P4 price/performance ratio

G

Guest

Guest
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.
 

AMD_Man

Splendid
Jul 3, 2001
7,376
2
25,780
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
 

Yahiko81

Illustrious
Jul 17, 2001
10,987
0
40,780
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>!
 

dhlucke

Polypheme
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>
 

Yahiko81

Illustrious
Jul 17, 2001
10,987
0
40,780
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>!
 

kief

Distinguished
Aug 27, 2001
709
0
18,980
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....
 

lhgpoobaa

Illustrious
Dec 31, 2007
14,462
1
40,780
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.
 

juin

Distinguished
May 19, 2001
3,323
0
20,780
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
hmmm

--call it what you wish, with this machine I can make mercury flow in 3 directions at once--
 

khha4113

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,143
0
19,780
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.
 
G

Guest

Guest
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
 

AMD_Man

Splendid
Jul 3, 2001
7,376
2
25,780
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
 

Yahiko81

Illustrious
Jul 17, 2001
10,987
0
40,780
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>!
 

Yahiko81

Illustrious
Jul 17, 2001
10,987
0
40,780
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>!
 

AmdMELTDOWN

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,000
0
19,780
>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/20010830corp_a.htm" 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!"
 

TotalEclipse

Distinguished
Aug 19, 2001
25
0
18,530
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*
 

kusek

Distinguished
Jul 15, 2001
246
0
18,680
That would suck. We would all be forced to buy Pentium junk at outrageous prices. Apple would look competitive.
 

kusek

Distinguished
Jul 15, 2001
246
0
18,680
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?
 

zengeos

Distinguished
Jul 3, 2001
921
0
18,980
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!!!
 
G

Guest

Guest
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:
 
G

Guest

Guest
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!