New Linux Box [Archive] - JustLinux Forums

mmills

01-09-2006, 12:51 PM

I am building a new system box and it almost complete.
here are the specs:

Intel D848PFT2 Intel 848P Chipset 800MHz FSB
Intel P4 2.4 Retail
1024 Value Select Cosair
80Gig Sata150 Seagate Barracuda
128Mb ATI/ASUS 9200SE
Samsung DVD-RW 16X
Floppy

I cant wait till my CPU comes in today, I am ready to power up with LINUX!!! :D

I have been working on my compaq laptop celeron 1.4 for 2 long.........

bburton

01-09-2006, 05:08 PM

I have been working on my compaq laptop celeron 1.4 for 2 long.........

Feel lucky. I'm writing this very message from a Celeron 466mhz (256MB RAM). Thank god for Debian and XFCE.

DSwain

01-09-2006, 05:16 PM

Wow, very nice very nice. Intel and ATI aren't really my favorites anymore, but nice HDD choice. Have one myself, and I can't complain at all. Either way, it should be very cool in the end. Enjoy the machine man.

mmills

01-09-2006, 06:35 PM

Im a AMD kinda guy but my boss at work has had me building so many p4 machines, this setup I have bundled together smokes my AMD XP 1900 I had before this machine, by far, I was way to impressed to go with another AMD....

:D

DSwain

01-09-2006, 06:55 PM

I suppose that's very true. Hey actually I have a question for you. How is the cooling on your P4? I've heard they run cool in some instances and in others they make the sun seem kinda chilly. I have a P4, but it's dated at this point (1.3ghz) so that doesn't give me an actual basis to go off of.

mmills

01-09-2006, 07:21 PM

pentium 4 OEM runns hot, like an AMD, pentium4 retail runs cool but not chilly, atleast not on a intel board, intel's mainboards have a very nice monitoring system, I dont use anything but intel and biostar when it comes to P4's, shuttle and SOHO make nice AMD but not for intel. I suggest anything starting out around 2.4-3.6 a northwood or prescott 400/800mhz fsb

intel makes a cpu monitoring program you can download at there site http://www.intel.com/support/motherboards/server/s815ebm1/act_mon_screen.gif ofcourse its an MS exe.

http://downloadfinder.intel.com/scripts-df/Detail_Desc.asp?agr=&DwnldID=3381&ProductID=593

DSwain

01-09-2006, 08:48 PM

Wow those are impressive temps to me haha. I'm assuming you're not on a stock cooling system? Mine is not by any means (Artic SIlver/Large Heatsink/Special Designed Cooling Thing by me) and I'm running at 47C (about 116F) so that's something else for me haha. Maybe I need more Artic Silver.

At any rate, I don't have any plans on building a computer for a while yet. It'll have to wait until probably at least the end of summer if anything. I may keep the thought in mind though. How about performance, though? Any benchmark I've seen shows Intel behind (not always a ton, but slightly). Price too kind of kills me haha.

cybertron

01-09-2006, 10:56 PM

DSwain

01-09-2006, 11:03 PM

I should hope so. I don't think those processors are even really in the same generation.:)

True, but it depends by how much, and what generation. Like I said, I have a 1.3ghz P4 and I'm sure an Athlon XP 1900 can outdo that any day. Even if it is "slow" I think it could still compete in the end anyway if it wanted to. At any rate, I'm sure it was well smoked and dried either way, so whatever works right?

mmills

01-10-2006, 10:29 AM

p4 1.4 400mhz 25kcache......kinda old you can get that cpu for 30 dollars..
but AMD's run very hot. P4's dont

cybertron

01-10-2006, 12:52 PM

but AMD's run very hot. P4's dont
Err, wait what? There's a reason Intel processors are referred to as a rich man's space heater.:)

mmills

01-10-2006, 02:13 PM

funny, let me say this again.

OEM runs HOT like a AMD
Retail runs cool but not fridgid...or extremely cold.

so unless the rich man buys the crap oem, then the statement is wrong...lol

:eek:

DSwain

01-10-2006, 05:22 PM

That's a neat result. I do agree, as that's what I've seen with my "$20 CPU." At any rate, I guess since the computer was produced by Gateway, the CPU is probably of a retail sort because it runs fairly cool, or cool enough. In the end, most current-CPU's run somewhat warm no matter what you do, so I don't expect it to be frozen... unless watercooling went terribly wrong or you have some type of low-power Via machine.

cybertron

01-11-2006, 12:04 AM

funny, let me say this again.

OEM runs HOT like a AMD
Retail runs cool but not fridgid...or extremely cold.

so unless the rich man buys the crap oem, then the statement is wrong...lol

:eek:
Nothing on the Prescott core runs cool ever (well, okay with phase change it might;)). OEM vs. Retail has nothing to do with the processor, only whether a stock heatsink is included and possibly a different warranty (unless you run an OEM sans heatsink. Then it would get really hot.:D). Granted, a 2.4 may be old enough to be a Northwoods core which I believe were pretty good temp-wise, but not in at least the last two years have AMD processors run hotter than Intel.

For reference, Northwood and Prescott both hotter than all AMD processors under load: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2026&p=3

Those probably fall somewhere between the 2.4 and the latest processors generationally and there's obviously something screwy with the regular Athlon numbers since idle and load temps are only a degree or two apart. Still, it's a pretty thorough trouncing, especially at load.

WhiteKnight

01-11-2006, 12:33 PM

cybertron

01-11-2006, 12:49 PM

hmmm.. this thread is degenerating into an AMD vs INTEL?
Hmm, yeah how did that happen? I should know better than that.:)

actually i believe both statements r true.. older AMDs (those slot 1s) run hell lot hotter.. but the newer intels are running hotter den AMDs now as of my experience..
That pretty much sums it up. The only reason I even mentioned it is that it seems to be a fairly common misconception that AMDs still run hotter.

PenguinOfWonder

01-11-2006, 01:16 PM

I'm currently running with an 80ATA drive. Can you see a notable difference in performance between the SATA and the original ATA? I was looking to upgrade that part of my PC soon.

DSwain

01-11-2006, 05:07 PM

I'm currently running with an 80ATA drive. Can you see a notable difference in performance between the SATA and the original ATA? I was looking to upgrade that part of my PC soon.

Depends really. Size doesn't make a huge difference. If the read/seek times are very high on the current drive, then you will more than likely see improvements (providing you get the right drive). Also, if you're looking for big speed differences and not so much on space, get yourself a Raptor (from Western Digital). They're some of the best you can buy today.

mmills

01-11-2006, 09:25 PM

:D dswain says it all. I notice a difference on my sata150 drive that I am running compaired to my maxtor 80 gig, both 7200rpm, both about the same price. I prefer sata over standard ide....but thats just me.

and I love AMD but the right board by the right company can sometimes dig to deep in the wallet, so I go with an intel processor on a intel board, both backed by my 3 year warr. With the consulting firm I manage, we have had software vendors in the past pull the "well you are not running an intel processor system" or your HP is AMD and we dont support AMD" so becuse of that fact I have become rather fond of Intel. cant complain, never had a problem out of any intel I have put together or had at home.

I didnt want to start this thread to start AMD bashing, matter of fact I am working on a debian mail server right now, and its a AMD 1.0Ghz 512 ram box.

So please dont get me wrong here........

later tater :D

Alex Cavnar, aka alc6379

01-16-2006, 11:42 PM

Lucas_Maximus

01-17-2006, 04:49 PM

hmmm.. this thread is degenerating into an AMD vs INTEL?

actually i believe both statements r true.. older AMDs (those slot 1s) run hell lot hotter.. but the newer intels are running hotter den AMDs now as of my experience..

Anyway... nice box u have there.. though my 2 yr old box might be just abit faster den urs, but ur getting a major upgrade from ur old lappy anyway :D..

(my specs are in my signature :))

As long as it within it rated operating temperature, the processor should run fine. Whether it 70 degrees or 35 should make no difference. The hot AMD's Athlon XP i.e. palomino cored, were rated upto something like 90 degree celcius. as long as the cpu was cooler than that it shouldn't make a difference.

DSwain

01-17-2006, 05:17 PM

As long as it within it rated operating temperature, the processor should run fine. Whether it 70 degrees or 35 should make no difference. The hot AMD's Athlon XP i.e. palomino cored, were rated upto something like 90 degree celcius. as long as the cpu was cooler than that it shouldn't make a difference.

That is if you're running within stock temperatures. If you want to try and say overclock something which runs at that temperature, well you're pretty much out of luck to say the least haha. I dunno though... I believe the rating by far, as it should be designed to handle temperature like that, but I wouldn't exactly trust a CPU running at 90C (about 194F if I did the math right). Maybe not trust, but just be very worried about. Also, I'd be worried about life span of something running that hot. I see your point though, there isn't much reason it wouldn't work or would be a major problem in the short term.

Lucas_Maximus

01-18-2006, 11:56 AM

That is if you're running within stock temperatures. If you want to try and say overclock something which runs at that temperature, well you're pretty much out of luck to say the least haha. I dunno though... I believe the rating by far, as it should be designed to handle temperature like that, but I wouldn't exactly trust a CPU running at 90C (about 194F if I did the math right). Maybe not trust, but just be very worried about. Also, I'd be worried about life span of something running that hot. I see your point though, there isn't much reason it wouldn't work or would be a major problem in the short term.

my point was along the lines, if it is running at 60 or 45, it really doesn't hurt it. It just kinda sounds like a pissing match between Intel and AMD fanboys, when they go on about core temperatures, something which in normal use of the chip is completely irrelevant.

Lucas_Maximus

01-18-2006, 11:58 AM

I'm currently running with an 80ATA drive. Can you see a notable difference in performance between the SATA and the original ATA? I was looking to upgrade that part of my PC soon.

My maxtor ATA133 hardrive appears just as fast as my maxtor Sata drives. However I have never benched it.

cybertron

01-18-2006, 12:30 PM

my point was along the lines, if it is running at 60 or 45, it really doesn't hurt it. It just kinda sounds like a pissing match between Intel and AMD fanboys, when they go on about core temperatures, something which in normal use of the chip is completely irrelevant.
Maybe, maybe not. I haven't seen any definite numbers, but I do know that hardware running hotter than other hardware almost always has a shorter lifespan. I guess running for 5 years versus running for 7 years maybe isn't a big deal to some people, but Linux users tend to get that much use out of their computers.:)

Besides which, a cooler running processor is generally a good indicator of a lower power processor which will save you money in the long run. It may not be a big deal to everyone, but in some cases it can be and like the man said, "A penny saved is a penny earned.";)

Lucas_Maximus

01-18-2006, 08:02 PM

Besides which, a cooler running processor is generally a good indicator of a lower power processor which will save you money in the long run. It may not be a big deal to everyone, but in some cases it can be and like the man said, "A penny saved is a penny earned.";)

I can't argue with that logic mate :D