AMD to Intel????

[Syuryuken]

Asrock mobo sucks!

[number001]

the cpu should not be causing a 100% spike in cpu usage in light WinXP multitasking... there's something in windows or some app running in the background or foreground that's causing the spike. a Venice-core Athlon is more than enough for Windows XP

Personally, I'd still try loading a Linux Live CD and find out if it is indeed the hardware.

Sometimes, drivers are at fault which makes it a software problem. Also, the page file may also be taking up too much resources if control is left to Windows XP. I always keep my page file permanent and located in a different hard drive from where XP is installed. There has not been any sign of similar cpu spikes whatsoever.

With Vista, the page file is contained in the same 40gb hard drive where Vista RC1 is. I do keep it permanent as well.

Add: I'd also keep an eye on hard drive activity the next time the spikes occur.

I appreciate everyone trying to diagnose the problem. But you have to understand my Intel (then/before) and AMD (now/currently) sysem are essentially share the same every piece of hardware and software installed, save for the CPU and Mobo. No changes were made. Yet, the AMD does have a 3 to 4 seconds of "freeze" once in a while, esp. when I'm throwing it with so many tasks at the same time. Even startup is also slower. The P4 3.0E does not seem to have any of these problem, even when its temp is already 60F - this is the "PressHOT" core, btw.

Yes, there is hard drive activity when the "freeze" occurs bec. it is loading something (ie. program, file, etc...).

Asrock mobo sucks!

Well, I dont know. Lots of people were all praises for the MB I got, for its supposed enthusiast level of usage capabilities.



***************************

Oh well, I hope the shops in Gilmore still sell some Intel P4 CPU in the sub Php 4,500.00 price tag. Here in the Philippines, they move old stocks out quickly and forcing everyone to spend so much money on the latest CPUs. At least, in the US, through newegg, ordering and assembling is a breeze. And most importantly, newegg still carries old stocks, unlike here. Here, even with the number of shops in Gilmore, you'd still be hard-pressed to find anything not mainstream (ie. slightly old stock).

[Jun aka Pekto]

Asrock mobo sucks!

I just realized that it's a hybrid AGP/PCI-E motherboard........ I normally try to stay away from motherboards that try to bridge the gap between old and new generations.

I stick with old tech until it's time to upgrade and then plunge headlong into the new.

So it could be the hardware, meaning the motherboard, after all.

I really think its the MOBO/chipset, that's abit pokey. I would stay away from the N-force chipsets bec. it never seem to run out of problems plaquing it.

That might hold some truth with those for Intel cpu's. With AMD cpu's, the nForce4 is the best. I certainly haven't had any problems with my MSI K8N Neo4 Platinum which uses the nForce4 Ultra.

[number001]

I just realized that it's a hybrid AGP/PCI-E motherboard........ I normally try to stay away from motherboards that try to bridge the gap between old and new generations.

I stick with old tech until it's time to upgrade and then plunge headlong into the new.

So it could be the hardware, meaning the motherboard, after all.

Well, I got it bec. it had an AGP port. I didnt feel the need to change my vga card.

I really miss those 486, Pentium, etc. days when an upgrade involves only at the most, a change in CPU and MB. Nowadays, upgrading is like falling domino chips....got to change the cpu. whoopss..got to get a new MB also...whoopsss...I also need to a new set of RAM....what, I also have to buy a new vga....wait!, I also need a new PSU....on so on! This is a vicious cycle that one needs to fulfill otherwise that brand new spanking part will be rendered useless by incompatibility and etc...I'm in that dilemma/bind. If I'm "forced" to settled for the Core Duo (in case the shops here no longer carry any bnew single core P4) I would be forced to shell out around Php 36K+ (for the cpu,mb, new ddr2, pci-e vga, psu) when I only have to spend less than Php 9K for bnew parts (new cpu and mb) to suit my needs. That is life. Or I could shoot myself on the foot and settle for a Celeron D 352. Given my current experience with AMD, I dont even know if the Celeron D will give me a downgrade or an upgrade. Btw, it is based on the 65 nm cedar mill core already.

That might hold some truth with those for Intel cpu's. With AMD cpu's, the nForce4 is the best. I certainly haven't had any problems with my MSI K8N Neo4 Platinum which uses the nForce4 Ultra.

Well, let's wait for boybi's reply. He has the same MB as yours and the same cpu as mine and he is experiencing the "freeze" also.

[metatron]

Too many people got the AMD because of the 64-bit hype (not many even know that you need at least 4GB of ram to fully utilize 64-bit LOL!!!). [/I]

its the other way around. you don't need 4gb of ram to fully utilize 64bit cpus. instead, you need 64 bit processors to page more than 4 gigs of ram. what you need to fully utilize a 64bit processor is a native 64bit os with native 64bit programs.

too many people adopted the optys and athlons with the 64bit extensions because of the fact that the k8 architecture offered considerably better performance with 32-bit applications.

Currently, it puzzles me why AMD with their revolutionary* on-die memory controller is reducing cache. In contrast, the E6600 and above are very fast because of these 4MB. It is predicted they will double to 8MB or 16MB after the 4x4 (Kentsfield Quadcore).

*Actually intel had an on-die prototype pre-P4 days but decided to bin it. Not sure why. AMD is first to market it and it indeed proved to be revolutionary.

its amd's implementation of DCA (Direct Connect Architecture) that made the platform revolutionary. the incorporation of an on-chip memory controller would almost be useless (fsb limited) unless paired with an extremely high performance point to point interconnect (HyperTransport).


peace :butterfly:

[Jun aka Pekto]

The P4 3.0E does not seem to have any of these problem, even when its temp is already 60F - this is the "PressHOT" core, btw.

Yes, there is hard drive activity when the "freeze" occurs bec. it is loading something (ie. program, file, etc...).

The P4-3.0E is HT-enabled if I'm not mistaken. That should give it an edge over AMD singlecore cpu's in multitasking functions. But, the freezes aren't the norm for AMD cpu's either. So, there's definitely something wrong.

If it is hardware related, I'd suspect the Norbridge/Southbridge duo, especially if it's hard drive i/o issues. I have no experience with the ULi chipsets. So, I'm not much help there. One reason I liked the nForce4 Ultra chipset is the lack of need for separate Northbridge and Southbridge chips. That right there erased a lot of potential hardware issues for me.

[Jun aka Pekto]

Well, let's wait for boybi's reply. He has the same MB as yours and the same cpu as mine and he is experiencing the "freeze" also.

That's true.

Anyway, he's got the nForce4 SLI which has minor differences from mine. His built-in sound is also different. Mine is the Realtek ALC850 while his has a built-in Creative SB Live!

[mikmik316]

Asrock mobo sucks!

Asrock is an Asus subsidiary and if I were to choose between a middle of the field MSI, and the crappy ECS, I will get Asrock 100% all the time...

[number001]

Asrock is an Asus subsidiary and if I were to choose between a middle of the field MSI, and the crappy ECS, I will get Asrock 100% all the time...

Agree with you on that one.


But Asus is not as bulletproof as its used to be (much like the kind of myth perpetuated with Toyota products) . Read user reviews of asus mb from newegg.... Also try "SYSTEM FAILED CPU TEST" on google, this is what my high-end P4P800-E Deluxe wireless ed. got permanently sick with.

[Alpha_One]

Currently, it puzzles me why AMD with their revolutionary* on-die memory controller is reducing cache. In contrast, the E6600 and above are very fast because of these 4MB. It is predicted they will double to 8MB or 16MB after the 4x4 (Kentsfield Quadcore).




*Actually intel had an on-die prototype pre-P4 days but decided to bin it. Not sure why. AMD is first to market it and it indeed proved to be revolutionary.

AMD cutting back cache: Supply-and-demand. AMD has a HUGE disadvantage over Intel when it comes to production capacity, not to mention that they're slightly behind in smaller manufacturing processes. Dual cores = less production = more expense. AMD is simply FORCED to cut back cache to save space on their chips. Otherwise, either their chips will be too expensive, or they'll just run out of chips to sell.

Intel not implementing the on-die controller. Two main reasons, I would guess:

a) Technical: Fabrication technology wasn't quite advanced back then. The first Intel P3 and AMD Athlon Classic had the L2 cache off-die for a good reason: the on-die L2 caches were BIG. BIG means EXPENSIVE. Any on-die memory controller would significantly add to the size of the (back then) very large dies, making them very expensive. Another thing is that a memory controller produced to partner SDRAM, would only partner SDRAM. Just like 939 and AM2 processors, which is, for all intents and purposes, the same thing with different memory controllers.

b) Politics. This were the days when Intel was aggressively pushing RDRAM. If RDRAM flopped (as it did), it would be EXTREMELY expensive to switch back due to reasons outlined in A.

P.S. On-die memory controllers are hardly revolutionary, in the same sense that variable valve timing isn't revolutionary. I mean, by World War II lots of gizmos and witchcraft on a modern internal combustion engine were already thought up - it just doesn't make sense to make them. On-die memory controllers are not a new idea, some small companies during the Pentium One days (was Cyrix one of them?) were attempting to implement what was a primitive example of what the A64 has today and then some. i.e. EVERYTHING (cache, memory controller, drive controller, PCI interface, the lot!) on one chip. Not practical (back then) though.

P.P.S. Benchmarks or no benchmarks, the E6600 clobbers the FX-62 on the most important measure of all: price. The performance can go at most a few percent either way depending on the application, but the E6600, at 1/5 the price of the FX-62, would comparatively be a steal. I'd go for the E4300 though. Or just stick with my loud, hot P4 530 (it still works, anyway), and see if Core or K8L or whatever new thing there is in a few months would be attractive.