Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

P4 vs Athlon Review

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 6, 2001 4:44:05 PM

This is a link to a good, balanced review of the two processors. Zealots in EITHER camp probably won't like it. (HINT: Probably means it's pretty objective. There is actually something for everybody). Would enjoy hearing comments on it.
http://www.tech-report.com/onearticle.x/2046

More about : athlon review

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 6, 2001 4:50:12 PM

The conclusion says Athlon..

No new news to me...
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 6, 2001 4:53:40 PM

Me neither...Kinda nukes the "Tom is biased argument" because it agrees with most of the points he made in his original take. Also does a good job of pointing out the strengths and weaknesses in both processors. But, you're right. Still comes out with AMD in the final analysis.
Related resources
March 6, 2001 5:11:25 PM

nothing wrong with being biased when you're right.

Megaton
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 6, 2001 5:11:29 PM

Yes
I mean both processors are good..
I mean its just preference really, if you want the one who is cheaper and faster at a lower clockspeed like look

for god sakes the Athlon is at 1200 Mhz
the p4 has a 300MHz gain! 300 Mhz thats a big jump!

Not really comparing equal sides there...
but still the Atlon is very good it shows that.

Even if you say Oh the Pentium 4 is good in this by a tad,
even still its 1500 MHz compared to a 1200 Mhz processor
you would think the 1500 would prevail in all of them
March 6, 2001 5:30:58 PM

My god, when will you people learn?

The current P4 is for development, Its about to change in many ways. Sure you can bench it all you want with non optimized software, weak FPU, reduced cache, wrong die size, not the final socket, initial speeds, and you can make a seventh generation AMD Tbird win.

At least let the damn thing mature into .13 micro before you spooge all over yourself.

I cant wait to bench Itanium vs Hammer software simulator. that should be fair huh?

I would give hammer same respect when it hits the market. give it some time to mature.

"AMD is preparing a new revision of the Athlon, code-named Palomino, that may or may not work properly in current Socket A motherboards." - this is news to me. =)

Better yet, I like how they leave out spec2000 bench where it destroys AMD.

Very biased article for AMD, you can tell in the first few paragraphs.
March 6, 2001 5:35:12 PM

Also notice the system parts makeup.

THEY removed sound card from althon, and left it in P4.
very fair testing since we already know that Athlon systems scores are hurt when these devices are installed. hurt so bad that they must be removed for AMD Athlon to win. VERY FAIR TEST, NOT!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 6, 2001 5:47:18 PM

FUGGER
I am really starting to wonder if you can read....at all. But, I am not suprised that you don't like the article since it comes to the same conclusion that virtually every other one has come to: That for the time being the P-4 just isn't the best deal. And the version being tested is the one being SOLD right now (in reference to your non-optimized software, wrong socket, etc etc comment)so it's not like people are testing pre-market equipment. Intel chose to put it on the market in it's present form....Are you suggesting that they made a mistake and should have waited until they had it RIGHT? For everybody else, I hope it serves as some useful, objective information as opposed to useless "FUGGER fluff".
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 6, 2001 5:48:08 PM

So, you're saying that P4 is a Beta chip?

Also, I'd really like a reference on that statement about PCI devices (soundcard) slowing down Athlons. I'm not being sarcatic ... I'd really be interested in that.

Thanks


In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 6, 2001 5:52:24 PM

Fugger, They did not remove the sound card. "while our comparison systems varied only with respect to the motherboard, memory, and CPU. The Athlon DDR box looked like this" and they go on to list the compenents that differed between the two systems: Motherboard memory and CPU. Soundcard stayed the same. I suppose that you interpreted that part of the article as saying they did not have a hard drive inthe Athlon system either since it was not listed again.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 6, 2001 5:54:57 PM

> for god sakes the Athlon is at 1200 Mhz
> the p4 has a 300MHz gain! 300 Mhz thats a big jump!

Uhmmm, you realize that's irrelavent, right?

1 Mhz on PIII != 1 Mhz on TBird != 1 MHz on P4 != 1 Mhz Celeron, etc...

If you don't believe me, take a look at FPU benchmarks on DEC Alphas. They will SMOKE a TBird (not to mention PIII) @ only 600 MHz. 1.5GHz P4 with SSE optimized code comes close, but not quite.

Some SPEC FP results:
(from http://www.spec.org/osg/cpu2000/results/cfp2000.html)

CPU base peak "Normalized" peak
1.2 GHz TBird 387 417 348
1.0 GHz TBird 298 321 321
1.0 Ghz PIII 327 335 335
1.5 GHz PIV 549 558 372
667 MHz Alpha 514 577 865
833 MHz alpha 590 658 790

The "Normalized" result is obtained by scaling the result to a result for a 1 GHz cpu. This isn't realistic either of course, as is demonstrated by the 1.0 & 1.2 GHz athlon results :-)

I retract my statement about the PIV results being SSE optimized. I'm sure I heard that, but the disclosures don't mention it. The result was submitted by Intel, so I'm sure they did everything they could for it.

In any case, demonstrates the folly of MHz comparisons across architectures.

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice, there is.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ergeorge on 03/06/01 03:57 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 6, 2001 6:00:25 PM

ergeorge
That's a great point. From everything I can see it's going to get harder and harder to make MHz to MHz comparisons as new architectures come on line and the architectures become more different. And despite my needling FUGGER, I see potential for the P-4, especially as the really wind the clock speeds up/fix the FPU/etc.
March 6, 2001 6:29:05 PM

can I point something out, look at the benchmark tools they used some of them are not current ie. 2000, seriously if a benchmarking system does not use a processors full potential then I'll would dismiss it in a sec.

from Sisoft website.
<A HREF="http://www.sisoftware.demon.co.uk/sandra/index.htm" target="_new">
Sandra 2001 Released: The new Sandra has been released. It contains a wealth of new features and improvements. Most known issues with the
previous version have been resolved in this version. Here's a breakdown:

Enhanced (unofficial) support for Windows 200X & NT4.
Burn-in Wizard to test system stability.
Full Pentium 4 support and new SSE2 benchmarks (Whetstone, int/float Mandelbrot, int/float STREAM)
Full AMD DDR platform support and enhanced MMX/3DNow! benchmarks (int/float Mandelbrot)
Full current VIA chipset/south bridges support.
Full current ALI chipset/south bridges support.
Multiplexor support for all current Asus mainboards including SMP boards.
Auto system clock generator (PLL IC) detection. Thus more precise detection of AGP, PCI and memory speeds.
Support for new hardware monitor chips.
Fixed various issues with detection (chipset, system monitoring chips, etc.) See FAQ for details.
</A>
Madonion 3dmark
<A HREF="http://gamershq.madonion.com/3dmark2001/" target="_new">3dmark 2001</A>
Zdnet
<A HREF="http://www.zdnet.com/etestinglabs/stories/benchmarks/0,..." target="_new">Zdnet Content Creation Winstone 2001</A>
Adobe
<A HREF="http://www.adobe.com" target="_new">Adobe Photoshop 6.0</A>

I don't know which or if all are optimised for P4 and/or Amd
but common sense is common sense, test the latest with the latest.



"Amd cpu...Gone in 2 secs flat, it truly is a fast chip!"
March 6, 2001 7:03:53 PM

Quote:
The current P4 is for development

Don't give us that crap! Intel is marketing the P4 to consumers. Don't tell me that the stupid <i>Blue man group</i> commercials appeal to developers. I'm sure software developers see the P4 commertials and think, 'I like the blue men, now I'll write software for the P4.'

The Williamette sucks, but the Northwood has great potential. I hope it is all that it is hyped to be.
March 6, 2001 7:10:24 PM

Benchmarks only show the potential of a computer. What good is all of that potential if the optimized software is still not here?

If I buy a P4 today, will my current software run faster or slower? Whether or not the benchmark programs are optimized, my EXISTING software will run slower. How many of us are willing to replace our software libraries?

I upgraded my last PC because my compile times were taking over 15 minutes. If I had to upgrade all of my compilers to take advantage of the faster system (another $750 for compilers), I would not have upgraded. The AMD system gave me the speed increase I needed WITH MY CURRENT software. The P4 would have at best been the same, or at worst, slower. That would not have been much of an upgrade for me.

By the time SSE2 software is in abundance, the P4 will have been scraped by Intel and replaced by the chip it should have been. Will all software vendors offer free upgrades to SSE2 optimized software? I doubt it.
March 6, 2001 7:20:58 PM

Yoda, you like to put on your shoes before you pull up your pants?

Big secret, P4 is undergoing big changes based upon current P4(like beta steps to final) get product out and tested, make changes.

Maybe Intel should have hired tranmeta to do a software simulation? Its so much easier to develop SSE2 applications and recomile with a software simulator.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 6, 2001 7:27:45 PM

FUGGER
So, I guess you are conceding that Intel released a Beta product to the public that is not quite ready for prime-time? If so, I agree with you. The only problem is that they are spending millions of dollars marketing it as the fastest, most advanced processor available....and charging an aweful lot of money for it to boot. Don't they usually give beta product away to people who want to test it? I really don't want to pay that much for a processor just so I can be Intel's Guinnea pig.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 6, 2001 7:53:39 PM

In reply to FUGGER, firstly i am so sick of hearing you whine about Intel being better than AMD and Tom being Biased.

Other than that, i am gonna agree with one thing you think, Intel have been around longer, having more money and stuff, and therefore they should be better... But like i read someone say in a previous post, they have totally wasted their time and not spent enough mone/time on making a perfected chip with hardware to go with it. I don't know much about the P4 i admit, but i do know that i am NOT buying one for at least another year or so (if they're not recalled by then) and i am not an AMD enthusiast... mainly coz my first AMD Tbird 1.1 just crumbled... but never mind...

Another good thing about Intel, they do at least market in Australia (where i am). I have NEVER seen a TV ad for amd in australia... But the new Blueman ad is kickass... hahaha but that's completely off the subject..

Last point: you guys have got to start trying the approach of ignoring him and hoping he'll go away... Don't you ever remember your mothers telling you that when ppl talked to you in school? "if someone is annoying you, ignore them and they will go away" try it here, i would LOVE to stop seeing F*cking obscene posts from FUGGER everytime i checkout the forums.

And goodnight...

AMD Tbird 1.1Ghz & SuperORB
Asus A7V
128MB PC133 SDRAM
Winfast GeForce2 MX
Win98 SE
March 6, 2001 8:19:29 PM

Tom is biased, and Intel is better.

It may take a year before the P4 matures. but realisticly 3 months and I will be buying a northwood myself.

My posts are not obscene, I rarely curse.

I love to poke my big pointy stick at AMD lemmings.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 6, 2001 9:29:21 PM

Fugger

So Intel released a beta processor to the market, advertising for it and are selling it so us the consumer can test it out? You would think they would test there processors before releasing them and seeing how they perform, its so poor right now you kind of wonder how smar they really are. I will tell you something, they have been second best for so long that they did anything to get a high clockspeed processor at any cost, and the cost is crap p4.

Geeze
Your Full of nothing FUGGER and your bad mood no one wants!

All reivews from Tom and others who say AMD is the better choice , you just cant accept that.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 6, 2001 10:44:45 PM

"The current P4 is for development"
Then why the hell are the selling it? It is wrong to sell it if it is in development. Intel is just using their blue men influence to cheat people into buying the P4 right now. Intel shouldn't be getting away with this.
March 7, 2001 12:30:13 PM

You are a fuggin moron!!!

Why the fugg would intel release and sell a beta chip to consumers? (Unless they have their head stuck in their backsides very much like you)

You just keep posting crap here. I'm guessing you don't have a life outside of this community. You're probably not even aware of an outside world.

If you are so intel oriented, why dont you go chat in all the intel funded places like zdnet!!! Hell! even if you were a PR guy for intel you would've got fired for talking such crap!

Everyone has their own opinions are genuinly entitled to them. But, letting such crap out of your mouth in vain attempts to put down the opposition... That is just pathetic!

-------

Now, the pentium 4 is intels own undoing. They're so used to manipulating the market, they thought they'll just release a chip that would have plenty of new features but would be crap at current apps, and this will make every one write new apps for the p4.

But guess what, They have a powerful opposition this time - the Athlon. They didn't take that into account. Now, they're forced to make more p3's delaying development into the next p4's. They're also forced to repeatedly cut prices.

Now would everyone stop crying about intel p4 being designed to future apps! If AMD can make cpu's to turbocharge current apps, so should intel. 'Cos, when apps containing p4 optimizations are out, AMD will have CPU's out to perform on par if not better, as they always have.




"To make mistakes is just human.
To f*ck things up you definitely need a computer."
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 7, 2001 12:42:12 PM

and I am sure they enjoy poking their own big sticks at you Intel Lemmings.....

When will you all learn to stop loving Corp's that will do nothing but rip you off (that goes for any of them not just AMD and Intel)

Opinions are like arseholes .... everybody’s got one.... :smile:
March 7, 2001 5:00:35 PM

Well gee Fugger thats a great point. I mean at least you can respond to all the points that people are making with such a deep comment: "Tom is biased, and Intel is better."
Wow. Now I see.

Actually, I don't really care. I have been with Intel always and bought an AMD recently because I wanted an excellent chip for cheap, whether Intel is better or not the AMD suits all my needs, is VERY fast, and best of all the price is right.

I think that maybe you should calm down, take a deep breath, look at your life, and realize the amount of time you are wasting arguing about a company that makes computer chips. I mean lets just say that Intel is better than AMD. Does it really matter? I mean, is the difference in speed or what not really that big of a deal? If my game ran at 87 FPS on an intel and 84 FPS on an AMD, and my word processor loaded 0.2 seconds faster on the Intel, would it really matter? I realize that this is a hardware forum and it exists for people who like to talk about these kind of things, HOWEVER, you get so bent out of shape over these things its ridiculous! I mean seriously, if you like Intel, buy intel. If you want to tell other people why, tell them. But be mature. To sit here and act like this is the most important thing in life and to insult other people is not only idiotic, rude, and immature, but also a WASTE OF TIME. When you are 80 years old and laying on your death bed how much is this going to matter? Do you have any value for LIFE and the things that are important in life? Instead of sitting in front of the computer and arguing about a STUPID COMPUTER CHIP why don't you get up, go outside, make some friends (try not to argue with them), spend time with family/relationships - worthwhile things - and GET A LIFE.

Now, I doubt you will do this, but thats OK because if you want to spend your life arguing about who makes better computer chips, thats fine with me (although with the amount of time you spend arguing here I would be surprised to find you have any time to actually enjoy using your sysemt).
In any case, if you are going to continue to participate in this forum, and you want ANY respect, why don't you try presenting your opinions/points in a responsible, mature manner and refrain from filling up forum space with posts that have absolutely no evidence to support your opinions, such as "Tom is biased, and Intel is better." Wow what an argument, just reading that gives me the picture of a six year old who has run out of things to say, but still has to have the last word so responds something like "no I'm right and your wrong". But hey, if thats how you want other people to see you, you're doing the right thing.

And I just need to say it once more - Get your priorites straight, for your own sake.
March 7, 2001 6:11:27 PM

I love how you AMD lemming get all huffy, how many more times do we need a P4 vs Athlon review to figure out where the current/soon to be changed P4 stands? A few more times for you AMD Lemmings obviously.

Your so clueless to development its not even funny, your so stuck with AMD up your ass your forehead has a AMD logo.
Enjoy your disposable CPU.

Dannyaa, I make the same point who cares once you reach 100+ FPS in a game or your MS word opens .002 seconds faster. its all about the quality of the CPU, and knowing that its not gonna destroy itself. (ask grizley1 to show you his new keychain). really want me to list crap out again?

Lemmings hate it when I am corect, poiting out the obvious many times over. just eats them alive, getting all fustrated. =)

I am calm, not sure why lemmings think im upset or not calm for?? boggled! I notice alot of AMD lemmings chiming in with crap FUGGER, blah blah blah. but they say nothing important or relevant to the topic, other than lame attempt to discredit me. WTG Girls!
March 7, 2001 6:59:43 PM

Fugger do you have a P4 System? If so how much did you pay for it? I was looking at P4 Motherboards and a good one is over 200 dollars. Does anyone out there see a problem with that? It is a friggen Mobo! P4 will be great once they are out of the beta stage. But they will have competition, which is a good thing. If someone thinks intel is better fine is someone thinks amd is better fine. We all win if those two companies fight. Intel does need to come down with price though because the P4 (optimised or not) is not worth the money. AMD needs thermal protection. If you have the money get the P4 if you don't get AMD, heatsink fan and someone who know's how to put it on and you will be allright.

Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and most of them stink
March 7, 2001 7:00:07 PM

<b>I make the same point who cares once you reach 100+ FPS in a game or your MS word opens .002 seconds faster.</b>
ABSOLUTELY RIGHT!!! That's why I chose AMD for same performance but a lot cheaper!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 7, 2001 7:32:38 PM

FUGGER, you mock AMD for releasing such burnable chips...I mock Intel for selling a beta chip that sucks (at times performs worse then the P3)..If intel cared, they would have kept P4 in development and sold P3's until the P4 was finished. The P4 will one day be a good chip, but now it is not, especially price performance wise...And if you want good Benchmark tests, since Mhz will not = 1-1-1-1 anymore..then go by Price...You have $2500 to spend, you'll build a much better system right now going with AMD.

"Intel, we release beta products, and sell you new ones in six months"

"AMD, if you don't put on the HSF, then your computer will fry in 5-10 more seconds then if you took one off an Intel chip"

AMD is winning now, Intel will take over a little while with the real P4...but lets see where price / performance stands in a year.



=Quantum
AO Admin
The Dr.Twister Network
http://ao.drtwister.com
March 7, 2001 8:32:38 PM

We have several P4's for testing/development, none for production.

I do not own a P4 at home.

Quantum, more like 3 months till we see northwood and more choices of motherboards. not much choice today, no one wants to make a mobo that is for current P4. (except Asus)

Benchmarks show the P4 owning the Tbird, www.spec.org
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 7, 2001 9:04:17 PM

yeah but fugger...intel's been a real ass by marketing P4's especially with Dell as the dream machine...How many people are screwed with a sucky P4..that can be outmatched by P3's at times, and cost $2x...Intel definetly is the more "Anything for a Buck" company...yet I'd still buy their products at times, if they were better...Whenever your in the market you see which company is doing better...Hell my dad had a Cyrix once for a business comp...(then i tried to load some games on it....)

=Quantum
AO Admin
The Dr.Twister Network
http://ao.drtwister.com
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 7, 2001 9:14:42 PM

yeah, a 300mhz is a big jump between a p4 1500mhz and an
amd athlon at 1200mhz, but i think that the most important
is the card architechture not the speed in mhz.The amd
prossesor design is better and more stable than the p4 one,
and it's the only choice for the overcloking.
So that's why a 1200mhz athlon is better than a 1500mhz p4.
March 7, 2001 9:24:33 PM

Fugger, Intel is much more established than AMD, I agree. This makes a very good point for the Intel's being of higher quality. In fact I agree that the Intel is less prone to overheating and is more stable, and in that matter, they have a higher quality chip. On the other hand, Intel has been somewhat of a let down lately. Considering that they are Intel, the 'big-boys', and are running at 1500MHz I would think that their processor would easily be able to beat AMD. However, when a smaller company like AMD comes along with a processor that matches the P4 and many tests say surpasses (but thats not the point I am making - the fact is is that it is close to the same speed), and does this for a significantly lower price, well, for most people, myself included, thats just a better deal. I am not an AMD lemming - I couldn't really care less about this whole Intel vs AMD war, I'll just buy whichever has the better deal. The quality of an AMD chip is very good - even if the Intel quality is better, it is not by a significant amount, and is definetly not worth the price, at least for me. My computer is running very fast and I am very, very happy with my AMD processor, and considering that I have a 1.2GHz running @ 133 FSB on a great mobo w/RAID, all for $450, thats great. There is no way I could afford over twice that for a system of comparable speed. The overheating is not an issue for me as I don't overclock. I do not think a chip's quality should be based on how well it does something it was not designed to do.
If Intel was tomorrow release a faster, higher quality chip than AMD, for the right price, I would without second thought go and buy an Intel chip. The truth is, however - and there is no denying this, is that Intel is overcharging customers right now. Most people don't know this, because most computer users are those AOL-user type people and they see the advertising, they know the name, and they buy it. I can't blame Intel because they are a business and they are making a ton of money. And Fugger, its not neccasarily that they are making a bad quality chip, it is that they could be making a much better quality chip than they are currently producing, because as Intel, they are very capable of doing so. Until they get their act together they have lost my business - not because I hate Intel, but because I can get a better deal from AMD. For me, and many others, it simply comes down to this: AMD makes a great chip for a lot cheaper than Intel, and even if it is at slightly less quality/speed, the difference in price MORE than makes up for it, and should be expected since they chip is half the price (or even lower). To bash AMD and AMD users is pointless. I am not an AMD lemming, and think being a lemming of any company, be it AMD or Intel, is foolish.

Fugger, I am not trying to make an argument with you why you should like AMD. I couldn't really care less if you like AMD. I appreciate your points about Intel and it is nice to have the other side of things presented. I do ask that you do so in a more respectful and mature manner, however. This forum is a place to learn, research, and discuss, not argue, insult, and demean people.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 7, 2001 9:30:10 PM

Yeah, a 300mhz is a big jump between the intel p4 1500mhz
and the amd athlon 1200mhz, BUT the processor architechture
is more important than the speed in mhz, it depends if the
processor is able to benefit from the speed or not.
And we don't have to forget the cpu overclocing, the amd
is the first and only processor for overclocing, the athlon 1200mhz can run at 1550mhz without problem if we give him the right cooler.
So like we see in benchmarks and tests the athlon is better and more stable than the intel p4 one, so it can compete
with it.
March 8, 2001 8:51:15 AM

Everyones preaching to the converted.
The bottomline is Everyones made their own mind up and there is no convincing each other.
If we want to debate the quality/performance/etc of the different cpu's thats ok. but, if individuals like fugger want to keep their head stuck up their own a$$, I think we should just let them do so!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 8, 2001 7:56:08 PM

Yep, went to the site to check it out.

First of all, I noticed this little tidbit, the site disclaimer for the data:

"The results published by SPEC have been reviewed by the SPEC organization prior to publication. However, these are submissions by member companies and the contents of any SPEC reporting page are the submittor's responsibility. SPEC makes no warranties about the accuracy or veracity of this data."

In other words, the testing was done by the submitters, NOT by SPEC. Therefore, the data is to be taken with a grain of salt.

Secondly, I noticed from the names of the systems tested that the vast majority are meant for workstation or server use. AMD has only recently started entering this region, so the fact that there is little data on AMD systems listed, suggests that it most likely doesn't reflect the marketplace as a whole.

More importantly, while the benchmarks provide some comparisons for the different CPU's, the site itself says that they are meant to test the processor by itself. Unfortunately, the average computer user cannot simply sit down to a monitor, plug a CPU into it, and expect to run their programs. They have to have the full system: hard drive, CD-ROM/burner, video card, and other peripherals, all of which will come into use at one point or another. Hence, while synthetic benchmarks such as SPEC uses have their usefullness, they cannot completely replace benchmarks created by using real-world software -- that is, software that the average user will actually use.

Finally, after some careful comparisons of the numbers, while the P3's and P4's do tend to beat out the Athlons in these tests, they STILL show that the P4 is not that great of a chip. More importantly, the type of memory used is also going to affect the benchmark results. Ignoring costs, RDRAM is faster than even PC2100 DDR RAM, which means that you have the Athlons competing with a speed handicap in the RAM department. That's like taking 2 Olympian sprinters, and telling one of them he can't move his arms while running, or worse that he has to hold 1 leg behind him. Of course he'll lose the race :) 

Anyway, just to hightlight the anaylysis, I used the SPEC CINT2000 results. 6 P4's, 32 P3's, and 2 Athlon 1.2GHz's were running Windows (NT4 SP5 or Win2K, depending on the manufacturer; Athlons all used W2K, the Pentiums were split). From what I could tell, the OS had very little effect on the benchmarks.

Fastest Base Rating: Fujitsu Siemens Celciius 460 (P4 1.5 GHz, 512 MB RD800 RAM) and Intel's D850GB mobo (P4 1.5 GHz, 256 MB RD800 RAM), both with a 524 rating. The fastest Athlon system was AMD's Gigabyte GA-7DX mobo (256 MB PC2100 DDR RAM) at 443. The fastest P3 1 GHz (Dell Precision Workstation 420, 256 MB RD800 RAM) was rated at 454.

Fastest Peak Rating: Intel's D850GB mobo with 536 (the Fujitsu Siemens was right behind with 535, though). The GA-7DX board had a 496 rating. The fastest P3 1 GHz came in at 462.

Examine those benchmarks closely, though:
-- While the P4 is 25% faster in processor speed than the Athlon, it only performed 18.3% better on the benchmark (8.1% on the peak rate).
-- Even worse, although the P4 is 50% faster in processor speed than the P3, it only had a 15-16% increase in the benchmark rating.
-- While the P3 at 1 GHz seems to perform at roughly equal to the Athlon, it also has much faster RAM to work with. To truly test the P3 against the Athlon, the RAM speeds would also have to be equal. This is especially important given that currently RDRAM is more expensive than DDR RAM.

Considering the cheapest costs for these processors (on www.pricewatch.com today: $577 for a P4 1.5 GHz, $236 for a P3 1 GHz, and $232 for an Athlon 1.2 GHz), the performance per dollar for a P4 (0.908 per $ base/0.929 per $ peak) is MUCH lower than that of a P3 (1.924/1.958) or Athlon (1.885/2.111).

And despite any comments you might have about lemmings around here, you're as much an Intel lemming as anyone else is an AMD lemming. So what if the P4 has a higher clock speed, or has a better benchmark? This site didn't deny that the P4 can get higher benchmarks than Athlon. What it DID point out (and what any half-wit that can cut-and-paste data into Excel will also see) is that the P4 doesn't deliver enough extra performance for the cost being charged. When a P4 system costs double or more the cost of an Athlon system, but doesn't deliver double or more of the performance, it's not a good deal. That's why the P4 is flawed.

You come back to me with a P4 system that uses PC2100 DDR RAM, a P4 chip with 64 KB of L1 data cache (and not the 8 KB it currently has) and 64 KB of L1 instruction cache (not the current 12 KB) [BTW: that would make it identical to AMD's Athlon L1 cache], and THEN show me that it can deliver more than double an Athlon's performance. Then I'll believe that the P4 is worth the money Intel is charging for it. Until then, take your feet out of your mouth and start using your brain.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
March 8, 2001 11:14:03 PM

well said ! I agree 1200 mhz is NOT 1500 mhz
P4 quake outperforms AMD by 60 fps
SPEC INT and FP P4 scores are 100 points higher !
3d rendering and video Mpeg scores are higher,
MP3's are too

in short anything 3d and fp intensive using dd3d 8a and ME and optimized sofware will trounce the AMD..
problem is many reviewers are lazy and do not upgrade the OS, 3d API, and software...
when you do it makes a 30% difference
RAMBUS has superior maximum bandwidth expecially dual channel where both ram modules are effectively operating at 1600 mhz concurrently

also with P4 compiled software like dd3d 8a, there is a trememdous speed gain.
P4 has dual FP units operating a 3 GHZ or 2x, and can handle more operations
also P4 has a cache prediction rate of 95% thanks to a table that is 8x times larger than P3 or AMD
it has a 20 stage pipeline and 8 way cache as
well as a 400 mhz memory bus compared with 200-266 for AMD

any 3D app using P4 optimization will outshine anything
the spec mark for the P4 is 550 and its FP is 540 !
currently the fastest CPU around
the P4, it will be upgradable past 2 GHZ this year !
we build thousands of high end systems for clients and test alot of hardware like TOM does, so I am speaking from hands on knowledge :) 

and the problem with all these reviews is they do not understand that the P4 is a ground up new cpu and since it is so efficient it need special optimization and compilers for P4, otherwise the CPU cannot understand or ignores things, and results are cache stalls.

If you want the best system, than AMD and some other listed components would only be considered in the middle to low end category.

ALI and Via chipset are really low end for the most part and since MS and most hardware vendors and card makers use INTEL chipsets to develop their products with , compatibility problems arise from using AMD chipsets,
as they tend not to adhere to industry standard specs.
ASK ANY TECH SUPPORT ENGINEER, loads of AGP problems,
scsi and RAID problems etc..

the following system kicks but I have tested it again most !
ASUS PENTIUM 4 1.5 GHZ MB w 1.5 GHZ CPU

2x 128 Meg 800 mhz RAMBUS (this is dual channel for 3.2 GBPS bandwidth)

2x 15,000 rpm Cheatah 18 GIG Ultra 160 scsi Drives (3.8 MS
one for OS and one for software, can operate concurrently for close to 180 MBPS sustained ! )

Geforce 3 64 meg video

Kenwoood 72X Multilaser CD or Toshiba 16\48 DVD
19" Viewsonic P95f
CASE -COOLER MASTER 201 www.coolermaster.com ALL RAW ALUMINUM GIANT HEATSINK !

WINDOWS M.E with DD3d 8a both P4 compiled !!

this will outperform any AMD system with similiar components



CYBERIMAGE
<A HREF="http:// http://www.4CyberImage.com " target="_new">http:// http://www.4CyberImage.com </A>
Ultra High Performance Computers-
!