Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 102

Thread: 333 FBS Athlons 2700+ & 2800+




  1. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    New England Highlands, Australia
    Posts
    21,907

    Default

    Reasonable performance at a good price will do me so long as it does my every day tasks that's all that matters. ;)
    <center>:cheers:</center>

  2. #32
    Beefy Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The__tweaker
    heh, nothing wrong with amd but actually it was quite hard to find any non oc amd machines out there that performed as my intel comp when it come to pure benchmarks like pcmark or 3dmark.
    Exhibit A)
    http://www17.tomshardware.com/cpu/02...s/image033.gif

    Exhibit B)
    http://www17.tomshardware.com/cpu/02...s/image029.gif

    C)
    http://www17.tomshardware.com/cpu/02...s/image020.gif

    D)
    http://www17.tomshardware.com/cpu/02...s/image022.gif
    * All images courtesy of Tom's Hardware

    I could go on, but I won't. I believe these all show a 2200+ XP outperforming a P4 2.26Ghz, as you yourself said it was difficult to find. These are using identical set ups where possible, to make the comparison as accurate as possible. You'll also note the new 2700 and 2800 Athlons performing rather well...

    Please try not to put your foot in your mouth so far next time.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    2,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefy

    I could go on, but I won't. I believe these all show a 2200+ XP outperforming a P4 2.26Ghz, as you yourself said it was difficult to find. These are using identical set ups where possible, to make the comparison as accurate as possible. You'll also note the new 2700 and 2800 Athlons performing rather well...

    Please try not to put your foot in your mouth so far next time.
    Thats what i was thinking 2200+ is a 1.8 outperforming a 2.26...ummm thats pretty good in the performance department to me...and don't even mention the 2800+ it just ownz....
    - Damien

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    1,514

    Default

    Well you know clock speed isnt all that matters. That is a big problem nowadays. The 2200+ is supposed to be equivelent to a 2.2ghz p4. A 2800+ is supposed to be equivelent to a 2.8 P4. But they do not always hit there mark. But I would never buy a Pentium again. AMD's are by far superior.
    New Sig soon, old one was way outdated.

    :thumb:

  5. #35
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    2,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pga1234
    Well you know clock speed isnt all that matters. That is a big problem nowadays. The 2200+ is supposed to be equivelent to a 2.2ghz p4. A 2800+ is supposed to be equivelent to a 2.8 P4. But they do not always hit there mark. But I would never buy a Pentium again. AMD's are by far superior.
    Umm yea i know...:p
    - Damien

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    1,514

    Default

    I'm sure you know my post wasnt really directed towards you :P. :cry:
    New Sig soon, old one was way outdated.

    :thumb:

  7. #37
    Beefy Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pga1234
    Well you know clock speed isnt all that matters. That is a big problem nowadays. The 2200+ is supposed to be equivelent to a 2.2ghz p4. A 2800+ is supposed to be equivelent to a 2.8 P4. But they do not always hit there mark. But I would never buy a Pentium again. AMD's are by far superior.
    WRONG. It's a common misconception, but the 2200+ / 2800 + is actually not a comparison to any Intel chips. It's a comparison to the older Thunderbird chips from AMD. Due to the improvements they made on the XP range, they couldn't keep going on the old Mhz rating, because an XP would outperform a T-bird at the same clock speed... so they devised the whole + system to compare to the earlier models...

  8. #38
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    2,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pga1234
    I'm sure you know my post wasnt really directed towards you :P. :cry:
    Umm yea i know...:p

    Thats why i took out the sarcasm tongue out at you ^
    - Damien

  9. #39
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    2,489

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefy
    WRONG. It's a common misconception, but the 2200+ / 2800 + is actually not a comparison to any Intel chips. It's a comparison to the older Thunderbird chips from AMD. Due to the improvements they made on the XP range, they couldn't keep going on the old Mhz rating, because an XP would outperform a T-bird at the same clock speed... so they devised the whole + system to compare to the earlier models...
    Learn something new everyday...thx for the info Beefy:)
    - Damien

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    1,514

    Default

    But I found my info on the AMD website.... I will see if I can find the link.
    New Sig soon, old one was way outdated.

    :thumb:

Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... 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
  •