Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

P4 3010MHZ SUCKY!!!

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 17, 2002 9:48:42 PM

That last article about the pentium 4 3ghz was the stupidest article I have ever seen. WHO WROTE THAT!! it wasn't tom or george THATS FOR SURE!!! these guys had no common since at all. They thought that those were good scores?!?! those are horrible scores especialy for a CPU THATS 1344MHZ FASTER THAN THE XP 2000. THAT IS PITIFULL, Its obvious that these were unexperienced people and they shouldn't write articles for a world reconized computer news web site. There was even one bench mark where the 3010 did worse than the athlon 2000xp and they didn't even mention it!!!! This article has lost all my repect for pentium 4's anyone who knows anything about the computer market knows that intel will make new p5 before they release a p4 at that hight of a clock speed, that is pitifiul for the clock speed, i just can't get over how they thought that it was amazing, most tests it was just edging by the xp2000 and 2200 p4. I am very upset with the right wing exstreem p4 lovers that wrote that. I'd like to see what an athlon would do at that clock speed. it would rape the p4.

taylor

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by taylanator on 01/18/02 11:37 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

More about : 3010mhz sucky

January 17, 2002 9:55:48 PM

Perhaps you should learn to spell and use correct grammar before commenting on computer microprocessor reviews?

It was written by Frank Völkel, Uwe Scheffel and Bert Töpelt.

So why does the fact that the P4 3GHz doesn't perform as well as you thought it would make them bad reviewers?

Remember that processors with a high FSB traditionally don't fare as well under 3DMark.
38 FPS in DiVx encoding is nothing to laugh at, that's quite good. The MP3 encoding was very respectable, as well.

There was no test that the P4 3GHz did not win, I'm not sure where you got that from.

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
January 17, 2002 10:21:55 PM

no, you might want to look at it again, it lost horribly in one of the tests, and like i said again its 1344mhz faster, and if you would read the rest of the article these guys kept going on about how amazing the p4 was at this clock speed, in most fps tests it was only a 10-20 fps faster, thats not even noticeable in the big picture. and i wasn't even looking at 3d mark, just look at quake, oooh, a 25 fps lead, 1344MHZ for 25fps more, pitifull. They didn't even mention it when it did horrible in WinACE 2.04 they coverd the situation horribly, I've never seen tom or george do that.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
January 17, 2002 10:22:45 PM

I don't know if you are retarded or just plain retarded.
The latest article wasn't written as another "Athlon XP vs. P4: Performance Battle" article....it was written to "show that it is possible to overclock a Pentium 4/2200 to an extremely high rate of over 3000 MHz, and do so stably."

See a real naked pic of Britney Spears <A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/stick_e_mouse" target="_new">here</A>!!!
January 17, 2002 10:33:59 PM

Which test did it lose horribly at? Are you unable to find it again?

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
January 17, 2002 10:38:47 PM

Hey I have an idea, your STUPID!! I know that moron, I completly understand that they were talking about the stability bla bla bla bla. The point was they didn't even talk about how horrible it was doing for being at such a highers clockspeeds then any other processor. and what about this line at the end:
The benchmark results seem to set new records: in Quake 3 Arena, the Pentium 4/3000 achieved a frame rate of 308 fps. In comparison, the fastest of the Pentium 4/2200 series reaches 280 fps, at best. In contrast, even an Athlon XP 2000+ that is overclocked to 1850 MHz doesn't have a ghost of a chance. - THAT LAST STATEMENT IS THE BIGGEST BUNCH OF CRAP I HAVE EVER HEARD!!! an 1850 athlon does better than 2200mhz at quake, I know i've seen it in real life, AND THAT MEANS IT COULD ONLY BE 20 some fps away from 3010 p4, and thats not a gost of a chance? If thats not i don't know what is, especialy for intel having a 1160 mhz lead on it. PITIFULL!!!
January 17, 2002 10:39:23 PM

Just give it up man.

<i>If a server crashes in a server farm and no one pings it, does it still cost four figures to fix?
January 17, 2002 10:42:29 PM

Can you people not see how bad that is comparatively? man I'm thinking that i'm the only one with common sense
January 17, 2002 10:47:57 PM

Correction: you apparently have no common sense. Try proving your point, instead of assuming we're all stupid.

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
January 17, 2002 10:48:44 PM

Your just another anti-intel troll.

I'm sorry but that 3ghz oc'ed intel monster of a chip kicks the crap out of whatever sorry amd system you are running.

<i>The devil's advocate</i>
January 17, 2002 10:52:12 PM

ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!

Their comments were based upon their reviews and studies....and according to those reviews, the o/c P4 DID set new records, and the XP couldnt even touch it! Again, that's based upon THEIR review, in which they provided plenty benchmarks and proof.
So where are YOUR reviews? YOUR benchmarks? YOUR proof? Until you show show any, you have no credit. Or are we suppose to believe your word you say "I know, I've seen it in real life." LOL!
Like Mr. Kelledin said,"just give it up man."


See a real naked pic of Britney Spears <A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/stick_e_mouse" target="_new">here</A>!!!
January 17, 2002 10:57:20 PM

how sad... we have another whiner on our hands.

overall i thought the article was interesting, showing the possible headroom of the P4.
but apart from that, not terribly much use to the "average" overclocker.

few points...
i bet using the 'average' 845D didnt help the figures much, but what could they really do with a locked processor?

interesting comment about only a very select number of handpicked chips can make 3Ghz.
this suggests to me that yields for 3Ghz are exceptionally low... not suprising given the newness of the dieshrink.

so the average overclocker is proly lookin at around 2.5Ghz. not too shabby... makes me look forward to thouroughbred and a unlocked chip :) 

when, of course, AMD get off their ass and release it ;) 



The lack of thermal protection on Athlon's is cunning way to stop morons from using AMD. :) 
January 17, 2002 10:59:26 PM

Correction: I did not mean to call you are stupid but it is very obvious that at that clock speed the intel chip should run a lot better than that. And considering what they had to do to get that clock speed, its rather expensive and not worth the money to do. I am not anti-intel in anyway shape or form. I completly understand that the 2200 p4 is better than the athlon, the thing that sways it to amd's side is the price/performance ratio. I was just absolutly amazed that 3010mhz could only produce a mere 20 to 25 fps more than the xp2000 or 2200 p4. That was probably a 475 dollar water cooling system, so basicaly you pay 559 dollars for a 2200 and pay another 475 for a beastie water cooling system and pay a total of 1039 dollars just for a cpu and cooler. If you can afford over a 1000 dollars for a 3010 mhz cpu that gets a mere 20-30 fps faster then go for it, but as for me and 95% of everyone else, we'll stick with a much much more effective alternitive.
January 17, 2002 11:01:03 PM

Good, then go get what you want, and stop trolling forums.

<font color=orange>Quarter</font color=orange> <font color=blue>Pounder</font color=blue> <font color=orange>Inside</font color=orange>
January 17, 2002 11:01:28 PM

Hmm, I'm currently looking at two possible setups for my future system:

Iwill XP333-R +T'Bred or
Abit TH7-II + Northwood

It'll be a close one....

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
January 17, 2002 11:16:45 PM

go with the Iwill
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 17, 2002 11:20:59 PM

There are 2 sides to every story guys. I must say, I was very impress with the 3010 megahertz that was attained by the P4.

Hey Tay, the author was merely showing us that the .13 micron design was able to be pushed to a higher clock speed with proper cooling. I have to say that got my attention.

I was impress with the 308 FPS that was attained by the overclocked P4 too but then there wasn't anything mentioned about the poor archiving scores that P4 did in Winace. I mean what gives? They had all these wording about how archiving provides a very good benchmark but did not discusses how badly the P4 did. I'm surprise.

Tay was right to say that a clock speed difference of 1344 megahertz compared to the fastest XP in the benchmark was nonetheless dissapointing.

To conclude, I like the article but like always it's open to intepretation.

Smilley

<b>Assumptions are the MOTHER of all screw ups</b>
January 17, 2002 11:26:25 PM

I agree.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 17, 2002 11:28:54 PM

Hi all! (Excuse my English, please, if it bothers you)

I've read the article, and I have to admit that I was disappointed by the results. I thought it would be very higher. But I think the problem is not with the reviewers, nor with the P4 itself. I think it is the nature of the benchmark that makes that bad results. I will explain myself.

They had to use DDR-SDRAM, because of stability problems of RDRAM at higher frecuencies. That is a main point. You could bet the video tests where all memory bounded because of that. Even the RIMMs would be too slow for that 3 GHz. A sign of a problem here is the score at Sandra's memory test. The P4 is slowed until Athlon levels. I know this is not a real world test, but it clearly reveals a difference with the RDRAM system. Note that some tests show a clear advantage, such as the Light Wave test.Maybe these applications fit the L2 cache? I think so, and the 3GHZ CPU is able to show its potential.

Anyway, the future advances in the memory subsystem, perhaps cache improvements and new chipsets will aid the P4 when it *oficially* reaches 3 GHz. Then, things should be clearer.

------

By the way, I also dislike the way they make the reviews. I see no sense in saying, for example, "P4 is head and shoulders over Athlon..." when there is a difference of less than 5%. Please, do not missunderstand me. I am not against Intel nor AMD. I really like the competence. This quote is only an example. I only feel that most of the comments are hugely exagerated.

By!
January 17, 2002 11:29:30 PM

im beginnin to wonder a bit...
read a few reports saying that AMD is draggin its heels with the 'bred', as last year AMD said Q4 or Q1 2002... and its Q1 now with nothing to show for it.
they better hurry up or they will loose the plot.

not too worried.
i predict the first 'breds' will have some cool overclocking capabilities.


The lack of thermal protection on Athlon's is cunning way to stop morons from using AMD. :) 
January 17, 2002 11:31:38 PM

>The 3010Mhz P4 lost this test, for what it's worth.

the THG data is questionable in that test.


"<b>AMD/VIA!</b>...you are <i>still</i> the weakest link, good bye!"
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 17, 2002 11:41:11 PM

You are right Mikepeon,

The reason why the Overclocked P4 was running that badly with a headroom 1344 Megahertz is due to it using DDR-Ram running on PC2100 with the Intel 845 chipset.

I would really to see what the P4 can do at 3010 megahertz with RD-ram.

Smilley

<b>Assumptions are the MOTHER of all screw ups</b>
January 17, 2002 11:43:25 PM

Agreed, something looks wrong there. How can a 2.2GHz P4 beat a 3GHz P4?

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
January 17, 2002 11:44:49 PM

I just thought it was strange that with 800 MHz speed increase, as well as FSB incrase it only managed 28 FPS more over the 2200 MHz chip. Seems that somewhere in that line the video card couldn't even keep up at 640x480, maybe we'll need newer video cards to show the true performance of higher clocked CPUs.
Anyways a computer is only as fast as its slowest component, depending on what your doing that is....
I'd like to see the Abit TH7II board used with RDRAM. Its able to run 133 FSB and higher by adjusting the memory clock from 4 to 3. I've also heard Rayston say many people are taking the 2GHz Northwoods and getting 2.66 GHz out of them from running 133 FSB on the Abit board. And some people that go to higher FSB speeds are getting up to 2.8 GHz with air cooling.
I might have to buy an intel CPU in the near future :smile:
If their prices continue to come down and I can get more performance I'll go to the "dark" side any day.

Trusting every aspect of our lives to a giant computer was the greatest thing we ever did -Homer
January 17, 2002 11:47:22 PM

I agree for the most part, how they make little comments sometimes that do not show what the benchmark that is right in our face shows does get annoying. such as this one http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q1/020117/images/imag... they said that was
"In the Lightscape benchmark, the Intel Pentium 4/3000 is clearly ahead of the Pentium 4/2200."


ITS A tenth off!!! I hate when they do that, tom and george don't do that. By saying stuff like that they arrn't telling the truth and are showing that they are total p4 lovers and they are presenting the information in an unbias way. I just don't like that at all, it really makes me angery.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 17, 2002 11:58:31 PM

Just to throw some gas on the flames,
What if intel's "MHz over speed" actually starts to create a substantial lead over AMD?

We all know clock for clock AMD destroys intel but as we can see this can be over come by raw clocks, now my thought is this: What happens when we're looking at a XP3000 vs. a P5 8GHz (just a hypothetical)? sure AMD will still have a clock for clock advantage but wil it make up for the difference? And as well I read earlier in this thread about possible un-impressive yields from .13u but apparently just the opposite is the case. With the new 300mm wafers being used the yields are greater than ever, or so I have read.
January 18, 2002 12:02:16 AM

well, I do think that it was limited by the ddr ram, but i just look at that as a leveling ground, how come p4's get the fast ram? put them on the same memory interface as a athlon and then you can see how good the actual CPU is with out its super RDRAM. Sure the ram limits it but come on, it still should still get much better than that, but it didn't, so i guess p4's as we know them today are not as good as we think they are. Besides, We've allready looked at the p4 with ddr, its not "that" much worse than the rdram versions. Its just dissapointing.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2002 12:05:05 AM

but tay you have to admit that until lately (northwood) tom's was brutal for doing the same to Intel such as this quote from P4 2.2 vs XP2000:

"The strengths of the AMD Athlon XP 2000+ are revealed in Office performance: with 203 points in Sysmark 2001, the Athlon XP soars over the higher-clocked Pentium 4/2200"

The P4 scored 201, I mean gimmie a break (meaning I understand your frustration) tom must have a different definition of "soar" than websters.LOL
January 18, 2002 12:09:17 AM

thats very true I have heard the same thing. I think that AMD does need to step it up a little, they are slacking off, for along time AMD ruled the CPU race but it realy has ben slacking off lately, but I have seen people on madonion.com with athlons overclocked to 2400 mhz and they absolutly destroy's the p4's at 3ghz and faster, go to www.madonion.com you can see people with p4's overclocked to 3100mhz and higher, its not unusual amung super overclocking dorks. The athlons still beat them. Its sad.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2002 12:11:57 AM

But we all also know that 3dMark2k1 is an "AMD" bench kinda like Q3 for P4
January 18, 2002 12:12:47 AM

umm, i never noticed that, well, i guess they are all guilty, all i know is that i make conclusions for my self now days due to the fact that they do that ALL THE TIME, I'm not sure why, mabey its the editor, mabey he changes what they say, or it could be that since they are austrailian, mabey their definition is different than ours. Good point though, i guess tom him self does it everyonce and a while too.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2002 12:21:32 AM

I gather you meant Austrians not Australians. I don't think Tom has a testing lab in Aussie land.

<b>Assumptions are the MOTHER of all screw ups</b>
January 18, 2002 12:44:31 AM

that would be a great idea!
test lab in Australia!
then i can work there :) 

The lack of thermal protection on Athlon's is cunning way to stop morons from using AMD. :) 
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 18, 2002 12:50:01 AM

I would love that too. Tom already has 2 testlab in the Northern Hemisphere. He should set one up down here. It's closer to New Zealand as well. Hehehe

<b>Dumbass assumptions are the MOTHER of all screw ups</b>
January 18, 2002 1:36:04 AM

Sorry didn't have time to read al your comments but I must comment myself.

Fine I am impressed by to stability and frequency at which it ran but damn if the scores don't seem to justify the speed. Yes Tom between AMD and Intel GHz doesn't tell the whole picture and neither do you. Why didn't you OC the XP w/ your cooling rig? The XP did well against a 3 GHz processor. Yes Intel always kicks AMD's butt in Q3. But as any sane person knows that don't mean squat if the the other benches don't reflect this too. Umm I never played Q3 on my P333 w/ a TNT2 @ 640x480. The GPU is still the weak link.

I remember not too long ago how Mr. Pabst was an AMD fanboy. Intel must have slipped him a few $$$. How he has switched.

Don't get me wrong with Intel. I havn't bought one in the last couple of years but I am thiknig about it just to get away from VIA and the inconsistancies and compatablities. They have come a long way but I "believe", not 100% without experience, that an Intel sys would be more stable and compatable still.

I long for the day when this is the focus of a review and not FPS, GHz, win-this Si-that. Give me something I can play with without wanting to burn-up myself!!!! I know the time would be incredible and combinations mind blowing but we can still dream in our country RIGHT?!!!!!

<b><A HREF="http://www.seti.tomshardware.com/" target="_new">How fast is your PC</A></b>
January 18, 2002 1:47:02 AM

very nice post joehead I completly aggree. And you laugh but I would not dought for a second if he got paid by intel to do this, if there are only a handfull of these processors then how did he get one? Intel, thats how, they probably paid him in the 6 digits, he does run a very influential web site and if they could get him to quite bashing intel they could increase their revenue. Good observation joe.
January 18, 2002 1:54:30 AM

You will have to pardon me for ignoring people who create a new forum account to complain about new reviews/articles. For all we know you could work for AMD.

-Raystonn


= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my employer. =
January 18, 2002 2:03:50 AM

Quote:
then i can work there :) 


No way, <b>I</b> have to work there.
;) 

"Ignorance is bliss, but I tend to get screwed over."
January 18, 2002 2:11:04 AM

Quote:
Correction: you apparently have no common sense. Try proving your point, instead of assuming we're all stupid.

Word. Preach on, FatBurger!

:wink:

<b>1.4 Ghz AMD T-Bird underclocked to 1 Ghz...just to be safe!</b>
January 18, 2002 2:18:34 AM

in line buster!
my athlon has a bigger fan than your athlon.
hmmm.. maybe i should get a 92mm to 80mm adaptor for it, ive seen em around ;) 

oh yeah... howz this for a good quote :) 

Microsoft Products - shrink-wrapped denials of service and prepackaged network compromises.

The lack of thermal protection on Athlon's is cunning way to stop morons from using AMD. :) 
January 18, 2002 2:20:09 AM

Well he has been in the Intel camp for quite a few months now as I remember it.

I used to see claims to this when I first came around and how good the site used to be but now being around here for a little while I see what they meant. I guess I came when the K7 was making it's splash and how he trounched on Rambus when it came. Any mention of that of late? Even though Intel has swayed away itself! HHmmm he had nothing good to say even though nothing, and now it's proven, could run the P4's architecture as well as Rambus even with it's latency handicap. The P4 really needs the bandwidth with it long pipe. I guess the Atholon is starting to use the DDR more now too. Not totally sure. I havn't seen or paid much attention of late to comparison of DDR to SDR as of late. In the beggining it surely didn't pay to upgrade from SDR to DDR as I could see it. Not if you had a KT133 or especially a KT133A. Different chips need different things. And whoever complained about him not using RDRam and the P4 being handicapped well the FSB was overclocked like hell here and the DDR was probally matching or better yet bettering the perfomance of RDRam at it's standard or even it's best OC. Only speculation but damn 37 MHz OC on the FSB. Now would that put the memory at 170 MHz or 340 MHZ DDR?

<b><A HREF="http://www.seti.tomshardware.com/" target="_new">How fast is your PC</A></b>
January 18, 2002 2:32:52 AM

In reply to:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Correction: you apparently have no common sense. Try proving your point, instead of assuming we're all stupid.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


we are way past that, you intel capitalists have allready been proven wrong. The fact is that the article was actualy presented the wrong way and with no mention to the 3010mhz beast horrible performance, I think that they should do another article on this to clean things up here, there a some real problems with this article. And it was to an extent a xp vs. p4 battle especialy with that last few phrases he used. Which is stupid because the big beast did horrible and i think the poeple need to know why, and why they didn't overclock an XP, there ARE people on madonion.com with athlons overclocked to 2700mhz and they don't have access to anything tom doesn't. I'd like to see what happends with a xp 2700mhz vs. a p4 3010. I'll tell you what would happen, intel would get their buts kicked. But no the intel lovers here at THG had to overclock a P4! I remember the day when they were all amd lovers, I wonder how much money intel paid them to do that article.
January 18, 2002 2:56:13 AM

Quote:
in line buster!
my athlon has a bigger fan than your athlon.


Oh yeah? Well my fan is quieter than yours so...um...I don't know. :lol: 

"Ignorance is bliss, but I tend to get screwed over."
January 18, 2002 3:04:45 AM

it was a loaded review.
all P4s were running the 850 except for the overclocked one.
there wasn't even a baseline 845 benchmark unless I missed it.
total BS, Taylanator is either a retard or just a retard, yep, its called correctly above, but the review is totally useless.
lets have a processor benchmark using two completely different systems.
too many variables, they just wasted alot of time. That entire article could have been shortened to a page or two about overclocking it, the benchmarks were a total waste.

----------------------
Independant thought is good.
It won't hurt for long.
January 18, 2002 3:10:07 AM

Raystonn, you were complaining about 845 used in benchmarks last week, look at the review, the overclocked system is the only one using the 845, its a crappy comparison.

----------------------
Independant thought is good.
It won't hurt for long.
January 18, 2002 3:13:52 AM

ok you people agree with me and then call me a retard? hello? whats going on here, All I am trying to say is that with or without the RDRAM the P4 at that clock speeds should run faster than that, everyone agrees on that. So whats with all the name calling?
January 18, 2002 3:16:15 AM

if thats all a P4 can crank out at that incredibly clock speeds then I say P4's suck, I know that an athlon at that clock speed would waste that thing.
January 18, 2002 3:18:17 AM

Ray was against the 845 chipset while this test used an 845<b>D</b>, there's a <b>big</b> difference.

"Ignorance is bliss, but I tend to get screwed over."
January 18, 2002 4:52:10 AM

dood, "I know that an athlon at that clock speed would waste that thing." who cares, is an athlon at that clock speed out yet? well then, intel is winning, kud0s to intel for raising the lever that much higher. if i had the money i'd hop all over the next p4 northwood cause i'm pretty sure they're gonna release their next cpu at a higher clock speed most likely before the thoroubreds come out. stop your whining, you make amd users look bad. well maybe not that, your post's are just dumb. dont compare what is possible today (the p4 northwood) with something that will be out tomorrow (well later, an amd cpu at that clock speed)

didnt have one of em electronic pens so ill just type my name,<i>CoOoLMaNX</i>
!