Ok I realise there are a lot of opinions about both of these companies and how they are better than each other. But which system is actually better? Comparing a DDR AMD motherboard and their components with a INTEL RDRAM motherboard and their components which one is faster?
Using equal amounts of RDRAM and DDR-SDRAM, the RDRAM will outperform. Using the fastest P4 and Athlon, the P4 will outperform. The issue most argue is a matter of pricing. RDRAM and P4s cost more than DDR-SDRAM and Athlons. However, you asked only about performance.
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
Hmmm that sounds more like your opinon than the truth!
Go around the web and look at some benchmarks between the Athlon and the P4. That's all i'm gonnna say about this, not here to start some flaming war! Your best bet is to look around you will only get opinons on this forum.
Go around the web and look at some benchmarks between the Athlon and the P4. That's all i'm gonnna say about this, not here to start some flaming war! Your best bet is to look around you will only get opinons on this forum.
SerArthurDayne
Distinguished
- Jan 21, 2001
- 344
- 0
- 18,780
RDRAM currently outperforms the DDR solutions available, and most benchmarks will tell you as much at a glance. It is still far too expensive, considering that realistically a 256mb stick is gonna cost you around 130 - 150 (and much higher in department stores), while a similar stick of DDR will effectively cost only half that at most and is still pretty damn close in performance.
If a P4 is using software that has been optimized for it, it will often either trounce the Athlon or equal it in performance. If you happen to be using non-optimized software that doesn't rely on massive memory bandwidth, then you're looking at the Athlon obliterating the P4 (which is currently almost everything you use). The P4 is quite impressive when it's running optimized code though.... I believe the SSE2 optimized flask mpeg gave the P4 something like a 500% boost in performance in that app.
Considering price for performance, Athlon is still the winner hands down. When it comes down to which is faster overall, it all depends on what you're running. Some people will definately benefit in purchasing a P4 over an Athlon, and some won't.
Hell... most people could get by with a Duron and PC133 and never notice the difference.
"Laziness is a talent to be cultivated like any other" - Walter Slovotsky
If a P4 is using software that has been optimized for it, it will often either trounce the Athlon or equal it in performance. If you happen to be using non-optimized software that doesn't rely on massive memory bandwidth, then you're looking at the Athlon obliterating the P4 (which is currently almost everything you use). The P4 is quite impressive when it's running optimized code though.... I believe the SSE2 optimized flask mpeg gave the P4 something like a 500% boost in performance in that app.
Considering price for performance, Athlon is still the winner hands down. When it comes down to which is faster overall, it all depends on what you're running. Some people will definately benefit in purchasing a P4 over an Athlon, and some won't.
Hell... most people could get by with a Duron and PC133 and never notice the difference.
"Laziness is a talent to be cultivated like any other" - Walter Slovotsky
>> Using equal amounts of RDRAM and DDR-SDRAM, the RDRAM will outperform.
Not only is RDRAM's latency far worse than DDR RAM's, it only has the bandwidth of PC1600. 3.2GB/s is only achieved with a dual-channel RDRAM solution. So on a channel for channel basis, DDR is superior.
>> Using the fastest P4 and Athlon, the P4 will outperform.
In raw FPU and ALU tests, the Athlon will significantly outperform the Pentium 4. IMO, the Pentium 4 in many ways is like AMD's previous K6-2. A fully optimized app for the K6-2 would significantly outperform a Pentium II of the same clock speed. However, not enough fully 3D-Now! enhanced apps were ever developed and so the K6-2's potential was never realized. The same thing happened to the Pentium MMX and the SSE instructions in the Pentium III. Sure, a few apps did benefit but the majority of the available programs showed no optimizations. Intel, no matter what they do, cannot force developers to optimize their programs. It's just too much of a hassle to learn and relearn new ways of optimization. The average app has well over a million lines of code so it would take a lot of work reorganize and rewrite large chunks of code.
Not only is RDRAM's latency far worse than DDR RAM's, it only has the bandwidth of PC1600. 3.2GB/s is only achieved with a dual-channel RDRAM solution. So on a channel for channel basis, DDR is superior.
>> Using the fastest P4 and Athlon, the P4 will outperform.
In raw FPU and ALU tests, the Athlon will significantly outperform the Pentium 4. IMO, the Pentium 4 in many ways is like AMD's previous K6-2. A fully optimized app for the K6-2 would significantly outperform a Pentium II of the same clock speed. However, not enough fully 3D-Now! enhanced apps were ever developed and so the K6-2's potential was never realized. The same thing happened to the Pentium MMX and the SSE instructions in the Pentium III. Sure, a few apps did benefit but the majority of the available programs showed no optimizations. Intel, no matter what they do, cannot force developers to optimize their programs. It's just too much of a hassle to learn and relearn new ways of optimization. The average app has well over a million lines of code so it would take a lot of work reorganize and rewrite large chunks of code.
Have you seen Van Smith's article on this subject? <A HREF="http://216.194.77.198/articles/2001/july/010720_Sandra_Bandwidth/010720_Sandra_Bandwidth.htm" target="_new">Benchmark Shows DDR SDRAM More Bandwidth Efficient Than RDRAM</A>
From the new SiSoft Sandra Enhanced Stream Integer bandwidth test: The Athlon 1.2GHz/AMD760/PC2100 system scored 1,619MB/s, while the Pentium 4 1.7GHz/i850/PC800 system scored 2,060MB/s.
Here's an interesting paragraph from that article:
"...
On top of this, PC2100 DDR SDRAM delivers over 30% greater bandwidth than PC800 RDRAM (the Intel Pentium 4 / i850 combo offers 3.2 GB/s by combining two RDRAM channels, similar to how the upcoming DDR SDRAM powered nForce achieves 4.2 GB/s -- however, in both cases this means that memory must be added in pairs to achieve maximum bandwidth). Additionally, DDR SDRAM has been out for only about 1/3 as long as RDRAM, indicating that the ramp for DDR is progressing much more favorably.
..."
From the new SiSoft Sandra Enhanced Stream Integer bandwidth test: The Athlon 1.2GHz/AMD760/PC2100 system scored 1,619MB/s, while the Pentium 4 1.7GHz/i850/PC800 system scored 2,060MB/s.
Here's an interesting paragraph from that article:
"...
On top of this, PC2100 DDR SDRAM delivers over 30% greater bandwidth than PC800 RDRAM (the Intel Pentium 4 / i850 combo offers 3.2 GB/s by combining two RDRAM channels, similar to how the upcoming DDR SDRAM powered nForce achieves 4.2 GB/s -- however, in both cases this means that memory must be added in pairs to achieve maximum bandwidth). Additionally, DDR SDRAM has been out for only about 1/3 as long as RDRAM, indicating that the ramp for DDR is progressing much more favorably.
..."
"Not only is RDRAM's latency far worse than DDR RAM's, it only has the bandwidth of PC1600. 3.2GB/s is only achieved with a dual-channel RDRAM solution. So on a channel for channel basis, DDR is superior."
We're not comparing channel per channel. We're comparing a DDR system, which only has a single channel, to an RDRAM system, which has dual channels. He asked about existing systems, not theory.
"In raw FPU and ALU tests, the Athlon will significantly outperform the Pentium 4."
Only for the slower Pentium 4s. Again, the fastest available Pentium 4 will beat out the fastest available Athlon CPU.
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
We're not comparing channel per channel. We're comparing a DDR system, which only has a single channel, to an RDRAM system, which has dual channels. He asked about existing systems, not theory.
"In raw FPU and ALU tests, the Athlon will significantly outperform the Pentium 4."
Only for the slower Pentium 4s. Again, the fastest available Pentium 4 will beat out the fastest available Athlon CPU.
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
So not true. Yes, latency is higher for the first read, but for later consecutive reads, latency becomes incredibly small.
The problem is that programmers need to come up with better algorithms in order to keep memory reads in the proper order. Once you start going out of order, latency remains high. RDRAM is an untapped resource (in the respect of latency).
But bandwidth is lower, raising another argument. I'll leave that one alone for today, since I've gone through it before
-----------------
Whoever thinks up a good sig for me gets a prize
>> We're not comparing channel per channel. We're comparing a DDR system, which only has a single channel, to an RDRAM system, which has dual channels. He asked about existing systems, not theory.
The NForce will be powered by a dual-channel memory sub-system so a dual-channel DDR system is coming in the near future.
>> So not true. Yes, latency is higher for the first read, but for later consecutive reads, latency becomes incredibly small.The problem is that programmers need to come up with better algorithms in order to keep memory reads in the proper order. Once you start going out of order, latency remains high. RDRAM is an untapped resource (in the respect of latency).
Again proving that the Pentium 4 needs programmers to optimize their code, and...well...programmers are lazy by default. "If it works, don't fix it" IMO, it's Intel's job to deliver high-performance not a software developer's.
>> Only for the slower Pentium 4s. Again, the fastest available Pentium 4 will beat out the fastest available Athlon CPU.
Hmm, I said raw! Have you seen how SiSoft Sandra includes SSE2 in ALU and FPU scores? I haven't seen a Pentium 4 1.8GHz score but up to 1.7GHz, a 1.4GHz Athlon outclasses a Pentium 4 in raw scores (No SSE2, NO 3D-NOW).
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by AMD_Man on 07/30/01 09:07 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
The NForce will be powered by a dual-channel memory sub-system so a dual-channel DDR system is coming in the near future.
>> So not true. Yes, latency is higher for the first read, but for later consecutive reads, latency becomes incredibly small.The problem is that programmers need to come up with better algorithms in order to keep memory reads in the proper order. Once you start going out of order, latency remains high. RDRAM is an untapped resource (in the respect of latency).
Again proving that the Pentium 4 needs programmers to optimize their code, and...well...programmers are lazy by default. "If it works, don't fix it" IMO, it's Intel's job to deliver high-performance not a software developer's.
>> Only for the slower Pentium 4s. Again, the fastest available Pentium 4 will beat out the fastest available Athlon CPU.
Hmm, I said raw! Have you seen how SiSoft Sandra includes SSE2 in ALU and FPU scores? I haven't seen a Pentium 4 1.8GHz score but up to 1.7GHz, a 1.4GHz Athlon outclasses a Pentium 4 in raw scores (No SSE2, NO 3D-NOW).
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by AMD_Man on 07/30/01 09:07 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
Can you give my a benchmark that T-bird beat P4 1.8.try hard because only scrappy or maybe anadtech can do that.Get real P4 1.8 C1 core cannot be beat be a T-bird even Pal is not sure that he can reget the speed crown (SSE we pay intel to try to get there market)LOL.
Even toms have new argument to say hay Intel suck.
P4 1.8 win 70% of all benchmark with good driver and OS.
SYSmark 190 P 1.8 T-bird 1.4 170.Anadtech last benchmark.
Even toms have new argument to say hay Intel suck.
P4 1.8 win 70% of all benchmark with good driver and OS.
SYSmark 190 P 1.8 T-bird 1.4 170.Anadtech last benchmark.
"The NForce will be powered by a dual-channel memory sub-system so a dual-channel DDR system is coming in the near future."
Current RDRAM system implementations all use a dual-channel memory subsystem, plus the channel [implemented as an AGP bus] to the memory on the video card. This provides three actual memory channels for the total system. Current DDR-SDRAM system implementations all use a single channel memory subsystem, plus the channel [implemented as an AGP bus] to the memory on the video card. This provides two actual memory channels for the total system. The nForce chipset still offers the same two memory channels counting the video card memory. It's just the first integrated chipset to offer the same number of memory channels as a comparable system with an add-on card would.
"I haven't seen a Pentium 4 1.8GHz score"
The Pentium 4 1.8GHz has the top scores. Go check around.
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
Current RDRAM system implementations all use a dual-channel memory subsystem, plus the channel [implemented as an AGP bus] to the memory on the video card. This provides three actual memory channels for the total system. Current DDR-SDRAM system implementations all use a single channel memory subsystem, plus the channel [implemented as an AGP bus] to the memory on the video card. This provides two actual memory channels for the total system. The nForce chipset still offers the same two memory channels counting the video card memory. It's just the first integrated chipset to offer the same number of memory channels as a comparable system with an add-on card would.
"I haven't seen a Pentium 4 1.8GHz score"
The Pentium 4 1.8GHz has the top scores. Go check around.
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
Kelledin
Distinguished
- Mar 1, 2001
- 2,183
- 0
- 19,780
Err...is 3DSMax R4 SSE2-optimized? I heard something about that, but nothing certain. In any case, the Athlon still outperforms the P4 1.8GHz in R4.
I believe it's the same in Maya 4 (which <i>is</i> SSE2 optimized), but I haven't seen any recent benchmarks on it. The Athlon, according to Maya developers, gets enough performance boost in Maya 4 that it should still trounce the P4.
As for DDR vs. RDRAM, I believe the 760MP uses a dual-channel PC2100 solution for a total of 4.2GB/sec. The dual Xeon 1.7GHz is (still) using the AGTL+ bus, which is still a total of 3.2GB/sec. The dual Xeon effectively gets slammed into the concrete by dual Athlons--but it's apples vs. oranges, useless for comparing memory. We'd need an independent chipset maker (ServerWorks?) to make similar DDR and RDRAM chipsets for the P4, with only a single RAM channel on each, and compare them for an effective RAM comparison.
Kelledin
"/join #hackerz. See the Web. DoS interesting people."
I believe it's the same in Maya 4 (which <i>is</i> SSE2 optimized), but I haven't seen any recent benchmarks on it. The Athlon, according to Maya developers, gets enough performance boost in Maya 4 that it should still trounce the P4.
As for DDR vs. RDRAM, I believe the 760MP uses a dual-channel PC2100 solution for a total of 4.2GB/sec. The dual Xeon 1.7GHz is (still) using the AGTL+ bus, which is still a total of 3.2GB/sec. The dual Xeon effectively gets slammed into the concrete by dual Athlons--but it's apples vs. oranges, useless for comparing memory. We'd need an independent chipset maker (ServerWorks?) to make similar DDR and RDRAM chipsets for the P4, with only a single RAM channel on each, and compare them for an effective RAM comparison.
Kelledin
"/join #hackerz. See the Web. DoS interesting people."
Games:
Star Trek: Voyager Elite Force by Activision
Aquarius by Jack in the Box Computing
Arthur's Knights by Cryo Interactive Entertainment
Fight of Fantasy by Rage Software
FLASHPOINT 1985: STATUS QUO by Bohemia Interactive Studio
Game Commander by Mindmaker
Incoming Forces by Rage Software
Madden NFL 2001 by Electronic Arts/Tiburon Entertainment
Muppet World by Pulse 3D
No Escape by Funcom
Sacrifice by Interplay Entertainment/Shiny
Showdown by The Groove Alliance
Tribes 2 by Sierra Studios
Virtual Pool 3 by Interplay Entertainment/Celeris
Digital Music:
Clean! 1.5 Plus by Steinberg Media Technologies AG
Logic Audio by Emagic
Video:
Ulead VideoStudio 5.0 by Ulead Systems
3Dfilm 2000 by RadTIME, Inc.
VideoWave 4 by MGImgi
VP3 Video Player by On2
Other Media Creation:
CorelDRAW 10 Graphics Suite by Corel
Image Organizer by Alpha Base Systems
Logic Audio by Emagic GmbH
MotionPerfect by Dynapel Systems, Inc.
Play&Record by HyCD and Vweb
POPblaster by POPcast Communications
TrueSpace 5 by Caligari
Unity DS-1 Software Sampling Synthesizer by Bitheadz
Other Entertainment:
Alien Abduction: The Show by Artech Interactive Television
iVideo by Be Here
Kung Fu by Warner Bros. Online
LAUNCHCity by LAUNCH Media
Tools and Technology:
Cult3D by Cycore
Dragon NaturallySpeaking 5.0 by Dragon Systems
GoMotion MPEG 2 codec software developer's kit (SDK) by Ligos Technology
IAP or Imaging Application Platform by Cedara Software Corporation
MAGIX playR by MAGIX Entertainment Corp.
PrintShop by Mattel Interactive
Pure Diva 2 by MGI
SmartForce Medical Training Demo by SmartForce*
Superscape eVisualizer by Superscape
TerraExplorer by Skyline Software Systems, Inc.
C-Me by BrowZwear International Ltd.
Prody Parrot by Mindmaker
Rampt Broadband Search by Rampt
UBUBU Universe by UBUBU, Inc.
Office Productivity:
Darwin by 80-2
Enfish Onespace by Enfish Technology
For links to these software products, click <A HREF="http://www.intel.com/home/pentium4/software.htm" target="_new">here</A>.
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
Star Trek: Voyager Elite Force by Activision
Aquarius by Jack in the Box Computing
Arthur's Knights by Cryo Interactive Entertainment
Fight of Fantasy by Rage Software
FLASHPOINT 1985: STATUS QUO by Bohemia Interactive Studio
Game Commander by Mindmaker
Incoming Forces by Rage Software
Madden NFL 2001 by Electronic Arts/Tiburon Entertainment
Muppet World by Pulse 3D
No Escape by Funcom
Sacrifice by Interplay Entertainment/Shiny
Showdown by The Groove Alliance
Tribes 2 by Sierra Studios
Virtual Pool 3 by Interplay Entertainment/Celeris
Digital Music:
Clean! 1.5 Plus by Steinberg Media Technologies AG
Logic Audio by Emagic
Video:
Ulead VideoStudio 5.0 by Ulead Systems
3Dfilm 2000 by RadTIME, Inc.
VideoWave 4 by MGImgi
VP3 Video Player by On2
Other Media Creation:
CorelDRAW 10 Graphics Suite by Corel
Image Organizer by Alpha Base Systems
Logic Audio by Emagic GmbH
MotionPerfect by Dynapel Systems, Inc.
Play&Record by HyCD and Vweb
POPblaster by POPcast Communications
TrueSpace 5 by Caligari
Unity DS-1 Software Sampling Synthesizer by Bitheadz
Other Entertainment:
Alien Abduction: The Show by Artech Interactive Television
iVideo by Be Here
Kung Fu by Warner Bros. Online
LAUNCHCity by LAUNCH Media
Tools and Technology:
Cult3D by Cycore
Dragon NaturallySpeaking 5.0 by Dragon Systems
GoMotion MPEG 2 codec software developer's kit (SDK) by Ligos Technology
IAP or Imaging Application Platform by Cedara Software Corporation
MAGIX playR by MAGIX Entertainment Corp.
PrintShop by Mattel Interactive
Pure Diva 2 by MGI
SmartForce Medical Training Demo by SmartForce*
Superscape eVisualizer by Superscape
TerraExplorer by Skyline Software Systems, Inc.
C-Me by BrowZwear International Ltd.
Prody Parrot by Mindmaker
Rampt Broadband Search by Rampt
UBUBU Universe by UBUBU, Inc.
Office Productivity:
Darwin by 80-2
Enfish Onespace by Enfish Technology
For links to these software products, click <A HREF="http://www.intel.com/home/pentium4/software.htm" target="_new">here</A>.
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
Also Juin when it comes to Rendering the P4 can't touch Athlon's FPU!
<A HREF="http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q2/athlon-1.4/index.x?pg=5" target="_new">http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q2/athlon-1.4/index.x?pg=5</A>
<A HREF="http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q2/athlon-1.4/index.x?pg=6" target="_new">http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q2/athlon-1.4/index.x?pg=6</A>
just follow the rest of the benchmarks there is abit of a trend.
Obviously <font color=red>P4</font color=red> wins in memory bandwidth. But when it comes to RaW CPU Athlon Owns <font color=red>P4</font color=red>like Monica on Bill Clinton COCK!
<A HREF="http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q2/athlon-1.4/index.x?pg=5" target="_new">http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q2/athlon-1.4/index.x?pg=5</A>
<A HREF="http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q2/athlon-1.4/index.x?pg=6" target="_new">http://www.tech-report.com/reviews/2001q2/athlon-1.4/index.x?pg=6</A>
just follow the rest of the benchmarks there is abit of a trend.
Obviously <font color=red>P4</font color=red> wins in memory bandwidth. But when it comes to RaW CPU Athlon Owns <font color=red>P4</font color=red>like Monica on Bill Clinton
COCK!I don't use thousands of software products, do you? I use whatever's the best for my platform at the task I'm performing. Every category seems to be pretty well covered and they all continue to fill in every day. The future looks bright for a CPU that becomes more powerful every day, don't you think?
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
lhgpoobaa
Illustrious
- Dec 31, 2007
- 14,462
- 1
- 40,780
*grins*
but facts, just like opinions, are open to different interpretations and can be squewed.
it really was a dumb question to start with. "which is better?"
better as what? doing which task?
now i know the athlon makes a better frying pan.
and the P4 makes a better hole in your wallet.
i really whish people would stop posting blanket questions.
"i love the smell of Overclocking in the morning!" Says my Hamster.
but facts, just like opinions, are open to different interpretations and can be squewed.
it really was a dumb question to start with. "which is better?"
better as what? doing which task?
now i know the athlon makes a better frying pan.
and the P4 makes a better hole in your wallet.
i really whish people would stop posting blanket questions.
"i love the smell of Overclocking in the morning!" Says my Hamster.
Boondock_Saint
Distinguished
- Jul 4, 2001
- 548
- 0
- 18,980
I will try to put this as nonpartisian as possible, except for the My Opinion sections:
RDRAM vs DDR RAM:
RDRAM has the edge over DDR in pure bandwith at the time being, but not access speeds. RDRAM as a whole can push data faster, but not necessarily access it faster. DDR has a much lower latency and since most if not all apps today do not need such high memory bandwith as RDRAM provides, this is not very useful. Since most programmers do not do code extremely efficiently, data must be access more. This is where access times come into play, the lower, the better. Seeing as how DDR has a much faster access time, most apps will preform better with DDR than they will with RDRAM. The exception is probably extemely data intensive work where large chunks are being moved quickly. Here RDRAM will excel due to their great bandwith.
My Opinion:
In my opinion, at the current time DDR RAM is much more effective. MUCH lower costs, faster speeds for today's apps make it a no brainer.
Athlon vs P IV:
*I am looking at same MHz speed for each chip*
Athlon has the edge in most departments right now, but P IV can still beat it in memory intensive things. Athlon's Floating Point Unit is much stronger than the P IV's, leading to faster speeds in 3D graphics. The overall design of the Athlon is built more for today's apps, leading to faster speeds in most other software. The Pentium 4 with it's great bandwith wins in VERY memory intensive things such as MPEG4 encoding and such. It has a very weak FPU unit though, I believe it is about the same or less than the PIII's. This leads to usually worse 3D rendering than an Athlon. The PIV has SSE2 instructions which have yet to be popularly utilized. If these instructions are used in apps, dramatic speed increases are shown. This brings the Athlon and PIV neck and neck in apps that use the instructions. SSE2 instructions have yet to be used albeit a handful of games and applications, making this aspect of the Pentium IV mostly useless. Since Comparing these two chips is harder than any other chip; i.e. Athlon vs PIII, because the Athlon is a CISC based core while the Pentium 4 is more RISC based. This is shown in the Pentium 4's rapidly and dramatically increasing clock speeds.
My Opinion:
In my opinion, I think the AMD Athlon makes much more sense to buy FOR TODAY'S APPS. Faster speeds in virtually all mainstream apps makes this a sensible chip, and when coupled with it's low price, about 1/2 to 1/3 of similiar P IV's, it makes it almost seem simple.
System to System:
As I already stated, for most of today's and mainstream apps and games the Athlon will be the faster of the two. If you are doing a lot of editing of video or need a workstation with much bandwith, the PIV will be your choice. It does not come without much cost, however. The PIV needs a special power supply along with a special case, adding to costs.
My Opinion:
My opinion, an DDR AMD Athlon based system clearly wins over RDRRAM Intel PIV based system, and will be the best choice for most users for the time being. Depending on how software continues to be designed, more apps could start to be dependent on bandwith and support SSE2 Instructions, possibly making the PIV based system faster. This will have to be seen, however.
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Boondock_Saint on 07/31/01 00:25 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
RDRAM vs DDR RAM:
RDRAM has the edge over DDR in pure bandwith at the time being, but not access speeds. RDRAM as a whole can push data faster, but not necessarily access it faster. DDR has a much lower latency and since most if not all apps today do not need such high memory bandwith as RDRAM provides, this is not very useful. Since most programmers do not do code extremely efficiently, data must be access more. This is where access times come into play, the lower, the better. Seeing as how DDR has a much faster access time, most apps will preform better with DDR than they will with RDRAM. The exception is probably extemely data intensive work where large chunks are being moved quickly. Here RDRAM will excel due to their great bandwith.
My Opinion:
In my opinion, at the current time DDR RAM is much more effective. MUCH lower costs, faster speeds for today's apps make it a no brainer.
Athlon vs P IV:
*I am looking at same MHz speed for each chip*
Athlon has the edge in most departments right now, but P IV can still beat it in memory intensive things. Athlon's Floating Point Unit is much stronger than the P IV's, leading to faster speeds in 3D graphics. The overall design of the Athlon is built more for today's apps, leading to faster speeds in most other software. The Pentium 4 with it's great bandwith wins in VERY memory intensive things such as MPEG4 encoding and such. It has a very weak FPU unit though, I believe it is about the same or less than the PIII's. This leads to usually worse 3D rendering than an Athlon. The PIV has SSE2 instructions which have yet to be popularly utilized. If these instructions are used in apps, dramatic speed increases are shown. This brings the Athlon and PIV neck and neck in apps that use the instructions. SSE2 instructions have yet to be used albeit a handful of games and applications, making this aspect of the Pentium IV mostly useless. Since Comparing these two chips is harder than any other chip; i.e. Athlon vs PIII, because the Athlon is a CISC based core while the Pentium 4 is more RISC based. This is shown in the Pentium 4's rapidly and dramatically increasing clock speeds.
My Opinion:
In my opinion, I think the AMD Athlon makes much more sense to buy FOR TODAY'S APPS. Faster speeds in virtually all mainstream apps makes this a sensible chip, and when coupled with it's low price, about 1/2 to 1/3 of similiar P IV's, it makes it almost seem simple.
System to System:
As I already stated, for most of today's and mainstream apps and games the Athlon will be the faster of the two. If you are doing a lot of editing of video or need a workstation with much bandwith, the PIV will be your choice. It does not come without much cost, however. The PIV needs a special power supply along with a special case, adding to costs.
My Opinion:
My opinion, an DDR AMD Athlon based system clearly wins over RDRRAM Intel PIV based system, and will be the best choice for most users for the time being. Depending on how software continues to be designed, more apps could start to be dependent on bandwith and support SSE2 Instructions, possibly making the PIV based system faster. This will have to be seen, however.
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Boondock_Saint on 07/31/01 00:25 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
"I am looking at same speed for each chip"
How do you calculate speed? clock cycles? That is no longer an accurate gauge of the speed of a processor. The fastest Pentium 4 is ahead of the fastest Athlon. It's more expensive but imo worth it.
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
How do you calculate speed? clock cycles? That is no longer an accurate gauge of the speed of a processor. The fastest Pentium 4 is ahead of the fastest Athlon. It's more expensive but imo worth it.
-Raystonn
= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
Boondock_Saint
Distinguished
- Jul 4, 2001
- 548
- 0
- 18,980
I'm sorry I should have specified that. I am looking at MHz for MHz; i.e. 1.4 GHz Athlon vs 1.4 GHz P IV
Actually the dual channel DDR is only to supply a second channel dedicated to the onboard graphics should more than a single memory slot be poulated. No one has mentioned anything about dual channel DDR being available to the CPU...
That's a pretty broad statement. It is convinient for programmers to be able to use the same tools and routines all the time but newer architectures allows the use of different and faster routines. Whilst all people are usually in the habit of avoiding work wherever possible I don't think you will find developers any more fond of turning out slow, crap products any more than the rest of us. Okay, they need to know some new tricks and get different optimised tools - but if their product has the ability to be faster - they are happy, because the customer is happy.
Quite frankly I fail to see the arguements. Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of Intel, but I'm not in be with AMD either. It is all business. If Intel develop a new instruction set that makes their world fatster and easier, why are you falling out of bed over it? More and more apps are supporting SSE2 because Intel is recognised as the x86 market driver. I have no doubt that in future cpus AMD will (or will attempt to) license SSE2 instruction sets just have they have fully licensed SSE into Athlon4.
The world moves on, use two tools to benchmark, stick your mark on the ground with knowing the apps you use and expect future versions and updates to be SSE2 optimised.
I for one like progress and innovation. I don't care if it fails or if it succeeds - it the expansion of possibility that makes it good.
-* This Space For Rent *-
email for application details
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
RTX 4070 vs RX 7900 GRE faceoff: Which mainstream graphics card is better?- Started by Admin
- Replies: 5
-
Question Seagate Ironwolf as single harddrive - ERC disabled?
- Started by Mumintroll
- Replies: 5
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram