P4 @ 4.4+ or AMD???

DBZ33

Gawd
Joined
Jul 10, 2005
Messages
960
I have a P4 775 550 3.4@4.0GHz and I just purchased a P4 561 775 ES running @4.4 on air. I have the new Koolance EXOS-2 and 2Gigs of good ram and a EVGA 7800GTX. I want to see if I can overclock the new P4 I just purchsed more than 4.4GHz on water. What would this = to in a AMD system?

I think at over 4.4Ghz the Intel would be a great all around system. I game but not too much and use the computer for everyday use. I was thinking of going AMD but if I get this running with no problems I think this should be one fast computer. What do you guy's think??? Thanks in advanced.
 

kidicarus74

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Messages
397
i have to ask, if you're just using the comp for everyday use and light gaming, why spend so much money on it?

also, i would LOVE to see proof of a p4 running at 4.4 ghz on air cooling
 

AMDXP

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 9, 2004
Messages
2,631
kidicarus74 said:
i have to ask, if you're just using the comp for everyday use and light gaming, why spend so much money on it?

also, i would LOVE to see proof of a p4 running at 4.4 ghz on air cooling

same !
:rolleyes:
 

jyi786

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 13, 2002
Messages
5,649
DBZ33 said:
I have a P4 775 550 3.4@4.0GHz and I just purchased a P4 561 775 ES running @4.4 on air.

Perhaps you guys are misunderstanding. He BOUGHT a P4 561 775ES that was ADVERTISED running @ 4.4 on air. At least that's what I understood. :p
 

DBZ33

Gawd
Joined
Jul 10, 2005
Messages
960
I don't have the proof yet because I just purchsed the CPU and he is going to send it to me. He did send me a picture of the cpu running at that speed. I asked him why there was no rpm on the cpu fan he said that he has a fan that used the 4 pin PS power. He used a XP-120 heatsink. I guess I will have to wait and see.

I spend money on my computers because I love to have good stuff and I have the money to spend. So what do you think this system would = to in an AMD system?
untitled7iq.jpg
 

GotNoRice

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 11, 2001
Messages
10,952
If you get it and it actually runs at 4.4 (not just for CPUZ, but like with prime95 for 24 hours), then that system should be pretty damned fast.

But keep in mind that if you get shafted on the sale, there probably isn’t a whole lot you can do about it since it being an ES cpu means it 100% belongs to intel no questions asked and they could technically ask for it back at any time.
 

kidicarus74

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Messages
397
Dillusion said:
4.4GHZ P4 will do just as good as any ghey A64 in gaming.

spoken like a true !!!!!!

But, yes, it should run as well as any A64... you might get a point or two more in 3dMark if you used the koolance on an FX 57
 

GotNoRice

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 11, 2001
Messages
10,952
spaceman said:
FX-57 owns all.

Do you KNOW for a FACT that an FX-57 would best a 4.4Ghz P4? I don't think that anyone is saying the FX-57 is a bad processor, but what the hell does that have to do with this thread, and how exactly was your post supposed to be helpful to anyone?

You must realize that comments such as yours just make you look like some 12 year old little kid. I'm sure that wasn't your intention (or maybe I’m just an optimistic person :rolleyes: ), so what gives?
 

sabrewolf732

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
4,776
in games, I would say a 3-3.2GHz fx57 would beat the 4.4GHz p4. just my opinion though. For everyday use, and since you don't game much I would stick with the p4. However I remember a thread on pcper where a guy with a 3GHz fx owned a guy with a 4.2 on phase. I plan on going dothan soon so don't think I am an amd !!!!!!.
 

DBZ33

Gawd
Joined
Jul 10, 2005
Messages
960
If it will be as good as a high end AMD system then I will keep Intel. But if there was a huge diffrence I would sell my whole system and go AMD. I just hope I can get it to be stable at 4.4GHz or higher. I think it will. We will see. I will keep you guy's posted. Thanks for all your help.
 

GVX

Gawd
Joined
Aug 19, 2004
Messages
610
According to Anandtech

Pentium 570 (3.8Ghz) gets 87.1fps in Doom3.
Athlong FX-57 (2.8Ghz) gets 104.8fps

(4.4/3.8)=1.157
1.157 • 87.1 =100.85
.: A 5xx Pentium clocked at 4.4Ghz would get approx. 100.85fps in Doom3 while the FX-57 still gets 104.8fps at stock.

FX-57 still comes out slightly ahead but the benefit of having hyperthreading outweighs the fx-57's performance advantage by a thousand times IMO.
 

mpcamer1220

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 2, 2003
Messages
1,717
Agreed, while it might not be totally correct due to other factors.... You CAN oc the FX57 too :cool:

But still, 4.4ghz is nothing to scoff at.. :)
 

DBZ33

Gawd
Joined
Jul 10, 2005
Messages
960
If I purchsed a AMD system it would be a 3200+ overclocked or when the 3800+ X2 when it comes out. I don't want to spend $800 - 1000 on a cpu. Thats crazy. I think the P4 overclocked will be a great system. My system at 4Ghz right now is fast but I want to go faster. I just purchased 2Gigs of ram and a EVGA 7800GTX. I play BF2 and I want to play it at maxed out settings smooth. I have a X800XL with 1Gig of ram and it runs if good but not great.
 

robberbaron

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 6, 2004
Messages
6,101
GotNoRice said:
Do you KNOW for a FACT that an FX-57 would best a 4.4Ghz P4? I don't think that anyone is saying the FX-57 is a bad processor, but what the hell does that have to do with this thread, and how exactly was your post supposed to be helpful to anyone?

You must realize that comments such as yours just make you look like some 12 year old little kid. I'm sure that wasn't your intention (or maybe I’m just an optimistic person :rolleyes: ), so what gives?

The thread title says "P4 @ 4.4+ or AMD???"

I'd say his comment was relevant, albeit too brief to be taken too seriously.

An FX57 would be about the same as a 4.4GHz P4. I'm reading Anandtech's benches, and a 3.8 P4 gets 5FPS more than a 3.6 on UT2k4, pretty cpu intensive game. So say 200 mhz = 5FPS. Of couse the ram will be OC'd as well, so we'll say 6 FPS. So 3.8 gets 65FPS. 3x6=18FPS. So 83FPS for the 4.4, vs 81FPS for the FX57.

And then you OC the FX57. Which is fair, since the Intel is already being OC'd. The FX57 can do 3.0 on air easily, which is a gaming performance point that's basically out of reach for a P4 on air. Still, the FX57 is expensive as hell and only really useful for benchmarks, as phase change is where it shines.
Plus the ES P4 would be fun, especially with DDR2... kind of. Stupid Prescott and the minimum of 14x multi.

edit: hahaha, i just saw that there a post above me that did similar math to mine. I can't belive there are others that think like me.
 

EnderW

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 25, 2003
Messages
11,109
4.4GHz on air is possible. I had my 560J at 4.3GHz, but it got way too hot for Prime95 testing.
Was able to squeeze off a superfast SuperPi run though ;)
 

robberbaron

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 6, 2004
Messages
6,101
EnderW said:
4.4GHz on air is possible. I had my 560J at 4.3GHz, but it got way too hot for Prime95 testing.
Was able to squeeze off a superfast SuperPi run though ;)

Don't you have an XP120? That should have been enough. Would be nice if you had Eclipse's Zalman/ ~17C air duct setup, heh. Eclipse is the king of max air OC's (3.1GHz Newark)
 

EnderW

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 25, 2003
Messages
11,109
robberbaron said:
Don't you have an XP120? That should have been enough. Would be nice if you had Eclipse's Zalman/ ~17C air duct setup, heh. Eclipse is the king of max air OC's (3.1GHz Newark)
yeah, it was an XP-120 and I opened my window to let the cold air in (this was last winter), but I was still pushing 70 C
I probably could have got it stable, but I got tired of messing with it since it did everything I needed at stock speeds
the guy I bought it from ran dual Prime 95 on it for like 48 hours, and he had it a bit higher at like 4.32GHz or something, but he had watercooling
 

DBZ33

Gawd
Joined
Jul 10, 2005
Messages
960
I will have the new Koolance EXOS-2 cooling the cpu at that speed. I just hope it runs with no problems at 4.4GHz or higher.
 

osirus35

Gawd
Joined
Oct 6, 2004
Messages
871
there is a difference from a pic of cpu-z running at 4.4 and the cpu actually being stable at 4.4ghz. Anyways I dont think you can go much higher, i mean that is almost 1ghz overclock which really good. First the exos aint the best watercooling solution, second it depends on how far your ram will go as well as the voltage that your cpu and ram can handle. Also there is no point getting an AMD if you are not a hardcore gamer. Other then games AMD isnt as good. (excluding the X2)
 

ozziegn

The man behind the curtain...
Joined
Jan 13, 2001
Messages
17,533
osirus35 said:
Also there is no point getting an AMD if you are not a hardcore gamer. Other then games AMD isnt as good. (excluding the X2)

agreed.

I've been hovering over at the OC forums lately and judging by the X2 numbers that I've seen so far, they really arent doing all that much more than what my 3GHz 630 @ 4.2GHz is doing.

oh, and lets not even get into the whole debate about how the AMD scene is cheaper than the Intel scene because we all know that AMD through that argument out the window when they launched their X2 CPUs.

Jesus Christ, talk about eeeeexxxxxxxppppppppppennnnnnnssssssive!

those AMDs can keep their slightly better benchmark numbers for the ridiculous cost that they're getting for those X2 chips. just ridiculous...
 

robberbaron

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 6, 2004
Messages
6,101
ozziegn said:
oh, and lets not even get into the whole debate about how the AMD scene is cheaper than the Intel scene because we all know that AMD through that argument out the window when they launched their X2 CPUs.

Jesus Christ, talk about eeeeexxxxxxxppppppppppennnnnnnssssssive!

those AMDs can keep their slightly better benchmark numbers for the ridiculous cost that they're getting for those X2 chips. just ridiculous...

But the 4200+ performs about on par, if not better in many situations, then the equally priced 840.

So I really don't see the issue. What, its stupid because AMD isn't making lower performance point chips whereas Intel is? Yes, that is stupid. The 3800+ X2 should have been available at launch. But with the AMD chip, you get what you pay for with the X2.
 

sabrewolf732

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
4,776
Nasgul said:
Gaddamn, not another stupid amd vs Intel trhead........

You kids are too supid to realize that when game developers write their codes, they do it so it can be played in a wide range of hardware. Not just Intel or amd, 570Js or FXs, not 6800 Ultras or XT 800 PEs. I'd say if you're too worry about gaming performance then give up because you'll never be happy to know that what you might have might not be as good as you'd think it should be. So C:L:I:C:K.

What's next, nVidia vs ATI?

you should take your own advice... he was asking whether amd's performance increase is worth it. Amd's performance in games is better, but since you are an intel fan boy ( I know from XS :rolleyes: ) you say it doesn't matter? HAH!
 

ozziegn

The man behind the curtain...
Joined
Jan 13, 2001
Messages
17,533
Nasgul said:
Gaddamn, not another stupid amd vs Intel trhead........

You kids are too supid to realize that when game developers write their codes, they do it so it can be played in a wide range of hardware. Not just Intel or amd, 570Js or FXs, not 6800 Ultras or XT 800 PEs. I'd say if you're too worry about gaming performance then give up because you'll never be happy to know that what you might have might not be as good as you'd think it should be. So C:L:I:C:K.

What's next, nVidia vs ATI?

my God.... looks like someone forgot to take his medication this morning. :D

Jesus Christ man.... you really need to get a life if you let small discussions like this get to you so bad. :rolleyes:
 

Codegen

Gawd
Joined
Aug 28, 2004
Messages
915
Nasgul said:
Gaddamn, not another stupid amd vs Intel trhead........

You kids are too supid to realize that when game developers write their codes, they do it so it can be played in a wide range of hardware. Not just Intel or amd, 570Js or FXs, not 6800 Ultras or XT 800 PEs. I'd say if you're too worry about gaming performance then give up because you'll never be happy to know that what you might have might not be as good as you'd think it should be. So C:L:I:C:K.

What's next, nVidia vs ATI?

BLAH-DAH-BLAH-DAH-BLAH-DAH-WOO-HOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Jerunk

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 22, 2004
Messages
478
Nasgul said:
I always like to be quoted, that's how I know when people get offended/upset for my subliminal messages......man do they work or what? people, learn to have fun
rofl2.gif
, don't waste your time...heheheheheheheh specially you codegen, BTW, I don't read people's post from those whom have quoted me, so save your comments....heheheheheh
:D

uninstall2nz.jpg


Because you contribute nothing worth reading.
 

CMAN

Gawd
Joined
Dec 1, 2004
Messages
564
GVX said:
According to Anandtech

Pentium 570 (3.8Ghz) gets 87.1fps in Doom3.
Athlong FX-57 (2.8Ghz) gets 104.8fps

(4.4/3.8)=1.157
1.157 • 87.1 =100.85
.: A 5xx Pentium clocked at 4.4Ghz would get approx. 100.85fps in Doom3 while the FX-57 still gets 104.8fps at stock.

FX-57 still comes out slightly ahead but the benefit of having hyperthreading outweighs the fx-57's performance advantage by a thousand times IMO.

What do you think the visual quality difference is between 87 FPS and 104 FPS...........
 

kidicarus74

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Messages
397
sabrewolf732 said:
yeh, differance is, the minimum fps will be higher so gaming experiance smoother

exactly, the higher your highest fps gets, the higher your lowest fps gets, computer hardware scales that way. If you lowest frame rate is anywhere below 30, then 17fps makes a hell of a difference
 

EricNS

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jun 15, 2005
Messages
276
if you had me play 2 different games, one being at 87 the other at 104 and didnt tell me, no i doubt i could tell. Now, if you told me "one of these is has more FPS than the other, which is the lower FPS" I would have a decent chance of picking it out.
 

sabrewolf732

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 6, 2004
Messages
4,776
EricNS said:
if you had me play 2 different games, one being at 87 the other at 104 and didnt tell me, no i doubt i could tell. Now, if you told me "one of these is has more FPS than the other, which is the lower FPS" I would have a decent chance of picking it out.

depends on the minimum fps. 87 and 104 are just the average. however, lets say the p4 system dropped to 40, and the fx only to 55, I could deffinately tell the differance.
 
Top