P4 2.8 Or 3.0ghz?

[Somebody1234]

Save the cash and get the 2.8!
Maybe even a 2.6. How much would that one cost you?
You won't be able to tell the difference unless you run a benchmark test.

With the cash you save you will be able to get a faster CPU later on when they will be much cheaper.

[adamp2p]

Removed

[adamp2p]

Here is a good review of this super mother board get this one dude!

It cost over $200. I would buy it if I had the dough...

Save your money and get the 2.6 and overclock to 3.0 (and your chip will still be healthy...). Use the money you save to get the:



http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTE0

Or the wireless solution if you really want to geek it! It has all the features to dream of...onboard RAID via Intel Application Accerator, gigabit LAN, overclocking by MHz..etc..etc...I do not see the sense in buying the 3.0 chip unless you do not get a thrill from tweaking your computer. I personally derive much pleasure from such activities...oh yes... B)

[abu_has_the_power]

Originally posted by theprisoner@9 September 2003 - 05:28
if they both have the 800mhz front side bus i would get the 2.8. There is a very little difference in processers, the bus is what matters. I have a 2.4(533 fsb) and my friend has a 1.2ghz(533fsb) and theres a very little difference. Also go a little higher and get the fx5900(the 5600 is very lound and it tested below the ati radeon 9700) or radeon 9800 256mb

i just received my comp from ibuypower, and it's P4 2.4 ghz {800 FSB}. I thought p4 2.4 ghz doesn't go that high??

[adamp2p]

The 2.4C can be overclocked as well, but because intel locks the multiplier in their chips, you overclock the front side bus a crazy amount and unless you have crazy cooling you might end up damaging hardware.

...the 2.4 chip should theoretically be able to do 3.0, and I have read accounts of such an overclock, but in order to use stock cooling, the 2.6 or 2.8 would be a better candidate for overclocking to 3 GHz and beyond...

[lynx]

The problem with overclocking the FSB is that at the same time you will also be overclocking the AGP, pci, memory, etc. Any one of these could cause your system to become unstable, and working out which one is damn near impossible. depending on the motherboard, you can often rule out memory as the cause by setting the memory clock down by 33MHz relative to the system clock before you start to raise the system clock speed, but remember that with multipliers in the region of 15 and above, raising the system clock by 1MHz increases the processor speed by 15MHz or more, so it is very easy to suddenly push your processor over the limit.

Do not assume that just because setting clock speeds dynamically seems to work, that your system is still going to boot later. My own system (AMD XP 1700+, nominal speed 1466 MHz) runs fine at 1540 MHz if the new speeds are applied after the system is up and running. But if I try to make the required changes permanent in the bios, the system simply will not boot. I suspect that this is caused by the increased speed of the pci bus, because I have an old adaptec scsi card which almost certainly objects to resetting when the pci specification is out of tolerance, but once reset it does not notice an increase in the system clock so it continues to work quite happily.

I don't know if overclockers have found a way to unlock the pentium chip in the same way that they have with the athlon chips (I've looked but never seen anything), this is another reason why I am sticking with AMD, because I know there are ways of increasing processor performance without compromising the rest of the system.

[clocker]

Originally posted by Broken@8 September 2003 - 23:29
2.8 or 3.0 ghz... it really doesn't matter. In 8 months they'll both be obsolete. Save the money and get ready to buy the computer after that if you wanna stay current. B)

I agree.

You mention that you'd like to stay current for 3 years.

I think the only piece of computer hardware that has stayed current for that long is the floppy drive.

Maybe the ON/OFF button too.

[_John_Lennon_]

Originally posted by clocker+9 September 2003 - 13:35--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker &#064; 9 September 2003 - 13:35)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Broken@8 September 2003 - 23:29
2.8 or 3.0 ghz... it really doesn&#39;t matter. In 8 months they&#39;ll both be obsolete. Save the money and get ready to buy the computer after that if you wanna stay current.&nbsp; B)

I agree.

You mention that you&#39;d like to stay current for 3 years.

I think the only piece of computer hardware that has stayed current for that long is the floppy drive.

Maybe the ON/OFF button too. [/b][/quote]
Oh come on, by 3 years from now, u will have enough to upgrade anyway.

And 8 months from now, ur computer will still be fine, Pentium 4 2ghz chips have been out about that long, and the 2ghz chips arnt &#39;obselete&#39;

EDIT:

Anyway, more importantly, your paying too much, here are your options.

AMD 3000 XP+ = 270 Dollars.
Pentium 4 2.8Ghz HT 800Mhz = 267 Dollars
Pentium 4 3ghz HT 800Mhz = 389 Dollars

The 3200 AMD is about 460, with the 2.3 P4 a bit higher than that.

Hope this helps, ALOT.

[_John_Lennon_]

Bump

[strim99]

save ur cash and get an AMD athlon or barton processor. much faster fer half the cost - friggin intel is a rip.