Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Speed Comparisons

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 16, 2003 8:49:15 AM

Could someone please help me. Im looking at buying a PC and need someway of testing the relevent parts. The first component I'm looking at is the CPU but I can't gauge what's better a P4 3.06GHZ, A P4 3.00GHZ or a AMD 3200+.

If I compare the 3.06 vs 3200+, the 3200+ seems to be the winner (which is locical). Yet....the P4 3.0Ghz seems to be on PAR with the 3200+ (if possible a little faster). So which benchmark should I use to compare all of the CPUs?

Is AMD right to stick to a format that shows relative performence against previous CPUs or should AMD now downgrade all of their CPUs to be 200-300 lower.

I for one would prefare AMD to lose their PR rating but for AMD,Cyrix(is that Via), transmeta and INTEL to adopt an open standard of CPU ratings.

So back to my original Question. What should I buy and WHY should I buy it based on any CPU manufactorers Timings?

More about : speed comparisons

May 16, 2003 9:08:41 AM

first off unless you absoulutely have a need for these top end processors then get one slightly lower down the performance curve. currently the best performer is the p4 3200mhz with 800mhz fsb. this is very expensive however.
bear in mind that there is more to a computer than the processor.. make sure you get the best motherboard you can decent ram etc.
amd are currently king of the low- mid range systems when it comes to price vs performance. an axp2400 on an nforce2 motherboard with dual channel ddr will beat anything else in the same price range..
but if you absolutely need to have the best system available then it has to be intel as they rule the high end at the moment
May 16, 2003 10:13:37 AM

Recently Intel has been winning not only in the performance sector, but also in the price sector. The P4 3.0 with mainboard is actually a little cheaper (or sometimes equal in price) than the Athlon XP 3200+. What's more, the P4 3.0 is the fastest of them both, not by that much but still a little faster. Thus, my recommendation is, if you want top-of-the-line then go with the P4 3.0. Or maybe wait a few days until Intel releases the 3.2. By then, you will have another extremely fast CPU to choose between, or if that is too expensive, then maybe prices will drop on the 3.0, making that excellent choice a bit cheaper. Hold out 'til May 21.

You're absolutely right about the PR. I used to prefer AMD's products and marketing, but nowadays I don't know. AMD has been really decietful lately. Sad but true.


My system: AMD Athlon XP 3000+ CPU / TwinMOS 1Gb DDR400 / Soltek 75FRN-RL /
Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro / Antec True Power 550W / Maxtor 80Gb ATA-133 / Hercules GTXP SC /
Samsung DVD / Lite-On CDRW<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by sabbath1 on 05/16/03 06:15 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
Related resources
May 16, 2003 1:27:48 PM

Once the "C" versions of lower-clocked P4s come out, Intel will have an interesting choice of processors with 800Mhz. You can then choose between 2.4C, 2.6C, 2.8C, 3.0C and 3.2C...

Anyway, I wouldn´t get the 3200+ because it´s terribly overrated. For what it has to offer, it costs waaay too much.
May 16, 2003 1:55:10 PM

Power for price the 800 3.0 P4 is the winner by a long shot... it is only marginally more expensive than the 533 3.06 P4 and both obliterate a 3000/3200 amd. If you go amd get a KT600 or a nForce2 Rev 2 board, and if you go intel the only good option now is the i875p based boards.

Shadus
May 16, 2003 1:55:34 PM

I agree. These P4 CPU's comes with a nice price as well, competing with AMD in the mid-end sector as well. Actually, to counter the 2.4C, the AMD equivalent is the XP2600+, no longer the 2400+. The 2.6C looks to be competing against the XP2700+ or even 2800+. The 2.8C is competing against the XP3000+. Intel is looking to take over the mid-end to high-end Desktop sector for sure. Looking at these comparisons, AMD's PR Rating looks even more stupid. AMD may need something to make up for the MHz deficit, but not this. I just don't buy it anymore...

The XP3200+ is according to AMD, "the World's Highest Performing PC Processor". When we know that the real truth is that it can't even beat the P4 3.0. WHEN it costs more than the 3.0. AND it's rated at "3200+".
I'm sick and tired of this bullshit. Not even Intel is claiming to have the fastest product of the market. AMD doesn't seem to care at all about me and all the other owners of their products.


My system: AMD Athlon XP 3000+ CPU / TwinMOS 1Gb DDR400 / Soltek 75FRN-RL /
Sapphire Radeon 9800 Pro / Antec True Power 550W / Maxtor 80Gb ATA-133 / Hercules GTXP SC /
Samsung DVD / Lite-On CDRW
May 17, 2003 3:03:09 AM

Your right about AMD being way over rated. The 2.4c looks like the way to go for Ocing. But!!! they are all great chips for the money.
May 17, 2003 4:38:19 AM

Quote:
If I compare the 3.06 vs 3200+, the 3200+ seems to be the winner (which is locical). Yet....the P4 3.0Ghz seems to be on PAR with the 3200+ (if possible a little faster).


Were you drunk when you crowned the 3200+ as the faster one?!!

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden. :smile:
May 17, 2003 4:38:57 AM

I read that the P4 Prescott (1MB Cache) will be out in the 4th quarter of this year. Is it worth the wait (and cost)?
May 17, 2003 2:14:33 PM

I think the Prescott CPU is well worth it. Because it is designed to compete against A64, I think Intel will use some interesting weapons in their arsenal - so to speak. Doubled caches, improved HT, and redesigned core - things will become very interesting if this transition is as much of a benefit as the Willie-Northwood transition was. Sounds good, huh? But the best thing about it is that it can be used on a Canterwood/Springdale mobo, which is already out. So those are very upgradeable! And you don´t really have to wait, as is the case with A64. You can get a good Canterwood mobo and use a 2.4C or something until Q4... And you can then upgrade as you see fit... :cool:
May 17, 2003 5:53:43 PM

Will the Canterwood/Springdale mobo allow me to take advantage of not only the next cpu, but the 4-6GHz Prescotts comming down the pipe?

I don't know the differences between the various chips in the 2.4(a-z) - 3.0 varities. Is there a price/feature comparison guide?
May 17, 2003 9:39:25 PM

Quote:
Will the Canterwood/Springdale mobo allow me to take advantage of not only the next cpu, but the 4-6GHz Prescotts comming down the pipe?

The last I heard was the early prescotts would be Socket 478 thus it is assumed that they would be compatible with Canterwood/Springdale. And the later prescotts would be socket T. Not compatible with Canterwood/Springdale.
May 17, 2003 10:24:47 PM

Those indexes are related to the FSB speed. 2.x(A-Z) is generically this:
<b>"A"s mean 400Mhz FSB</b>, and then the clock is usually an integer multiple of 100Mhz, like 20x100=2000Mhz
<b>"B"s mean 533Mhz FSB</b>, and then the clock is usually an integer multiple of 133Mhz, like 20x133=2660Mhz, or 23x133=3059Mhz.
<b>"C"s mean 800Mhz FSB</b>, and then the clock is usually an integer multiple of 200Mhz, like 15x200=3000Mhz or 16x200=3200Mhz. This last one works only on Canterwood or Springdale, or OCed mobos.
Quite understandably, similarly-clocked CPUs will cost you more, the higher the FSB speed. So "C" is the most expensive of them all.
May 18, 2003 12:12:43 AM

Ok seriously am I the only one here who found that the guy who posted this thread actually claimed the 3200 was tied in with the 3GHZ? Is he a bloke or not?!

--
This post is brought to you by Eden, on a Via Eden, in the garden of Eden. :smile:
May 18, 2003 12:16:26 AM

He must've obtained his info from AMDZone or someplace like that, because the 3200+ will barely be competitive with the 2.8C when it comes out.


<font color=green>The Netherlands is where you go when you're too good for heaven.</font color=green> :tongue:
May 18, 2003 12:24:57 AM

You mentioned the 2.4C processor, yet I can't seem to find reference to it for sourcing. Can you tell me more?

Also, wich Canterwood/Springdale board would you recommend? Do they come with combo 4x/8x APG slots?

Finally, Prof133 says later Prescotts will not be compatable with the one's being released now. Any idea where the cutoff will be?

If the 3.0 is the last one, I would consider that cpu now. If a 4.0 will still be compatable, I would consider a less costly cpu now so an upgrade would be worthwhile later.
May 18, 2003 1:45:11 AM

Quote:
You mentioned the 2.4C processor, yet I can't seem to find reference to it for sourcing. Can you tell me more?

Runs at 2.4GHz. Features the new 800MHz FSB. Features hyperthreading. Requires 800MHz FSB supporting motherboard (Canterwood or Springdale, for example).

Quote:
Also, wich Canterwood/Springdale board would you recommend?

I recommend you go with a canterwood board. Abit IC7 and IC7-G are the early favorites here at THG. The basic difference between them is IC7 has no LAN and IC7-G has LAN. So, for IC7 you would need a PCI LAN card if you need one and don't already have one. IC7 has Serial ATA connectors but IC7-G has more serial ATA connectors.
Quote:
Do they come with combo 4x/8x APG slots?

Yes.
Quote:
Finally, Prof133 says later Prescotts will not be compatable with the one's being released now. Any idea where the cutoff will be?

No official information on that.
Quote:
If the 3.0C is the last one, I would consider that cpu now.

A 3.2C (800MHz FSB/Hyperthreading) processor should be available shortly. So, 3.0C isn't the last one.
Quote:
If a 4.0 will still be compatable, I would consider a less costly cpu now so an upgrade would be worthwhile later.

I would guess that Intel would've moved to another socket before they reach 4GHz.
May 18, 2003 3:37:11 AM

I don't know. Maybe he is a bloke. No way Xp3200+ will beat 3.0c.
May 20, 2003 2:25:02 AM

I read Part 1 of the 10 board review on the THG home page today and it wasn't flattering at all of the Abit IC7-G mobo. The benchmarks showed it trailing the others except for audio/video, and the reviewer said:

"In a nutshell: overclockers will definitely be disappointed by this board, as the performance is clearly below expectations. You can't run a RAM module with maximum timings." The top benchmark performer was the Asus.

I'm definately into stability as my top priority and don't intend to overclock, but I'm still unsure of the Abit. That could be because I don't grasp the significance of the different performance levels between the boards.

After reading the review, do you still recommend the Abit over the Asus (or any other) mobo?
May 20, 2003 4:31:54 AM

AMD is better than intel as they eat apples, not pears!
Yes, the comparison is that dumb.
Each performs better at certain things.
Besides, only a fool would buy the absolute fastest... exponentially more expensive than the next speed grade down and within a month or so it will have depreciated in value, ALOT.

<b>Friend of Fredi and his Cables. :smile: </b>
a b à CPUs
May 20, 2003 4:48:57 AM

The IC7 series has a weird memory timing thing, where you get faster timings by changing the baseline CPU speed. Anyway, their are workarounds, you lie to the BIOS and tell it your 800 bus CPU was really a 533 bus version, and set it at 800 anyway, then set the fastest memory timings, and you get them. There is a VERY long thread at www.abxzone.com about it.

If you know the workaround, the IC7 seems like a decent board at a great price. I can understand why Tom's staff wouldn't think you should have to know these things, it would have been outside the realm of the short article. So they trashed the board in that article instead. In fact, they most likely used the default setting, simply because that's what most users would do (not knowing differently) to get those poor benchmark results.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>
May 20, 2003 11:37:10 AM

Who let the Hamster out, cmhere you little runt! *runs after*

--
If I could see the Matrix, I'd tell you I am only seeing 0s inside your head! :tongue:
May 20, 2003 11:50:30 PM

Thanks Prof133, I read the reviews and one of them even made reference to Abit having released an updated bios to fix the memory thing. I'm convinced that the Abit IC7 will do the job.

Thanks for your help and patience.
May 20, 2003 11:53:07 PM

Thanks Crashman, I hope one of these threads has the magic settings if the manual isn't clear. I've built a couple but only with default settings.
!