Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Intel Hardware

Intel 800 MHz FSB Processor Family Review 137

Posted by CowboyNeal from the getting-to-know dept.
David writes "Techware Labs recently had the opportunity to spend some time with Intel's new 800 MHz front-side bus (FSB) processor family. The review includes a overview of the features in this processor family, Intel's new Springdale and Canterwood chipsets, and an analysis of processor scaling within this family. The article focuses on how the relationship between CPU and video card affect various aspects of performance."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Intel 800 MHz FSB Processor Family Review More

Intel 800 MHz FSB Processor Family Review

Comments Filter:

  • Enough! You insensitive clod! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 07, 2003 @10:58AM (#6138618)
    I already feel bad enough having bought 5 486's at $2000 each. Now, my ebay auction to sell one for $10 got 0 bids. I mean, a 99.5% decerase in value is bad enough - you don't have to rub it in by telling me about the latest in computing!
    • and then sell them as nostalgia jewelry.

      Just so long as you didn't buy them for $2k in this century, you should be fine.

      ___________________________________
      The Spiders are coming [e-sheep.com]
    • I doubt it. At that price, I'd probably buy one if it were in good condition - it is difficult [sourceforge.net] to run a lot of old software on modern computers. Plus, in this 31C heat, any computer that doesn't double as a blast furnace is appealing.
    • Man, I'd buy a 486 for $10... don't sell it on eBay though, because to find it, someone would have to specifically be looking for a 486, and the chances of that are slim... Just find a computer geek, almost any one of them will give you at least $10 for it, probably more if youask.

  • Spending some time with .... (Score:5, Informative)

    by watzinaneihm ( 627119 ) on Saturday June 07, 2003 @11:00AM (#6138629) Journal
    Spending time is nice but This [techwarelabs.com] is the page I think they should have linked to .
    Basically in the review they compare different chips (2.4Ghz, 2.8Ghz) etc. against each other all with 800Mhz FSB
    • Heaven forbid they benchmark the CPUs against earlier P4s at the same clockspeeds. Or compare different memory technologies / mboard chipsets.

      Pages and pages of pretty graphs and charts all to tell us that yes, higher clock speeds mean higher performance.

      • This is all fine and good, but what I want to know is is the Alienware 3.0 GHz with 800 MHz FSB and Radeon 9800 Pro for $2,100 a good deal?

        Of course, it's $2800 with the 22" CRT (is that a good CRT?) and the blue mouse and blue keyboard.
        • About a month ago I got a 3.0GHz from IBuyPower with a Radeon 9500 Pro (looks way good enough for me!), 1GB RAM and no monitor (no need to replace the one I have) for around $1,500.

          Having come from a 300MHz IBM Aptiva, I'm pretty freakin' giddy these days!

  • Bah (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 07, 2003 @11:00AM (#6138630)
    In 1980 I had a 1.023 MHz Apple ][+ and I could type ~70 WPM. Intel is pushing 3+ GHz chips and I can still only type ~70 WPM.

  • Tom's hardware had it first (Score:5, Informative)

    by nounderscores ( 246517 ) on Saturday June 07, 2003 @11:01AM (#6138639)
    Read all about it here [tomshardware.com]

    ___________________________________
    The spiders are coming [e-sheep.com]

  • too much power != good (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 07, 2003 @11:02AM (#6138646)
    The more powerful the chips intel pushes the less effcient the coder becomes, i remember when i used to tweak my programs so they would run optimally on a slower machines, now a days its like you need 192mb and 500mhz for word processing. People need to get back to the old school days when a 486/66mhz and 4mb RAM was minumum. I can understand how games evolve and more power is needed, but it's not just games that have this high requirement these days.

    • Re:too much power != good (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The more powerful the chips intel pushes the less effcient the coder becomes, i remember when i used to tweak my programs so they would run optimally on a slower machines

      Yeah, I said that too when the PII came out. Sure there is always going to be bloat in code, especially in large projects. But you are more than welcome to go to ebay and get an 8088 or an Apple II and enjoy a machine that fits your computing needs (floppy drive or tape drive your pick).

      Me, I would like to have a computer fast enough to d

    • Re:too much power != good (Score:5, Funny)

      by Angry White Guy ( 521337 ) <CaptainBurly[AT]goodbadmovies.com> on Saturday June 07, 2003 @11:09AM (#6138676)
      Although I wholehartedly agree with your comment about the proliferation of inefficient coding styles, the additional power allows us to write higher abstraction languages, almost to the point of natural-language programming. More structure introduced into programming can only mean a shift to programming in english, and that can only mean less poor spelling on slashdot.

      I see it as win-win

    • Re:too much power - efficiency (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      That's a popular but ridiculous idea. The less time the programmer needs to spend tweaking and writing incredibly painful assembly language, the more time he has to meet the actual user's needs for new software and new features.

      And by the way, you're calling a 486/66 "old school" made me laugh! To me, old school is a 1 mhz 6502, or maybe a 2 mhz z80.

    • Some people need all the processing they can get. It's allowing some of us to do things we couldn't before. If you don't need it, don't buy it. And you can always stop buying bloatware and write your own software or optimize your favorite OS program.
    • So how many mp3 players and video editors did you have for your 486? How many gigabit ethernet cards did your 486 support?
    • Gosh I'm sick of wankers like you that claim that we don't need faster processors. There are folks that do more with their computer then bitch on slashdot.

    • People need to get back to the old school days when a 486/66mhz and 4mb RAM was minumum.

      Why ?


    • It takes SQL Server a Quad Xeon Machine to stuff slightly less than 10,000 inserts a second into a table. Yet, writing raw records into a file can happen hundreds of times faster than that.

    • The more powerful the chips intel pushes the less effcient the coder becomes.

      This is a good thing. When less skill and effort is needed to code, the more programs get released, because designers take the time they would have spent on code optimization, and spend it on other things.

  • For those to lazy to read :) (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Conclusion:

    The Intel 800 MHz FSB Family of processors truly lives up to its name. After looking at the results which tests are CPU limited and which are video card limited, the data concludes that there is a certain balance between the dependency of the video card and the processor. As the graphics get more intense, the performance becomes more dependent on the video card. The Intel 3.0GHz 800MHz FSB is definitely cutting edge and the CPU really shines during programs that require the most calculations

  • It'd be nice... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mister Black ( 265849 ) on Saturday June 07, 2003 @11:06AM (#6138666)
    It'd be nice if they normalized all their charts with some current non 800FSB proc+board so I can see how much of an improvement there actually is.

  • Obligatory Pentium Jokes (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Q. How many Pentium designers does it take to screw in a light bulb?
    A. 1.99999289345, but that's close enough for non-technical people.

    Q. The Pentium conforms to IEEE standards for floating point math. If you fly in an airplane designed using a Pentium, what's the correct pronounciation of IEEE?
    A. Aiieeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

    Q. What's another name for the Intel Inside sticker they put on PCs?
    A. The warning label.
  • Well, with the recent slashdot article [http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/05/20/14222 43&mode=nested&tid=137] explaining how useless CAS Latencies are in concerts to memory bandwidth, increasing the FSB and CPU to Memory Latency is not a good thing, its a great thing. Intel has my money!

    • Re:On Performance... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Pulzar ( 81031 ) on Saturday June 07, 2003 @11:45AM (#6138810)
      That article showed that lower latency doesn't mean higher bandwidth (and this is only true if your original latency is low enough, mind you!), but it didn't consider overall performance. Latency has indeed an impact on the performance -- look at Tom's Hardware article [tomshardware.com] on performance improvements when Intel's PAT is enabled. All PAT does is lower latency by 2 cycles.

  • dualies (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bloosqr ( 33593 ) on Saturday June 07, 2003 @11:12AM (#6138686) Homepage
    Anyone know why the dual xeon motherboards aren't flipping to 800mhz? I would think that a faster bus would make more of a difference on dual processor boxes. Currently the memory bus is at 2*266 = 533 and I think it will move to 667 either late this year or early next year. On the other hand, i've noticed iwill is now selling a dual xeon motherboard for $300 and the chips are not much more expensive than their "normal" equivalents. (Note I am talking about the dual processor xeon chips not the "made of pure gold" 4 processor xeon mp chips)

    -bloo
    • I'm not sure why the xeons don't have 800mhz fbs yet. They have just went up to 533fbs from 400fbs. Some of your facts are incorrect. Your math is wrong in caculating fbs. It is 133fbs quad pumped to 533 or (133*4=533). Intel decided to skip 667fbs and just go for the 800fbs. Though SIS did make a chipset that supported the 667fbs.

      If your still here can you clarify:
      "Note I am talking about the dual processor xeon chips not the "made of pure gold" 4 processor xeon mp chips"

      • Re:dualies (Score:4, Insightful)

        by bloosqr ( 33593 ) on Saturday June 07, 2003 @01:32PM (#6139136) Homepage
        Ahh the 266*2 was wishful thinking :). You are right about its 133*4, apologies about that.

        My understanding is that xeon mp line is for their [intel.com]
        4-way based motherboards. The main advantage is they have a meg of cache on them. But the normal processors [intel.com]have 512k the same as the new p4's I believe.

        The xeon mp motherboards are $2k and the processors are about $2k each (pricewatch 1.6ghz/1meg cache i.e made of gold :)

        In any case the normal xeon dual systems are actually not that much more than buying a 875pe
        motherboard and processor. Btw here is the road map [theinquirer.net] I found on the inquirer. Apparantly the xeon mp's are going up to 2.8ghz/2 megs of cache and the normal xeons are going up to 3.06/1 meg of cache and selling for $700.

        Here's the weird part, while it looks like intel skipped 667 fbs for the PIV line, the xeon line will "ramp up" to 667 early next year.

        In anycase I'm probably going to build a "normal" xeon/iwill running at ~2.66 which comes out to really not much more than a normal PIV/865/875 series. The selling of 800mhz memory/bus speeds on the PIV line while keeping the xeon line at 533/667 makes no sense to me. I was going to wait until a new set of mbs/chipset came out for the xeons but it doesn't look it will happen.

        -bloo
    • Intel usually takes a bit more time to release new technologies into their Xeon line. This allows them to iron out any major bugs in the system before shipping them off to large corporations, which rely on this hardware to be very stable in comparison to Joe Gamer.

    • Re:dualies (Score:3, Informative)

      by doormat ( 63648 )
      They will be in early 2004 it seems...

      http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9823

    • Re:dualies (Score:3, Insightful)

      by akuma(x86) ( 224898 )
      Multiprocessor bus speeds and CPU frequencies always lag behind uniprocessor systems. It takes much longer to validate multiprocessor boards when compared to a uniprocessor system. This is because the number of things that can go wrong goes up exponentially with the number of CPUs on the board. The typical customers of multiprocessor systems value this sort of reliability even more than performance.

  • You know it's time to upgrade... (Score:5, Funny)

    by splerdu ( 187709 ) on Saturday June 07, 2003 @11:20AM (#6138707)
    When the new processor's FSB is higher than your rig's CPU clock =(
    • the FSB is only 200mhz, quad pumped out to 800mhz (that means it shifts 4 times the data per clock cycle)

      Of course if your rig is running at less than 200mhz, who cares? so long as it plays the games you like.

      ___________________________________
      The Spiders are coming [e-sheep.com]

  • Buy the 2.4 (Score:5, Informative)

    by wpmegee ( 325603 ) <wpmegee AT yahoo DOT com> on Saturday June 07, 2003 @11:20AM (#6138708)
    The 2.4c will be finding a home in my box soon because of it's amazing overclocking.

    At this forum [oc-forums.com] (click on Intel cpus) almost everyone has successfully overclocked theirs over 3Ghz on air, with most hitting 3.2 or 3.4 (and don't forget a 1 Ghz fsb).

    A popular motherboard to go with it is Abit's IC-7 with the i875 chipset. The processor and motherboard are just $180 and $145 respectively over at Newegg [newegg.com], so don't waste your money on 3.0s.
    • You want to keep your memory timings and clock speed in synchronization (1:1 ratio) to attain max performance (I don't think PAT is enabled at any other setting than at 1:1). So unless you have ddr500, you are taking some preformance hit by changing to another ratio (ex. 5:4) to keep your system stable. So the recommended overclockers are 2.6 and 2.8 for their higher multipliers.

  • No Athlon XP benchmarks? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Alereon ( 660683 ) on Saturday June 07, 2003 @11:22AM (#6138715)
    What good is benchmarking the new P4-C processors without comparing them to Athlon XPs, or even older P4s? Really, you can just multiply the performance of a P4-C 3.0Ghz by 0.8 to get a guesstimate of the performance differences within the family; what really matters is how they perform in comparison with the competition.

  • heat (Score:2)

    by martin ( 1336 )

    wow look at the heat sink and fan...

    http://techwarelabs.com/reviews/processors/intel _8 00mhz_fsb/pictures/setup1.jpg

    I bet ya need brick in the case to stop the thing taking off.. :-)
    • http://techwarelabs.com/reviews/processors/intel_8 00mhz_fsb/pictures/setup1.jpg The P4-C 3.0Ghz can be expected to consume about 100Watts at full load, which is far more than most processors. Only the P4-HT 3.06Ghz and the original P4 2Ghz came close, also coming in at about 100W. AMD's hottest running processor, the Athlon XP 3200+, consumes 76.8W.
      • The powerpc processors that apple uses only use I think about 20 watts. This is getting redicoulous. I thought the itanium was bad.

        Just goes to show that risc is better not to mention that both Intel and AMD overclock their processors for marketing reasons. I prefer no fans at all and have a quiet pc. Also look at nvidia? 20 db fans!! Come on? Its useless for games because of the noise.

        Give me a 10% decrease in performance anyday for a more reliable and quiter solution. If the cooling fan fails your cpu i
        • If the cooling fan fails, only AMD is toast, Intel's P4 can slow itself down (P3's crash but not burn) when overheated. Haven't you seen THG videos [tomshardware.com]? Also, the current motherboards will power down when AMD CPUs go over a certain temperature, although you'd loose any precious unsaved data.

          Then again, it's been a while since they made the video. I wonder if the current Northwood will crash and burn. Anybody dare to try? :)

          I do have to agree though, another fan in the case is another breeding place for the du

          • No modern CPU will continue to operate through a catastrophic cooling failure. The P4 will crash when it throttles below 25% (errata), and will completely shutdown if the heatsink is removed. The P3 will burn up without a heatsink, unless the motherboard shuts it down (I don't know of any motherboards that do this). An Athlon XP will be shut down by the motherboard before damage occurs (ideally). Regardless, what possible set of circumstances could occur that would cause your heatsink to come off your proce

            • The P3 will burn up without a heatsink, unless the motherboard shuts it down (I don't know of any motherboards that do this).

              All intel CPUs have had the ability to automatically shut themselves down in the case of excessive heat since at least the 486.

              The P4 is the first one that did this _gracefully_ (ie: gradually slow down then stop instead of just stopping), but AFAIK they all do it.

              A P3 will almost certainly crash if the HSF is removed, but it probably won't be destroyed without excessive uncooled r

              • All intel CPUs have had the ability to automatically shut themselves down in the case of excessive heat since at least the 486.

                The first Intel desktop processor to feature an on-chip thermal diode was the Pentium II. The P4 was the first processor to throttle or shutdown itself based on CPU temperature. Earlier processors USUALLY didn't fry from overheating, simply because they didn't produce that much heat and it was thus difficult for them to get hot enough to die, but it DID happen. If you remove the

                • The first Intel desktop processor to feature an on-chip thermal diode was the Pentium II. The P4 was the first processor to throttle or shutdown itself based on CPU temperature.

                  Section 3-8, page 26 of this [intel.com] disagrees.

                  The processor protects itself from catastrophic overheating by use of an internal thermal sensor. [...]

                  That's for the Pentium Pro. I'm alsmost certain the same functionality existed all the way back to the 486, although I'll admin my recollection is a bit rusty, so I may be wrong.

                  Last-ditc

                  • That's for the Pentium Pro. I'm alsmost certain the same functionality existed all the way back to the 486, although I'll admin my recollection is a bit rusty, so I may be wrong.

                    The Pentium Pro was not a desktop processor. It was a server processor, analogous to Xeon. And, again, while the P2/P3 supported temperature monitoring, they DID NOT have any kind of internal throttling or shutdown. When they got too hot, they crashed because stuff stopped working at that temperature. Do it enough, or let them r

        • Umm, how exactly does a processor manufacturer "overclock" their own processor, since by definition it should run at the speed they say it should?

          That makes as little sense as the rest of your meandering inanities do.
  • The article states that the 800MHz bus gives 6.4GB/s bandwidth. A quick calculation shows that it is therefore only 8 data bits wide. Is this normal for a modern microprocessor? Or is it just Intel perpetuating the MHz myth into a new area?

    • Actually 200Mhz QDR [also, bits vs. bytes] (Score:5, Informative)

      by Alereon ( 660683 ) on Saturday June 07, 2003 @11:38AM (#6138778)

      The FSB on a P4-C is actually clocked at 200Mhz, but data is transferred four times per clock cycle, boosting the effective bandwidth to equal that of an 800Mhz FSB. Latencies are, however, still equal to that of a 200Mhz FSB.

      I believe the problem with your calculation is that you calculated that the bus is 8 bytes wide. 8 bytes is 64 bits, the standard bus width on modern systems.

    • The bandwidth is 6.4GB/s, not 6.4Gb/s. I.e. it's 6.4 giga-bytes, so the widths of the bus is 8 bytes (or 64 bits).

  • Not the best article ... (Score:5, Informative)

    by vorwerk ( 543034 ) on Saturday June 07, 2003 @11:30AM (#6138739)
    I've been planning to upgrade my computer at the end of this month, and have been keeping a pretty close eye on the 865/875 motherboard and chip performance reviews. This article didn't really enlighten me as much as the following Tom's Hardware reviews:

    here [tomshardware.com]

    and

    here [tomshardware.com]

  • um what?! (Score:1, Insightful)

    by NedTheNerd ( 652808 )
    im probably not the first one to mention this but this review sucks. They didnt test anything but other 800 buss processors nor any AMD processors. I used to think the point of a review was to see how something performed against everyone else not against itself . . . Not to mention they didn't even overclock the codamn things. Now I know some people out there are bitching oh but who wants to see it overclocked, overclocking makes things unstable (if you dont run mprime ;). Now I realize that point but then

    • Re:um what?! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by kramer2718 ( 598033 )
      Bus Speed IS more important than processor speed. The bus is what keeps the CPU supplied with data from the memory. If you have a very slow bus it doesn't matter how fast your CPU is, it will have to wait on memory accesses.

      Smart caching can keep values in the cache that will be accessed frequently and smart compiling can execute the code in an efficient sequence (so that a lot of memory accesses can be done at once), but even still the gap between bus/memory performance and CPU performance 200/400/800
  • thought of something quite funny of the top of my head :)
    They should replace the 'Intel Inside' logo with 'Warning! May contain Intel!'. :)
  • I really tried to get interested, I figured this article would give me some good weekend reading, and I clicked the link.
    But when I get to the second page and I still haven't gotten anything out of it but a little history, and the content on that page is a glorified paragraph, I'm not sticking around for more. If you want me to read something, keep it succinct, don't put a paragraph per page, and dammit, don't make me look at 15 ads just to get some benchmarks.
  • Can it divide?

    Seriously, this looks like a decent processor, with a reasonable chipset to go with it. I'm a bit concerned with Intel opting (again!) for overclocking hardware, rather than improving it. Especially when they keep insisting that overclocking is hazardous to the hardware, and make every effort to stop other people doing the very same thing.

    The 800 MHz FSB is just an overclocked 200 MHz FSB. Given that AMD just has to build a real 400 MHz, overclocked only once, or a real 800 MHz FSB to flat

    • This is a tougher fight, and it's one Intel is losing

      It looks to me more like AMD is losing.
      Either way it's a bad thing - competition is good.
      Then again, maybe it's a good sign that we each see it differently.... it would seem to indicate that it's too close to call.
      No matter which chip you prefer, as long as they're racing neck-in-neck it's better for all of us.
      • I agree. I guess I'd prefer them to be racing neck-and-neck with better hardware, rather than putting existing hardware into overdrive, but - hey - it's better than no hardware at all.


        (I guess I watch too much F1, where "neck-and-neck" means 240 mph, 1 inch apart, engines on the verge of meltdown, a thousandth of a second seperation, and the drivers complain that there's no serious competition.)

    • DDR and QDR techniques are not overclocking; a 4x200MHz bus produces virtually the same bandwidth as an 800MHz bus would. (Notice how these systems have over 5GB/s of memory bandwidth.)

      AMD is already ahead of Intel with on-chip dual channel memory controllers and HyperTransport.
    • I have a working 486DX-50 in my closet. My first system... and I can't part with it. Its an EISA bus too. Was a smoker in its day.
    • I'm a bit concerned with Intel opting (again!) for overclocking hardware, rather than improving it.

      This word, "overclocking", I do no believe it means what you think it means.

      That was a raw 50MHz chip, no overclocking, that outperformed the 486DX-66 with ease.

      Hate to break the news to you, but pretty much every CPU in use today uses exactly the same asymmetrical bus/CPU that the 486 DX2s did, that you are calling "overclocking".

      Oh, and a DX/50 would only outperform a DX2/66 in tasks that were bus-bound

      • Overclocking is to take hardware designed and specified to operate at a performance P, using a clock S, and to increase that clock speed S beyond the formal design specificaton of that hardware, in order to get an increase in P.

        If the hardware is rated at 200 MHz, but is being wired to an 800 MHz clock, you are overclocking the hardware. It is running 4 times the speed for which it was designed, and for which the components are rated.

        Overclocking in the "field" is limited to ramping the clock for entire

        • Overclocking is to take hardware designed and specified to operate at a performance P, using a clock S, and to increase that clock speed S beyond the formal design specificaton of that hardware, in order to get an increase in P.

          So what makes you think the P4 wasn't designed and specified to ramp to a quad-pumped 200Mhz bus ?

          If the hardware is rated at 200 MHz, but is being wired to an 800 MHz clock, you are overclocking the hardware.

          So what makes you think the hardware is only rated for 200Mhz ?

          The 48

  • Comparison ? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Elie De Brauwer ( 656349 )
    What is really missing in the article is the comparision betwoon other cpu's running at 533 and/or 400 MHz. How can one interprete the benchmark results if there is no comparison to another product ? It's like saying that something is 600.1 gigaquats without defining a gigaquat.
    • I agree, there was even a lack of comparison between the non HT p4's. At least we know what the difference between the 2.08 and 3.0 p4 is.. whatever that's worth.

    • I thought this article was solely to analyze the scaling of processors of this family, and less of how well the processors perform in comparison to other processors out there.
  • Anandtech [anandtech.com]

    Read the article at anadtech. It's the roadmap for Intel. And discusion of all the processor currently in the market. They Discuss why the Xeon isn't getting the nice FSB upgrade even though they need it the most.

    From a performance standpoint, things make even less sense once we start looking at Intel's plans for the Xeon MP line for 4-way configurations. Intel's Xeon MPs will continue to use a 400MHz FSB through the first half of 2004, even as the processors reach speeds as high as 2.60GHz. In

  • from the article as a pro listing in the conclusion: "Revealed that the limiting factor is more of the video card and less on the CPU" WHAT A SURPRISE!!! all this time i was playing DOOM3 on my dual xeon 2.8 server wondering why i was only get 1fps with my ATI XPERT@Work 8meg!!! Thank's for revealing the mystery guys ;) i guess they don't play games much..
  • The article focuses on how the relationship between CPU and video card affect various aspects of performance.

    I just read that line in the article, got very excited, and then it hit me like a ton of bricks just how much of a fucking geek I am. :)

    That said, I love Intel improvements. Why? I wait three months, and buy an AMD ship that gives between 90% and 110% performance and costs a thrid less.

  • That is a pain. Can't they put two controllers and double the bus to each stick? Or something?
  • If, for whatever reason, you were limiting yourself to only 800mhz FSB Pentium 4 processors, I can see how this article MIGHT be of some value. But what if you want to compare against Athlon? What if you want to compare 800mhz FSB against 533mhz FSB? I mean, I would like to know how a 3ghz with 533 compares to a 2.4ghz with 800. If you really have some shopping to do, this article is useless.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close