Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

The die is cast article, discussion.

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
May 6, 2002 7:49:56 AM

Heres the real discussion of the latest article, not meltdowns lamer flame post.


Article looks fine to me, of course the new p4 is faster than the 2100+, I think its funny how the last article (2100+ versus 2.4ghz) was called "the final battle" apparently not.

Yawn at another lackluster thg article.

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
May 6, 2002 8:30:04 AM

It seems AMD can catch up with old boy Pentium. The only question is, will people want to pay twice or three times as much for a few percentage increase which seem irrelavent in most daily application. To be honest, I can't find much difference between my 900 mhz thunderbird and my new 1600+ XP. Face it, more than 80% of computer users used their computers for practical applications such as word, excell, internet, music, game...
May 6, 2002 8:49:59 AM

Agreed. We have reached a point where everything over 1GHZ is acceptable, we are no longer pressured to upgrade.

Now its just a matter of who can make these speeds more affordable, **hint** --> AMD.



Any mystery devised by mortal mind can be solved therewith
Related resources
May 6, 2002 9:54:23 AM

still like the price to performance ratio though :smile:

though i wish they would stop refering to FSB overclocked CPU's in that test as "future cpu's"
what hokum!

everyone knows upping the FSB changes everything, specially with bandwidth hungry P4's....

and that i still find suprising, the very bandwidth hungry nature of the p4 architecture.



<font color=purple>Be gentle with yourself, but not too gentle when browsing porn :smile: .</font color=purple>
May 6, 2002 10:32:57 AM

bad review, bad and silly comments, no need to use overclocked cpus, i wonder why they are still using the tbird 850, why they do not use PIII 866 too or only PIII?

they put the people in a mess, 29 cpu many fsb speeds.

if you need the reasonable and understoodable benchmark go to <A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1615" target="_new">anandtech</A>

wish if there was UnDo in the life
May 6, 2002 11:09:06 AM

hey estoopido !

The athlon 850 is just thrown in for reference, its not the cpu which we are interested in !

Any mystery devised by mortal mind can be solved therewith
May 6, 2002 11:15:02 AM

What now, performance have no use if that your point dont come here.That a forum driven by CPU/Memory/MCH performance.by the way, P4 have still have a lot of mghz under the hood.

Not for matisaro

cheap, cheap. Think cheap, and you'll always be cheap.AMD version of semi conducteur industrie
May 6, 2002 11:18:17 AM

http://www.xbitlabs.com/cpu/pentium4-2400b/

I was thinking of Xbitlab as a pro intel website seen that no or they have do too much pro intel review and want to take back of the AMD fan

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1615

Wonder boy give the same result as toms total win for P4 this time under PC800.


PC 4200 is not mention anywhere so a future P4T with Pc4200 or forget it.Also how much for Pc1066.We dont have kill RDRAM intel you have made it.


We like DDR please send us more.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by juin on 05/06/02 07:39 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
May 6, 2002 11:52:36 AM

estoopido? what is that?, anyway it seems u did not get my point, why they did not use PIII instead of athlon? because they want to show tbirds power comparing to the other cpu, and this is specially for new users, seems it is a game of intel.

and why they need to compare it? if so they it was going better to use amd and intel cpus.

you need to have further look and realization to know why they are doing so

wish if there was UnDo in the life
May 6, 2002 12:00:12 PM

Problem is, how much will it cost!
P4 2.53GHZ=500$ PC1066 RDRAM, yet another new novelty, most likely 200$ for 512MB. P4T533= 200$, Asus novelty again... Wow, put that in Canadian price and you have officially bought a high performance FULL system with AMD!
Again, AMD HAS TO hurry the Tbred in, and I do hope it brings out the hidden improvements in performance as rumored.

--
Thunderbirds in wintertime, Northwoods in summertime! :lol: 
May 6, 2002 12:06:43 PM

Quote:
P4 2.53GHZ=500$ PC1066 RDRAM, yet another new novelty, most likely 200$ for 512MB. P4T533= 200$, Asus novelty again...


Id like to see you get a 2.53ghz p4 for 500 bucks on pricewatch. considering the 2.4ghz is still 520!

:wink: The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark :wink:
May 6, 2002 12:21:48 PM

the point is not related with performance, the review was boring because of the same comments they are using in each review, they are not showing or telling with each benchmark why intel is faster or amd, anandtech showed nice comments with each benchmark so you can learn and understand whats going on, showing graphs only and typing the same what the graphs tell without saying why is a cheap work, so showing graphs only is like seeing a polished car without knowing what is inside and why.

it seems some people like to see graphs where their favorite hero is winning

wish if there was UnDo in the life
May 6, 2002 1:11:53 PM

Why you take a P 2.5 a 2.2B anyway is faster that a AXP or buy a P4 1.8A with a P4T533 overclock to the sky maybe more that 4GIG of bandwith on sisoft

cheap, cheap. Think cheap, and you'll always be cheap.AMD version of semi conducteur industrie
May 6, 2002 1:31:13 PM

Um, PC1066 still isn't offically here and even then it won't reach 4GB/s bandwidth in Sandra.

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
May 6, 2002 2:07:03 PM

overclock the xp 2100+ to 2.1Ghz real (maybe even more?!?) & the battle continue...

oh, i forget <A HREF="http://www.vr-zone.com/guides/AMD/AthlonXP/" target="_new">this link</A>.



<i>if <b>you know</b> <font color=white>you don't know<font color=black>, the way could be more easy ...<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Labdog on 05/06/02 10:10 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
May 6, 2002 2:43:37 PM

I agree with you, blue_heart. I finally go to the end just to view the conclusions. Is like always saying "the grey are not marketed". Maybe it is usefull for people that concentrates in one area, but I miss the point. Why they do not focus on the arquitectural gaps between models, or try to find the relationship between performance/Mhz/bus/...?

DIY: read, buy, test, learn, reward yourself!
May 6, 2002 2:45:13 PM

what i find funny is the comparison of a 2.5ghz processor against a 1.6ghz ... it's almost a ghz faster. So i don't quite understand the comparison. It's almost a "DUH!" situation. Next THG article will be a t-bird 1ghz against the intel 80486dx2-150. *rolls eyes* ... Of course the conclusion will read "Intel still wins because <insert lame excuse here>" ... just making a point he seems very biased for Intel. I hardly read his articles anymore. Whats the point? It's not fair and balanced ...

If the article is about top processors from both companies then obviously AMD needs to spring out faster processors.
Ya it's a "DUH!" situation.

In conclusion the article is very pointless. And may i stress the word "very" to the highest extent.

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/mysystemrig.html?id=9933" target="_new"> My Rig </A>
May 6, 2002 2:49:18 PM

Um, PC1066 still isn't offically here and even then it won't reach 4GB/s bandwidth in Sandra.


after overclocking hope for good DRRG on P4t533.


cheap, cheap. Think cheap, and you'll always be cheap.AMD version of semi conducteur industrie
May 6, 2002 3:40:41 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>Svar på:</font><hr><p>they put the people in a mess, 29 cpu many fsb speeds.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Actually I like when they list all those CPU's and FSB's. It provides great comparative information.

I also like the grey bars, because they are showing me what I can expect of my next P4 system, which I will buy later this month. But I think I can follow you; had there been grey Athlon's on the top charts, I would probably feel the same way as you.


<i>/Copenhagen - Clockspeed will make the difference... in the end</i> :cool:
May 6, 2002 3:55:29 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>Svar på:</font><hr><p>Problem is, how much will it cost!<p><hr></blockquote><p>I'm amazed how people continue to talk about the P4 being more than twice as expensive as Athlon. Especially people like us who doesn't normally buy the top CPU's; we buy lower clocked (and thus cheaper) ones and then overclock them to give more performance than top CPU can give. So please stop this price issue, there is NO price issue in the current situation in terms of overcloked performance versus price.

Right now Athlon XP is not a good choice for the BIOS FSB overclocker, which means most of us in the enthusiast community.

<i>/Copenhagen - Clockspeed will make the difference... in the end</i> :cool:
May 6, 2002 4:09:01 PM

There is a real price difference issue, or have you forgotten that AMD users overclock their systems as well.
May 6, 2002 4:10:43 PM

Quote:

Right now Athlon XP is not a good choice for the BIOS FSB overclocker, which means most of us in the enthusiast community.

Sure...you keep thinking that...


Get an Epox 8K3A+ or 8KHA+ or IWill XP333, unlock the Athlon XP, raise the FSB to 400MHz+ and you'll have a P4 killer. The Athlon XP is still an excellent processor that overclocks very well and can compete with a highly overclocked P4 but it's a little harder to do than just going into the BIOS. You'll need to unlock it first.

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
May 6, 2002 4:19:16 PM

is it complicated to unlock it? ;) 


<i>if <b>you know</b> <font color=white>you don't know<font color=black>, the way could be more easy ...
May 6, 2002 4:21:48 PM

I think Anandtech painted the picture perfectly:

<font color=blue><i>"AMD's chance to regain the performance lead could be had with the Thoroughbred if they ramp quickly enough since it will take more than an XP 2200+ running at 1.8GHz to take the lead away from Intel. <b>But in all honesty we aren't waiting for the Athlon XP to ramp quickly, we're waiting for the inevitable Hammer based Athlon match up against the Pentium 4.</b> With execution power exceeding that of the current Athlon XP, an extremely low-latency path to main memory, SSE2 support and a shipping clock speed of at least 2GHz there is much to expect from Hammer. There has already been talk of a 3400+ model rating for Hammer upon its launch later this year; with Intel targeting 3GHz for the Pentium 4 before the end of the year, it may be Hammer that is AMD's real chance at regaining the performance crown."</i></font color=blue>

Personally I find the Athlon XP as interesting as mouldly bread, which might I add isn't very interesting at all.

Yes the P4 has the upper hand, but at what cost ? Athlon XP was never designed to compete with <i>mature</i> P4's.

<i>IF</i> Hammer doesn't deliver AMD are doomed, I just hope they aren't building castles in the sky cause it would hurt 'em real bad if it all came crashing down on them.

<font color=purple>Ladies and Gentlemen, its...Hammer Time !</font color=purple>
May 6, 2002 5:17:29 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>Svar på:</font><hr><p>Article looks fine to me, of course the new p4 is faster than the 2100+, <p><hr></blockquote><p>Too bad Intel's i850E isn't officially supporting PC1066 RDRAM and is without the ICH4 southbridge that includes USB 2.0. I know that most boards has no problems running PC1066, and the mobo makers can add USB 2.0, but still Intel's lack of official support sucks. I'll keep an eye on the i845G which will emerge later this month. It completely destroys the SIS645DX in terms of performance, is better than PC800 RDRAM and nearly as good as PC1066 RDRAM and it's only based on a single channel DDR333.


<i>/Copenhagen - Clockspeed will make the difference... in the end</i> :cool:
May 6, 2002 5:21:45 PM

Quote:
<i>cooll says:</i>
It seems AMD can catch up with old boy Pentium.


Did we read the same article? I thought this one was about the new P4, not a new Athlon.

Quote:
<i>cooll says:</i>
Face it, more than 80% of computer users used their computers for practical applications such as word, excell, internet, music, game...


I agree, I don't need half the processing power my P4 has, or even that my 1.2 Tbird had. But it's something you can never have too much of. I guess I just don't have anything better to spend my money on :tongue:

Quote:
<i>Eden says:</i>
Problem is, how much will it cost!


Wait for prices to settle, but it'll still be pricey. $200 for a motherboard isn't new though, the AT7 is around the same price (last I checked).

Quote:
<i>ixxsk8er101xx says:</i>
what i find funny is the comparison of a 2.5ghz processor against a 1.6ghz


I find it funny that it's a comparison of a high IPC processor vs. a low IPC processor. But since you know so much about CPU architecture, you of course know that the two are equally important.

Quote:
<i>xxsk8er101xx says:</i>
just making a point he seems very biased for Intel


I didn't read the article very closely, but he seemed to be rather biased against Intel, at least as a company. Comments like "Intel will be Intel" (in a derogatory way) stuck out to me.

Quote:
<i>xxsk8er101xx says:</i>
If the article is about top processors from both companies then obviously AMD needs to spring out faster processors


I'm not sure what you mean by that. Are you saying it's not a fair comparison because AMD has not released a processor in a while, or just saying that AMD needs to hurry up with future processors?

Quote:
<i>xxsk8er101xx says:</i>
In conclusion the article is very pointless.


I agree, but I'd go a step further and say 'worthless'. The last review on THG I actually enjoyed was David Stellmack's sound card roundup a while back.

Quote:
<i>Copenhagen says:</i>
we buy lower clocked (and thus cheaper) ones and then overclock them to give more performance than top CPU can give.


What? Someone with actual common sense?

Quote:
<i>Copenhagen says:</i>
Right now Athlon XP is not a good choice for the BIOS FSB overclocker, which means most of us in the enthusiast community.


Oops, spoke too soon. One of the major advantages of the Athlon is that the multiplier can be changed. If the Northwood was the same way, no doubt we'd be seeing slightly higher overclocks.

Quote:
<i>mr_gobbledegook says:</i>
I think Anandtech painted the picture perfectly:


Anandtech usually has great articles, I haven't taken the time to read this one yet.

Quote:
<i>mr_gobbledegook says:</i>
Athlon XP was never designed to compete with mature P4's.


I totally agree. The Athlon design is pretty impressive, to scale in performance this far. Granted, it's quite changed from when it was originally released, but it's still a great processor.

Quote:
<i>mr_gobbledegook says:</i>
IF Hammer doesn't deliver AMD are doomed, I just hope they aren't building castles in the sky cause it would hurt 'em real bad if it all came crashing down on them.


I wouldn't call them doomed, but they'd be in trouble for sure. Hammer looks to be another overhyped product (like the nForce), though it should be a solid performer.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
May 6, 2002 6:03:51 PM

All I can really say is that AMD is falling behind and is getting a wake-up call.

Do I care right now though? No! I'm not upgrading my computer for a while so it doesn't affect me, but AMD better do something, better make sure the clawhammer works as advertised, or we'll all be suffering the outrageous Intel prices come upgrade time.

I refuse to go back to the $1000 CPU days.

AMD is hedging its bets on the Clawhammer. I'm not sure that's a good idea, but if they release it at 3400+ while the P4 is only at 3000 Mhz, that'll be a feat. Will they fall behind again though?

<font color=red>God</font color=red> <font color=blue>Bless</font color=blue> <font color=red>America!</font color=red>
May 6, 2002 6:18:45 PM

Just want to correct myself. The 845G is based on a single channel DDR266,not DDR333, but this just makes it more amazing.

<i>/Copenhagen - Clockspeed will make the difference... in the end</i> :cool:
May 6, 2002 6:21:17 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>Svar på:</font><hr><p>Get an Epox 8K3A+ or 8KHA+ or IWill XP333, unlock the Athlon XP, raise the FSB to 400MHz+ and you'll have a P4 killer.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Is that possible ? ... aircooled ?

Can you provide links with benchmarks ?

<i>/Copenhagen - Clockspeed will make the difference... in the end</i> :cool:
May 6, 2002 6:38:09 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>Svar på:</font><hr><p>There is a real price difference issue, or have you forgotten that AMD users overclock their systems as well.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Yes they do, but they are not as successful. It's hard to get an Athlon XP past 1.8GHz aircooled with perfect stability as far as I know. Thoroughbred will likely change that. It will be interesting to see how high a XP1800+ Throroughbred will go.


<i>/Copenhagen - Clockspeed will make the difference... in the end</i> :cool:
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 6, 2002 7:00:25 PM

but dont forget all the Athlon (Thunderbird, Pla. etc.) are based on the eariest Athlon that came out in 1999 with the same structure but the die shrink and more cache. I agree with the other guys that we are impressive of how they can scale something from 1999 (against P3) to nowaday speed that complete with P4. You dont see that everyday with the computer industry. The other point is that THG should add more comments like annadtech, i am pretty amaze at they took the time time to test all the cpus but i just skimp the graphs, and now i dont even bother to read the comments under each graphs, i dont mind silliness but at least they have to GIVE US SOME COMMENTS ON THE GRAPHS!!
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
May 6, 2002 7:05:51 PM

I like THG but i wish they are more like anandtech, anandtech always add some insight tech information about the products plus the benchmark. we are not idiots we can take confuse technology and resemble them, but we have to know them first like the 3DLab acticle, it got a lot of information and thats the way i like it
May 6, 2002 7:13:35 PM

Quote:
I think its funny how the last article (2100+ versus 2.4ghz) was called "the final battle" apparently not.

It was the final battle between the 100 FSB Northwood and the Palmino core XP.

I want to be your Opteron... Why don't you call my name - Peter Gabriel?
May 6, 2002 7:17:14 PM

Nvidia Nforce was scrap and is still a big scrap this will not change soon.

Q1 NW release Intel win
Q2 faster Nw intel win
Q3 faster NW intel win
Q4 1 half intel win 2 half if clawhammer is out AMD win
2003 Q1 AMD win except if prescot is release in Q1
2003 Q2/Q3 ???? advantage AMD except if presscot is doing
very well.

Any others prediction

cheap, cheap. Think cheap, and you'll always be cheap.AMD version of semi conducteur industrie
May 6, 2002 7:39:35 PM

Of course, why not? The Iwill XP333 and the EPoX boards natively support the 400MHz FSB. All you need is RAM to handle that FSB speed.

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
May 6, 2002 7:52:56 PM

What kind of CPU clock frequency are you thinking of ?

Show me a link to a system like the one you describe, aircooled, that will smash an aircooled P4 2.8GHz Northwood @ PC1184 spec, like the one showed in Tom's latest article.

<i>/Copenhagen - Clockspeed will make the difference... in the end</i> :cool:
May 6, 2002 8:02:56 PM

I'm thinking a 2GHz Athlon XP with a 400MHz DDR RAM and a 400MHz FSB. I don't have links of course, but the 400MHz FSB is definitely possible and so is a 2GHz Athlon XP.

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
May 6, 2002 8:06:38 PM

Any idea how tough it would be for AMD to quad pump the existing FSB?
May 6, 2002 8:33:24 PM

lol, very funny, amd is double pump, 166 mhz * 2.
Take a little calculator, and try out 200 * 2. how much?

You gotta do some maths at school dude
May 6, 2002 8:38:32 PM

Maybe you should try to learn to read English. I did not ask about 200x2, I was asking about 133x4 (hence quad pumped not double).
May 6, 2002 8:40:39 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>Svar på:</font><hr><p>Here is an example of a 400MHz+ FSB on the AMD platform.<p><hr></blockquote><p>Have you read the comment below the picture:

<i>First, let me state that this speed was achieved using OCZ PC3200 DDR memory and a 1.2GHz "AXIA" Thunderbird. </i>

Sound to me that maybe the Athlon XP can't do that. Also 2.0GHz with an aircooled Athlon XP is not realistic. Even a 1900+ engineering sample of Thoroughbred could only do 2050GHz and only with the help of a VapoChill !!

I think 1.9GHz aircooled is more likely.


<i>/Copenhagen - Clockspeed will make the difference... in the end</i> :cool:
May 6, 2002 8:41:04 PM

It would have made for a wiz picture. ;) 

Seriously though, my thoughts to no one in particular:

The article was perfectly fine in my opinion. It was clearly written in a manner derogitory to Intel if you look at the comments. At least this time I can kind of appreciate that tone to the review though in light of the i850E's lack of support for the best of the best. Yet even then, there is no denying that the best of Intel's x86 creamed the best of AMD's x86, and the article at least didn't try to obfuscate this any.

Personally, I'd have preferred to see those overclock benchmarks seperate from the main article as not everyone cares about how far they can push their system. However, I did find the information useful to consider just how far I could figure to push a chip if I bought one.

The inclusion of the TBird at 850 seemed a little quaint. I suppose for those out there who are still running something at that level, it might be helpful for them to appreciate just how much faster a new system could be. Still ... common sense would say as much anyway.

As for the lack of real comments with the benchmarks, personally, I found it satisfying. So many times THG specifically puts in comments with their benchmarks that either have nothing to do with the benchmark, or don't even reflect what the benchmarks show because they're too biased to just flat out admit that their favorites got whooped. So the lack of any real comments was a nice change of pace.

Further, the lack of discussion on the architectural differences was perfectly understandable in my opinion. These differences have been covered in so many previous articles that to continue talking about them is to beat a dead horse to a slushy pulp. If you don't know the differences by now, you really need to study your CPU history. The cores haven't changed much/any in ages. Putting in the same comments over and over into every CPU review would be as droll as playing a broken record.

All in all, I thought that the article, while generally pointless (as we already knew that the 133MHz FSB NW would scream from previous 'unofficial release' articles), showed a significant improvement in THG's articles. It was clear, consise, and didn't waste time or insult readers with biased comments or <i>meaningless</i> dribble and repetition. While I would still not consider it to be perfect, it is a great step in the right direction, which I attribute to Dr. Thomas Pabst being one of the authors.

From it, we know Intel's stance on the i850E chipset. We know how the 133MHz FSB NW compares to the AXP and the 100MHz NW. And we have an estimation of how far of an OC we can expect to push the new NWs. For that, I give the article a thumbs-up.

I leave with this final thought: AMD's performance rating is based on the TBirds. Therefore, a 3400+ rating CH <i>is</i> the performance equivalent of a 3.4GHz TBird. Considering just how much better performance we see in the P4b compared to the Willamette (which is what the TBird and AXP first competed against), I think it is fairly safe to say that a P4b @ 3.0GHz could easily hold its own against CH, if the CH really is just the equivalent performance of a 3.4GHz TBird. (As AMD's performance rating implies.) I said as much months ago, and now I've said it again. If AMD is going to take the performance crown back, they'll need more than just what their roadmaps indicate. Otherwise, all we can really look forward to is Intel and AMD in a hand-in-hand meander down Performance Boulevard. It is certainly not a sign of any resuming of their old race.

<pre><font color=orange><b>du hast den Sweater verkehrt an</b></font color=orange>
Oh my!</pre><p>
May 6, 2002 8:44:30 PM

Even at 1900MHz, that's still fast enough to compete with a highly overclocked Northwood. Remember, that the multiplier will be unlocked.

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
May 6, 2002 8:51:00 PM

Quote:

I leave with this final thought: AMD's performance rating is based on the TBirds. Therefore, a 3400+ rating CH is the performance equivalent of a 3.4GHz TBird. Considering just how much better performance we see in the P4b compared to the Willamette (which is what the TBird and AXP first competed against), I think it is fairly safe to say that a P4b @ 3.0GHz could easily hold its own against CH, if the CH really is just the equivalent performance of a 3.4GHz TBird. (As AMD's performance rating implies.) I said as much months ago, and now I've said it again. If AMD is going to take the performance crown back, they'll need more than just what their roadmaps indicate. Otherwise, all we can really look forward to is Intel and AMD in a hand-in-hand meander down Performance Boulevard. It is certainly not a sign of any resuming of their old race.

Let's see here, a 1.4GHz Athlon matches a 1.8 GHz or 1.9GHz P4 Willamette. The Northwood improved it by 10%. That would make a 1.4GHz Athlon just outperform a 1.6A P4 by ~5%, give or take. A P4 with just a 533MHz FSB and PC800. You get an extra 2% or so improvement. That makes a hypthetical 1.6B P4 match a 1.4GHz Athlon in performance. Even with PC1066, The CH 3400+ will significantly outperform a 3GHz P4 if it's performance is comparable to a T-Bird of the same rating.

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
a b à CPUs
May 6, 2002 8:56:41 PM

OH, sure, not fair, not balanced, you loose. If I bought a Corvette because it was faster than a Chevette, you'd say it wasn't a fair competition. We want to see comparisons of the fastest available from each company, according to everything seen in this article the smart money is still on an overclocked 1.6A or 1.8A for the BEST performance, and that's still at a moderate price.

What's the frequency, Kenneth?
May 6, 2002 8:57:11 PM

<blockquote><font size=1>Svar på:</font><hr><p>Even at 1900MHz, that's still fast enough to compete with a highly overclocked Northwood. Remember, that the multiplier will be unlocked. <p><hr></blockquote><p>Yes maybe in some benchmarks but certainly not in applications extremly well suited for SSE2 (Newtek Lightwave 7b) where the P4 is <b>67.8 %</b> faster than an watercooled overclocked Athlon XP running around 2.0GHz.

Remember, no matter how long you wait with your Athlon XP (including Thoroughbred), IT WILL NEVER EVER BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SSE2, and you can bet, with CH also turning to SSE2, a lot of software will be rewritten/recompiled to take advantage of SSE2. This is becoming one of the strongest arguments for not buying Athlons right now.

<i>/Copenhagen - Clockspeed will make the difference... in the end</i> :cool:
May 6, 2002 9:01:31 PM

Quote:


Yes maybe in some benchmarks but certainly not in applications extremly well suited for SSE2 (Newtek Lightwave 7b) where the P4 is 67.8 % faster than an watercooled overclocked Athlon XP running around 2.0GHz.


Um...ok, then...

Lightwave is a very bad benchmark because it's de-optimized for AMD and optimized for Intel. Even the Celeron is faster than the Athlon XP. Obviously something is amiss.

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
May 6, 2002 9:04:08 PM

and since when does amd inserted a quad pumped core, you funnyman?
You gotta be realist, not imaginative.
It would be a good idea, though, but not in the line of the last year's devellopment of amd. They want to do better, with a different way. Just link intel in fact.
May 6, 2002 9:24:57 PM

Yes, but remember the Palomino had some (physically) significant changes. I agree, it's the same processor. But it's changed more since release than has, say, the P3.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
!