Neoseeker : : : Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz Review

Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz Review - PAGE 1

- Monday, August 26th, 2002 Like Share


Comments

Sort by date: ascending descending
0 thumbs!
^
CleavesF Aug 26, 02
methinks this is fast as hell. I should upgrade this 500mhz of mine... oh wait... I'm a poor college student
0 thumbs!
^
Kidx Aug 27, 02
That entire review is bullshit, you cant compare an overclocked 2.2 (in the pic it even says its a 2.2g) to a stock cpu. of course the p4 wasted it its runing at 175 fsb. Not to mention that you altered the screen shots to show that its a 2.8 and not a 2.2. What type of a site are you trying to run here? Not to mention that part of the way through it becomes a 2.8(oced 2.2) vs stock 2.2. And why arent there any xp quake3 scores? or any commanche scores? Its starting to make me think that you guys A) pieced this piece of shit review together from other places around the net. B) you dont even have a 2.8 which you claim you are reviewing just a 2.2 C) that you guys dont have a 2.1 Tbred either D) that your advertisers and sponsors would love to see this review and its many flaws, not to mention other hardware sites and readers around the net.
0 thumbs!
^
Kidx Aug 27, 02
You fake one review you probably have faked others!
0 thumbs!
^
Redemption Aug 28, 02
If you look closely, you will notice the following markings in our pic of the 2.8Ghz chip:

Intel Confidential
QRB4ES MALAY
L226A533-05.16


If you look closely at the chip that HotHardware received, it says

L226A533-0238

Note how both our chip and HotHardware's chip have the same initial markings... So what you think is a 2.26 chip, is really what Intel calls an "engineering sample" of the 2.8Ghz chip for review sites.

As for the 2100XP scores, we were late in doing that part of the review, and the results were not done in time for the NDA expiration.

We would have had more complete comparisons, except that AMD currently has no more XP2600+ chips for PR allocation, and we were never sent a 2.53Ghz Intel chip at the previous launch. I think we're hoping to get a 2400+ XP chip when AMD has more of those on hand, and by then we'll prolly have more thorough 2100XP benchmarks as well.
0 thumbs!
^
Entity Aug 28, 02
Kidx, we did not review an oc'ed 2.2 Vs a stock 2.2. Take a look at the pic from Hothardware:

Hot Hardware's 2.8 Chip

Compare that to our pic:

Neoseeker's 2.8GHz Chip

I think you'd have to do some magic to get your 2.2 up to 2.8.. Don't even know if watercooling would do it.

Also, take a look at the CPUID pic.

Unfortunately we did not have Athlon XP Quake results at the time of publication. We will update the graph once we have those.

We have never published, & never will publish reviews without first hand data comprised from benchmarking the sample products we receive from the manufacturers.

0 thumbs!
^
Kidx Aug 28, 02
i did take a look it says 174 fsb at a 16x mult. while everyone elses mult. is at 21x. if you take a 16x and multiply it by 133 you get *shock* a 2.2g chip wholly shit
0 thumbs!
^
Kidx Aug 28, 02
and about the 2.2 not being able to hit 2.8g:

CPU Databases
Pentium 4 2.26b Results....

Total Entries in Database for Pentium 4 2.26b - 36
Average overclocked speed - 2898 Mhz
funny looks like they can do it...

source overclockers.com

also if it was done late in the review then why do you talk about comparing it in the begining of the review?

and as for the cpu http://129.82.84.155/1337.jpg that took less than 2 min.
0 thumbs!
^
Redemption Aug 28, 02
Hmm... Looking at a side by side comparison of our WCPUID results and the results from other sites, ours does say we're running at 16x multiplier.

I think this might have to do with the fact that we may be running an older version of WCPUID - someone may have mistakenly put up a really old version of WCPUID onto the drive (looks like v3.0 is up there, instead of 3.0g, which is the latest build). The only thing I can tell you, is that we were sent this chip by Intel, early this month, and that we were under the same NDA as all the other sites. And we're running this on an Intel reference board too, so overclocking is NOT an option - as you know, Intel mobo's are notorious for their lack of overclocking options. Also, when we first booted the system, the BIOS stated a 533Mhz system bus, whereas WCPUID shows the system clock to be 696Mhz. The system right now is with Neumann (the reviewer) but I will get it ASAP and do another WCPUID run with v3.0g.

quote Kidx
also if it was done late in the review then why do you talk about comparing it in the begining of the review?
Often when writing a review you say things before you actually do them. Or else you edit text AFTER new information is added. Just look at how you and I are editing our forum posts as we get new info.
0 thumbs!
^
Kidx Aug 28, 02
but you have time to go through and edit this. why would you post stuff if it isnt done? Also woouldnt that be a reviewer / editor mistake of not checking to see why the fsb and multiplier was not right.
0 thumbs!
^
Redemption Aug 28, 02
Well I'm ashamed to admit it, but I didn't even notice that the FSB was off in the WCPUID result - I saw the Sysoft Sandra results and noticed it said 133 X 4.

Also... think of it this way. The Intel chip is running on an Intel board, the BIOS had the right settings, and we have no reason NOT to expect we had a "true" 2.8 chip, which should report 133Mhz with 21x. For myself, I don't edit the articles, but our inclusion of WCPUID is more for the benefit of the reader then our own benefit, since we already know what to expect. In this case, it just looks weird. In fact, now I'm really curious to know whether or not 3.0g will report different results, and if so, why 3.0 would just make up numbers or how it comes up with those numbers in the first place.

Btw the 2.2 that we compare against is an older 2.2 using 400Mhz bus. We don't have a 533 2.26 here. That's why we're running 45ns RAM on the 2.2 and 40ns RAM on the 2.8 chip.

Now the combination of our missing/late 2100XP results and the bungled WCPUID bit may suggest otherwise, but the bottom line is that what we benchmarked in our review, was sent by Intel for the 2.80Ghz launch, along with an Intel board, and not some 2.26@533 chip we bought from the store and overclocked. The only thing we bought for this review was the Samsung RAM and that's because Kingston's PR dept. is on backorder for their PC800 and PC1066 RIMMs.
0 thumbs!
^
Kidx Aug 28, 02
just to throw this out there....

http://129.82.84.155/13370.jpg

speaking of which, why is there mhz by multiplier on your guys pic?
0 thumbs!
^
Redemption Aug 28, 02
You're never going to believe us no matter what eh? Even when I run the results from v3.0g of WCPUID, you're going to say it's just a quick photoshop edit.

Download v3.0 of WCPUID from www.download.com (search wcpuid), decompress it, and run it, and you will see the Mhz on the side of multiplier. I just did it on this Athlon 800 and I see the Mhz right there beside multiplier.
0 thumbs!
^
VeGiTAX2 Aug 28, 02
Depending on the build used you'll find mhz next to the multiplier.

this page demonstrates just that.

3.0f and 3.0g from what I have dont contain that marking anymore.
0 thumbs!
^
Kidx Aug 28, 02
Last post since I made my point. Why does your "2.8 ghz" cpu getting the crap kicked out of it by the sandra 2.6g cpu? (edit unless its 2 2.66's but then that just means that its misleading) Also, your tell us how much the P4 "2.8g" cpu beats the XP by but you never actually show any sandra results?

http://img.neoseeker.com/v_image.php?articleid=1480&image=5
and
http://img.neoseeker.com/v_image.php?articleid=1480&image=7
^
Sponsored
Sort by date: ascending descending
Add your comment:
Name *:  Members, please LOGIN
Email:  We use this to display your Gravatar.

Sign in with
Comment *:
(0.4554/d/web7)