Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

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

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 15, 2001 3:20:43 PM

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.
November 15, 2001 11:14:45 PM

Well I thought someone would say something.... after 23 views!
November 15, 2001 11:20:46 PM

well.. to be honest I didnt quite understand what you are trying to say, maybee thats why noone answers? :-)
Related resources
November 15, 2001 11:21:52 PM

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?
November 15, 2001 11:33:25 PM

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.

:) 

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
November 15, 2001 11:49:32 PM

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!
November 15, 2001 11:50:33 PM

Quote:
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:
Quote:
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/..." target="_new">Full Page</A>


no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end, when we all disintegrate, it'll all happen again.
a b à CPUs
November 16, 2001 12:16:31 AM

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?
November 16, 2001 12:44:05 AM

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 <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
November 16, 2001 12:55:07 AM

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?
a b à CPUs
November 16, 2001 2:05:33 AM

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?
November 16, 2001 2:46:08 AM

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 ¤-
November 16, 2001 4:35:29 AM

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
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 16, 2001 8:08:22 AM

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. =
November 16, 2001 8:18:27 AM

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~
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 16, 2001 9:02:33 AM

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. =<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by bbaeyens on 11/16/01 08:05 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
November 16, 2001 9:18:39 AM

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 ¤-
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 16, 2001 11:09:16 AM

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. =
November 16, 2001 2:39:35 PM

>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!

"<b>AMD/VIA!</b>...you are <i>still</i> the weakest link, good bye!"
November 16, 2001 11:31:09 PM

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.
November 17, 2001 11:33:55 AM

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~
November 17, 2001 12:07:11 PM

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!!!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
November 17, 2001 1:24:23 PM

Quote:
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?
November 17, 2001 2:14:24 PM

Quote:

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 <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
November 17, 2001 2:18:36 PM

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 b à CPUs
November 17, 2001 5:39:59 PM

That would be an OK assumption if the 2.5GHz P4 were a Willy. But even if the Northwood only does 5% better than the Willy, the 2.5GHz Northwood should catch up with the 2.0GHz XP 2500+. And beyond that, if AMD continues their 66MHz+100PR's, they will begin to look bad, worse with time.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
November 17, 2001 5:50:43 PM

By the time a 2.5GHz Northwood is out, the Palamino core will probably replaced.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
a b à CPUs
November 17, 2001 5:58:34 PM

That would be an ideal situation for AMD, as they could "reset" their PR rating for the new processor.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
a b à CPUs
November 17, 2001 6:01:42 PM

BTW, the way the math works out....for the PR rating to hold it's value against the P4 as they both scale upwards, the 1500+ would have to perform equally to the P4-2000, since the PR rating is based on a 2/3 scale.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
November 17, 2001 6:09:13 PM

Well, the Athlon XP 1500+ performs roughly equal to a 1.4GHz Athlon which was still comparable to a 2GHz P4. So in some cases, the 1500+ Athlon XP does match the 2GHz P4.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
November 17, 2001 7:11:46 PM

Which is indeed very degrading, to see 667mhz of difference!!
It's like saying: My P 100 is better than your P3 700mhz!!! Damn that is a strong difference and humiliation.
November 18, 2001 2:16:36 AM

Its a good thing the pr rating was not designed to be valued against the p4 then, isnt it.

~Matisaro~
"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
~Tbird1.3@1.5~
a b à CPUs
November 18, 2001 2:40:42 AM

You really have to go by percentages! After all, it's also like saying an old 8MHz 8088 could outperform an Athlon 650 if you want to play that game.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
November 18, 2001 4:39:59 AM

ah screw it, I want my games to look pretty and I'm going to spend money on my car instead of CPU's...
I actually got to play with a Tbird 1.3 and a P4 1.5 a few days ago.
I'm not terribly impressed with either of them.
How about everyone focus on one ideal thought.
Regardless of the processor, all computers manufactured for the masses suck. The only way to have a decent computer is to purchase one built specifically for your needs or build it yourself.
Run the benches, do the tests, read the reviews, study the datasheets...
and DON'T buy it unless you build it. My Athlon 1ghz does good on CPU dependant stuff, flaskmpeg, etc.
Everything else, my 700Mhz PIII with an Intel 815 performs better, however the video isn't quite as powerful.
to sum up, the components make as much of a difference as the CPU, build a computer with slow components and an awesome 23Ghz Pentathlon(yea, I stole it :p ) and it'll suck.
/me steps off the soapbox...
now, er, what were we talking about again?

----------------------
Independant thought is good.
It won't hurt for long.
November 18, 2001 4:41:43 AM

Havent seen you around lately, how ya been merc.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
a b à CPUs
November 18, 2001 4:45:15 AM

You mean your one of the holdouts who never overclocked their 700 to 933? What kinda video ya usin'?

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
November 18, 2001 7:00:46 PM

been werkin.
I used to have 8 schools, now I have every school in the county, except for 2 piddly academies, total of 80 computers... bfd...
oh, and the Nimda virus sucks...

----------------------
Independant thought is good.
It won't hurt for long.
November 18, 2001 7:05:26 PM

700 @ 840 in a laptop, I'll have to do some work to get it to 933, but I'm going for it...
ATI M4 32meg, Rage 128 chipset. its adequate, but weak...
and replaceable!! Geforce 2 in the future...

btw, internal PIII thermal diode picks it up at 34*C with cooling running, hits about 51*C under full load @ 840.

----------------------
Independant thought is good.
It won't hurt for long.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by 74merc on 11/18/01 04:10 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
!