Some early benchmarks for P4EE

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11670

Ace's Hardware seems to be seeing between 2-15% improvement from the 2MB L3
cache.

Ace's will also be doing a head to head against processors from a "rival"
processor manufacturer in a couple of days, when their NDA expires. Stay
tuned.

Yousuf Khan

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
e.rogers.com...
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11670

Ace's Hardware seems to be seeing between 2-15% improvement from the 2MB
L3
cache.

Ace's will also be doing a head to head against processors from a "rival"
processor manufacturer in a couple of days, when their NDA expires. Stay
tuned.


Toms Hardware did a benchmark and the P4EE won on just about every benchmark
over the highest rated A64 (the FX or whatever it is). The P4 3.2 and the
A64 were about even on the tests though Toms hardware claimed the FX was
victorious (not sure how they came to that conclusion). It looks like Intel
has stemmed the tide for now and has time to release it's Prescott (no
reason to hurry).

"Judd" wrote in message
...

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
e.rogers.com...
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11670

Ace's Hardware seems to be seeing between 2-15% improvement from the 2MB
L3
cache.

Ace's will also be doing a head to head against processors from a
"rival"
processor manufacturer in a couple of days, when their NDA expires. Stay
tuned.


Toms Hardware did a benchmark and the P4EE won on just about every
benchmark
over the highest rated A64 (the FX or whatever it is).

Your rose-colored glasses need a new prescription: P4EE won only about 2/3
of the tests - and but for its clean sweep of the MPEG and MP3 encoding
tests would have won only about half of them.

- bill

"Bill Todd" wrote in message
...

"Judd" wrote in message
...

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
e.rogers.com...
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11670

Ace's Hardware seems to be seeing between 2-15% improvement from the
2MB
L3
cache.

Ace's will also be doing a head to head against processors from a
"rival"
processor manufacturer in a couple of days, when their NDA expires.
Stay
tuned.


Toms Hardware did a benchmark and the P4EE won on just about every
benchmark
over the highest rated A64 (the FX or whatever it is).

Your rose-colored glasses need a new prescription: P4EE won only about
2/3
of the tests - and but for its clean sweep of the MPEG and MP3 encoding
tests would have won only about half of them.


Back at it again as always, LOL. Every post I make about Intel is sure to
get a Bill Todd response crying for AMD. Truth is, Intel is competing
without Prescott and who would have thunk. Things will be interesting over
the next few months.

"Judd" wrote in message
...

"Bill Todd" wrote in message
...

"Judd" wrote in message
...

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
e.rogers.com...
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11670

Ace's Hardware seems to be seeing between 2-15% improvement from the
2MB
L3
cache.

Ace's will also be doing a head to head against processors from a
"rival"
processor manufacturer in a couple of days, when their NDA expires.
Stay
tuned.


Toms Hardware did a benchmark and the P4EE won on just about every
benchmark
over the highest rated A64 (the FX or whatever it is).

Your rose-colored glasses need a new prescription: P4EE won only about
2/3
of the tests - and but for its clean sweep of the MPEG and MP3 encoding
tests would have won only about half of them.


Back at it again as always, LOL. Every post I make about Intel is sure to
get a Bill Todd response crying for AMD. Truth is, Intel is competing
without Prescott and who would have thunk. Things will be interesting
over
the next few months.


I join with Jud in LOL. "P4EE won only about 2/3"

A "mod" on an old PCU kicking a brand new (well a discussion on its own) 1.

"Judd" wrote in message
...

Toms Hardware did a benchmark and the P4EE won on just about every
benchmark
over the highest rated A64 (the FX or whatever it is). The P4 3.2 and the
A64 were about even on the tests though Toms hardware claimed the FX was
victorious (not sure how they came to that conclusion). It looks like
Intel
has stemmed the tide for now and has time to release it's Prescott (no
reason to hurry).



You know what the great thing about benchmarks are? You can prove anything
you want to prove! For every Tom's Hardware type site that found that the
P4EE was the clear winner, there was another site such and Anandtech.com
that found AMD64 to be the winner. In the end I think the situation remains
the same... People should be buying the best processor for the job they want
it to do. And for get about stupid allegiances to particular platforms.

Carlo

"Judd" wrote in message
...

....

Back at it again as always, LOL. Every post I make about Intel is sure to
get a Bill Todd response crying for AMD.

Not if you develop any respectable level of clue in your statements (not
that this seems likely to happen, from what I've seen): while I'm certainly
inclined to ensure that Itanic's deficiencies don't go unnoticed, I'm also
fair (you can even find a vigorous defense of Itanic2 and Xeon against
inflated Opteron hype that I began on September 16th in the "New Itanium
chips cost just $744" thread) - and I have no problems at all with Intel's
IA32 architecture save for the misrepresentations that fanboys like you make
about it.

- bill

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 14:20:39 -0600, "Judd"
wrote:


"Bill Todd" wrote in message
...

"Judd" wrote in message
...

"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
e.rogers.com...
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11670

Ace's Hardware seems to be seeing between 2-15% improvement from the
2MB
L3
cache.

Ace's will also be doing a head to head against processors from a
"rival"
processor manufacturer in a couple of days, when their NDA expires.
Stay
tuned.


Toms Hardware did a benchmark and the P4EE won on just about every
benchmark
over the highest rated A64 (the FX or whatever it is).

Your rose-colored glasses need a new prescription: P4EE won only about
2/3
of the tests - and but for its clean sweep of the MPEG and MP3 encoding
tests would have won only about half of them.


Back at it again as always, LOL. Every post I make about Intel is sure to
get a Bill Todd response crying for AMD. Truth is, Intel is competing
without Prescott and who would have thunk. Things will be interesting over
the next few months.

The subject line of your post is unattractive and inaccurate character
assassination. See his lengthy response to Rob Stow on 9/16/2003
unter the thread "New Itanium chips cost just $744".

I don't get the feeling that Intel is on Bill's list of most admired
computer chip manufacturers, but I have never known him even to be
selective in his presentation of facts, never mind to distort them, as
the terms "shill" and "apologist" would lead a reader to expect.

RM

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003 10:50:07 -0600, "Judd"
wrote:
"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
le.rogers.com...
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11670

Ace's Hardware seems to be seeing between 2-15% improvement from the 2MB
L3
cache.

Ace's will also be doing a head to head against processors from a "rival"
processor manufacturer in a couple of days, when their NDA expires. Stay
tuned.


Toms Hardware did a benchmark and the P4EE won on just about every benchmark
over the highest rated A64 (the FX or whatever it is). The P4 3.2 and the
A64 were about even on the tests though Toms hardware claimed the FX was
victorious (not sure how they came to that conclusion).

I don't think anyone knows how Tom's hardware manages to come up with
some of the conclusions that they do. Mostly it seems to do with what
company happens to be giving them the red-carpet treatment and who
took Tom out to the nicest restaurant.

It looks like Intel
has stemmed the tide for now and has time to release it's Prescott (no
reason to hurry).

It seems to me that the Athlon64 3200+ and the P4 3.2C are well
matched at this time, while the Athlon64 FX 51 and the P4 EE 3.2GHz
are also about even. In each case sometimes one chip wins and
sometimes the other wins, but overall most people aren't likely to
notice the difference.

Then it just comes down to other features. I really like Intel's
Hyperthreading feature, and if you look at some multitasking tests
(always somewhat tricky to perform), the P4 almost always comes out on
top. On the other hand, AMD's 64-bit capabilities are nice and are
currently mostly unused. I've been surprised to see a number of
applications showing a good performance boost when going to 64-bits
which I had not expected. MP3 encoding, Div-X encoding and software
compression all seem like they might see a decent (greater than 10%)
boost in performance which I had not expected to see.

Personally, I see both the Athlon64 FX series and the P4EE chips as
being a waste of money. Both add a LOT to the price tag without
adding much to performance. Hmm, interesting, I just checked my
regular parts supplier (www.ncix.com, note: prices in Canadian $), and
they now list the Athlon64 3200+ as being in stock. What's more, it's
listed as being quite a bit cheaper than the 3.2GHz P4; $640 (~$450
US) for the Athlon64 vs. $998 (~$710 US) for the P4.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla underscore 20 at yahoo dot ca

I don't think anyone knows how Tom's hardware manages to come up with
some of the conclusions that they do. Mostly it seems to do with what
company happens to be giving them the red-carpet treatment and who
took Tom out to the nicest restaurant.


On a tangent not relating to the thread at all, sorry, but why do they
still call it Tom's? When was the last time anyone saw an article with
the good doctor's byline?