Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34

Thread: Question on processor speed.....




  1. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,599

    Default

    Pretty much... ;)

    This is how they stack up. http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2003...charts-23.html
    "In their capacity as a tool, computers will be but a ripple on the surface of our culture. In their capacity as intellectual challenge, they are without precedent in the cultural history of mankind." - Edsger Dijkstra

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    New England Highlands, Australia
    Posts
    21,907

    Default

    Ok this is what happens, a P4 exacutes 6 instructions per cycle (IPC) where as pre Barton cores Athlons perform 9 IPC but since the Barton core release AMD has lost it's way with the PR ratin' as the Barton core still only carries out 9 IPC though they've lowered the MHz but upped the PR ratin' which I personally think is wrong as the extra L2 cache in most circumstances doesn't make it up which is likely why I stick to T'bred cores (the T'bred 2800+ was dropped b4 public sale as it'd still be a competitor to the 3200+ Barton).

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    214

    Default

    I'm a little more faithful than Wiggo on the value of L2 cache! :D It really depends on the applications you are running. Games do in fact benefit from larger L2 caches.

    I will agree with Wiggo that I think AMD went a little too far in their number ratings to compare the Barton with the latest P4s. I don't think they had much choice from a marketing perspective but that doesn't mean the Barton is a poor CPU. I think the 3200 is probably in the performance area between a 3.06GHz P4 (533MHz FSB) amd the newer 3.0GHz P4 (800MHz FSB). There are so many other factors that affect a system's overall performance so this is of course not an absolute reference but seems to be typical with comparably equipped systems.

    I also think the 3200+ is overpriced but again this is probably a wise move on AMD's part to keep the public under the perception that they have not fallen behind Intel. When the Athlon64 is released we may again see AMD take the lead but nothing is certain other than the fact that both companies will continue to improve their products.

    Apple computer has proven that MHz is not as important as Intel would like you to believe with their systems that clock considerably slower than Intel systems but process information in a very different manner to achieve performance. Apple uses the Motorola CPU which in it's latest version is a 2GHz 64bit CPU running on a 1GHz FSB. Apple designs their high end systems as dual CPU designs. The first AMD64s will probably run at similar speeds.

    I personally don't invest in the most expensive CPU on the market and prefer to buy a cheaper version that can be overclocked. As I pointed out on a previous thread you can purchase five Barton 2500's for the price of a single 3200 and my 2500+ runs very nicely at the specs of a stock 3200 (200x11). This gives me a very good value for the money.
    ASUS A7N8X Deluxe, Athlon Barton 2500+ with SLK-800 and 4800rpm 80mm fan, ATi 9700Pro(AIW), Dual 256MB Corsair XMS 3200c. Seagate Barracuda SATA. 200MHz fsb with 11X multiplier, RAM latency: 2,2,2,5

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Winnipeg, Canada
    Posts
    848

    Default

    Everybody assumes that p4 is so great. Notice how the pIII's perform different as well. In zeradul's link, the pIII 1.2/pc133 performs the same as the p4 1.5/pc800. And the pIII 1.4/pc133 outperforms the p4 1.8/pc800. It's for the same reason. Anyone have a guess at where my rig comes in on that chart?(assuming it has the same gfx card that they all had for that benchy)
    athlon xp-m@2456mhz(12x204)
    tt aquariusII liquid cooled/ arctic silver ceramique
    asus a7n8xe-dlx
    thermaltake xaserIII lanfire
    bfg 6800gt
    seagate sataII 250gb/seagate 7200rpm 160gb ide
    samsung dvdrw
    2x1024 kingston hyper-x pc3200/ windows xp pro sp3
    logitech mx518/ logitech wingman rumble
    2x samsung 955df 19"/ canon i960
    creative x-fi fatal1ty 64mb/ altec lansing 251-5.1
    mushkin 550w

    opteron 146 @ 2850 (10x285)
    DFI infinity nf4 ultra
    thermaltake tsunami dream -black
    seagate sataII 500gb
    evga 8600gt oc ssc edition
    samsung sata dvd-rw
    2x1024 ocz black
    logitech ifeel/ nec accusync 75f
    ocz fatal1ty 550w

  5. #15
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    214

    Default

    After making the above post I read the latest issue of MaximumPC where they tested three new 875 mobos with the 3.0 P4 and the exact same RAM and Vid card as me!! Interesting to see that my 2500+ kicked all their butts when clocked up to 3200+ default settings and all other settings standard including my vid card,

    I don't have any 875 systems laying around to benchmark but I would tend to trust the benchmarks of such a magazine to be impartial and accurate. This means that the 3200+ on an NForce2 mobo is superior to a 3.0GHz P4 on any 875 mobo!!! :D

    Also keep in mind that the 875 chipset is much newer than the NForce2 and the Bartons.

    {Waits for all the Intel guys to throw old 500MB hard drives at me}
    ASUS A7N8X Deluxe, Athlon Barton 2500+ with SLK-800 and 4800rpm 80mm fan, ATi 9700Pro(AIW), Dual 256MB Corsair XMS 3200c. Seagate Barracuda SATA. 200MHz fsb with 11X multiplier, RAM latency: 2,2,2,5

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    323

    Default

    That is great news.....but the thing I was getting at is that they are called xp3200.....which is SUPPOSED to be on par with an intel 3.2 ghz not just a 3.0 ghz! Also the newest intel chip runs at 3.06 ghz! So again, it seems that for now at least, the intels are faster! But when the new 64 bit AMD chips come out, then it might be another story!
    Here are my specs:
    System Specs: ATX generic case with Antec 550 watt power supply. ASUS A7N8X Deluxe Motherboard. Western Digital 7,200 RPM 40 gig IDE Hard Drive.(NTFS- file system) AMD Athlon XP 2600 processor.(standard fan and heatsink-Thoroughbred Core-standard speed-NO OVERCLOCK) 1 gig of Samsung DDRAM(PC 2700- 333 mhz....2-512mb sticks running in dual channel mode).Ati Radeon 8x 9600 XT (8x is enabled on motherboard). Soundblaster Audigy 2 sound card. Motorola sb 5100 cable modem (Insight Communications-Cable Connection) BenQ 16x DVD- RECORDER.(records -R/-RW or +R/+RW and CD-R formats) LG 52x32x52 CD Burner. Zip 100 internal drive and a generic 3.5 floppy drive. Windows XP Professional Operating System. I also have a HP Deskjet 3520 inkjet printer and a KDS X Flat 17 inch CRT monitor.

  7. #17
    Beefy Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by webe3
    That is great news.....but the thing I was getting at is that they are called xp3200.....which is SUPPOSED to be on par with an intel 3.2 ghz not just a 3.0 ghz!
    I wish people would stop saying that. The PR rating system was designed to compare newer Athlon CPUs to the original Thunderbird cores. As the newer cores had improved performance per Mhz, they needed some way to show how they performed in relation to previous Athlons.. not Intel CPUs...

  8. #18
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by webe3
    but the thing I was getting at is that they are called xp3200.....which is SUPPOSED to be on par with an intel 3.2 ghz not just a 3.0 ghz!
    I said it was faster than a 3.0GHz so maybe the performance is on par with the P4 3.2GHz. I don't have any 3.2GHz P4s laying around to test. Also keep in mind the Intel technology is much newer than the NForce2 and Athlon technology. Next month things will be different and AMD will have the newest stuff on the market. Still, I would tend to support Beefy's statement and stop comparing apples to oranges.
    Quote Originally Posted by webe3
    Also the newest intel chip runs at 3.06 ghz! So again, it seems that for now at least, the intels are faster! But when the new 64 bit AMD chips come out, then it might be another story!
    This is not accurate. The older 3.06GHz P4 runs on a 533MHz FSB while the 3.0GHz P4 runs on the 800MHz FSB. The newer and faster technology is in the 3.0GHz P4 which is the CPU and chipset I was talking about as having been tested by Maximum PC magazine.

    I would say that both systems are top of the line and very competitive. It really depends on personal preference which one you buy. The main point of my statement was to give you AMD fans a little ammo to toss at your Intel buddies for fun ;) and to reiterate that megahertz is not everything!
    ASUS A7N8X Deluxe, Athlon Barton 2500+ with SLK-800 and 4800rpm 80mm fan, ATi 9700Pro(AIW), Dual 256MB Corsair XMS 3200c. Seagate Barracuda SATA. 200MHz fsb with 11X multiplier, RAM latency: 2,2,2,5

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    3,141

    Default

    I love both chips, and I usually get the clone for budget builds and the original one for more expensive performance builds. Intel is very intresting nowadays as you can utilize all their insane bandwith without having to pay for expensive Rambus memory. Memory is the same for both chips now so it's really only the cpu/mobo that differs a bit in price.. Also the fact that my apps are way better run by Intel due to their SSE2 makes them my nr1 choise.

    Now if only my new sweet XP2600+/Nforce2 can show up in me mail.. :cry:


  10. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    323

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefy
    I wish people would stop saying that. The PR rating system was designed to compare newer Athlon CPUs to the original Thunderbird cores. As the newer cores had improved performance per Mhz, they needed some way to show how they performed in relation to previous Athlons.. not Intel CPUs...

    The reason people "keep saying that" is because they don't know that the AMDs PR system are supposed to be compared to the thuderbird cores! Most people when they look at an AMD 3200 think....Oh gee....that must be on par with a 3.2 gig intel...WRONG! The point I am trying to make is that if amd is going to keep this system, they need to explain to the public that they are NOT SUPPOSED to be compared with intel chips! But it seems like more and more that is what people do! Heck, I used to do that until I found out that they were not supposed to be compared to intel on this forum! It really is confusing to the average joe...if you know what I mean!
    Here are my specs:
    System Specs: ATX generic case with Antec 550 watt power supply. ASUS A7N8X Deluxe Motherboard. Western Digital 7,200 RPM 40 gig IDE Hard Drive.(NTFS- file system) AMD Athlon XP 2600 processor.(standard fan and heatsink-Thoroughbred Core-standard speed-NO OVERCLOCK) 1 gig of Samsung DDRAM(PC 2700- 333 mhz....2-512mb sticks running in dual channel mode).Ati Radeon 8x 9600 XT (8x is enabled on motherboard). Soundblaster Audigy 2 sound card. Motorola sb 5100 cable modem (Insight Communications-Cable Connection) BenQ 16x DVD- RECORDER.(records -R/-RW or +R/+RW and CD-R formats) LG 52x32x52 CD Burner. Zip 100 internal drive and a generic 3.5 floppy drive. Windows XP Professional Operating System. I also have a HP Deskjet 3520 inkjet printer and a KDS X Flat 17 inch CRT monitor.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •