Processors with lga 775 pin processor socket. Processor sockets, what is a processor socket

In this article we will conduct a small overview of modern processors from Intel. This article will be of interest to users who are thinking about how to upgrade their computer to a new one. socket type. For those who have gathered on one's own Also, you should familiarize yourself with the new processor sockets.

Socket 2011

• Release date: November 14, 2011
• Connector type: LGA
• Number of contacts: 2011
• Buses used: 4 channels DDR3,QPI DMI
• Processor size: 58.5x50 mm
• Processors: Intel Sandy Bridge-EX

Socket 2011- connector for Intel processors made using LGA technology, released as a replacement for socket 1366 for desktop computers. The socket has 2011 pins that make contact with the pads on the bottom of the processor.

Soket 2011 uses QPI bus, for connecting to an additional processor in dual-processor systems or to additional chipsets. The processor simultaneously performs the function of a north bridge, i.e. is a memory controller, PCI-E bus controller, DMI, FDI, etc. The processor based on the LGA 2011 socket supports 4-channel memory and PCIe 3.0. Socket 2011 released along with Sandy Bridge-EX on November 14, 2011.

Socket 1155

• Release date: 2011
• Connector type: LGA
• Processor form factor: Flip-chip, LGA
• Number of contacts: 1155
• Buses used: 2 channels DDR3, DMI, PCIe 16x
• Processors: Intel Sandy Bridge and Intel Ivy Bridge

Socket 1155 - CPU socket For Intel Sandy Bridge processors, designed as a replacement socket 1156. But despite the similar design, the LGA 1155 processor cannot be installed in socket 1156 due to the additional contact pad and different position of the slots.

Cooler for socket 1156 fits into socket 1155, which allows you to save on purchasing a new cooling system for a new processor.

Socket 775

• Release date: 2004
• Connector type: LGA
• Processor form factor: Flip-chip land grid array
• Number of contacts: 775
• Bus used: Quad-Pumped FSB
• FSB frequency, MP/s: 533, 800, 1066, 1333 or 1600
• Processors size: 37.5 × 37.5 mm
• Processors: Intel Pentium 4 (2.66-3.80 GHz), Intel Celeron D (2.53-3.6 GHz), Pentium 4 Extreme Edition (3.20-3.73 GHz), Pentium D (2, 66-3.60 GHz), Pentium Extreme Edition (3.20-3.73 GHz), Pentium Dual-Core (1.40-2.80 GHz), Core 2 Duo (Exxxx, except 6x05 and 8x 35), Core 2 Extreme (X6800; QXxxxx, except 9775 and 9300), Core 2 Quad (Qxxxx, except 9000 and 9100), Xeon (1.86-3.00 GHz).

Socket 775- currently the most popular processor socket from Intel. 775 socket uses less efficient tire than AMD, but it is scalable. Plus the processor Pentium 4 And Core 2 Duo does not contain memory controller, and this allows new processors to use the old bus with more high frequency. But because of this the performance RAM and processor cache slightly less than AMD processors.

Unfortunately, many users who are building a computer keep repeating the same mistake, thinking that computer performance depends most on the processor. As a result, they purchase the most expensive processor, not realizing that thereby increasing performance by only 2-3%, which clearly does not justify the investment.

In reality, there is not much difference in performance between 1.5 and 1.7 GHz processors, while the difference in cost can be very significant. You can increase productivity in some other ways, much more effective. Of course, the desire to increase productivity and saving are incompatible concepts. But you can do this to keep all costs to a minimum.

First of all, the motherboard. It may well have some impact on performance; the point here is not at all in the basic numbers that manufacturers always indicate. In addition, the stability of the computer largely depends on the motherboard. And there is certainly no point in buying a very expensive processor and a cheap motherboard; such a scheme will not lead to anything good.

Next, the amount of random access memory (RAM). As long-term practice shows, there is never excess memory; programs always try to “grab” as much of it as possible. For this reason, it makes sense to install larger RAM. By the way, the maximum volume depends entirely on the capabilities of the motherboard.

Next is the hard drive. If you want a faster system, then it is better to choose a faster model, at the expense of volume. The speed of the hard drive is directly affected by indicators such as the size of the clipboard, spindle speed and connection interface. However, there are certain limitations here too. So, there is no point in buying a model that is connected via a SAS interface and has a spindle speed of 15,000 rpm; this is a solution for servers. Much more practical from the point of view of increasing the speed of the system would be to use not a “classic” hard drive, but a solid-state drive (SSD).

Those users who have already replaced disks with SSDs immediately noted a multiple increase in performance. Moreover, we are talking about two or even threefold growth, and not at all about several tens of percent. This technique will allow you to avoid the need to replace a completely outdated system.

However, it should be taken into account that SSDs are distinguished by modest volumes these days and not the highest reliability. It is impossible to predict the lifespan of a hard drive; even with damaged sectors, it can last a whole decade. In the case of an SSD, you should not count on more than 3-4 years, and only on condition that you do not write large amounts of data to the drive and purchase a model from a reputable manufacturer.

As for a high-performance video card, it usually only makes an impact in games and some specific applications that also use the graphics processor for many mathematical calculations. But for the average user, such programs are usually unnecessary.

It all started in 2004 with the NetBurst architecture, represented by processors based on Prescott-2M and Cedar Mill cores, which were produced in an FC-LGA4 package. The latter was a substrate made of organic material with a crystal closed by a heat-distributing cover on the front side and 775 contact pads on the back. Since mid-2005, they began to be gradually displaced into the lower price category by dual-core Pentium D models. And on July 27, 2006, the first CPUs of the Core 2 Duo family appeared, which seriously influenced the technology race and the general balance of power.

With the release of the Nehalem microarchitecture in the fourth quarter of 2008, solutions based on it under the brand name i5 and i7 in LGA 1156 and LGA 1366 were supposed to retire the public's favorite and long-lived system units. But the new platforms did not really take root; the reason for this was the upcoming announcement of the LGA 1155 socket and processors from the Sandy Bridge family, which again forced enthusiasts to fork out cash. As a result, the LGA 1156 socket, which replaced LGA 775 with built-in DDR3 memory controllers and PCI-E 2.0 bus, as well as support for a CPU with an integrated graphics adapter, turned out to be simply a transitional model, devoid of any support and chances for the future.

But the Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Quad processors, in turn, were delivered until May 8, 2009, so if desired, any of them could be found for quite a long time. But now it’s 2013, which means that almost seven years have passed since the release of the Conroe family of solutions. In this article, using my system as an example, we will consider an interesting upgrade option with minimal investment. One of the goals of the material is to show what will come of it, and also to compare the updated PC with the desktop system of the present time.

System modernization

At the beginning of 2007, it was a fairly powerful and balanced gaming station, which once included one of the top processors in the Core 2 Duo line with the well-known G92. The test bench at the time of the upgrade looked like this:

• Motherboard: ASUS P5K WorkStation;
• RAM: 4x1 GB DDR2 800, Hynix;
• Video card: Palit 9800 GT.

Let's start with the processor. No matter how productive the Core 2 Duo 6850 was yesterday, today's trends say the opposite; in this configuration it is certainly the first weak link. This means that the update needs to start with it. As you understand, replacing a dual-core processor with an older model using the E8600 as an example is stupid. You should pay attention, at a minimum, to quad-core solutions, the choice of which has not become richer over time:

• Q6600 - everyone's favorite, terribly hot and not the cheapest;
• Q8400 - I wasn’t particularly pleased with its performance at the time, it’s a transitional model;
• The Q9550 is an excellent processor, one of the top models in the LGA 775 line.

All possible options were considered. In my case, the emphasis was on the cost of purchase, since it is not advisable to purchase a Q9550 for $145 and a Q6600 for $100 if current competitors in the form of AMD Athlon II, Phenom II and FX are comparatively cheaper.

After browsing online auctions, I came across the Intel Xeon X3210 server processor, an analogue of the desktop Q6400. For a very tasty price of $48, they offered the G0 stepping model, representatives of which are supposedly capable of excellent overclocking.

The only thing that confuses me is the x8 multiplier. On the other hand, based on my own experience, it is enough to exceed frequencies of 3000 MHz. The main thing here is to have a motherboard capable of supporting a bus of 400 MHz and higher.

So, we've sorted out the processor, let's move on to the RAM. Considering its type, it is easy to understand my desire to get rid of outdated modules and switch to faster and cheaper DDR3, increasing the capacity at the same time. Here another problem arises, since the ASUS P5K WorkStation motherboard does not support this type of memory.

Accordingly, for the transition you will need to change the board. Of course, you can buy solutions with discrete video on the G41/P43 chipsets that have been lying around in stores, but don’t forget about overclocking and the reasonable cost of all this. I drew a rough idea of ​​the motherboard - it should, if possible, be a hybrid, with support for two types of RAM and preferably with two PCI-Express ports.

The intended purchase was found in a short time; it became the ASUS P5KC. Despite the differences, it is based on the same set of P35 system logic. Perhaps I was in a hurry, but the models I was considering on the X38 and P43/45 chipsets were, unfortunately, without DDR3 support, and I didn’t want to buy the exorbitantly expensive ASUS P5E3 or P5Q3.

While choosing a processor was easy, replacing the old GeForce 9800 GT presented some difficulties. Today's market for video adapters is simply huge; in the bins of flea markets you can find almost all produced solutions, both past and recent.

I, in turn, was interested in cards from the GeForce GTX 4xx and Radeon HD 68xx lines, which are currently relatively inexpensive and quite productive accelerators. $70 was allocated from the budget for the purchase. The video card was found and successfully purchased; it turned out to be the GTX 460 SE model from my favorite company Palit.

What’s interesting is that at one time, manufacturers, like NVIDIA itself, made fun of this graphics processor in every possible way; you could find a lot of cards on sale with the same name, but with different characteristics.

This representative of the GTX 4xx series is distinguished by the abbreviation SE (revealed as Smart Edition, like early Palit solutions with the GE index). The basis is the GF104 with a 256-bit bus and lower core and memory frequencies compared to standard ones. If this problem can be solved by simple overclocking, then it is impossible to change the number of stream processors. This Palit series is positioned with precisely such design solutions.

Test benches

To understand how much performance improved after the upgrade, the following test configurations were collected.

Intel Xeon based system:

• Processor: Intel Xeon X3210;
• Motherboard: ASUS P5KC;
• RAM: 2x4 GB DDR3 1333, Silicon Power;

Intel Core 2 Duo based system:

• Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo E6850;
• Motherboard: ASUS P5K WS;
• RAM: 4x1 GB DDR2 800, Hynix;
• Cooling system: Corsair H40;
• Video card: Palit GeForce 9800 GT;
• SSD drive: Corsair Force F60, 60 GB;
• Power supply: FSP Everest 85 Plus, 700 W.

AMD FX based system:

• Processor: AMD FX-4100;
• Motherboard: ASUS M5A78L-M LX3;
• RAM: 2x4 GB DDR3 1333, Silicon Power;
• Cooling system: Corsair H40;
• Video card: Palit GeForce GTX 460 SE;
• SSD drive: Corsair Force F60, 60 GB;
• Power supply: FSP Everest 85 Plus, 700 W.

Software:

• Operating system: Windows 7 x64 SP1;
• Video card driver: NVIDIA GeForce 310.64 Beta;
• Utilities: FRAPS 3.5.9, MSI Afterburner 2.2.5.

Overclocking

Intel Xeon X3210

The processor was overclocked to 3200 MHz. To do this, the system bus frequency was raised to 400 MHz (400x8), the DDR3 frequency was 1250 MHz, the core supply voltage was 1.4 V, the DDR3 supply voltage was 1.65 V.

Intel Core 2 Duo E6850

The processor operates at a frequency of 3200 MHz - in order not to violate testing rules. To do this, the system bus frequency was raised to 355 MHz (355x9), the DDR2 frequency was 920 MHz, the core supply voltage was 1.3 V, the DDR2 supply voltage was 2.5 V.

AMD FX-4100

The processor frequency is fixed at 3200 MHz, the system bus frequency is 200 MHz (200x16), the DDR3 frequency is 1333 MHz, the core supply voltage is 1.4 V, the DDR3 supply voltage is 1.65 V, AMD Turbo Core is Disabled.

Constantly developing technologies in the computer parts and software market have led to the fact that many owners of systems with a platform with a socket 775 began to notice that the computer began to process tasks more slowly. Naturally, IT professionals will recommend that the user buy a more powerful processor running on the new platform. But for it to work you need an appropriate motherboard and RAM, and these are additional costs. In this article, the reader will learn about other possibilities for speeding up a personal computer, and at the same time get acquainted with the most popular platform in the world, its features and potential.

Strange Intel technologies

It’s worth noting right away that the number 775 in the socket name determines the number of contacts between the processor and the motherboard. If desired, the user can verify this independently by removing the processor and counting the number of contact pins on the motherboard socket. From the outside, everything looks great, especially after the manufacturer’s statements about the complete interchangeability of processors for socket 775.

But during operation, if the user wants to install a more powerful crystal that supports work with the corresponding platform, it turns out that the motherboard simply does not see the processor. And no firmware updates can solve the problem. When studying the problem in detail, the buyer will become familiar with the specifications of the motherboard for socket 775. The manufacturer describes which processors it supports only on the official website. IT professionals consider this approach from the manufacturer to be a trick, because often to carry out an upgrade the processor has to be changed along with the motherboard.

Differentiation of processors for socket 775

Support for all existing processors for the socket in question with just one motherboard is possible, but unlikely. Firstly, a universal device will have a correspondingly inflated cost, and not every potential buyer will like it. Secondly, Intel's policy does not allow using all existing technologies on one platform. Accordingly, it is important to have information not about which processors are suitable for the 775 socket of the motherboard, but what opportunities are offered by the technologies supported by the motherboard. Compatibility occurs at the level of crystal generations and their performance.

1. Single-core Pentium and Celeron processors with a clock frequency of 2.66-3.88 gigahertz, operating on a 533-800 megahertz bus.
2. Low power multi-core platforms limited to 3.2 GHz.
3. Transitional category of powerful processors with frequencies of 2.8-3.8 GHz, with two physical cores and a high bus frequency (800-1333 MHz).
4. with multiple cores (Xeon and Extreme) for professional use.

Platform capabilities

The data exchange rate in the range of 533-1600 MHz is the main criterion responsible for the performance of the platform. Accordingly, any RAM available on the market for the DDR2 interface is supported by the system. Virtualization of physical cores using Hyper Threading technologies can improve platform performance (although not all processors support this). Having all the necessary instructions and on-chip support for 64-bit systems is key to running any application in the world.

There are, of course, negative aspects to this platform. For example, the most powerful processor does not have large power dissipation. Therefore, buyers have to buy powerful cooling systems for such a platform. The disadvantages include the organization on the motherboard. The manufacturer placed contact pins on the motherboard, and they are easy to break or bend due to inept user actions.

Only the stars are higher

Naturally, many potential buyers are confident that the most powerful processor on the 775 socket is the Intel Core Quad, which has 4 physical cores. If we consider it according to the “price-quality” criterion, then yes. But tests carried out in laboratories show that server processors cope better with mathematical calculations. Accordingly, their performance in games will be better than that of representatives of the Quad line. But this does not mean that a cheap 4-core copy can be written off.

The top segment of crystals designed specifically for socket 775 is capable of surpassing in performance all representatives of the budget niche of processors created later for the platform (we are talking about Core i3).

Marketing games of manufacturers

Advertising in the media assures all users that constantly updated software requires high performance of a personal computer. And this applies to both programs and games. At the moment, such statements are directed at all owners of platforms based on socket 775. Which processors are suitable for software, as practice shows, is decided not by Intel, but by software developers. Their interest is that the new product will be purchased by a large number of users (business as usual). Accordingly, they focus on popular platforms, which are the majority in the world.

Two physical cores, 4 gigabytes of RAM and a capacious hard drive (and a powerful video card when it comes to games) are the basic criteria for all software on the market. It turns out that owners of platforms with socket 775 are in an advantageous position; there is no point in purchasing expensive equipment. At least for the next few years.

What is the buyer's gain?

The main criterion when purchasing computer parts is their cost. Definitely, not every buyer can afford to purchase the best 775 socket processor. When selecting components for a system unit, many potential buyers strive for harmony of price-quality criteria. At this stage, many IT professionals recommend taking a closer look at an expensive motherboard that can work with any Intel processor line for a given platform. And the crystal is inexpensive to purchase.

In the future, it will not be difficult for the computer owner to buy a powerful one with several cores on the secondary market and upgrade the system. As practice shows, such a solution will allow the user to have a fairly productive platform at hand without large investments.

Sweeping away stereotypes

The new 3-5 generation Intel processors Core i3/i5) offered on the market promise the future owner high performance in games and software. Many tests carried out by enthusiasts prove that the new crystals demonstrate high performance. The comparison is made with similar platforms from competitor AMD, but the top-end processor on the 775 socket is completely ignored. Such testing leads many users to believe that they are being deceived into purchasing expensive equipment.

And since we are talking about an upgrade, there is an unspoken method for changing the computer platform. Its essence lies in the fact that an effective increase in productivity is observed only after one generation. In this case, it is recommended to switch from a platform that has socket 775 and works with the type to a system created using DDR4 technology.

Finally

As can be seen from the review, socket 775 is a fairly productive platform that has potential and, accordingly, a near future. It’s too early to write off ten-year-old technology. True, this applies only to owners of computers with a processor for socket 775. Others who want to purchase their first computer are recommended to give preference to new platforms, since the old technology is losing its relevance over a long period of time and will slowly lose its position in the next few years.

a successful start with a hint of future achievements

The very fact of the imminent appearance of a new platform for Intel processors is no longer a secret to anyone (except perhaps for people who do not follow news in the field of computer hardware at all, or have been disconnected from the Internet for about six months). Actually, almost all the most important information was quite officially released by Intel. In general, there is nothing to add to it at the moment, so we’ll simply list once again the main facts (now 100% facts, since they can be touched with your hands) regarding the new platform, most often called “Socket 775” in the media. or “LGA775” (which is essentially the same thing, because it means the processor socket):

• Socket 775 becomes the leading platform for Intel processors. Socket 478 will still be supported for quite a long time, but all the “delicious” new products will be released primarily for Socket 775;
• LGA775 will be the world's first x86 desktop platform to support DDR2 memory;
• Processors for LGA775 will be labeled in a new way, using a processor number instead of indicating the actual frequency in the official name. So, for example, two such CPUs are taking part in our tests today: Pentium 4 550 (3.4 GHz) and Pentium 4 560 (3.6 GHz).
• Along with the announcement of new processors, the company is announcing two chipsets: Intel 915P Express and Intel 925X Express. The first is positioned for low- and mid-level systems and supports both DDR2 and regular DDR memory. Intel 925X Express is designed for high-performance desktops and workstations and supports only DDR2 memory.
• Both chipsets lost support for the AGP bus, purchasing instead a new high-speed PCI Express x16 bus. For other devices, compatibility with regular PCI is maintained, but up to 4 PCI Express 1x ports are also supported.

However, we dedicated the Socket 775 platform itself, but here we will mainly talk about new processors. And they greet you, as has been our custom since ancient times, — “by clothes”! Socket 775 platform and its processors

Appearance and software identification

Pentium 4 560 (Socket 775, Prescott core, 1 MB L2, 3.6 GHz)

Pentium 4 eXtreme Edition (Socket 775, Gallatin core, 512 KB L2, 2 MB L3, 3.4 GHz)

This is what the new Pentium 4 and Pentium 4 eXtreme Edition look like. It is easy to notice that they differ only in the location and number of passive elements in the “inner square”, free from legs. However... what kind of “legs” are these?!

A bit unusual, isn't it? — The back side of the processor is completely bare. CPUs for the Socket 775 platform do not have legs; instead, they have flat contact pads, and the legs are moved to the socket. However, a little later we will return to the new socket, its advantages and disadvantages. In the meantime, let's see what diagnostic programs tell us about the new CPUs. This time, together with CPU-Z, we present screenshots taken from the CPU Info RightMark Memory Analyzer window. This program module cannot yet be called fully modified, but even in its current form it has shown its best in some places...

So, Pentium 4 550 (Socket 775, Prescott core, frequency 3.4 GHz), CPU-Z considers it a Xeon on the Nocona core. Funny misconception :). However, the frequency and other parameters are determined correctly. RMMA with Processor Number I haven’t gotten used to it yet, so without further ado, he tells us that this is a Pentium 4 with a frequency of 3.4 GHz on a Prescott core. Well, at least the core was identified correctly...

RMMA saved a bit here: it couldn’t calculate the “extreme” of the new Pentium 4 eXtreme Edition 3.4 GHz for Socket 775. But there are no discrepancies regarding the core: both CPU-Z and RMMA clearly determined that the processor is based on a server core Gallatin (also the basis for all recent Xeons).

And again CPU-Z stubbornly considers Prescott for Socket 775 to be a server processor! However, all these screenshots, by and large, only demonstrate that trusting diagnostic programs immediately after the release of new processors should be done with some caution: regarding the frequency, supported instruction sets and cache sizes, they most likely will not deceive you, but with such subtle matters as the official name of the CPU or the kernel code name may be a small problem. However, as a rule, developers of diagnostic utilities eliminate them very quickly, literally within a few days after the official announcement of the processor.

A little about the new processor socket

This is what Socket 775 looks like in a closed state without a processor installed. It looks a lot like a photo of a Socket 478 CPU, only turned upside down and placed on the board, right? This is almost exactly how it is: now the legs are part of the socket, not the CPU. On the one hand, the quiet murmur of some motherboard manufacturers is understandable: the socket itself, as a part of the board, has apparently become more expensive and “more delicate” — If you accidentally catch the legs, you can bend them. On the other hand, in the end we only have a “redistribution of overall responsibility”: previously, the integrity of the legs was a headache for the CPU manufacturer, now — from the motherboard manufacturer. Users, in fact, have not lost or won anything: previously, due to careless handling, they could damage the processor leg, now — leg on the socket. Who broke — the one who follows the installation rules will continue to break things; in general, he doesn’t care. By the way, speaking of possible damage: Pentium 4 processors are on average more expensive than motherboards for them...

In this photo we tried to demonstrate as clearly as possible the structure of the legs on the processor socket. It can be seen that they do not have a very simple shape and are made so as to slightly “spring” the contact pads on the processor. According to Intel, the conical shape of the tips of the legs (not visible in the photo, because they are photographed “in profile”) was not chosen by chance: in case of poor contact, the generated heat will partially soften the “point” at the end of the leg, and help eliminate leaks in contact.

Processor against the background of an open socket. This is such a funny photo that doesn’t carry any technical load :).

And finally — operating state: processor installed, socket closed. All together it gives the impression of a kind of almost monolithic metal structure, reliably protected from any external influences. Indeed, one thing that you definitely can’t make a single complaint about is the strength and security of Socket 775 when closed: here, perhaps, even a screwdriver or pliers falling from above is unlikely to damage the processor or socket. Most likely the board will fail...

Cooling system

And this is what the cooler that came with the reference system for the Socket 775 platform looks like. It’s easy to notice the main features:

• The radiator is quite large in size;
• Has a copper core, not completely covering the top cover of the processor;
• The dimensions of the impeller also command respect;
• The mount has once again changed dramatically — now the cooler is attached directly to the system board;
• Impeller... fully open — without any hint of a protective casing!

We can only hope that the last point refers exclusively to “Qualification Sample” (the inscription on the top of the fan), because even during the testing process we encountered a couple of times with the cooler’s power wires getting directly under its blades...

Chipsets: forget about AGP...

Here we present two screenshots from the Device Manager window of Windows XP Professional. If someone has looked into such a jungle as a list of system devices, then he will probably be surprised by the absence of one of them, which has already become familiar (fortunately, a lot of water has passed under the bridge since the appearance of the i440LX): “... Processor to AGP Controller.” That's it, it's time to forget: it's 2004, AGP is out of favor, now PCI Express is in fashion. There is just one small discrepancy: Windows does not yet know how PCI Express differs from just PCI, so no texturing from system memory, no GART and other things: video cards of the PCI Express format from the point of view of the operating system are still ordinary PCI devices . Maybe in the future something will change, but for now things are like this.

And now, if you are already tired of “funny pictures”, we suggest you familiarize yourself with the configuration of the test benches and move on to looking at images of a different kind: diagrams with the results of testing the speed of new processors. Test bench configuration

Test bench equipment:

• Processors:
  • Intel Pentium 4 550 (3.4 GHz, Prescott, Socket 775)
  • Intel Pentium 4 560 (3.6 GHz, Prescott, Socket 775)
  • Intel Pentium 4 eXtreme Edition 3.4 GHz (Socket 775)
  • Intel Pentium 4 3.4E GHz (Prescott, Socket 478)
  • Intel Pentium 4 3.4 GHz (Northwood, Socket 478)
  • AMD Athlon 64 FX 53 (2.4 GHz, Socket 940)
  • AMD Athlon 64 3800+ (2.4 GHz, Socket 939)
• Motherboards:
  • ABIT AA8 DuraMAX on i925X chipset (BIOS AA8_13.b00)
  • ABIT KV8-MAX3 on VIA K8T800 chipset (Socket 754, BIOS 17)
  • ASUS A8V Deluxe on VIA K8T800 chipset (BIOS 1003 beta 023)
  • ASUS P4C800 Deluxe on i875P chipset (BIOS 1016)
  • ASUS SK8N on NVIDIA nForce 3 Pro 150 chipset (BIOS 1004)
  • ECS PF4 Extreme on i915P chipset (BIOS 1.0Pb)
• Memory modules:
  • 2x512 MB PC2-4300 DIMM DDR2 SDRAM Samsung (timings 4-4-4-8)
  • 2x512 MB PC-3200 DIMM DDR SDRAM Corsair (timings 2-2-2-5)
  • 2x512 MB PC-3200 DIMM DDR SDRAM Registered Corsair (timings 2-2-2-5)
• Video cards:
  • NVIDIA GeForce FX 5900 (stand based on the i875P chipset)
  • NVIDIA GeForce PCX 5900 (stand based on the i915P chipset)
  • ATI Radeon X600XT (stand based on i925X chipset)
• Drives:
  • Western Digital WD360, SATA, 10000 rpm, 36 GB
  • CD-ROM ASUS 50

System software:

• Windows XP Professional SP1
• DirectX 9.0b
• ATI Catalyst 4.7 beta (6458)
• NVIDIA ForceWare 61.40
• Intel Chipset Installation Utility Intel 6.0.1.1002
• VIA Hyperion 4.51
• VIA SATA Driver 2.10a
• NVIDIA UDP 3.13

Unfortunately, one of the traditional sections of our standard test methodology, gaming, is missing in this material. The Socket 775 platform is still quite young, and we were faced with the problem of finding a sufficiently powerful (of course, a top model was desirable) video card in two varieties at the same time: for the AGP bus, and for PCI Express, but so that the frequencies of the chip and memory were the same It's hard enough. At least, it didn’t reach us quickly enough to have time to carry out the necessary tests on all processors and platforms. However, without any doubt, we will return to the topic of the performance of processors and chipsets for Socket 775 in gaming applications in the very near future.

CPU RightMark 2003

Solver module (physics model)

As before, the AMD64 platform is unsurpassed in speed in this test. Let us recall that at the moment the RightMark CPU supports all the most advanced instruction sets; accordingly, the solver module for all platforms uses SSE2, and in the rendering module in the case of Prescott even SSE3. Thus, in the solver, AMD honestly beats Intel “on its field” with the SSE2 instruction set. However, the performance increase on the Intel platform is also noticeable on the new Pentium 4 processor for Socket 775 with a frequency of 3.6 GHz. The increase is proportional to the increase in frequency, approximately 5%. Thus, if no architectural changes are made to the Pentium 4, in the CPU RightMark solver module the performance of today's Athlon 64 3800+ and Athlon 64 FX-53 will reach a CPU on the Prescott core with a frequency of about 4.1 GHz. It is also easy to see that neither the platform (chipset) nor the size of the L2 cache affects the speed in this test; the results for all Pentium 4 with a frequency of 3.4 GHz are approximately the same.

Renderer (display)

In the rendering module, the picture is exactly the opposite: the Intel platform is confidently in the lead, and the new core (Prescott) demonstrates especially outstanding results. What’s interesting is that this cannot be counted as a double cache compared to Northwood, because the new Pentium 4 eXtreme Edition (which is, in fact, a Northwood with a two-megabyte third-level cache) does not demonstrate the best results. There is no significant difference between equal-frequency Prescotts on the old (S478) and new (S775) platforms (remember that in this case not only the chipsets are different, but also the type of memory used). The Prescott 3.6 GHz speed is faster than 3.4 GHz, indicating still good scalability, at least in this application.

RightMark Memory Analyzer 3.2

Minimum and maximum latency

We already wrote not so long ago that due to the peculiarity of the Hardware Prefetch mechanism, apparently significantly improved in the Prescott core, traversing the chain with a step of 64 bytes produces a completely interesting picture: the diagnosed latency turns out to be less than the minimum physically possible! However, let's demonstrate this again. See for yourself: due to hardware prefetching, with a 64-byte step, the latency on Prescott is even lower than that of AMD64-based systems with their built-in memory controller! However, once you double the step, everything falls into place.

Still, it is possible to “drive into a corner” the Hardware Prefetch mechanism of Prescott. But the degree of its improvement still inspires respect: note how seriously both Pentium 4s with the old core lag behind. Meanwhile, Prescott, at its best (on the Socket 478 platform with regular DDR400), has almost caught up with both AMD processors, despite the fact that the memory controller in the Intel architecture is not integrated. On the other hand, the new Socket 775 platform does not reduce the gap, but rather increases it. Well, the reason is clear: the use of DDR2-533 with by no means the best (compared to DDR400) timings, plus a bus that is too narrow for such memory and an asynchronous operating mode (the actual frequency of the memory bus is 133 MHz, the processor bus 200 MHz). The Pentium 4 eXtreme Edition has a very high minimum latency. In the absence of other options, we can only assume that a large third-level cache on a relatively slow 64-bit bus is “harming” it.

Memory reading speed

The results of all processors, except those based on the Northwood core (which can conditionally include the Pentium 4 eXtreme Edition, although it would be more correct to mention the Gallatin core in this case), are approximately the same and revolve around the maximum theoretically permissible processor bus bandwidth. It would not be amiss to draw attention to the fact that it was not in vain that we mentioned the PS bus, and not the memory: for dual-channel DDR2-533, the theoretical maximum is 8400 MB/sec, but the fact is that the 800 MHz FSB of today's Pentium 4 is simply unable to transfer data to the processor at that speed. Northwood's "let us down": apparently, improvements to Prescott's hardware prefetch mechanism also affect sequential memory access (in general, this would be logical — It is precisely with this type of access that Prefetch is needed most of all).

Memory write speed

There is a clear division into two groups, which almost clearly indicates the advantage of AMD's approach with its controller integrated into the processor. At least, we see virtually no difference between Intel processors, regardless of the chipset. There is also no need to “nod” at the peculiarities of cache implementation in various CPUs: in the memory writing mode we use for tests, the L2 cache is simply “ignored”.

3ds max 5.1 + Brazil r/s

Approximate parity, which I don’t even want to break down into its components. A difference of such magnitude between the results is unlikely to impress anyone enough to make a choice of platform based on it.

Lightwave 7.5

The situation is standard for this package, without any changes relative to the patterns known to us from past testing. The AMD platform is inferior to the Pentium 4 on the old Northwood core and is almost on a par with the newcomers Prescott. Prescott 3.6 GHz again demonstrates a slight increase in relation to 3.4 GHz, scalability is still present, even the highest-frequency Pentium 4 has not yet reached the limit of bandwidth.

DivX 5.1.1

The lineup is almost even, with the highest-frequency Pentium 4 on the new platform coming off a little. In fact, there is nothing special to see here, except that we can once again state the good scalability of the performance of Intel processors in terms of frequency.

Windows Media Video 9

Confident performance of Prescott (on all possible platforms) and AMD processors. The previous core from Intel Northwood is clearly not in favor, and even the large second-level cache of the Pentium 4 XE does not help. Let us remind you that we have already noted more than once the increased effect of using Hyper-Threading in the case of Prescott, and this application uses this technology very efficiently, and the increase from its use is quite large.

Mainconcept MPEG Encoder 1.4

Prescott is again in favor, however, this time the Athlon 64 is significantly behind. And, apparently, again due to good multi-threaded optimization of the application.

Canopus ProCoder

There is a spread, but it is small. The best results on the Intel platform are again demonstrated by Prescott, however, both Athlon 64 are ahead in the overall standings.

Audio encoding (LAME and Oggenc)

The picture is roughly similar: the main competitors (with varying degrees of success) are AMD64 architecture processors and the old Intel Northwood core. Prescott fails to catch up with either of them, even at a maximum frequency of 3.6 GHz. However, scalability is visible, visible...

7-zip 3.13

Not uncommon for this material is a picture of approximate equality between all processors and platforms. Therefore, let's pay attention to particulars: firstly, the new Prescott core performed well again, and secondly, for the first time we see almost zero gain in a 3.6 GHz processor compared to a 3.4 GHz processor. It’s too early to draw global conclusions, but it looks like we still managed to find at least one application that demonstrates insufficient bandwidth (otherwise, why does an increase in frequency not increase speed?). There is no visible benefit from the new chipsets in combination with DDR2. However, taking into account the recently published tests, we can only be glad that at least no particular harm is visible...

WinRAR 3.20

Among Intel platforms, Socket 478 shows good results, unimportant — All test benches are based on Socket 775, with the exception of the system on the Pentium 4 eXtreme Edition processor with its gigantic 2 MB L3 cache. Apparently, Socket 775 owes its loss in the overall standings to the high latency of DDR2 memory. It is symptomatic that in such a situation, AMD very often ends up “on horseback” in the overall standings — That's what happened this time too.

Adobe Photoshop

Most, let's not be afraid of this word, mysterious the result of all that are present in this material. None of the low-level tests showed us a significant superiority of the new Socket 775 platform over the old one when using the same processor, but despite this, this superiority is visible to the naked eye in a real application! Pay attention to the difference in the results between the Prescott 3.4 GHz on the i875P chipset (Socket 478, DDR400) and the supposedly exactly the same Prescott 3.4 GHz on the i915/i925X chipsets (Socket 775, DDR2-533). For now, we can only state it and assume that the new generation of Intel system logic has some fairly profound changes in the memory controller, we just haven’t been able to “bring them to the surface” yet. Conclusions

In general, despite the abundance of new processors and chipsets, we are not seeing anything extraordinary at the moment. Yes, a new socket, yes, new chipsets, yes, new memory, but... let's take the liberty of suggesting that if the Pentium 4 550 and Pentium 4 560 were simply called “Pentium 4 3.4E GHz” and “Pentium 4 3.6 GHz”, and installed in the good old Socket 478 , little would have changed. In some places the results would be a little better, in some places perhaps a little worse, but hardly enough to pay attention to it. The most important thing that the new Intel platform showed us is — These are the priorities of this manufacturer and its plans for the near future: no one is going to abandon Prescott, despite the fact that in some situations it loses to Northwood. Moreover, in other situations it still outperforms Northwood, and is especially good when Intel’s key Hyper-Threading technology is used. Prescott's shortcomings will most likely be corrected using the old, proven method: using frequency. And the release of the 3.6-GHz Pentium 4 should convince all doubters that the gunpowder is there and has not become damp, and frequencies will increase. At little risk of being wrong, we'll assume that a 3.8GHz Prescott is just around the corner, too. At the very least, it will be very strange if we don’t see him again this year. In addition, it looks like there will be further work with software manufacturers to move as much performance-critical software to multithreading as possible: it seems that in some particularly complex cases this is the only chance for Prescott to demonstrate what it can do.

However, of course, the main meaning of what happened is not at all an increase in productivity or frequencies. The point is the emergence of a new platform, which, apparently, is destined to become no less long-lasting than Socket 478. Again, it would be reasonable to assume that the “pearls” of the new socket will not be the CPUs presented today, but future ones, at least , Pentium 4 should acquire support for a 1066 MHz system bus in order to utilize the currently idle potential of DDR2-533 memory. The focus on DDR2 is also visible to the naked eye, if only because Intel refused to support the “old” DDR for its new flagship i925X chipset. Thus, with the successors along the line of system logic, everything is also quite transparent: i915P as a replacement for i865PE, i925X “new i875P”. It is also encouraging that the LGA775 platform, according to the information we have, is compatible with the future promising direction of development in the form of multi-core processors, i.e. the next major architecture change will not require the introduction of a new socket.

To summarize, we can say that Socket 775 started, in general, in an optimal way: on the one hand, a new processor with an increased frequency was presented as confirmation that its growth is possible, on the other hand, there is also a foundation for the future, and potential opportunities for increasing performance are not limited to increasing the CPU frequency alone (the new 1066 MHz bus suggests itself). In a word, “you can enjoy some things today, and we will show you some things a little later.” A completely reasonable step: on the one hand — immediately bring the new platform to the forefront (within the products of Intel itself), on the other hand, hint at another O Bigger bonuses in the future. We just have to wait for this future. Let's hope it's not too far off.