Intel p4 1.6 a

Okay, just a quick note to the moderators - Sowulo, D.A., or AlienDyne.
I may have posted this twice or posted this in the wrong forum. If I did either or both, then sorry in advance.

Anyways! I'm just wondering if it is worth maybe getting the new p4 1.6a cpu (northwood, .13 micron, 512k cache) because it is being dubbed the next intel celeron 300a because of its overclocking abilities. Here's a link to a review and it might surprise many of you.

<a href="http://www.tweakersasylum.com/Reviews/P416A/p416a.html" target="_blank">http://www.tweakersasylum.com/Reviews/P416A/p416a.html</a>

I already have a somewhat functional amd duron 850 mhz unit, it's missing a couple of pieces yet.
I plan to upgrade it a faster duron or 1600+.
I just want to be a fair person and try to be equal here, so no flames or amd vs. intel debates!!!! Otherwise, the moderators have my full permission to close this post.
Post away!! :)

I love overclocking and I think it would be a great buy. On the other hand, make sure you compare prices(if that is a consideration for you) by adding up all the expenses involved in the purchase of a new MB/CPU. This includes ram, cpu, mb, P4 power supply, and cooling. If you look at the XP1800+, its about $4 more than the P4 1.6G. The ram and MB run roughly the same and your PS needs to be 300watts and if you get the P4 you may need the extra power header that your current PS may not have. In the review, the P4 OCed just beat it out in some things(exept memory where it kicked major butt) and then it was behind the 1800 in other areas. This with an xp1800 at default speed. I'm sure that the 1800 would OC and the cost between the two would be negligible. I believe that it basically comes down to preference on your part.

Good luck!

I don't intend this post to be a flame so please don't take it as such. I understand why people used to overclock their processors. It was a good way to get more performance from their machines. Nowadays, the processor is not the weak link as far as performance goes. It's the other parts in the machine slowing everything down. Hard drive, video card, RAM, etc. It makes a bigger difference to use an IDE RAID solution or use CAS 2 memory (hopefully from a good memory company: Mushkin, Corsair...) and a good video card. It doesn't make much sense to make a killer machine if you stick a sub-par video card in it. The only thing you'll notice a difference in performance between an OCed processor and a non-OCed processor is in a benchmark. Just bear in mind most of the benchmarks are designed to test things under theoretical conditions. Always take the results of a benchmark with a grain of salt. If you want to overclock, that's fine, but I don't think you will notice the difference either way. Except for when you run a benchmark.
The whole AMD vs. Intel debate IS getting old. Both processors perform very well. So either way you really can't go wrong. I love competition keeping the prices down.
In closing, look to the other bottlenecks in the computer before you start the whole overclocking thing.

[quote]Originally posted by Hippie_Tech:
<strong>Nowadays, the processor is not the weak link as far as performance goes. It's the other parts in the machine slowing everything down. The only thing you'll notice a difference in performance between an OCed processor and a non-OCed processor is in a benchmark. </strong><hr></blockquote>


I disagree 100% here. If processor speed didn't make a difference in anything other than benchmarks, they would just make better HD, ram, and videocards. This is cleary not the case. If I have a XP2000+ and I'm encoding a video file and it takes me 2minutes, then by your logic, with the same RAM, HD, etc, but with a xp1500+ my time should be the same. While the components that you mentioned earlier do make a difference perfomance wise, the processor is a vital part to any system and its speed is important.

In
<a href="http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q1/020107/p42200-13.html" target="_blank">this</a> link for audio and video encoding, you can clearly see the speed of varying processors with the same HD, RAM, and videocard.

Thanks for replying gameguru and hippie_tech.
I almost forgot about posting this topic!!!

I won't be overclocking much if none at all because I will want to keep stability.
I just noticed that article and remembered the days of a cel 300a o/c to 450mhz with very little voltage adjustment and only using a good heatsink/fan for it. I might try to o/c a p41.6a to at least 2ghz, but I might not.
I do want to get a newer duron or wait until amd shrinks their core down to .13 microns.

I will not want to bother overclocking amd's because they run hotter and they are approaching their speed limits with their current cores using .18 micron size.

Thanks again.

I'll invest in both a new amd duron 1.3 and intel p4 1.6a when I sell off some of my older equipment.

Gameguru, I was merely pointing out the difference between OCing a processor or not. Yes, in certain applications you will see a difference, but in the majority of programs out there you will not notice a difference between a 1.6GHz P4 and the same processor overclocked to 1.8GHz. I would also like to point out that I was giving advice on making the entire machine faster, not just the processor. There IS more to a system than just the processor. You will SEE a performance difference with what I suggested. I doubt you will NOTICE a difference between an OCed and a non-OCed processor, which is what we were discussing. Plus, I would like to point out that your link was to a benchmark page. As my Grandfather always use to say, "Believe half of what you see and none of what you hear."

[quote]Originally posted by Hippie_Tech:
<strong>the majority of programs out there you will not notice a difference between a 1.6GHz P4 and the same processor overclocked to 1.8GHz. I would also like to point out that I was giving advice on making the entire machine faster, not just the processor.</strong><hr></blockquote>


I wasn't trying to be rude. I do aggree that the average user would never notice the difference in most of the applications that they use. On the otherhand, upgrading a videocard so you get a 6fps increase in a game would not be noticeable either. At the end of the day, it boils down to user preference and application. I feel that there is almost an art to overclocking and I was fascinated by the article originally posted. If I was selling a computer to a friend who knew next to nothing about computers, I would NEVER encourage him to overclock his processor.

The performance increases are smaller today than in the past due to the higher clock speeds that are being produced. The 450 had 150% the performance of a 300(150Mhz difference). The 2Ghz has a 25% advantage over the 1.6. For the 1.6Ghz machine to be at the same margin of performance as the 450vs 300, it would need to run at 2.4Ghz.(800Mhz!!difference)

Gameguru. I apologize for the tone of my earlier post. I only wanted to point out that increasing the speed of data access and throughput through the use of RAID, CAS 2 memory, and a better video card will have a greater impact on the machines overall performance than overclocking the processor.