Jump to content
HWBOT Community Forums

The official Pentium 4 3.4Ghz (Prescott) processor discussion thread.


Recommended Posts

I think it is necessary to separate the results of a processor with EM64T support and without support for these technologies. There are several s478 processors with EM64T support and several motherboards based on "modern" chipsets, which will not allow you to achieve high results, but will allow you to formally pass some tests.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, IdeaFix said:

I think it is necessary to separate the results of a processor with EM64T support and without support for these technologies. There are several s478 processors with EM64T support and several motherboards based on "modern" chipsets, which will not allow you to achieve high results, but will allow you to formally pass some tests.

You are talking about socket 478

Are you sure about "several" ?

I always thought it was a couple.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, 478. It was 2, may be 3 processors. I have a 3.4GHz Prescott now and my results in 64 bit mode are higher than 32 bit ones. For example here - https://hwbot.org/submission/5124019_ I have Biostar on g31 with 478, asrock on 945 with 478 and some server boards. This result was on EM64T cpu too - https://hwbot.org/submission/4183403_mrgenius_cinebench___r20_pentium_4_3.4ghz_(prescott)_103_cb Also i have a 478 to 774 adapter, and I think this cpu should be splitted from regilar prescott-1m.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, IdeaFix said:

Yes, 478. It was 2, may be 3 processors. I have a 3.4GHz Prescott now and my results in 64 bit mode are higher than 32 bit ones. For example here - https://hwbot.org/submission/5124019_ I have Biostar on g31 with 478, asrock on 945 with 478 and some server boards. This result was on EM64T cpu too - https://hwbot.org/submission/4183403_mrgenius_cinebench___r20_pentium_4_3.4ghz_(prescott)_103_cb Also i have a 478 to 774 adapter, and I think this cpu should be splitted from regilar prescott-1m.

Not my call ...

But to be honest there are numerous examples of Intel's own modified cpu's , and there is no need for a split.

The most recent example is the Alder Lakes , where the first batches had the AVX512 instructions and the later not.

They all compete into the same category.

 

2 hours ago, IdeaFix said:

SL7Q8 (EM64T), SL7QB (EM64T), SL8JX (EM64T, NX/xD??)

Now , for the history.

SL8JX was never (to my knowledge) proven to have EM64T (G1 stepping and not a special production cpu)

Furthermore Intel document 302352-033 did not noted them as EM64T capable.

 

On the other hand SL7Q8 and SL7QB , both special and limited production for IBM are verified EM64T.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Crew
On 11/19/2022 at 1:01 AM, IdeaFix said:

SL8JX (EM64T, NX/xD??)

This one hasn't been confirmed to have EMT64. Haven't seen a single result with it too.
Only SL7QB and SL7Q8 are fully capable of running 64-bit OS.
https://forums.mydigitallife.net/threads/running-win10-by-intel-s478-cpu-now-and-maybe-older-cpu-in-the-future.81451/page-5#post-1637849

Edited by Antinomy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...