Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

P4 price/performance ratio

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 30, 2001 5:29:45 PM

Not that bad, even good.

If you consider that a cpu affect all your systeme (almost).
So is price must be compare in overall systeme and not just the cpu ,or the memory.

EX: P4 2.0 cost my a lot.
IS around 13% or maybe more faster that a t-bird in overall.
So if the total price dont go higher that 13% it better that a T-bird in price/perfomance ratio.

EX2: ATI quadro 1500$ if i remember well.
Consider that you you use only pro-apps.That have a major improvement.Less time take,remeber the pixel accuracy.
So price/performance it better on ATI quadro that a normal gpu.Also you do the job quicker that also equal more buck.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 30, 2001 5:30:52 PM

Ok that juin i forgot to change useur.
August 30, 2001 5:45:49 PM

Ok, the Pentium 4 2GHz is not 13% faster than the T-Bird overall. From all the benchmarks I've seen, I would say it's 5 to 10 percent faster overall. The 2GHz P4 is nearly 200% more expensive than the 1.4GHz Athlon!

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
Related resources
August 30, 2001 5:51:22 PM

So are you trying to say you are Juin just that you forgot to log out and switch users?

What is the difference between <font color=red>pink</font color=red>and <font color=purple>purple</font color=purple>? The <b>GRIP</b>!
August 30, 2001 6:03:27 PM

This is the stupidest, most incomprehensible, least thought out, poorly researched post I've seen in a long time.

<font color=red>Change the sig of the week!</font color=red>
August 30, 2001 6:08:36 PM

Well just look who it's coming from

What is the difference between <font color=red>pink</font color=red>and <font color=purple>purple</font color=purple>? The <b>GRIP</b>!
August 30, 2001 11:29:05 PM

AMD Tbird 1400 with board/cooler/512 megs is 40% the cost of P4 2k wth board/cooler/512 megs. If the P4 goes 250% as fast as the tbird great, but it does not even come close....
August 31, 2001 1:09:34 AM

the worst thing with the excessive price of the top range P4's is that the Big PC makers (dell, gateway etc) will attempt to lower the price by fitting out the PC with substandard components.
e.g. 128mb ram, small HDD, MX graphics etc.

now those components WILL cripple it.


I'll respect your comments & opinions, even if i disagree with them, Provided you display maturity.
August 31, 2001 3:34:43 AM

No one have fact like usual.Normaly they attack my enghilsh went they dont what to say.


""""".I would say it's 5 to 10 percent faster overall""""""

No 1 benchmark loss and 1 benchmark close.All the others benchmark was win be 20% of margin.I like the part of office productifity was suppost to be the fastest on t-bird even 1.7 it way faster that 1.4.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 31, 2001 4:28:40 AM

hmmm

--call it what you wish, with this machine I can make mercury flow in 3 directions at once--
August 31, 2001 8:48:44 AM

Quote:
No 1 benchmark loss and 1 benchmark close.All the others benchmark was win be 20% of margin.I like the part of office productifity was suppost to be the fastest on t-bird even 1.7 it way faster that 1.4.

I don't like to attack your English, but <b>WTH (!!!)</b> are you trying to say? Have you ever looked back what you posted?

:smile: Good or Bad have no meaning at all, depends on what your point of view is.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 31, 2001 1:47:05 PM

The P4 2GHz SUCKS! look, the performance increase over the 1.4 Athlon is *up to* 20% more, while the clock speed is nearly 30% more. Using this comparison, a 2Ghz tbird will be up to 10% faster.

Aklein

Member of the change the sig of the week lobby to congress
August 31, 2001 2:18:34 PM

The 2GHz P4 is only 20% faster than the T-Bird in very specific optimized benchmarks. If only the P4 had a powerful FPU and slightly more cache, then we wouldn't even have this debate, as the P4 would kill the T-Bird clock for clock. That's why I will always want a <b>PENTATHLON!</b>

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
August 31, 2001 2:21:14 PM

It'll never happen get over it.

What is the difference between <font color=red>pink</font color=red> and <font color=purple>purple</font color=purple>? The <b>GRIP</b>!
August 31, 2001 3:06:10 PM

Can't Intel just buy AMD and use their technology?

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
August 31, 2001 3:18:56 PM

MONOPOLY so no they can't. That's why Intel will never really outshine AMD they need them to stay in business so they can stay in business.

What is the difference between <font color=red>pink</font color=red> and <font color=purple>purple</font color=purple>? The <b>GRIP</b>!
August 31, 2001 5:09:22 PM

>Can't Intel just buy AMD and use their technology?

hmmm, the answers is sorta yes, you see the <A HREF="http://www.techlawjournal.com/atr/80427intc.htm" target="_new">FTC forced Alpha to give up its tech to AMD</A>, AMD used it to produce the K7 line, then when Alpha was up for grabs it was AMD who balked and let it go.

so, in essence Intel bought AMD's technology which was never AMD's in the first place.

btw, much discussion on the Alpha team(employees) not going to Intel, well afaik <A HREF="http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/2001083..." target="_new">100% of that team is with Intel</A>.

also, just wondering how many former employees were given positions at AMD, my guess is a big fat 0. Prove me wrong.

"<b>AMD/VIA!</b>...you are <i>still</i> the weakest link, good bye!"
September 1, 2001 4:47:58 AM

I think you've hit the nail here - it's something most people don't even think about, but what you have to consider looking at the THG posts is that they seem to try to spec their systems pretty equivalantly so that they can get a clear picture of how the <i>processor</i> performs.

Now, this is generally fine for the people who read these boards - these are the users who research their parts and consider the effect each will have on their system.

*****be warned - rant approaching*****

However, an add I saw today quoted THG's assessment of the P4 as the faster processor. Then, as far as I can tell they equipped the system with SDRAM, a 32mb MX graphics card, low speed generic DVD / CD-RW, etc. This is <i>NOT</i> the system THG said would beat an Athlon 1.4.

I just bought an AMD 1.4, and used the money I saved to upgrade fan, PS, case, motherboard, video card, RAM, HDD, DVD and burner. Total cost was ~$1000 CAD less than the P4 2.0 I saw advertised, but I would bet performance would be equivalent with the system they quoted.

Don't get me wrong - I DO think the ultimate system for me would be a P4 2.0 with 512 mb RDRam. That said, I couldn't afford to get that and buy all other top notch components. I'm a student, after all... And I find that depending on the specs I'd have to add $300-800CAD to bring the Intel systems up to par. But people who are buying systems keep bringing me these ******* P4 ads which cost less than what I spent, and I have to explain that if it doesn't say RDRAM or 7200RPM it's probably isn't either, that 256 mb of RAM will perform better than 128, and that "integrated" is a BAD word. Half the time they even listen to some of it...

*sigh* I'm ranting - I apologize for that. I've just had one too many discussions lately where people "need" a P4 over a P3, but take a "how much difference can it make" approach to all the other parts in their system...

*As the username implies, I'm generally in the dark*
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 1, 2001 5:32:11 AM

clap clap

THG Rocks !
September 1, 2001 6:42:39 AM

That would suck. We would all be forced to buy Pentium junk at outrageous prices. Apple would look competitive.
September 1, 2001 7:05:39 AM

Correction, not junk. Good stuff just overpriced when compared to performance of alternative products. Competition is good. Why do you think both Intel and Amd recently slased prices?
September 1, 2001 1:34:53 PM

The mixed average performance difference between P4 2ghz and Athlon 1.4ghz is 8.5%

Generally speaking, less than 10% performance difference between systems is hardly if at all noticeable to users in most cases.

How did I come by the 8.5% perfromance difference?

By adding up the performance numbers on both sites then dividing by the number of benchmarks total.

Whiloe this isn't exactly correct, I erred slightly in favor of P4 in all. THG's performance difference was 15% overall, Anand's was 2.5%

Due to variations in test configuration and systems, motherboards, etc.... the mean of the two tests is hopefully closer to the real world than either test alone.

So, if you need/want around an 8% improvement in performance, buy the P4. If you want excellent performance at an affordable price, buy the Athlon and overclock it, OR wait for Palomino 1.4 or 1.5, both of which should outperform P4 2ghz if Palomino can bring an average of 8% performance boost (which it can on average)

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 1, 2001 1:48:32 PM

I think Intel slashed prices because they released the P4 2Ghz cpu and they know to compete with AMD they have to be cheaper. AMD followed suit to keep the price ratio. Then when AMD finally release the A4 or whatever, more price drops will happen.

Medication helps :smile:
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 1, 2001 5:54:47 PM

Bravo Bravo

Well done! You have to look at the overall system performance. CPU is only one of the many things involved.

To Juin:

Me no understud yor furst post. Pleaase explained what u meen! Tanks!
September 3, 2001 3:56:19 AM

Right now i dont not have time
i be come back tommorow
September 4, 2001 6:38:18 PM

learn grammar

What is the difference between <font color=red>pink</font color=red> and <font color=purple>purple</font color=purple>? The <b>GRIP</b>!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 6, 2001 2:15:27 AM

hey JUIN,

I be waiting man for you post.
Me think you meen if you spent $200 more on P4 its worth it cuz more stable. AMD and VIA no good stability. Also too slow. Can U write massage in French two? I have easily time reading French then yur Englush some times.

Merci!
September 6, 2001 3:13:12 AM

very specific optimized benchmarks.

What bencmark ? aquamark that the only one and windows media encoder.

slightly more cache

That personal (not sure) the desing of L1 cache was made to kill the high latencyof RDRAM
September 6, 2001 3:17:01 AM

Forgot clock for clock.

IPC * cycles

Intel have higher cycles.
AMD have higher IPC.

Same logic (if one)MAC are the king of cpu. near ""10"" time faster that any intel/AMD central processing unit.
September 6, 2001 3:35:59 AM

That just that i have say

1400$ vs 1600$

Sysmark score
P4 1.8 ---179
T-bird ---157


The office performance part of Sysmark2001 used to be Athlon's stronghold, but once Pentium 4 runs at 2 GHz it is winning this contest as well.

LOL even 1.8 crush athlon.In fact even 1.5 is faster that 1.33.And it allwayse been like that under 2K P4 is very to beat.


Return to the main point

1600*179 8.9385$ so each point in sysmark cost you 9 buck NOW AMD
1400*157 8.91719$ so each point cost you 9 buck.Wow is the same price/performance ratio.And stable.........

So like toms said there no good benchmark.
No game graphic bottleneck
NO apps useur '''''''''
So what left pro apps really i dont us any.

Via kt266a no mobo. to compare.Anyway wait for ASUS to see a real benchmark
September 6, 2001 4:11:09 AM

Rather interesting that the benchmarks you mention don't always reflect real life. But such is synthetic benchmarking.

And realistically, who cares about CPU performance for office apps or games? Games depend on the video card--a 1GHz CPU from either family does fine. Office apps...well gee, office apps on a 1GH+ CPU look just like office apps on a PII-450.

The only times we actually benefit from the CPU performance is with jobs that take upwards of several minutes to produce results. Logically, I can think of only three situations where a home user could really use an uber-CPU:

1) Realistic 3D rendering. <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1499&p=10" target="_new"> Where the Pentium 4 gets smacked around...</A>
<A HREF="http://www.aceshardware.com/Spades/read.php?article_id=..." target="_new">...like a silly bitch...</A>
<A HREF="http://www.aceshardware.com/Spades/read.php?article_id=..." target="_new">...again, and again, and again.</A>

2) Compile jobs (my favorite).
<A HREF="http://www.aceshardware.com/Spades/read.php?article_id=..." target="_new">Ouch....</A>
<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.html?i=1483&p=17" target="_new">...looks like a fatality on the P4, whatever O/S you choose.</A>

3) Mpeg4 encoding. <A HREF="http://www4.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q3/010827/p4-10.html" target="_new">Looks like the P4 finally wins one...</A>
<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1524&p=10" target="_new">...or does it? Who knows.</A>

Well, the Athlon wins where it counts, and it costs less. w00t!

Telling me "AMD is unstable," is no good either, because I know better. My god box never crashes and never overheats, and I haven't updated the Windows drivers or BIOS in months.

If you really feel the need to call me a "liar" again, I suggest you provide links or credible argument this time... :tongue:

Kelledin

"/join #hackerz. See the Web. DoS interesting people."
September 6, 2001 8:19:05 AM

All benchmarks are very specific and dont really simulate real world performance.

Yeah, that makes ALOT of sense, lower the l1 cache to 8k to make up for latency, can you say , DIE SPACE SAVING MEASURE.

~Matisaro~
"Friends don't let friends buy Pentiums"
~Tbird1.3@1.55~
September 6, 2001 8:21:01 AM

Preach on Kelledin, you rock.

hey juin

Look like ass kicked you, another forum go to maybe?

~Matisaro~
"Friends don't let friends buy Pentiums"
~Tbird1.3@1.55~
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 6, 2001 8:58:46 AM

Big question what if you took a P4 1.4 and an A4 1.4 and put them side by side and started up windows and ran i.e. and some win amp maybe check your email. Would you notice anything? Probably not, other than maybe the faster memory on the p4 side but I doubt that as well. The only time you notice the difference is in the benchmarks, which never come out the same twice. Plus I might add these benchmarks are ancient in terms of software. I personally can’t see how old software can test new cpu’s. But hey if you are happy with these flaky benchmarks that show nothing in the idea of real world performance then all the power to you. But me I am going to go with what makes those 0’s and 1’s got faster.

-Spuddy


<font color=red>Being Evil Is Good. Cause I Can Be A Prick And Get Away With It.</font color=red> :lol: 
September 6, 2001 9:22:41 AM

LoL, if you buy a 1.4ghz p4 over a 1.4ghz athlon you truely are a troll, the p4 costs more, needs more expensive rdram, and is slower in 99% of benchmarks, you wont really notice a huge difference just doing everyday tasks, but that 100 bucks you will pay extra you will notice.


~Matisaro~
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
~Tbird1.3@1.5~
September 6, 2001 10:20:40 AM

Hmmm...

3DSMax == not old
Maya == not old
gcc == not old (and personally, i wouldn't be caught dead with gcc 3.0.x as my primary compiler atm)
FlaskMPEG == not old
Visual C++ == ...i'd have to check the version. I'm sure it was at least 6.0 though.

Kelledin

"/join #hackerz. See the Web. DoS interesting people."
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 6, 2001 9:14:05 PM

Wow good show you flamed me in under 7 hours. Im impressed. All im saying is you wount notice it unless yer a benchmark freak like this dude I know all he runs is benchmarks and runs around claiming yada yada. Hes well yes, hes one of those know it all guys kinda funny. Phil Davis or something

-Spuddy

<font color=red>Being Evil Is Good. Cause I Can Be A Prick And Get Away With It.</font color=red> :lol: 
September 7, 2001 5:55:13 AM

Flame? That wasn't a flame. That was just pointing out a few things. If I suggested your mother was a professional sexual services provider using rather more concise terminology, <i>that</i> would be a flame. :wink:

Anyways, I'm not a benchmark freak, but I <i>do</i> care about my compile jobs finishing faster. Try compiling XFree86 or QT a few times, and you'll see what I mean.

Just so you know where I'm coming from...

Kelledin

"/join #hackerz. See the Web. DoS interesting people."
September 7, 2001 3:01:43 PM

<A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/fattyburger/benchmarks.html" target="_new">I'm a benchmark freak :) </A>

Even though my 3DMark score is down there...I'd get rid of the MX, but it plays all my games really smoothly at 1024x768, so I'm happy.



<font color=blue>Quarter pounder inside</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Change the Sig of the Week!!!</font color=red>
September 7, 2001 4:43:12 PM

One day when I have free time I think I will run a comprehensive benchmark suite on the beast.

Nice scores burger! kt7a raid is god!

~Matisaro~
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
~Tbird1.3@1.5~
!