Please report all spam threads, posts and suspicious members. We receive spam notifications and will take immediate action!
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: AMD equivelant to p4 2.4ghz c




  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    790

    Default

    Well, I was reading one from back in the day (when the 3.2Ghz Intel came out) and a stock 2.4C seems to be between an XP 3000+ and an XP 3200+ stock. I looked of the test set up just to be sure it was fair (tomshardware screws up royally at times), and it seems to be. Anyways, check it out: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030623/index.html . : peace2: Mista K6
    Modified Dell 8200 Case:
    -400MHz FSB i850 Intel mobo
    -P4 Williamette Socket 478, 1.9GHz
    -768MB 16-bit PC800 RDRAM
    -MSI GF4 Ti4200 128MB @ 284/581
    -7200 RPM Maxtors: 60GB (2MB) on mobo and 160GB (8MB) on ATA/133 PCI Card
    -Creative Inspire T7700 7.1 Speaker System on an Audigy 2
    -Windows XP Home Edition SP2

    Rock on : peace2: , MiStA K6

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    1,599

    Default

    Wow, well its been a while since I've seen any processor benchmarks. It appears that AMD is loosing substantial ground on Intel... I'm curious though because it doesn't appear that any of Toms hardware benchmarks are taking in to account 64 Bit mode.

    That makes those benchmarks pretty un-reliable right? Because he needs an OS that is 64 Bit compatable, AND a benchmarking program that utilizes it as well.

    So maybe AMD hasn't lost any ground.

    What do you guys think? (Note I didn't look at the page too closely, I could be wrong)
    "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

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    New England Highlands, Australia
    Posts
    21,907

    Default

    In actual fact Tom is in a bit of bother over his A64 vs. P4 comparisons as they don't reflect what has been reported by other sites so don't take his findings as gospel.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mista K6
    Well, I was reading one from back in the day (when the 3.2Ghz Intel came out) and a stock 2.4C seems to be between an XP 3000+ and an XP 3200+ stock. I looked of the test set up just to be sure it was fair (tomshardware screws up royally at times), and it seems to be. Anyways, check it out: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030623/index.html . : peace2: Mista K6
    Tom's Intel results are always a bit bloated compared to the AMD results. Actually, the AMD results are a bit lacking to be specific. Ignore them.
    [b]Wow, well its been a while since I've seen any processor benchmarks. It appears that AMD is loosing substantial ground on Intel... I'm curious though because it doesn't appear that any of Toms hardware benchmarks are taking in to account 64 Bit mode.
    AMD has not lost any ground, rather gained.

    The new A64 processors are what I would call the fastest desktop CPU in the world right now. Intel has a lot of heat being put on them to bring out a faster chip.

    And they run 32 bit mode right here, right now, just fine.

    FX5900 - 3DMark2001 [20,566] - 3DMark2003 [7,281] - Aquamark3 [56,694]
    Ti4400 - 3DMark2001 [16,028]

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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
  •