Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Xeon 3.6 vs A64 3500+, In Linux 64bit

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
August 9, 2004 11:29:01 AM

The Xeon 3.6ghz 800mhz fsb vs AMD Athlon 3500+. Surprising results here! <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2158&p=1" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2158&p=1&...;/A>

oh my, wait til the Pentium 4 3.60F gets here with EM64T. it's gonna be awesome. I can't wait myself!

<b>Conclusion:</b> "Without a doubt, the 3.6GHz Xeon trounces over the Athlon 64 in math-intensive benchmarks. Intel came ahead in every severe benchmark that we could throw at it, particularly during John the Ripper. Even though John uses several different optimizations to generate hashes, in every case, the Athlon chip found itself at least 40% behind. Much of this is likely attributed to the additional math tweaking in the Prescott family core".

------
Prescott 3.2E 1MB L2 HT
1GB PC 3200 Dual channel(PAT)
Asus P4P800 Bios 1016
PNY Geforce 6800 GT 256MB DDR3
60,823 Aquamarks
August 9, 2004 12:17:01 PM

Considering they'll sell at the same price point, that's a <i>great</i> comparison....

---
Epox 8RDA+ V1.1 w/ Custom NB HS
XP1700+ @200x10 (~2Ghz), 1.4 Vcore
2x256Mb Corsair PC3200LL/1x512Mb Corsair XMS PC4000 2.5-3-3-7
Sapphire 9800Pro @412/740
August 9, 2004 12:46:49 PM

<A HREF="http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=28&th..." target="_new">Forum members review the review...</A>

...and they pretty much universally agree, the review got flubbed badly. Testing a 3500+ desktop chip against Intel's cream-of-the-crop best Xeon chip was only the start. :tongue:

Crap, at least use the FX-53 or the Opteron x50. AnandTech really didn't have an excuse <i>not</i> to, so what's up with that?

<i>"Intel's ICH6R SouthBridge, now featuring RAID -1"

"RAID-minus-one?"

"Yeah. You have two hard drives, neither of which can actually boot."</i>
Related resources
August 9, 2004 1:12:03 PM

I'd have to agree, the 3500+ should be tested against nothing higher than the P4 3.6 with EM64T(or a 3.4 if there is one, can't remember off top of my head).

How much that would change things, I'm not really sure(due to fact that xeon and p4 cores really aren't hugely different, or at least haven't been in past, haven't researched the EM64T chips). Whether different cache, etc would be enough to make this up, won't know until there's a better benchmark by someone.

I will be itnerested in seeing the SMP Xeon vs dual opteron review they promise.
August 9, 2004 1:20:56 PM

there wasn't any P4 3.6F available yet, so Anandtech used a Xeon 3.6ghz with EM64T. Both are the same chips, just targeted at different price point and market segment. I thought the comparison gave us a good preview on what the P4 3.6F EM64T would give us.

------
Prescott 3.2E 1MB L2 HT
1GB PC 3200 Dual channel(PAT)
Asus P4P800 Bios 1016
PNY Geforce 6800 GT 256MB DDR3
60,823 Aquamarks
August 9, 2004 2:11:51 PM

Why didn't they pick Opteron?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 9, 2004 2:20:43 PM

That would have been the best comparison.

Asus P4P800DX, P4C 2.6ghz@3.25ghz, 2X512 OCZ PC4000 3-4-4-8, Leadtek FX5900 w/ FX5950U bios@500/1000, 2X30gig Raid0
August 9, 2004 3:04:28 PM

You do have a point. In any case, if anything, a P4F might even perform slightly <i>better</i> than that Xeon due to DDR2-533 instead of DDR2-400. If 1066Mhz FSB came into play, it would look better. Intel is still a few steps behind anyway, though. If P4Fs would be widely available, the playing grounds would be better, but hell, they aren't.

However, EM64T is nothing laughable, it seems. I think intel should consider a high dose of alacrity when introducing the Prescotts with 2MB L2 and 1066Mhz FSB and EM64T; these will probably be great. Won't do any good if they only become available in 2005, though; AMD isn't standing still either.

But agreed; in any case, we should wait until more information becomes available.

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Mephistopheles on 08/09/04 02:13 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
August 9, 2004 3:12:48 PM

an Opteron would still get beaten by the Xeon, but as the point of the article is to give a 'sneak preview' of the 3.6P4F w/ EM64T, which is going to be Intel's new big hitter, they really should be comparing it with a FX-53, or 3800+, as at least these parts are actually available to the public ATM.

By the time these P4s are available in any quantity, no doubt AMD will have better stuff out too.

---
Epox 8RDA+ V1.1 w/ Custom NB HS
XP1700+ @200x10 (~2Ghz), 1.4 Vcore
2x256Mb Corsair PC3200LL/1x512Mb Corsair XMS PC4000 2.5-3-3-7
Sapphire 9800Pro @412/740
August 9, 2004 3:21:16 PM

"Why didn't they pick Opteron?"

Good question. Not sure what was the point of the review. $850 chip vs $350 chip. so 250% more expensive 100% more cache, Top mhz for intel chip but not amd chip. not a good comparison. I'm thinking somone had a hissy fit over the doom3 tests. The doom3 showed all cpu's this test compared intels cream to a upper mid level amd cpu.

Reverse the situation and take an opteron or fx53 and compare to a prescott 3.4e. That would be a stupid review. I'm somewhat suprized anandtech would do that.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
August 9, 2004 3:34:46 PM

Quote:
Not sure what was the point of the review.

How come people are having such a hard time in understanding that?... :frown:

...the point of this review is to preview P4F performance in 64-bit tasks, and it's looking good. Noone would consider either buying a 3.6Ghz Xeon ($850) or a 3500+ ($350).

This article's conclusion is that Intel's 64-bit implementation might not be flawed at all. That's it.

And P4Fs <b>don't carry a price premium</b>, so once they become more available to enthusiasts, they're a reasonable option against A64s. Even more so with all the new features (azalia, new chipsets, or even future features). Intel better move fast, though, because they seem to be stalled lately.....

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>
August 9, 2004 3:54:29 PM

Re: "How come people are having such a hard time in understanding that?...
...the point of this review is to preview P4F performance in 64-bit tasks, and it's looking good. Noone would consider either buying a 3.6Ghz Xeon ($850) or a 3500+ ($350).
This article's conclusion is that Intel's 64-bit implementation might not be flawed at all. That's it."


I have no problem with showing how good p4f is or will be in 64bit tasks. HOWEVER, this statment at the end.

"Without a doubt, the 3.6GHz Xeon trounces over the Athlon 64 in math-intensive benchmarks. Intel came ahead in every severe benchmark that we could throw at it"

They are comparing intels best upcomming cpu to a mid level amd cpu. So the comment was not nessasary. If you want to make conclusions comments like that compare = cpu's.


Mephistopeles where would you draw the line on this? would it be ok in your book if anandtech did this 64bit test with a64 2800 vs 3.6 xeon?

To prove intels 64bitness is good but to compare it to a lesser amd chip like the a64 3500 is prolly not a good thing but aceptable, the conclusion however was over the top.

"Without a doubt, the 3.6GHz Xeon trounces over the Athlon 64 in math-intensive benchmarks. Intel came ahead in every severe benchmark that we could throw at it"


If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
August 9, 2004 3:58:48 PM

>Crap, at least use the FX-53 or the Opteron x50

I have no problem with their cpu selection, remember Nocona is just Prescott, same FSB, same L2 cache, so when 3.6 Prescott with EM64T launches, that will be the exact same cpu. Comparing it to a 3500+ doesn't sound like such a terrible idea to me.

What really is f*cked up however, is:
1) they apparently messed up the scores for MySQL. They used 32 bit scores for A64 instead of 64 bit ones (like for Nocona). in reality, A64 whips the Nocona in this test
2) they used ridiculous synthetic benchmarks like SuperPI, a 5 year old mini app that tells you <i>nothing</i> or TSCP which fits completely in Nocona's L2 cache and according to Vincent Diepenveen on Aces' forum, wasn't properly compiled. If you honestly believe Xeon is better for chess programs, i also suggest you have a look <A HREF="http://www.cs.biu.ac.il/games/" target="_new">here</A> First 6 players on the computer chess worldchampionchips where opteron based. Funny for an Intel sponsored event :) 
3) worst of all, we still don't know how intels implementation of EM64T is. Why on earth didn't they provide both 32 and 64 bit scores for both cpu's, *that* would have told us something. Now we still know nothing, unless you want to believe these results would somehow mean Nocona beats A64 hand down.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
August 9, 2004 4:14:37 PM

I agree, P4Man.

Anandtech is in fact trying to preview how a 3.6F would stack up against a 3500+. This sounds like a good idea, because both of them are comparably-rated, that's all.

However, I can also agree that the benchmarking suite wasn't chosen with care. And it is still hard to know if Em64T makes a real difference in performance...

P4Man is right, they should have done something like % increase from 32->64bits on each platform. That would have made more sense.

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>
August 9, 2004 4:58:55 PM

i dont know about you, but usually when any review site makes a comparison, preview or otherwise, they take the top models from both camps. i dont mind the review, but i dont see the logic in comparing the top model xeon versus the 'entry' level s939 part. i dont think you cna just say they are compareably rated so that means its fair, since when have reviews been done like that? top model versus top model is alot more fair, just becuase intel doesnt have a 3.8ghz xeon you think its fair to drop down to an athlon 64 3500+? i dont think so.

what really suprises me is that this is from anandtech, they are usually alot more cautious and complete wiht thier benchmarks and they always try to make a fair comparison. even a as a preview, its not a balanced review at all. not to mention the fact they did not show 32bit versus 64bit scores is another fault. it just seems kind of sloppy work for them.

the only thing i can pull form this is that it appears em64t will not be a ahndicap for intel, but it doesnt tell me wether its better then amd64, i dont see how anyone can pull that from this review. i mean goodness, they use opterons for thier webserver, youd think they might try one of them against the xeon. but oh wlel, maybe they will update the review soon.
August 9, 2004 5:08:38 PM

>top model versus top model is alot more fair, just becuase
>intel doesnt have a 3.8ghz xeon you think its fair to drop
>down to an athlon 64 3500+? i dont think so

That will depend on how the 3.6 P4 will be priced. If its comparable in price, pitching it against a 3500+ seems entirely reasonable (especially since they already had the 3500+ scores, and I can easily forgive them for not rerunning all those benches on an otherwise identical cpu with a slightly higher clock).

>the only thing i can pull form this is that it appears >em64t will not be a ahndicap for intel,

Are you sure ? I don't "pull" anything from that review, for all I know, EM64T might slow down performance on P4. Without 32 bit benches to compare, we know nothing. Unless perhaps that the P4 has a faster L1 cache therefore shines in SuperPI.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
August 9, 2004 5:45:57 PM

again, ill ask again, shouldnt the review pit top model versus top model? they compared the xeon to an ahtlon 64, the prices between those two are even larger, i dont seem to recall review sites comparing based on price alone. sure they can say in thier remarks that people need to keep in mind a price difference, but that never excludes comparing top form top. the 3.6 xeon is thier top model, its only fair to show it up against the top amd has to offer.
August 9, 2004 5:55:51 PM

>again, ill ask again, shouldnt the review pit top model
>versus top model?

Perhaps, but consider the 3500+ does carry a rating which would imply its comparable to a 3.6 GHz p4, wouldn't you agree ?

>they compared the xeon to an ahtlon 64,

So its called a Xeon now, but who cares; it will be the exact same chip once intel sells it as a Pentium4.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
August 9, 2004 5:58:53 PM

Quote:

So its called a Xeon now, but who cares; it will be the exact same chip once intel sells it as a Pentium4.

Exactly. A Nocona 3.6Ghz with EM64T is exactly equal to a Prescott 3.6F!!! That's the point, trooper11.

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>
August 9, 2004 6:23:52 PM

im not arguing that. im arguing that an opteron would have been a more fair comparison wiht the xeon, as much in price and specs.

also, a p4f 3.6 will cost roughly the same as the 3800+, if you look at intel's official pricing as of now, so why is it that the 3500+ is the better choice here? so you think its a fair comparison even if the prices arent similar and even though its intel's top versus amd's entry level for s939?

my point is this, how does anyone come to a conclusion as to which company has the best performing cpu, 64bit or otherwise? if your nto going to base it on comparable pricing and soley ont he fact that amd's pr number is similar to the 3.6ghz, then i guess your right, it is fair. but i dont agree with that. there is a 3800+ out, you can buy it right at this moemnt in quantities. its price is almost identicle to the p4 3.6, thats the non 64bit version, but we know the prices will be similar, so why leave it out?

wouldnt a 3800+ versus a p4f 3.6 show which company had the best performance? wouldnt that kind of slightly reduce any contreversy and make things more clear? im just suprsied you both feel its a fair comparison. i dont care if its xeon or p4, they are both top models, its only fair to compare them with similarly priced and top performing amd parts. im not attacking the results here, im just saying you cant make any claims based on it. not only are there too few benchmarks, but the chip selection is questionable.

i really dont think there are any alterior motives here. its pretty obvious they just wanted to get a review out as soon as possible. they already had the 3500+ scores so they owuldnt have to rerun them, so they used those and threw them out there. they just wanted to put up somehting, it wasnt one of thier complete thought out reviews. the author himself said he chose the 3500+ becuase they already had scores for it.
August 9, 2004 6:41:10 PM

>y point is this, how does anyone come to a conclusion as to
>which company has the best performing cpu, 64bit or
>otherwise? i

The article never claimed to show "which company has the best performing cpu". It was made plain clear they used a 3500+ and not a 3800+ of FX, and frankly, using a 3800+ would not have changed anything substantially. So go ahead and add 10% to the A64 scores, and what exactly changes ? Not much. And the results will still be just as flawed and useless which ought to be your main gripe with the article really.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
August 9, 2004 6:46:48 PM

<A HREF="http://www.aceshardware.com/forum?read=115093783" target="_new">Ace's readers speak out...</A>

...and they agree, the test was beyond flubbed. Compile options were horribly screwed up. Many figures are off by as much as 2x.

More questionable test results have been seen, but not by reliable witnesses.

<i>"Intel's ICH6R SouthBridge, now featuring RAID -1"

"RAID-minus-one?"

"Yeah. You have two hard drives, neither of which can actually boot."</i>
August 9, 2004 7:09:09 PM

oh i agree with you there, the whole thing was sloppy.

its jsut so frustrating to see ppl say things liek we should be thanking anandtech for doing these priliminary nubmers for us, its sucha good job and we should praise theme. personally, i dont praise rushed work, which is what this appeares to be. that was thier big mistake. quality over quantity, thats what i say. but of course you have ppl trying ot then blame all the rucus on 'amd fanboys'. now who here thinks thats fair?

i think the hardest thing for me is, im trying to figure out the point. i know thier intention was to show a comparison, or maybe that wasnt the intention. maybe it was just to show some random numbers.... ok see what im getting at? how can annoy figure out what they were trying to do here? they werent looking for hte best performer right? they werent looking to compare amd to intel? i just odnt see the point to this article.

if they had just waited for the full review, i owuld have no qualms, but this is just asking for trouble.
August 9, 2004 7:25:15 PM

sloppy? It was even more than sloppy, it was inaccurate and uninformative. Reality is still something about which we still don't know a lot about.........

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>
August 9, 2004 7:40:54 PM

could it be that this preview was posted in order to stir up interst in the full review when it comes?

it isnt out of the realm of possibilities is it?
August 9, 2004 7:49:50 PM

No, it's not out of the realm of possibilities, but if that's the case, Anandtech is paying for that in loss of prestige!

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>
August 9, 2004 8:37:48 PM

What i was thinking was, isn't the 3500+ rating based against current p4s? Don't you think the rating would be different if it was based against em64t chips?

AMD64 2800+
MSI Neo-Fis2r
512mb Kingmax ddr400
Sapphire 9800pro 128mb
10K WD Raptor
August 9, 2004 8:40:00 PM

That's a tough one. There will only be a difference in x86-64 aware OSes, and no current windows is x86-64 aware!...

Once everything has transistioned to x86-64 (one year? possibly more), then these things will become easier to sort out!

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>
August 9, 2004 9:23:22 PM

My 2500+ mobile is equal to a P43.6ghz :tongue:

<font color=blue>AthlonXP-M 2500+(12x211)</font color=blue>
<font color=green>Abit NF7-S</font color=green>
<font color=red>Kingston DDR400 2x256Mb</font color=red>
August 9, 2004 9:40:55 PM

holy crap man! lemme read this, im at work


40% is quite a lead.. perhaps Intel is about to give AMD a good thrashing >=D

-------
<A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>

Don't listen to anything Kanavit says, because he's a limped dick Intel loving pussy.
August 9, 2004 9:52:28 PM

Quote:
My 2500+ mobile is equal to a P43.6ghz



my Mobile at 2.4ghz benches somewhere between a 3.2-3.4 P4C, give or take depending on the situation ... if you had a really good one at 2.6ghz, then yea you coudl be right. but most people hit 2.4-2.5ghz.


-------
<A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>

Don't listen to anything Kanavit says, because he's a limped dick Intel loving pussy.
August 9, 2004 10:04:30 PM

heres another quote from yours taken from that conclustion :

Quote:
At time of publication, our Xeon processor retails for $850 and the Athlon 3500+ retails for about $500 less. Also, keep in mind that the AMD processor is clocked 1400MHz slower than the 3.6GHz Xeon. With only a few exceptions, the 3.6GHz Xeon outperformed our Athlon 64 3500+, whether or not the cost and thermal issues between these two processors are justifiable



i like how they mention the 1.4ghz deficit. .... wtf is up with that.


oh btw, are you totally sure the Xeon is gonna be the same as the 3.6F ? i mean the chipset, bus, cache and all that?





-------
<A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>

Don't listen to anything Kanavit says, because he's a limped dick Intel loving pussy.
August 9, 2004 10:39:01 PM

<A HREF="http://www.vr-zone.com/?i=1081" target="_new">Yes, it is the same</A>. The chipsets are even more performance-oriented, in the sense that DDR2-533 is compatible with i915 and i925, but not with tumwater and lindenhurst.

Cache is unaltered: 1MB L2. Bus speed: at least the same (800Mhz); we'll be seeing 1066Mhz busses by the 4th quarter anyway, though.

If the 720J were priced competitively and not like a P4EE, then it might be a good offering: 1066Mhz FSB, (hopefully) EM64T, 2MB L2 cache... If it costs like P4EE, then to hell with intel! (that even rhymes) A 3.8J is NOT enough to beat A64 3800+ to the punch. Even because it will <i>still</i> not have EM64T enabled.

Intel should introduce EM64T quicker than that. And all at once. I mean, if all "J" stepping prescotts had it, it'd be fine!

There is even a 3.2, 3.4 and 3.6F lineup, but they're niche products! There should be a 3.2, 3.4, 3.6 and 3.8F (with all J features) and possibly a 3.73F processor available, <i>for reasonable prices</i>. What would truly <i>piss me off</i> would be if EM64T for us, average users, would carry the EE price tag! That would make me mad!!!! :mad: 

Intel should quit this stupid "Extreme Edition" crap. Noone I know would spend $900-1000 on a CPU!

FX's don't fall much behind, either! Both Intel and AMD should stop this terrible nonsense.

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Mephistopheles on 08/09/04 09:53 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
August 9, 2004 11:00:20 PM

Not quite. You're equal to me but not to a real P4 3.6. The multiplier does make a difference! :smile:


Abit IS7 - 2.8C @ 3.5ghz - Mushkin PC4000 (2 X 512) - Sapphire 9800Pro - TT 420 watt Pure Power
Samsung 120gb ATA-100 - Maxtor 40gb ATA - 100
Sony DRU-510A - THAT'S MORE LIKE IT!
August 9, 2004 11:25:59 PM

well im sorry to dissappoint you, but intel doesnt care about x86-64. dont expect them to make any kind of 'big' moves wiht it to get it adopted and grounded quickly. if they really wanted it to take off, they would have mad epalns quicker to release lower speed 64bit capable chips, now your forced into at least a 3.2ghz chip to get it.

as far as saying the xeon will perform the same as the p4, your probably right, they will be similar, although i dont know if youll see any boost form ddr2 533. that we will just have to wait for to see.

as far as the 720j, thats a hard thing to pin down, my gut says itll start as a p4ee repelacement and as such be priced there. then slwoly they will transition the whole line to it.

boy im getting confused wiht all these letter, f for em64t, j for um i dont know lol, e for prescott, hopefully that all calms down soon.
August 9, 2004 11:28:41 PM

I do want to read the whole review, but I cant find the gaming benchmarks. In the only tests I could find, the Intel chips did worse than I would have expected. I have seen all these benchmarks run, and usually Intel has a much stronger hand. In SuperPi alone, Intel's lead should be quadroupled.
If Anand's point was that NX64T is worthwhile, the number's are only convincing to the ignorant. It is too bad that real comparison was not done.
August 9, 2004 11:33:40 PM

I think the gaming benchmarks aren't that CPU dependent. A 9800Pro is going to have trouble with DooM3 at max quality no matter what you run it with! :frown:

Abit IS7 - 2.8C @ 3.5ghz - Mushkin PC4000 (2 X 512) - Sapphire 9800Pro - TT 420 watt Pure Power
Samsung 120gb ATA-100 - Maxtor 40gb ATA - 100
Sony DRU-510A - THAT'S MORE LIKE IT!
August 9, 2004 11:37:40 PM

Perhaps you missed the point. We all know the Amd system would have won handily in games. That is why they weren't used.
August 9, 2004 11:49:07 PM

Au contare, mon ami', the highest Aquamark3 scores are obtained with SUPER overclocked P4's and GOD-LIKE video cards, not AMD Opterons, Clawhammers, Newcastles, yourcastles or anything AMD. Read it and weep!

Abit IS7 - 2.8C @ 3.5ghz - Mushkin PC4000 (2 X 512) - Sapphire 9800Pro - TT 420 watt Pure Power
Samsung 120gb ATA-100 - Maxtor 40gb ATA - 100
Sony DRU-510A - THAT'S MORE LIKE IT!
August 10, 2004 12:10:25 AM

oh shut up, you sound like your HAPPY that its an Intel chip that has the highest score. what does that matter to you? brand-name whores , man its so silly


and YES, they are OVERCLOCKED. that invalidates your point about it being an Intel chip. how does a few super-duper-high end cpus' affect the general population? it doesnt affect you or me whatsoever

-------
<A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>

Don't listen to anything Kanavit says, because he's a limped dick Intel loving pussy.
August 10, 2004 12:55:43 AM

Specially when you need another 400 dollars to cool it. Then you get more pissed when your 3 thousand dollar monster is only a 1500 dollar monster 4 months later.
I love it. I think it's funny how outclassed a 9800pro is already. They are great for the cash now , no doubt, but definately no 6800GT. :D 

<A HREF="http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?run=277124623" target="_new">http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?run=277124623...;/A>
46,510 , movin on up. 48k new goal. Maybe not.. :/ 
August 10, 2004 1:02:36 AM

Actually, that's the problem with computers.... For instance, at one point, you're truly happy about your 3Ghz processor, for example.... When you buy it, it's got all the bells and whistles... hell, DDR400! Who could need more?

Then, just when you thought you were set and weren't even paying real attention to hardware news, you read a review of something like a 5Ghz pentium with DDR2-800 or a 3Ghz A64 with DDR533 and PCIe or whatever and you start feeling very dumb... If you spent your money just, say, a few months later, then you'd get another beast entirely, much better off than your once-almighty 3Ghz processor...

It's the nature of the game...

<i><font color=red>You never change the existing reality by fighting it. Instead, create a new model that makes the old one obsolete</font color=red> - Buckminster Fuller </i>
August 10, 2004 1:13:55 AM

my 9800pro is teh sucks in Doom3 :( (



well, not with the new "shader tweak" that Hummus (ATi employee) discovered. i went from about 35fps to 45fps :) 

-------
<A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>

Don't listen to anything Kanavit says, because he's a limped dick Intel loving pussy.
August 10, 2004 1:45:02 AM

Ah yes, another <font color=red>synthetic<font color=black> benchmark won by Intel. Imagine that? Why is it that thier cpu score is so low though?
August 10, 2004 1:46:35 AM

dude the 4.9betas are minimal improvements


the shader tweak <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?nam..." target="_new">(thread from graphics section showing how to do it)</A> is a MAJOR boost. its because the shaders were written for nvidia hardwre, and an ATI employee found a bit of replacement code that works much faster

-------
<A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>

Don't listen to anything Kanavit says, because he's a limped dick Intel loving pussy.
August 10, 2004 4:01:28 AM

I'd say if anandtech did that review for controversy and maybe some extra <A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=17754" target="_new"> publicity </A> I'd say they pulled it off.

If I glanced at a spilt box of tooth picks on the floor, could I tell you how many are in the pile. Not a chance, But then again I don't have to buy my underware at Kmart.
August 10, 2004 4:05:14 AM

its all about the click-thrus :) 

-------
<A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>

Don't listen to anything Kanavit says, because he's a limped dick Intel loving pussy.
August 10, 2004 4:25:22 AM

LOL! I'm becoming a limp-dicked Intel loving pussy who can't play Doom at high quality W-A-S on this 9800Pro! I knew that would get a rise out of you! :lol: 


Abit IS7 - 2.8C @ 3.5ghz - Mushkin PC4000 (2 X 512) - Sapphire 9800Pro - TT 420 watt Pure Power
Samsung 120gb ATA-100 - Maxtor 40gb ATA - 100
Sony DRU-510A - THAT'S MORE LIKE IT!
!