Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 93

Thread: amd vs intel article




  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cameron Johnson
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Cameron Johnson
    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!
    DAS

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    3,141

    Default

    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:

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by The__tweaker
    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.
    DAS

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    4

    Default

    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.
    I have an old piece of crap PC that hopefully will get replaced before my 3 year old graduates from High School.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rkane
    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?
    DAS

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    4

    Default

    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.
    I have an old piece of crap PC that hopefully will get replaced before my 3 year old graduates from High School.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    13

    Default

    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...
    if truth is relative, then is it absolutely true that it is relative?

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    3,141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rkane
    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..

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

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

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shad0hawK
    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:


  10. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    4

    Default

    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.

Page 2 of 10 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
  •