Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Comparison P4 3.2, P4 3.2 EE, A64, A64FX, Barton

Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 22, 2003 11:23:24 AM

Hi to everybody,

I know that tomorrow we will have a lot of articles about performance of all these CPU, but you can start by looking at <A HREF="http://translate.google.com/translate?sourceid=navclien..." target="_new">THIS</A>, I find it in Anandtech.

It has been translated by google, but there is also the original link.

Tell me your opinion, but A64 doesn't seem as "P4 crushing" as lot of people say ... nice for sure, but will not bash all the competition.


Still looking for a <b>good online retailer</b> in Spain :frown:
September 22, 2003 11:59:03 AM

No, it won't. Things might change a bit as 64 bit software support matures... And the 2MB cache on the P4EE <i>does</i> make a difference...

Anyway, in games, they only used Quake and UT... which is a bit lame. UT always likes AMD... They should have put more games in the mix...

But I think it's best if we wait it out and see some other reviews before jumping to conclusions.

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
September 22, 2003 12:03:19 PM

I was just glancing through it before I dropped by here. Google does a decent job most of them time, but then you get interesting sentances like "One did not believe any more INTEL capable of a sudden start of last minute of the kind. However, the mammoth of Santa Clara, obviously aggravated by the spine in the foot baptized "Athlon 64 FX", A reacts violently." I need a little more time to absorb all that. :)  Seriously though, it won some, it lost some and that was about what we expected. Some programs just won't allow a processor to give up 1GHz and have a hope to be the best, and others, like science programs, we know liked AMD and appear to still. If I had any of the chips that were tested though, I would be using them for games and there's just not quite enough there in the artical for me to make a final evaluation on that. Still, both the FX and the EE beat my ol' xp 1800 black and blue.
Related resources
September 22, 2003 2:12:55 PM

eh...i don't want to bash in and all but...the author was using ECC DDR-333 on the A64-Fx and the opteron.

---
If you go to work and your name is on the door, you're rich. If your name is on your desk, you're middle class. If your name is on your shirt, you're poor!
September 22, 2003 2:12:59 PM

******....********
---
If you go to work and your name is on the door, you're rich. If your name is on your desk, you're middle class. If your name is on your shirt, you're poor!
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by pirox on 09/22/03 10:13 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
September 22, 2003 3:16:20 PM

That's because the current socket must use ECC, which BTW COSTS MORE. That is a severe disadvantage to the FX, as its price is already gonna be steep, and now you need registered memory.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</b></font color=blue></A>
September 22, 2003 3:17:39 PM

Agreed, P4 EE makes a big difference in fact. They were able to narrow the gap by quite a margin. Notice especially the Q3 results. Man that gained a lot.

This is a performance race, and Intel definitely is trying to get the crown to stay there.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</b></font color=blue></A>
September 22, 2003 3:25:12 PM

It's true that we can't draw much from the gaming aspect, but I found they had enough results to make the conclusion on the multimedia side. Sorry to say but it is terrible. In some cases, such as KribiBench, the P4 is almost 2x faster. In many other areas it also rules it. Except for POV-RAY, where the Athlon rightfully had its place.

Gaming-wise, if I were to speak only for UT, I'd say the P4 EE definitely made whatever gaming lead the FX touted, to be rather slim.
I did find the 64-bit conversion MINIGZIP thing to be interesting. That was pretty odd, and made me wonder just what did they meant by using 64-bit. Is it the extra registers? The addressing space? The Integer usage? And if so, what required 64-bit integers in there?

In that review, I'd say each time the A64 is behind, it is by a large margin, and when the P4 is, it's by 10% at most.
I hope tommorow's THG results reveal some better figures, because to me, I just wasn't impressed.


And that site seems to really have a lot of freebies. I mean, they get the FX51, the 3200+ A64, the P4 EE and even the AppleBred which no one had news when it'd come out. Though the AppleBred really isn't much. At 2.2GHZ it falls behind significantly, and gains the appropriate title of a Duron.

Anyways, here's to hoping competition stirs. I'm a bit pessimistic right now though. I don't know if the "This quarter is gonna have the most exciting battle ever" expression makes sense anymore, we know it for sure, the A64 is NOT a K7 on the PIII, it simply won't triumph. Sad to see, because it would've been nice to see the AMD engineers work extremely hard and get out something that literally rapes the competition apart.
"sigh", times change, really.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</b></font color=blue></A>
September 22, 2003 3:37:36 PM

but the p4 EE od'd to 3.6, but I wonder how they were cooling and I think it mentioned an unlocked multiplyer. but damn thats nice, but also leads me to wonder how the 64 will fair against the prescott wich I assume will outpreform the p4 EE
September 22, 2003 3:54:14 PM

Actually there is ECC DDR400 memory modules out now (quite expensive of course), not only DDR333. I hope THG uses those because is bad enough that the FX will have the CAS latency penalty, it doesn't have to use slower memory as well.

Damn! I just wish that the 939pin version was the one going to be released tomorrow, using regular DDR400 memory.
September 22, 2003 3:54:40 PM

It would not surprise me if the P4 EE came with an unlocked multiplier. That would be the ultimate performance unlocker for Pentium 4s. It's a must really. It would be damn worth the crap price they currently ask. Gamers who buy such often are enthusiasts, so an unlocked multiplier boon would be the obvious. Then again Intel is just acting cowardly over unlocked multis being used by retailers. I mean, if they were, then just cut the supply, let their business die for cheating consumers!

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</b></font color=blue></A>
September 22, 2003 4:15:55 PM

Well we finally did it!! I can finally play Quake 3 over 400 FPS, at a decent resolution :)  Anything below 400 frames per second is terrible, the chopiness is terrible.

--------
The only thing that i truly know...

is that i know nothing at all.
September 22, 2003 4:23:30 PM

Quote:
Anything below 400 frames per second is terrible, the chopiness is terrible.

Agreed. Have you ever tried running it at below 100fps? Oh my, it's as if time stood still... :smile:

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
September 22, 2003 5:56:54 PM

I don't even know why the heck are they trespassing over their Opteron serie. That means anyone could buy a cheaper priced higher performing Athlon 64 FX, jack it in an Opteron mobo, and run it. Heck I wonder if multiple CPU configs are now possible with such weakness.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</b></font color=blue></A>
September 22, 2003 7:00:59 PM

Take a look at the minigzip bench.

The 64bit benchs are roughly a small bit less than half the 32bit bench for the A64s.
September 22, 2003 8:40:46 PM

I was hoping that the a64 would have done better. If the p4 with only added L3 can keep up with it, then scotty will most likely beat the a64. Maybe Intel is not scared and they already knew that the a64 would not be that fast in 32bit and that is why they just made the p4 ee. Think about it if they can delay scotty so that they can fix the core so that it runs cooler.

Just think what scotty could do at 4.2ghz or even 4.5ghz, with a fsb over 1000. That would be one mean machine.

To get back to the a64, it sucks that it is unable to oc very well. We will have to see what other web site show on the review for the a64, if they show the samething as this site, then it is not looking to good.

<font color=blue>"You know, that my backstab attack does double the damage. I can make an off button for him." </font color=blue> :cool:
September 22, 2003 9:01:56 PM

Quote:
Just think what scotty could do at 4.2ghz or even 4.5ghz, with a fsb over 1000. That would be one mean machine.

Oh yes...... :evil: 

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
September 22, 2003 9:08:17 PM

Nice link :) 
Now we can seperate the fanboy-talk(And you know who you are..) from the real situation.
I would say that the differnce between the P4 EE and the A64 is so little that I would call it a tie(with a slim margin to Intel).


Don't pretend - BE!
September 22, 2003 9:22:13 PM

Two things that have been left out. The A64 is on a very immature platform. The chipsets will no doubt vastly improve performance within the coming months. Anybody want to line up a AMD 760 v. an Nforce2? Also, the P4 EE is a sweet CPU, but it is not the first of its generation. It is a very well honed machine that has very little further upside. The battle remains Scotty v. A64FX, as the P4 EE and the initial A64 are merely a snapshot of where we stand today, not where we are going.
September 22, 2003 9:38:11 PM

Quote:
The A64 is on a very immature platform. The chipsets will no doubt vastly improve performance within the coming months.

Not really and only chipset maturing will increase performance. Optimised apps will do that, mostly... And as for P4EE, yes, it is a mature platform. Scotty, on the other hand, might mature faster than A64 - regardless of each platform's potential - because of Intel's market dominance...

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
September 23, 2003 12:05:17 AM

If memory serves me well some of the A64 boards have been out for over a year now.
So if over a year old is immature, well I be...

Terra

Don't pretend - BE!
September 23, 2003 3:34:45 AM

Quote:
The chipsets will no doubt vastly improve performance within the coming months. Anybody want to line up a AMD 760 v. an Nforce2?

That's a false statement. The K8 chipset system is not anywhere near the same as the K7's.
The Northbridge's memory controller is integrated to the die, that means there is practically no more NB and performance tweaks. Mainboards based on K8 chipsets will now be purchased based on features and memory optimizations which are nill compared to what nForce 2 brought.

So that won't happen. I'd even say the nForce 3 is as mature as the K8 chipset will get, until further memory speed support happens.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: 
September 23, 2003 5:29:16 AM

LOL!

Sorry, I actually thought I was the first to find this review and here you posted a day and half earlier.
Quote:
Tell me your opinion, but A64 doesn't seem as "P4 crushing" as lot of people say ... nice for sure, but will not bash all the competition.

The only crushing I see being done is by P4 EE in the PCMark2002. It's outperforming everything by 40%! What's up with that?






<b>56K, slow and steady does not win the race on internet!</b>
September 23, 2003 8:27:18 AM

inquirer says prescott is due out on dec 3
September 23, 2003 2:36:39 PM

Synthetic apps like these simply don't sell me. I want real applications being used, not how fast my Word typing will get!

So I often skip CPU synthetic benchmarks.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: 
September 23, 2003 2:58:53 PM

Quote:
<i>Originally posted by: <b>traviss187</b></i>
how the 64 will fair against the prescott wich I assume will outpreform the p4 EE

Assume nothing:

Quote:
<i>Originally posted by: <b><A HREF="http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/editorial/display/idf-..." target="_new">XBit Labs</A></b></i>
Quite a while ago already we paid attention to the fact that larger processor cache has a highly positive influence on the processor performance in gaming applications. That is why it would be quite logical to expect that Pentium 4 3.2GHz Extreme Edition will do really good there. For example, we heard that the performance of Pentium 4 Extreme Edition working bat 3.2GHz will be 15% (or even more) higher than that of the Northwood based Pentium 4 3.2GHz processor. But it is today that I heard the most surprising thing: Intel admits that Pentium 4 3.2GHz Extreme Edition will show even higher gaming performance than the upcoming Prescott 3.2GHz!

<i>I can love my fellow man...but I'm damned if I'll love yours.</i>
September 23, 2003 3:29:18 PM

good point, I did read that, although on the otherhand the overall preformance of the prescott, not to mention the higher possible clock speeds, will make it a better overall preformer (or else intel would have wasted alot of money)
but for gamers it might be the best proformer,
now what I really want to know is if it will have an unlocked mulitplyer, which would be a nice bonus for anyone willing to pay the hefty price tag
September 23, 2003 3:32:07 PM

Judging solely from the one review, how well P4 EE does, and how poorly Athlon 64 does, I think Clawhammer is going to hammered by Prescott.

AMD better act fast and make the pricing reasonable.

Personally, I think Athlon 64 is a dead-end. It just seems like a case of too little too late.

AMD should work on getting Athlon 64 FX-51 to the masses.

What's the significance of "51", anyway?

<b>56K, slow and steady does not win the race on internet!</b><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by phsstpok on 09/23/03 11:42 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
September 23, 2003 3:39:38 PM

I can go along with that.

I didn't say synthetic apps are hugely important in the real scheme of things. I was just curious to hear an explanation.

If you want real apps you are going to have to look to some OS other than Windows, probably Linux, for the first real 64-bit apps. I'm sure the ports of Linux are ready to go and probably the apps too (just a guess actually).

I hope that's what we see soon. I don't think we can wait for production Windows 64-bit and apps.

I was trying to figure out what the MINIGZIP benchmark really is. My search led to an old ZIP utility that is a cut down version of GZIP. Is this all they did, recompile MINIGZIP for 64-bit and then try to compress a DIVX file? or were they doing DIVX compression? I can't tell what they were doing from reading the French translation.

I know it's early but Athlon 64 seems to lag too much. I really think it needed to be killer in 32-bit apps to succeed in the market, during the transition period. It doesn't seem to be all that. I hope I'm wrong.

<b>56K, slow and steady does not win the race on internet!</b><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by phsstpok on 09/23/03 11:49 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
!