Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 45

Thread: AMD's Athlon FX beats Intel's Pentium 4 3.2 GHz in almost ev




  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Posts
    4,246

    Default

    I know that this is very likely to start a pointless AMD vs Intel flame war, but I feel that at least this first post will give some interesting information.
    WE WERE very close to Athlon 64 and Athlon FX last week but didn't get time to play with the systems. Still the world is too small a place to hide the numbers until the 23rd of this month.

    AMD has sent many Athlon FXs and 64s to people around UK and continental Europe and if you are an OEM or a system integrator, you know how these babies look and perform.

    The Athlon FX on Windows XP 32 bit beats Intel's latest release 3.2 GHz but that's still the Northwood core, of course.

    In the Sandra memory test, Athlon FX delivers 5600 MB/s while an Intel Pentium 4 3.2 on Canterwood 875 with DDR 400 of course only delivers 5000MB/s.

    In Quake 3 , which was always considered Intel's playground and patch, the Athlon FX is slightly under nine per cent faster on AMD's processor rather than Intel's "brain of a PC".

    In Unreal 1024x768, it's close to 18 per cent advantage in AMD's favour.

    3Dmark03 at 1024x768 shows that the FX is two per cent slower than on Intel. Pcmark03 is faster on Intel by five per cent since this is an Intel heavily optimized application while the memory score is 18 per cent faster on Athlon FX due to its integrated memory controller.

    Still, it's not all roses, roses as Intel still holds the crown in all SSE 2 optimized application and the ones that use HyperThreading. I am mainly talking about rendering applications, where Intel still holds the crown but the gap that used to be huge between Intel's 3.2 and Athlon XP 3200+ is now significantly smaller.

    In 3Dstudio Max, a Pentium 4 3.2 GHz with HT is about 10 per cent faster if you render just one frame but in a complete scene that you want to render took exactly the same in both systems. It took them both an hour with a small time difference that's not even worthy of mention and is like a twinkle in the eye (nimesha).

    That's what you will see in reviews when they go live on 23rd in exactly three week's time
    (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11339)
    I've gone too far and need to move on!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    4,308

    Default

    Intel will be releasing the Prescott core soon, which will give them back a little ground in 32-bit computing.
    Cameron "Mr.Tweak" Wilmot
    Managing Director
    Tweak Town Pty Ltd

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

    Default

    Yes I would probably use more Amd rigs if it wasn't for my likenin' of SSE2. Amd sure deserves congrats for that great performance achivement.. Maybe I should sell one of my crappy XP's and get another one when the 64Bit ones comes along

    I can't wait until the Prescott comes into play though, can anyone tell me what speed the first released cpu will have, and what kind of pricetag can we expect..? What will be the ultimate chipset for it..?

    EDIT: I didn't mean for this to turn into an Intel thread sorry..

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    2,489

    Default

    Nice Minibubba...

    Looks like AMD is kicking ass...and hopefully Intel will kick ass right back...the more ass kicking occurs the more fun we have...:woot:
    - Damien

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Taipei, Taiwan
    Posts
    4,308

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The__tweaker
    I can't wait until the Prescott comes into play though, can anyone tell me what speed the first released cpu will have, and what kind of pricetag can we expect..?
    3.4GHz
    Cameron "Mr.Tweak" Wilmot
    Managing Director
    Tweak Town Pty Ltd

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    3,141

    Default

    Ok thx.


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    341

    Default

    It would be nice if AMD could get back to the level of Intel. It seemed AMD was starting to loose ground on the 32bit. Let's hope the 64bit will start a whole new war (without violence).
    Personnaly I would like to see some Intel but kicked. In my mind Intel is like M$. So I vote for the underdog
    "Make FPS, not war"

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    3,141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nosferatu
    In my mind Intel is like M$. So I vote for the underdog
    lol just the opposite of how I think, I'm not tossing my dough into something just cuz they happen to be the underdog & need the support..
    Whatever company gives me the best products I'll follow. (best for me that is) :)

    I think this next year is exiting indeed, but then again which year isn't in this industry..

    Let the war begin between em' both, go place ya bets..!


  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The__tweaker
    Yes I would probably use more Amd rigs if it wasn't for my likenin' of SSE2.
    64 bit AMD processors support SSE2

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    3,141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by simmydo
    64 bit AMD processors support SSE2
    Yes they do, but not the XP line which is what I've used on the Amd side. :)

Page 1 of 5 123 ... 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
  •