Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Wow @ P4's performance (lack of)

Last response: in CPUs
Share
June 26, 2002 3:12:51 AM

Hi, I don't post to the CPU guide much, but I just had to post and say *wow* I just experienced first hand how bad the performance per clock of the P4 sucks. I've been running an Athlon 850 since they were new, and my grandpa just unloaded his old P4 1.4GHz on me, so I got a Quadro4 750xgl in it and anxiously tried some Maya rendering of equivalent scenes between the two. The P4 barely inched ahead of the Athlon. Granted it wasn't a well-rounded perfect THG-quality benchmark, but I was kinda expecting some performance gain since the clock was just about 2x, but there was no performance to be had whatsoever.

I'd estimate the performance gain from an Athlon 850 to a P4 1.4GHz in Maya renders with raytracing and refractive obj's at about 10%. Absolutely pitiful, IMO. :( 

Just my little rant of disappointment out to people who care 'bout this stuff... if anybody complains about me doing inaccurate benchmarks, I'll never buy Jello from them again. ;-D


-- Monkeys? What does this .sig have to do with monkeys? --

More about : wow performance lack

June 26, 2002 3:53:26 AM

yep. the first P4's were dogs.
hot, not much faster clockwise than athlons and slow.

things have improved alot since. the architecture of the p4 core allows speed to scale up alot.
the northwood is much better. faster, cooler (thanx to the dieshrink) and has more onboard cache that helps significantly.

also... what motherboard was that P4 on? i bet it was a SDRAM system. P4+sdram is NOT a good combination. ever.

<font color=green>Proud member of THG's</font color=green> <font color=blue>Den Of Thieves</font color=blue> :lol: 
June 26, 2002 2:22:45 PM

You have got to have read some THG reviews before ending up in this forum. If not, then I suggest you do RIGHT NOW, to see where the P4 is, and why a 1.4GHZ P4 is like the worst thing to ever buy...

Oh wait, Dell has 1.3GHZ+SDRAM, scratch that out!

--
:smile: Intel and AMD sitting under a tree, P-R-O-C-E-S-S-I-N-G! :smile:
Related resources
June 26, 2002 3:51:43 PM

Quote:
I just experienced first hand how bad the performance per clock of the P4 sucks


Per clock doesn't matter when you're at 2.5GHz.

Quote:
Granted it wasn't a well-rounded perfect THG-quality benchmark


So it was actually accurate? :wink:

Quote:
I'd estimate the performance gain from an Athlon 850 to a P4 1.4GHz in Maya renders with raytracing and refractive obj's at about 10%. Absolutely pitiful, IMO. :( 


I agree, but you can't judge an entire processor on the first one released. The performance is quite a bit better now.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
June 26, 2002 6:45:09 PM

Actually jumping from a 1.6A to a 2.4GHZ, did 50% higher performance, the scaling on the P4 is now very realistic.

--
:smile: Intel and AMD sitting under a tree, P-R-O-C-E-S-S-I-N-G! :smile:
June 26, 2002 6:55:09 PM

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you're saying.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
June 26, 2002 7:12:14 PM

I was saying how much now the performance really goes up in a good scale. So a 3.2GHZ P4 on 533MHZ FSB might be twice the performance of a 1.6A!
I am not sure if it will continue that way, but since the 2.4 is 50% more performing than the 1.6, that's pretty encouraging.

--
:smile: Intel and AMD sitting under a tree, P-R-O-C-E-S-S-I-N-G! :smile:
June 26, 2002 7:21:02 PM

Oh, right. I just hope that memory and bus speed can keep up with the clockspeed, or else it won't scale that well for long.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
June 26, 2002 7:35:50 PM

Eden, I've been reading THG since I came to college four years ago. I read the old reviews about voodoo2 SLI vs. TNT2. Like I said, it was a *rant* not a *review*

-- Monkeys? What does this .sig have to do with monkeys? --
June 26, 2002 7:37:43 PM

dunno what motherboard it was on, just a gateway 2000 system my grandpa unloaded on me when he upgraded. I told him I wouldn't buy it from him because it wasn't worth the market value to me, and I already had my 850, so he didn't feel like selling it and just gave it to me.

-- Monkeys? What does this .sig have to do with monkeys? --
June 26, 2002 7:51:48 PM

>> Per clock doesn't matter when you're at 2.5GHz.
(how do you do your fancy quoting thing Fatburger?)

Well, you gotta pay for that extra clock, that's my beef... aren't p4's still slightly more expensive than same-clocked athlons? Like you guys said, the scaling is better now, but just think if you bought a 2.2GHz proc and then found out it was *really* a 1.4GHz, and I could have had a 2.0GHz that performs like a 2.0GHz for a couple hundred less from AMD. (granted of course again that the scaling *is* better now)

The big thing that had me so disappointed is that I was hoping I'd have some actual proc power to crank out frames with, but in fact just had another obsolete system just like my 850. I did read the p4 vs. Athlon reviews when it first came out, but it was still a kick in the pants to see it firsthand.


-- Monkeys? What does this .sig have to do with monkeys? --
June 26, 2002 7:56:59 PM

My 1.6A was $140 (now around $120) and it's running at 2.5GHz. If you don't overclock, then Athlon is by far the better deal. If you do, then Intel is currently a bit better deal.

And click on the FAQ link on the left to see how the markup works :smile:

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
June 26, 2002 8:02:48 PM

Consider that intel will move FSB to 166 after 200 and after ??? maybe we will see BBUL packing appear at the same time.

cheap, cheap. Think cheap, and you'll always be cheap.AMD version of semi conducteur industrie
June 26, 2002 8:19:50 PM

Quote:
and I could have had a 2.0GHz that performs like a 2.0GHz for a couple hundred less from AMD.

It sounds like you're not very up to date on AMD then. If you were say, to buy an Athlon XP 2000+, it is <i>actually</i> a 1.67GHz chip.

Which, in a way is better, if you think that a 1.67GHz AMD chip is competing against a 2.0GHz Intel chip. Yet at the same time, you can't help but feel slightly miffed that an Athlon XP 2000+ is only 1.67GHz. Imagine how much it'd whoop up on a 2.0GHz P4 if it were actually a 2.0GHz Athlon.

Anywho ... back to sanity. <font color=blue>Blue Wizard</font color=blue> now has <font color=red>reflective shot</font color=red>. Ooooooh!


Tech support said take a screen shot.
Putting it down with my .22 was the humane thing to do.
June 26, 2002 9:44:35 PM

You're in a strange mood this afternoon. Gauntlet is a good game though.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
June 26, 2002 10:21:13 PM

How do you spell BULLSHIT Fat burger?
You see that chess match rite NOW? @ http://www.heise.de/ct/schachduell/ The P4 XeonCRAP is having a 1.6Ghz advantage compared to the Athlon MPs but the CRAPP4Xeon is losing.
Once again how do you spell BULLSHIT?
June 26, 2002 10:30:18 PM

I can spell "troll" very well, thank you.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
June 26, 2002 10:46:40 PM

yeah, I've been kinda talking in past terms because that's the topic I started the thread on, talking about my 850 being practically the same performance as the 1400. I only bother getting up to the minute information when I'm shopping for a new system. That stuff changes too fast, and besides I was making a hypothetical analogy; sorry if it wasn't accurate to modern performance expectations.

still, if an actual 2GHz Athlon performs at 84% the speed of an actual 2GHz P4, I'd say that's at least ballpark... this P4 of mine was performing at 60% of what its clock said it should (assuming the Athlon was at 100%), and that's just not right. Even if clock speed isn't everything, it should at least be something.

but anyway, I'm going back to the graphics and sound forums where I belong. I just wanted to post a little rant about my p4 1400 sucking so bad and pissing me off.


-- Monkeys? What does this .sig have to do with monkeys? --
June 26, 2002 10:52:33 PM

Quote:
if an actual 2GHz Athlon performs at 84% the speed of an actual 2GHz P4, I'd say that's at least ballpark...


It doesn't really matter, since there is no 2GHz Athlon.

Quote:
this P4 of mine was performing at 60% of what its clock said it should


If the clock speed was 1400MHz, then that is correct. Intel has never made any promises about per clock performance in regard to other processors.

Quote:
Even if clock speed isn't everything, it should at least be something.


And it is. A 2GHz P4 still outperforms a 1.4GHz P4.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
June 26, 2002 11:03:58 PM

Found some papers on the system - no sdram, it was pc800 rdram, 256MB of it, and no HD access during the test render btw. Oh, and found out it's actually a 1.5 not a 1.4, not that that makes much difference.

-- Monkeys? What does this .sig have to do with monkeys? --
June 26, 2002 11:06:17 PM

Basically Intel's architecture is INFERIOR and crap no matter what their clock speed it. FULL STOP.
AMD is really THRASHING Intel 7-10 rite now.
HAHAHAHA!!
June 26, 2002 11:06:48 PM

Not really, the 1.4 and 1.5 both sucked almost equally hard :frown:

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
June 26, 2002 11:21:23 PM

By the way, how does it feel to have the lowest possible user rating over at Anandtech's forums?

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
June 27, 2002 12:07:43 AM

nods. well its probably better than what i expected then.

the P4 really doesnt shine unless its got 500 extra Mhz under the hood compared to anything other processor design.

also, the p4 design seems optimised better towards certain applications. video editing and the like is good with the P4, lots of memory bandwidth, and anything with SSE2 enabled will run well too.
The P4 is NOT very good at floating point intensive applications though, especially in the adsence of SSE2 acceleration. maybe that is the 'problem' you are experiencing. whoknows? would help if we knew what kind of thing your program uses most... FPU? ALU? SSE2? lots of membandwidth etc



<font color=green>Proud member of THG's</font color=green> <font color=blue>Den Of Thieves</font color=blue> :lol: 
June 27, 2002 1:32:53 AM

Quote:
AMD is really THRASHING Intel 7-10 rite now.
HAHAHAHA!!

LOL! yeah but AMD is sweating at the table while fritz is cool, calm and collected, many more games left, you damn fool.


"<b>AMD/VIA!</b>...you are <i>still</i> the weakest link, good bye!"
June 27, 2002 1:36:35 AM

dude it's clear you need to update Maya, it will also help if you would stop downloading porn while rendering with the P4.

"<b>AMD/VIA!</b>...you are <i>still</i> the weakest link, good bye!"
June 27, 2002 2:09:29 AM

Troll vs troll, w00t!

--
:smile: Intel and AMD sitting under a tree, P-R-O-C-E-S-S-I-N-G! :smile:
June 27, 2002 2:10:11 AM

I can't beleive we finally found our own AMD troll here, a fully fledged one too...

He's just like Meltdown too, let's throw him a biscuit!

--
:smile: Intel and AMD sitting under a tree, P-R-O-C-E-S-S-I-N-G! :smile:
June 27, 2002 2:12:56 AM

Well if Meltdown is right (WOW), try getting the latest Maya update for P4s. IF it still sucks at it, then you know why Wilamettes were the worst kind of P4 someone can get.

You can always try to sell it yourself, hey almost anyone can be suckered into buying a P4! (considering 1.5GHZ for Joes makes internet web pages open like lightning even on 14K modems!!! :tongue: )

--
:smile: Intel and AMD sitting under a tree, P-R-O-C-E-S-S-I-N-G! :smile:
June 27, 2002 2:20:02 AM

Ok, who the hell are you? I mean, you just come barging in here saying that Intel sucks? Looks we have another major troll here. I hope your AMD overheats and explodes! And by the way, you should meet the locals, like AMDMeltdown.

And if I'm being harsh, it's just I'm in an angry mood right now...

EDIT: Was I being harsh?


------------------------------------------------
Montecito & Chivano; Intel's Big Guns.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Dark_Archonis on 06/26/02 10:22 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
June 27, 2002 2:26:08 AM

Even if it was a 1.4 Williamette, It still should perform better than an Athlon 850 in Maya 'cus of SSE2. I agree with the others; I think you should update your version of Maya.

------------------------------------------------
Montecito & Chivano; Intel's Big Guns.
June 27, 2002 2:29:21 AM

Unfortunately, FatBurger, with DDR, the P4 won't scale very well for long (unless they can accelerate the R & D for DDR).

------------------------------------------------
Montecito & Chivano; Intel's Big Guns.
June 27, 2002 2:31:52 AM

Man, these 2 are really cracking me up. I mean this guy is one aggressive AMD troll!

------------------------------------------------
Montecito & Chivano; Intel's Big Guns.
June 27, 2002 2:37:13 AM

LMAO at that ridiculous advertising scheme. What were they thinking anyway? There had to have been a reason.

I made fun of that once in a processor design class, too. X-D My final project processor didn't work, so I invented a technology name: All new F.T.E.I. technology brings ultimate ease of use! (Failure To Execute Instructions) and I called it "Internet Edition," had a picture of a bunged up 386 chip holding down papers while somebody browsed the internet on a windy day.

(didn't help my grade tho.)


-- Monkeys? What does this .sig have to do with monkeys? --
June 27, 2002 2:40:21 AM

I think I speak for all of us when I say, BLUE MEN AND ALIENS SELL!!! :wink:


PS: Sorry it's night, I have been working 4 hours straight lugging boxes and stuff that is too heavy for a 15 year old, I am tired and feel the need to laugh!

--
:smile: Intel and AMD sitting under a tree, P-R-O-C-E-S-S-I-N-G! :smile:
June 27, 2002 2:50:43 AM

It was raytracing Nurbs surfaces with refractivity and reflectivity, so it was crunching major floating point.

-- Monkeys? What does this .sig have to do with monkeys? --
June 27, 2002 2:56:29 AM

Of course it sucked then...

An AXP 1600+ at 1.4GHZ would've been a good 30% better.

--
:smile: Intel and AMD sitting under a tree, P-R-O-C-E-S-S-I-N-G! :smile:
June 27, 2002 2:57:46 AM

Uhh, I don' know nuthin' bout no nekked wimmins...

-- Monkeys? What does this .sig have to do with monkeys? --
June 27, 2002 3:06:14 AM

Quote:

I think I speak for all of us when I say, BLUE MEN AND ALIENS SELL!!!

MAN! Those aliens are so CUTE!!!! :wink:

:wink: <b><i>"A penny saved is a penny earned!"</i></b> :wink:
June 27, 2002 3:20:50 AM

hey, now that you mention it, this P4 double sucks!!! I mean, sometimes a page on this forum takes five seconds to load! Obviously, the P4 line comes horribly equipped for internet access. I bet I'll have to go to AOL and buy a copy of the next version of the Internet now.

Oh, and don't get me started on AOL... I activated those "Free Hours" they sent me, and looked at the clock, and the time hadn't changed a bit! I bet it was that damn GoodYear virus again...


-- Monkeys? What does this .sig have to do with monkeys? --
June 27, 2002 3:21:43 AM

Just the Willy P4 sucks, the Northwoods A and B are much better, IPC and scaling wise.

"When there's a will, there's a way."
June 27, 2002 4:05:44 AM

well there you go then.


<font color=green>Proud member of THG's</font color=green> <font color=blue>Den Of Thieves</font color=blue> :lol: 
a b à CPUs
June 27, 2002 4:23:13 AM

The original P4 1.4 was slightly slower than the PIII 1000EB in most benchmarks. Other performance problems can be related to the manufacturer-Gateway uses some of the cheapest parts available.

<font color=blue>At least half of all problems are caused by an insufficient power supply!</font color=blue>
June 27, 2002 4:00:36 PM

Quote:
<i>AmdMELTDOWN says:</i>
dude it's clear you need to update Maya, it will also help if you would stop downloading porn while rendering with the P4.


A valid point and a funny comment. A very rare, but good post from Meltdown.

Quote:
<i>Eden says:</i>
I can't beleive we finally found our own AMD troll here, a fully fledged one too...


You say that like he's the first one ever.

Quote:
<i>Dark_Archonis says:</i>
EDIT: Was I being harsh?


Not nearly enough.

Quote:
<i>Dark_Archonis says:</i>
Unfortunately, FatBurger, with DDR, the P4 won't scale very well for long (unless they can accelerate the R & D for DDR).


Which is one reason why Rambus needs to get off their fat asses.

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>
June 27, 2002 5:25:12 PM

Ya, Rambus is working very slowly on R&D for RDRAM, and now that Intel has dropped support for it in all but the high end sectors, Rambus is probably gonna sit back and do nothing for a while. If Rambus continues this, companies like Samsung will drop RDRAM, and Rambus will really be in the dumps. I'm just confused as to why Intel dropped RDRAM.

------------------------------------------------
Montecito & Chivano; Intel's Big Guns.
June 27, 2002 6:53:42 PM

Expensive. From what I've seen of 256MB 32-bit bundles inside new mobos, these things jack the price up quite a good amount. A usual mobo costing 200$, went up to 375$ thanks to that RIMM. So I can only assume, Dell is not gonna like it.

--
:smile: Intel and AMD sitting under a tree, P-R-O-C-E-S-S-I-N-G! :smile:
June 27, 2002 7:16:36 PM

I agree, it is more expensive then DDR right now, but how can DDR possibly keep up with the memory requirements of the p4? Is Intel going to start bugging developers to quickly develop faster DRR?

------------------------------------------------
Montecito & Chivano; Intel's Big Guns.
June 27, 2002 7:24:32 PM

Dual-Channel, my friend. If Rambus drags like this more, they will not be able to compete DC DDR333 and higher.
If one day DDR400 CAS2 is stable and functional, you get 6.4GB/sec of bandwidth, and extremly powerful speed and latency. One can only hope that's true and feasible.

--
:smile: Intel and AMD sitting under a tree, P-R-O-C-E-S-S-I-N-G! :smile:
!