Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

More dual Athlon info...

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 3, 2001 8:04:26 PM

wow! a dual pee3 933 up against a dual AMD w/2 tburns @1GHz and not an impressive lead might I add.

man, I know the P4 is crippled but do they have to cripple the P3 too.

oh! and the chipset looks like a f**k'n stupid k6 where's the freak;n heat sink on that sh!t, lol :smile:

"AMD/VIA...you <i>still</i> are the weakest link, good bye!"
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 3, 2001 8:26:24 PM

where is the benchmarks????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Related resources
June 3, 2001 9:03:53 PM

Interesting it would appear that that system is running Dual t-birds and not the Paly's , the paly's prefetch will improve that even more.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
June 3, 2001 9:13:04 PM

I'd recommend everyone just chill about the dual athlon and p4 northbridge stuff. Your just going to get heresy that may not be valid or true and speculation. just wait for the products to hit mainstreme and all the hardware sites benchmark them. That way you'll have a lot of authentic and fair benchmarks to make your judgement on.
June 3, 2001 9:15:30 PM

And yes in the interim we can all sit around and discuss 486 benchmarks.....what fun that would be!

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing!
June 4, 2001 2:02:32 AM

You seem to think it's fair comparing a 1,700 mHz Pentium 4 to a 1,300 mHz Athlon. So it's only unfair when AMD's totally come out on top then? The performance difference is actually pretty darn impressive.

Compiling
real
P3 - 190.386 sec
Athlon - 164.692 sec
15.60% faster

user
P3 - 352.000 sec
Athlon - 294.150 sec
19.67% faster

sys
P3 - 15.260 sec
Athlon - 12.950 sec
17.84% faster

MPEG encoding
real
P3 - 346.673 sec
Athlon - 264.988 sec
30.83% faster

user
P3 - 112.860 sec
Athlon - 74.570 sec
51.35% faster

sys
P3 - 3.620 sec
Athlon - 3.030 sec
19.47% faster

So, between 15% and 50% faster for only a 6.7% faster clock on the Athlons...

AmdMeltdown, it's pretty sad when you have to resort to criticizing what the chip looks like to try and make AMD look bad. Maybe you just finally have to admite this is a GOOD product for AMD chips. That'll probably never happen though...


"Trying is the first step towards failure."
June 4, 2001 2:30:28 AM

More benchmarks form JC-news

Test Dual __________________PIII-933__________Dual Athlon-1.00
Cinelerra compile: _________real 3m10.386s_______ 2m44.692s
Cinelerra compile: _________user 5m52.000s______ 4m54.150s
Cinelerra compile: _________sys 0m15.260s_______ 0m12.950s
parallel MPEG2 compression: real 5m46.673s_______ 4m24.988s
parallel MPEG2 compression: user 1m52.860s______ 1m14.570s
parallel MPEG2 compression: sys 0m3.620s________ 0m3.030s


Thx & cya

<font color=green>I may go to <font color=red>hell</font color=red> but at least I won't get lonely</font color=green>
June 4, 2001 4:51:16 AM

There's a bit of oddness in the /proc/cpuinfo table though...

Never, <i>never</i> have I seen a multi-CPU system where two processors scored the exact same bogoMIPs rating.

Anyways, that's about a 15% lead in benchmark scores for only a 6.66% lead in clock speed. Palominos will do even better. Definitely not too shabby at all!

It would be nice to see it stuck up against single-CPU benchmarks of the same two systems, just to see how well both architectures scale.

Kelledin

"/join #hackerz. See the Web. DoS interesting people."
June 4, 2001 5:53:42 AM

yea, just like pics of the new Northbridge chipset...
pos FCPGA...
this forum is full of idiots...
ncogneto
I'm on my 486 laptop right now, want some benchmarks in comparison to my current laptop?
lol

----------------------
Independant thought is good.
It won't hurt for long.
!