PDA

View Full Version : amd vs intel article



aznx
06-23-2003, 11:24 AM
the k7 core is soo damn old, and being able to still compete with intel's p4 is pretty impressive. the k7 started at like 600 mhz? i think..and now all the way up to 2ghz+. thats pretty amazing for one old ass core;) cant blame amd too much. and mhz isnt everything, those g4s and g5s..drool. intel went from 1.4ghz to 3+. good feat, but the architecture is a lot newer too..

minibubba
06-23-2003, 12:51 PM
amd vs intel article what article :confused:

the K7 line of processors has had serveral different cores...thunderbird, palamino, thoroughbred, barton,...and that is just the Athlon line, the Duron's had a few upgrades too

Beefy
06-23-2003, 01:22 PM
I'm guessing he's talking about the Intel 3.2Ghz vs AMD 3200+ review on TT.

Mr.Tweak
06-23-2003, 01:44 PM
This one:

http://www.tweaktown.com/document.php?dType=review&dId=487

aznx
06-23-2003, 02:03 PM
k7 core is exactly the same though..whoopie, on core l2 and more l2 =)

The__tweaker
06-23-2003, 02:17 PM
Anyway great review, Intel opened up a can of god ol' spankin as usual..
Exept for this darn MP3 encoding.. :rolleyes2

BTW I read that the P4 runs cooler than AMD's counterpart, that was news to me.. :shrug:

http://www.96rock.com/timages/page/spanking_ok_sm.gif

:beer:

SirOsis
06-23-2003, 02:36 PM
The conclusion was certainly overstated.

"While supporting a 400MHz FSB, this [AMD 3200+] is no where near enough to handle what is needed by today’s games and applications."

Funny. Looking at the benches the games are pushing over 200 fps. I'd say either chip is more than capable. Better upgrade though since to handle today's games a 3200+ isn't powerful enough.

Dyck15
06-23-2003, 04:38 PM
200 FPS.. thats a dream for me.. when im hitting 25 im in heaven! I really do not think anything about 50 matters.. I mean I will be keeping my 1700+ for a long time.. untill the clawhammer get well underway, and you know what, ill bet you once i get my 9800 pro seated in here ill be doing 100FPS easy.. so whats the point at looking at game benchs for a CPU? One word.. picky!

Samlind
06-23-2003, 04:43 PM
While supporting a 400MHz FSB, this is no where near enough to handle what is needed by today’s games and applications.

Great stuff you're smoking. :clap:

The__tweaker
06-23-2003, 04:54 PM
Great stuff you're smoking. :clap:

It was a quote.. :devil win

das9092
06-23-2003, 06:10 PM
The AMD Athlon XP 3200+, while fast is no match for the top of the line Pentium 4. Athlon XP is simply a faster version of the original Thunderbird core released in 1999 since there have only been two major changes: Cache increase from 256Kbyte to 512Kbyte in the Barton core and the addition of SSE in the CPU to allow the Athlon XP CPU to run Intel SSE applications.

Hmmmm...... So they didn't go from .25 micron to .18 micron and then to .13 micron? And they didn't include better branch prediction starting with the XP line? What ever! :rolleyes2



While supporting a 400MHz FSB, this is no where near enough to handle what is needed by today’s games and applications.

Ohhhhhh.... I see! So that has been my problem the whole time!! Cause when I play UT2003 or BF1942 my system can only play them at like 2 or 3 frames per second! Apparently it has escaped me that my Athlon XP 2800+ is no where near enough to handle what is needed by today’s games and applications...... NOT!

What kind of joke statements are those? That article had "Intel bias" written all over it. What a joke! :angryfire

The__tweaker
06-23-2003, 06:22 PM
It was a fair test of two competing products, done by our own Cameron. I love those tests that can help clearing out what's good and what's less good. It was a great review done in a very professional way, as always. :) :2cents:

Btw he was talking about major performance changes, branch prediction etc has nothing to do with it. :)

:cheers:

das9092
06-23-2003, 07:26 PM
It was a fair test of two competing products, done by our own Cameron. I love those tests that can help clearing out what's good and what's less good. It was a great review done in a very professional way, as always. :) :2cents:

Btw he was talking about major performance changes, branch prediction etc has nothing to do with it. :)

:cheers:

Branch prediction can and does improve performance.

rkane
06-23-2003, 09:24 PM
My only response is... WTF!?
I think it's funny that it is almost impossible to find a set of benchmarks for these 2 competing processors that will accurately compare them. In this article they use mostly Intel Biased benchmarks, and in others I have read you can see that Athlon XP can beat the latest P4. I just wish someone would do a review using a comparable number of Intel Biased benches vs. AMD Biased benches.

I agree that there is no need for over 200 fps. The average person can see no more than 70fps in the first place.

Here's a benchmark you can use on any system to see how well it will really work doing everyday activities.

www.caosciotocounty.org/rcable/zipcodes.zip
I haven't put up a reporting site yet so that you can compare scores but I have a P4 1.6 here at work and it completed the test in 42:13.

das9092
06-23-2003, 09:32 PM
Here's a benchmark you can use on any system to see how well it will really work doing everyday activities.

www.caosciotocounty.org/rcable/zipcodes.zip
I haven't put up a reporting site yet so that you can compare scores but I have a P4 1.6 here at work and it completed the test in 42:13.

Um.... you wanna enlighten me on how it works?

rkane
06-23-2003, 09:42 PM
ROFL. Sorry it's a work in progress.

It is an Excel macro that copies data from sheet to sheet, doing typical if, while and for loops. Pretty basic, but I think it is a real world process, that anyone can make an accurate comparison of how their computer stacks up.

To get it started just Enable macros, and click the button entitled Zipcodes. It will run with a progress bar until it is finished and it will tell you the amount of time it needed to finish.

I'm sure someone out there could build a better one that compared fps but this is my first attempt at something like this.

Shad0hawK
06-24-2003, 02:37 AM
It was a fair test of two competing products, done by our own Cameron. I love those tests that can help clearing out what's good and what's less good. It was a great review done in a very professional way, as always.


:blah:
While supporting a 400MHz FSB, this is no where near enough to handle what is needed by today’s games and applications. AMD simply has lagged behind on the Athlon front, pouring more attention to the Athlon 64. :blah:


the last quote is riddled with ignorance for 2 glaring reasons.

1. any socket A processer runs word, coreldraw, photoshop..etc...etc... just fine. i assume this is what the article refers to by "applications". do i have to have the latest and greatest p4 3 ghz processor to run these? NO! good grief!

2. for some reason i am able to play UT2003 at 1280x1024 in 4x antialiasing with a nice smooth framerate with a ti4400...oh wait...thats the answer to what mostly determines game performance...the VIDEO CARD

also cost is a great issue. with the money i saved by not buying overpriced intel crap, i was able to buy a better video card than i would have paying more for intel's name, which was made in a great part by AMD when they used to make some of intels' chips for them....

wanna do a "fair test"? let's do a mhz to mhz comparision with the same vid card... for instance let's compare a p4 2.2 to my amd chip running at 2170, here is my global compare url:(with no LOD cheating BTW and ALL the tests run)

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6540930

this is interesting too...

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=4697213

also if you want to compare "top of the line" to "top of the line" i see intel getting spanked by the opteron...

The__tweaker
06-24-2003, 02:50 AM
think it's funny that it is almost impossible to find a set of benchmarks for these 2 competing processors that will accurately compare them. In this article they use mostly Intel Biased benchmarks

UT 2003, Vulpine GLMark 1.1, Quake 3 Arena, Star Trek Voyager, Jedi Knight II, Comanche 4, Aquanox, 3DMark03, PCMark2002, tell me in which way those are Intel biased?? Those tests only shows which one that are running the games best. As for the multimedia ones most people knows which cpu are the best performer. Cpu intensive tests and bandwidth demanding tests will love the P4 cpu's that's quite logical. Is that cheating to..? : omg:

I think it's almost unbelievable how people ALWAYS ALWAYS, every single time Intel wins some benchies there something wrong, cheating or some other "unfair" judgements.

When AMD wins, then theres NEVER any suspicions what so ever, because amd am sutch a fair participant and they would never do anythin' like that because it's wrong.. :crazy:

Somtimes Intel wins, sometimes AMD wins.. Even though the latter seems to have a bad weak position that specifik day.. Get over it.. : peace2:

The__tweaker
06-24-2003, 03:17 AM
also cost is a great issue. with the money i saved by not buying overpriced intel crap

lol yeah but were I live the amd line is more expensive than intel, at least if you go for those top of the line procs which we are discussing here so save it..

Pretty fast "crap" then considering it outperformed the plagiaris by far.. :rofl:

:beer:

SirOsis
06-24-2003, 03:46 AM
Certainly the P4 has come a long way since it's initial release. Being paired with Rambus and low initial yields and unimpressive benchmarks led me into the AMD camp when I bought a 900Mhz Athlon. I usually go where there is more bang for the buck and over the years that has been AMD no question.

I have also been very pleased with the upgrade path available to me. I did have to buy a new motherboard (K7T Turbo 2) so I could use XP chips. I have a 1800+ right now and am considering a 2600+ when they hit about $75.

The 1800+ is more than sufficient for today and future games and applications when paired with my Radeon 9500 Pro. I am still running 133Mhz FSB and PC133 RAM. I've had to spend minimal amounts of money to upgrade over the past 4 years yet my system is no slouch. Sure I'm not getting 200+ fps in my games but that isn't necessary. They play just fine.

The conclusion reached by the author is completely unfounded. However, if you need the latest and greatest and are willing to drop some serious cash by all means pick up a 3.2Ghz. At least you'll be able to browse these forums so much faster.

Dyck15
06-24-2003, 04:40 AM
wanna do a "fair test"? let's do a mhz to mhz comparision with the same vid card... for instance let's compare a p4 2.2 to my amd chip running at 2170, here is my global compare url:(with no LOD cheating BTW and ALL the tests run)

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6540930

this is interesting too...

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=4697213

Theres one thing wrong with that test.. any processor will look faster if you stick it in a machine with more RAM then the other. that AMD had 512MB, while the intell had 256. 256 is barely enough now a days if you want to run any sort of graphical games. So why dont you do that one again, execpt use 512 ram on both, and DX9 on both, or DX8.1 since its only 3Dmark2001.

I am an AMD man, but lets do that test fair, if intell is better, good for them, they get my praise. If AMD is better, yay for me:D

The__tweaker
06-24-2003, 05:23 AM
Not to mention he had the vid card oc.. What a moron.. : omg:

Shad0hawK
06-24-2003, 05:37 AM
Theres one thing wrong with that test.. any processor will look faster if you stick it in a machine with more RAM then the other. that AMD had 512MB, while the intell had 256. 256 is barely enough now a days if you want to run any sort of graphical games. So why dont you do that one again, execpt use 512 ram on both, and DX9 on both, or DX8.1 since its only 3Dmark2001.

I am an AMD man, but lets do that test fair, if intell is better, good for them, they get my praise. If AMD is better, yay for me:D



actually the ram does not make that a tremendous difference. but let's go with it! :D i just posted the fastest p4 2.2 i could find(which is considerably slower than my AMD running at 2170) here is another with the same amount of ram.


http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6348901

just for kicks lets compare to a p4 2.4, again the fastest one on the search and compare i found.

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5693382

still no go for intel! and he did not even run all the tests!! in fact to even come close it takes a p4 2.6 a chip running almost 500 mhz faster to ALMOST score as much as mine did here with the same approximate setup.


that is the problem i have with this so-called "unbiased" test, the conclusion that amd xp processors will not run "today's applications and games" is inaccurate and misleading..to put it politely. to be a bit more blunt that statment at the from the article is simply biased garbage hoisted on those who do not know better, but many of us DO in fact know better.



as an afterthgought...

let's see i spent $80(US) on a xp2000 stepping b batch0001 running it @ 2170mhz(at defualt voltage!!!) that has the potential to run in the 2.5 ghz range with some water cooling. a decent water cooling setup will run me about $90-150US...so for 170-230 bucks i can demolish anything intel has to offer that costs 3-4 times a smuch...does the phrase "economic feasibility" mean anything? :)











:shoot: :shoot:

Shad0hawK
06-24-2003, 05:51 AM
Not to mention he had the vid card oc.. What a moron.. : omg:



i could not find ANY comparable intel systems that are faster..CAN YOU? :D

many people overclock their cards, in those same tests there are overclocked intel systems. at least i was honest enough to say so in my test. and that makes me a "moron?!?! ROFL!!

http://service.futuremark.com/servlet/Index?pageid=/orb/projectsearch


i find it interesting many people cannot make a point without getting personal, it is no bother to me really. i am used to it, but i do find it entertaining.

BTW mr "whoopass" what system do you have?
oh, and have a nice day :D

The__tweaker
06-24-2003, 07:17 AM
Well you asked:

1x P4 2.26 ghz 533fsb with 256mb 1066 rdram Ti4600 = 13.150 points with everything at stock.

1x Amd XP 2100+ 512mb ddr Ti4200 = 10.000 points with everything at stock.

1x Amd XP used for office apps only.

1x P2 350

1x Server

New fast gaming rig from hell and a better server on their way.

I used my 4600 in the Amd rig before but it still could'nt compete with the P4. And when I compare the machines within multimedia encoding.. lol let's just say the Amd crawls..

Try setting your comp back to it's stock speed and se how ya score before ya brag because ya ain't impressing someone with that.. I can oc to if i need to but I ain't doing it just to break some other persons score, that's just silly..

I pity weak people who can't even read a totally fair review about two pieces of hardware without writing so mutch B.S trying to feel better afterwards.. :hmph:

But go ahead do ya own review then dammit, TT has one of the best reviewers I know of but still you just can't belive the facts that shows up. Put two machines beside eatch other, run a bench like UT2003, then if one gives ya higher fps than the other one doesn't that mean you got yourself a winner..???

Amd makes GOOD chips that's why I use them myself. But I still think Intel will CONTINUE to lead the performance war until we see the 64 bits systems. Then things can be different who knows.

But till then, try and not brake down into a deep depression every time Intel wins some tests, jesus it's only computers we are talking bout here..

Take care m8 and don't snap and hurt someone, we are all friends here.. :devil win

:cheers:

Dyck15
06-24-2003, 07:24 AM
it's only computers we are talking bout here..


Only computers??? ONLY!!?? :confused: :angryfire

The__tweaker
06-24-2003, 07:38 AM
Yeah when I come to think about it, they are my life..
The *******s own me.. :rofl:

SirOsis
06-24-2003, 08:11 AM
I don't have a problem with the review with the exception of the conclusion. The conclusion is so far out there that I find it laughable.

To think that AMD with it's slower FSB cannot run current games and apps is insane. That conclusion smacks of complete BIAS.

Also the benchmarks chosen are the same drivel I find in other reviews. How about some recent game benchmarks? Q3? JK2? etc. Does it matter that you're getting 300 fps?

The__tweaker
06-24-2003, 08:46 AM
No need for any other benchmarks, the tests are not run to check wether the cpu can run games as Q3 etc or not. Just to show which cpu that gives the highest possible fps. So if a test shows 40-50 fps or 290-300 doesn't matter. It still serve splendid as a cpu benchmark software.

Btw what makes you think Amd would be given a better result with newer software? Remember that never games/benches etc are becoming more and more bandwidth hungry and would probably show this performance gap even more..

As for the statement he made I really think he mean't the games/apps of tomorrow rather than the today ones.. And that AMD probably need to have the 64 bit processing soon if they aren't to be left behind by Intel.. Which I for one can agree to.. Remember Intel ain't staying long at the 800fsb spot before moving up to the next level, and next after that..

:beer:

aznx
06-24-2003, 10:39 AM
quake 3 is the most intel-biased benchmark out there. and everyone knows it too. so dont say its not. why don't they benchmark using newer games? like ones that just come out, say splinter cell. i would think people would buy faster/newer cpu's to play NEWER games, not ones that are years and years old, why wouldn't they just stick to those? benchmark enter the matrix, doom 3, and other upcoming games. this way, readers can see how much a performance difference a newer and faster cpu would give them. who cares about 3dmarks and q3 frames per second? 400 frames a second..whoopie, your monitor cant even refresh that fast, its just wasted gpu processing. amd cpus clock for clock rape p4 ass hands down. amd should hurry up and move to .09 and clock the athlon xp up to 3ghz. it would take on anything intel could throw until the athlon 64s come out. or put a heat speader on the existing barton core and clock it up. the g5 just came out today, and it rapes p4 ass:)

Shad0hawK
06-24-2003, 11:45 AM
No need for any other benchmarks, the tests are not run to check wether the cpu can run games as Q3 etc or not. Just to show which cpu that gives the highest possible fps. So if a test shows 40-50 fps or 290-300 doesn't matter. It still serve splendid as a cpu benchmark software.

is not the reason for testing how many fps are attained is to measure performance in 3d accelerated applications such as...games!?!? ;)

besides it is all about the video card, put an old tnt 2 in a p4 3 ghz and compare it to a xp1800 running half the clock speed and see who wins... here is a prime example of the logic that idea in action:

http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=4871925



Btw what makes you think Amd would be given a better result with newer software? Remember that never games/benches etc are becoming more and more bandwidth hungry and would probably show this performance gap even more...

the fact that i can "tweak" "optimize" etc. my system to run as fast as systems that cost much much more means alot! :) i am off work tomorrow so i might just unlock my multiplier, ramp that puppy up to around 2.4 or whatever it will run stable at with air cooling, and show you first hand what tweaking really means :)



As for the statement he made I really think he mean't the games/apps of tomorrow rather than the today ones.. And that AMD probably need to have the 64 bit processing soon if they aren't to be left behind by Intel.. Which I for one can agree to.. Remember Intel ain't staying long at the 800fsb spot before moving up to the next level, and next after that...

the future will reveal itself, until then anything is just speculation. as for now, AMD's top of the line(opteron) spanks the best intel has to offer at almost half the clock speed ROFL!!). remember the xp processor is not the "best" amd has out, the opteron is. so what is being done here is comparing AMD's low end processor(the duron is out of production) to Intel's high end.

if you want to see high end vs high end look here:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1818&p=7

i highly recommend reading the entire article, the k-8 has plenty of headroom and AMD is going to be a thorn in the side of intel for a very, very long time. which is good for all of us!

Shad0hawK
06-24-2003, 12:17 PM
Well you asked:

1x P4 2.26 ghz 533fsb with 256mb 1066 rdram Ti4600 = 13.150 points with everything at stock.

1x Amd XP 2100+ 512mb ddr Ti4200 = 10.000 points with everything at stock.


Try setting your comp back to it's stock speed and se how ya score before ya brag because ya ain't impressing someone with that.. I can oc to if i need to but I ain't doing it just to break some other persons score, that's just silly....[/quote]

LOL!! those clock speeds on my ti4400 are not much faster than a stock ti4600 speed. just set your cards speed the same as mine. since the 4600's have better ram and more memory bandwidth you should beat my ti4400's score. are you wanting to not do a CPU clock for clock comparision? after all your p4 2.26 is still faster mhz wise than my amd...this sounds like excuse making on your part, you call yourself "mr tweaker" well tweak away then!! :D should i clock my cpu the same speed as yours to do away with the 90 mhz difference?



I pity weak people who can't even read a totally fair review about two pieces of hardware without writing so mutch B.S trying to feel better afterwards.. :hmph: .

so do i...so do i. :D



But go ahead do ya own review then dammit, TT has one of the best reviewers I know of but still you just can't belive the facts that shows up. Put two machines beside eatch other, run a bench like UT2003, then if one gives ya higher fps than the other one doesn't that mean you got yourself a winner..???.

as i said before, i have no problem with the majority of the review but the quote i put earlier from it's conclusion is simply farcical.




But till then, try and not brake down into a deep depression every time Intel wins some tests, jesus it's only computers we are talking bout here..

Take care m8 and don't snap and hurt someone, we are all friends here..
:cheers:

depression? ROFL!! think that if it makes you feel better about yourself,go for it! i am all for people feeling good about themselves!! and as far us all being friends here, i am sure when you called me a "moron" you meant it in a "friendly" way! LOL!! :D

have a nice day friend! :D

VinnieVen
06-24-2003, 01:09 PM
the future will reveal itself, until then anything is just speculation. as for now, AMD's top of the line(opteron) spanks the best intel has to offer at almost half the clock speed ROFL!!). remember the xp processor is not the "best" amd has out, the opteron is. so what is being done here is comparing AMD's low end processor(the duron is out of production) to Intel's high end.

I would suggest to u that the p4 is not intels highend. If u want to compare intels highend, benchmark a xeon mp v. the opteron and see how well it does. There is also the idea of 32 v. 64 bit chips which can have a bit of an influence. The p4 is intels workstation chip, the opteron was designed as a server chip, not workstation. They are aimed at 2 seperate markets.

Shad0hawK
06-24-2003, 01:49 PM
I would suggest to u that the p4 is not intels highend. If u want to compare intels highend, benchmark a xeon mp v. the opteron and see how well it does. There is also the idea of 32 v. 64 bit chips which can have a bit of an influence. The p4 is intels workstation chip, the opteron was designed as a server chip, not workstation. They are aimed at 2 seperate markets.



the xeon 2.8 gets spanked too, as far as 64 bit goes it does not make a diiference as it was running at 32 bit, something intels 64 bit processors can only do in emulation mode, which is slower than a reg p4 at a price comparable to a p4 3.2 it does not matter what market it is aimed at, anyone can buy one.

the simple objective fact remains. AMD's best is better than intel's best...period. at almost half the clock speed.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1816

aznx
06-24-2003, 02:00 PM
unless you wanna get itanium2s;) though their like 4000 bucks just for the processor.

umm if the xeon mp is for servers, then the athlon64 must be fore WORKSTATIONS, and it still rapes ass:)

Shad0hawK
06-24-2003, 02:08 PM
unless you wanna get itanium2s;) though their like 4000 bucks just for the processor.

umm if the xeon mp is for servers, then the athlon64 must be fore WORKSTATIONS, and it still rapes ass:)



the athlon 64 is a desktop/workstation. the opteron is in fact a different processor than the athlon 64 with a different pin count. and as far as that goes the opteron is a 8 way solution ,meaning 8 processors can be run on one mobo, the opterons out now(models 240,242,244) are dual configurable quads start with model 4xx such as 440, 442 etc.

The__tweaker
06-24-2003, 04:43 PM
Your right guys, this sucks. Amd wins all tests ever done over the last year. Intel never had any performance lead, and the one they had was caused by cheating.. :crazy:

My god man have you been living under a rock..?? Wake up and smell the coffe.. Starting comparing Opteron against P4, sorry to break it to ya but p4 isn't Intels top of the line cpu's.. So then wtf is wrong with using the XP line which is suposed to be Amd desktop cpu's..:?:

So what Amd has a more effective clockcykle? That doesn't help them mutch ya know if their gonna keep the speeds down wile Intel make their way higher and higher in both cpu clock cyckle and bus speeds.. Amd were closer in performance when P4b were their fastest cpu but now when the P4c processors with faster fsb are released this gap has started to grow, and it will continue to grow until we see the 64 bit processing.

You don't need to ***** about my personal comps as they are all I need, I do mutch SSE2 apps and NO Amd XP today can outrun my 2.26 cpu within those tasks..

So the facts and only important matter of this thread still remains, P4c 3.2 ghz spanked the sass outta that Amd XP3200 in a bunch of fair tests, Q3 Intel biased? Sure I'll go for that, remove it then as that were the only test Amd lost.. :rofl:
No, let me guess, ALL those tests are Intel biased! That's why Intel won, yeah that's right!! This is so unfair! Now I wanna cry.. :cry:

Man you seem to have a big problem accepting true facts when ya se em'.. I'm the first to congratulate Amd when they do something good, what is your problem..:?:

Stop posting those silly links to your silly benchmarking comparisons on ya [email protected], the relevance of this thread was clear, two top notch cpu's against eatch other, one of them won some fair testing without cheating, get over it.. :shrug:

:beer:

minibubba
06-24-2003, 05:26 PM
I guess it is inevitable...mention AMD and Intel in the same thread and you are guranteed to have a flame war on your hands :angryfire

without saying which one is better, ... :blah: All I'll say is that the wording of the conclusion does seem a bit biased
If you're honest with yourself, dispite which fan club you lump yourself into, you should at least be able to admit that (of course you would have to read something objectivly and not start off with blind devotion to one company or another)

:2cents:

The__tweaker
06-24-2003, 05:45 PM
It was not meant like that but anyhow, yes it may seem a bit biased.

I always liked Intel but i got my self a couple of Amd chips just to discover they are great!

I'm just a bit tired of all the whining about cheating all the time. Some people seem to belive all the reviewers are paid of by Intel, even our own one evidently. Even though they don't have any problems trusting benchies found at sites like amd.com :laugh:

And if it's not money, then it's most likely the software. Because everybody knows it, Intel can't beat Amd, just ain't possible.
: omg:

This type of militant brand addiction is so damn stupid, I for one had NEVER gone crazy like that if the tests had shown Amd is faster..

I'm NOT a pure Intel man due to the fact that I run both types of chips and i like em' both.
I just hate stupidity of the kind posted above..

:beer:

das9092
06-24-2003, 05:59 PM
My only response is... WTF!?
I think it's funny that it is almost impossible to find a set of benchmarks for these 2 competing processors that will accurately compare them. In this article they use mostly Intel Biased benchmarks, and in others I have read you can see that Athlon XP can beat the latest P4. I just wish someone would do a review using a comparable number of Intel Biased benches vs. AMD Biased benches.

I agree that there is no need for over 200 fps. The average person can see no more than 70fps in the first place.

Here's a benchmark you can use on any system to see how well it will really work doing everyday activities.

www.caosciotocounty.org/rcable/zipcodes.zip
I haven't put up a reporting site yet so that you can compare scores but I have a P4 1.6 here at work and it completed the test in 42:13.

Hmmm... Interesting benchmark. Did you write it yourself?

But anyway, here are the scores my Athlon systems got. Tomorrow I'll take the test to work and test it out on some of our P4 systems. The sad thing is the fastest P4 systems we have are 2GHz.

And maybe I'll try it out on my dual 867MHz G4 Mac also to see how it does. :)

http://www.das7282.com/forum/zipcodes/das_1_zipcode.gif http://www.das7282.com/forum/zipcodes/das_2_zipcode.gif

http://www.das7282.com/forum/zipcodes/das_20_zipcode.gif http://www.das7282.com/forum/zipcodes/das_13_zipcode.gif

·The 2.08GHz Athlon XP 2800+ is a Barton core and the full specs can be found here (http://www.das7282.com/das_1/).
·The 2.0GHz Athlon XP 2400+ is a T' Bred and the full specs are here (http://www.das7282.com/das_2/).
·The 1.4GHz Athlon is a Thunderbird and the full specs are here (http://www.das7282.com/das_20/).
·The 1.2GHz Athlon 4 is my laptop and is based on the Pally core. The full specs are here (http://www.das7282.com/das_13/).

das9092
06-24-2003, 07:05 PM
It was not meant like that but anyhow, yes it may seem a bit biased.

I always liked Intel but i got my self a couple of Amd chips just to discover they are great!

I'm just a bit tired of all the whining about cheating all the time. Some people seem to belive all the reviewers are paid of by Intel, even our own one evidently. Even though they don't have any problems trusting benchies found at sites like amd.com :laugh:

And if it's not money, then it's most likely the software. Because everybody knows it, Intel can't beat Amd, just ain't possible.
: omg:

This type of militant brand addiction is so damn stupid, I for one had NEVER gone crazy like that if the tests had shown Amd is faster..

I'm NOT a pure Intel man due to the fact that I run both types of chips and i like em' both.
I just hate stupidity of the kind posted above..

:beer:

I think part of the reason there are so many "militant" people that back AMD is because AMD is the underdog. Some people just like to root for the underdog and love to see the big guy(s) (Intel) fall on their face(s).

Why are so many people so "militant" about the underdog? Well I'm not a psychiatrist but I think it has to do with the fact that some people feel like underdogs themselves. And I think in the group of people we're talking about, there are probably a lot of underdogs. Think about it, a lot of the "computer geeks" out there that actually know and understand all this stuff probably weren't on the list of "most popular people" when they were in school. A lot of them were probably considered nerds and geeks by the arrogant "popular" kids. And as any nerd or geek will tell you, they would like nothing more than to see the "popular" kids fall flat on there face.

Well in my opinion, this kind of mentality can carry over in the real world with out them even realizing it. The so called "nerds and geeks" will symbolize Intel as the popular kid on the block and AMD as one of them...... a nerd or geek..... an underdog. So they would like nothing more than to see Intel fall flat on their face.

And then there are people like me. I was neither a nerd nor a popular kid in school. I was kinda in the middle I guess you could say. But I don't care about anyone falling on their face. I like AMD over Intel partly because I feel betrayed by Intel.

Betrayed? Why do I feel betrayed? Well I was an Intel guy before the P4 was released. In fact I was extremely excited to read any and all prerelease articles about the P4 months before it was released. I drooled over any information I could read about the P4. And then the day came when the P4 was finally here. I eagerly read the first review and when I had finished my excitement for the P4 went from good to bad! I was like WTF!!!! What kind of crap is this?! The 1.3GHz, 1.4GHz and 1.5GHz P4 Willies sucked!!! All of them could barely out perform a 1GHz PIII or 1GHz Athlon!!! After doing some more reading my bewilderment turned into anger when I learned that (what seemed to me) Intel had lengthened the pipeline to 20 stages just so they could squeeze out more MHz. It seemed to me like Intel was more worried about selling CPUs based on MHz than actual performance. Sure, in hind sight this lengthening of the pipeline has paid off because today we are looking at a 3.2GHz P4. But at first I was pissed off and it takes me a while to get over being pissed off. I'm still stuck in the days when having a 1GHz CPU meant that you had a 1GHz CPU. But to me it seems like the P4 is a 3.2GHz CPU that is a little less than 3.2GHz. It just doesn't seem like its 3.2GHz.

So until I get over it, I'm still going to root for AMD. Because I don't want Intel to fall flat on their face because I feel like an under dog, I want them to fall flat on their face because they pissed me off. :devil:

Another (small) reason I like to root for AMD is because Intel needs the competition....... AMD will kinda help keep Intel in check (so to speak). If AMD wasn't around, god knows how much we would be paying for an Intel CPU today....... probably 3 times as much.

Nosferatu
06-24-2003, 10:14 PM
When I read the review (I always start with the conclusion) i was a bit shocked. But when I read the test results it turned out to be the same old story. Intel beats AMD on most fronts. The most important results for me are openGL and 3D. I don't care if it takes .3 seconds longer to open an excel sheet. Intel is about 10% faster on average on those tests, but over here they are also about 25% more expensive. So if you want just the fastest CPU go for Intel. If you want more FPS than go for AMD and use the rest of the money to buy a 9800Pro instead of a 9700Pro
:2cents:

amd_man2005
06-25-2003, 12:50 AM
Well, they way I see it, though Im AMD all the way through, Intel beat AMD in the tests, BUT, When they've got an 800mhz FSB, theey should be raping AMD, and well, they arent, for only running a 400mhz FSB AMD is doing a damn good job of keeping up IMO

The__tweaker
06-25-2003, 01:09 AM
I want them to fall flat on their face because they pissed me off. :devil:

Yep but one thing I can't understand is how people can stand they way Amd treats their customers, paper launches every now and then. Promises never beein kept. When was the first release date on the hammer for example, was it a year ago or what..:?:

Intel made that big one mistake on the first P4's with the lack on performance and all so therefore you lost faith in them. While Amd keeps doin' all those promises but NEVER keeps em'. I for sure is a hard man to please, if a company fail to deliver I take my buissnes elsewere.. If I were you, I would feel alot more betrayed as a Amd customer rather than Intel customer.

Not to mention al those PR ****. I know what it's fore but never the less most people think they got a 2.8 ghz computer just because they went out and bought a fancy new XP 2800+.
And don't think for a second Amd wasn't counting on that when they started the [email protected] crap.. :2cents:

Btw DAS9092 you made a very good point there on the underdog thingy.. :)

:beer:

SirOsis
06-25-2003, 01:32 AM
Yep but one thing I can't understand is how people can stand they way Amd treats their customers, paper launches every now and then. Promises never beein kept. When was the first release date on the hammer for example, was it a year ago or what..:?:

Intel made that big one mistake on the first P4's with the lack on performance and all so therefore you lost faith in them. While Amd keeps doin' all those promises but NEVER keeps em'. I for sure is a hard man to please, if a company fail to deliver I take my buissnes elsewere.. If I were you, I would feel alot more betrayed as a Amd customer rather than Intel customer.

Not to mention al those PR ****. I know what it's fore but never the less most people think they got a 2.8 ghz computer just because they went out and bought a fancy new XP 2800+.
And don't think for a second Amd wasn't counting on that when they started the [email protected] crap.. :2cents:

Btw DAS9092 you made a very good point there on the underdog thingy.. :)

:beer:

This isn't only AMD. Intel also has had numerous paper launches. It is common in the industry. Look at Nvidia too. The P4 launch was one huge paper launch. AMD was actually delivering at this time. It all comes in cycles.

Paper launches don't affect me anyway since I am more than happy with my system right now. I don't need to upgrade yet.

I'm afraid this thread has become AMD/Intel bashing which wasn't the original point. The thread was to discuss the article which has a pretty inflamatory conclusion that is way off base.

I have no brand loyalty when it comes to hardware. I buy the best I can get for the money without breaking the bank. Right now the P4 looks quite good but I am not looking to do a major upgrade. When that time comes I'll evaluate what is available and make my decision. AMD or Intel doesn't matter as long as I am getting a great buy on powerful hardware.

The competition is very good for us so I wouldn't want to see either company out of it.

Shad0hawK
06-25-2003, 02:18 AM
Yep but one thing I can't understand is how people can stand they way Amd treats their customers, paper launches every now and then. Promises never beein kept. When was the first release date on the hammer for example, was it a year ago or what..:?:

paper launches are annoying, but you have to admit they are not a new thing or solely someing AMD does, intel, nvidia, ATI they all do it.



Intel made that big one mistake on the first P4's with the lack on performance and all so therefore you lost faith in them. While Amd keeps doin' all those promises but NEVER keeps em'. I for sure is a hard man to please, if a company fail to deliver I take my buissnes elsewere.. If I were you, I would feel alot more betrayed as a Amd customer rather than Intel customer.

yes they boo boo on that one. i am not disappointed though, at least unlike some other chip company they dont make us wait up to a year....




Not to mention al those PR ****. I know what it's fore but never the less most people think they got a 2.8 ghz computer just because they went out and bought a fancy new XP 2800+.
And don't think for a second Amd wasn't counting on that when they started the [email protected] crap.. :2cents:

thats because mhz is not the sole determiner of pc performance. you can whine and moan all you want the simple fact is AMD is doing a good job, and your opinion changes nothing. in fact you should be thanking AMD. alot of intel's reputation is built on the fact that AMD used to make intel's chips... :D they co-authored the x86 architecture, intel tried to screw AMD and steal the patents, AMD sued them and won and now here we are, with someone trying to put AMD's practices in a bad light ROFL!! another reason you should be gateful to AMD is that without their competition, intel would still be making you pay $3000 for a processor like they used to....

AMD based systems can and do perform on par with anything intel has to offer...mine is proof. after all mr_tweaker, it is outperforming YOUR slightly faster intel based system, and that "friend" says it all...since i have a busy day coming up i leave you to your fun and sophomoric insults :D

minibubba
06-25-2003, 02:36 AM
***sniff....sniff*** anyone smell that? ....smells like smoke.... oh no! the this thread is on fire!

:angryfire

The__tweaker
06-25-2003, 04:36 AM
thats because mhz is not the sole determiner of pc performance. you can whine and moan all you want the simple fact is AMD is doing a good job, and your opinion changes nothing.

AMD based systems can and do perform on par with anything intel has to offer... mine is proof. after all mr_tweaker, it is outperforming YOUR slightly faster intel based system, and that "friend" says it all...since i have a busy day coming up i leave you to your fun and sophomoric insults :D

I don't wine or moan, I just trying to get a few people around here to look at some given facts and then STOP whining about cheating and stuff that doesn't even exist. Look at the review for the 3:rd time, or are you to claiming the tests are bogus..?? Come on how old are you..?

Don't talk about my machines, I have nothing top of the line, and I never said I had either so stop trying to get some free points on that one.

This topic is about the latest cpu's from both sides. If they can and do perform on pair then WHY are we seeing reviews like this on the recent hardware..? Explain that..

I'm sorry but if a grown man can't see something that is typed on the screen in front of him then it's no point trying to explain something either now is there. Now let's stop this as we evidently ain't coming no further on the topic. Your right, AMD won the tests in the review, there ya go, hope you'll sleep better nowing ya won.. ;)

:beer: :beer: :beer:

aznx
06-25-2003, 07:15 AM
My god man have you been living under a rock..?? Wake up and smell the coffe.. Starting comparing Opteron against P4, sorry to break it to ya but p4 isn't Intels top of the line cpu's.. So then wtf is wrong with using the XP line which is suposed to be Amd desktop cpu's..:?

so if the p4 isnt the top desktop/workstation cpu, what is? the xeon? wtf?

aznx
06-25-2003, 07:20 AM
the fastest clocked mm intel p4 is like what 4.2ghz? and vs the fastest clocked barton, i think which was at 3 something ghz? the barton would own;)

Wiggo
06-25-2003, 07:52 AM
Well when it comes to "paper launches" Intel lead the way there (remember how long it took for the 1GHz PIII to hit the market after it's launch?). ;)

But I'll keep on usin' both brands. :beer:

The__tweaker
06-25-2003, 09:03 AM
the fastest clocked mm intel p4 is like what 4.2ghz? and vs the fastest clocked barton, i think which was at 3 something ghz? the barton would own;)

What you "think" isn't important at all since it's your "opinion" and ya ain't got **** to back it up with, nothing at all.. I do though.. ;)

And yes, desktop to desktop should be compared, which means the XP line vs the P4 line. This was done and the result were posted here in this thread remember. I really can't understand what's so HARD to understand with the result. After all you are English speaking and I'm not, you should be able to read and understand it perfectly fine.. :devil win

Wiggo as ya may have heard I use both chips to, and as I mentioned before I'm really impressed by the performance I get with the 2100+ that i own. It actually performed better than I thought it would. At least within non SSE2 applications.

No matter what brand I prefer I would never close my eyes to the other. (Like some persons seem to have done in this thread) I am building a new gamingsystem and I will consider all options available before deciding on some particular type, the Amd line is intresting to. But as I won't shop until a few weeks have passed I really haven't made up my mind yet.. :shrug:

:beer: :beer: :beer:

The__tweaker
06-25-2003, 09:24 AM
Btw what is it that everybody should do before paying hard cash for new hardware? The answer is reading reviews.

But some people seem to thinks it's all bs and not important. For no matter what the different reviews point out theres still only one winner. AMD

Same goes for the Ati vs Nvidia struggle, why bother reading reviews when they all just bogus anyways..:?: Everybody nows that Nvidia can't do **** cause they failed to make ONE card, the 5800 ultra a success. My good should we look back and see how things were done in the past then I can't understand how ANYONE could ever wanna touch the ATI cards with a ten feet pole.. Considering they crap drivers and all that ****. The answer my friends, are improvements! ATI now offers high end cards with great drivers and not that many has problems with em' any more.

But even though Nvidia are the market leader it doesn't help them cause everybody knows just how worthless their new improved FX card is even though it beats everything else ATI's got on the market atm. Or is it phony reviews there to..:?:

So everybody should stop reading reviews and just go out and buy a new fanzy AMD with a nice ATI card no matter what the different reviewers got to say on the topic. After all, they are ALL phony..

No offence, but I do think that a few people should do like me, broaden their judgements and stop beein' so darn "one brand to death" addicted..

:beer: :beer: :beer:

das9092
06-25-2003, 10:00 AM
Hmmm... Interesting benchmark. Did you write it yourself?

But anyway, here are the scores my Athlon systems got. Tomorrow I'll take the test to work and test it out on some of our P4 systems. The sad thing is the fastest P4 systems we have are 2GHz.

And maybe I'll try it out on my dual 867MHz G4 Mac also to see how it does. :)

http://www.das7282.com/forum/zipcodes/das_1_zipcode.gif http://www.das7282.com/forum/zipcodes/das_2_zipcode.gif

http://www.das7282.com/forum/zipcodes/das_20_zipcode.gif http://www.das7282.com/forum/zipcodes/das_13_zipcode.gif

·The 2.08GHz Athlon XP 2800+ is a Barton core and the full specs can be found here (http://www.das7282.com/das_1/).
·The 2.0GHz Athlon XP 2400+ is a T' Bred and the full specs are here (http://www.das7282.com/das_2/).
·The 1.4GHz Athlon is a Thunderbird and the full specs are here (http://www.das7282.com/das_20/).
·The 1.2GHz Athlon 4 is my laptop and is based on the Pally core. The full specs are here (http://www.das7282.com/das_13/).


Here's two 2GHz P4 systems. I benched them today at work. I'm sorry I couldn't bench on a P4 system running faster than 2GHz or a P4 system with a FSB faster than 400MHz, but 2GHz systems is all we have (except a few lower models). I tested on two systems because one has a VIA P4M266 chipset and the other has an Intel 845G chipset. I wanted to see if the chipset was a factor in this kind of benchmark. It wasn't because they both got pretty much identical scores. I like the fact that my 1.4GHz Athlon "Thunderbird" did the test in just about the same anount of time. :p

http://www.das7282.com/forum/zipcodes/2GHz_P4_1.gif http://www.das7282.com/forum/zipcodes/2GHz_P4_2.gif

·Both systems have 512MB of PC2100 DDR-SDRAM.

The__tweaker
06-25-2003, 10:47 AM
Well first of all you might want to use the both cpu's to their fully potential which you can't do on those platforms.

Using 266 mhz fsb with a cpu that can do 400 isn't comparable at all since you ain't doing the same on your Athlon. It's simple math and I think you can manage it to if ya try really hard. That 266 mhz athlon of yours must be run with a chipset/memory on 133 mhz speed, aka sdram = half the fsb speed in order to get a fair comparizon.. ;) Or rather give the P4 a platform that can support 400 fsb to give it what it needs to perfom to it's fully potential. After all this thread have had alot of whining about "unfair" testing so you for one should be intrested in doing things right..

Another thing which I find intresting is the fact that you expect us to trust a application never ever used let alone heard of by any known site or by any other known reviewer whilst ya can't trust well known everyday apps to show the difference between platforms.. Strange don't ya think.. Anyone could have written that software for any purpose.. :sleepy:

But sure, I ain't claiming that a 400 fsb P4 perform that well cause they don't, but you see we doesn't run P4's at 266 mhz fsb like you do today, we run them on 800 mhz in dual channel and pretty soon 1200 so why don't ya keep drooling over that john doe test of your's and let us others show some real facts like the one given in the start of this thread.. :devil win

:beer: :beer: :beer:

Lava Lamp Freak
06-25-2003, 11:19 AM
You're all wrong. The new IBM PPC 970 in the new PowerMac G5 smokes AMD and Intel. Don't believe me!? Just ask Apple.

:cantfocus

Wiggo
06-25-2003, 11:38 AM
Lava Lamp Freak[/size]]
You're all wrong. The new IBM PPC 970 in the new PowerMac G5 smokes AMD and Intel. Don't believe me!? Just ask Apple.

:cantfocus SJ will certainly say so. :cackle: :laugh: :rofl:

aznx
06-25-2003, 01:05 PM
i didnt say the g5 didnt;)

minibubba
06-25-2003, 01:33 PM
do you all realize that no matter if you are taking about a 400 mhz amd chip or a 800 mhz Intel chip that it all comes down to the same 200 mhz?

with that said, will you all cease and desist on what has become another pointless flame war? This is completely ridiculous :crazy:

The__tweaker
06-25-2003, 03:13 PM
I have disarmed myself, dropped all my weapons to the ground..

But if they ain't stop firing at me then I'd better run..! :eek:
http://w1.930.telia.com/~u93005567/run.gif

Wiggo
06-25-2003, 04:49 PM
Gee don't ya's just love all the totesterone flowin' around here? :clap:

das9092
06-26-2003, 12:48 AM
Another thing which I find intresting is the fact that you expect us to trust a application never ever used let alone heard of by any known site or by any other known reviewer whilst ya can't trust well known everyday apps to show the difference between platforms.. Strange don't ya think.. Anyone could have written that software for any purpose.. :sleepy:

Ok.... here we go....

First, on the trust thing. You don't trust Microsoft Excel???? Did you even download the thing and check it out? While I'm no expert in Microsoft Excel, the benchmark looks like a standard Excel spread sheet to me. And unless you’re a crack programmer or you work for Microsoft, I don't think you're going to be able write an Excel spreadsheet to favor one platform over another.

Now I'm not that surprised that the AMD CPU's are doing a lot better than the P4's in this benchmark (and you shouldn't be surprised either) because almost everyone one on the planet knows that the Athlon is very strong in office productivity. I'm not trying to brag here because who cares. My Athlon system kicks ass in Excel...... whoppy ****! :p I was just checkin' out the guys home made benchmark and posting what I got. :)



Well first of all you might want to use the both cpu's to their fully potential which you can't do on those platforms.

Using 266 mhz fsb with a cpu that can do 400 isn't comparable at all since you ain't doing the same on your Athlon. It's simple math and I think you can manage it to if ya try really hard. That 266 mhz athlon of yours must be run with a chipset/memory on 133 mhz speed, aka sdram = half the fsb speed in order to get a fair comparizon.. Or rather give the P4 a platform that can support 400 fsb to give it what it needs to perfom to it's fully potential. After all this thread have had alot of whining about "unfair" testing so you for one should be intrested in doing things right..

~~~~~~

But sure, I ain't claiming that a 400 fsb P4 perform that well cause they don't, but you see we doesn't run P4's at 266 mhz fsb like you do today, we run them on 800 mhz in dual channel and pretty soon 1200 so why don't ya keep drooling over that john doe test of your's and let us others show some real facts like the one given in the start of this thread..

Second... I'm not sure I completely understand what you’re saying here but I think you are trying to say that the P4 systems I tested had an unfair disadvantage because they were coupled with PC2100 DDR-SDRAM. (Am I right?)

Well my response is, with this particular benchmark I don't think this would hurt the P4 systems I tested at all. This benchmark seems to be a pure number crunching, CPU intensive test only and it doesn't seem to stress the FSB or memory bus at all. I don't think there is enough data flowing across the FSB or memory bus to come close to saturating even a 133MHz bus. To test this theory I ran a few more tests with the CPU running the same speed and only changing the FSB and memory bus speeds.

The first test I did was to downclock my 1.4GHz/266MHz Athlon to 1.2GHz/200MHz and run the PC2100 DDR-SDRAM at 200MHz (or PC1600) speed. Then I compared the results to my 1.2GHz/200MHz laptop that uses standard PC133 SDRAM. The downclocked 1.4GHz system should have an advantage because it's using DDR-SDRAM instead of PC133 SDRAM.

And the results I got are...

1.2GHz/200MHz + 200MHz (PC1600) DDR-SDRAM= 45:55
1.2GHz/200MHz + 133MHz (PC133) SDRAM = 44:59

As you can see, the laptop actually came in one minute faster. I can only attribute this to the fact that the laptop has a Palomino core with SSE and better branch prediction while the downclocked 1.4GHz system uses a standard Thunderbird core. (Or it's close enough that we might be able to attribute it to error.)

Now for the second round I took thing a little further. For these test I ran my main (Barton core) system downclocked to 1.4GHz but I ran the test three times. Once with a FSB of 266MHz, another with a FSB of 333MHz and finally with a FSB of 400MHz. Then I compared those scores with my 1.4GHz/266MHz Thunderbird system.

And the results I got are...

(Thunderbird)
1.4GHz/266MHz + 266MHz (PC2100) DDR-SDRAM = 38:54
(Barton)
1.4GHz/266MHz + 266MHz (PC2100) DDR-SDRAM = 35:10
1.4GHz/333MHz + 333MHz (PC2700) DDR-SDRAM = 34:24
1.4GHz/400MHz + 400MHz (PC3200) DDR-SDRAM = 34:33

As you can see, the different FSB speeds have very little effect on the outcome. And again, the Barton seems to pull ahead of the Thunderbird probably because of the SSE, better branch prediction and larger L2 cache.

So what does this prove? Nothing except that it appears that in this benchmark the FSB and/or memory bus speed have little to no effect on the outcome. This benchmark seems to rely on how much number crunching power the CPU has only.

Not satisfied? Well after those tests I decided to step it up a little more. I decided to do an "apples to apple" comparison. How? Well the P4 systems I ran the benchmark on ran at 2GHz with a 400MHz FSB but the RAM ran at 266MHz and was only 512MB.

So to do an apples to apples comparison I setup my main Barton system to run those same exact speeds. I set my FSB to 400MHz (200MHz DDR) and the multiplier to 10x. Then I set the memory bus ratio to 66% which gave me a RAM speed of 266MHz (133MHz DDR). And to make things even fairer, I only ran one stick of 512MB RAM so that my dual channel nForce 2 board wouldn't have the "dual" channel advantage. So with it set up this way, the only difference between the two platforms is one is an Intel platform and the other is an AMD platform. But specs wise, they are both running the exact same speed.

And the results I got are...

(Intel 845G system)
P4 2GHz/400MHz + 266MHz DDR-SDRAM = 36:00

(VIA P4M266 system)
P4 2GHz/400MHz + 266MHz DDR-SDRAM = 37:20

(nForce 2 system / single channel)
Athlon 2GHz/400MHz + 266MHz DDR-SDRAM = 24:56

As you can see even though they are all running at 2GHz, all have 512K L2 cache, all have a 400MHz FSB and are all coupled with slower 266MHz PC2100 DDR-RAM, the Athlon still handles the P4's (in this benchmark) quit nicely. :D

What do ya think? ;)

(To save space in this post I didn't include screen shots but I can provide them if you want.)

Wiggo
06-26-2003, 12:53 AM
Damn for all the time it took ya (http://forums.tweaktown.com/online.php?s=) replyin' I was expecting a full sized novel. :beer:

das9092
06-26-2003, 12:59 AM
Damn for all the time it took ya (http://forums.tweaktown.com/online.php?s=) replyin' I was expecting a full sized novel. :beer:

:?: :?:

The__tweaker
06-26-2003, 01:12 AM
:rofl:

Gee this thread has gone way off topic, and since no one seem to stick to it then we better close the case. I for one Is still going to check out reviews before buying new hardware. But if you think otherwise then DO otherwise.. :D

Anyway I'm of for work, see ya guys in a couple of days, back friday..

:beer: :beer: :beer:

Wiggo
06-26-2003, 01:19 AM
As the old sayin' goes that I use in these topics, Certain horses for certain courses, each have their strengths and weaknesses so choose ya course first and then choose ya horse whether ya want the P4's turbo 4 cylinder feel or the Athlon's V8 one to suit the programs that ya generally run. :devil win

das9092
06-26-2003, 01:20 AM
:rofl:

Gee this thread has gone way off topic, and since no one seem to stick to it then we better close the case. I for one Is still going to check out reviews before buying new hardware. But if you think otherwise then DO otherwise.. :D

Anyway I'm of for work, see ya guys in a couple of days, back friday..

:beer: :beer: :beer:


Off topic? Hmmm.... I thought this was a thread called "amd vs intel article"....... isn't that what we're talking about? AMD vs Intel?

The__tweaker
06-26-2003, 02:02 PM
Off topic? Hmmm.... I thought this was a thread called "amd vs intel article"....... isn't that what we're talking about? AMD vs Intel?

Maybe you should go back to the start and check. ;)

This thread is about the TT review on Intel and Amd's new cpu's.

The P4 won every test but one, but as they are all bogus don't even bother to read it. :2cents:

:beer:

The__tweaker
06-26-2003, 02:09 PM
As the old sayin' goes that I use in these topics, Certain horses for certain courses, each have their strengths and weaknesses so choose ya course first and then choose ya horse whether ya want the P4's turbo 4 cylinder feel or the Athlon's V8 one to suit the programs that ya generally run. :devil win

hehehe my heaviest apps makes my Amd feel like a damn tricyckle compared to the P4 plus all those reviews all around us, so then ya might understand why I have the attitude I express.. :devil win

:beer: :beer: :beer:

aznx
06-26-2003, 02:17 PM
look at what i started:confused:

The__tweaker
06-26-2003, 02:36 PM
look at what i started:confused:

lol no worries, we are all men and full of totesterone and if we weren't 10 million km away from eatch other we could arange a Ultimate Fighting contest. The winner aka the survivor could win a brand new videocard or a free fully paid for visit at the dentist.. :D :D

Gee I would love that! More violence!! Maybe I could bring my nightstick from work and the show would be even more splendid.. :hammer:



http://www.xtinalamb.co.uk/patches/imgpatch/metal/fist.gif

:beer: :beer: :beer:

Shad0hawK
06-26-2003, 03:01 PM
:rofl:

Gee this thread has gone way off topic, and since no one seem to stick to it then we better close the case. I for one Is still going to check out reviews before buying new hardware. But if you think otherwise then DO otherwise.. :D

Anyway I'm of for work, see ya guys in a couple of days, back friday..

:beer: :beer: :beer:


ahhh gotta alove hectic work schedules!! did you miss me? i read some of your posts, they are amusing. :D

anyway back to topic then...the article here is the infamous quote from the conclusion:


While supporting a 400MHz FSB, this is no where near enough to handle what is needed by today’s games and applications. AMD simply has lagged behind on the Athlon front, pouring more attention to the Athlon 64.


as i said before, this is a rather idiotic statement. in his own review the xp3000 busts 200 fps in ut2003, which is very playable...how can he say with any amount of seriousness that 200fps is no "where near enough to handle what is needed by today’s games"? ROFL!!! the p4 scored 242 while the AMD scored 223, a difference of 19 fps. 19 fps from the 200 is not a whole lot ROFL!! in certainly not enough to jusify saying AMD chips "is no where near enough to handle what is needed by today’s games" what a joke!!

as far as comparing the opteron to the p4 AND the p4 xeon, AMD beats them both. dont make any poor excuses such as "well the opteron is not a destop cpu" it is finding it's way into desktops, especially the 240, and 242. there is no law saying "thou shalt not put opterons in desktops!!" although i am sure intel would like it if there were! alot of people i talk to(and myself for that matter) are waiting for the nforce3 boards. even at that when talking about comparing the best intel and AMD have to offer, AMD takes the win. best vs best...period.

the same goes for mhz to mhz. i posted my score with a xp2000 running @ 2170 mhz with a ti4400 tweaked out as well. i have yet to see a similarly tweaked intel system beat it, and until i see a p4 2.2 with teh same vid card beat it all i can say is put up or shut up. i play games everyday at this speed, in ut2003 i play with 4X AA in 1280x1024 and set to best image quality with a framerate averaging in the mid 50's to low 60's depending on the map!
when some "reviewer" says the cpu i am running is "nowhere near" enough for "today's games" all i can do is laugh my @$$ off at the total ignorance of the statement...bias like this casts serious doubt on credibility.

anyway i just got me a xp2500 barton, and i am going to tinker with it, so far it runs great @ 2.2 with default voltage.

The__tweaker
06-26-2003, 03:27 PM
Well if ya read my posts proper then ya would have seen that I did comment his statement as biased. However I really think he meant FUTURE apps and not the one we play with today. Most of us have discovered the fact that the XP line comes further and further back for every new released cpu they compare.

The XP line isn't going to stand the competition mutch longer and therefore the 64 bit processing will save Amd. but my friend, this review is all about a XP vs P4 cpu and nothing else. I have never claimed something bad at all about Opteron, exept the price.. :(

If you like Amd use them then, I run both but the P4 can't be beaten in my apps, no matter what XP you bring on. Let's face it, compared to my 2.26 ghz P4 the Amd 2100+ crawls when encoding movies and sutch.. :) And oc/tweaking doesn't help so don't even go there.. You can't tweak new instructions into a cpu which isn't there in the first place.. :devil win

Shad0hawK
06-27-2003, 04:53 AM
the P4 can't be beaten in my apps, no matter what XP you bring on.



"did you say "any" xp processor? how about one running the same clock speed? 2.26 mhz vs 2.26 mhz, sounds fair to me! i only spent $90US on this processor, how much did your p4 2.2 cost? :D

rkane
06-27-2003, 05:02 AM
So I guess it looks like my homemade benchmark won't do a lot in the world of high end computing. Maybe I can create a website and do a little more programming and get it into the world of business and workstations.

It's very obvious from the results of the tests being done with it that the Athlon is much better for a workstation processor doing typical Business apps.

Wonder why AMD is having so much trouble getting them into businesses around the world.

amd_man2005
06-27-2003, 06:09 AM
Let's face it, compared to my 2.26 ghz P4 the Amd 2100+ crawls when encoding movies and sutch.. :)

Well, My 2100+ with 512mb of SDRAM encodes a 2hr DVD movie to MPEG in right around 3hrs. Thats including the Audio, Multiplexing, and cutting in half for two discs. And, I havent had a bad encode yet. And, if thats not quick enough for ya, then you really need to quit sitting in front of your computer 24/7 and get a life, rather than sitting here watching your movie encode.

asklepios
06-27-2003, 06:10 AM
wooh!!!! :wow:
i did listen that something like this is going on in "Publication Discussion" forums, but never knew it will be so amusing.
everyone has a point, no matter they understand wat they are talking or not.
nice :cheers:


Originally posted by Wiggo
[b]As the old sayin' goes that I use in these topics, Certain horses for certain courses

so did anyone listen that statement? : omg:

das9092
06-27-2003, 07:45 AM
So I guess it looks like my homemade benchmark won't do a lot in the world of high end computing. Maybe I can create a website and do a little more programming and get it into the world of business and workstations.

It's very obvious from the results of the tests being done with it that the Athlon is much better for a workstation processor doing typical Business apps.

Wonder why AMD is having so much trouble getting them into businesses around the world.

Actually, your benchmark is fine. It's not bloated with stuff that can skew the results like a lot of other benchmarks out there. It seems to be pure Excel and nothing more.

But that's also what's wrong with it..... It only does Excel. So if you wanna know how fast your system is in Excel, your benchmark will do an excellent job. ;)

As for AMD not being able to break into the corporate market with significance.... well I couldn't tell you exactly but it might have something to do with the fact that a lot of people out there still perceive AMD as being the generic brand. And although most people usually don't have a problem buying the generic brand for their personal use, corporations usually won't touch generic brands with a ten foot pole.

Take my boss for example. I work for a growing company and every time we hire on a new person in the office, my boss gives me the job of buying a new workstation for that person. But he won't let me get anything that doesn't have a P4 in it. I keep trying to talk him into an AMD system but he won't hear of it.

Well one day I asked him, "Why won't you let me get a system with an AMD CPU in it? They are better for the type of office work we do here in the office?"

His response was, "Well isn't AMD generic? Aren't they the cheap brand?"

I said, "NO! The use to be but now they are just as good as Intel with respect to power and reliability. If not better in some ways..... Like office applications."

He looked at me and thought for a few seconds and then said, "Just order 'em with Pentiums."

I shook my head as I turned too walked away. : omg:

The thing he doesn't realize is the computer he relies on the most, our main file server downstairs, is build around a single AMD Athlon 1600+. It is a custom system built by the third party company he hired to set up his network when he moved into his office(s). (I was hired in after the network and offices were setup.)

Companies are just weird like that.

The__tweaker
06-27-2003, 01:21 PM
And, if thats not quick enough for ya, then you really need to quit sitting in front of your computer 24/7 and get a life, rather than sitting here watching your movie encode.

lol no that's not fast enough at all, time is money and that may do if ya encode like one movie a week but it's not fast enough if you need plenty of em' done per day.. ;)

Oh and 3 hours with that pc chip/sd ram mobo? Don't over exaggerate my man..

:beer: :beer: :beer:

The__tweaker
06-27-2003, 01:29 PM
how about one running the same clock speed? 2.26 mhz vs 2.26 mhz, sounds fair to me! i only spent US on this processor, how much did your p4 2.2 cost? :D

Yep $90 + $20-50 bucks for some better cooling in order to manage that oc I assume.. ;)

Well ya see same speed won't help because the lack of SSE2 instructions makes every XP quite slow in those apps compared to the P4 line of cpu's. And if you think It's B.S just because I mentioned it so ask someone else and they might explain to ya what SSE2 means.. :devil win

:beer: :beer: :beer:

Wiggo
06-27-2003, 02:33 PM
asklepios[/size]]

As the old sayin' goes that I use in these topics, Certain horses for certain courses

so did anyone listen that statement? : omg: I don't think so somehow. :shrug:

das9092
06-27-2003, 04:17 PM
Yep + -50 bucks for some better cooling in order to manage that oc I assume.. ;)

Well ya see same speed won't help because the lack of SSE2 instructions makes every XP quite slow in those apps compared to the P4 line of cpu's. And if you think It's B.S just because I mentioned it so ask someone else and they might explain to ya what SSE2 means.. :devil win

:beer: :beer: :beer:

How about you? Why don't you explain it to him. How about explaining it all of us for that matter.

But while you're at it, you may want to check out these benchmarks from Tom's Hardware because all three of the ones I have below are for some form of video encoding/rendering. While he didn't include a 2.2GHz P4 in his lineup, I find it interesting that a 2.2GHz Athlon beat out a 2.4GHz+ P4 in all three tests. Geez.... in two of 'em a 1.8GHz Athlon beat out a 2.4GHz+ P4. In fact in the review (http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030623/index.html) a 2.2GHz Athlon beat a 2.4GHz+ P4 in 23 out of 27 benchmarks. And that's at least a 2.4GHz P4, in a lot of the benchmarks the 2.2GHz Athlon was beating 2.6GHz, 2.8GHz and 3GHz P4's. So don't try and tell me that a 2.2GHz P4 can hold it's own against a 2.2GHz Athlon........ I could probably count on one hand how many apps a P4 can beat an equally clocked Athlon. :p (By the way, I'm not what you would call a big fan of Tom's Hardware, but I went there because I knew he included a ton of CPUs in his review benchmarks.)

http://www.das7282.com/forum/tweak/1.gif http://www.das7282.com/forum/tweak/2.gif

http://www.das7282.com/forum/tweak/4a.gif

Wiggo
06-28-2003, 02:00 AM
Some ppl are never convinced and more just don't know when to give up tryin' to convince them either. :rolleyes2

Shad0hawK
06-28-2003, 02:39 AM
Yep + -50 bucks for some better cooling in order to manage that oc I assume.. ;)

Well ya see same speed won't help because the lack of SSE2 instructions makes every XP quite slow in those apps compared to the P4 line of cpu's. And if you think It's B.S just because I mentioned it so ask someone else and they might explain to ya what SSE2 means.. :devil win

:beer: :beer: :beer:

again, what apps? and yes i know what sse2 is, duh. of course i could spout off about how AMD chips run 3dnow better than p4's do, the same result for the same reason. but it would be just as meaningless as what your saying.

make your benchmark and post it, or as i said earlier, put up or shut up.

and the 90 bucks was the cost of the chip, running with regular air cooling i already had.

The__tweaker
06-28-2003, 06:16 AM
Gee were ya bullied as a kid or something which made you forever hateful against the big boys aka Intel.. :rofl:

Most people knows how big advantage P4's have over Xp's in SSE2 apps, this I know for a fact cause I own a 2100+ who ain't got mutch encoding power at all compared to the P4. But I guess you have both chips running those kinds of apps to so ya know exaktly what ya speaking about. ;)

But again can't ya try hard and keep to this threads topic please which were the review on both companys new top chip. Or else this is going to be an endless "hate" aka flaming thread which leads nowere.. So please let us go back..

Go back and read the review once again and this time try [i]really ****ing hard to understand it and then tell us WHO did actually win the test..??? : omg:

Sorry but it's just so funny yet annoying to see how some people start to make shortcuts into other topics just because they can't defend their side within the main subject. But I have fate in ya, try extra hard this time and tell us who won the tests.

And yeah as some seem to be *****ing about Q3 beeing Intel biased so I'll let ya count that part out and look at the rest of the tests. I know ya can do it just try ya hardest.. Good luck..

Know let's see if ya man enough to stay on topic this time instead of chicken out.. :devil win

das9092
06-28-2003, 07:50 AM
Gee were ya bullied as a kid or something which made you forever hateful against the big boys aka Intel.. :rofl:

Most people knows how big advantage P4's have over Xp's in SSE2 apps, this I know for a fact cause I own a 2100+ who ain't got mutch encoding power at all compared to the P4. But I guess you have both chips running those kinds of apps to so ya know exaktly what ya speaking about. ;)

But again can't ya try hard and keep to this threads topic please which were the review on both companys new top chip. Or else this is going to be an endless "hate" aka flaming thread which leads nowere.. So please let us go back..

Go back and read the review once again and this time try really ****ing hard to understand it and then tell us WHO did actually win the test..??? : omg:

Sorry but it's just so funny yet annoying to see how some people start to make shortcuts into other topics just because they can't defend their side within the main subject. But I have fate in ya, try extra hard this time and tell us who won the tests.

And yeah as some seem to be *****ing about Q3 beeing Intel biased so I'll let ya count that part out and look at the rest of the tests. I know ya can do it just try ya hardest.. Good luck..

Know let's see if ya man enough to stay on topic this time instead of chicken out.. :devil win

Hmmmmm..... what's the matter? Can't take the heat so you keep trying to divert the conversation by accusing us of not being on topic? Well, the last time I read the review it was about "Intel 3.2GHz P4 vs. AMD Athlon XP 3200+" and that is exactly what the topic of our conversation has been! Intel vs. AMD!

asklepios
06-29-2003, 02:49 AM
Originally posted by das9092
[BIn fact in the review (http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030623/index.html) a 2.2GHz Athlon beat a 2.4GHz+ P4 in 23 out of 27 benchmarks.

now here is something from the conclusion page to the review you linked to


[b]In our extensive benchmark tests, the P4 is always in the lead - we talked about this in our last article High-Flying: AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Squares Off Against Intel P4 3 GHz. To be fair, it must be said that AMD offers a good performance/ price ratio with its Athlon processors, but it still cannot quite keep up with the Intel CPUs.

my god what kind of a moron are you anyways?
i m lmao on the thought that u r telling us that AMD is better than Intel and linking us to a review which has a conclusion page like this : omg:

again that review proves Wiggo's point but then who is listening.

das9092
06-29-2003, 04:35 AM
now here is something from the conclusion page to the review you linked to



my god what kind of a moron are you anyways?
i m lmao on the thought that u r telling us that AMD is better than Intel and linking us to a review which has a conclusion page like this : omg:

again that review proves Wiggo's point but then who is listening.

Well because you felt the need to call me a moron, I'll explain to you how much of a moron you are and how much you didn't listen!

1) I didn't say that the Athlon came out on top in that review!

2) I pointed out that a 2.2GHz Athlon beat a 2.4GHz P4 in 23 out of 27 benchmarks in that review!

3) I pointed this out because tweaker said his 2.26GHz P4 could out pace a 2.2GHz Athlon in video encoding/rendering apps. To which I showed that in three of the video encoding/rendering tests that THG did, a P4 could not out pace an equally clocked Athlon.

4) The fact remains that the only way a P4 can ever out pace an Athlon in 85% of the apps out there is through shear brute force clock speed. If this review had been about a 3.2GHz Athlon vs. 3.2GHz P4 how do you think the P4 would look then? It would probably be owned in almost everything!

5) But as we all know, this is the Ackley’s heal for the Athlon, its inability to clock as high or higher than a P4. But did Intel try to cheat us by making the P4 core less efficient for the sack of clock speed or did they have a vision that a sacrifice was needed to obtain higher clock speeds? I leave that judgment up to everyone else..........

Darthtanion
06-29-2003, 05:53 AM
All right folks, the flames can stop right now or this post will... your call. I'm getting tired of the bickering and name calling. It is getting old and accomplishes nothing productive. If you have a problem with that, feel free to email me. I'll call you names to your heart's content. :rolleyes2

The__tweaker
06-29-2003, 07:08 AM
my god what kind of a moron are you anyways?
i m lmao on the thought that u r telling us that AMD is better than Intel and linking us to a review which has a conclusion page like this : omg:

LOL I second that m8, hovewer I agree to Darth post, let's stop this as it's no point to argue


I have deleted the remainder of the post because some don't know how to listen to a hint. Let us hope that I don't have to be more direct in my problem-solving methods.

Darth

Shad0hawK
06-29-2003, 08:11 AM
Gee were ya bullied as a kid or something which made you forever hateful against the big boys aka Intel.. :rofl:

Most people knows how big advantage P4's have over Xp's in SSE2 apps, this I know for a fact cause I own a 2100+ who ain't got mutch encoding power at all compared to the P4. But I guess you have both chips running those kinds of apps to so ya know exaktly what ya speaking about. ;)

But again can't ya try hard and keep to this threads topic please which were the review on both companys new top chip. Or else this is going to be an endless "hate" aka flaming thread which leads nowere.. So please let us go back..

Go back and read the review once again and this time try [i]really ****ing hard to understand it and then tell us WHO did actually win the test..??? : omg:

Sorry but it's just so funny yet annoying to see how some people start to make shortcuts into other topics just because they can't defend their side within the main subject. But I have fate in ya, try extra hard this time and tell us who won the tests.

And yeah as some seem to be *****ing about Q3 beeing Intel biased so I'll let ya count that part out and look at the rest of the tests. I know ya can do it just try ya hardest.. Good luck..

Know let's see if ya man enough to stay on topic this time instead of chicken out.. :devil win


put up or shut up. lets do some benchmarks your p4 2.26 vs my athlon at 2.26,all i see on your part are more assumptions about me in a personal nature, is that all you can do? put some numbers up! if you can.

theyneverknew
06-29-2003, 08:22 AM
dude just drop it like darth said. Whether u go intel or AMD is really a personal choice based on many factors and there's no reason to lose ur temper over someone elses choice. Just agree to disagree lol :group:

Darthtanion
06-29-2003, 08:50 AM
I tried to tell y'all but there are some who are a bit hard-headed. Hopefully we can get some peace and quiet now. If you have a beef with someone, take it to PM or email. The public forums are not the place for it... PERIOD!