Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Pentium 4 6xx @ 5.2GHz barely beat FX55 in games!

Last response: in CPUs
Share
February 26, 2005 1:17:30 PM

<A HREF="http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1787/" target="_new">http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1787/&l...;/A>

Wow! I tought a Pentium 4 6xx at 5.2GHz would clearly beat an Athlon FX-55, but NO. In most games it barely beats it. The only clear win is in Lame MP3 encoding.

Well, this probably means that my A64 3000+ that I will receive next week, will be ok for gaming for quite a long time with some overclocking! :smile:

ARTICLE CONCLUSION :

<i>So we hope our findings put an end to all of the discussion about who’s got the fastest processor on the market, that processor is none other than AMD’s Athlon 64 FX55. Due to diminishing returns the Pentium 4 processor needs a whopping 5.2GHz clock speed to keep up with AMD’s flagship processor. So was it a good decision on Intel’s part to announce it will not be shipping a 4GHz processor? We think so, as the Pentium 4 was just never going to best AMD’s Athlon 64. Craig Barret clearly had guts and vision when making that decision, or, and that’s just as likely, he knew the 4GHz Pentium 4 needed another 1.2GHz to soundly beat AMD’s fastest, and that just wasn’t feasible.</i>

-
A7N8X / <font color=green><b>Athlon XP 1800+</font color=green> o/c to <font color=green>Sempron 2800+</b></font color=green>
Kingston DDR333 2x256Megs
<font color=red>Radeon 8500 128Megs</font color=red> @ C:275/M:290 <- <i>It's enough for WoW!</i>
February 26, 2005 1:56:23 PM

PENTIUM 5.2??? yes the Athlon chips are the best for gaming, hands down.
February 26, 2005 4:44:44 PM

Like Romey says, "SCOREBOARD"! A win is a win! Now we'll have to see how they do when the new 64bit apps hit. Hey, my new Clawhammer barely beats my P4 in Aquamark3. I guess I'll just pitch it in the river.

Abit IS7 - 3.0C @ 3.6ghz - Mushkin PC4000 (2 X 512) - Sapphire 9800Pro - TT 420 watt Pure Power
Samsung 120gb ATA-100 - Maxtor 40gb ATA - 100
Sony DRU-510A - Yellowtail Merlot
a b à CPUs
February 26, 2005 7:32:53 PM

Actually clock for clock the Pentium M matches or beats the A64 in many games. But Intel keeps pushing inefficient P4's at the desktop.

<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
February 26, 2005 7:33:35 PM

Hey, that would mean the Pentium-M at 2.6GHz would be a good match for a P4 at TWICE the speed!

<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>
February 26, 2005 8:28:01 PM

Except the P-M does well against the A64 in many apps (just a little slower clock for clock on average I think) but there are a few instances when it just blows goats like in large compiling projects.

s signature has been formatted to fit your scr
February 26, 2005 11:10:55 PM

>Actually clock for clock the Pentium M matches or beats the
>A64 in many games.

PM isn't ready for the (highend) desktop yet. It lacks 64 bit support, and its more than doubtfull it could keep pace with A64 in a clockrace. Yes its (amazingly) cool, and yes, its an excellent performer per watt and per GHz. But its just not a racehorse. An excellent mobile chip, a decent midrange desktop chip (if it where more affordable), just not a high end one.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
February 27, 2005 1:56:44 AM

Wow thats embarassing for intel
February 27, 2005 5:02:49 AM

hey thats great i`m glad to see the little guys are finally showing great promise, i`ve been feeling for a long time that amd had a better chip than intel. it seems intel has finally hit a roadblock and dual core i don`t think will help much either will all the heat issues ....

hear me now, believe me later, trust me in between
i`m a cop you idiot
i`ll be back
February 27, 2005 9:38:48 AM

I dont have one of the new 600 series CPU's so I am not sure if the settings; voltages, timmings etc... are similiar but if they are then this was one piss poor review. I would expect more from a reviewer especially more details. After reading this, I repeated multiple benchmarks with my P4 550[3.4] and based on some of the scores that they were coming up with my rig will smoke theirs at least up to 4.2 because I dont have the cooling to get me farther than that. I wish that they would have included some SiSandra benchmarks especially the memory bandwith. I consistently have scored above 116% of estimated bandwidth. From the limited info that they did give, I picked out two major settings that they didnt come close to optimizing. Now it seems to me that if someone as new to OC'ing as I am can find faults in a reviewers test then something just doesnt add up. Makes me wonder if they just didnt take the time to figure out how to squeeze the most out of this setup or if they were just more interested in bashing Intel.

Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that I am in any way trying to say that AMD is not the fastest and all around best CPU at this point, let me assure you that I beleive that AMD is the King of the Hill at this point. This review is a joke however and IMO was done for one reason, and that was simply to take another shot at Intel. Reviews are great and comparing hardware is a must, however the whole industry suffers when reivews that are as biased as this one are able to make an impact. I realize that for the most part I am alone in this Forum especially when it comes to the 775 platform so I dont expect for you guys to be able to totally trust what one person claims. Im going to make an offer, and I am being totally serious about this. If some of the members here that have the faster AMD rigs want to do some benchmarks and post the scores I would be more than happy to do the same. In fact, I stayed up all night benchmarking and taking screen shots with my digital cam so I have quite a few already. Im not trying to beat anyone or start a war, I fully expect that some of your AMD rigs will outperform this Intel setup, I just would like to see how much of a difference that there would be. I dont beleive for a minute that it will be as large of a gap as the one that this article claims.

READ THE STICKY AND WIN A PRIZE! ALL PRIZES CAN BE CLAIMED IN THE SECTION TITLED "THE OTHER"
a b à CPUs
February 27, 2005 10:24:38 AM

Yes it is pretty obvios that something is amiss. Ram timings on first page
Intel 4/4/4/11
AMD 2/2/2/5

The intel system is running the worst memory timings possible while the AND is running the best possible timings.

Makes you wonder if they are just stupid or biased.

I aint signing nothing!!!
February 27, 2005 1:14:37 PM

Quote:
Yes it is pretty obvios that something is amiss. Ram timings on first page
Intel 4/4/4/11
AMD 2/2/2/5

The intel system is running the worst memory timings possible while the AND is running the best possible timings.

Makes you wonder if they are just stupid or biased.

DDR2 cannot run with tight timings.
February 27, 2005 4:26:56 PM

Quote:
Actually clock for clock the Pentium M matches or beats the A64 in many games. But Intel keeps pushing inefficient P4's at the desktop.

And admit that all those years of developing and "perfecting" (Prescott) Netburst were for nothing? Heads will roll at Intel when that day comes!

<b>Behold, Mine anger and My fury shall be poured out upon this place upon man and upon beast and upon the trees of the field and upon the fruit of the land and it shall burn and shall not be quenched
February 27, 2005 5:33:03 PM

Quote:
Yes it is pretty obvios that something is amiss. Ram timings on first page
Intel 4/4/4/11
AMD 2/2/2/5

The intel system is running the worst memory timings possible while the AND is running the best possible timings.

Makes you wonder if they are just stupid or biased.



P4 was running PC4300.
A64 was running PC3200.


significant increase in clock speed for the P4 over the A64. You could argue the bias the other way as well.


DDR2 clocks higher that regular DDR, and the sacrifice is timings. the higher clocks are supposed to make up for it.. perhaps the only bias is that your an intel fanboy?

-------
<A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>
February 27, 2005 7:38:10 PM

Quote:
Yes it is pretty obvios that something is amiss. Ram timings on first page
Intel 4/4/4/11
AMD 2/2/2/5

Sounds like how THG used to be but reversed. *snickers*
February 27, 2005 9:03:05 PM

Actually the newer stuff can run much tighter timmings. Not as low as DDR1 but getting close. I can run 3-3-3-8 on slot of apps. The 8 doesnt really effect anything thats the T-ras setting. It has an impact though it is minimal. Most of the Benchmarks that I have run are 4-3-3-13 Im about to post some pics of my scores. I will be leaving a link shortly.

READ THE STICKY AND WIN A PRIZE! ALL PRIZES CAN BE CLAIMED IN THE SECTION TITLED "THE OTHER"
February 27, 2005 9:12:51 PM

Come on Phial. Intel fan or not this review is full of BIAS.

READ THE STICKY AND WIN A PRIZE! ALL PRIZES CAN BE CLAIMED IN THE SECTION TITLED "THE OTHER"
February 27, 2005 9:17:59 PM

Quote:
The intel system is running the worst memory timings possible while the AND is running the best possible timings.

Makes you wonder if they are just stupid or biased.

The problem is that both platform use different memory architecture and the P4 probably needed that DDR2 timing to be stable at 5.2GHz... But I'm not sure, I didn't made the test! :smile:

The big problem here is how to compare DDR vs DDR2 systems, does DDR400 2.5-3-3-7 is aquivalent to DDR2-3-4-4-11??? Comparing systems will always be a bit biased. It's impossible to bo 100% unbiased... Personnaly, I think that using tight timing on both DDR and DDR2 is misleading for consumer, because only the enthousiasts buys high-end memory stick.

It's my opinion and I respect it!!! :smile:

-
A7N8X / <font color=green><b>Athlon XP 1800+</font color=green> o/c to <font color=green>Sempron 2800+</b></font color=green>
Kingston DDR333 2x256Megs
<font color=red>Radeon 8500 128Megs</font color=red> @ C:275/M:290 <- <i>It's enough for WoW!</i>
February 27, 2005 9:18:18 PM

how so? Sorry I only read it once

-------
Work sucks.
February 27, 2005 10:19:13 PM

Yeah, but you already have told us you just skim read anyway...SoD can splain it much better...

<pre><font color=red>°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°`°¤o \\// o¤°`°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°
And the sign says "You got to have a membership card to get inside" Huh
So I got me a pen and paper And I made up my own little sign</pre><p></font color=red>
February 28, 2005 12:53:43 AM

Actually I dont suppose that it would be as obvious if you didnt own a 775 platform. What sticks out like a sore thumb to me is that the few settings that they listed are not optimized or at least they arent in comparison with my rig. Mine has a 550 and not one of the 600 Series CPU's but from what I understand most of the OC settings are basically the same. My point is that I have serious doubts as to how much they actually tried to tweak the system. Mine at just over 4 will smoke theirs in some of the test. I cant really compare mine in the graphics area because I am using an X700 Pro which holds me back big time. Ive got the X800XL on the way so that will change.

READ THE STICKY AND WIN A PRIZE! ALL PRIZES CAN BE CLAIMED IN THE SECTION TITLED "THE OTHER"
February 28, 2005 12:56:22 AM

Rod

I dont want you to think that my comments were aimed at you in any way. They arent aimed at anyone. I think that ultimately the AMD is the winner, but not by this margin.

READ THE STICKY AND WIN A PRIZE! ALL PRIZES CAN BE CLAIMED IN THE SECTION TITLED "THE OTHER"
February 28, 2005 7:27:41 AM

Look like someone is trying to defend his wrong purchase. Oh noes!!!!!

Signature (up to 200 characters). You may use <font color=blue><b>Markup</b></font color=blue> in your signature
February 28, 2005 8:14:04 AM

Who? Me?

READ THE STICKY AND WIN A PRIZE! ALL PRIZES CAN BE CLAIMED IN THE SECTION TITLED "THE OTHER"
February 28, 2005 8:14:54 AM

Re: Pentium 4 6xx @ 5.2GHz barely beat FX55 in gam <i><b>[re: mozzartusm]</b></i>

Signature (up to 200 characters). You may use <font color=blue><b>Markup</b></font color=blue> in your signature
February 28, 2005 8:31:38 AM

I guess your saying that I am trying to defend my wrong purchase whatevers. I still dont know if thats what your saying or not. If it is then take a look at this link. Instead of arguing about performance I will let the numbers do the talkng. Go to the photo album and look at the screen shots.
<A HREF="http://home.bellsouth.net/p/s/community.dll?ep=16&group..." target="_new">http://home.bellsouth.net/p/s/community.dll?ep=16&group...;/A>

READ THE STICKY AND WIN A PRIZE! ALL PRIZES CAN BE CLAIMED IN THE SECTION TITLED "THE OTHER"
February 28, 2005 8:40:33 AM

Can i fedex you a cookie.

Sorry i just hate fanboys.

Signature (up to 200 characters). You may use <font color=blue><b>Markup</b></font color=blue> in your signature<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by coylter on 02/28/05 05:42 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
February 28, 2005 9:05:34 AM

That makes alot of sense. You hate fanboys. I guess im a fanboy. I rarely ever suggest to anyone here that they buy an intel system. Just because I have one myself doesnt mean that I think that they are the best. You can talk all the worthless crap you want to and all its going to do is make you look less intelligent than you already seem to be. Keep on with the worthless comments but keep in mind that the scores you just saw will most likely be ones that you will only see when looking at someone elses system.

BTW, dont forget that you were the one that started this not me. You accomplished what you were trying to do by pisssing me off. If getting SCHOOLED in the process was worth it then congradulations.

READ THE STICKY AND WIN A PRIZE! ALL PRIZES CAN BE CLAIMED IN THE SECTION TITLED "THE OTHER"
February 28, 2005 11:06:26 AM

Wow it sure seem to piss you off ><

Signature (up to 200 characters). You may use <font color=blue><b>Markup</b></font color=blue> in your signature
February 28, 2005 1:26:41 PM

Funny kids!!! Always picking on each other!!! Go out and play!!! :smile:

-
A7N8X / <font color=green><b>Athlon XP 1800+</font color=green> o/c to <font color=green>Sempron 2800+</b></font color=green>
Kingston DDR333 2x256Megs
<font color=red>Radeon 8500 128Megs</font color=red> @ C:275/M:290 <- <i>It's enough for WoW!</i>
February 28, 2005 1:48:49 PM

Outside, where is that 8O!

Signature (up to 200 characters). You may use <font color=blue><b>Markup</b></font color=blue> in your signature
February 28, 2005 10:19:26 PM

Indeed I am confused by this term "outside" do explain further.

Xeon

<font color=red>Post created with being a dickhead in mind.</font color=red>
<font color=white>For all emotional and slanderous statements contact THG for all law suits.</font color=white>
February 28, 2005 10:57:21 PM

isnt that what you were tryign to do ? stfu knob he wasnt being a fanboy

-------
Work sucks.
February 28, 2005 11:32:14 PM

Mozz may not be the biggest fanboy around, but when you are looking for a performance fanboy, you can count him in. It may be true that he is better working with Intel chips, but I'd put major $ on any system he built being a top performer in it's class.
March 1, 2005 12:14:28 AM

10gb/sec memory bandwidth, w00t

-------
Work sucks.
March 1, 2005 1:21:11 AM

Fanboy? On the contrary if nobody experiments with different platforms how is anyone going to know what performance and what quirks to expect? I'd love to see a guy make a living with an "AMD Systems Only" or an "Intel Only" sign in front of his computer shop. Rock on Mozz!


Abit IS7 - 3.0C @ 3.6ghz - Mushkin PC4000 (2 X 512) - Sapphire 9800Pro - TT 420 watt Pure Power
Samsung 120gb ATA-100 - Maxtor 40gb ATA - 100
Sony DRU-510A - Yellowtail Merlot
March 1, 2005 2:02:57 PM

I havnt been on since a while but that post left me with that impression :-/

Signature (up to 200 characters). You may use <font color=blue><b>Markup</b></font color=blue> in your signature
March 2, 2005 5:18:51 PM

I didn't get that impression from M. Sounds like to me that he didn't like the way that small site did some of the oc'n and offered an alternative.

I personally prefer athlon chips (primarily for reasons of price), but i just have this gnawing fear of being eaten by Intelzilla...don't you? don't we all?

Current machines running F@H:
Athlons: [64 3500+][64 3000+][2500+][2000+][1.3x1][366]
Pentiums: [X 3.0][P4 2.4x5][P4 1.4]

It's not worth saying unless it takes a really long time to say!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b Ý World of Warcraft
March 2, 2005 5:20:37 PM

I kinda get that after looking at that 925xe chipset... :frown:

<font color=green> Woohoo!! I am officially an <b> Enthusiast </b>!! </font color=green>
<i> <font color=red> One new Firefox fan </font color=red> </i>
March 2, 2005 5:49:10 PM

=D

Oh well. AMD fanboy! =P

Yes i refuse to use graphic smilies...thats because i'm a Text fanboy!!! And I freely admit it!

Current machines running F@H:
Athlons: [64 3500+][64 3000+][2500+][2000+][1.3x1][366]
Pentiums: [X 3.0][P4 2.4x5][P4 1.4]

It's not worth saying unless it takes a really long time to say!
March 2, 2005 10:21:03 PM

Today I was checking a post on another site that I hadnt checked in over a month. The last reply was some guy calling me "One of those THG fanboy's" among other things. I thought that fit into this picture pretty good :lol: 

READ THE STICKY AND WIN A PRIZE! ALL PRIZES CAN BE CLAIMED IN THE SECTION TITLED "THE OTHER"
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b Ý World of Warcraft
March 3, 2005 6:44:21 AM

Funny, and you know what I'm running ATM? A socket 478 P4 1.7 on an ASUS P4s333 :smile:

<font color=green> Woohoo!! I am officially an <b> Enthusiast </b>!! </font color=green>
<i> <font color=red> One new Firefox fan </font color=red> </i>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b Ý World of Warcraft
March 3, 2005 6:46:52 AM

Yeah, that does fit in here lol. You know, I think I really <b> HATE </b> that word. It's friggin homogenized :smile:

<font color=green> Woohoo!! I am officially an <b> Enthusiast </b>!! </font color=green>
<i> <font color=red> One new Firefox fan </font color=red> </i>
March 3, 2005 10:11:21 AM

mozzartusm is not a fanboy. he loves hes p4 because it treats him good, a reliable pro is a good pro as long as the pro swollows.

fx55 owns all p4`s in games simple.......

no more arguing. if i hear different then you cant handle the truth.
March 3, 2005 11:57:14 AM

Im not sure exactly what you are trying to say so im a little confused on which way you were going with this. Im clear on where you stand as to which system is the fastest. Its the comment to me that im not sure about. You do realize that I never was arguing about which system was the fastest dont you? My comments were about why I felt that the reviewer was biased. This all got turned into something else along the way. All I was pointing out at the beginning was that if someone like myself could easily point out some major flaws in the way that the test was run then it seems almost certain that something doesnt add up. I never have tried to convince myself or anyone else that one was faster than the other. In fact, how would I know which was the better system for a gamer. I dont own one single game. Thats just not my thing. I do know that the Intel system in this review had not been setup to perform at its highest levels. I have no way of knowing if the reviewer just wasnt familiar enough with the setup, or if they just werent interested in maxing the system out. Either way the fact remains that the review didnt paint a very clear picture of what the Intel system is capable of. This may be equally true for the AMD system as well. I wouldnt know the answer to that however because I dont own one and I am not familiar enough with an AMD setup to say one way or another.

READ THE STICKY AND WIN A PRIZE! ALL PRIZES CAN BE CLAIMED IN THE SECTION TITLED "THE OTHER"
March 3, 2005 1:28:50 PM

Michael Dell has done pretty well with his Intel only sign in front of his shop... :) 

I'm just your average habitual smiler =D
March 3, 2005 3:04:34 PM

I was trying to break the ice with a pro joke my man. and make veryone laugh and not at ur expense buddy, dont worry.

i can see why you think the reviewer is bios but its unfounded, AS memory timings (bigger memory bandwidth for intel) and increased fsb should compensate for this, this is the design for which intel intended to have ddr2 compared to a faster latency ddr1 but smaller 400mhz (smaller memory bandwidth) amd 64bit.

but intel just cant achive the power of the fx55 in games until latencys improve with ddr2 but even then they still cannot match latencys of ddr1.

i cant see the results of the same 2 pro`s used changing in the next year or 2.

So is the reviewer bios clearly no if the argument is on memory.
March 3, 2005 4:27:39 PM

heh =D

I'm sitting at a p4 1.4 myself right now...god i wish i had my amd at work...=/

Current machines running F@H:
Athlons: [64 3500+][64 3000+][2500+][2000+][1.3x1][366]
Pentiums: [X 3.0][P4 2.4x5][P4 1.4]

It's not worth saying unless it takes a really long time to say!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
a b Ý World of Warcraft
March 3, 2005 6:56:53 PM

...need...to get...Tax Return...back...must...get money...from government...GASP :smile:

<font color=green> Woohoo!! I am officially an <b> Enthusiast </b>!! </font color=green>
<i> <font color=red> One new Firefox fan </font color=red> </i>
March 3, 2005 11:56:01 PM

Thats cool.

Let me try a different approach to my point. Anyone can read a review and form an opinoin on it. I think that is basically what we all do. Anyone that writes a review and expects for it to have credibility should always keep in mind that people need to have all the facts if they are going to be able to take anything of substance away from the review. This particular review fell way short of providing detail. That in itself makes me hesitant to put much faith in the methodology that was used. The memory issues that I had referenced were just one of my concerns. This new platform (DDR2, PCIexpress) bring with it different things that must be considered and taken into account. Im referring mostly to BIOS settings that you dont find with AGP and DDR1.

Again, my intent was never to start a debate about which was faster, I think that is clear. AMD has made and continues to make very wise choices that have put them at a clear advantage.

READ THE STICKY AND WIN A PRIZE! ALL PRIZES CAN BE CLAIMED IN THE SECTION TITLED "THE OTHER"
!