Bye bye AMD

zmike6 wrote:

Also, at least on Tom's
site the many of the benchmarks show a P4EE at 3.4 and 3.6 ghz,
(apparently overclocked as it's announced as a 3.2 gig part) while
running the Athlon FX at standard clockspeed.

I noticed that out of all the review sites that I read,
Tom's Hardware is the only one to put the P4EE
ahead of the Athlon 64 FX-51. But like I said
earlier, when it comes to AMD, I take THG reviews
with a grain of salt. Especially since for the past
year, several of his editorials were basically AMD
and AMD fan bashing.

I mean, why do several different review sites
including Aces Hardware, which I consider very
neutral in terms of AMD/Intel (or Apple/Sun for
that matter) bias and Anandtech (which is
headed by the same guy that contributes to
a great portion of the print magazine CPU) put
AMD 64 FX-51 ahead but THG review is soaking
in negativity about AMD's latest?

"Toby Groves" wrote:

KCB writes:

What are you talking about "...the P4EE beats the A64 in most
benchmarks..."? I just got done reading this report at techreport.com and
then I come read this and wonder where do you get your information?

Take a look at THG. They ran more benchmarks than I've ever seen, and
the P4EE won most of them, at least in it's 3.6Ghz incarnation. I
notice the site you mention only used the 3.2Ghz variant.

As I suspected, you refer to THG, the only one of
the reviews I've read that have been negative about
the Athlon 64 and 64 FX-51.

THG is biased. You only have to read the last of
his several editorials to know.

And what 3.6Ghz P4EE? That's an overclocked
part. One of the other review sites overclocked
the FX-51 some and that put the AMD chip even
further ahead.

Even if you want to use results from a biased
site using an overclocked chip, guess what? The
THG review still puts the 64 FX-51 ahead in 15
of the benchmarks. A 2.2Ghz chip defeating a
3.6Ghz chip in 15 benchmarks. If THAT is not
impressive, what is?

"Toby Groves" wrote in message
news
In article , James
Paraskeva writes
you'll notice the A64 running at between 1.6-2.2Ghz the Althon64 ramp up
much better than the current crop and will get faster quicker than their
K7
ancestors...

I don't see why. It's produced on the same 130nm process as the T-Bred,
and they haven't got that much above 2.2Ghz yet. Granted some of us
have got them up to 2.4Ghz, but that's a far cry from AMD producing
large quantities that will do that speed at sensible voltages.
--
Toby

It's not all about core speed
Intel says it is..
Intel funded reviewsites say it is..
Make your own mind up..
lets wait until these systems acutally start hitting the market and the
users will be able to tell the truth

I jumped ship to Pentium for my own personal PC at home recently out of pure
frustration.
I still have AthlonXP's at my office desk and for my kids (they got my older
computer).

I was running an AthlonXP at 2.4 GHz with a 210 mhz fsb. I struggled to get
it to do that. I had to do that Northbridge voltage trick and pump up the
VCore to more then 2.05v. Extreme measures with extreme cooling. Performance
was good, very good but the system was a tad quirky and not as smooth as I
was hoping for. I tried a VIA KT400 at a friends and it was less favorable.
Why can't AMD make its own kick-ass chip sets?

I bought a P4 2.6C which has a 13X multiplier on a Intel 875P chipset. Out
of the box and with hardly a bump in voltage the CPU is running at 3.3GHz
with a 255 mhz fsb. With Hyper Threading enabled the system is not just a
little faster then my 2.4GHz AMD, it is very much faster and its also allot
smoother. Actually it blows the AMD away in all respects. My gaming
performance jumped to over 40% higher frame rates too. That's something.

On a side note: I just built a dual AthlonMP 2200+ system on a MSI/AMD
mainboard with (2) 200GB RAID-1 arrays (400GB of system and storage for
backups), 3Com Server NIC's, Antec Server case and PSU, CDRW and a Seagate
Travan Tape drive for under $2000usd. About a year ago I built a Dual Xeon
system with 2.2Ghz chips, a single mirror array at 120Gb and a single
removable 120Gb HD for archiving, Enermax case and redundant-PSU, CDRW and a
Seagate Travan Tape drive for about $3500usd.

The AthlonMP system is a tremendous value.



"Toby Groves" wrote in message
...
Well having read the reviews of the Athlon 64 & FX today, I have to say
I think AMD are toast

From a performance perspective, the P4EE beats the A64 in most
benchmarks in 32-bit at least, and as 64-bit is total pie-in-the-sky at
present, this is really all that matters.

The A64 is going to be expensive too, as it's costly for AMD to produce.
In this situation, I can't really see why the guy in the street is going
to go for AMD over Intel.

If, and it's a big if, 64-bit turns out to be a winner, then it would
now appear that Intel have hedged their bets and built the Yamhill
extensions into the P4. They obviously don't want to advertise this to
the world, as it will practically kill off the Itanium, but it's there
if they need it.

So basically, AMD's latest and greatest processor fails to even beat the
latest iteration of Intel's old P4, never mind Prescott. Intel will
produce Prescott on a 90nm process using 300mm wafers, whilst AMD are
stuck with 130nm on 200mm wafers and a bloody huge 192mm2 die, meaning
their costs are stratospheric by comparison. AMD don't anticipate
moving to 90nm until the middle of 2004. Not only will this keep the
cost of the Hammer series high, but I suspect it may prevent them from
ramping the speed up much either. By mid-2004, Prescott will be up to
the 4Ghz range, leaving A64 and AFX well behind.

I've been a fan of AMD for a while now, but I'm forced to admit that if
I were buying or upgrading now, I'd be spending money on Intel kit.
--
Toby

The Athlon 64 FX-51 is now the highest
performing desktop x86 CPU you can buy.

Unless, of course, you're doing audio or video encoding,
or using it for Seti@home.

Then the P4 kicks it's butt.

AMD REALLY needs to work on their cache to speed things up.


What?
Seti@Home
What?
Go back and rethink that statment
HUGE Numbercrunching by a 64 bit processor is slower than a 32 bit processor
Go back and rethink that statment

In article , rstlne
?.?@?.? writes
It's not all about core speed
Intel says it is..
Intel funded reviewsites say it is..
Make your own mind up..

I'm perfectly capable, as is anyone on this group, of seeing through
Intel hype. Unfortunately the average punter isn't. I think AMD are
hoping that customers will see the "64" and think they must have that,
in much the same way as Intel have been selling P4s purely off the back
of the raw Mhz speed.

lets wait until these systems acutally start hitting the market and the
users will be able to tell the truth

I'm afraid I don't have your faith in the average consumer.
--
Toby

In article , Supertimer
writes
As I suspected, you refer to THG, the only one of
the reviews I've read that have been negative about
the Athlon 64 and 64 FX-51.

THG is biased. You only have to read the last of
his several editorials to know.

Whether or not he's biased, the benchmarks would seem to speak for
themselves.

And what 3.6Ghz P4EE? That's an overclocked
part. One of the other review sites overclocked
the FX-51 some and that put the AMD chip even
further ahead.

I have since wondered whether the 3.6Ghz was in fact an overclocked CPU,
as at the time of reading I assumed it was a released product. I don't
remember the review stating this, if indeed it was the case, which is
extremely naughty.

Even if you want to use results from a biased
site using an overclocked chip, guess what? The
THG review still puts the 64 FX-51 ahead in 15
of the benchmarks. A 2.2Ghz chip defeating a
3.6Ghz chip in 15 benchmarks. If THAT is not
impressive, what is?

Sorry, but the relative speeds have absolutely sod all to do with
anything, it's the prices that matter, and everything I've read suggests
the A64 is going to be expensive, at least by AXP standards. How it
will compare with the P4 and P4EE remains to be seen.

If you had two cars of equal price, one with a 2.2L engine and one with
a 3.6L, but of similar performance, then you'd no doubt say that the
engineers of the 2.2L car did a hell of a good job (or those of the 3.6L
a bad one), but the fact remains that they cost the same and perform the
same, so the engine sizes matter little.
--
Toby

In article , rstlne
?.?@?.? writes
The Athlon 64 FX-51 is now the highest
performing desktop x86 CPU you can buy.

Unless, of course, you're doing audio or video encoding,
or using it for Seti@home.

Then the P4 kicks it's butt.

AMD REALLY needs to work on their cache to speed things up.


What?
Seti@Home
What?
Go back and rethink that statment
HUGE Numbercrunching by a 64 bit processor is slower than a 32 bit processor
Go back and rethink that statment

A 64 bit processor running 32 bit code in that instance. It would seem
you're just the kind of gullible customer AMD wants, blinded by science.
--
Toby

On Wed, 24 Sep 2003 19:04:09 +0000, Toby Groves wrote:

I have since wondered whether the 3.6Ghz was in fact an overclocked CPU,
as at the time of reading I assumed it was a released product. I don't
remember the review stating this, if indeed it was the case, which is
extremely naughty.

As of the time of the article, the P4 3.2 EE hadn't even been released
yet. And I still don't think it's been released. The 3.2 was the only
reven announced so anythuing over that speed is an overclock. He
represents this with darker colored bars in the benchmarks. BTW, I don't
really care which one wins, I won't be buying one anytime soon anyway.:-)

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

"Toby Groves" wrote in message
...
In article , rstlne
?.?@?.? writes
The Athlon 64 FX-51 is now the highest
performing desktop x86 CPU you can buy.

Unless, of course, you're doing audio or video encoding,
or using it for Seti@home.

Then the P4 kicks it's butt.

AMD REALLY needs to work on their cache to speed things up.


What?
Seti@Home
What?
Go back and rethink that statment
HUGE Numbercrunching by a 64 bit processor is slower than a 32 bit
processor
Go back and rethink that statment

A 64 bit processor running 32 bit code in that instance. It would seem
you're just the kind of gullible customer AMD wants, blinded by science.
--
Toby

Nope,
SETI has been released for more than the x86 series of processors OMG DID
YOU KNOW THAT
WOW
****
DAMN
DA DA DA DA DAMMMN..
I would expect Seti@Home to release a version for x86 based 64bit
platforms..

That aside, seti@home is going to run faster on this processor IT JUST DAMN
WELL WILL..