• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Overclocking a Prescott

B

brasscorpion

Weaksauce
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
95
Just a quick question here.

Do the 775 Prescott chips overclock well. For example...I have noticed the price of the single core chip at over 3Ghz is only like $60.00.

I have also noticed the the single core AMD chip at 2.2Ghz is 99.00.

I was wondering why everyone wouldn't run to Intel on the single core side of things, if for the price they start at higher Ghz's. Is there a major difference in the Athlon 64 chip over the intel??? And are they any good for gaming only rigs???

Brass
 
You have asked multiple questions.



1st. Processors like the AMD64 and Intel Core 2 duo perform more operation per clock cycle, so they have higher performance than Prescott at much lower GHZ (more efficient).

Prescott is a very inefficient older design that runs as hot as hell. They overclock fairly well, you "could" get to 4+gig with that chip but will definately need some very good after market cooling.

As for gaming, it depends on your Video card and the resolution you play in, but "generally " speaking at 1280x1024 all of these CPU's with say a 7900GTX will give a fairly similar frame rate (a bit arguable, don't want to write 5000 word reply).

As for what you should buy without price consideration, but order of performance.

1st Core 2 Duo (even the say a e6300@1.8gig)
2nd AMD 64@2.2gig
3rd Prescott (hell no IMO).

I am a traditional AMD fan, however as they are changing there sockets more than there underwear lately I would try and squeeze a Core 2 Duo and preferably overclock, and it is faster anyway.
 
brasscorpion said:
Just a quick question here.

Do the 775 Prescott chips overclock well. For example...I have noticed the price of the single core chip at over 3Ghz is only like $60.00.

I have also noticed the the single core AMD chip at 2.2Ghz is 99.00.

I was wondering why everyone wouldn't run to Intel on the single core side of things, if for the price they start at higher Ghz's. Is there a major difference in the Athlon 64 chip over the intel??? And are they any good for gaming only rigs???

Brass
Click to expand...

Stay away from the prescott if major concerns are gaming, its still respectible in the encoding side of things but still gets beat pretty bad at that along with gaming, A x2 4200 can still beat/hang with a PD945 3.4GHz in alot of things while only being 2.2GHz. The x2 4800 will kill the PD945 in almost every thing. As pointed out they do run quite high on temps, and use ALOT more wattage when stressed. My S478 P4 3.0E @ 3.3runs at 53c idle, 66c load.

For the cost minded, pick up a s939 system with a A64 with ddr1, Its still not Core2 technology but a great bang for the buck when considering everything is pretty cheap cpu/ram/mobo. I just sent money off for a x2 4200 w/ A8N32-SLI for 240$ (used) and will be re-using my DDR400. I would only imagine the savings with a single core A64 paired with a 85$ DFI UT NF4 board on newegg w/ good DDR1 memory being pretty well priced new or used, look in the FST forums for good DDR400 for around 100$/1024mb

If you got the money to blow, the Core2 is the way to go, just paying $300+ for 2gig DDR2 800 is a bit of a killer and can't sell my DDR1 to make it justified purchase along with a 180+ mobo, and a 180+ cpu.
 
owning a prescott 550 myself I wouldnt recommend it for anything other than desktop multitaking over the amd64. It's not without its merits but if you want a single core to game on amd64 is what you want. If you want to encode dvds, browse then internet, while you do a third cpu intesive task the prescott would serve you well.
 
RogueTrip said:
Stay away from the prescott if major concerns are gaming, its still respectible in the encoding side of things but still gets beat pretty bad at that along with gaming, A x2 4200 can still beat/hang with a PD945 3.4GHz in alot of things while only being 2.2GHz. The x2 4800 will kill the PD945 in almost every thing. As pointed out they do run quite high on temps, and use ALOT more wattage when stressed. My S478 P4 3.0E @ 3.3runs at 53c idle, 66c load.

For the cost minded, pick up a s939 system with a A64 with ddr1, Its still not Core2 technology but a great bang for the buck when considering everything is pretty cheap cpu/ram/mobo. I just sent money off for a x2 4200 w/ A8N32-SLI for 240$ (used) and will be re-using my DDR400. I would only imagine the savings with a single core A64 paired with a 85$ DFI UT NF4 board on newegg w/ good DDR1 memory being pretty well priced new or used, look in the FST forums for good DDR400 for around 100$/1024mb

If you got the money to blow, the Core2 is the way to go, just paying $300+ for 2gig DDR2 800 is a bit of a killer and can't sell my DDR1 to make it justified purchase along with a 180+ mobo, and a 180+ cpu.
Click to expand...

900 series are 65nm (Presler) dual core chips and run pretty cool for their clocks, plus they overclock great. Overclocks 3.8-4.5Ghz
the 6x1 series are also 65nm (Cedar Mill) chips which also run quite cool & fast. Usually overclock 4-5Ghz!

800 series are 2 Prescott dies on one chip (Smithfield).... = very hot, but some good steppings still can hit around 4Ghz (ex: 805 = 3.8 -4.0Ghz probalby)
500 series are Prescotts, performance is blah, unless you crank them to 4Ghz, but they get quite hot by 4Ghz, 3.8+- as an OC.

But all of the chips above are Pentium 4 core (Netburst) based, so they run fast, but not efficiently. And you're (OP) talking about dated single core chips?

I'd much rather a Core 2. I had a 4Ghz Pentium D, and my Core 2 at 3Ghz is 50-100% faster than it at everything even though the PD has a 33% clock advantage.
 
If you absolutely insist on getting a single core Prescott then get the 65nm counterparts i.e. 631, 641, etc.
 
I had a P4 5xx (3.4ghz, cant remember the exact number) and my new C2D e6400 beats the crap out of it. Even a e6300 machine at stock I used beat the crap out of it.

That being said, my P4 5xx machine still can beat the crap out of many other machines out there, but as far as a new build I would stay away from it.
 
brasscorpion said:
Just a quick question here.

Do the 775 Prescott chips overclock well. For example...I have noticed the price of the single core chip at over 3Ghz is only like $60.00.

I have also noticed the the single core AMD chip at 2.2Ghz is 99.00.

I was wondering why everyone wouldn't run to Intel on the single core side of things, if for the price they start at higher Ghz's. Is there a major difference in the Athlon 64 chip over the intel??? And are they any good for gaming only rigs???

Brass
Click to expand...

Simple, because higher GHZ numbers dont mean higher speed. Prescott is terribly inefficient, which basically means it takes a Prescott say 3.0ghz to compute the same amount of information that an Athlon 64 would at 2.0ghz. Its all about how well the cpu uses its clock cycles, not how high the clock is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top