Anandtech-- in bed with Intel?!

On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 07:47:26 -0700, Fishface wrote:

Gee, I wonder who is on the sh*t end of the stick.

I just read the "review" of the P4 3.2. It is interesting what
AMD did with the PR numbers, however it seems to me
that the benchmarks chosen strongly favor the P4. Video
encoding on the "fastest" setting with no audio?! What is
that, a simple demonstration of SSE2? It just shows how
the P4 can do not much really fast.

He does show the general usage benchmark which shows even the 2600+ beats
the 3.2G P4. But if one is running SSE2 optimized software, they should
see better results with the P4, until the Athlon 64 comes out. I think it
supports SSE2 also.

--
Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.html

Wes Newell wrote:
He does show the general usage benchmark which shows even
the 2600+ beats the 3.2G P4. But if one is running SSE2 optimized
software, they should see better results with the P4, until the Athlon
64 comes out. I think it supports SSE2 also.

Yes. I thought the Athlons were edging-out the P4 in encoding
applications and 3d rendering, but suddenly not...

"jaster" wrote in message gy.com...
"LeeB18509" wrote in message
.. .

"jaster" wrote in message
.com...

"Fishface" ? wrote in message
...
Wes Newell wrote:
He does show the general usage benchmark which shows even
the 2600+ beats the 3.2G P4. But if one is running SSE2 optimized
software, they should see better results with the P4, until the
Athlon
64 comes out. I think it supports SSE2 also.

Yes. I thought the Athlons were edging-out the P4 in encoding
applications and 3d rendering, but suddenly not...



Tomshardware did a comparison of top non-OC cpus and P4s trash AMDs.
XP3200s run about P4 2.4-2.8 level on most of the standard tests. I
think
AMDs did their best scores on the rendering but still just below the P4
2.8s.


http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,110923,00.asp

And PC World finds the opposite, go figure.


Yes they did but you'll notice PC World only referenced 2 non-standard tests
and in the one standard test (UT3) P4s ruled. Tomshardware
(http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030623/index.html) used a battery of
tests for application, OpenGL, Direct3D, etc. So which would you believe?

I don't believe everyting I read. :-)
I know I wish I had access to all the applications that THG runs to
compare, I don't. But I wonder why the top score in 3dMark03 is less
than 5000? I have a stock 9700Pro and an 2400+ that gets over 5000.
I would think a P4 3.2 would be an upgrade? Maybe it's the months old
drivers they're using for the AMD setup. Or maybe the memory timings
are loose as a goose. Doesn't say. There's plenty of ways to skew
benchmarks which seem to be "on the level".

I'll go with what Wes said, but I swear they need help setting up
their AMD systems over at THG. They're supposed to be "experts"?
Always lower than average scores.....JMHO.

"Lee" wrote in message
om...
"jaster" wrote in message
gy.com...
"LeeB18509" wrote in message
.. .

"jaster" wrote in message
.com...

"Fishface" ? wrote in message
...
Wes Newell wrote:
He does show the general usage benchmark which shows even
the 2600+ beats the 3.2G P4. But if one is running SSE2
optimized
software, they should see better results with the P4, until the
Athlon
64 comes out. I think it supports SSE2 also.

Yes. I thought the Athlons were edging-out the P4 in encoding
applications and 3d rendering, but suddenly not...



Tomshardware did a comparison of top non-OC cpus and P4s trash AMDs.
XP3200s run about P4 2.4-2.8 level on most of the standard tests.
I
think
AMDs did their best scores on the rendering but still just below the
P4
2.8s.


http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,110923,00.asp

And PC World finds the opposite, go figure.


Yes they did but you'll notice PC World only referenced 2 non-standard
tests
and in the one standard test (UT3) P4s ruled. Tomshardware
(http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030623/index.html) used a battery of
tests for application, OpenGL, Direct3D, etc. So which would you
believe?

I don't believe everyting I read. :-)

True.

I know I wish I had access to all the applications that THG runs to
compare, I don't. But I wonder why the top score in 3dMark03 is less
than 5000? I have a stock 9700Pro and an 2400+ that gets over 5000.
I would think a P4 3.2 would be an upgrade? Maybe it's the months old
drivers they're using for the AMD setup. Or maybe the memory timings
are loose as a goose. Doesn't say. There's plenty of ways to skew
benchmarks which seem to be "on the level".

I found 2 different articles in THG where the test numbers are exactly the
same yet in one THG stated a device (XP-TMS) had improved performance based
upon the scores. With a bit of tweaking my system's Sandra/Aida32 scores
are finally close to the comparison scores for listed for my system. Were
your 3dMark03 scores over 5000 for 1024x768x32?


I'll go with what Wes said, but I swear they need help setting up
their AMD systems over at THG. They're supposed to be "experts"?
Always lower than average scores.....JMHO.