Athlon 2000+

Who’s been smoking crack again??

I never knew AMD marketers wrote for Tom’s, but I guess I was wrong.

First of all these writers need to proof their articles a little better. They make the claim in the conclusion

“The diagrams clearly prove that the Athlon XP 2000+ beats its arch-rival, the Intel Pentium 4/2000 in all the disciplines”

I don’t think they read their own bar graphs.

As far as I can tell P4 won both Quake III Demo001 tests, as well as the memory benchmark, as well as in Light wave. I mean come on, if your going to lie then don’t discredit yourself by publishing the benchmarks that prove you wrong. Geez.

The other questionable point is why are there no Win2k benches? Win98/ME benches? Remember, the OS’s that people actually use.

Oh, I forgot XP’s perform better on WinXP.

Now as far as the actual article:


That seems to be a lot of work for 133 MHz, and as they pointed out to do any real overclocking you need water cooling. After crunching the numbers the average gain was about 2.5%

*cough* waste of time *cough*

Did I tell you my C900 runs at 1200 MHz out of the box, stock hsf and all?
(my duron at work is 850@850, I do run an AMD)

Now I will admit, the 2000+ is all around a faster, higher performing CPU but stick to the facts. The problem I see with the AMD flamers (they’ll be all over this post), and as of latley Tom's writers is that they make outlandish statements i.e.:

“The diagrams clearly prove that the Athlon XP 2000+ beats its arch-rival, the Intel Pentium 4/2000 in all the disciplines”

Or just:

“AMD kicks Intel’s ass”


“All P4’s have is Memory bandwidth”

And then they get laughed at.

Lastley I would like to say enjoy it while you can, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that when a CPU manufacturer realeases a new line it’s going to be on top, at least for a while.

Flame away...............................
12 answers Last reply
More about athlon 2000
  1. The quake demo test is nothing but memory bandwidth, when the cpu is needed(nv15 demo) the xp shows its stuff.

    The sandra memory benchmarks do not take latency into account, the real world performance of ddr sdram and rambus is MUCH closer.

    as for all the trouble of overclocking, whoever wrote this article was a moron when it comes to overclocking. First he claimed you need a water cooler to run at 1800mhz, because his POWERFUL silverado couldnt cut it. ANYONE WHO KNOWS ANYTHING about the silverado knows that it tops out around 1.33ghz. I bet the reviewer was using the slowest fan setting as well. Also he only got that 66mhz overclock cause he REFUSED to up the fsb, and then couldnt get any higher than a 12.5z multiplier on his mobo, another idiot mark for him.

    But I agree with you, the reviews at thg have gone downhill since I first read them. Anandtech for my reviews, toms for my forum work.

    "The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
  2. Maybe the people at THG are trying to "win back" some of the AMD enthusiasts that they lost because of the recent CPU burnout video reviews and other weak reviews they've made.
  3. I’ve also noticed that the reviews lately aren’t quite as good as the have been in the past. I attribute this to Tom’s recent absence.

    "Ignorance is bliss, but I tend to get screwed over."
  4. Agreed.. But in fact, this has been going on for more than a year. I remember a few utterly stupid articles, comparing "simulated OEM machines" and benchmarking of nonexisting (at that time) mobile 3D cards. That must have been around the time I discovered Aces hardware..

    AS from then on, it went from bad to worse.. remember the first P4 benches ? "It sucks.". "no wait.. in fact its great.." "or maybe not that great".. whenever a new version of flask came out..

    I agree with Mat. Anandtech (and Aces) for the chipset/cpu/etc reviews , THG for the reviews of USB microscopes and for wasting my time on the forums..

    = The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
  5. toms on holiday till december apparently, according to the latest headline artice.

    [gloat] did u also see his comments about enermax and the rant he did and the posts it brought up in the forums about PSU's? can see my hand in that :) [/gloat]

    down ego down! bad boy

    Why do i feel like the lone sane voice in the mental assylum?
  6. Mac what article are you referring to? I don't see an article on the XP2000+ Could you refer me to a link or just a URL to the article you are referencing?


    When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
  7. OK I found the article. It wasn't there when I first went through the list on the front page, strangely enough.

    As for the comment you have issues with.....while I agree that it seems the quality of the reviews has gone down in recent months, I have no issue with the wording of the line

    ?The diagrams clearly prove that the Athlon XP 2000+ beats its arch-rival, the Intel Pentium 4/2000 in all the disciplines? "


    Because the *disciplines* is NOT benchmarks. While iot's true that P4 won in 2 or 3 benchmarks, it's also true that XP2000+ won across the disciplines. The disciplines meaning the major use categories of gaming, graphics, and productivity.


    When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!
  8. Just so you know, this place has had a few downsides since Tom was away, so Matisaro when you said they had Tom check the article before posting it, I guess not, he was clearly away so the quality went down.
    IN any case Macutty the benchmarks on this site are VERY POOR. Go to Anandtech, see the AXP 1900 1.6ghz, and how it beats everything EXCEPT 2 benchys of lightwave, by a single fraction of point. This proves that the AXP is clearly the winner, as the diff between it and P4 are DIM.
    A 2000 AXP would be damn better but in this site it sucked. I mean how on earth does a AXP 2000 (TB 2ghz) can`t beat the P4 2ghz! That`s like saying the P4 1.4ghz is not beated by a TB 1.4, which is beaten BY FAR.
  9. which makes me wonder, can these Benchmarks be trusted? How do we know which ones are correct and which ones are fake? One website gives a higher score for certain benchmarks, while another website gives a low score. Which one is correct. I don't trust any benchmarks. I think these guys get paid to write what they are told to write.

    <font color=blue><i>Mankind must put an end to War,
    or War will put an end to mankind!<i></font color=blue>
  10. I Don't trust these benchmark either. I think you can make any benchmark suite so one processor would look better then other. Also these benchmarks are not forward looking. They tend to measure what's currently available. When I want to buy a PC I would like it to last me for two or three years without any upgrades. And Still be able to play decent games. That's what it matters for me to buy a PC Which will support future version of games/software not just what's available now.

  11. Nevertheless Athlon XPs are equipped to beat the crap out of P4s. If a TB1.4 was able to go up to a P4 1.8 ghz in performance, the AXP brings forth even more per clock. So keep that in mind, AXP IS BETTER. Its results in Quake 3 are even comparing to P4, so it no longer is a multimedia master.
  12. I totally agree, I feel you’re able to manipulate the test results by driver adjustment, bios tweaks, OS tweaks and so on.

    now these don’t make ground moving advances, when your dealing with a comparison of 2 different pieces of hardware that perform within 10-15% of each other (any hardware not just P4's and XP's) but this can make up the difference or stretch out the distance.

    I think the later applies to the recent comparisons of P4 to XP, the XP is better hands down, but the margin is being exaggerated.
Ask a new question

Read More