Intel's 925X & LGA-775: Are Prescott 3.6 and PCI Express Graphics any Faster?
by Anand Lal Shimpi on June 21, 2004 12:05 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Intel's Pentium 4 560 - The Model Numbers Continue...
Intel's LGA-775 Prescotts are architecturally the same as their Socket-478 Prescotts, so we'll direct you back to our Prescott article for more information on exactly what it means to be a Prescott. The only differences you'll find between LGA-775 Prescotts and their Socket-478 counterparts are that you can get a 3.6GHz LGA-775 CPU, whereas the fastest Socket-478 chip is still 3.4GHz, and all LGA-775 CPUs use Intel's new model numbering scheme.As we've reported before, Intel's model numbering system basically uses arbitrary numbers to represent various CPUs. The numbers don't necessarily mean higher clock speeds; they just denote faster CPUs within a family.
All of the Prescott based Pentium 4s fall into the 5xx series:
- Intel Pentium 4 560 (3.6GHz)
- Intel Pentium 4 550 (3.4GHz)
- Intel Pentium 4 540 (3.2GHz)
- Intel Pentium 4 530 (3.0GHz)
- Intel Pentium 4 520 (2.8GHz)
Intel has been understandably quiet about their new model numbering scheme. After all, they were the ones who were so openly critical of AMD's model numbering system upon its release. Intel forced AMD down the road of model numbers, and it looks like they have actually painted themselves into a corner with requiring the use of model numbers as well.
AMD has made some mistakes with their model numbers in the past, and it will be interesting to see how Intel handles some of the same challenges that AMD has faced. For starters, by completely disconnecting the model numbers from clock speeds, Intel has avoided the issue of applying conservative or liberal ratings to processors. At the same time, you have to give credit where credit is due, and we must say that Intel's modeling system is strangely reminiscent of AMD's numbering systems.
First 64-bit x86 extensions and now model numbers, Intel has been enjoying the taste of shoe for a while now, it seems.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
39 Comments
View All Comments
Pete - Monday, June 21, 2004 - link
*Sweet.I'm thinking those 6800U benches are probably input errors on AT's part, as most other sites show:
1) scores nowhere near that high, especially at that res, &
2) A64s outperforming P4s.
You may be using a very GPU-limited, or at least not-CPU-limited demo, though.
Pete - Monday, June 21, 2004 - link
Swet, fancy Moses! Anand, can you explain the ginormous "vanilla" Far Cry gains by the 6800U? Was IQ the same as the 61.11s (still "point-filtery" in some places compared to ATi) with such prodigious (70%!) gains?justly - Monday, June 21, 2004 - link
AnandI don’t care if that info is strait from Intel or not, it is plain wrong, and I think you are wrong for not questioning this and more so by putting it in print.
Conduction is increased with pressure (be it heat or electrical) but for downward force to affect electrical contact/conduction of a CPU in a socket the pins would have to make contact at their tip. A ZIF socket does not do this, it makes contact on the side of the pins when a sliding plate forces the pin against a contact. If contact was made at the tip of the pins then the CPU would not lay flat against the top of the socket when inserted. This would also prevent aftermarket adapters like this one from powerleap http://www.powerleap.com/PL-iP4.html from being used between the CPU and the socket because it would prevent the pins from contacting.
Once the CPU is inserted into the socket and the lever is locked down the CPU is locked flat against the socket so even if downward pressure was applied it would only help with heat transfer.
Runamile - Monday, June 21, 2004 - link
I agree with #4. The ZIF socket takes care of all contact needed. And as #15 said, there is a sideways force that makes contact with the pins. Ever seen that Tom's Hardware video with the PIII and P4 running w/o a heatsink, albeit very slowly due to freak overheating? They did 'need' the extreame downwards force. Thats all for heat transfer. Period.All in all, very enlightening article. Basicly shows that the entire 925X/LGA-775/Prescott/DDR2/PCI-X release is a mediocre waste of our money. At least for the time being.
paulvds - Monday, June 21, 2004 - link
478 pin electrical contact is by a pinchingsideway force on the pins produced by the ZIF
lever, top down force is totaly irrelevant!
How could you gobble-up that marketing nonsense ?
You advise 'business users' to chose AMD...
Also total nonsense, any entry level value processor will do, they don't need teraMips...
You should go write poetry or novells...
danidentity - Monday, June 21, 2004 - link
Great article Anand...Do you have any info on the supposed Intel-imposed 10% overclocking limit described in Tom's Hardware Guide's LGA775 article here?
http://www.tomshardware.com/motherboard/20040619/s...
retrospooty - Monday, June 21, 2004 - link
Nice article...It just basically proves what we have all suspected all along. DDR2, PCI express, and socket 775 dont offer any compelling reason to upgrade (for now anyhow).
Of course in the future (maybe 2005 if we're lucky), when graphics cards can utilize the extra bandwidth of PCI express it will be faster than AGP 8x.
Of course in the future (maybe 2005 if we're lucky), when DDR2 800 mhz is standard, it will be faster than low latency DDR400
Of course in the future (even if hell freezes over) the message is clear socket 775 has failed :D
LOL !
T8000 - Monday, June 21, 2004 - link
I think the pins in the LGA775 socket are a lot longer then the CPU needs.So adding some kind of non conductive shim around the pins could make this socket a lot more reliable.
It could be as simple as a thin plastic plate with 775 holes in it, that could be inserted before the CPU, leaving just enough pin length to mount the CPU, without the risk of bending those pins.
Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, June 21, 2004 - link
phobsThanks for the heads up, we added the last two pages of benchmarks after the fact and I forgot to remove that line :)
Take care,
Anand
Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, June 21, 2004 - link
justlyThat information is straight from Intel - the force of the heatsink was used to maximize heat transfer, but not that much force is necessary to maximize heat transfer. The rest of the force is needed to ensure that there is good contact between the pins and their contacts.
Take care,
Anand