Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Congratulation

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
September 23, 2003 5:03:22 PM

good job THG, how can you find the Benches, which prefer the P4?
And why is on your test, the P4 so good?
On other sites, the AMD rules, but..only on your site the P4 is much better.
On every Hardwaresite, the A64 produces more FPS in Quake3 than the P4...but on THG...a cheap P4 3.0 GHZ, is in Quake3 better.

curios..only on THG!

More about : congratulation

September 23, 2003 6:18:36 PM

I'm wondering why they overclocked the P4EE is their test too, as I've only heard mention of a P4EE 3.2.

Anyway it seems there's alot more to come from the A64 mobos performance, they seem a bit flakey right now.
September 23, 2003 6:46:26 PM

Quote:
good job THG, how can you find the Benches, which prefer the P4?
And why is on your test, the P4 so good?

One reason, Frank Volkel is incompetent. We've seen this in the past already.

Intel biased? Maybe that too. We don't know. I'll let everyone else weigh in on that.

Quote:
On other sites, the AMD rules, but..only on your site the P4 is much better.
On every Hardwaresite, the A64 produces more FPS in Quake3 than the P4...but on THG...a cheap P4 3.0 GHZ, is in Quake3 better.

Definitely an oddball result. On AnandTech and [H], all but the weakest Athlon64 (the 3200+ with DDR333) beats a P4 3.2GHz (but not a 3.2EE). So something gives there.

<i>I can love my fellow man...but I'm damned if I'll love yours.</i>
Related resources
a b à CPUs
September 23, 2003 9:45:25 PM

I don't think they overclocked the P4 3.2EE, I think they actually received samples of the 3.4EE and 3.6EE from Intel. Reason? Those processors were running stock bus speeds.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
September 23, 2003 9:56:49 PM

There was a review posted yesterday mentioning that the P4 EE samples had unlocked multipliers.
September 23, 2003 9:59:45 PM

my guess is they were overclocked engineering samples.


Proud owner of DOS 3.3 :smile:
September 23, 2003 10:40:40 PM

I'm pretty sure they were overclocked, what I want to know is what THG was trying to prove by doing that? Only reason I can see to do it is to make the P4EE look likes it's the best in all tests to the casual viewer.
a b à CPUs
September 24, 2003 2:45:40 AM

Unlocked multiplier would make sense. Although that could make the processor incompatable with some boards if it made it into production. I also noticed another site compared overclocked Athlon 64's to stock P4 3.2C processors. I think this just serves to discredit the reviews before the eyes of the uninformed (the informed know those overclocked CPU's are only included for reference, but that's meaningless in this type of comparison).

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
a b à CPUs
September 24, 2003 2:47:44 AM

At least the conclusion boiled down to comparing them at rated speeds.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
September 24, 2003 3:14:31 AM

True, but I bet the people who take a casual look at the graphs outnumber the ones who read the whole article properly by 5 to 1, or more. I just don't see that including the P4EE at above 3.2Ghz does anything but call into question the integrety of the reviewer, especially as they didn't even justify it anywhere in the text.
!