while the "EE" (extreme edition) P4 is certainly faster at pretty much everything, the "E" class (prescott) P4's may not be *any* faster at HLDS than the older "C" (northwood) P4's.
These new "E" pentium 4 are a totally new design on the core, and as such have been desgned to run at higher frequencies. Essentially they are - same speed as equivalent clock "C" P4 - much greater heat output 10-20% more (and way more than ANY athlon ;-) - longer pipeline to enable greater clockspeeds - larger L2 cache to improve performance The larger cache should make the core faster, but this gets offset by the deeper pipeline which is a performance penalty, especially when cache preloads are incorrect (cache misses). There are about a bazillion reviews on the various hardware sites that all say the same thing...at identical clock speeds the "E" prescott is a bad buy due to the heat penalty with no performance gain, but once the clock speed ramps up, the prescott architecture will be worthwhile The Extreme Edition P4 (avaliable in both 3.2 and 3.4ghz variants) is essentially a gallatin xeon with 2 mb L2 cache shoehorned into the normal P4 socket 478, otherwise architecturally its identical to the northwood P4.** The extra cache seems to make a fairly appreciable difference to many things, including serving games, I've used mine to do 64 player WolfET with much success. Matt **note: the fact that intel can take a xeon and make it into a desktop chip is more evidence to suggest that P4 and xeon are pretty much identical cpus in different packages. The biggest performance difference between the two is the mobo chipset that connects them to the rest of the world. > > yes, you will see a speed increase with the larger cache > sizes. > > kev > > > Christopher Luk wrote: > > UPDATE: should be 3.2G(E) with 1M L2 cache, not > > 3.2G(EE). > > Christopher Luk wrote: > > > >> i just came across intel's page and found that there > are 3.2G(EE) CPU >> with 1M L2 cahce. any one have tried > it before? >> > >> > http://indigo.intel.com/compare_cpu/showchart.aspx?mmID=857353 ,857995,852351&catID=7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15 > >> > >> > >> further, for intel 3.2G, there are models with > >> 1. (3.2GEE) 512k L2 + 2M L3, > >> 2. (3.2GE) 1M L2 + no L3 and > >> 3. (3.2G) 512k L2 + no L3. > >> any comments on performance with recent HLDS > performance? >> > >> btw, i got an 2.8C already running an dod 32ppl server, > just fine w/ >> >75% CPU loading but low enough ping for > local users (~40). i will >> purchase an 2.8E in the next > few days with the same intel D865PERL >> main board as my > old one. just wonder is there any performance gain >> > with larger L2 cache. the theory ppl taught a while for > internal cahce >> vs HLDS performance. any comments? > >> > >> chris > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the > list archives, >> please visit: > >> > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux > > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the > > list archives, please visit: > > > > > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux > > > _______________________________________________ > To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the > list archives, please visit: > http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
