Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


Sign in to follow this  
cov3rt

prescott vs northwood on firefox 12.0 youtube, etc

Recommended Posts

would anyone if whether or not a prescott pentium 4 without hyperthreading would be faster than a pentium 4 northwood without hyperthreading at the same clock speed of 3.06 Ghz if using youtube playback on firefox 12.0 ( last official version to work on windows 2000 )? reason why i ask this specifically, other than my previous knowledge on prescott vs northwood efficiency is to see whether the lagging im getting and unplayable framerates has to do more with the simple combination of a slow pentium 4 northwood at 3.06 to begin with and only 1 GB ram on windows 2000 with mobility radeon 9100 with 64 MB video memory, or is it possible that sse3 instructions are really needed to make up for the slowness im experiencing in the videos taking long to load all information, comments, and playback? 

so my direct question would be if i could get smoother playback if i upgraded from the 3.06 Ghz northwood with 130nm architecture, 512 l2 cache, and only sse2 instructions to the 3.06 Ghz prescott that has 90nm architecture, 1 MB l2 cache, and sse3 instructions. and yes, i know that many people say that the prescotts are slower in general and the extra l2 cache is supposed to make up for the slowness of the architecture, but im just asking again a direct question, will it be faster with the prescott and fix the choppy unplayable frames im currently getting with the northwood, or will it not? i feel like the sse3 instructions would help with this.

the laptop seems to have very limited upgrade choices, i know there are up to 3.46 Ghz mobile prescotts and 3.33 Ghz, however i don't even know if the laptop would support higher than 3.2 Ghz for prescott with HT.

http://www.ncst.com/sites/default/files/pdf/Archives/Laptops/Compatriot MN Series/compatriotMN_nbc118ts06_09.pdf

 

Edited by cov3rt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cov3rt said:

would anyone if whether or not a prescott pentium 4 without hyperthreading would be faster than a pentium 4 northwood without hyperthreading at the same clock speed of 3.06 Ghz if using youtube playback on firefox 12.0 ( last official version to work on windows 2000 )? reason why i ask this specifically, other than my previous knowledge on prescott vs northwood efficiency is to see whether the lagging im getting and unplayable framerates has to do more with the simple combination of a slow pentium 4 northwood at 3.06 to begin with and only 1 GB ram on windows 2000 with mobility radeon 9100 with 64 MB video memory, or is it possible that sse3 instructions are really needed to make up for the slowness im experiencing in the videos taking long to load all information, comments, and playback? 

so my direct question would be if i could get smoother playback if i upgraded from the 3.06 Ghz northwood with 130nm architecture, 512 l2 cache, and only sse2 instructions to the 3.06 Ghz prescott that has 90nm architecture, 1 MB l2 cache, and sse3 instructions. and yes, i know that many people say that the prescotts are slower in general and the extra l2 cache is supposed to make up for the slowness of the architecture, but im just asking again a direct question, will it be faster with the prescott and fix the choppy unplayable frames im currently getting with the northwood, or will it not? i feel like the sse3 instructions would help with this.

the laptop seems to have very limited upgrade choices, i know there are up to 3.46 Ghz mobile prescotts and 3.33 Ghz, however i don't even know if the laptop would support higher than 3.2 Ghz for prescott with HT.

http://www.ncst.com/sites/default/files/pdf/Archives/Laptops/Compatriot MN Series/compatriotMN_nbc118ts06_09.pdf

The Prescott would be the better choice due to the better specs you mentioned. Also, a board that supports Prescott 775 would support DDR2, giving you more and faster memory to work with.

However, in this day and age, you would probably want at LEAST a dual-core processor for moderately fast performance. Once you have a modern browser and antivirus running, your CPU will be maxing out at 100%.

Once you have 2000 installed with all the updates (10+ years) and a modern browser, you'll notice deficiencies in performance with only a single-core processor. Technology and software has changed quite a bit from 2001-2005, the years that the Prescott/Northwood was produced as a mainstream processor. I'm running 2000 inside Virtual PC with a quad-core processor, and I have allocated 2GB RAM.

If you follow the instructions in this thread, you can run Firefox 48 on Windows 2000, even though Firefox 12 is the last "official" version: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, sdfox7 said:

The Prescott would be the better choice due to the better specs you mentioned. Also, a board that supports Prescott 775 would support DDR2, giving you more and faster memory to work with.

However, in this day and age, you would probably want at LEAST a dual-core processor for moderately fast performance. Once you have a modern browser and antivirus running, your CPU will be maxing out at 100%.

Once you have 2000 installed with all the updates (10+ years) and a modern browser, you'll notice deficiencies in performance with only a single-core processor. Technology and software has changed quite a bit from 2001-2005, the years that the Prescott/Northwood was produced as a mainstream processor. I'm running 2000 inside Virtual PC with a quad-core processor, and I have allocated 2GB RAM.

If you follow the instructions in this thread, you can run Firefox 48 on Windows 2000, even though Firefox 12 is the last "official" version: 

thank you for the response, however, i dont think you properly answered my question. you mentioned "the prescott would be the better choice due to the better specs you mentioned", but im not sure what this is implying, im not sure if i can conclude from this to see in what ways it would be better, as being faster is obviously a goal in itself, but does it specifically allow youtube to run smoothly if i were to swap out the northwood and replace it with the prescott?  

again, this is a laptop, i had given the manual url below for its specs, the part of using prescott 775 and ddr2 is a bit irrelevant, because im just talking about the laptop at hand, if we were talking about the socket 775 boards, then i would be aiming for a cedar mill 65nm pentium 4 ( if pentium 4's are the only supported options ), but obviously thats a different story. one big reason why i made this thread specifically was to see whether having sse3 vs sse2 would allow loading websites quicker or load possibly more content and smoother playback of youtube videos or videos in general on the internet that would otherwise benefit from sse3. 

the instructions are apparently important because i remember when using pentium iii or processors that only had up to sse instructions, some web content or information wouldn't even load at all, limiting what you can do, so even though a pentium iii tualatin at 1.4 Ghz may be faster clock for clock against for example a northwood pentium 4 at 1.6 Ghz, the instructions limit what you can do / and as a result, make it slower or not fully functional for the intended purposes as i had mentioned. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.   Restore formatting

  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.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...