If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
JK wrote:
DVR wrote: Thanks for the response. Would going with the Athlon only be for $$$ reasons? In my research I've seen lots of conclusions showing P4 outperforming Athlon 2600+. One example is on Tom's hardware where the 2600+ Please don't make me laugh. There are other websites. http://www.hothardware.com/hh_files/CCAM/amd_axp_2600(3).shtml 404 http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...onxp-3000.html Wrote 2/10, months before the 800Mhz FSB intel chips were out. Lets see something recent that claims a 3200 AMD chips outperforms a 3.0-800 P4 much less deserves it's inflated rating.. http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1834 "The review community unanimously agreed that the processor was not deserving of its 3200+ rating, but none were as infuriated by AMD's model number than the folks at Intel." -- Stacey |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
I was talking about the XP2600+, and you brought up the XP3200+.
Here is another review of the XP3200+. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...onxp-3200.html I usually don't recommend that people buy the top model of processor, as the performance is usually just slightly higher than a model lower, while the price is much higher. People should consider the ratio of performance/price for the products they are considering in the applications they plan to run. Stacey wrote: JK wrote: DVR wrote: Thanks for the response. Would going with the Athlon only be for $$$ reasons? In my research I've seen lots of conclusions showing P4 outperforming Athlon 2600+. One example is on Tom's hardware where the 2600+ Please don't make me laugh. There are other websites. http://www.hothardware.com/hh_files/CCAM/amd_axp_2600(3).shtml 404 http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...onxp-3000.html Wrote 2/10, months before the 800Mhz FSB intel chips were out. Lets see something recent that claims a 3200 AMD chips outperforms a 3.0-800 P4 much less deserves it's inflated rating.. http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1834 "The review community unanimously agreed that the processor was not deserving of its 3200+ rating, but none were as infuriated by AMD's model number than the folks at Intel." -- Stacey |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
JK wrote:
I was talking about the XP2600+, and you brought up the XP3200+. Here is another review of the XP3200+. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...onxp-3200.html From your link "Nevertheless, it looks as if the upcoming announcement of the new Pentium 4 3.2GHz in June could turn the scale in Intel's favor again, unless AMD introduces faster CPUs." BTW this benchmark was done before Asus enabled PAT (+5-8%) on that board with a bios upgrade. Guess you wouldn't want to read/post reviews where they actually had an optimised Intel setup? So it appears while in some benchamrks runs like a 3.0 intel, they decided to call it a 3200+ for marketing reasons... Like I said it doesn't deserve it's 3200 rating. Interesting that in the apps it beat the P-4, the XP2400 beat the XP3200! But then you'll claim this isn't a fault with their rating system... I usually don't recommend that people buy the top model of processor, as the performance is usually just slightly higher than a model lower, while the price is much higher. And in this case higher than the better performing P4. -- Stacey |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Stacey wrote: JK wrote: I was talking about the XP2600+, and you brought up the XP3200+. Here is another review of the XP3200+. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...onxp-3200.html From your link "Nevertheless, it looks as if the upcoming announcement of the new Pentium 4 3.2GHz in June could turn the scale in Intel's favor again, unless AMD introduces faster CPUs." The Pentium 4 3.2 ghz is priced much higher than the XP3200+. The XP3200+ is priced close to the P4 3.0 ghz 800 fsb. BTW this benchmark was done before Asus enabled PAT (+5-8%) on that board with a bios upgrade. Guess you wouldn't want to read/post reviews where they actually had an optimised Intel setup? So it appears while in some benchamrks runs like a 3.0 intel, In other benchmarks it outperforms a Pentium 4 3ghz. In any case, for most people either chip probably wouldn't be a great choice, and a model or two lower at a much lower price would make much more sense. they decided to call it a 3200+ for marketing reasons... Like I said it doesn't deserve it's 3200 rating. It depends what is being run. Interesting that in the apps it beat the P-4, the XP2400 beat the XP3200! That is a 2.4 Ghz Athlon XP in the test, which is an overclocked XP3200+. But then you'll claim this isn't a fault with their rating system... No, read the article. I usually don't recommend that people buy the top model of processor, as the performance is usually just slightly higher than a model lower, while the price is much higher. And in this case higher than the better performing P4. It depends on what is being run. For math, CAD, and business applications, the XP3000+ 400 at around $260 seems to perform better than a 3.0 ghz P4 at around $400. -- Stacey |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
JK wrote:
And in this case higher than the better performing P4. It depends on what is being run. For math, CAD, and business applications, the XP3000+ 400 at around $260 seems to perform better than a 3.0 ghz P4 at around $400. So what chip would be better for Apps besides those? Like the ones the P4 excells in? An AMD? -- Stacey |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
JK wrote:
Here is another review of the XP3200+. http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu...onxp-3200.html From your link "Nevertheless, it looks as if the upcoming announcement of the new Pentium 4 3.2GHz in June could turn the scale in Intel's favor again, unless AMD introduces faster CPUs." The Pentium 4 3.2 ghz is priced much higher than the XP3200+. The XP3200+ is priced close to the P4 3.0 ghz 800 fsb. But is rated at 3200. Like I said this rating in inflated compared to what it can actually do. Even your links prove this point. Thanx! -- Stacey |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Stacey wrote: JK wrote: And in this case higher than the better performing P4. It depends on what is being run. For math, CAD, and business applications, the XP3000+ 400 at around $260 seems to perform better than a 3.0 ghz P4 at around $400. So what chip would be better for Apps besides those? For most non SSE2 software(a very small percentage of X86 software in existence even uses SSE2) an Athlon XP outperforms an Intel processor at the same price. Like the ones the P4 excells in? An AMD? -- Stacey |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 06:46:00 -0500, "Strontium"
wrote: Have you considered the importance of the video card, in this scenario? Well, I would say he has! Ti4600 is an overdose for a 1.6GHz P4. The videocard certainly isn't the bottleneck in his system. Fred stood up, at show-n-tell, and said: So I have the P4 1.6, 512 megs of DDR, geforce 4600ti, and a nice soundblaster PCI something-or-rather. What more can I do that will allow me to set everything to highest for games (ie Medal of Honor)? Get a XEON? I'd say you have a nice system. If you really aren't happy with it (?) you actually do have to think of something brutish at the core. Like dual channel DDR400 and a XP2500-XP3200 or 2.8GHz-3.2GHz. I can't think of anything simple or cheap to upgrade your system significantly. - Other than remove Win2000 and replace it with XP or good ol' 98SE, of course! ;-) ancra |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 00:51:52 -0400, Stacey wrote:
Lets see something recent that claims a 3200 AMD chips outperforms a 3.0-800 P4 much less deserves it's inflated rating.. Some standard winmark benchmark will do that nicely, I think. 6% faster, actually. Unreal Tournament also runs faster, faster than the 3.2-800 as well, FYI. But that is beside the point, as the 3.06 and 3.2 really does have the edge on many modern apps and most modern benchmarks. Not much of an edge, but the P4 _IS_ faster. ...on that. Now for the $64000 question: How many P4-code-optimized apps do you have, and rely on heavily? How many do you intend to buy before replacing your current computer? Because the P4 really sucks bigtime on oldfashioned 386/387 apps! But Ok, games are the main performance concern, for most of us, and the P4 does well on that. http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1834 "The review community unanimously agreed that the processor was not deserving of its 3200+ rating, but none were as infuriated by AMD's model number than the folks at Intel. That citation is part of an argumentative article that doesn't offer any testresults that actually support the expressed opinions. Some claims, in the article, are also quite off mark as well. Such as the statement that the 'Northwood' core has meant that the P4 is more competitive. That's largely nonsens. Northwood is only slightly more efficient than the Willamette. What has happened since the Northwood release, is that the benchmark collections, used in comparisions, have changed. Changed to emphasize streaming instructions, and have also been recompiled for P4 code optimisation. Since the P4 is quite good at that, of course it shows up better. Another thing that also has happend, is that Intel has got into DDR RAM. With a vengeance, certainly. But that only has a real impact on performance some of the time. Not always. Religions have little to do with God and the real world. Benchmarks are like that too. Have people all worked up and full of righteousness. (Just lok at me now, for example. ;-)) - And have little to do with actual application performance or the real world. IMO. In the history of computing there has never been a computer/CPU architecture that has been as consistently overrated by benchmarks, as the P4. So I wouldn't have any respect at all for Intel's regards for others benchmarks. That doesn't mean the P4 is always slow. But it's performance on exclusively P4-code-optimized, streaming-instructions-only type of app benchmarks, doesn't really reflect on its relative performance in other circumstances. I have been fooled twice. I have acquired two P4's. Both have been dissapointments (I have Athlons to compare with). I got the second one after reading benchmarks on extremetech and Toms hardwork. I swallowed that Northwood number. Since then I've read benchmarks more carefully. In particular I've noticed that extremetech and Toms hardwork have gradually removed all benchmarks where the P4 made a poor showing. Replacing them with others, recompiled by Intel for the P4. They have made some argument why that is supposed to be 'fair'. I'll not get into that. My point is that I and most others tend to gloss over such details, and end up with a 'big picture' that is misleading in terms of what kind of relative performance we can expect on our usual crop of software. Intels P4 seem always to "have the edge" with some testing crowds. Problem is, about the same time the 3.06 "clearly had an edge" over the 3000+ at extremetech. PCW threw a bunch of apps at a few systems. The 3.06HT rated in behind the slowest participating Athlon, 2600+. Higher end Athlons mostly being 20 -30% faster. I don't have any experience with fast P4's, my fastest is a 2.4GHz. But the above does match my experience of extremetechs 'benchmarks', P4's and Athlons. I don't believe in HT, I don't believe in 800FSB, I don't believe in extremetech, I don't believe in the P4 anymore. No matter what some testers cook up. The P4 is lightningfast on some things. The Athlon is more honest, it crunch code all the time. I have a relative who works for Intel. He's biased of course - he works with the Itanium - but he would vomit all over the P4- "folks at Intel" and their benchmarks. and their claims of P4 performance. ancra |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Yeah, I agree I'll have to spend some cash. I'm already running XP. I did
upgrade the video drivers to the Nvidia Detonator FX latest build and that bumped benchmarking scores up considerably, and made a current game I'm playing run and look a lot better...pretty amazing how just a driver change did that. For now, I'm going to screw around with overclocking the CPU even though I don't expect much speed gain from it. Maybe I'll deal with the whole motherboard/cpu/ram upgrade thing in a few months when P4 2.4ghz+ get cheaper. "Ancra" wrote in message ... On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 06:46:00 -0500, "Strontium" wrote: Have you considered the importance of the video card, in this scenario? Well, I would say he has! Ti4600 is an overdose for a 1.6GHz P4. The videocard certainly isn't the bottleneck in his system. Fred stood up, at show-n-tell, and said: So I have the P4 1.6, 512 megs of DDR, geforce 4600ti, and a nice soundblaster PCI something-or-rather. What more can I do that will allow me to set everything to highest for games (ie Medal of Honor)? Get a XEON? I'd say you have a nice system. If you really aren't happy with it (?) you actually do have to think of something brutish at the core. Like dual channel DDR400 and a XP2500-XP3200 or 2.8GHz-3.2GHz. I can't think of anything simple or cheap to upgrade your system significantly. - Other than remove Win2000 and replace it with XP or good ol' 98SE, of course! ;-) ancra |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Geforce 6800 drivers | Glitch | General | 3 | December 13th 04 09:30 AM |
Performance Comparison: Nvidia Fx 5200 or GeForce 4 Ti 4200 | Falcon1209 | General | 13 | October 30th 04 02:26 AM |
Elsa Geforce 256 64 Megs AGP Any Good? | [email protected] | General | 1 | February 4th 04 06:06 PM |
ASUS GeForce FX 9950 Overclocking question... | gogulo | Overclocking | 3 | October 13th 03 06:54 PM |
Agp 4x, MSI K7T (6330) Lite, Geforce 2 GTS PRO | kcirevam | Overclocking AMD Processors | 0 | August 4th 03 05:50 AM |