A proof to why current THG AXP performance bad...

eden · Nov 15, 2001

I wanted to express this as it doesn`t make sense:
If they said that an AXP`s model number is used to compare to a TB, this means that at the XP2000 from THG this has become very lost. It would be like saying a XP 1.4ghz is not as better as a P4 1.4! A XP2000, aka a TB 2ghz, is supposed to beat a P4 2ghz by 350 mhz at least, so the benchmarks are useless! Something is wrong and Anandtech are the only people to prove the XP`s ultimate performance.

eden · Nov 16, 2001

Well I thought someone would say something.... after 23 views!

Snorklis · Nov 16, 2001

well.. to be honest I didnt quite understand what you are trying to say, maybee thats why noone answers?

lhgpoobaa · Nov 16, 2001

bah. im gettin bored of all the reviews and flames.
gimme the thouroughbred please.

Why do i feel like the lone sane voice in the mental assylum?

xxsk8er101xx · Nov 16, 2001

maybe the igabadaboo attacked the jingojung and caused the igabadaboo-jingojung war! the eep lop loop la said this "eeek lop loop la!!!". And after that the jingojung clan attacked eep lop loop la. But eep lop loop la was too powerful and single handedly killed off the jingojung storm troopers. mean while ikky ikky long ping saught after the special stone to help save the jingojung. This stone is called eeeeeeeeeee'ooopla dingo'bah.

eden · Nov 16, 2001

I was in a rush so I admit it is a bit confusing.
My point is, that when Tom compared the TB 1.4ghz to say, the P4 1.7 ghz, the TB won hands down. This makes it compared to something like a P4 1.8ghz.
On the other hand the AthlonXP 1.4ghz pushes it to 1.9ghz P4 performance. However the unexplainable here is to why is the XP1900, which is compared to TB 1.9ghz, which THEORITCALLY would be a P4 2.2ghz, not win the P4 2ghz hands down???
Clearly something is not working here. Even the XP 2000 wasn't gaining much against the P4 2ghz!
Then I look at Anandtech, I see their 1.6ghz XP1900 is able to punch and win all benchs EXCEPT lightwave by a single fraction point.
I hope you understand what I mean. My point is to why is the performance not like it seemed before!

jollygrinch · Nov 16, 2001

If they said that an AXP`s model number is used to compare to a TB, this means that at the XP2000 from THG this has become very lost.

Perhapse you should do a little research before you post. And by "research" i mean read what would be considered common knowledge. THG did not decide that the xp ratings were based on the old t-bird. AMD did:

Q: What do the 1900+, 1800+, 1700+, 1600+, and 1500+ numbers mean?

A: These are model numbers. AMD identifies the AMD Athlon XP processor using model numbers, as opposed to megahertz, such as 1900+, 1800+, 1700+, 1600+ and 1500+ versions. Model numbers are designed to communicate the relative application performance among the various AMD Athlon XP processors, as well as communicate the architectural superiority over existing AMD Athlon processors. The AMD Athlon XP processor 1900+ will outperform an Intel Pentium® 4 processor operating at 1.9GHz on a broad array of end-user applications.

AMD Athlon XP processor 1900+ operates at a frequency of 1.60GHz.
AMD Athlon XP processor 1800+ operates at a frequency of 1.533GHz.
AMD Athlon XP processor 1700+ operates at a frequency of 1.47GHz.
AMD Athlon XP processor 1600+ operates at a frequency of 1.40GHz.
AMD Athlon XP processor 1500+ operates at a frequency of 1.33GHz.

<A HREF="http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_756_3734^3876,00.html#10228" target="_new">Full Page</A>

no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end, when we all disintegrate, it'll all happen again.

Crashman · Nov 16, 2001

That's what happens when you give a 100 higher model number for every 66MHz, the higher the number, the less impressive the number looks.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

AMD_Man · Nov 16, 2001

That's also what you get my increasing CPUs into the 2GHz range and then increasing speed by only 66MHz to 100MHz at a time, 66 extra MHz is no longer enough of an increase to make the new processors worth the extra cost.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the ULTIMATE PC processor

lhgpoobaa · Nov 16, 2001

indeed.
66mhz steps look a bit sad above 1Ghz i reckon... and when u get up around 1.8-2Ghz even 100mhz steps look kinda insignificant

Why do i feel like the lone sane voice in the mental assylum?

Crashman · Nov 16, 2001

It's not how big the steps are that makes the XP look like it scales poorly, it's the PR rating that gives it a 100 higher model number for every 66MHz. At this rate the 2500+ will probably loose every benchmark to the P4 2500, seeing that it will only be running 2000.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?

bgates · Nov 16, 2001

Forget about the 1900+...this are just reference and don't really say much about the CPU. The comparisons aren't based solely on GHz, since it's shown that the structure of the CPU is what makes it faster.

Which is why an AMD 1.6 out performs a P4 2.0.

-¤ Shut the f*ck up or go AMD ¤-

Intel_inside · Nov 16, 2001

well at least this guy makes more sense than AMD's marketing team.. I mean athlonXP 1.9 ghz.. Didn't they say the PR rating is compared to their own thunderbird processor? huh? what? nevermind!

AMD = Anger Management Disorder

Guest · Nov 16, 2001

I see your point (after reading your posts 4 times).
Basically, read 5 different reviews, and you'll get 5 different results. Its largely because of the choice of benchmarks, OS, the platform, BIOS settings.. etc. I would never purchase a cpu (or much anything besides an intel USB microscope) based upon toms review only. Read all of them, and make up your own mind.

If you look at aces, Anand and some other, the AXP's outperform the P4 by a large margin in all but a few benchmarks. In the Anandtech review, the P4 is really put to shame.. look at the wolfenstein benchmarks !! Or Max Payne.. Or serious Sam or the specview rendering.. in all of these, even the athlon-C 1.4 and the XP1500+ outperform the 2.0 Ghz P4. Toms benchmarks paint a different picture, showing the P4 to be pretty competive with the AXP.

Either way... make up your own opinion. Look at those benches to match your needs, and buy whatever you feel like buying.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

Matisaro · Nov 16, 2001

Anandtech is a better review site IMO. More benchmarks and more thorough.

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

Guest · Nov 16, 2001

Yeah.. but he doesnt bench USB microscopes and simulated OEM machines, which I is why I still have to visit THG ;-)

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =Edited by bbaeyens on 11/16/01 08:05 AM.

bgates · Nov 16, 2001

Back to the original post...

If you're saying things like that, you might as well say a 486 is faster then a P4 1.9, because 486 is a higher number then 1.9.

-¤ Shut the f*ck up or go AMD ¤-

Guest · Nov 16, 2001

No.. what he wants to say is: the original Athlon 1.4 was already competitive with the P4 1.9 . How come THG benchmarks now do not show the XP1900+ to outperform the P4 by a larger margin ? While he does show the XP1900+ to be significantely faster than the Athlon-C.

In other words.. If A=B and C > A .. then how can C=A ?

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

AmdMELTDOWN · Nov 16, 2001

>Anandtech is a better review site IMO. More benchmarks and more thorough.

then wtf are you doing here? go to where it's safe! in another words: get lost puppy!

"AMD/VIA!...you are still the weakest link, good bye!"

eden · Nov 17, 2001

I couldn't phrase it any better!
Yeah I understand what yall mean (except the 2 trolls that just dirtied this topic) and it gives me much more insight. However I still stand that something is wrong in terms of more performance per processor increase. In any case Anandtech prove me right, the AXP is even ultimate at 1.33ghz, and beats a P4 2ghz in some apps, while staying high on most. Excellent reviews.

Matisaro · Nov 17, 2001

LoL, run along meltdown,your trolldom is not needed or wanted here.

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

zengeos · Nov 17, 2001

I try to look at at least 3 or 4 different review sites and figure the reality to be the mean of the reviews. Toms tends to be on the low end of reviews, but Anand seems to be on the slightly high side. So, somewhere in the middle often seems about right.

Mark-

When all else fails, throw your computer out the window!!!

Guest · Nov 17, 2001

It's not how big the steps are that makes the XP look like it scales poorly, it's the PR rating that gives it a 100 higher model number for every 66MHz. At this rate the 2500+ will probably loose every benchmark to the P4 2500, seeing that it will only be running 2000.

I thought the PR rating is based on the cpu's performance against P4. So XP 2500+ performance is just as good as P4 2.5Ghz, or am I wrong?

AMD_Man · Nov 17, 2001

It's not how big the steps are that makes the XP look like it scales poorly, it's the PR rating that gives it a 100 higher model number for every 66MHz. At this rate the 2500+ will probably loose every benchmark to the P4 2500, seeing that it will only be running 2000.

That's not correct. The Athlon XP 1800+ can keep up with the 2GHz P4 when there's a 466MHz gap between the two! I have a feeling a 2GHz Athlon XP can keep up with a 2.5GHz P4.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the ULTIMATE PC processor

Matisaro · Nov 17, 2001

Boogy, amd says that the pr ratings are performance in relation to the tbird, NOT the p4.
Regardless of what everyone surmises about the pr ratings amd says they are comparisions to the tbird, anything more is mere supposistion.

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

A proof to why current THG AXP performance bad...

Champion

Champion

Distinguished

Illustrious

Splendid

Champion

Distinguished

Polypheme

Splendid

Illustrious

Polypheme

Distinguished

Distinguished

Guest

Guest

Splendid

Guest

Guest

Distinguished

Guest

Guest

Distinguished

Champion

Splendid

Distinguished

Guest

Guest

Splendid

Splendid

Share this page