p4 2.4GHz versus p4 2.53GHz

personally, I would definately get the upgrade. Only a few extra dollars for possibly a considerable amount of performance. Actually, I would go all the way to 2.8, but then we're talkin more money...

though again keep in mind, at such high cpu speeds it is hard to tell the difference in speed unless you are using VERY cpu intensive operations - such as dvd ripping and compressing files and such. gosh... i was gunna say anuther thing but it being 1245 in the morning im forgetting... gotta sleep! if i remember wut i was gunna say i'll post up later. zzzzzzzz

the kreep

Yep!I would also go for 2.8!

At these speeds you're best bet is to just try and get the configuration that will give you the most bang for your buck.

Agreed... Many times Intel makes the next processor different in more than just the clock speed... for example, the 2.8 ghz is much faster than the 2.66 (much faster than the 5% difference in clock speeds) because they made significant changes to it. I am not sure about the 2.53, but if that's what you've read, then I would definitely go for the higher one. If you can afford it, I would recommend going for hte 2.8, especially since the 3.06 came out and the price has gone down a lil. Good luck!

It looks to me like your link is comparing a 2.53 processor with a 2.4 that has a 400mhz front side bus. The 2.4 has both 400 and 533mhz versions, and a lot of that speed increase they're reporting is from the bus speed increase. The Sagers have the 533 bus in their 2.4's, so they'll be significantly faster than the 2.4 you referenced.

Having said that, I'd probably pay the $35 to get the 2.53 (or faster)

Eric

The system bus is generally irrelevent unless your memory clock speed is as fast as it is. Since the memory clock speed is 233, the bus speed of 400 or 533 will both take full advantage of it. Regardless, though, I agree that the extra $35 is well worth it for the gains.

?

One of us is confused

I didn't see anything in the linked article we're talking about that mentioned what speed or even type memory was being used. And change in bus speed isn't irrelevant in analyzing their claim of 10% speed increase. The only way that you could get that big of a jump between a 2.4 & a 2.53 is by comparing 400mhz 2.4 to a 533mhz 2.53.

Anyway, here's a nice article from anandtech that gives the lowdown on the impact of the fsb increase. As a bonus, it includes all 3 chips being discussed here in its tests: the 2.4, the 2.4b at 533mhz, and the 2.53

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1615

The raw numbers won't mean much, but the relative results between the 2.4b & the 2.53 should give you a rough idea of what the performance difference will be in the 2.4 & 2.53 Sagers.

From that anandtech article:

"Why is PC1066 RDRAM so important? When you move to a 133MHz quad-pumped FSB the amount of FSB bandwidth between the i850 MCH and the Pentium 4 increases from 3.2GB/s to 4.26GB/s. Since the fastest supported memory type of the i850E is PC800 RDRAM, by default the i850E reduces the RDRAM clock multiplier from 4x FSB frequency to 3x FSB frequency to keep the RDRAM clock at 400MHz (for PC800 RDRAM). This keeps the amount of bandwidth between the MCH and the RDRAM banks stuck at 3.2GB/s in spite of the fact that the FSB bandwidth has increased by 33%. You are then in fact, widening one end of a pipe but leaving the other end untouched and expecting a gain in throughput. It's the FSB/memory bandwidth balance that made the i850 perfect for the Pentium 4 and it's that very same balance that's disrupted unless you use PC1066 RDRAM."

It is talking about RDRAM, but the same applies to DDR. When DDR runs at 266 Mhz, it is not taking full advantage of any FSB that is higher than that... That's why the increase from 400 to 533 isn't a huge deal... The changes involved are also the actual processes in the CPU itself. You'll also notice that the review tests the new processors with the faster memory, specifically the fastest memory that the FSB can accomodate. If I'm wrong about this, please lemme know! Hope that made things clearer though...

maybe we'll get something like dual channel DDR but you are right. The 533 bus is really be wasted on laptops not to mention they plan on upping that bus even more (probably by summer) Hopefully memory in laptops will start catching up by then.

Agreed... I'm looking for 1 gig so-dimms (so we can get 2 gig max, my dream is to have 2 gigs and then make a ramdrive of a gig and run a game off of it.... WHOA!! instant access!) and DDR PC333 for lappies by early next year... I sure hope that happens. It would be sweet :-)

in the distant future maybe they will have ram drives instead of hard drives! just a thot... but i'd think that by the time that could happen that technology would be advanced past that.. not really sure, just a thot.

the kreep

They might have ramdrives for temporary use, but remember that on a ramdrive you lose all of the info as soon as you shut down or cut power (that's the disadvantage; although to some that is an advantage, lol, no need to defragment, for one).

The portable version of RAM drives are those USB keychain memory devices, which use flash memory which retains its information even without power. They already have capacities of up to 512Mb. I've seen USB 2.0 versions that have read/write speeds of up to 6Mb/s. I don't think you can run a game off one of them, though. People tend to use them more as high capacity floppies than as a portable HD.

~Kendalf

lol, flashram is different though... read and write speeds of 6 mb/s is nothing compared to ram speeds, which is what would make a ramdrive so sweet in the first place. But, as I said, once it loses power, it loses the data.... I wish those flash drives were as fast as ram! :-)

Well, they are currently developing something called MRAM, has something like a 4 ns access time and retains its information after loss of power...

Unfortunately, it is under development. It may not become market material for another 2-5 years or so. Still, imagine, a massive MRAM drive....