Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

WOW! $160 Athlon 64 3000+ beats $825 P4 3.2 EE in Doom 3!

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
August 8, 2004 5:56:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 21:03:28 -0400 JK <JK9821@netscape.net> meeped :

>http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=214...

how do they turn off the 60FPS cap ?
--


) ___ ______
(__/_____) /) (, / )
/ __ _ (/ _ /---( __ _/_ _
/ (_(_/ (_(__/ )_(_(_ ) / ____)(_(_/ (_(__/_)_
(______) (_/ (
Related resources
August 8, 2004 11:50:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

"Jeff B" <fake@addy.com> wrote in message
news:5GsRc.93905$8_6.87253@attbi_s04...
>
>
> JK wrote:
> > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=214...
> >
>
> This is a bit misleading. While the AMDs are at the top
> of the chart, it is only by a small margin at high resolution.
I think you missed the point - there is only a small margin in performance,
but a huge difference in price. Even if the performance was slightly worse
with the AMD, at under 20% of the price of the Intel, it's a no-brainer as
to which gives the best bang for the buck...
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
August 9, 2004 3:06:55 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

> I think you missed the point - there is only a small margin in performance,
> but a huge difference in price. Even if the performance was slightly worse
> with the AMD, at under 20% of the price of the Intel, it's a no-brainer as
> to which gives the best bang for the buck...

You're looking at the wrong comparison. I run a $140.00 P4 northy at
3.4Ghz. What competitive AMD chip is going for $28.00??

Jeff B

>
>
August 9, 2004 3:06:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

A $140 P4 at 3.4 ghz? How much did the water cooling setup cost? Even
with water cooling, many might not be able to reach that. Besides which,
one could also overclock an Athlon 64 if they are inclined to.

Jeff B wrote:

> > I think you missed the point - there is only a small margin in performance,
> > but a huge difference in price. Even if the performance was slightly worse
> > with the AMD, at under 20% of the price of the Intel, it's a no-brainer as
> > to which gives the best bang for the buck...
>
> You're looking at the wrong comparison. I run a $140.00 P4 northy at
> 3.4Ghz. What competitive AMD chip is going for $28.00??
>
> Jeff B
>
> >
> >
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
August 9, 2004 4:10:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

JK wrote:
> A $140 P4 at 3.4 ghz? How much did the water cooling setup cost?

$50.00, and it's air cooled.

Even
> with water cooling, many might not be able to reach that.

Many can and do reach that with air cooling.


Besides which,
> one could also overclock an Athlon 64 if they are inclined to.

Of course. I'm comparing an aircooled P4 to an Air cooled
AMD 64 bit. Both running at full speed, also known as 'overclocked'.
My point is, given the chart on Anands site, the numbers are pretty
close at hi res (1600x1200) for virually all 'Intel vs AMD' comparisons
one could make. The original poster singled out the freak atypical
example which of course doesn't count because nobody would
choose that one.

Jeff b
August 9, 2004 4:10:07 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Many people run games at lower resolutions to get higher frame rates. That is
not
unreasonable.

Jeff B wrote:

> JK wrote:
> > A $140 P4 at 3.4 ghz? How much did the water cooling setup cost?
>
> $50.00, and it's air cooled.
>
> Even
> > with water cooling, many might not be able to reach that.
>
> Many can and do reach that with air cooling.
>
> Besides which,
> > one could also overclock an Athlon 64 if they are inclined to.
>
> Of course. I'm comparing an aircooled P4 to an Air cooled
> AMD 64 bit. Both running at full speed, also known as 'overclocked'.
> My point is, given the chart on Anands site, the numbers are pretty
> close at hi res (1600x1200) for virually all 'Intel vs AMD' comparisons
> one could make. The original poster singled out the freak atypical
> example which of course doesn't count because nobody would
> choose that one.
>
> Jeff b
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
August 9, 2004 4:51:23 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

JK wrote:
> Many people run games at lower resolutions to get higher frame rates. That is
> not
> unreasonable.
>

And even more people want their games to look good.

Jeff B
August 9, 2004 4:51:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

That is even more of a reason to get a good cpu to use with a good
video card.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=214...

Jeff B wrote:

> JK wrote:
> > Many people run games at lower resolutions to get higher frame rates. That is
> > not
> > unreasonable.
> >
>
> And even more people want their games to look good.
>
> Jeff B
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
August 9, 2004 5:53:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

JK wrote:
> That is even more of a reason to get a good cpu to use with a good
> video card.

Like a $140-$200 Intel or AMD CPU. At hi res, where
ppl like to play, not much difference at all between the two.

Jeff B
August 9, 2004 5:53:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

Not quite. Not much difference between an $825 P4 3.2 EE and a $160
Athlon 64 3000+. Many people have an lcd monitor which only goes
up to 1280x1024 resolution.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=214...

Jeff B wrote:

> JK wrote:
> > That is even more of a reason to get a good cpu to use with a good
> > video card.
>
> Like a $140-$200 Intel or AMD CPU. At hi res, where
> ppl like to play, not much difference at all between the two.
>
> Jeff B
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
August 9, 2004 7:20:59 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

You think the 3.2 EE is a bad value? We KNOW it is a bad value. The EE
processors were flagship CPUs *designed to stay expensive*. They have been
out for, what, eight months now? Yet the prices have never fallen below
$800.

Oh well, the EE line has been discontinued anyway.

--
"War is the continuation of politics by other means.
It can therefore be said that politics is war without
bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."


"GTS" <gts123NOSPAM@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:ZtvRc.326$t_1.299@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
> I think you missed the point - there is only a small margin in
performance,
> but a huge difference in price. Even if the performance was slightly worse
> with the AMD, at under 20% of the price of the Intel, it's a no-brainer as
> to which gives the best bang for the buck...
>
>
August 9, 2004 7:21:00 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

The EE chips are probably very expensive to make due to the huge cache.
Perhaps that is why Intel plans to discontinue the 3.2 ghz P4 EE.
So far the news is that just the 3.2 EE is being discontinued.
The other P4s aren't such good values either, unless one wants
to do only video editing on the pc. I still don't understand why so
many people would spend $420 on a P4 3.4 ghz Prescott, when
they could buy an Athlon 64 3200+ at half the price.

First of One wrote:

> You think the 3.2 EE is a bad value? We KNOW it is a bad value. The EE
> processors were flagship CPUs *designed to stay expensive*. They have been
> out for, what, eight months now? Yet the prices have never fallen below
> $800.
>
> Oh well, the EE line has been discontinued anyway.
>
> --
> "War is the continuation of politics by other means.
> It can therefore be said that politics is war without
> bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed."
>
> "GTS" <gts123NOSPAM@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:ZtvRc.326$t_1.299@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
> > I think you missed the point - there is only a small margin in
> performance,
> > but a huge difference in price. Even if the performance was slightly worse
> > with the AMD, at under 20% of the price of the Intel, it's a no-brainer as
> > to which gives the best bang for the buck...
> >
> >
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
August 9, 2004 8:05:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

JK wrote:

> Not quite. Not much difference between an $825 P4 3.2 EE and a $160
> Athlon 64 3000+.

Nice half truth. At hi res, where ppl like to play, not much difference
between a $140 Intel, and a $200 AMD.

Jeff B
August 9, 2004 8:05:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

The difference might be very great. Perhaps much greater than the
difference between a $400 and a $600 video card.

Jeff B wrote:

> JK wrote:
>
> > Not quite. Not much difference between an $825 P4 3.2 EE and a $160
> > Athlon 64 3000+.
>
> Nice half truth. At hi res, where ppl like to play, not much difference
> between a $140 Intel, and a $200 AMD.
>
> Jeff B
Anonymous
a b Ý World of Warcraft
August 9, 2004 3:02:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia (More info?)

You think the 3.2 EE is a bad value? We KNOW it is a bad value. The EE
processors were flagship CPUs *designed to stay expensive*. They have been
out for, what, eight months now? Yet the prices have never fallen below
$800.

Oh well, the EE line has been discontinued anyway.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------

Nope,just the 3.2..........................................................
!