just got SL79L Prescott 3.0e 1mb HT

Finally, i am in the hyperthreading world!!! Just got a Prescott 3.0e SL79L stepping cpu retail for $269! WOOT, can't wait to bench this baby.

using the 1016 Asus P4P800 bios!! it recognizes prescott cpu perfectly. although i had huge problems in the beginning, stupid windows xp installed drivers for hyperthreading and it conflicted with LAN controller, and my mouse froze. fixed that, then i had to load cpu bios to default values because it wouldn't boot into windows. finally, ...........here is a screenshot of my new baby!

wtf? Drivers for hyperthreading? Did I Miss something o_O?


Anyway have some fun :) And OC that baby please.

Different HAL

Quote:

---

Originally posted by EmineM
wtf? Drivers for hyperthreading? Did I Miss something o_O?


Anyway have some fun :) And OC that baby please.

---

windows wouldn't boot the first time when i didn't load default bios values! but finally got into windows , and windows installed several new drivers for ht and asked to restart!! no one had this problem?? my old cpu was a P4 2.8B no hyperthreading.

Hyperthreading!! 2 cpus in task manager..

http://imagehost.vendio.com/preview/.../Prescott2.JPG

overclocking?? now way jose! lol my idle cpu temp jumped 17c !

P4 2.8 B ; 34c idle

Prescott 3.0e; 47.1c idle

crap, my system isn't using PAT mode anymore!! Ram is running at only 159.6mhz dual channel WTF???? I have DDR333, shouldn't it run at 166mhz by default. Hmmm.

my super PI score 1mb was 47 sec with Prescott. i got 51 with the 2.8 Northwood chip.
4 sec improvement.
:toast:


oh and my Aquamark3 score:
http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?run=749916785

1k more

OMFG, look at my new PCmark04 scores!!!

new:
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm04=2473467

old:
http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm04=2450326

isn't that good? wow, i beat alot Athlon64s running stock.

time to update your sig too

Quote:

---

Originally posted by freecableguy
time to update your sig too

---

done!:toast:

Might be able to tighten memory timing up more or not run so much in the background when running pi.

:toast:

SL7J5

lol, nice score Fugger! beat me with 200mhz less clockspeed. yeah, i'm too afraid to mess around with the mem timings atm. Wow, those LGA 775 has lower voltages, and new D0 stepping.

I'm just happy i got a SL7 stepping. although i might never utilize it to full potential lol.

Are you using DDRII with that Fugger?

Centon DDR2 samples with Micron chips, they run the tightest memory timing with ease and yet to find the top end. I have not played with loose timing much yet.

This will pull 3.3k sandra unbuffered @ 1:1 200FSB

:)

Sweet!:toast:

LGA 775 chipset looks very promising!:cool:

a lot of bandwidth.

here is my sandra 04 run. i ran it buffered i think. not sure...

i was at 3.2k-3.3k with P4 northwood 2.8B:)

The ORB does not let me publish any scores from this rig.

Some applications think this thing is a nacona xeon so dont be fooled when you see a screen shot with one missing L3 cache

I wish it was

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kanavit
crap, my system isn't using PAT mode anymore!! Ram is running at only 159.6mhz dual channel WTF???? I have DDR333, shouldn't it run at 166mhz by default. Hmmm.

---

don't you just wish those dang intel platforms weren't so buggy? ;)

sry, just couldn't resist, you always preaching how intel is foolproof

looking good, I think that it must be just a mem divider issue

FUGGER stop making me want to buy new rams, mobo, cpu, and video all for the sake of intel (as crazy as it seems, it's still temping)

hmm, Fugger isn't the nocona cores have absent L3 cache? Or is cpu-z just not properly reading it right.

Snowwie, your probably right, my cpu/mem ration did change form 4:3 to 5:4.

They have L3 cache in various denominations. The datasheet claims it can have up to 8MB L3 cache.

The newest version of CPU ID works correctly, yours is an earlier version with better identification on socket 478.

Kanavit see if your RAM will run in 400 mode (1:1)...if not give it a bump in volts (no it won't hurt it).

That's what this site is all about. Would get you DDR400 and PAT for no extra cost (and yes I know money is tight).

thx Soul burner, i will try that. just tried PAT and turbo performance mode, no boot. my memory doesn't seem to want to go higher than 159mhz. :(

maybe your right, i should add some voltage and set to 1:1.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kanavit
crap, my system isn't using PAT mode anymore!! Ram is running at only 159.6mhz dual channel WTF???? I have DDR333, shouldn't it run at 166mhz by default. Hmmm.

---

No, as I tried to explain on that other thread, 160DDR or 320MHz effective is the correct setting for 333MHz/PC-2700 RAM with an 800MHz FSB Intel Processor. That means you're setup with a 5:4 Ratio. On i865 PAT is lost when not running 1:1, that's why many bought i875.

The link to the site that explains Ratios, in FAQ's sticky is off BTW. A 5:4 in this case simply means 80% as it relates to the memory controller, not the front side bus=P Yes it's four fifths but for the memory. So once you figure that out, you see that 160MHz DDR is 80% of the 200MHz FSB 5=200 so 4=160. If you overclock, the RAM is ran at 80% of whatever the FSB is when a 5:4. If the Ratio were 3:2 or two thirds, it would be 66.7% or 200:133 for PC-2100/266MHz effective.

This is an Intel tweaked setting or a Plan B made by Intel. Intel did this in case PC-3200 wasn't ready in time. The user could use PC-2700 and PC-2100 with 5:4 and 3:2 Ratios respectively. NO, it doesn't cause a hit to performance, except in cases where absolute memory bandwdith matters, rare. Just the opposite, more times than not, the performance increases. I can explain that later as well. Good luck!

Donnie

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Donnie27
No, as I tried to explain on that other thread, 160DDR or 320MHz effective is the correct setting for 333MHz/PC-2700 RAM with an 800MHz FSB Intel Processor. That means you're setup with a 5:4 Ratio. On i865 PAT is lost when not running 1:1, that's why many bought i875.

The link to the site that explains Ratios, in FAQ's sticky is off BTW. A 5:4 in this case simply means 80% as it relates to the memory controller, not the front side bus=P Yes it's four fifths but for the memory. So once you figure that out, you see that 160MHz DDR is 80% of the 200MHz FSB 5=200 so 4=160. If you overclock, the RAM is ran at 80% of whatever the FSB is when a 5:4. If the Ratio were 3:2 or two thirds, it would be 66.7% or 200:133 for PC-2100/266MHz effective.

This is an Intel tweaked setting or a Plan B made by Intel. Intel did this in case PC-3200 wasn't ready in time. The user could use PC-2700 and PC-2100 with 5:4 and 3:2 Ratios respectively. NO, it doesn't cause a hit to performance, except in cases where absolute memory bandwdith matters, rare. Just the opposite, more times than not, the performance increases. I can explain that later as well. Good luck!

Donnie

---

good read, thx Donnie27. very useful info there. I may be getting DDR400 pretty soon. I'll keep everyone posted.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Donnie27
This is an Intel tweaked setting or a Plan B made by Intel. Intel did this in case PC-3200 wasn't ready in time. The user could use PC-2700 and PC-2100 with 5:4 and 3:2 Ratios respectively. NO, it doesn't cause a hit to performance, except in cases where absolute memory bandwdith matters, rare. Just the opposite, more times than not, the performance increases.

---

Dropping to 5:4 after being at 1:1 can cost you as much as a 250mhz clock speed drop in 3D apps (shown by macci...notice how he "ALWAYS" runs 1:1? There is a reason).

updated, i just picked up some DDR400 ram from local computer shop today.:)

1gb to be exact. more benchies to come!:toast:

woot finally broke 17k
:toast:

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7979357

DDR400 and PAT gave huge boost in bandwidth.

:toast:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Soulburner
Dropping to 5:4 after being at 1:1 can cost you as much as a 250mhz clock speed drop in 3D apps (shown by macci...notice how he "ALWAYS" runs 1:1? There is a reason).

---

Which would you rather have, 5810 with about 600MB of overhead or 6136MB (lasted test ican remember at 250 1:1) and almost 2GB of overhead. Now RAM might have gotten better since we compared them last year but then, that much overhead cause more of hit, most of the time. Overhead = Latency. Yet, as was stated, there are times when more bandwidth is better than less that starts faster.

Again, a hit on i865 is not a factor on i875=P PAT runs on i875 all the time unless you got crappy RAM. The Ratio is there for the memory, not the FSB that will produced the same amount of bandwidth no matter where the RAM is set.

Other have seen this happen as well. I use to have 3 links, but
here's one.

http://www.overclockers.com/articles758/index.asp

If you guys got this to work better then great, hell, fill me in on it?
I'm all for it and might jump on 1GB of PC-4400!

http://jupiter.walagata.com/w/donnie27/3464MHz.JPG

Donnie27

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kanavit
good read, thx Donnie27. very useful info there. I may be getting DDR400 pretty soon. I'll keep everyone posted.

---

You're welcomed.

It's what I've seen, but hey, I standby the Ratio info. If the other info has changed, I'm happy and don't care about being wrong. When we tried this, the fastest RAM out was PC-3700 and the newest PC-4000 in those days were a rip off, not like the good stuff they're selling now.

Donnie27

why not overclock? Prescotts run hot, but they can also take a lot of heat.

DDR 400 price seems to be rising. they are pretty expensive.

well i have mine and i aint letting it go.
Time for ddr2 to drop in price.
Wonder if they are stopping making ddr so the price is going up.

could be. lets see how long i hang on to these DDR400 dimms. my DDR333 is collecting dust now. don't feel like selling em. mabye they will go in my other system.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Donnie27
Which would you rather have, 5810 with about 600MB of overhead or 6136MB (lasted test ican remember at 250 1:1) and almost 2GB of overhead. Now RAM might have gotten better since we compared them last year but then, that much overhead cause more of hit, most of the time. Overhead = Latency. Yet, as was stated, there are times when more bandwidth is better than less that starts faster.

Again, a hit on i865 is not a factor on i875=P PAT runs on i875 all the time unless you got crappy RAM. The Ratio is there for the memory, not the FSB that will produced the same amount of bandwidth no matter where the RAM is set.

Other have seen this happen as well. I use to have 3 links, but
here's one.

http://www.overclockers.com/articles758/index.asp

If you guys got this to work better then great, hell, fill me in on it?
I'm all for it and might jump on 1GB of PC-4400!

http://jupiter.walagata.com/w/donnie27/3464MHz.JPG

Donnie27

---

The fact of the matter is macci could not beat his 3DMark01 scores at 4200-4300mhz in 5:4 mode that he set at 4000mhz in 1:1 mode.

1:1 IS THE KING. But NOT with 3-4-4-8 timings.

That is a real world benchmark. Sandra is going to say the opposite, leading you to believe these silly things...your PC4400 will likely be slower than any BH-5 or OCZ EB ram no matter how high you can get it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Soulburner
The fact of the matter is macci could not beat his 3DMark01 scores at 4200-4300mhz in 5:4 mode that he set at 4000mhz in 1:1 mode.

1:1 IS THE KING. But NOT with 3-4-4-8 timings.

That is a real world benchmark. Sandra is going to say the opposite, leading you to believe these silly things...your PC4400 will likely be slower than any BH-5 or OCZ EB ram no matter how high you can get it.

---

First for the memory, I don't need to set the RAM to CAS3 or 2.5 8-4-4. All it has to do for me is 270-215 and at least CAS2 6-2-2, anything else is pudding! Seeing a 2.8C run at this setting was and is enough for me.

Ace's Hardware showed what most of us who think 3DMarks is more of a Video Card Benchmark and a good system stress test, not much else. 2001 isn't all that and 2003 stinks even worse.

The difference with Sandra is that its scripts are optimized and even some of the tests show unoptimized/optimized results. Many of the tests on 3DMarks don't relate to current software, namely Games. The games that make up the bench mark is not the same as running some of the stuff from Bapco or etc..

From Ace's;

http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000242

After testing both 3DMark03 and a variety of real-world games based on DirectX 7, 8.1, and 9, we suspect that 3DMark03 is really more of a video card benchmark than anything else. It seems that some of the game tests, especially Mother Nature, measure video card performance almost in isolation from the rest of the system.

As far as Sandra goes, lets see how much Hyperthreading and SSE2 or 3 Doom3 has? If there were Icoming Forces (optimized for SSE2 from the ground up) test results, we'd see just how close Sandra is to telling the turth. It's not SysSoft Sandra Fault Games aren't optimized worth a fart! Bad that sucks on Intel's part for making it so dependant on SIMDs.

The Newest Adobe Premiere Pro with Hyperthreading and SEE2 shows very similar results as Sandra.

Donnie27

I was talking about 3DMark2001...which is a very system speed sensitive test.

OK, I still say it (2001) is only good for testing like systems more than anything else.

Donnie27

I don't agree...whicher system pushes the higher FPS there is faster IMO.

And besides I was talking about like systems. 18x250 1:1 is faster than 320x14 5:4.

Nope, can't argue there, I've never been over 4GHz and can't say which one would be the fastest.

I just don't think even 3DMarks SE is a very good measure of real Game performance, no matter what system it is installed on. Please Run Game/Demo Benchmarks like Commanche4, X2, Gun Metal, Aquamark and etc.., these would be of more valueble than something none-real world like 3DMarks 01 or 02. I hope Doom3 comes with a neat benchmarking tool/feature.

Donnie27

Fugger, how far does that DDR2 clock with those timings?

Seems to be clock to clock pretty much just as fast as Bh5 at 200 1:1
http://www.akiba-pc.com/e107_images/...unbuf_1024.gif

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Soulburner
The fact of the matter is macci could not beat his 3DMark01 scores at 4200-4300mhz in 5:4 mode that he set at 4000mhz in 1:1 mode.

1:1 IS THE KING. But NOT with 3-4-4-8 timings.

That is a real world benchmark. Sandra is going to say the opposite, leading you to believe these silly things...your PC4400 will likely be slower than any BH-5 or OCZ EB ram no matter how high you can get it.

---

i dont agree with that. i use pc4000 a-data and also have a pair of pc4200 and at 280 1:1 my memory scores and 3d scores are just fine. i also have a pair of crosair pc3200 bh-5 and even at the 2,2,2 settings i can stil out perform them with the pc4000 series. now i can only use 2.8v on the memory so that probly isnt fair to the bh-5 cause they like the higher voltages. anyways i just dont agree thats all. i may be wrong and if i am thats cool but i just dont see it...

peace perc,

Fuggers got 4 DDR2 dimms in that mobo. which is really interesting configuration. those sandra scores aren't bad considering the timings.

i thought 2 banks supported DDR , and other 2 supports DDR2 for i9xx chipset mobos?

I just know the top guys test all sorts of configurations and settings to find whats the fastest. Logically if it wasn't the best they wouldn't be using it.

What I stated about the 5:4 vs 1:1, he said himself...so its kinda hard to argue with macci.

:)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kanavit
Fuggers got 4 DDR2 dimms in that mobo. which is really interesting configuration. those sandra scores aren't bad considering the timings.

i thought 2 banks supported DDR , and other 2 supports DDR2 for i9xx chipset mobos?

---

i925 doesn't support DDR at all, only DDR2

i915 supports both

Quote:

---

Originally posted by snowwie
i925 doesn't support DDR at all, only DDR2

i915 supports both

---

thx Snowwie! :toast:

Macci, about 206FSB with tightest.

my 3.0E
SL79L
L410B186

http://membres.lycos.fr/cpulloverclock79/3.0e34s.jpg

not bad.

that is not bad at all.

31min for the 32m at 3.6G (15*240) under win2k3
I'll try with Xp

it isnt the max frequency

SP94+92+120mm
Win2k3

http://membres.lycos.fr/cpulloverclock79/3.0e32m.JPG

30'38 at 3685MHz, 1.44v
30'30 at 3704MHz

30'23 at 3600MHz with XP but i dont understand, I loose 100MHz..
ok in burn and in idle there is a freeze
I remember I get 31'20 at 3.6G on the 2k3

30'09 at 3629MHz

always a freeze at the end of each 32M with XP, weird

http://membres.lycos.fr/cpulloverclock79/3.0e32..JPG

cpulloverclock, what stepping is that 3.0e?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kanavit
cpulloverclock, what stepping is that 3.0e?

---

SL79L
L410B186

at 1.68v I can see 4.2GHz in air but my super flower 350 is dead :mad:

my record is 1.85v in air, it was very hot

I've got a screen for the 32M, 29'07 at 3.75GHz

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cpulloverclock
SL79L
L410B186

at 1.68v I can see 4.2GHz in air but my super flower 350 is dead :mad:

my record is 1.85v in air, it was very hot

I've got a screen for the 32M, 29'07 at 3.75GHz

---

hmm, good to know i have same steppings. thx Cpulloverclock!:banana:

I need a new PSU too, my 430watt Antec truepower is barely giving enough power to the 6800 GT and prescott.:D

soon, I'll have a 3.2E :p:

the 775 lga is that like the new 915/925 lga? sorry for the noobish question but im realy wanting to build one of these new platforms but just dont know what one yet?


*edit*

ok scratch that last question. i see how it works now the socket is called 775 and the chipset is 915/925. we need some more threads on these platforms i would like to see how these things perform? im deff wanting to build one..


thx perc,

in fact, I'll have a 3.4E

the best frequency for 33s

vcore 1.58v
vagp et vdd 2.10v
vddr 3.60v
vio 3.75v
vbt 1.83v
allied 300W
http://membres.lycos.fr/cpulloverclock79/33.jpg


vcore 1.63v
http://membres.lycos.fr/cpulloverclock79/3973.JPG

max frequency
vcore 1.82-1.84v and 55°C in idle, at 1.9v there was 65...
http://membres.lycos.fr/cpulloverclock79/4188.JPG

Cpulloverclock, i'm thinking of getting a new super awesome quiet cooler to replace the intel prescott stock cooler, which do you think is the best one?? And what fan should i use?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kanavit
Cpulloverclock, i'm thinking of getting a new super awesome quiet cooler to replace the intel prescott stock cooler, which do you think is the best one?? And what fan should i use?

---

in air cooling?
SP94, SP-120, Hyper6...

http://membres.lycos.fr/cpulloverclock79/seti3.0e..JPG

thx , do you have to remove the P4 retention brackets to mount that ?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kanavit
thx , do you have to remove the P4 retention brackets to mount that ?

---

Yep :D

http://membres.lycos.fr/cpulloverclock79/33s.JPG