Presler versus Smithfield

[ACESHIGH]

Have been using AMD rigs ever since upgrading from the PIII 1 gig.

While i know all about the AMD rating system, differnet cores & which is better / newer etc, i havent kept up with the Intel side of things.

With regards to Intel Pentium 4 Dual Core:
As i see it the main difference between the Presler & Smithfield cores is the fact that the former have 4MB L2 Cache (2MB per core) on 65nm whilst the later have 2MB L2 Cache (1MB per core) on 90nm.

So the Presler would be newer cores (should be faster for same rating ie. 2.8GHz) & that would explain why the Presler cores are more expensive. Is this right?


And am i right that the only reason the Intel Pentium 4 Extreme Edition 840 Dual Core "LGA775 Smithfield" 3.2GHz (800FSB) with HT Technology - Retail (CP-105-IN) is so much more expensive than the Intel Pentium 4 940 Dual Core "LGA775 Presler" 3.2GHz (800FSB) - Retail (CP-113-IN) is because of the formers Hyper-Threading Technology?

I think this is right, but would like confirmation.

thanks.

 

[oweneades]

Yes and yes I believe.

The main differences with the presler compared to the smithfield is the smaller 65nm process along with the extra L2 cache. They also run cooler and overclock a lot higher.
It is basically just a fresh lick of paint rather than a complete overhaul.

The 3.2ghz extreme edition does indeed have HT technology which the 940 does not. However the latter is a dual core chip so in theory doesn't need it.

I am slightly confused why the 3.2ghz EE is more expensive though.

 

[easyrider]

In fact in some bench marks the HT of the EE actually harms performance!

 

[ajgoodfellow]

As above, yes and yes. The Presler chips are a lot better than the Smithfield chips - they're in a different league

 

[AWPC]

The 800FSB can top out around the 1.2-1.3Ghz range.

If you go for the 955XE that supports native 1066FSB and can hit 1.6Ghz FSB @ 1:1!