Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

P4 150% FASTER THAN A T-BIRD!!!

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 15, 2001 8:08:49 AM

Newly released <A HREF="http://www.mersenne.org/bench.htm" target="_new">benchmarks</A>(prime95 v21) have the P4 with one arm tied behind the back and one leg in a cast and while wearing a blindfold-smoking the T-bird! Amen.

also here's a link to an AMD paid <A HREF="http://www.jc-news.com/index.cgi" target="_new">website</A> and read their little article about the it.



"AMD/VIA...you <i>still</i> are the weakest link, good bye!"

More about : 150 faster bird

Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 15, 2001 9:02:20 AM

Wow that's is incredible the p4 is much better than I expected when properly optimized. Cool getting better all the time soon ill have my dual P4 then its play time. Who's gonna go dual palimino?

SPUDMUFFIN

<font color=red>Being Evil Is Good. Cause I Can Be A Prick And Get Away With It.</font color=red> :lol: 
May 15, 2001 9:28:17 AM

Those are some nice benchmarks. Http://www.distributed.net has a client listed as beta as well. One of the additions mentioned in the changes.txt file is P4 optimized code. I'd be interested in seeing some benchmarks on that one as well.

-Raystonn

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 15, 2001 11:50:40 AM

If all you do with you computer is chasing prime numbers then you have reason to be impressed...

I mainly use mine for games, so the figures aren't very interesting...


/J

AMD TBIRD 1.33
Asus A7M266
Vapochill
nVida Geoforce3
Apacer 256MB DDR266
Seagate X15
May 15, 2001 11:54:28 AM

LOL

---------
I am the first and only one with a 16MB GeForce2 GTS graphics card! :smile:
May 15, 2001 1:51:22 PM

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHHAAH!

That's very reasonable I guess. Can you argue with that?

Beer is the devil's piss.
May 15, 2001 2:38:41 PM

:smile: if all you do is games then I guess you do deserve a Athlon cooled with the vapochill no less, just how much did you have to fork over for that rig? rotflmao!!! just to play games??? ha! are you a professional cyberathlete? LOL,



"AMD/VIA...you <i>still</i> are the weakest link, good bye!"
May 15, 2001 2:44:43 PM

wow. you gave us another link to an another article.

how exciting.

I think I'll go throw my tbird away now that I read that article.

not.


:tongue: <font color=green> I LOVE INTEL. It tastes like chicken </font color=green>
May 15, 2001 3:49:23 PM

That is about the most pointless article I have ever seen. WHO THE HELL CARES?! I own a T-Bird but if you show me something that says P4 outperforms it in real world apps and is more affrodable, I'm open-minded. Since that hasn't happened yet, I guess I'll stick with my proc...

Are we there yet?
May 15, 2001 4:24:50 PM

Th funny thing I see is that without SSE2, the P4 at 1500 mHz performs about equal to a TBird 900 or 1000. But, it does show that power of SSE2, and that it does show how well performance can improve. The only problem I have with this test as a guide for real world performance is that this test is extrmeley narrow, meaning it only does one thing. I find it extremely doubtful that in real world complicated and wide-ranging programming, SSE2 will show such huge performance gains. That would be great if it did, as SSE2 will be with both AMD and Intel, but it is unlikely it will be so great.

The "AMD paid" website link you provide is actually very upbeat to the results and depict them in a positive light. What was your point of that post?

"Trying is the first step towards failure."
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 15, 2001 4:57:37 PM

That indicates a 'potential' which may or may not be utilized.
For more closer to 'real' life benchmarks, see this review:


http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q2/010423/index.html

P4 does perform better in some applications, as well as in Q3...but really, you do not buy P4 or AMD 1.33 to play Q3 at 640 x 480 resolution ??

I didn't think so.

Cheers,

hell out
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 15, 2001 5:57:22 PM

AMD TBIRD 1.33
Asus A7M266
Vapochill
nVida Geoforce3
Apacer 256MB DDR266
Seagate X15

??? I'm going to agree with meltdown here, why in the world would you get a vapochill just to play ames? AND who would buy a vapochill and NOT OVERCLOCK!?!? I don't understand.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 15, 2001 7:16:47 PM

Umm... In real world uses, and since mostly gamers buy the high end fastest systems, an Athlon @1.33 or HIGHER can whoop a P4 at 1.7ghz. Now since you are talking optimized code here FOR the P4, why not throw in an alpha CPu WITH optimized code? Exactly.. It is NOT the same playing field. The ALPHA with it's huge cashe and differences will WHOOP both CPU's but we are not comparing the same real world test here.. Static benchmarks such as this with their optimised codes are BS. Who cares.
It's the frame rate that most people are interested in.

MrNuke
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 15, 2001 7:47:04 PM

Big question what happens when AMD gets to where Intel got for speed stepping??? When they redesign the core to do what Intel is doing then what??? Oh I forgot AMD doesn't have to do any real R&D they just licensee all the technology from Intel.

SPUDMUFFIN

<font color=red>Being Evil Is Good. Cause I Can Be A Prick And Get Away With It.</font color=red> :lol: 
May 15, 2001 9:48:33 PM

From your URL: "The Pentium 4 does not however have a hardware rotate instruction."

Where do they get the idea that the Pentium 4 has less instructions than the Pentium 3? The Pentium 4 supports all the same instructions, including all of IA32, MMX, SSE, and SSE2. It definately has a hardware rotate instruction, as did the 80386, 80486, Pentium, Pentium Pro, Pentium II, and Pentium III. To drop support for standard instructions would be paramount to suicide. You would no longer be able to run 99.999% of the software out there. The information on that page is just wrong.

-Raystonn

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
May 15, 2001 9:51:55 PM

Got a link?

---------
I am the first and only one with a 16MB GeForce2 GTS graphics card! :smile:
May 15, 2001 10:01:07 PM

You need a link for this? This is common sense. Removal of standard IA32 instructions from a processor would make it no longer an IA32 CPU. IT would not longer run any of the software as it would throw exceptions whenever it hit the unsupported instructions.

Simply look through the technical documentation on Intel's website for the Pentium 4. It will tell you exactly what instructions/instruction sets it supports.

-Raystonn

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
May 15, 2001 10:05:10 PM

"Big question what happens when AMD gets to where Intel got for speed stepping??? When they redesign the core to do what Intel is doing then what??? Oh I forgot AMD doesn't have to do any real R&D they just licensee all the technology from Intel."

Are you talking about Speedstep vs. PowerNow! technology? If so Amd is already far beyond Intel. Speedstep has only 2 settings (high and low). PowerNow! has a total of 32 possible speed settings and automatically adjusts itself on-the-fly when the power is needed and slows back down when its not to conserve battery power.
May 15, 2001 10:13:27 PM

I did. No hardware rotate instruction....

Also I believe the hardware rotate instruction is part of IA32, not IA32 itself.

---------
I am the first and only one with a 16MB GeForce2 GTS graphics card! :smile:
May 15, 2001 11:09:01 PM

IA32 is the list of all instructions present in the 80386. This was the first IA32 processor and defined the standard. The hardware rotate instruction is a part of IA32, and hence is present in all CPUs that are 100% IA32 compatible, including the Pentium 4.

-Raystonn

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
May 16, 2001 12:38:05 AM

What about IA64. AMD isn't IA64 yet. Maybe AMD will go IA64 after the HAMMER.

:redface: :cool: :eek:  :frown: :lol:  :mad:  :smile: :tongue: :wink:
The only nice Intel guy.
May 16, 2001 1:15:57 AM

IA64 is the standard 64-bit instruction set that the Itanium will be pioneering. I do not expect AMD to use IA64 until they have sufficiently explored x86-64. AMD is targetting x86-64 only at machines that require more memory. Their whole 64-bit platform is based on 64-bit meaning only more memory, while stating that most applications should not bother to be written to take advantage of a 64-bit CPU. In my opinion this is not 64-bit innovation, but 32-bit complacency similar to the old DOS extenders in the 16-bit days that gave you access to more than 1 megabyte (16 bit's limit) of memory.

AMD's strategy in going this route is twofold. First, it does not have the capital, nor the time, to do a complete optimized redesign for 64-bit. Intel started on this long ago, as was necessary for such a new design, and has a huge head start. They needed something simpler that they could finish much more quickly to attempt to be competitive. Second, they calculated that there would be a time after the introduction of the 64-bit CPU where it would not be a great performer on current software, most of which is still 32-bit. This was not a great discovery as it always happens with large paradigm shifts. It happened when we moved from 16 to 32 bits. It will happen when we move from 32 to 64 bits. They intend to take advantage of this 'twilight', if you will, before the dawn of massive amounts of 64-bit applications by pounding on Intel for having lackluster performance on 32-bit applications. Because during the transition there will still be more 32-bit applications available than 64-bit applications, this could have some kind of a marketing benefit for AMD.

Do not mistake any of these strategies as any kind of technological benefit. You did not want to be the owner of a 286 (16-bit CPU) when Windows 95 (requires a 32-bit CPU) was introduced. Even today we still have people claiming DOS is better than Windows. These are the leftovers of those who chose to stick with older hardware because it ran the applications they were using at the time (DOS apps) more quickly. It might have made a bit of sense at the time to stick with an older CPU, because 32-bit applications had not yet proliferated as they have today. That, however, would have completely left us out of the 'new technology' loop. What fun is it to always be the last person on the block who gets to play with the new toys? Not much fun at all. How profitable is it to be the last company to develop software for new technology? Not very profitable at all. Everyone else has already beaten you to the customers.

I do expect AMD to eventually go with an IA64 processor, but not until they have soaked Intel for all they can with the "Itanium is slow at 32-bit IA32 software" marketing line. The first 386 was slower at 16-bit code than the fastest 286. I don't know about all of you, but I'd rather have the 386.

-Raystonn

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
May 16, 2001 1:19:08 AM

Raystonn your staying after a couple years when IA64 is welcome to the Desktop, server, Mobile market then AMD will move to IA64. Or AMD will never use IA64.

:redface: :cool: :eek:  :frown: :lol:  :mad:  :smile: :tongue: :wink:
The only nice Intel guy.
May 16, 2001 1:25:19 AM

Eventually they will have to use IA64. This is probably less than 10 years off. AMD will milk the x86-64 as much as they can, but it simply does not perform anywhere near IA64. Their critical time period is when 32-bit software is still very popular. That is where x86-64 actually shines, not on 64-bit software.

-Raystonn

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
May 16, 2001 1:25:27 AM

Of course the P4 has a rotate instruction--I think they mean it just isn't as hard-wired as before. Not that that really matters; very little of the x86 is fully hard-wired anyways. It's been part microcode since the beginning.

If they said instead that the P4 had a <i>slower</i> rotate instruction, then I could see that it matters.

Kelledin

bash-2.04$ kill -9 1
init: Just what do you think you're doing, Dave?
May 16, 2001 1:48:04 AM

Quote:
AMD will milk the x86-64 as much as they can, but it simply does not perform anywhere near IA64.

Errr...that seems like a rather premature assumption. AFAIK the Hammer isn't even <i>out</i> yet--there's only a software emulator, which isn't all that indicative of final performance. We'd probably all better wait and see before making such definite statements.

Of course, if you have a link to actual hardware benchmarks, I'd love to see it.

Kelledin

bash-2.04$ kill -9 1
init: Just what do you think you're doing, Dave?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 16, 2001 12:07:11 PM

IA64 is not intended for the desktop. Maybe one day, but that day is still very far away. I dont even think intel has ever said IA64 was intended for the desktop eventually.
--
Second, they calculated that there would be a time after the introduction of the 64-bit CPU where it would not be a great performer on current software, <snip> They intend to take advantage of this 'twilight'
--

Remember the Pentium Pro ? That was a very long time after 32 bit had become a reality with the 386. Even then 16 bit mattered.. a lot. Going from 16 bit to IA32, wasnt nearly as challenging as going from IA32 to IA64.
Today, we are beginning to see the first 64 bit IA64 cpu. No software yet though, well hardly anyway. I think intel is making the same mistake all over again. Itanium runs 32 bit software *really* slow (P100-like). This twighlight might acually last a year or 5, maybe 10. During this time, running mixed 64/32 bit software on a IA64 is probably not an option.. this rules out Itanium, unless for some very specialized tasks for which optimized IA64 software is out. Why go for IA64 then anyway ? Why not established (64 bit) RISC architectures ? Unless IA64 would be that much faster, which remains to be seen.

Meanwhile, P4/5/+ will remain 32 bit, so applications that require large (I mean, HUGE) memory access, are not well suited for IA32 either.

It makes perfect sense to take advantage of this. I think AMD has taken a very wise approach with X86-64. You get full speed 32 bit, which will be necessary for a long time (especially on the desktop), and you get "free" 64 bit support if required (mainly in the server area for at least 5 years). From what I read, convertion to x86-64 would be a whole lot easier than to IA64.

I dont really see IA64 compete with x86-64. IA64 is much more a competitor to existing 64 bit RISC architectures, since it has nearly nothing in common with x86. x86-64 on the other hand, seems like a good way to extend the life of x86.
May 16, 2001 12:42:03 PM

Ohhhh, a little research clears it up...I remembered reading something about this.

Intel had a heavily optimized high-speed barrel shifter in the 386 up to the P3. It got scrapped in the P4 and replaced with a much slower shift/rotate execution unit. That <i>would</i> be rather bad--the high-speed barrel shifter was at the core of integer instructions ROL, ROR, SHL, SHR, MUL, IMUL, and probably quite a few others as well. Shifting bits is an extremely common and oft-repeated operation in a CPU.

This is an old URL, but I really should provide a link just to be fashionable:

<A HREF="http://www.emulators.com/pentium4.htm" target="_new">http://www.emulators.com/pentium4.htm&lt;/A>

Kelledin

bash-2.04$ kill -9 1
init: Just what do you think you're doing, Dave?
May 16, 2001 2:23:18 PM

well, for me performance is important in real world apps, and SSE2 hasnt come into real world yet.

and Raystonn how can you make such a presumptuious statement like this? any if the x86-64 processors havent even come out yet, and you say they dont perform near IA-64? you need to visit some place like http://www.x86-64.org or http://www.amd.com

girish

<font color=blue>die-hard fans don't have heat-sinks!</font color=blue>
May 16, 2001 3:23:15 PM

Quote:
Their whole 64-bit platform is based on 64-bit meaning only more memory, while stating that most applications should not bother to be written to take advantage of a 64-bit CPU.

It extends to more than memory. The eight general-purpose registers are extended to 64 bits, and eight other 64-bit registers are added. They are all capable of 64-bit integer arithmetic in the same manner that EAX, EBX, ECX, EDX etc. are capable of 32-bit arithmetic. SSE is 128-bit already--no immediate need to extend that.

The only instructions that are "invalid" in AMD's 64-bit mode are instructions that (a) were rarely/never used, or (b) are pretty much pointless in 64-bit mode anyways. With the ASCII/decimal adjust instructions, it's a little of both--who needs BCD with 64-bit integers?

Quote:
It [the paradigm shift] happened when we moved from 16 to 32 bits.

AMD's approach is the <i>exact same approach</i> that Intel took going from 16-bit to 32-bit. I think Intel has been making the 64-bit paradigm shift harder than it has to be.

Kelledin

bash-2.04$ kill -9 1
init: Just what do you think you're doing, Dave?
May 16, 2001 7:03:28 PM

this thread is not for 64 bit discussions.

lets sum it up, P4 is 150% faster than Athlon Tbird... if the app uses SSE2 optimisations. if it doesnt, then its <b>150% slower</b>, since Tbird running at 1.33GHz outperforms 1.7GHz of P4!

<font color=blue>die-hard fans don't have heat-sinks!</font color=blue>
May 16, 2001 7:19:30 PM

it's too bad that the optimized software is not as blind as you are, hooray for new optimized software!

so, go back to your 16bit DOS compatability mode and stfu!



"AMD/VIA...you <i>still</i> are the weakest link, good bye!"
May 16, 2001 7:24:54 PM

well..

I don't get paid by intel, amd, ati, or nvidia so i tell the truth "|" 0 /\/\
May 16, 2001 8:28:04 PM

Thank you Captain Obvious.. Just because IA32 is still in all CPUs doesn't mean they can't modify it.

---------
I am the first and only one with a 16MB GeForce2 GTS graphics card! :smile:
May 16, 2001 9:17:41 PM

Guess that Emulators article makes clearer why P4 preforms so horribly in RC-5 cracking: P4/1.7Ghz = Cel700Mhz or Duron ~550Mhz. According to Distributed.net speeds database, P4 is doing little better in OGR contest, but being 2 times slower than Athlon in Mhz vs. Mhz isn't nothing to talk about either. Wonder does P4 performs so pathetically on scientific calculations/other places where numeric crunching matters, too...
May 16, 2001 11:12:24 PM

ONLY POSSIBLE IF...

the P4 is in a car traveling 150 MPH and the T-Bird is in a car traveling 1 MPH.

It worked yesterday! :lol: 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 17, 2001 3:13:47 AM

"AMD TBIRD 1.33
Asus A7M266
Vapochill
nVida Geoforce3
Apacer 256MB DDR266
Seagate X15

??? I'm going to agree with meltdown here, why in the world would you get a vapochill just to play ames? AND who would buy a vapochill and NOT OVERCLOCK!?!? I don't understand."

- Where, exactly, did AMDMeltdown mention anything about the Vapochill?

- Do you know what a Vapochill is? Why wouldn't you buy one, "just to play ames"? Do you overclock so that you're office applications run better...? I don't...

- Who said anything about NOT overclocking? Just that I don't state my current MHz doesn't mean that I haven't overclocked...


Please try and stick to the subject.


/J

AMD TBIRD 1.33
Asus A7M266
Vapochill
nVida Geoforce3
Apacer 256MB DDR266
Seagate X15
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 17, 2001 3:22:50 AM

"if all you do is games"

The keyword here is "MAINLY", I MAINLY use it for games. I occationally use it for some 3D work as well, I guess all games are banished from your precious P4?


"just how much did you have to fork over for that rig? rotflmao!!! just to play games???"

Much less then what you would have to pay for a P4 setup with equivalent performance...


Do you pick on guys/gals buying a Ferrari as well?
"Did you pay $100.000 for a car and you only drive it?!"

Oh well...


/J

AMD TBIRD 1.33
Asus A7M266
Vapochill
nVida Geoforce3
Apacer 256MB DDR266
Seagate X15
May 17, 2001 11:45:48 AM

Um I have to agree as well, you're nuts if you get a vapochill and don't overclock..... unless you're really running a TBird 750 and it's at 1.33. :wink:

---------
I am the first and only one with a 16MB GeForce2 GTS graphics card! :smile:
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 17, 2001 12:21:24 PM

*Sigh*

<Irony>Alright, I DON'T overclock! I just bought the Vapochill cause the case looks cool....</Irony>

/J

AMD TBIRD 1.33
Asus A7M266
Vapochill
Elsa Geforce3
Apacer 256MB DDR266
Seagate X15
May 17, 2001 7:55:17 PM

Could you buy me one, please?

---------
I am the first and only one with a 16MB GeForce2 GTS graphics card! :smile:
May 18, 2001 7:04:08 AM

right...

so you have plenty of money i guess... first, you get a P4 at incredibly high price, then wait for the optimised software to come around and again pay for it...
cool!

you would be waiting forever for all the aps to be optimised for P4.

as a core programmer (I enjoy progamming in assembly, and code optimisation is my special interest, for your info) I know how optimiastion can work wonders with apps, but that doesnt come without price.

i remember when the 486 optimisations were preferred over Pentium ones, for retaining backward compatibility with reasonable performance. here you are using an entirely new insrtuction set, so where does this optimisation come in? its like comparing a bike with a bicycle. the bike has a engine, the bicycle doesnt.

and what you, me and everybody is concerned with is how the chip would fare in our day to day apps, dont you? if it does offer 1000% performance improvement in some apps which are hardly 5-10% of my usual work, then that makes no difference to me. and such SSE2 "optimised" software is not going to be compatible with any other processrs, neither from intel nor from any others. then why should I write code for it?

as for 16 bit DOS, its still omni-compatible, and P4 can run it too. just a wee-bit slower.

girish

<font color=blue>die-hard fans don't have heat-sinks!</font color=blue>
May 18, 2001 7:56:19 PM

...
"and such SSE2 'optimised' software is not going to be compatible with any other processrs..."
...

The Intel C/C++ Compiler builds applications that incorporate SSE, SSE2, MMX, and the extra Pentium Pro/2 instructions as well as instructions that are not CPU-specific. It then chooses which instructions to use at runtime based on your current processor. This compiler plugs right into VC++ with only one checkbox that tells the IDE to use the Intel compiler rather than the VC++ version. All you really need to do to make 'optimized' software is click the 'rebuild all' option. The software will work on all processors using the most optimized instruction set for whatever processor you are running.

-Raystonn

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
May 18, 2001 8:35:36 PM

There are other "cool" cases out there that cost a whole lot less. But, if you've got that much money, how 'bout loanin' me a few hundred? LOL

Seriously, though, since evryone is makin' fun, why don't you overclock. If you've got an AXIA or AVIA chip, you could probably get some seriously high numbers.

No man stands so tall, as when he stoops to tweak his rig.
May 18, 2001 10:32:40 PM

girlish, pls spare me the bs, you're a two bit programmer who can't even program 32bit code for beans.

so stay in your 640k world of fantasy because the rest is moving towards 64bit and SSE2 coding. good bye!

"AMD/VIA...you <i>still</i> are the weakest link, good bye!"
May 18, 2001 10:34:33 PM

SSE2 is just a red herring used by Intel spin doctors. First of all, there is no excuse to design such a crappy core that without SSE2 it cannot beat lower clock speed Athlon or even PIII. Secondly, practically all the software now ARE NOT SSE2 optimized. Who is going to give me a free upgrade when some of them are finally optimized?? No one. If I bought a program XYZ last year that is run slower on P4, I have to pay again for a new version if and when XYZ is optimized. Why should consumers take that? We want the best performance NOW, not flimsy promises that supposedly delivered by others (software companies, not Intel).

I would have no problem with P4 if it can deliver just slightly better performance (at higher clock speed don't forget) right now and promise much better performance later with SSE2. But, it is NOT the case. Thank about it, Athlon can be made SSE/SSE2 compatible. In fact, Athlon-4 is already SSE compatible. So where is the P4's advantage? Artificially high clock speed (by very inefficient extra long pipeline)?? I don't think so.

**Spin all you want, but we the paying consumers will have the final word**
May 18, 2001 10:34:39 PM

you must really love that damn tv show......

---------
I am the first and only one with a 16MB GeForce2 GTS graphics card! :smile:
May 18, 2001 10:43:16 PM

dude you too!, spare me the bs please! just close your eyes and it will go away, good bye.

"AMD/VIA...you <i>still</i> are the weakest link, good bye!"
May 18, 2001 10:51:09 PM

I suppose that the slot A Amd users where "tricked" as well, eh?
you know wusy? I am convinced-more than ever; that you are not getting a proper education down under.

"AMD/VIA...you <i>still</i> are the weakest link, good bye!"
!