Intel, theres so many!

[Cosmo_1847]

hi i'm getting confused by intel. what is the difference between Intel's...

Celeron
Celeron D
P4 Northwood
P4 Prescott
P4 Extreme edition

or "hyper Treading". all these CPUs are socket 478

[dylanmikagami]

i think it has do with their cache

[cool_dude]

Originally Posted by dylanmikagami

i think it has do with their cache

Yeh think it is, but dnt quote me on that (amd man myself )

Best one to upgrade to (if you do) is the P4 Northwood, or if uve got the cash the P4 Extreme Edition.

Not too sure on HyperThreading but its to execute more programs at the same time without loosing speed. Or something like that anyway

[latency]

Hyper threding makes the CPU appper as two, which supposidly allows the computer to multi-task, but personally untill I see proof of this I think it's a marketing stunt, cos windows can't multi-task, and even if it does appear as two cpus, there's still only one physical one, so how can it multi-task anyway?

[TazUk]

Originally Posted by L4T3NCY

I think it's a marketing stunt, cos windows can't multi-task

You keep bringing this up but it's not true, Windows can multitask and can use multiple CPU's at the same time

...and even if it does appear as two cpus, there's still only one physical one, so how can it multi-task anyway?

Because it has in effect multiple cores i.e. like two processors fitted inside one CPU. It gives you some of the benefits of a multi processor system but is limited by the shared L2 cache.

To answer the original question :-

Celeron - Cut down P4, less L2 cache and lower FSB plus they have higher latency to really ruin the performance

Celeron D - Lated version of the Celeron with double the L2 cache and a faster FSB, 533Mhz compared with 400Mhz on the older one.

P4 Northwood - Older P4 design, introduced Hyperthreading to the world

P4 Prescot - New P4 design with larger L2 cache, larger L1 cache, SSE3, etc

P4 Extreme Edition - P4 with an even larger L2 cache, limited production run and high price

[lambbuster]

If you have the money for an Extreme Edition P4 then go for it - you won't look back

PHil

[[M]uuhh]

Hyperthreading is not a stunt. i have a P4 2.6ghz Hyperthreading cpu and a 2.66 None Hyperthreading cpu. the Hyperthreading cpu is much faster than the none HT cpu plus i can multitask so much better.

[Cosmo_1847]

thanks guys

[TazUk]

Originally Posted by [M]uuhh

...the Hyperthreading cpu is much faster than the none HT cpu...

Remember, not all of that will be down to hyperthreading though

[stdPikachu]

Originally Posted by L4T3NCY

Hyper threding makes the CPU appper as two, which supposidly allows the computer to multi-task

The proper name is SMT, or simultaneous multi-threading (as opposed to real dual processing SMP). What is essentially means is that the CPU is capable of running more than one "thread" (think of it as list of things to do) at a time. This is represented by two "virtual" CPU's. Any NT-based windows OS will be able to take advantage of SMT, but only the XP series are specifically SMT-aware.

Originally Posted by L4T3NCY

but personally untill I see proof of this I think it's a marketing stunt, cos windows can't multi-task

Windows has been fully multi-tasking for years (although it's still a bit cacky at it).

Originally Posted by L4T3NCY

and even if it does appear as two cpus, there's still only one physical one, so how can it multi-task anyway?

Hyperthreading is half marketing stunt, half useful hack. It's usefullness lies in the P4's insanely long pipeline - when branch prediction goes wrong, data in the on-chip cache is rendered useless, cache memory empties and waits for new stuff to be delivered from RAM. This is called a stall; the chip can't do anything without any data to work with.

SMT sorta sidesteps this issue by having two sets of instructions run at the same time. If one of these stalls, then the other thread runs in it's place whilst the first instructions cache is being refilled. Hence simultaneous threads, hence SMT, hence the marketing-happy HyperThreading terminology. Please noe that SMT can severely degrade your performance if your OS and applications aren't tuned to take advantage of it - remember you've now got two threads taking up your precious cache memory (and anyone who knows anything about CPU's will know that P4's need as much cache as they can get). If your app/OS aren't SMT aware, they'll try and allocate both threads the full amount of cache memory which results in stall after stall after stall.

SMT ain't much use on AMD chips, cos their much shorter pipelines renders them much less prone to stalls.

Originally Posted by lambbuster

If you have the money for an Extreme Edition P4 then go for it - you won't look back

If you have the money for an EE chip, buy an FX-55 instead. Even the fastest P4 EE is still level-pegging with the FX-55 when it comes to video encoding (typically the Intel stronghold until x86-64 arch came out), and it gets annihilated in gaming benches. If you don't plan to overclock, an AMD64 4000 will get your performance almost as good as the FX-55 at lower pricetag. You also get the benefit of being able to re-use your trusty old PC3200, rather than have to fork out for rubbishy DDR2.

Besides, Northwood is the only P4 core I'll ever touch - I would have bought one myself if AMD's XP's didn't have better price/performance ratios at the time. I'm staying well clear of anything to do with Prescott until Intell pull their fingers out and start designing proper CPU's again.

[Cosmo_1847]

i'm thinking of getting a P4 Northwood 2.8Ghz @ 533MHz FBS for £100 because thats the fastest my board can take or a "Bundle" of a mobo, RAM and AMD 64 3000+

[Smiffy]

Originally Posted by stdPikachu

SMT ain't much use on AMD chips, cos their much shorter pipelines renders them much less prone to stalls.

I think you'll find that AMD chips ARE just as prone to stalls cause by branch prediction failures, just that having shorter pipelines, the side effects are less disasterous.

Smiffy

[TazUk]

Originally Posted by stdPikachu

...until Intell pull their fingers out and start designing proper CPU's again.

They have, it's called the Pentium M

[Cosmo_1847]

Originally Posted by TazUk

They have, it's called the Pentium M

isnt that just for laptops?

[brumster]

Originally Posted by [M]uuhh

Hyperthreading is not a stunt. i have a P4 2.6ghz Hyperthreading cpu and a 2.66 None Hyperthreading cpu. the Hyperthreading cpu is much faster than the none HT cpu plus i can multitask so much better.

Forgive me/slap me if I'm wrong, but the 2.66 is 533FSB and the 2.6 is 800FSB so I doubt HT has got that much to do with it (as presumably hinted in the post by TazUk?)

I have an ageing Northwood 3.06 (533 with HT) and it just about beats an AMD64 3000 I built for someone recently in terms of a quick, simple 3DMark2001 SE test. This is known to lean more on the CPU than the graphics, too.

This is neither a boast nor a complaint - happy with both manufacturers chips and use them in equal proportion... well, ok, maybe I'm eeking towards AMD these days