Athlon 64 vs Pentium 4

JK wrote:

Overclocking is not recommended if you want a stable system.
Overclocking also tends to reduce the life of the processor, and
might require expensive water cooling to overclock by large margin.

You mean I might have to throw these two Celeron 600's that have been
faithfully running at 900Mhz for over four years away soon?

Even if you're right, it don't bother me none. If I was running them at 600
I would have got rid of them ages ago anyway as they'd be too slow for what
I use them for now.

BTW, I'm using the original Intel HSF's on them.
--
~misfit~

JK wrote:
kony wrote:

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 22:18:12 -0400, JK
wrote:

Overclocking is not recommended if you want a stable system.

Nonsense
There are instable o'c systems but instable non-o'c systems too.

If someone is ignorant of how to o'c, then of course they
shouldn't... same goes for driving a car but it's not an argument
against someone else driving a car.

It is an argument for not driving a car above the speed limit.

Your analogy is flawed. OCing a CPU, if being compared to a car, isn't like
breaking the speed limit, it's like hotting it up. You know, big bore
exhaust, high compression heads, Nox (NO2) kit, increase bore/stroke,
turbocharging, balance the crankshaft/pistons/con rods. That sort of thing.
Getting more performance out of it.

The analogy of breaking the speed limit is just plain wrong, and intended to
support your luddite views. Create a climate of fear. Next you're going to
say that people who overclock their CPUs are known to have a tendancy to
write virus' and trojans and look at p0rn.
--
~misfit~

My CPU is only mildly o/c'ed, I only look at soft porn, and I don't have any
trojans.

Fitz

sorry- couldn't resist

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 19:17:28 -0400, "Moderately Confused"
wrote:


"Stephen Gordon" wrote in message
...
Hi,

I had a look at those benchmarks and it seems as soon as you put the
resolution up the Athlon 64s drop nearly 20fps while the Intel ones seem
to drop a much smaller amount.

This seems to indicate that the Athlon 64s don't perform very well when
you put them under any real pressure.

-Steve

Bingo, I said that in another post. He ended up disputing something else I
said...


AS much as I hate to agree with JK, it is true that this is an
indication of video card bottlenecks, not CPU performance.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 19:14:23 -0400, "Moderately Confused"
wrote:


http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=1

Stop comparing apples to oranges. You can't compare a 64 bit processor to a
32 bit processor. It's like comparing the gas mileage in an electric hybrid
car and a regular combustion engine. When Intel comes out with their own 64
bit processor, than you can start with the whole benchmark thing.

Reread the linked article, 64 bit is irrelevant as it wasn't
doing anything 64 bit. It is true that eventually Intel will
also have higher performance CPUs, but then so will AMD... world
keeps spinning...

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:KmySc.241247$%_6.26923@attbi_s01...
"Moderately Confused" wrote...

Stop comparing apples to oranges. You can't compare a 64 bit processor
to
a
32 bit processor. It's like comparing the gas mileage in an electric
hybrid
car and a regular combustion engine.

Actually, it is fair to compare the Athlon 64 to the Pentium 4 when both
are
marketed to the Win32 market as the 'latest' in high-performance
processors
for home use.

Also, the OP cited 2 similarly priced variants.

Also, why can't you compare gas mileage in the Civic gas to the Civic
hybrid, or any other comparable car?

Ok, maybe that was a bad example, but why compare something that shouldn't
be compared that way? Of course 64 bit is going to be better than 32 bit.
Maybe it's like comparing a screwdriver to a cordless drill?

MC

"kony" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 19:14:23 -0400, "Moderately Confused"
wrote:


http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=1

Stop comparing apples to oranges. You can't compare a 64 bit processor
to a
32 bit processor. It's like comparing the gas mileage in an electric
hybrid
car and a regular combustion engine. When Intel comes out with their own
64
bit processor, than you can start with the whole benchmark thing.

Reread the linked article, 64 bit is irrelevant as it wasn't
doing anything 64 bit. It is true that eventually Intel will
also have higher performance CPUs, but then so will AMD... world
keeps spinning...

Still, the 64 bit processor will out perform the 32 bit one, although it
will be a minor performance increase. My problem isn't with AMD, it's the
"proof" of JK's claims. Sure, AMD 64 might be better in Business Winstone,
but it's only one piece of software. Whoop-de-doo, it out performs Intel in
Doom3, which I heard sucks anyway. All of his "arguments" are based on two
links.

MC

Moderately Confused wrote:

"John R Weiss" wrote in message
news:KmySc.241247$%_6.26923@attbi_s01...
"Moderately Confused" wrote...

Stop comparing apples to oranges. You can't compare a 64 bit processor
to
a
32 bit processor. It's like comparing the gas mileage in an electric
hybrid
car and a regular combustion engine.

Actually, it is fair to compare the Athlon 64 to the Pentium 4 when both
are
marketed to the Win32 market as the 'latest' in high-performance
processors
for home use.

Also, the OP cited 2 similarly priced variants.

Also, why can't you compare gas mileage in the Civic gas to the Civic
hybrid, or any other comparable car?

Ok, maybe that was a bad example, but why compare something that shouldn't
be compared that way? Of course 64 bit is going to be better than 32 bit.

The benchmarks in the article are done with 32 bit software and a 32 bit OS.
It isn't necessarily the case that a cpu that has a 64 bit mode will outperform
comparably priced 32 bit processors running 32 bit software. For the Athlon 64
it happens to be true though.


Maybe it's like comparing a screwdriver to a cordless drill?

Not quite. Think of the Athlon 64 chips as being like a car that is
a convertible that can be used with the top up or the top down.
The Athlon 64 has two modes, 32 bit or 64 bit. The 64 bit mode
is with the use of a 64 bit OS, while the 32 bit mode is with a
32 bit OS. In the 32 bit mode, only 32 bit software can be run.
In the 64 bit mode, 64 bit or 32 bit software or both side
by side can be run.



MC

kony wrote:


AS much as I hate to agree with JK, it is true that this is an
indication of video card bottlenecks, not CPU performance.


As I;ve already pointed out elsewhere in the thread in that case what's
the point of spending so much on a fast CPU if you can't possibly get a
GFX card to match it?

-Steve

Stephen Gordon wrote:

kony wrote:



AS much as I hate to agree with JK, it is true that this is an
indication of video card bottlenecks, not CPU performance.


As I;ve already pointed out elsewhere in the thread in that case what's
the point of spending so much on a fast CPU if you can't possibly get a
GFX card to match it?

-Steve

I suspect there may be uses for PCs other than playing games.