't everything but it seems intels progress has been a bit slow recently ?? I'd like to hear from people who don't agree.. because maybe i'm wrong !!

But moving to a 10,00rpm HD i've found makes so much difference :)
Click to expand...
Intel's progress has been slow because they hit a heat dissipation barrier.

Aren't the 10,000 RPM drives awesome? I have the Raptor and it's amazing.
 
AMD hasn't moved much either, still at 4000+, and their fastest models are still the old 130 nm cores, not the new 90 nm...
So it looks more like the CPUs don't evolve much in general anymore... well not compared to the level of evolution we had in the era of the PIII/early P4/original Athlon. It couldn't last forever anyway.
 
Scali said:
AMD hasn't moved much either, still at 4000+, and their fastest models are still the old 130 nm cores, not the new 90 nm...
So it looks more like the CPUs don't evolve much in general anymore... well not compared to the level of evolution we had in the era of the PIII/early P4/original Athlon. It couldn't last forever anyway.
Click to expand...


Is this why i hear people talking about the 'end of moors law' ?
 
MicroUK said:
Is this why i hear people talking about the 'end of moors law' ?
Click to expand...

Well, not really. Moore's Law is misinterpreted and abused for all kinds of marketing and hype over the years. First of all it's not a law as such, the name is sort of tongue-in-cheek.
It's just that Gordon Moore noticed the trend that the amount of transistors they could put on a piece of silicon doubled more or less every 18 months (see http://www.intel.com/research/silicon/mooreslaw.htm).

A result of that used to be that CPUs got more powerful and faster aswell.
Moore's Law itself still holds quite well I suppose, judging by how seemingly effortlessly Intel adds 2 mb cache and 64 bit extensions to its P4 architecture. And 65 nm is nearly ready for production aswell, which will mean even more transistors on a die.
The difference is that because of current problems like power leakage, it is no longer possible to turn all these transistors into extra processing power. On the one hand the chips get too hot, and cannot scale higher in clockspeed, and on the other hand adding more transistors to cache and other technologies seems to have reached a level of diminished results that they have little or no effect on performance either.
And that's what people call the end of Moore's Law... which is just as wrong as calling it a law in the first place. A law is an absolute truth, which always holds and never ends.
 
all this talk af dual core is hilarious. very few people here would even be able to afford a dual core intel chip. can you even friggin imagine how much intel is going to charge for a dual core chip ??

screw buying something that support dual core in the future. by the time you can afford a dual core system ..... there will be better.
 
Cyberlunacy said:
all this talk af dual core is hilarious. very few people here would even be able to afford a dual core intel chip. can you even friggin imagine how much intel is going to charge for a dual core chip ??

screw buying something that support dual core in the future. by the time you can afford a dual core system ..... there will be better.
Click to expand...

yeah agreed man, i don't why people want to get Dual core for, especially for home PC, what the hell are you going to do with it?...... game?, Chat?,assignments? well........, even if you do video editing or encoding, a P4 600 series is good enough.
 
the 630 definitely.......

i was actually deciding between a 630 and a Athlon 64 3000+, but i got the 3000+ :)
 
delusion_2005 said:
yeah agreed man, i don't why people want to get Dual core for, especially for home PC, what the hell are you going to do with it?...... game?, Chat?,assignments? well........, even if you do video editing or encoding, a P4 600 series is good enough.
Click to expand...
You missed the point. It's not that people want dual core, thats what Intel and AMD have decided to sell. Even if Moore's law holds true, it will take some time for clock speeds to start increasing again, and they need to continue increasing percieved performance so they have products to sell.
 
That's how I feel about dual core aswell.
It increases performance, so on paper it looks good. However, it only increases performance in certain scenarios, and these scenarios aren't that common for the average desktop user/gamer.
Especially since we already have HyperThreading to make simple multitasking smoother.
So for someone like me, dual core would be an excellent waste of money.

On the other hand... there's always the supply-and-demand thing... or the build-it-and-they-will-come thing, whatever...
So, if dual core becomes commonplace, that would mean that software would be developed in a more dual-core-friendly way... Perhaps dual core will eventually give much better performance than we can possibly imagine right now.
However, being a programmer myself, I'm painfully aware of the problems with making certain algorithms parallel. Sometimes it just doesn't work. So I'll remain sceptic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top