http://www.forum.getanimed.com/index.php?showtopic=174

Reminds me I could use a proper stand for this instead of my "prop up on stuff and cool with desk fan" method (hey, it works). You'd be surprised how hot a Pentium 4 laptop gets while drawing in Painter...and no, I haven't done anything overclocky to it. I have no reason to...I learned my lesson about trying to encode video on it before. ROASTY.

^ That's what you get for using a Pentium 4, especially in a laptop :D There's no way I'd ever get a Pentium 4 computer right now with how hot Prescott cores are... Try something like one of these.

I've seen that video before, I don't know how real it is, considering its was still working with the fan stopped; it's possible the heatsink alone was cooling it fine, however.

I didn't buy it, so...

I want to know what twit is responsible for all the laptops you used to see with 'em, though...darn thing has nearly roasted my legs off a few times I actually used it as a laptop.

@Zelos The celeron has superior design over AMD's low voltage solution...but that's the celeron series...the P4 isn't made for a laptop...

What do you mean? The CPU was working when the fan stopped, for like seconds and then it blew up...have you even seen the video yet? XD

He frickin overclocked it like 2 ghz and frankly I'm surprised it didn't blow with the fan...or maybe I mistook what he said 1.8ghz as something else with his frenchy accent.

@Tilly It's possibily the power or CPU...possibily the HD too...you were doing something memory/processor intensive..

I probably had been drawing before that...and likely in ArtRage, which is indeed heat-inducing (but fun).

And I know Pentium 4s aren't made for a laptop now, which is why I want to know why a lot of places SOLD them that way.

P4s give the best performance, for celeron it's low voltage but actually usualy the laptops that use P4 are the high performance ones like the portable media centers...celerons are not designed for speed, they're designed for battery saving but some people sarcafice battery time for speed.

What about the Pentium M? For laptops they own everything else with their low power/heat design, CPU throttling, and vastly more efficient architecture (A 1.5Ghz PM is roughly equivalent to a 2.2Ghz P4). Desktops are completely different, with AMD 64s being the best for games and P4s for video/audio encoding.

Pentium 4s being hot is nothing new. While the Northwood core the older Pentium 4s (including mine) used is fairly good temperature wise, with the modern Prescott core it's not uncommon to have temperature of up around 60 C when idle. Cramp that all in a tight notebook with minimal cooling, and it's a course for disaster.

About the video (which I have seen), how do you know the monitor shown was hooked up to that motherboard? It might have just been connected to some second computer not shown, and then they used bottle rockets or some other kind of explosive to blow the processor up (timing it so it blew up right as they lifted the heatsink away.

peh there's pratically nothing out there that supports 64-bit computing, oh sure it's the future of computing and getting it means you'll be future-proof especially since vista wil have it's support built in, but it's pointless to buy it now because even with XP 64-bit edition you won't notice that much of an increase that you should go run out and buy it, oh sure some applications are rolling out with it's support, including HL2 though I'm sure you knew that already.

They do build desktops with the Celeron and Pentium M design but it's kind of pointless since you really don't need the listed advantages since it's a desktop.

Real or not, I enjoyed watching the CPU blow to pieces.

You sound earily like my friend Andrew :D Sure, there's no advantage to the 64 bit part of the processors, but they're still better then equally priced P4s for 32 bit gaming. The Athlon 64 3000+ is the same price as the Pentium 4 2.4Ghz (On Newegg), yet has between a 10 and 30 FPS improvement in benchmarks.

Interesting, this turned from talking about CPUs blowing up, to hot laptops, to AMD vs Intel...

Don't get me started...

I've never said that...and they're not equally priced..64-bit costs quite a bit more...I'm saying right now there is little support for it meaning right Now there is little advantage but in the future as more and more applications are developed and written for them that take advantage then you'll see more of the advantages. How can a program written to use certain resources take advantage of resources it's not designed for?

Sure 16-bit programs experience a nice speed bump when run on 32-bit processor...but will it compare to a 32-bit program written to fully to ultilize the resources? No.

They've started making CPUs in windows systems that allow you to turn down the clock speed (Ghz) of your proc, making it consume less power when you aren't doing intense stuff.

PDA's have had this technology for years, only recently has it become something with Laptops of today.

16bit vs 32bit? Bleh the only reason 16 bit programs are insane on today's processors is not because they use less memory or whatknot, but because
the processors of today are freakin insane! Back in the early 90s, a 16 bit processor would run about 50~60mhz tops. I would deduce that procs of today actually perform worse on 16 bit applications simply because there is a layer between teh proc and program, converting the 16bit variables and stuff to 32. (Expanding the binary number 16 more spaces)

The way it works is this: (which I should know, after taking a machine language course) All processors have registers, which are commonly today, 4 bytes long, a byte being 8 bits giving us 32 bits total. These registers (in x86 architecture, 4 main calculation registers exist) are SUPER fast and are where the processor actually does the math. Speed is gained by having these larger registers simply because larger variables (including integers, longs, and memory locations) can be stored in them. This reduces the amount of time taken to perform calculations because the proc does not have to half add, in a sense, what it can fit in the register, store it in memory, load up the other half of the data from memory, and then do its calculation.

Ever wonder why old computers never had tons of memory? Because 16-bit processors could not map nearly as much memory as a 32-bit. (and partially due to it's being so FREAKING expensive)

The only thing I could see 64-bit capability being useful for would be stuff that involves HUGE numbers, or REALLY REALLY close to zero numbers. Otherwise, just as the 32-bit proc had to do for 16-bit apps, the 64 has to step itself down. But even this doesn't matter because floating arithmetic, (fractional stuff) isn't even done in the main proc registers, its done in something called a math co-processor which has a totally different style of storing its numbers and calculating with them. (HUGE run-on, sorry) The math co-processor is far slower than the traditional registers.

Pentium vs AMD? To be honest clock speed is clock speed. If P4 over here runs at 2.5ghz and the AMD on this side runs at 2.5ghz, they both do the same amount of calculations in the same amount of speed. AMD's may appear faster simply because of other factors, such as Memory speed, distance from the MCH, the memory, and the processor, how well written the BUS firmware is and things like that. When you compare processors, take them at face value; its the hardware around them that matters. If it was possible to slap an Intel chip in an AMD board, if they had the same clock speed, you wouldn't even notice the difference.

@ Zelos: You are comparing with prices!!! Intel is like Mercedes Benz, you are paying for the name! A Mercedes and a FIAT get you from point a-b. Compare speeds if you want to rant about which processor is better for what.

Congratulations to anyone that read all of that.

AMD Athlon 64 3000+ at Newegg
Intel Pentium 4 2.4Ghz at Newegg
CPU benchmarks

I rest my case. You really can't get any more factual then benchmarks, so check them out yourself :P

Where did 16 bit come in :blink: *Twitches* First Celeron came out of the blue, then 16 bit...

What's wrong with using price to compare speed? If something is priced the same as a competitor yet is faster, then why buy the competitor's?

You forget one thing, does that price tag for the 64-bit computer include the 64-bit compatible motherboard, Windows 64-bit edition, and compatible hardware?

Alot of hardware just won't run with a 64-bit processor, so you might have to go out of your way to by certain kinds.

Intel is bigger than AMD, frankly I like Intel more they have alot of good ideas. The HT technology was a good idea, except it's old now, but that was during the pre-dual core days.

That's right, don't forget the cache size. But that's with both processor not having any of those fancy crap added in.

Most commonly found in notebooks to save power when doing tasks not so CPU consuming.

Those benchmarks are too much for my eyes.

Well look at what you're comparing? a 3ghz+ and a 2.4ghz. Its hardly a fair comparison.

I wish AMD would stop labeling their processors like they do and give them a Ghz classification. But w/e.. Price comparison is one thing, but its like comparing apples and oranges when they aren't the same speed.

Yea I hated that, like wtf Athlon 64 FX-57, just give me the damn ghz!

Rumors are circulating Intel might go that way too, I sure hope not.

Dual-core processors are nice, but the slow speeds for each of the cores make it suitable for heavy multitasking...you're better off getting two processors, trust me my dad had 2 processors in his computer at work and it was great.

EEE Wrong.

Symetric multi processing is not better than having one dual-core processor. First off, software has to be specifically written to utilize the second processor. Otherwise, it will only be using the first processor. Secondly, the OS needs to be capable of using the 2 chips. Most, if not all desktop OSes don't support 2 physical chips. Web servers do, including Unix based stuff, but beyond that, having 2 processors is not worth the money.

Now if you could configure your OS to perhaps use 1 processor for background crap and the other solely for your apps, then it could work but again, that needs specifically written software.

Computers don't magically run faster with more procs, unless what ever is running knows and uses the 2nd. I remember the days of the dual pentium II boards... In fact, I have one down in my basement! Alas, they only slapped one chip in it though, probably because the second would not WORK with what ever OS the previous owner used.