Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

P4 = WORLDS FASTEST CPU!!!

Tags:
  • CPUs
  • AMD
  • Product
Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 28, 2002 1:59:20 PM

<A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q1/020128/index.html" target="_new">P4 vs AXP</A>

"<b>AMD/VIA!</b>...you are <i>still</i> the weakest link, good bye!"

More about : worlds fastest cpu

January 28, 2002 2:47:01 PM

CORRECTION: P4= WORLD'S FASTEST PC PROCESSOR!

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
January 28, 2002 3:05:55 PM

Yeah, the P4 OCed to 3 gig barely beats the XP OCed to 2.2 gig. What an efficient design that P4 is!

I guess I'd better ditch my XP rig now and get a P4, huh meltdown?

"There's no such thing as gravity, the Earth just sucks"
Related resources
January 28, 2002 3:27:54 PM

it does look as such, there is no denying it... the P4 (OC'ed) is quite a bit faster than the AXP (OC'ed) when the 0.13ì process TBred comes out i would like to see a new version of this article... especially if you can still unlock the AMD CPUs multipliers...

However, as a student, the AXP still wins in the most important benchmark for me... Price:p erformance...

:wink: Engineering is the science of making life simple, by making it more complicated.
January 28, 2002 3:45:30 PM

the athlon xp design is way older than the northwood, and is still competition. why doesnt northwood pick on someone his own size and try TBred for a change (as soon as its released in Cebit 2002 in march ) ?
January 28, 2002 3:59:52 PM

About time Intel made a decent CPU. After AMD holding this title for the last year, Intel finally decides to get off there asses. There is still no doubt the Original P4 is a POS performance Wise!

Now if only they could have Amd's price/performance ratio I would consider buying one!

Also u did notice on the same Memory the P4 did lose alot of benchmarks. RDRAM is the only thing helping the P4 to stay in the lead.
January 28, 2002 6:05:27 PM

its not at 2.2ghz its at 1.87ghz

if in doubt blame microsoft...
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 28, 2002 6:27:35 PM

"Yeah, the P4 OCed to 3 gig barely beats the XP OCed to 2.2 gig. What an efficient design that P4 is!

I guess I'd better ditch my XP rig now and get a P4, huh meltdown?"

I must disagree, the memory is the bottleneck, that is why RDRAM beat out DDR-SDRAM. The board also did not have the 3:4 ratio, which would have greatly overclocked the RAM.

"Heat is a form of energy, thus the Law of Conservation of Energy holds!" - James Prescott Joule
January 28, 2002 6:53:30 PM

I would really like to see Abit allowing a higher Vcore than 1.65V on the RDRAM based TH7-II RAID. The old BIOS allowed 2.20V, so the board is definitely capable of giving a lot more that 1.65V. But for some reason Abit has this time chosen to be political correct and follow Intel's specifications. I hope they will change this soon.

Other than that I think this is bad news for Intel. They desperately need a faster FSB in order to withstand the attach from the 0.13 micron throughbred core.

If the old 0.18 micron Palomino can do 1866MHz watercooled and 1933MHz is all it takes to reach the performance of a P4/3000MHz on DDR RAM (845D), then a watercooled Throughbred will simply crush the P4/3000MHz.

<i>/Copenhagen</i>

<b><i>Seagate Barracuda IV.
Bad performance in RAID setups!
</i></b>
January 28, 2002 7:29:28 PM

1912.23, which makes the P4@3000 look even worse.

"There's no such thing as gravity, the Earth just sucks"
January 28, 2002 7:33:22 PM

Finally someone who understands.
Sure the P4 is officially the most impressive OCing CPU ever, and fastest, but certainly not impressive performance-wise. I would never buy one for the sake of OCing it and get near-results of AXPs.
Simply put Intel is not doing what we want. They once were awesome people, but now once AMD is leading, they put their hands in their asses and ignore that... How deceiving...
Face it people, even if you believe the P4 is better, fact is it's a mere improvement in performance when moved to 512K, and not too far will AMD reclaim an ever more impressive power. Let us wait and see but for the love of god wake up and smell the coffee, P4 IS NOT impressive performance-wise!! If it took 1133MHZ to be ON PAR with the AXP 2300, then that's just sad to me and many peeps I know...

--
The other day I heard an explosion from the other side of town.... It was a 486 booting up...
January 28, 2002 7:53:56 PM

Quote:
In comparison, today the average system is equipped with a 900 MHz processor as well as an MX2000 graphics card.

Forget the CPU war, what is an MX2000? Maybe the average computer user has a beter computer than we thing :wink:

RAM Disk is not an instalation step.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 28, 2002 8:36:39 PM

yes, and when comparing price we should remember that you would either have to get that "specially selected Pentium 4 processor that Intel itself was unable to provide for us."
Or if you just invest "at least 200 dollars" in a water cooling system, "you can use almost any P4 Northwood at 2.2 GHz or higher."
And still they had to "put your heat exchanger outside a window! :) "
Sure, a cpu running at >3Ghz is impressive. But it isn't interesting to ordinary users until it becomes a little more available to us, right?


old yoga proverb:
"when the dog farts,
it's time to fire up your incense."
January 28, 2002 8:45:31 PM

in order to pump the bus above 533mhz Intel will need to reduce the limitations on higher bus speeds - maintaining a unified signal with slow PCI buses is an issue. And high latency low clock speed memory access – memory need to get faster.

AMD deals with the PCI issue with a new form of bus – HyperTransport, Now accepted by most of the industry, will be the new standard. Some say Intel is to license it from AMD.
And the integrated memory controller cuts Latency issues enabling higher bus speeds while maintaining a unified signal.
Some say the Hammer will have 800 MHz bus. The white paper states that the integrated memory controller will first work with duel channel DDR333 (5.3Gb of bandwidth) so bus numbers around 800 MHz are needed.

Though I'm sure Intel got some of her own tricks up the sleeves.
AMD is also limited in bus speed – by packaging technology which Intel seems to get around with their BBUL packaging technology.
January 28, 2002 8:46:20 PM

the XP 2300+ is at 1866 thats what was tested, the p4@3000 with DDR did look quite poor performance for clock speed, but who cares about the clock speed... other than most people of course

if in doubt blame microsoft...
January 28, 2002 8:46:36 PM

agreed, i just wish i could wait until march for my new system... reaching 3000+ (PR) on a TBred might be feasible with air cooling... :smile:

:wink: Engineering is the science of making life simple, by making it more complicated.
January 28, 2002 9:02:48 PM

Quote:
it took 1133MHZ to be ON PAR with the AXP 2300


1133Mhz?? That's more speed than my processor has in it total :( 

Hard work often pays off in time, but laziness always pays off now.
January 29, 2002 9:17:39 AM

Ah yes, bask in the glory of having a 1,100 mhz lead. I look forward to December. I plan on learning photshop, so that when december comes and with it the Hammer. I can post a picture of the Intel Doll's head being crushed by a giant hammer. Maybe I'll throw in the intel doll crapping its pants just as the hammer pierces that gay space suit.
January 29, 2002 2:38:04 PM

Well, the good news is, that Intel finaly found a test that justifies it's use of RDRam. However, they tested the DDR ram using the worst performing DDR ram chipset for the P4, and a slower MB for the AMD Athlon. I don't know why they didn't use the Asus board for the Athlon, and the Via P4x266 chipset for the P4.

With the speed increasing, will be interesting to see what happens to the PCI bus as well. There are some issues already developing, and perhaps they will eventualy come out with some new expansion slot standard that supports faster than 66 Mhz. Memory speed will become more important too, and the battle between high speed DDR ram and RD ram will definately be interesting.

BTW, can anyone develope an RD ram system for the Athlon? or is there some reason they couldn't?

RAM Disk is not an instalation step.
January 29, 2002 2:48:27 PM

Its a clean-room suit to prevent contimination of the silicon.

Never spit into the wind. Never eat yellow snow.
January 29, 2002 3:35:27 PM

yea you can always leave it to convinced intel people such as my roommate who is a intel sales rep to totally believe no matter what intel is the best eventhough he knows jack about computers hehe.......time will tell the difference....
and besides anything over one ghz is hardly noticable except at very high resolutions in gaming and not noticable at all to the average user...
January 29, 2002 5:43:46 PM

RDRAM (Dual Channel) offers more bandwidth than the AXP can use. The high latency would actually reduce the performance of the AXP.
January 30, 2002 9:57:22 AM

Quote:
Its a clean-room suit to prevent contimination of the silicon.



Although the suits in their commercials are not like most cleanroom suits.(worked in a cleanroom untill my fab was shut down, will work in one again). They dont look like virus proof suits from outbreak, but each company may use different types, so I am not positve.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 30, 2002 1:13:34 PM

Thing about Intel is that their chipsets are still way better than AMD's..(VIA...bleh)
January 30, 2002 1:44:28 PM

Quote:
Thing about Intel is that their chipsets are still way better than AMD's..(VIA...bleh)



Thats in no way true, intels new chipset has the same type of bug that vias has(the pci bandwith bug)(I believe its the i850 , but it may be the I845 I forget ATM.)

If you dont want via, thats fine, there are plenty of athlon chipsets which are via free, and perfectly stable, nforce, ali magik, and the amd760. Intel chipsets in the past may have been more stable, but they are just as prone to issues now as any other chipset, issues which are not important if one does a little research before buying their motherboards.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 30, 2002 1:51:06 PM

Hehehe....an Athlon XP at 2GHz would overtake the P4 running at 3GHz. If anyone wonders whether the Athlon can carry AMD until Hammer arrives there's your answer.
January 31, 2002 2:52:03 PM

The AMD 750 chipset is a good one, but I still wonder why AMD doesn't make more chipsets of their own (like Intel does) this way there could be much better chipsets.

My case has so many fans that it hovers above the ground :eek:  .
January 31, 2002 6:11:11 PM

AMD does not have the resourses intel has, nor the fab capacity to fab their own chipsets, when amd releases a new cpu they make chipsets untill other chipset makers take over, they did it with the origional athlon, and the first ddr solution, when a company releases a good chipset to replace theirs they have no trouble bowing out.

"The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark"
No Overclock+stock hsf=GOOD!
January 31, 2002 6:51:07 PM

I've read through this whole thread on the CPU war, and there has been a lot of discussion about speed and performance but little said about good ole' fashion stability. Myself, a "tinkerer" by trade, started with AMD and have stuck with AMD for several years, haveing successfully overclocked my slot 1 Athlon 850 to 950 pretty stable for the first month and then stability problems galore, ATAPI problems, PCI bus problems...but they weren't heat related, temp at the core I kept at a constant 37 degrees celcius air cooled. Point being, I have noticed that the P4 chip overclocked or not, is quite a bit more stable than the AMD chip....may not get the performance bursts, but frankly I would rather turn on my PC, play games, do my graphic arts, record music, ect... than fix the damn thing all the time.
January 31, 2002 7:01:03 PM

I don't know what the hell you are smoking but I turn my system on and it performs great. I use and AMD system and haven't had any problems. I'm not going to say this is better than that but really point out stability flaws with the CPU? You were overclocking. It was probably instabilities due to other devices and not the processors.

Run along little troll.

<b><font color=green>Lizards</b></font color=green> for <b>THGC</b> Mascot!!!
January 31, 2002 8:55:53 PM

Now come on let's not rush to call him a troll!
A point though is that it's not the CPU that is unstable, it is merely a unit that processes everything coming to it, but it disregards the data type and continues, so it's the chipset that will be to blame.
Besides you may like having a stable P4 but I do know they are not fast man. Go do some rendering in 3d Studio Max or Photoshop, see how something taking 15 minutes on P4s takes less than 10 minutes on AXPs, call that "getting things done"?

--
The other day I heard an explosion from the other side of town.... It was a 486 booting up...
January 31, 2002 9:20:09 PM

and the point of this would be???
to cover something allready flogged to death perhaps?

P.S. you need more excimation marks melty.

The lack of thermal protection on Athlon's is cunning way to stop morons from using AMD. :) 
January 31, 2002 9:23:41 PM

ok, I think we are concentrating on something useless and it all comes down to one thing, psychology. Look at little children: they always argue over who has the better toy. That's what we are arguing here! Hmm, my AMD toy is better than your Intel toy or vise versa. Well, reality check: AMD and Intel are virtually identicial in price vs. performance vs. stability. You can't go wrong with either. It really goes down to your preference as I see no significant cons to going with one over the other. Choose either and you'll be equally happy, unless you have an ingrown desire to be better than everyone else, in which case, you'll always praise your purchased product and bash the opposing product. It's human nature, but as intelligent beings, we must overcome our wild instincts.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
January 31, 2002 9:38:27 PM

I wish it were that way AMD_Man I truly wish, but sadly it isn't:

-AMD Price vs Intel price: Top of the line and almost equal performance or XP better--> 2X the price for Intel products.

-Stability---> Either can crash endlessly if you don't know how to manage and build a system. Via chipsets ARE NOT devil's work.

-Performance---> Well tell me when you do make such rendering and we'll talk and see who's more miserable...

-Heat---> Sure the P4 has Thermal Protection, but I recall LHGPoobaa's sig: AMD's lack of thermal protection is a cunning way to keep morons from using them!
I totally agree with him on that man, cuz if you ain't brave enough to try AMD cuz of old tales, well you're a Joe.
Besides all new XPs have configurable thermal shutoff protection. My Epox supports that and I can tell it that at 70ºC it Shuts Off, that is pretty much reassuring to my standards, I don't need my comp to slow down to tell me it has the heatsink fan failed or fallen...

-Speed---> There is a difference man, trust me there is. Even over 1 GHZ you can STILL notice how something with higher mhz lags. I had tried for days my uncle's P4 1.7GHZ with 256RD, and then on my AXP 1600 with 256DDR I feel it faster in all moments, so yes speed can be noticed in many factors.



Conclusion: I may have gone to P4, but I simply would not be satisfied by paying this much for what the other had as top of the line performance.


--
The other day I heard an explosion from the other side of town.... It was a 486 booting up...
January 31, 2002 10:00:02 PM

Jesus, what have the guys over @ Tomshardware have done to you guys. I feel sorry for you guys. You guys would be so much smarter if.....you were [H]ard.
Damn, no wonder people over @ [H]ardOCP hate Tomshardware. [-peep-] they do the benchmarks but they just say bullshit.

GamerzCitadel.com
!