rasz_pl wrote on 2024-02-05, 01:16:

Disruptor wrote on 2024-02-04, 18:45:

Strictly speaking, Mendocino Celerons and Tualatin Celerons speak different bus protocols (AGTL+ vs AGTL).

same protocol, lower voltage

same with the 486 socket

VivienM wrote on 2024-02-04, 23:14:

How do you account for adding cores? LGA775 went from single-core P4 HTs to quad-core C2Q 9xxxs, while Slot 1 only ever had the […]
Show full quote

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2024-02-04, 23:03:

It would be slot 1 wouldnt it?
I mean it went from a Pentium II 233 to a 1GHz Pentium III.

Socket 775 saw a larger change in CPU but its hardly vintage yet.

How do you account for adding cores? LGA775 went from single-core P4 HTs to quad-core C2Q 9xxxs, while Slot 1 only ever had the same core count (1)...

I don't know my AMD sockets very well; after 939, how many cores did sockets like AM2/AM2+ reach?

My unresearched guess is that if you were looking at single-core performance only, you're right, slot 1 would come out ahead of LGA775.

It isnt that 775 saw the greatest over all increase because of the multi core processors, its that I just can not consider 775 a vintage platform yet.
Vintage to me goes back to the 90s not 14 years ago. 775 was in use for a long time, sure it goes back to 2004 but its when it died that matters here.

If we do consider it to be vintage then 775 is the clear winner here by quite a long way.

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2024-02-05, 09:16:

It isnt that 775 saw the greatest over all increase because of the multi core processors, its that I just can not consider 775 a […]
Show full quote

VivienM wrote on 2024-02-04, 23:14:

How do you account for adding cores? LGA775 went from single-core P4 HTs to quad-core C2Q 9xxxs, while Slot 1 only ever had the […]
Show full quote

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2024-02-04, 23:03:

It would be slot 1 wouldnt it?
I mean it went from a Pentium II 233 to a 1GHz Pentium III.

Socket 775 saw a larger change in CPU but its hardly vintage yet.

How do you account for adding cores? LGA775 went from single-core P4 HTs to quad-core C2Q 9xxxs, while Slot 1 only ever had the same core count (1)...

I don't know my AMD sockets very well; after 939, how many cores did sockets like AM2/AM2+ reach?

My unresearched guess is that if you were looking at single-core performance only, you're right, slot 1 would come out ahead of LGA775.

It isnt that 775 saw the greatest over all increase because of the multi core processors, its that I just can not consider 775 a vintage platform yet.
Vintage to me goes back to the 90s not 14 years ago. 775 was in use for a long time, sure it goes back to 2004 but its when it died that matters here.

If we do consider it to be vintage then 775 is the clear winner here by quite a long way.

I hate to make you feel old, but... didn't LGA 775 die around, oh, 2009 or so? (Okay, according to Wikipedia, some LGA775 Celerons came out in 2010...) So that's about... 15 years ago. At least if you meant when it stopped being widely sold; if you mean when LGA775 CPUs stopped being useful for current workloads, well, arguably they're still useful today with a healthy amount of RAM and an SSD. 😀

I'm tempted to call LGA775 vintage for a separate reason: I was hoping to get a new heatsink for an LGA775, and the computer store didn't have any that worked on LGA775. Even the one model that the web site said worked on LGA775, turns out the manufacturer released a new SKU that removed the LGA775 mounting brackets. Similarly, most LGA775 systems (though not all) ran DDR2 memory, and the same computer store... no longer sells any DDR2 memory. So... that's a sign of vintageness to me, if you can no longer get obvious parts without having to go through specialized sellers of older parts.

That was like 15 years ago.
Nothing 15 years old is vintage. Old yes, maybe even retro if you push it but not vintage.

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2024-02-05, 13:41:

That was like 15 years ago.
Nothing 15 years old is vintage. Old yes, maybe even retro if you push it but not vintage.

I would argue that a socket 775 motherboard or CPU from 2004 would be on the cusp of being vintage.

The last socket 775 seems to have been released in around 2010 or so (Q9500, AFAICT, though maybe I have missed a newer one).

So while I agree that socket 775 itself as a whole is not vintage yet, individual implementations arguably are.

On a related note, once AM4 goes vintage, it might become a contender, if we look at at multithreaded performance .

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+ … +X4+950&id=3078 (I believe there might be a slightly slower variant of this ).
EDIT2: There are slower AM4 CPUs, but they are newer. If performance spread is to be based on performance improvement along a platform's lifespan, shouldn't post platform launch model CPUs that happen to be slower than earlier ones be excluded ?

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+ … 9+5950X&id=3862

(I heard that Passmark is somewhat controversial, but it does give an idea of relative performance).

EDIT: I just realized that AM4 was discussed earlier alrealdy.

darry wrote on 2024-02-05, 14:26:

I would argue that a socket 775 motherboard or CPU from 2004 would be on the cusp of being vintage. […]
Show full quote

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2024-02-05, 13:41:

That was like 15 years ago.
Nothing 15 years old is vintage. Old yes, maybe even retro if you push it but not vintage.

I would argue that a socket 775 motherboard or CPU from 2004 would be on the cusp of being vintage.

The last socket 775 seems to have been released in around 2010 or so (Q9500, AFAICT, though maybe I have missed a newer one).

So while I agree that socket 775 itself as a whole is not vintage yet, individual implementations arguably are.

On a related note, once AM4 goes vintage, it might become a contender, if we look at at multithreaded performance .

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+ … +X4+950&id=3078 (I believe there might be a slightly slower variant of this ).
EDIT2: There are slower AM4 CPUs, but they are newer. If performance spread is to be based on performance improvement along a platform's lifespan, shouldn't post platform launch model CPUs that happen to be slower than earlier ones be excluded ?

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+ … 9+5950X&id=3862

(I heard that Passmark is somewhat controversial, but it does give an idea of relative performance).

EDIT: I just realized that AM4 was discussed earlier alrealdy.

That would put LGA 775 Pentium 4 3.2Ghz Extreme Edition in the same bracket as a Pentium 100.

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2024-02-05, 21:35:

darry wrote on 2024-02-05, 14:26:

I would argue that a socket 775 motherboard or CPU from 2004 would be on the cusp of being vintage. […]
Show full quote

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2024-02-05, 13:41:

That was like 15 years ago.
Nothing 15 years old is vintage. Old yes, maybe even retro if you push it but not vintage.

I would argue that a socket 775 motherboard or CPU from 2004 would be on the cusp of being vintage.

The last socket 775 seems to have been released in around 2010 or so (Q9500, AFAICT, though maybe I have missed a newer one).

So while I agree that socket 775 itself as a whole is not vintage yet, individual implementations arguably are.

On a related note, once AM4 goes vintage, it might become a contender, if we look at at multithreaded performance .

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+ … +X4+950&id=3078 (I believe there might be a slightly slower variant of this ).
EDIT2: There are slower AM4 CPUs, but they are newer. If performance spread is to be based on performance improvement along a platform's lifespan, shouldn't post platform launch model CPUs that happen to be slower than earlier ones be excluded ?

https://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+ … 9+5950X&id=3862

(I heard that Passmark is somewhat controversial, but it does give an idea of relative performance).

EDIT: I just realized that AM4 was discussed earlier alrealdy.

That would put LGA 775 Pentium 4 3.2Ghz Extreme Edition in the same bracket as a Pentium 100.

I'm afraid I don't that I get what you mean, sorry.

darry wrote on 2024-02-05, 14:26:

The last socket 775 seems to have been released in around 2010 or so (Q9500, AFAICT, though maybe I have missed a newer one).

Pentium Dual-Core E5800 is newest one, November 2010 😜
Q9500 is from January 2010

Hey Ive got no problem with the LGA 775 being the leader of the pack in this "debate", I dont know enough about the AMD sockets to be able to say if they have or had a socket that was as widely used as LGA 775, maybe they did...
But if we are talking vintage connectors for this with the emphasis on vintage then LGA 775 just doesnt count for me right now.

LGA 775 is remarkable in many ways, not least of which is its power increase over the years, but also the fact that it covers the diabolical Pentium 4 all the way to some sublime Core 2 CPUs of the late noughties.

I missed socket 775 myself, I went from 604 to 771 but I cant deny that 775 was thee socket of the noughties.

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2024-02-05, 23:34:

LGA 775 is remarkable in many ways, not least of which is its power increase over the years, but also the fact that it covers the diabolical Pentium 4 all the way to some sublime Core 2 CPUs of the late noughties.

Part of what's crazy about LGA775 to me is just how many LGA775 systems there were around me. I built... at least four that I can remember... for myself. (I was about to say 3, then it suddenly occurred to me that I was forgetting an LGA775 box I used as a router for my home network for a decade) My dad had an LGA775 Dell desktop; my mom had a Gateway all-in-one LGA775 desktop; my aunt had a Dell LGA775 desktop. I think all my friends, even one who is a huge AMD fanboy, had LGA775 systems. A big part of it, too, has to do with Windows 7 - there were a lot of affordable LGA775 OEM systems, especially C2Q 8xxxs, around the time of the launch of Windows 7 and it just seemed like an opportune time to upgrade aging Windows XP, especially HotBurst, machines.

And even building your own, LGA775 was affordable. I was just checking some old emails - my P5QL-E Asus LGA775 board cost me $116 CAD. An E5200, the first of three CPUs to go in that board, was $90CAD. I forget how much I paid for the Q8...300?... that replaced that E5200, but I think it was like $150CAD. Try getting that kind of value today, you just can't.

And my guess is that a good number of C2Q 8xxx systems acquired for Windows 7 are still around and kicking today with their free Windows 10 upgrade, and this is why Microsoft is so eager to cut them off with their nonsense hardware requirements for Windows 11. The longevity of those C2Qs, especially if they somehow got an SSD along the way, is just... incredible.

VivienM wrote on 2024-02-06, 00:47:

Part of what's crazy about LGA775 to me is just how many LGA775 systems there were around me. I built... at least four that I ca […]
Show full quote

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2024-02-05, 23:34:

LGA 775 is remarkable in many ways, not least of which is its power increase over the years, but also the fact that it covers the diabolical Pentium 4 all the way to some sublime Core 2 CPUs of the late noughties.

Part of what's crazy about LGA775 to me is just how many LGA775 systems there were around me. I built... at least four that I can remember... for myself. (I was about to say 3, then it suddenly occurred to me that I was forgetting an LGA775 box I used as a router for my home network for a decade) My dad had an LGA775 Dell desktop; my mom had a Gateway all-in-one LGA775 desktop; my aunt had a Dell LGA775 desktop. I think all my friends, even one who is a huge AMD fanboy, had LGA775 systems. A big part of it, too, has to do with Windows 7 - there were a lot of affordable LGA775 OEM systems, especially C2Q 8xxxs, around the time of the launch of Windows 7 and it just seemed like an opportune time to upgrade aging Windows XP, especially HotBurst, machines.

And even building your own, LGA775 was affordable. I was just checking some old emails - my P5QL-E Asus LGA775 board cost me $116 CAD. An E5200, the first of three CPUs to go in that board, was $90CAD. I forget how much I paid for the Q8...300?... that replaced that E5200, but I think it was like $150CAD. Try getting that kind of value today, you just can't.

And my guess is that a good number of C2Q 8xxx systems acquired for Windows 7 are still around and kicking today with their free Windows 10 upgrade, and this is why Microsoft is so eager to cut them off with their nonsense hardware requirements for Windows 11. The longevity of those C2Qs, especially if they somehow got an SSD along the way, is just... incredible.

I gave away an Asus P5K Deluxe WIFi AP modded to socket 771 + a Xeon E5450 ( Q9650 equivalent) years ago. It is still in service,though the GTX 1050 TI in it might be flaking out.

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2024-02-05, 13:41:

That was like 15 years ago.
Nothing 15 years old is vintage. Old yes, maybe even retro if you push it but not vintage.

Agree ! Not even 20 years old yet (did come out in 2004 but not go mainstream until 2005) so not vintage, but can be used to make a simulated late 1990's build so yes can be considered retro !
Wait a year and then early soc775 boards will be vintage 😁 But not my 2007 version 🤣

Isn't Slot-1 like 233MHz to 1GHz? That is like a 5-fold increase - even more if you consider the faster and larger cache. I don't think any other socket had such a huge jump in frequency and performance. That said, it's not a socket per se..

socket A and 1150 did pretty great too https://www.cpu-world.com/Sockets/index.html

If we consider everything that can be put into a socket, regardless of compatibility, than I think LGA775 saw the biggest jump from single core Pentium 4 to quad core! However a 915p/925x/945p-with some exceptions/955x does not support core 2 quad and you are forced to buy a new board. Today one can use aP45 board for all processors, from Prescott to Q9XXX!
In fact I am using a LGA775 machine as my daily driver and I am not feeling any slow downs when performing everyday tasks!

I loved my 775 1.6GHz Celeron 420, $35 3.2GHz straight out of the box on stock Celeron cooler. Pretty much repeat of Celeron 300A.

Horun wrote on 2024-02-06, 02:42:

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2024-02-05, 13:41:

That was like 15 years ago.
Nothing 15 years old is vintage. Old yes, maybe even retro if you push it but not vintage.

Agree ! Not even 20 years old yet (did come out in 2004 but not go mainstream until 2005) so not vintage, but can be used to make a simulated late 1990's build so yes can be considered retro !
Wait a year and then early soc775 boards will be vintage 😁 But not my 2007 version 🤣

I think it was 2004. I certainly remember the Pentium 4 being released on it. I think one of my old Dell Optiplex GX SFF PCs has 775. (certainly has a P4 in it)
Looking at Wikipedia it says the first chipset was i945 but I thought it was 875p...
It also says the last CPU was released in 2011.

Ask me again in 10 years 😉

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2024-02-06, 11:13:

I think it was 2004. I certainly remember the Pentium 4 being released on it. I think one of my old Dell Optiplex GX SFF PCs has […]
Show full quote

Horun wrote on 2024-02-06, 02:42:

ElectroSoldier wrote on 2024-02-05, 13:41:

That was like 15 years ago.
Nothing 15 years old is vintage. Old yes, maybe even retro if you push it but not vintage.

Agree ! Not even 20 years old yet (did come out in 2004 but not go mainstream until 2005) so not vintage, but can be used to make a simulated late 1990's build so yes can be considered retro !
Wait a year and then early soc775 boards will be vintage 😁 But not my 2007 version 🤣

I think it was 2004. I certainly remember the Pentium 4 being released on it. I think one of my old Dell Optiplex GX SFF PCs has 775. (certainly has a P4 in it)
Looking at Wikipedia it says the first chipset was i945 but I thought it was 875p...
It also says the last CPU was released in 2011.

Ask me again in 10 years 😉

I believe LGA775 came out in late 2004 with the i915/i925 chipsets and PCI-E, more SATA, DDR2, etc. Then the i945 added back dual-core support, 965 was the 'official' C2D chipset, etc.

My recollection is that LGA775 was purely at the high end in 2004, though. The LGA775 i865 boards that would become so popular in the retro community came out later, as affordable upgrade options for people sticking with AGP/PATA/DDR1, but I think in late 2004, LGA775 was only for high end and if you wanted AGP/PATA/DDR1 for budget reasons, you went with 478.

I dont really like basing this on sockets .. the Core/Core2 Uarch saved Intel's arse and lived a long time ..Skylake was the last of the Core2 Uarc processors with everything up to and including 11th Gen being a refresh of Skylake. Now many will say that Skylake has little to do with Core2 and they are partially correct however the Core2 Uarch is the basis for the entire Core line of CPUs till 12th gen when Intel finally decided to retire it.

Is it wrong to include the entire family when discussing performance jumps ?

But if we just confine this to sockets, then I'm going with 775/771 which lived a long time for an Intel socket and had a huge range of performance from the awful Netburst Uarch right through to the mighty QX9770 and the damn cool SkullTrail platform.

I still to this day think SkullTrail was just the coolest shit, If I had the spare funds I would build one myself all blinged out with cold cathode and UV I would keep it on display as a show piece.

I think the clue is in the title of the thread.

SkullTrail is powerful but its also power hungry.
It nearly doubles my power usuage when I turn it on. Cant believe I used it as long as I did without realising just how much power it was using.