Socket 775 is dead, in the longterm that is. In that saying, it is a very short life socket. Right now, it is your only choice. By early next year, it is expected to be replaced, making it one of the shorter lived sockets that I can remember.
In regards to power supplies, if you use "good" PS, you're generally fine. But in practice, most people (those who just buy parts from you, not have a build done) tend to use a PS that comes with a case. A CPU that uses 200W alone means that high voltage video cards, etc. really weigh you down. Put this into perspective: I'm a high end buyer. I want to buy between these two options: Intel 3.7G EE + a 7800GTX AMD64 4600 Dual Core + 7800GTX So, in power consumption, I'm talking: 218W (CPU) + 244W (7800GTX under load, 3DMark05) Or 135W (CPU) + 244W It may not sound like much, but it is still almost 80W that you're giving up to a CPU.. for a high end rig, before I add in requirements for things like HDD, USB controlled devices, CDROMS/DVDROMs, etc. I'm already pushing a 450W True Power supply on an Intel rig; whereas the other route, I've got some room.. so a power Intel rig right now you're looking at a 550W-650W Powersupply as a rule, as a basic requirement.. which both increases initial costs and continual operating costs. Let's take your 450W Power supply for an example. If you're using a PCI-Express Motherboard, and you're running a processor from Intel faster then 3.4G, then you're 450W is being used at almost 90-100% continuously.. with a single hard drive and a single CDROM drive... so power supply -is- an issue, even in your configurations (not true with the much lower consumption Celerons) Now, I see from what you're telling me you're buying AGP based Pentium IV 775 (so 865PE modified type boards). That's fine, lots of people use those (though Intel specifically says it is not a supported design). So, you lower your power consumption by going with an AGP card, and even high end AGP cards like the 6800Ultra don't use the kind of power that a X850, 7800, etc. use. Still, though, you are dealing with heat and power consumption issues that in the past with Intel you haven't really dealt with... Intel is running into a big bear with their latest series CPUs, in that heat, something they had not traditionally had a big problem with, is an issue. When Intel originally announced Socket-T (775) they had promised these speeds: 3.8Ghz, 4.0Ghz, 4.2Ghz, 4.4, 4.6, 4.8, 5.0, 5.06, 5.33Ghz. Now, all of those designs are dead. Dead. It's because they weren't feasible.. heat and power consumption issues made it to the point where Intel has been unable to get any yields on a 4.0Ghz CPU. So, what happened? They killed all their research on it and went the route AMD was going with Dual cores. Except since Intel doesn't have a memory controller built into the die, you're using a single memory controller to feed two CPUs, doubling the external bottleneck; more then that, because Intel's system has some hitches with how this works.. so multi-core CPUs work effectively only with the Intel 955 or Intel 945 chipset. So, people who latched onto a 775 board when Intel released the 915/925 chipsets are just screwed. So, the 915 had a lifecycle of about 6 months. And now, based on vender concerns (yes, that's also people like Dell) the 945/955 and current socket won't last that long either, as Intel is being forced to go back and change all over to move their laptop line, upgrade it, change it, and make it into a desktop CPU to replace the ailing Pentium IV line. They simply bet on the wrong pony. That's OK, it happens. But let's recap: Intel promised a 4.0Ghz chip by December 25, 2004.. They canceled that chip before hand. They thought they'd get out a 4.4Ghz chip by March based on the 65nm process.. but it's nowhere, and has since been canceled. Intel's "hot dog" at the moment is a 3.2Ghz Smithfield D 840 CPU. The other problem is, while some applications, which can use HT do take advantage of it and propel great scores from the D 840, the great majority do not. And the memory controller for the 840 is still the board, which means memory performance is terrible in comparison to it's peers.. where, in open ended benchmarks this $1,000 chip gets clobbered by Intel's own chips that are faster (per Mhz) because of the transactions between CPU/Northbridge, and by any AMD64 processor faster then a 3500+. Example: http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/p4_840/8.shtml As far as multitasking? This paragraph kind of sums up what everyone sees: --------------------- The graph shows three different values for each CPU: at the top is the total runtime for the combined workload, the second bar is the runtime of trueSpace with Abbyy running in the background and the bottom bar shows the isolated runtime for trueSpace at 4xAA. Given the task manager screenshot shown above, it is not surprising that trueSpace does not give up much in runtime even with another demanding application competing. Overall, the Athlon64 X2-4800 ties with the P4 840 EE, the 840D takes last place whereas the dual Opteron 252 sail to a comfortable win, despite the relatively poor performance in FineReader. --------------------- And this is in the traditional Intel dominated ground of 3D development apps, not gaming where Intel really gets hammered (I won't go into that, but you can hunt for the benchmarks) Heck, if you look at power consumption: http://www.lostcircuits.com/cpu/p4_840/18.shtml You see that they are talking about an Overclocked AMD running at 2.7Ghz (which would be about a 4800+ single core) consuming 40W, vs. a stock Intel 3.2 DC eating up... 141W? And this is not in high function.. at 68C? In the end, this is what I tell people: Intel has one of the best chips on the market, period.. without a doubt, a true technical marvel.. with the Intel Mobile line. But right now, I can't even hardly justify to anyone their "high end" CPU line. This may not be something you run into, and their Celeron line is very viable. Because right now, the best chipset solution going in either platform, AMD or Intel is the Nvidia Nforce chipset. And that chipset has the stamp of approval of both AMD/Intel who have showcased it at their own processor forums. It's solid, driver support is very solid, and compatibility with current shipping video cards is excellent. So, now you've got one solid chipset, Intel or AMD that you can really pick from. At that point, it makes it very hard for me to "push" anyone to Intel. We do build a bunch of intel boxes.. lots of people love them. If you were to hand me a stack of money, though, and tell me to spend it as I see fit to build a "good" box, it would be a rarity that I could, from a performance, budget, or standpoint of supporting under our 3 year warranty come up with an Intel box. CW -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 10:34 AM To: The Hardware List Subject: Re: [H] New Intel 775 Pin Motherboards ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Reeves" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'The Hardware List'" <hardware@hardwaregroup.com> Sent: Sunday, September 18, 2005 10:53 AM Subject: RE: [H] New Intel 775 Pin Motherboards > 775 has been out almost 9 months now, Chuck. It is not the base point of > Intel's heat problem, which is incredibly well documented... yes, you can > have a case built with enough fans to sound like a train that will cool > down First, thanks a bunch. Your commentary is far easier to undersand than the professionally written technical articles in the many magazines etc. You better represent the average independent computer technician than somebody trying to twist their commentary for commercial gain. My business is very low volume. I have to keep it simple. I try to stock only 2 different models of cases and 2 different CPU's, the economy and the expensive. To add AMD to my line of CPU's I may have to stock 3 different motherboard models. Technology is moving so fast even keeping my stock very low profile, I am often selling obsolete components. Example: I should have moved to the 775's months ago. This may be impossible but I have to struggle to compete and limit my different models of motherboards to 2 and limit my different models of CPU's to 2. > > Intel's power consumption has been off the charts; that's not just some > idle > "some AMD backer says so" it's what Intel and others document: > I power the Celerons with an Enlight 350 wattt Prescott rated case and the Pentium 4's with an Enlight 450 watt Prescott rated case, so power consumption is not an issue with me. > > The sheer reality is Socket 775 is dead. It is dead as it stands right > now. > Even Intel acknowledges that in the end, the Pentium IV did not turn out > as Did I purchase the wrong P4 in the 775? I assumed there was little other choice in the P4's. I bought only one. Next time, if I want to stick with Intel should I purchase another P4 775 or something else? Even the Celeron went to 775 and I had to jump through a hoop to get the Celeron 478 for my Asus P4P800 SE motherboards. I did use the Asus P5P800 motherboard for the P4 775. I am waiting for the prices to come down before moving on up to the new video cards and DDR2 Memory. > > How that plays out will be interesting. > As for now I have to just hang on and hope I buy the right Intel CPU's. I enjoyed the long period of Socket 478 Intel CPU's. Chuck
