p4 2.8 Lookin good.(official article thread here)

[Matisaro]

Comments on the new article should go here I suppose.


one glaring flaw so far.

GeForce 4 Ti 4600 (MSI MS-8872) Version: 2.00
Memory: 64 MB DDR-SDRAM
Memory Clock: 650 MHz
Chip Clock: 300 MHz


NIce 64 meg ti4600 there frank.

The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Matisaro on 08/25/02 11:01 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Matisaro]

grasshappa
"jeez.... Intel loves waiting for the right times dont they... They knew...they knew 2600+ XP was coming out. They can afford to wait since they have the fastest chip out there. But not AMD, AMD needs to get out his chips to be a bit more competitive. and just as we thought AMD got the throne... BAM! INTEL STRIKES BACK! Although we knew the new intel's were coming out soon, it was obviously not coincidence that it came out just a few days after AMD's flagship cpu's...Intel saw, came, and conquered. But some of the AMD overclocked chips didnt do bad...but I feel bad for AMD for having such a hard time...It happens every time.
But after all, price/performance crown goes to AMD... but still.... Its gonna be very hard for AMD. IMO, the only way that AMD can take over is as soon as Intel delays something or makes a mistake...that will be the AMD's chance to truly take the crown (at least for a few months) OR AMD comes out with something UBER COOL. We will see

Comments? Feelings? Let it all out here brother...

real philosophy of life: "do onto others what you dont want them do onto you" "

The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark

 

[Matisaro]

Grasshoppa the 2.8ghz release was planned for some time before amd releasaed the 2600+

The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark

 

[grassapa]

"Although we knew the new intel's were coming out soon, it was obviously not coincidence that it came out just a few days after AMD's flagship cpu's..."

matisaro, you love to fight and compete dont you? you even bothered writing "(official article thread here)" so people would write in your thread instead of mine. Lol thats completely cool with me. i dont care. btw, intel planned to release it around this time, but i dont think they specified the EXACT date. have fun, try not to get mad this time. and yes, your thread is THE OFFICIAL ARTICLE THREAD.

btw, i didnt write what u quoted me in this thread, i wrote it in my own thread, so why didnt you reply on my thread? did you want to find some excuse to write something so your post bumps above mine?....lol

real philosophy of life: "do onto others what you dont want them do onto you"

 

[castle]

I decided to support grassapa's thread.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by castle on 08/26/02 02:35 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[Matisaro]

matisaro, you love to fight and compete dont you? you even bothered writing "(official article thread here)" so people would write in your thread instead of mine. Lol thats completely cool with me. i dont care. btw, intel planned to release it around this time, but i dont think they specified the EXACT date. have fun, try not to get mad this time. and yes, your thread is THE OFFICIAL ARTICLE THREAD.

This thread was posted first, I saw your thread and moved your post here to prevent a splitting of discussion, I added the official thread title to ensure people didnt split up posting.

If your thread had been first and I posted, I would have deleted this thread and posted in your thread, sadly you do not show the same courtesy.

It has nothing to do with me being competitve, and you thinking that just shows how insecure you are.

This thread was first, yours was second, we dont need multiple threads on the same subject, live with it.

The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark

 

[Matisaro]

castle

Maybe this is a little harsh, but: it was well known that Intel would announce 2.8G around or before Sept 1, but T-Bred 2600+ was a real surprise to everyone. It is therefore pretty clear that AMD tried to steal some thunder from Intel, not the other way around. It is also obvious to me that AMD paper launched 2600+ 5 days before a real announment of P4 2.8G so as not to be embarassed by Intel's 1G lead ahead itself: P4 2800- AXP 2200+ (1800M) =1G.

Look poeple we DONT NEED 2 THREADS ON THE SAME SUBJECT, I MOVED GRASSHAPPAS POST HERE BECAUSE THIS THREAD WAS THE FIRST MADE, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME JESUS.

The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark

 

[grassapa]

calm down matisaro....everything is all right. we have different opinions so we need 2 different threads. Its ok matisaro...i am such a bastard, i have no courtesy. bad bad bad, i should go confess

real philosophy of life: "do onto others what you dont want them do onto you"

 

[Matisaro]

calm down matisaro....everything is all right. we have different opinions so we need 2 different threads. Its ok matisaro...i am such a bastard, i have no courtesy. bad bad bad, i should go confess

Dude what the hell is your problem man, I made a thread for discussing the article, then later you made a copy thread, we have enough multiple thread problems in this forum as it is, so as service I moved your content to this thread to harbor fair discussion.

and you throw a hissy fit, check the times posted, your copycat post does not belong, im sorry but if it was the other way around I would delete my post, this has nothing to do with me, but its about the community!

YOu need to seriously calm down and stop being so confrontational.

The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark

 

[Matisaro]

Back on topic, the 2600+ was a huge surprise to everyone, the 2800 date has been out for months, I agree with castle that amd released the 2600 on purpose to mess with intel, not vice versa.

The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark

 

[grassapa]

matisaro, i didnt copy your thread because i was writing it at the same time you were...except mine was longer and it took me longer to write. plus we dont talk about the same stuff. so they are different threads

mine was posted at 1:31 and yours was posted at 1:30. check it for yourself.

real philosophy of life: "do onto others what you dont want them do onto you"

 

[Matisaro]

They were not different threads, both are commentary on the new article, if you check your thg history you will see fatburger began the tradition of creating a single official thread for each new article, this thread(which was genenrally the first posted) got to bear the title official.

mine was posted first, and your thread while having a different initial post is the same thread, which is why I helped out and moved all content to the first thread to start conversation.

we are getting off topic, just discuss the article, if you want to make a competing thread thats your right, you are only cluttering the forum though.


The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark

 

[Matisaro]

Grasshoppa

you are right on the customer (which is most of us) side point of view. but you gotta know that sometimes release dates can change quickly. intel's chip was scheduled around or before sept 1. thats true, but they didnt specify EXACTly what day. that gives intel a little room to work for. Intel is not dumb, so they had their ways to know what day the 2600+ XP was going to released. IMO, i dont think AMD would dare steal thunder from intel b/c AMD knows that Intel can just beat them (in this case, 2800mhz). AMD has no other option but to release earlier. Remember, All this is my opinion so im not trying to start an argument. but because I have seen this (AMD vs Intel) (ATI vs NVIDIA) this kind of stuff happens a lot (where the powerful waits for the weak to release first) I concluded that Intel did the same again. Again, i might be wrong but you gotta admit that intel has done it before, and IT could be a possiblity that he did it again. We will never know what intel and amd knows about each company and "REAL" release dates. I dont think matisaro appreciated your retirement from his thread because his is the "ORIGINAL ARTICLE THREAD" but you made the right choice.

Good post, however the last bit was laughable, you are just trying to cause argument because you were so thoroughly schooled in our 8500 versus 4200 debate, thats fine.

Please dont let your anger at me personally disrupt the forum grasshoppa.


On topic, yes both companies make it a habit to release things to screw eachother up, but your assertion intel released the 2800 to screw up the 2600+ is wacky because the 2.8ghz release has been planned for some months on this date while the 2600+ was a complete surprise to everyone.(even intel I would imagine).

If anything, castles assterion amd released the 2600+ to screw with the 2.8gha launch is more valid and more logical.

The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark

 

[chuck232]

Goddammit people!! It's a thread for god's sake! Now instead of bashing for which is better, R8500 or Ti4200, now we have to bash which thread was first... blah, blah, blah... There were planty of threads for the same thing. Post whereever you want, but this is just getting childish. It's like kids playing on swings..."But I called them first"... Just stop. Turn this thread around into a normal comments on the P4 2.8GHz!

Well, what I think:
He still makes it sound as though the XP2600+ wallops the 2.53GHz, although his wording isn't as strong, therefore giving me the feeling that he's gotten commentary on his previous review of XP2600+. As we can see, the XP3400+ doesn't really even reach P4 2.8GHz levels sometimes, and rarely beats the 2.9-3GHz o/cs. Also, IIRC, the XP3400+ was 2.8GHz and not 2.66GHz.

<i>Past mistakes may make you look stupid, but avoiding future ones will make you look smart!</i>

 

[AMD_Man]

Also, IIRC, the XP3400+ was 2.8GHz and not 2.66GHz.

No, the Athlon XP 3400+ would be 2.66GHz because 2.13GHz (2600+) + 66.66 * 8 (3400-2600=800) = 2.66GHz.

Anyway, there will not be a Athlon XP 3400+ T-Bred. The 3400+ will either be a Barton or a ClawHammer.

Anyway, I'm not surprised that I was right that Intel will need a bit more voltage at 2.8GHz and above:

With the previous variants of the Pentium 4 (up to 2533 MHz), the core voltage remained constant at 1.500 Volt. It's a different picture with the new CPUs with higher clock speeds: the P4/2800 requires a voltage of 1.525 Volt - that's an increase of 0.025 Volt. This fact alone leads to the conclusion that Intel wants to automatically guarantee better results by increasing the core voltage by 1.6%. It shouldn't be a problem for the motherboards to adapt to this, since the voltage values are contained in the CPU as data, and this is automatically read and adjusted by the motherboard logic.

Remember when the Inquirer said that there were issues with the P4 2.8GHz+ under WinXP or something. Everyone thought it was a software problem, but I felt the P4 will just need slightly more voltage to remain stable at 2.8GHz or higher.

BTW, I just found out that the P4 2.8GHz isn't merely a faster P4. It has significantly higher IPC in some cases. This is from HardOCP:

Editor's Note:
I love it when our readers know more than we do (which happens a lot). Although this has not been fully confirmed, the contributor is very much on the right track and this is surely information you will want to have if you are buying a Pentium 4 with hopes of overclocking it.

Several notes/comments on your article.

According to your article, there is nothing really new with the new P4 2.8GHz. There are a few other changes, as Aceshardware will report later in the day.

The 2.8 is the first P4 to use the new C1 stepping, as you can see with CPUID. Moreover, look at the L1 cache info under CPUID (and compare it to the older P4 processors), and you'll see that Intel doubled the number of entries in the instruction TLB. If I recall correctly, AMD did something like this with the move from the Thunderbird to the Palomino.

Some have said this change was made to aid in future versions of the 2.8 that may have Hyperthreading enabled, but apparently this may also improve performance for certain other types of operations. Certainly, this seems the case from a few of your benchmarks, where scaling exceeds the 2.8/2.53=10.5% that should be the theoretical maximum, given no changes other than increased clock.

In Serious Sam, you saw a 23+% improvement with the 2.8 over the 2.53; in Commanche 4, you saw a 11.5% improvement; in Jedi Knight II, you saw a 13% improvement. In each case, the improvement exceeded the 10.5% theoretical maximum assuming simply an increased clock. Other sites/reviewers also found a 16% improvement in TMPGEnc, a 25% improvement in SuperPI, and a 29% improvement in PovRay. You might want to make note of this in your review, for anyone buying a P4 will want to make sure they get the new C1 stepping.

Intelligence is not merely the wealth of knowledge but the sum of perception, wisdom, and knowledge.

 

[Cooj]

There are a bunch of whiney kids in both threads.

I'm not going to post disucssion material in either. Hope someone else starts a new thread.

Cooj

I am ignorant no more!

 

[slvr_phoenix]

Alrighty then. Here by my comments:
<b>1)</b> Thread redundancy is not exactly going to end the world.

<b>2)</b> If the threads were time stamped a whole one minute apart in a server that has at times taken (as far as I've seen) <b>up to seventeen minutes</b> to store a post, then for all intents and purposes they were started at the same time.

<b>3)</b> It annoys me that they <i>still</i> suggest that the AXP 2600+ beats out the P4 2.53 when in fact the <b>majority</b> of benchmarks showed otherwise. I still even stand by my opinion that the P4 2.4GHz with PC1066 is equal to an AXP 2600+ with DDR333. Sure, they each have their niches where they kick each other's arse, but they also level out quite equally against each other in the end, I think.

<b>4)</b> At least the simple fact that no one in their right mind could consider the P4 2.8GHz as losing to the AXP 2600+ mitigates #3.

<b>5)</b> grassapa, no offense, but you're clueless. Plain and simple. AMD would most definately try to steal thunder from Intel because frankly, it's the only thunder they really have at the moment. I guess to them, anything is better than nothing. To me though, it's just playing into the hands of fanboys and no one else.

It went like this: Intel planned on releasing the 2.8GHz for months. AMD <b>did</b> try to steal Intel's thunder with a pre-emptive strike using their 2600+. Their production wasn't up to an official release yet, so they did the generally disgusting thing of making a paper launch.

And it worked. The <A HREF="http://www.amdmb.com" target="_new">AMD fanboy posterchildren</A> still think that AMD is the best. However, for those who actually face reality, nothing changed. Intel is still kicking AMD's arse in performance.

AMD knew that those who had a grip on reality wouldn't be affected one way or the other. They also knew however that they could rile up their fanboys into a rabid seething mass, and so they did.

Powers and Presences only know why AMD is so intent on marketting specifically to their lapdogs instead of actually trying to, oh, compete. Still, that is AMD's current plan, and they're exceeding everyone's expectations at their skill in continuing the insanity.

<b>6)</b>Matisaro, the AXP 2600+ was <i>not</i> a huge surprise to everyone. There had been long speculation that AMD was having some sort of problems with their Thoroughbred core. Further, with the rather clock-speed-limited launches of the Thoroughbred and then subsequent lack of any more launches, there was further speculation by those who still liked AMD that a massive core revision was being developed. Most figured that core revision would actually first make it's appearance in Barton. Most figured that would happen just before the launch of the P4 3GHz to stun and amaze us. A rare few however hoped that AMD would somehow managed to surprise us all either just before or just after (depending on how good their new core's performance actually was to either beat the 2.53 or the 2.8) the official 2.8 launch.

Admittedly, I was one of the majority of these hopefuls that figured AMD would use a core-revision to release a Barton at 3000+ in the coming months. However, that still left the AXP 2600+ paper launch as virtually no surprise to me, nor to several of my friends.

<b>7)</b> The thought of a 3400+ Barton still leaves much in doubt though. Will AMD continue to use the same clockspeed scale? Or will they account for the performance increase that Barton's extra cache will bring? After all, the PR system is <i>supposedly</i> based on the performance to a T-Bird. So by this (admittedly very unbelievable) logic, then it's the overall performance that determines the rating, <i>not</i> the clockspeed. And thus the Barton <i>should</i> have a lower clock speed at the same PR of a Thoroughbred.

Should AMD neglect this simple logic, then it would undoubtedly disprove their whole ratings basis and give yet more proof that AMD is just after your money like everyone else and is more than happy to tell bald-faced lies to customers (that is the job of marketting after all) if it will make them feel better.

<b>8)</b>I've actually been impressed that Intel hasn't gone to yet another new socket yet. Even with a minor voltage increase, they're still staying put. It makes me wonder if the P4 really will remain in the same socket until Prescott.

<b>9)</b>The doubled L1 cache of the 2.8 is very interesting. It makes me wonder just how many advances Prescott really will have now if Intel is already slipping core revisions like this into Northwood. Before you know it, the P4 might actually have a better IPC than an Athlon. (Ha! Then again, maybe not. Can you believe that I even thought that for a second? What is the world coming to...)

<b>10)</b>I think it's time I went and checked the temperature readings from various places in Hell. I think it's a good time to start watching for a cold front moving in...

<pre><A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/comic/186.htm" target="_new"><font color=red>It's all relative...</font color=red></A></pre><p>

 

[JPWRana]

hehe... u tell them pheonix!!!

oh yeah... and stop fightin u 2 (mati and grass). Mati, you do your own threads and let grass do his own threads. if he doesn't like you copying his threads, then don't do it again!!! It's as simple as that!!

The greatest risk of all is not taking one!

 

[AMD_Man]

Alrighty then. Here by my comments:

Alrighty then. Here is my Rebuttal :tongue: :

1) Thread redundancy is not exactly going to end the world.

EXACTLY!!

2) If the threads were time stamped a whole one minute apart in a server that has at times taken (as far as I've seen) up to seventeen minutes to store a post, then for all intents and purposes they were started at the same time.

Possibly, but who cares who posted first?

[/quote]

The Athlon XP 2600+ is neck and neck with the Pentium 4 2.53GHz. Just because the P4 is ahead in a couple of games, and bandwidth hungry apps, doesn't mean it wins the majority of benchmarks. More apps exist out there that take advantage of the Athlon's FPU advantage than the P4's bandwidth advantage. The Athlon XP will constantly win in FPU intensive apps and lose in bandwidth intensive apps. Games are less important factors because at higher resolutions, the graphics card is almost always the bottleneck. It's really a matter of personal judgement really. Both processors excel but in different fields. You can't say the P4 2.53GHz is faster than the Athlon XP 2600+ in the same way you can't say that a physicist is smarter overall than a medical doctor. It's really up to you to decide which you prefer based on the benchmarks. Most sites look to the typical power user's use to compare each processors. Obviously many of these review sites view the Athlon XP 2600+ as the better processor for people who fit the "power user" or "gaming user" category. Of course, there's also the audiophile or videophile and business/office user, etc.

4) At least the simple fact that no one in their right mind could consider the P4 2.8GHz as losing to the AXP 2600+ mitigates #3.

Can't argue with that.

5) grassapa, no offense, but you're clueless. Plain and simple. AMD would most definately try to steal thunder from Intel because frankly, it's the only thunder they really have at the moment. I guess to them, anything is better than nothing. To me though, it's just playing into the hands of fanboys and no one else.

It went like this: Intel planned on releasing the 2.8GHz for months. AMD did try to steal Intel's thunder with a pre-emptive strike using their 2600+. Their production wasn't up to an official release yet, so they did the generally disgusting thing of making a paper launch.

And it worked. The AMD fanboy posterchildren still think that AMD is the best. However, for those who actually face reality, nothing changed. Intel is still kicking AMD's arse in performance.

AMD knew that those who had a grip on reality wouldn't be affected one way or the other. They also knew however that they could rile up their fanboys into a rabid seething mass, and so they did.

Powers and Presences only know why AMD is so intent on marketting specifically to their lapdogs instead of actually trying to, oh, compete. Still, that is AMD's current plan, and they're exceeding everyone's expectations at their skill in continuing the insanity.

AMD doesn't care if they don't always have the top of the line processor, they're close enough to continue to be considered producers of high-end processors.

6)Matisaro, the AXP 2600+ was not a huge surprise to everyone. There had been long speculation that AMD was having some sort of problems with their Thoroughbred core. Further, with the rather clock-speed-limited launches of the Thoroughbred and then subsequent lack of any more launches, there was further speculation by those who still liked AMD that a massive core revision was being developed. Most figured that core revision would actually first make it's appearance in Barton. Most figured that would happen just before the launch of the P4 3GHz to stun and amaze us. A rare few however hoped that AMD would somehow managed to surprise us all either just before or just after (depending on how good their new core's performance actually was to either beat the 2.53 or the 2.8) the official 2.8 launch.

Admittedly, I was one of the majority of these hopefuls that figured AMD would use a core-revision to release a Barton at 3000+ in the coming months. However, that still left the AXP 2600+ paper launch as virtually no surprise to me, nor to several of my friends.

It didn't really surprise me either.

7) The thought of a 3400+ Barton still leaves much in doubt though. Will AMD continue to use the same clockspeed scale? Or will they account for the performance increase that Barton's extra cache will bring? After all, the PR system is supposedly based on the performance to a T-Bird. So by this (admittedly very unbelievable) logic, then it's the overall performance that determines the rating, not the clockspeed. And thus the Barton should have a lower clock speed at the same PR of a Thoroughbred.

Should AMD neglect this simple logic, then it would undoubtedly disprove their whole ratings basis and give yet more proof that AMD is just after your money like everyone else and is more than happy to tell bald-faced lies to customers (that is the job of marketting after all) if it will make them feel better.

I disagree. The overclocked "Athlon XP 3400+" performs rather poorly for it's rating. AMD needs the extra 256KB cache to just maintain a decently accurate PR rating.

8)I've actually been impressed that Intel hasn't gone to yet another new socket yet. Even with a minor voltage increase, they're still staying put. It makes me wonder if the P4 really will remain in the same socket until Prescott.

Keeping the same socket is rather useless if the 3GHz P4 might not be compatible with many (if not all) current motherboards.

9)The doubled L1 cache of the 2.8 is very interesting. It makes me wonder just how many advances Prescott really will have now if Intel is already slipping core revisions like this into Northwood. Before you know it, the P4 might actually have a better IPC than an Athlon. (Ha! Then again, maybe not. Can you believe that I even thought that for a second? What is the world coming to...)

Hehe, it might just happen right before the launch of the Hammer with the introduction of Hyperthreading on the 3GHz P4. AMD is lossing IPC while Intel is gaining IPC, at the moment.

10)I think it's time I went and checked the temperature readings from various places in Hell. I think it's a good time to start watching for a cold front moving in...

I'm sorry but I have no idea what you're saying here.








Intelligence is not merely the wealth of knowledge but the sum of perception, wisdom, and knowledge.

 

[AmdMELTDOWN]

first of all, you are not "OFFICIAL" of anything, why are you trying to fool the new members into thinking that?

btw, your AMDsuperfanboy (Van smith) is a wanker.

"<b>AMD/VIA!</b>...you are <i>still</i> the weakest link, good bye!"

 

[buddry]

lol

<font color=blue>Unofficial Forum Cop</font color=blue>

 

[bront]

I'm impressed how the price of a P4 2.4 and 2.533 went up over $200 since the Athlon 2600+ article.

The Boogie Knights: Saving beautiful monsters from ravoning princesses since 1983.

 

[bront]

3) It annoys me that they still suggest that the AXP 2600+ beats out the P4 2.53 when in fact the majority of benchmarks showed otherwise. I still even stand by my opinion that the P4 2.4GHz with PC1066 is equal to an AXP 2600+ with DDR333. Sure, they each have their niches where they kick each other's arse, but they also level out quite equally against each other in the end, I think.

Human nature prefers to belive what it wants to belive dispite the truth being out in front of it.

Intel planned on releasing the 2.8GHz for months. AMD did try to steal Intel's thunder with a pre-emptive strike using their 2600+.

That's what I thought immediately at the release. I could point to the GPU industry where ATI and Nvidia do the same thing (Driver releases to preempt product releases, spec "leaks", ect). It shouldn't suprise anyone that it would happen in the CPU industry.

Should AMD neglect this simple logic, then it would undoubtedly disprove their whole ratings basis and give yet more proof that AMD is just after your money like everyone else and is more than happy to tell bald-faced lies to customers (that is the job of marketting after all) if it will make them feel better.

What most people seem to forget in their AMD love fest is that AMD is in fact a company that is trying to make money. The PR rating is a publicity move to help to market their CPUs better, no matter what else they may say. I find it hard to believe they're doing it simply for the "Good of the Industry".

9)The doubled L1 cache of the 2.8 is very interesting. It makes me wonder just how many advances Prescott really will have now if Intel is already slipping core revisions like this into Northwood. Before you know it, the P4 might actually have a better IPC than an Athlon.

If that happens, Prescot could simply be a second tier P4 release like the NW instead of the new P5. As for the IPC, I seriously doubt that simply because of the sheer wall they'd have to climb, but stranger things have happened.

The Boogie Knights: Saving beautiful monsters from ravoning princesses since 1983.

 

[slvr_phoenix]

Possibly, but who cares who posted first?

Well, in theory it has meaning if you care about keeping the forum all neat and tidy. Since I've never seen that happen in <i>any</i> forum, THGC or otherwise, I don't think it has much meaning. Which is my point, that simply no one cares.

The Athlon XP 2600+ is neck and neck with the Pentium 4 2.53GHz. Just because the P4 is ahead in a couple of games, and bandwidth hungry apps, doesn't mean it wins the majority of benchmarks. More apps exist out there that take advantage of the Athlon's FPU advantage than the P4's bandwidth advantage. The Athlon XP will constantly win in FPU intensive apps and lose in bandwidth intensive apps.

I disagree. For every app that you can find an Athlon having an advantage from their FPU, you can find two apps that have the P4 showing an advantage for it's bandwidth and SSE2. That's been my experience so far anyway.

Moreover, the P4 2.4GHz actually scores a lot closer (yet usually still higher) to the AXP 2600+ than the P4 2.53 does. So my general opinion is that this is where the point of equality lies. Sure for some apps one or the other will do better, but I think that the 2.4GHz is the general point where they balance each other out, not the 2.53GHz.

At least when using PC1066. When using PC800 or DDR333, then it's the 2.53 if not even the 2.66.

Obviously many of these review sites view the Athlon XP 2600+ as the better processor for people who fit the "power user" or "gaming user" category.

The funny thing is, the majority of 'recent' games would benefit more from a P4 than an Athlon. It's only really serious 3D rendering that's highly FPU intensive where the Athlon has a real shine. And even that is slipping these days.

AMD doesn't care if they don't always have the top of the line processor, they're close enough to continue to be considered producers of high-end processors.

I agree in that AMD doesn't care if they <i>always</i> have the top of the line processor. However, they do push hard to jump slightly higher, even if only for a short time, and lately even if only on paper. It's the only way AMD can keep from losing it's fanboys who might drift off if someone could finally prove without a doubt that Intel is faster.

I disagree. The overclocked "Athlon XP 3400+" performs rather poorly for it's rating. AMD needs the extra 256KB cache to just maintain a decently accurate PR rating.

**ROFL** That's a good point. The AXP does seem to rather be losing IPC lately instead of actually gaining on it like the P4 is. At this rate, AMD's AXPs might actually perform on par with an equally-clocked T-Bird soon. Wouldn't that be funny...

Keeping the same socket is rather useless if the 3GHz P4 might not be compatible with many (if not all) current motherboards.

Tell that to AMD!

:O

Heh heh. I couldn't resist poking that bit-o-fun at AMD, especially in light of their ever-changing heat sink requirements and old mobos that won't support new AMD chips either.

Seriously though, I think you underestimate the importance that it could have. If, say, I were able to purchase a new mobo that supported a 3+ GHz CPU, but could place, say, a Celeron 1.7GHz into it until I could actually <i>afford</i> a 3+ GHz CPU, then it has considerable value to me. Especially if it were to also be able to support a Prescott CPU...

Hehe, it might just happen right before the launch of the Hammer with the introduction of Hyperthreading on the 3GHz P4. AMD is lossing IPC while Intel is gaining IPC, at the moment.

While it is sad that it took Intel so long, it is nice to see Intel at least finally working seriously on their IPC.

In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

10)I think it's time I went and checked the temperature readings from various places in Hell. I think it's a good time to start watching for a cold front moving in...

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

I'm sorry but I have no idea what you're saying here.

I'm saying that Hell might just be about to freeze over. Imagine a world where Intel has a better IPC than AMD, where AMD is manipulating benchmarks to show their CPUs in a better-than-realistic light, and where AMD forces consumers into a single memory type while Intel offers choice.

<pre><A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/comic/186.htm" target="_new"><font color=red>It's all relative...</font color=red></A></pre><p>

 

[bront]

I do have to commend Intel. Unlike what AMD has done by generaly sitting on the core design and doing very little to it other than to reduce heat output to allow for higher clockspeeds, Intel has made marked improvements in their CPUs over the life of the core. The current P4 is so drasticly different from the origional P4, and it looks like it may continue to evolve.

The Boogie Knights: Saving beautiful monsters from ravoning princesses since 1983.