Despite the things you might read cedar mill doesn't run any less terrible than a prescott.

Yeah, Prescott seems fine performance-wise but still the lowest TDP is 84W if you can find the right stepping, otherwise 115W. In comparison, the D0 stepping of Cedar Mill runs at 65W and that's a quite difference. For me, the best CPU is not always the most powerful. It has to have a good performace/power consumption ratio. That's why if I ever build a Core 2 machine I'll probably use Duo instead of Quad as the latter has high power demands.

I don't think I can actually help you with your question as most of them I think boil down to personal preference.
But I'd like to ask what what aspects you base the choice of CPUs you're building your systems with on.

Paar wrote:

my ultimate project will be to build several PCs around the best Intel CPUs - from 386 to Pentium 4.

They're all 32bit x86 Intel CPUs but after that I don't understand how you pick them.
Can you explain to me? And also can you post the other configurations? Maybe that'll also help with recommendations. 😀

Thanks for the question. I am focusing on Intel CPUs only as there are cases when there is better variant from other manufacturer (e.g. the best Intel 486 is DX4 with 16kB cache while there are faster alternatives from AMD or Cyrix). From 386 to Pentium III, the best is obvious - the most performant wins. But from Pentium 4 onward it's harder as there start to be big variations in power consumption. I always try to build quiet and efficient machines so the TDP of CPUs is important to me. That's why when picking the best Pentium 4, the best thing there is for me is Cedar Mill, D0 stepping. For Core 2 Quad it would probably be Q9550S as it's only marginally slower than the fastest C2Q while consuming less power. The key is TDP/performance ratio. I wouldn't prefer low TDP if the CPU is much slower than it's faster variants. If there is significantly more powerful Pentium 4 than Cedar Mill at 3,6 GHz while consuming let's say 85W I would probably choose it as a winner.

Regarding TDP, have you considered underclocking a CPU to achieve low power consumption?

Paar wrote:

Yeah, Prescott seems fine performance-wise but still the lowest TDP is 84W if you can find the right stepping, otherwise 115W. In comparison, the D0 stepping of Cedar Mill runs at 65W and that's a quite difference. For me, the best CPU is not always the most powerful. It has to have a good performace/power consumption ratio. That's why if I ever build a Core 2 machine I'll probably use Duo instead of Quad as the latter has high power demands.

IMO, unless your goal is some sort of museum of "the most power-efficient processors of every generation", you got your priorities backwards. Performance per watt is important, but there has to be some performance to begin with, otherwise, there is little point.

For example, in a multi-threaded environment, a C2Q gives you twice the performance of a C2D for typically less than twice the TDP. In today's world, a C2Q is still a capable system, while a C2D will choke on anything serious.

Paar wrote:

There is one CPU that I cannot find at all and that's one specific Pentium 4. At first I didn't want to do P4 build at all as I have fallen a victim to common stories about it being power hungry, inefficient and simply bad. But then I've learn about Cedar Mill and my opinion changed in an instant. I want one! More specifically model 661 3,6 GHz, stepping D0. The problem is I cannot find any. Well I can find earlier steppings or 3,4 GHz D0 but those are not the ones I want. Unfortunately the 661 D0 is not anywhere, even not on eBay for some ridiculous prices. And I've been looking for months. Is that rare or do I simply have a bad luck?

Then get one of the earlier steppings if you want the highest clock, or the 3.4GHz variant if TDP is most important to you.

Paar wrote:

I always try to build quiet and efficient machines so the TDP of CPUs is important to me. That's why when picking the best Pentium 4, the best thing there is for me is Cedar Mill, D0 stepping. For Core 2 Quad it would probably be Q9550S as it's only marginally slower than the fastest C2Q while consuming less power. The key is TDP/performance ratio.

Actually, TDP/Performance is not as straightforward as one would think.If a CPU has higher TDP, it does not necessarily mean it will in practice consume more power or produce more heat. And "quiet" depends mostly on your choice of cooling. Good coolers efficiently dissipate heat even from the hottest CPUs, while producing low noise. Good fans can last a long time staying quiet, while bad ones will lose their bearings and start rattling / whining.

Case in point: my primary desktop between 2009 and 2018 has been built around a Core 2 Extreme QX9650 C0. That's, like, the most inefficient earlier stepping, with a theoretical TDP of 130W. The Scythe Mine cooler kept the CPU cool, even overclocked to 3.6GHz at ~1.3V, and together with the 3 120mm case fans - the system has been almost inaudible.

The problem is I cannot find any. Well I can find earlier steppings or 3,4 GHz D0 but those are not the ones I want.

Just take 641 D0 and overclock it.
Although there's very little difference between C1 and D0, especially if you're not into overclocking. Both has reduced TDP.

Paar wrote:

Thanks for the question.

And thank you for your answer! 😀
Please don't take my thoughts as those of a snob smack talking your project but rather discussion/feedback from a fellow enthusiast. 😎
I once planned a similar project but I gave up. The only simple "best of" chip was the i386DX-33.
With all other chips there were alternatives:
4th gen chips: Are the 486DX, 486DX2 and 486DX4 to be placed in the same category or are CPUs with clock multiplier their own category? You wouldn't find a DX on a PCI board but sometimes on a VLB board. You'd find DX2s on ISA-only, VLB and PCI boards but barely any DX4s on an ISA-only board. Does it make sense to group the 486 chips as one class or is it the mainboard/chipset and their features that better decide what category the whole system represents? Do we need multiple 486 categories for our "ultimate system of" projects? 😵 🤣

Then there's the Pentium: I'll dismiss Socket 4 as a single S4 P66 won't perform different to a single S5 P66. But what about Pentium vs Pentium MMX? Same architecture but still a big difference. What about the Tillamook core? Tillamooks are the fastest processors from the P5 architecture, the best overclockers and the most power efficient. However Intel didn't want it to compete with their Pentium II so they didn't sell them individually to consumers (at least I think they didn't 😕 ) so does it belong in that category or do we need a new one for intended/marketed mobile chips?

Now the 6th gen.: Where do we start? The Pentium Pro is the first chip in the P6 architecture so does it go together with the Pentium II or does it get its own category as a workstation CPU? Does our line up need a workstation/server category or do we pay those chips no mind?
Next are Pentium III Katmai CPUs. They still don't have their L2 cache on die so are they actually PII CPUs that are only marketed to appear as another generation? Are PII and Katmai PIII vs. Coppermine/Tualatin better categories than PII vs PIII?
And what about The Tualatin -S CPUs? They're marketed as server CPUs, not consumer chips. Should they be grouped with Pentium Pro + Pentium II/III Xeons?

And with Netburst as you already hinted it's a total mess: We have the Pentium 4, the Pentium 4 HT, the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition, the Pentium D and Pentium D Extreme Edition and Xeons. I probably even forget some and somewhere in that lineup Intel added 64bit support. 🤣

What about dual or quad CPU setups? Oh and where does the Pentium M go? It's basically a P6 CPU with the Netburst bus.

It all just gets so confusing and once you think you have the ultimate setup you realise there's an angle you haven't looked into before and it turns out you built second best or outside of category again. 😵
As I said I gave up on building a line up of simple "best X" computers. My takeaway from all this was to stop building fixed systems and instead get some parts that feel special in some way (so much for objectivity, right? 🤣 ) and regularly recombine them with other stuff to find well performing, suprising and strange configurations.

So why not go with the Gigabyte board? It's not the top performer but it's adequate and it looks nice. 😁 Maybe you'll find a Geforce 7900 GT with blue PCB and maybe the Cooler Master Hyper 212 with red cover or something similar might make a nice contrast in an otherwise very blue system? I think a unique system is always more fun than the very best performer.

Here ya go - $55 from CPUMEDICS:
https://www.cpumedics.com/intel-sl9kd-3-60ghz … -cpu-processor/

55 bucks is ludicrous amount for any Cedar Mill.

The Serpent Rider wrote:

55 bucks is ludicrous amount for any Cedar Mill.

Well, it is the only place I could find that had it... so I guess if very specific CPU model/stepping is required it might be worth it.

Wow, so many reactions, where to start...

cyclone3d wrote:

Well, it is the only place I could find that had it... so I guess if very specific CPU model/stepping is required it might be worth it.

I think I have seen that page but didn't want to pay 55 bucks if 651 costs like 10 or 15. But sadly this is the only place that has it and I'm not even sure they post worldwide. I think I'll stick to 651 and keep my eyes open. Maybe it will show up eventually.

Doornkaat wrote:

It all just gets so confusing and once you think you have the ultimate setup you realise there's an angle you haven't looked into before and it turns out you built second best or outside of category again. 😵
As I said I gave up on building a line up of simple "best X" computers. My takeaway from all this was to stop building fixed systems and instead get some parts that feel special in some way (so much for objectivity, right? 🤣 ) and regularly recombine them with other stuff to find well performing, suprising and strange configurations.

You know, you have a point. And maybe that's what I was doing unconsiously all that time. The CPUs look "the best" to me, because they are the most interesting. The 386 is classic, the 486 DX4 EW is somewhat rare and was created to compete with AMD products... Pentium MMX 233 has the multiplier unlocked and has registers that can be switched off, to cover several CPU speeds (BTW I have Pentium 200 too, but I don't know I will ever use it). The Pentium II is my big question mark. You are right that PIII Katmai is just rebranded PII with SSE instructions. I will probably buy both and see which one feels right. PIII-S intrigues me because of it's desirabilty and P4 Cedar Mill because it's such a twist on this weird architecture. Who know, maybe I will build an AMD machine in the future and will like the most.

Doornkaat wrote:

So why not go with the Gigabyte board? It's not the top performer but it's adequate and it looks nice. 😁 Maybe you'll find a Geforce 7900 GT with blue PCB and maybe the Cooler Master Hyper 212 with red cover or something similar might make a nice contrast in an otherwise very blue system? I think a unique system is always more fun than the very best performer.

I have bought the ASUS board but I'm still thinking about the Gigabyte. It just looks better. I have similar one with 865 chipset and AGP slot and it really is a looker, especially paired with some blue Kingstone RAM modules with blue heatsink. I'll see if the ASUS board will click with me. I have found interesting 7900 GT from XTX with green DVI connectors so maybe that will be my card of choice. Radeon 1950 Pro doesn't look shabby too, mainly the one from Sapphire with blue heatsink cover.

The Serpent Rider wrote:

Just take 641 D0 and overclock it. Although there's very little difference between C1 and D0, especially if you're not into overclocking. Both has reduced TDP.

I'm not really that into overclocking but it's something I'll consider. As I have mentioned before, I will probably stick with 651 for the time being.

dr_st wrote:

Case in point: my primary desktop between 2009 and 2018 has been built around a Core 2 Extreme QX9650 C0. That's, like, the most inefficient earlier stepping, with a theoretical TDP of 130W. The Scythe Mine cooler kept the CPU cool, even overclocked to 3.6GHz at ~1.3V, and together with the 3 120mm case fans - the system has been almost inaudible.

It's not about the reality of having properly cooled machine with me. It's more about knowing that my PC parts are efficient. I jut like efficiency 😀.

H3nrik V! wrote:

Regarding TDP, have you considered underclocking a CPU to achieve low power consumption?

I don't want to sacrifice performance for TDP. I want to have powerful machine, I'd just like to be power efficient too.