Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

P4 or A64

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 15, 2004 12:06:52 PM

I was wondering, which will be better CPU for Doom3 or Half-life 2?

-------
<b><font color=red>Aquamark3 score: 28,208</b></font color=red> :smile:
<font color=blue><b>512mbDDR - Intel P4 2.4ghz 533fsb - ATI Radeon 9500 pro</b></font color=blue>

More about : a64

January 15, 2004 12:11:17 PM

New CPU'S will be out before then.
January 15, 2004 12:18:54 PM

Doom3 I would probably lean towards Intel since Carmack has always done optimizations for Intel in all his engines.

Half-Life 2 is completely up in the air I would presume both, but since I don’t know what Gabe is like or his coding preferences well have to wait and see.

-taitertot

If this post has attitude, seems to be overly aggressive, rude, distasteful to 99% of the users here, and shows a zealous defense of Intel... It’s probably Spud.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
January 15, 2004 1:07:02 PM

A64 seems to be better in the game according to the test operated by TOMSHARDWARE.

Truth is somewhere out there!
--Movie 'X Files'
January 15, 2004 1:25:03 PM

thx for the replies. :lol:  I think Doom3 is optimized for Intel and Gabe newell is optimized for aMD 64. Since Doom3 is due to be released april fools day, i'm gonna buy that when it comes out. :smile:

-------
<b><font color=red>Aquamark3 score: 28,208</b></font color=red> :smile:
<font color=blue><b>512mbDDR - Intel P4 2.4ghz 533fsb - ATI Radeon 9500 pro</b></font color=blue>
January 15, 2004 2:14:56 PM

I`d bet money on it that the A64s will perfom noticably faster then P4 for Doom III. How can you doubt that? try to stay a bit objective and dont just promote your own pc
January 15, 2004 2:23:17 PM

Quote:
I`d bet money on it that the A64s will perfom noticably faster then P4 for Doom III. How can you doubt that? try to stay a bit objective and dont just promote your own pc

Well, petr, I suppose you're talking about current P4s, right? The problem is that a whole line of P4s - namely Prescotts - will be out on february, the 2nd... And Intel won't just sit idly while AMD gives their current line of P4Cs such a hard time!

And Prescott's performance is still largely unknown. So, let's just wait...

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
January 15, 2004 2:31:56 PM

Actually, Petr, I just remembered one thing!

A64 3700+ will be out before Doom3's launch!

Prescott will not only be there and at least at 3.4Ghz... Grantsdale and alderwood will be there, too! So you'll see Scotty with PCI-Express-graphics cards and DDR-II 533Mhz by April. And there's no way you can say for sure that A64 will be a hands-down winner without any doubt!...

Waiting is still safer...

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
January 15, 2004 3:03:08 PM

Don't expect Kavanit to be OPJECTIVE!

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?
January 15, 2004 3:09:25 PM

I think both games will offer optimisation for AMD and Intel to some extent. Maybe we wil see a AMD64 patch for both games when Windows for AMD64 will be out, I would not be surprised.

Because id and Valve wants to sell their 3D engine to other game studios, they must builts a "3D engine for the masses". From the preview I have seen I'm far more impressed by the Half-Life engine. I think it is more focused on physics than image quality.

But even if you get the fastest AMD/Intel CPU, the GPU will make the difference too!

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?
January 15, 2004 3:27:21 PM

Doom 3 will destroy Half Life 2, Carmack is a programming god he will bury Valves engine just like he did to the Unreal Engine.

Unlike Valve he doesnt need to try and sell his game with a GPU manufacture either. He needs no fillers or best buy options because his games are the best.

-taitertot

If this post has attitude, seems to be overly aggressive, rude, distasteful to 99% of the users here, and shows a zealous defense of Intel... It’s probably Spud.
January 15, 2004 3:36:39 PM

Quote:
try to stay a bit objective and dont just promote your own pc

I agree: stop promoting your own PC, petr.

A64 is the better gaming CPU, no doubt...but nobody knows Scotty's performance, especially not on an Alderwood or Grantwood chipset, so I don't think anybody (except Intel execs) is in the position to say which will be better.

Of course, San Diego is also coming out before Doom]|[, so that <b>should</b> keep AMD on top, even after Alderwood and Grantwood. But of course, if I were a gamer, I'd put my money into an R420 or NV40 first.

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.
January 15, 2004 4:07:56 PM

Wow! One the most "fanboi" post I ever read!

I never said that the HL2 engine was better, I said that I liked what I saw from it. And both engine will have their place in the game market.

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?
January 15, 2004 5:49:00 PM

ill be objective and promote my pc at the same time. :) 

here is a link that shows DoomIII alpha benchmark, A64 vs P4. P4 wins
<A HREF="http://www.digital-daily.com/cpu/athlon64fx-p4ee/index0..." target="_new">http://www.digital-daily.com/cpu/athlon64fx-p4ee/index0...;/A> Look down near bottom of page to find the benchmark.

i guess everyone was right, Carmack likes P4 better. it looks like Doom3 was designed to take advantage of hyperthreading, not 64-bit. it's very unlikley they will be 64-bit version too, because John Carmack would have to recompile his source code to write it and that's too costly and time consuming.

-------
<b><font color=red>Aquamark3 score: 28,208</b></font color=red>
<font color=blue><b>Intel P4 2.4ghz 533fsb - 512mbDDR - ATI Radeon 9500 pro</b></font color=blue>
January 15, 2004 6:47:13 PM

Humm... Have you really check the results?

Doom 3 Alpha - Demo002 :
P4EE 3.2GHz = 119.2
FX-51 = 116.7
P4C 3.2GHz = 115.5
A64 3200+ = 111

Doom 3 Alpha - Demo006 :
FX-51 = 104.3
P4EE 3.2GHz = 103.2
P4C 3.2GHz = 99
A64 3200+ = 95.9

Yes in "Demo002" P4EE wins, but in "Demo006" FX-51 wins! So how can you say that Doom 3 will run faster on the Intel system. Another thing, the A64 3000+/3400+ are not in that bench I would have like to see results for these CPU too.

So you are right! Go spend load of money on a P4EE to get 2% more performance on certain condition (Demo002) and -1% performance in other condition (Demo006). I don't say it would be smarter to buy FX-51. But how can you say P4EE beat FX-51 with less than 2% difference in 2 Doom 3 scene... Come on!

Both chip perform equally in Doom 3, if we would have seen at least 5% difference we would have a clear winner... But with these results : +2% and -1% i see 2 winner.

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?
January 15, 2004 6:49:31 PM

I'm sorry but those benchmarks are useless. The engine is Alpha, the game is not ready. When I see the final product that will be a different story.

When will you people learn, benchmarks on alpha or beta software, and Engineering Sample hardware don't show the potentional of the final product. It should be common sense!
January 15, 2004 7:30:32 PM

I agree with you... And my last post (with the D3 benchmark result) was there to close the mouth to that guy that say P4EE outperform Athlon FX-51 CPU when it's not true.

As you said, we have to wait shipping version of DOOM 3 and HL2 before assuming CPU or GPU performance in these games.

When both games will be out, I will buy a new GPU based on benchmark results! And NO I will not buy both nVidia and ATI based graphic card, I will have to make a compromise!

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?
January 15, 2004 9:41:32 PM

These are not the P4s that will come into play by the time Doom comes around!

Remember, there'll be 2.8, 3.0, 3.2 and 3.4Ghz, <b>at least</b>, and those will be <b>Prescotts</b>. And, as a matter of fact, <b>we don't know prescott's performance</b>, so we cannot possibly know in advance who is going to be best there... Even in mid-range processors, because the 2.8 and 3.0Ghz will be mid-to-high performance processors in Intel's chain, and will be reasonably priced.

I mean, several reports on the web say that prescott should be around 10% faster per clock when launched. While there are a very few benchmarks around that would seem to indicate that that will not be the case, I tend to dismiss them, mainly because some benchmarks indicated that A64 wasn't going to be that great a processor before launch too.

So think about it: If Intel gets the 3.4Ghz Prescott (equivalent to 3.4+0.34=3.73Ghz Northwood, presumably) and DDR-II and PCI-Express tech by then, it will probably have enough in its hands to fight the rather powerful A64 line with. Anyway, we can't possibly really answer if A64s or P4s will win the performance crown in Doom3, simply because the main contenters aren't in the arena now.

<i><speculation>Personally, I think there is a very high probability that Intel will introduce a 3466Mhz (13x266) Prescott by March, the 29th, just because of Grantsdale and Canterwood. I think that might be the case because of current development status for DDR-II: it is running at 533Mhz OK. This would mean a 1066Mhz FSB, and I don't think that would be too far-fetched. Hopefully, there'll also be a 3200Mhz, 1066Mhz-FSB prescott for a reasonable price... Even if it's not released in march, it is not so far away at all!</speculation></i>

In any case, I'll just wait until mid-year to buy my Doom-3-killing machine... (droooooool....) :cool: And I'll try to get the biggest amount of money so I can get the beefiest rig possible... for it to last some time...

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
January 15, 2004 10:30:47 PM

DDRII has a higher latency, so that wouldn't be a huge plus really. Also, while we don't know the performance of Prescott, pretty much everyone is in agreement that it will be lower than P4EE as Prescott only adds some instructions (quite a few of them for Hyperthreading) and a longer pipeline that will actually make cache misses a bigger problem. That with the increased latency above makes it a very intersting dilemma of performance, but I can pretty easily say that it should be less than P4EE.

Oh, and 3.4 seems about as high as they'll get for a little while, with 3.6 and maybe 3.8 coming much later.
January 15, 2004 11:41:14 PM

How exactly is this site Intel biased? I have read this in a couple posts now and I don't understand. Are they fluffing their benchmark results somehow? I don't check a lot of other sites for reviews. And Tom's recommended the A64 for gaming anyways.

BTW Whats the scoop on AMD's San Diego? Where can I find the roadmap for that? I am lazy and don't like to dig through websites.

Yugi - Oh! NOT ON MY CARPET
January 16, 2004 12:02:30 AM

I'd look at the countless threads for that discussion, mainly talking about using a lot of encoding tests and the RAM issue. They shouldn't be more than a few pages back.

Also, probably X-86secret if you want to look at roadmaps if I remember correctly.
January 16, 2004 12:17:39 AM

Quote:
San Diego is also coming out before Doom]|[, so that should keep AMD on top

Erm, no, San Diego will only be available in the 2nd half of 2004. The only processor that is currently scheduled for launch in the next 5 or 6 months is Newcastle, from AMD, according to <A HREF="http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/..." target="_new">their own roadmaps.</A> Even so, does anyone know of any changes in architecture from current cores to Newcastle? I don't know anything about that...

A little problem with AMD is this... They keep their roadmaps a mess and very mysterious... Great processors, but what's up with management?...

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
January 16, 2004 12:24:17 AM

Oh wow, I really thought it would be out Mayish...oh well. NVM then...Intel will have great chance of keeping the crown with the new Chipsets for Scotty around that time....yay--people will stop bitching about THG--especially to the forum, because we have nothing to do with it!!

I agree that AMD keeps things a mess on their roadmaps...they need better marketing and PR people. Hopefully A64 will get them some money needed to get a good staff for PR and marketing.

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.
January 16, 2004 12:26:51 AM

I've been looking for information on Newcastle. From what I've seen, it's actually like this...

Newcastle is supposed to be a <b>castrated</b> A64 for value/mainstream. The high-performance parts will remain unchanged until later in 2004. Plus, it will only be around in the <b>second</b> quarter. So it might not be a really good contender for Doom 3... a few sites say it's just the next AXP-mainstream...

This could all be wrong, of course. But Newcastle won't set any new performance bar as far as I could see it. Information on it is dim at best...

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
January 16, 2004 12:55:43 AM

Do you actually think there will be a noticeable preformance difference between the top AMD processor and the top Intel processor?

The Prescott will not "blow away" AMD. The A64 3700 won't blow away Intel. It will be a close tie, but of course one will win by a few FPS and the obnoxious processor fanboys will scream.

Listen. They're just processors. I buy AMD for the price difference. My friend buys Intel because he thinks they're more stable. Our computers both run happily, him with a 2.8 Pentium 4 and me with a Athlon XP 2800.
January 16, 2004 12:58:07 AM

Perhaps you can explain why the review you showed used the Nforce 3 (flawed) for Amd, and the 875 chipset for intel? I know how easy it is to scew benchmarks by "forgetting" something, why be so obvious about what chip you endorse?
January 16, 2004 1:48:50 AM

I have 1000 FSB now!!!! Plus Intel may launch Tejas in your time frame.
January 16, 2004 7:30:40 AM

I agree, Doom3 could be optimized for SSE3 and ht! Then the prescotts will really fly.

-------
<b><font color=red>Aquamark3 score: 28,208</b></font color=red>
<font color=blue><b>Intel P4 2.4ghz 533fsb - 512mbDDR - ATI Radeon 9500 pro</b></font color=blue>
January 16, 2004 11:25:03 AM

Quote:
Listen. They're just processors. I buy AMD for the price difference. My friend buys Intel because he thinks they're more stable. Our computers both run happily, him with a 2.8 Pentium 4 and me with a Athlon XP 2800.

Oh my god! It's someone with a reasonable opinion! :eek: 

Someone, quickly, get a bat! We have to beat him into submission! :mad: 

<i>You're right, of course...<i>

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
January 16, 2004 12:55:40 PM

Another good one here!

We are not alone to be SMART! We are not alone to know that Intel and AMD are not at WAR but at competition!

Anyway, most people that say that Intel will have the best CPU for Doom 3 (win by a few FPS) will never have the money to buy that CPU!

I will be very happy to do a Perf/Price chart based on D3 when it will be out! And as ususal, I think AMD will have an edge in low to mid range market. And They will be close to Intel in HIGH-end market.

I repeat : THERE IS NO WAR, THERE IS COMPETITION!

--
Would you buy a GPS enabled soap bar?
January 16, 2004 1:56:12 PM

Quote:
Erm, no, San Diego will only be available in the 2nd half of 2004.

Actually, according to all the latest information, San Diego will be available on March 29th, the same day that Intel will launch their new chipsets for Prescott. By "San Diego", we mean the S939 A64, featuring a dual channel memory controller without the need for using registered ECC memory, and 1000MHz HyperTransport bus. It will debut at 2.4GHz and we will only see higher frequencies in Q4 2003, when AMD will hopefully manage to succesfully move to 90nm.

So unless Intel manages to release faster Prescotts until then, I think that AMD will indeed stay on top. I don't know how much competitive the P4EE @ 3.4GHz will be but personally, I see that CPU only as a part of Intel's marketing policy and not as a choice for a desktop CPU.
January 16, 2004 2:10:32 PM

Quote:
Actually, according to all the latest information, San Diego will be available on March 29th,

Erm... Really, really?... :eek: 

Oh well, someone should please be so kind as to tell AMD to <A HREF="http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/..." target="_new"><b>update their very own roadmaps</b></A>, because, guess what, Newcastle is due 1st Half 2004, and San Diego only on the 2nd half, according to those roadmaps!... :| So I'm afraid someone is wrong here...
Quote:
By "San Diego", we mean the S939 A64, featuring a dual channel memory controller without the need for using registered ECC memory, and 1000MHz HyperTransport bus.

Nossir, that would not be San Diego. San Diego is a 90nm processor, according to that very same roadmap. Actually, the S939 A64s with dual channel memory controller, without the use of registered ECC memory and 1000Mhz Hypertransport Bus are <b>still based on the same cores we have now,</b> with the exception of the budget-minded Newcastle...

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
January 16, 2004 2:51:30 PM

What you are saying is based on that info from AMD's roadmap, while what I am saying is based on info from various websites during the last few weeks. Anyway, it doesn't matter really. Only time will tell ... !
January 16, 2004 3:08:21 PM

Yes they had an optimization button in the game configuration for Battlezone II Combat Commander specifically for Intel rigs.

We never thought much of it as we observed NO performance advantage on either an AMD or Intel rig for that game.

The interesting thing was that very shortly after that game was released they came out with the AMD XP CPU's and the Optimization button would function for those AMD CPU's

On the older AMD CPU's the button was greyed out and unavailable.

I figure it was the instruction set for the CPU's that was being optimized.

Intel had at the time the complete ISS instruction sets, Basically it widens the data channel for 32 bit applications and the latest SONY PLAY Stations have this same advancement.

Barton 3200+ 400MHz
A7N8X Deluxe
Liquid
2x512 Crucial DDR 400 PC3200
GeForce FX5900
Maxtor DiamondMaxPlus9@80Gig
SONY CD 52x
SONY RW 52x/24x/52x
SONY DVD 16x/40x
January 16, 2004 3:14:55 PM

I looked around a bit... But, unfortunately, I could only find reference to San Diego being a 90nm part slated for the last 6 months of 2004... The Inquirer, x86-secret, and a few other sites confirmed that... Which sites did you look at?... :frown:

But, actually, of course, only time will tell... So we play the patience game once more! :smile:

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
January 16, 2004 4:49:41 PM

i have played the doom3 alpha(i have it) and i must say that i'll buy this game because it is so freaking scary.

IMO i think that the hl2 engine is much better because i can run hl2 in 1280*1024 with 4x aa and i get 60fps . in doom 3 i get 40-50 fps with nothing.... And the hl2 environement are much bigger and the physic are better. IMHO graphic are better in hl2.

My own beast: Athlon 2700xp+ (oc: 3200xp+ with 200fsb) , Radeon 9800pro (oc: 410/370) , 512mb ddr400. SO MUCH faster than my last computer (pIII 550......)
January 16, 2004 6:38:43 PM

Doom3 will be optimized for SMP...meaning all dualies and HT-enabled systems will get a performance boost.

Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.
January 16, 2004 6:46:11 PM

Quote:
i have played the doom3 alpha(i have it) and i must say that i'll buy this game because it is so freaking scary.

IMO i think that the hl2 engine is much better because i can run hl2 in 1280*1024 with 4x aa and i get 60fps . in doom 3 i get 40-50 fps with nothing.... And the hl2 environement are much bigger and the physic are better. IMHO graphic are better in hl2.

My own beast: Athlon 2700xp+ (oc: 3200xp+ with 200fsb) , Radeon 9800pro (oc: 410/370) , 512mb ddr400. SO MUCH faster than my last computer (pIII 550......)

Wow, your lucky, not many people have opportunity to play half-life2 and Doom3. So , which do you think is better?


Quote:
Doom3 will be optimized for SMP...meaning all dualies and HT-enabled systems will get a performance boost

That's awesome, i'm getting Doom3 for that reason.


-------
:evil:  Kanavit's Aquamark3 rig----><A HREF="http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?run=181795940..." target="_new">http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?run=181795940...;/A>
January 17, 2004 1:29:08 AM

Yeah, most people seem to get Newcastle and San Diego mixed up.

My take has been that Newcastle will come out the beginning of the year as a way to make A64 a cheaper product to manufacture and a way to increase capacity. They are made with 512kb cache, which lowers die size and increases margins. This is also when the switch to 939 will take place, which means the addition of dual channel. We've seen that the loss of 512k of cache doesn't really do much, and the dual channel should be able to make up for it fairly well. Not to mention longevity is a heck of a lot better.

San Diego will be the 90nm version, which probably won't be out until 2H2004. However, there still should be another good speed grade in quantities on 130nm (the 3700+), and I'd think maybe even a 2.6 (4000+) in a huge pinch. That's only if Intel miraculously figures everything out, and only if their 90nm process is doing poorly. Neither seem to be all that likely (although the latter would be the best possibility). Time will tell.
!