Sign-in / Sign-up
Your question

Good easy to run benchmark

Tags:
  • Graphics Cards
  • Benchmark
  • Graphics
Last response: in Graphics Cards
September 5, 2003 8:08:58 AM

I have my 9800NP installed and want to test it. What would you recommend to make sure I got the NP and not the SE model? I suppose 3dmark would be ok to test against similar systems as always, but Q3A (my personal old tyme standard benchmark) doesnt seem to work anymore for benching. At least the timedemos I used to use didn't work last time I tried.
edit- I realize the drivers would say if I had the SE model.. its just for my own test purposes really and paranoia. :smile:


Also a sidenote, I think this card is actually clearer and sharper even in windows than the GF it replaced. Maybe I'm crazy..
this card rocks for $240, I'd recommend it to any of you nerds out there looking for a good gaming card.
I'm placing an order for a 2nd one tomorrow!

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100 in Dual DDR, Geforce 3, Audigy, Z560s, MX500<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by kinney on 09/05/03 03:22 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

More about : good easy run benchmark

September 5, 2003 8:25:01 AM

lol...:) 

I help because you suck.
a b U Graphics card
September 5, 2003 3:59:53 PM

Try installing an OC program like RadClocker or just the Rage3Dtweak that will give you clock speeds. And as for benchmarks, 3Dmk is best for system info of the major, and GunMetal2 logs ALOT of info, and even that RealStorm raytracing demo from DaveP had some god system figres (but I can't remember what it tels you about your card/drivers).



- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil: 
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
September 5, 2003 6:34:40 PM

Ah, thank you!!
I didn't realize there was a 'coolbits' tweak out there for Radeons.

I installed it and it told me the clock speeds were where they should be.
The only disappointing news and worth reporting is that I think I got a 3.2ns samsung memory board judging from the markings. But I was never planning on o/cing anyway.

Remember that arguement we had a while back Ape? I guess you won in a way, I'm using a radeon!

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100 in Dual DDR, Geforce 3, Audigy, Z560s, MX500
a b U Graphics card
September 5, 2003 7:27:27 PM

It was never about ATI, it was about being as objective as possible. And in the end then everyone wins.

Man that sounds like an ABC after-school special comment. Eeeww! :lol: 

Weird about that memory 'cause that's surprisig, the mem. on my R9600P is the 2.86ns Samsung. St-ee-range!



- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil: 
September 5, 2003 9:49:24 PM

Im pretty sure its 3.2 cuz the marking on the mem is 322

and the firingsquad review of the 9800 says they sell them with 2.8, 3.0 and 3.3 NS memory.

2.8 being the same the 9800pros use, 3.0 being a little less and 3.3 beign right where the specs for the 9800 are at.

<A HREF="http://firingsquad.gamers.com/hardware/ati_radeon_9800_..." target="_new">Memory specs at firing squad</A>

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100 in Dual DDR, Geforce 3, Audigy, Z560s, MX500
September 6, 2003 3:40:10 AM

Glad to hear you got an ATi working right off. Once again another happy 9800 user in this board, who switched from nVidia!

Hmm suddenly the dark side ain't so dark eh!

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</b></font color=blue></A>
a b U Graphics card
September 6, 2003 10:13:51 PM

Eden but he hasn't installed NEW Cats yet, give him a chance to find SOMETHING. :wink:

PS> my experience, less than 5 mins and I was running on the CAT 3.7s from the Omega 3.6s. No Prob.
I've been playing Chaser, Raven Shield, and Morrowind all ithout incident, and also watched a few video clips (from the wedding 2 weeks ago) all without issues, and the ThruView working a little better (the occasional crash like after 20+ plays) Didn't have that problem this time.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil: 
September 6, 2003 10:19:15 PM

Yeah with no format. Just used <A HREF="http://www.driverheaven.net/" target="_new">driver cleaner</A> per the instructions and worked flawless.

I havent benched to ensure that old nv drivers might be hampering the performance but seems to run just fine.

I was always fond of running a little FSAA, I like about 2X, 4X makes the images start to blur to much IMO.. and a little more AF, just makes those textures pop!
I can finally do this again.

This board is just a nice, single slot solution, I'm very satisfied.

I'm never one to refuse listening to logic and the arguements you guys present for the ATI cards ring too true to ignore.
Up until the 9700 I would have disagreed but ATI mustve made a 180turnaround.

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100 in Dual DDR, Geforce 3, Audigy, Z560s, MX500<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by kinney on 09/06/03 05:20 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
September 7, 2003 4:52:40 AM

Now let's start a seminar argument on Intel's good side! :evil: 

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</b></font color=blue></A>
September 7, 2003 6:46:39 AM

Yup, the Cat. 3.7s R0X0R! And it sounds like the 3.8s are going to somehow impress us even more.

"Mice eat cheese." - Modest Mouse

"Every Day is the Right Day." -Pink Floyd
September 7, 2003 1:32:27 PM

still no word on the omega 3.7?

-={Cowardly, Big Time.}=-
-={Apostalic Alcoholic.}=-
September 7, 2003 5:43:06 PM

I am using the 3.7s. Very stable, as good as before (NV 44.03).

One thing I've learned, NOTHING will accelerate EQ. That game just sucks.

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100 in Dual DDR, Geforce 3, Audigy, Z560s, MX500
September 7, 2003 5:44:58 PM

No thanks. I won't be buying another 32bit only processor.

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100 in Dual DDR, Geforce 3, Audigy, Z560s, MX500
September 7, 2003 6:58:26 PM

So what are you doing with the GeForce 3 now?

P.S.: THanks for the link I added that to my favorites. Does the driver utility supposed to help ATi users who switch to Nvidia? Just wondering.

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!
September 7, 2003 8:04:53 PM

Quote:
I won't be buying another 32bit only processor.

Err ok, if you REALLY want your CPU to finally rock after 5 years, when 64-bit is needed, then yeah, good for you.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</b></font color=blue></A>
September 7, 2003 9:13:23 PM

Oh please.

The A64 is going to be comparable to the P5 in 32bit...
And going A64 means you get 64bit, useless or not, and more than likely... not.

With the P5 itself having heat issues, and the P4/Athlons being as hot as they are... another direction is going to have to be taken.

Expect intel to put out a consumer 64bit CPU soon after.

Quote:
Err ok, if you REALLY want your CPU to finally rock after 5 years, when 64-bit is needed, then yeah, good for you.


Or I could plan on buying technology thats obsolete before its even on the shelves!

I think this is the final "Hammer" in the coffin that intel has done nothing but attempt to stunt CPU technology in favor of $ and tried to progress as slowly as possible.
Its been going on for years.

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100 in Dual DDR, Geforce 3, Audigy, Z560s, MX500
September 7, 2003 9:44:24 PM

The software works for either situation, it removes Nforce drivers also.

I'm not sure what I'm doing with the GF3. I was considering building a new computer and using it in it.

The Radeon actually replaced a GF2MX in my P4 1.5ghz system.
The GF3 is in use, but will be coming out once my 2nd 9800 arrives.

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100 in Dual DDR, Geforce 3, Audigy, Z560s, MX500
September 7, 2003 10:08:23 PM

Quote:
And going A64 means you get 64bit


And going Prescott means you get a new Hyper Threading version, and multmedia extensions. It's better to get the enhancements now and future-proofness for media, than an unsure era of conversion that no one knows when will come.

Quote:
With the P5 itself having heat issues, and the P4/Athlons being as hot as they are... another direction is going to have to be taken.

That could not have come out more wrong than this. So tell me, why does Itanium output enough power to light a neigborhood?
Quote:
Or I could plan on buying technology thats obsolete before its even on the shelves!

Which one? Are you not aware of how Socket 754 will die soon already?
Quote:
I think this is the final "Hammer" in the coffin that intel has done nothing but attempt to stunt CPU technology in favor of $ and tried to progress as slowly as possible.

Ok I retract my previous statement, this one gets the award of "It could not have come out more wrong than this". That statement is AMD more than Intel ever.

Kinney, wake up already, such weak arguments are the same as when you argued ATi vs nVidia. You're still the same, you still will defend blindly until someone convinces you to try or think otherwise.
It's kinda sad.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</b></font color=blue></A>
September 7, 2003 10:58:39 PM

Whatever! Just because I don't agree with you.

First, I'm not a fan of Hyperthreading or multimedia extensions in the first place. MMX anyone?

Quote:
So tell me, why does Itanium output enough power to light a neigborhood?

So Intel is going to resort to selling an Itanium core as a consumer cpu?

Quote:
Which one? Are you not aware of how Socket 754 will die soon already?

I'm sure you knew I meant the P5. But a socket change isnt as bad as an CPU design that appears old fashioned before it even hits the ground.
As if AMD is so guilty of so many socket changes in the past...
/rolls eyes

Quote:
It's better to get the enhancements now and future-proofness for media, than an unsure era of conversion that no one knows when will come.

Its not an era of conversion that no one knows will come, its the most odvious and apparant move into the future. IIRC, there already is some limited support for 64bit apps and drivers, though they may not be optimized for the A64 yet, they very easily will be.
Also, wheres the guarantee that software will support intels media extensions?
Consumer 64bit is one of those few times of progression in this industry where its a 100% safe bet to support it, its nothing new!
High end processors use 64bit, logically, 64bit will come down to us.

I listen to logic, once I learned more about ATIs current gen of cards.. particularly their PS strength, I switched. That means I can analyze a situation and adapt.. very important qualities. <b><i>The main reason I like NV is because their cards have a LONG track record of being stable.. thats #1 in my book. </i>
edit- Is that really a weak argument(!!??!!?) Its in fact not much of an arguement at all, just the way it was and is.</b>
They will still get my favor when they introduce the NV40 over whatever ATI has. NV has been good to me.
We'll see how ATI continues their support before I'm ever a true blue ATI fan.

Regardless of all that video card crap, I have read little that convinces me P5 is the way to go.

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100 in Dual DDR, Geforce 3, Audigy, Z560s, MX500<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by kinney on 09/07/03 06:15 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
September 7, 2003 11:10:16 PM

Quote:
you still will defend blindly until someone convinces you to try or think otherwise.
It's kinda sad.

That is just ridiculous.

I shouldnt be typing any of this but, who in the hell wouldnt defend what they thought was correct?
A pussy?
Someone whos mute?

Its not blind defense, I'm exchanging information with you and listening.
Theres just nothing compelling coming from the intel camp.

SHHEEESSSHHH!

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100 in Dual DDR, Geforce 3, Audigy, Z560s, MX500
September 7, 2003 11:45:05 PM

well, maybe this topic should shift to a new forum but.....
AMD has never offered much. I build and sell systems and AMD has always had compatibility probs and performance probs. Intel has always had solid chipsets and cpu's but I admit that their last p4 crop is a little to be desired. My suggestion is that intel has more money to pour into r&d to build raw faster cpu's but they took a tarnishing when amd took strides teaming with nvidia to up the fsb. The P4's and maybe the p5's look attractive to me now that intel maybe offering a chipset design thats matched to the performance of it's cpus rather than selling feature reduced items for more profit. I'm an enthusiest first and an investor second. The interesting thing is when intel builds good chips (cpu and chipset)their business really takes off and they recoup market share. The new chipsets look promising and that makes me want to buy their new stuff and invest with them.
Maybe i'm an investor first??
oh well.

EC


<font color=red> Quantum Computers! - very interesting </font color=red>
a b U Graphics card
September 8, 2003 4:13:36 AM

[-peep-], Omega's take usually 1+ (seems to depend on his workload) weeks to hit the market. As soon as they are availible I'll let you know.

Edit; Wow, I put in P-h-u-k and I got a [peep], wow editing software built in to recognize the typo-swearos. Freaky!


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil:  <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by TheGreatGrapeApe on 09/07/03 10:19 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
a b U Graphics card
September 8, 2003 4:18:39 AM

Yep, CatMaker shouldn't have done that, (saying 3.8 would be bigger and better, etc), now it just makes me wonder what's in the works and whether I should even bother with the Omega 3.7s

Oh well I'll cave and load them none the less when they arrive.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil: 
September 8, 2003 4:36:14 AM

Quote:
AMD has never offered much.

This alone raises a high enough eyebrow..
I've never had a problem with an AMD CPU.... I don't know of anyone who can say they have either.

Now, VIA has caused me multiple problems.
Every Nvidia chipset I've used has been as reliable, and faster, than the Intel counterparts I've used and owned.

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100 in Dual DDR, Geforce 3, Audigy, Z560s, MX500
September 8, 2003 6:15:09 PM

Quote:
First, I'm not a fan of Hyperthreading or multimedia extensions in the first place.

Therefore why are you buying an SSE2-enabled CPU such as the Athlon 64?
Quote:
So Intel is going to resort to selling an Itanium core as a consumer cpu?


Why not? With some more x86 support that gets it up to modern x86 speed, it can be the ultimate platform for us! It just may happen.

Quote:
as an CPU design that appears old fashioned before it even hits the ground.

Are you saying the Pentium 4 design (or the upgraded P4, the Prescott) is bad and outdated?

Quote:
IIRC, there already is some limited support for 64bit apps and drivers, though they may not be optimized for the A64 yet, they very easily will be.

Yeah so? Even if, what'll that change in your user experience?

Quote:
Also, wheres the guarantee that software will support intels media extensions?

It's there, always been, and will always be. Where's the guarantee that software will support any AMD Media Extension? Remember 3dNow?
Quote:
Consumer 64bit is one of those few times of progression in this industry where its a 100% safe bet to support it, its nothing new!
High end processors use 64bit, logically, 64bit will come down to

Ok let me get this straight, by your logic, once 64-bit settles, you will go nuts over a 128-bit CPU, right?
I fail to see any other alternative.

Aside from that, the improvement from 64-bit does NOT COME from 64-bit adressing, it comes from the little boon AMD added, the extra registers. That extra 10-15% boost in gaming comes from that, and that boost could come from Intel's media extensions just as well. So while x86-64 is a good thing for extra performance in gaming thanks to added registers, there's nothing from Intel that can't do that as well.
Quote:
and is.

I have to challenge that. Have you seen the amount of driver and card problems users here have been reporting? I've seen so many "My FX5600 can't work" threads lately. nVidia's awesome driver team left the dept. after the GF3's great Detonator XP.

Quote:
I have read little that convinces me P5 is the way to go.

I have also read little that convinces me A64 is the way to go. Face it, you're drooling over a technology that at best will give 15% performance INDIRECTLY of its actualy goal, and drooling like those gullible Best Buy consumers who will see "64" and think it's the best.

You're a disappointing debater Kinney. All you do is drool over marchitecture really. Also:
Quote:
Whatever! Just because I don't agree with you.

You get bitter when someone debates you and has points, exactly like with Ape. I'll stop now if you want, so I don't become too "harsh" to your eyes.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</b></font color=blue></A>
September 8, 2003 6:17:17 PM

Quote:
Theres just nothing compelling coming from the intel camp.

It's not you don't see, it's because you don't WANT TO bother.
You like to have things YOUR WAY. Same as in the Pope threads. You want to have the last word, close a thread with your argument and post so perhaps it'll lock down and you get your final word.

You never even finished debating us in the OTHER forum, regarding the whole gay rights thing. Remember that? We continued, you fled. I was expecting you to perhaps continue inputting your views so we can continue talking, but you never did.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</b></font color=blue></A>
September 8, 2003 6:41:26 PM

I build and sell systems too, and I've never seen either an Intel or AMD rig that runs poorly if properly configured and with non-crap power supplies.

They are both solid platforms.

And in my opinion, AMD has alot to offer for the budget conscious, and anybody who doesn't think so is not paying attention to price/performance. And how can you say that "AMD has never offered much", when AMD had dominated the high-end CPU market between the Athlon 1Ghz up until Intel started making 2+ Ghz Pentium 4's? Or did you conveniently forget the willamette core entirely?

And Intel definitely has some real strength in the high-end, with rendering in 3d aplications. Anybody who doesn't think so is simply ignoring their capabilities. A 3+ Ghz Pentium4 is nothing to be trifled with, hyperthreading or not.

All you fanboys... either camp... better pray to god that both CPU manufacturers stick around and offer something worthwhile, because if either one of them dies off, it's a monopoly again... and we'll all be getting raped for our hard earned cash.

Like the old days before the Athlon arrived, when Intel was the only player in town.

------------------
Radeon 9500 (modded to PRO w/8 pixel pipelines)
AMD AthlonXP 2000+
3dMark03: 3529
September 8, 2003 7:26:45 PM

Quote:
You never even finished debating us in the OTHER forum, regarding the whole gay rights thing. Remember that? We continued, you fled. I was expecting you to perhaps continue inputting your views so we can continue talking, but you never did.


I didnt flee.. christ.
If I don't get a direct reply to my messages in my email I usually don't go searching out to find out what your next weak quip was against my posts eden.

Papasmurf, dhuckle and I presented a extremely strong if not infallible arguement in that thread.

I would like to see how you countered it so I might just go take a look sometime.

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100 in Dual DDR, Geforce 3, Audigy, Z560s, MX500
September 8, 2003 7:44:22 PM

Quote:
Therefore why are you buying an SSE2-enabled CPU such as the Athlon 64?


That arguement is quite the stretch, even for you.
The point being is, that I'm not going to buy a P5 over a A64, a 64bit processor because the P5 might have SSE3.

Quote:
With some more x86 support that gets it up to modern x86 speed, it can be the ultimate platform for us! It just may happen.


I agree. But my point was about the wattage put out by the Itanium comment that you made. You can't put something like that in a Dell or similar. Its to hot.

Quote:
Are you saying the Pentium 4 design (or the upgraded P4, the Prescott) is bad and outdated?


No, and I think you know I didnt mean that.
But it is looking rather shoddy in comparison to the A64.

Quote:
IIRC, there already is some limited support for 64bit apps and drivers, though they may not be optimized for the A64 yet, they very easily will be.



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

Yeah so? Even if, what'll that change in your user experience?


Faster games, faster Longhorn support when its available. Can't ever have too much CPU power.

Quote:
Also, wheres the guarantee that software will support intels media extensions?




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

It's there, always been, and will always be. Where's the guarantee that software will support any AMD Media Extension? Remember 3dNow?


There is none for either, that was my point.
64bit computing already has a basis in the industry.

Quote:
Ok let me get this straight, by your logic, once 64-bit settles, you will go nuts over a 128-bit CPU, right?
I fail to see any other alternative.


No. I will 'go nuts' over what has the most future promise, 128bit if thats plausable, or maybe even SSE3, 3dnow Pro4. Simple.
Technology never stops progressing.

Quote:
Aside from that, the improvement from 64-bit does NOT COME from 64-bit adressing, it comes from the little boon AMD added, the extra registers. That extra 10-15% boost in gaming comes from that, and that boost could come from Intel's media extensions just as well. So while x86-64 is a good thing for extra performance in gaming thanks to added registers, there's nothing from Intel that can't do that as well.


Yes, and?
Until Intel produces a CPU faster than the P4 with 64bit processing support, cheaper and faster than AMDs A64, there is no reason to be one of their little fanboys eden.

Quote:
and is.




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

I have to challenge that. Have you seen the amount of driver and card problems users here have been reporting? I've seen so many "My FX5600 can't work" threads lately. nVidia's awesome driver team left the dept. after the GF3's great Detonator XP.


I cannot speak for the entire Nvidia community nor company but I have had zero problems with NV drivers since I've owned Nvidia gfx cards. Others may have problems but I can only speak for myself.

If you own a NV gfx card or have been burnt by NV driver support then do share... but I have seen little in that regards in my personal experience.

Quote:
Face it, you're drooling over a technology that at best will give 15% performance INDIRECTLY of its actualy goal, and drooling like those gullible Best Buy consumers who will see "64" and think it's the best.

Right.
/rolls eyes

Quote:
You're a disappointing debater Kinney. All you do is drool over marchitecture really. Also:


Yes, I drool over AMDs "marchitechure", which Intel is not certainly known for flaunting their crap on TV and in stores everywhere... please.
I ask, what is their to be excited about in the Intel camp? 100watt CPUs?
A maxed out P4 architechure, based in an era that DEFINED what you call "marchitechure"... IIRC wasnt the willamette actually SLOWER than some P3s?

Quote:
You get bitter when someone debates you and has points, exactly like with Ape. I'll stop now if you want, so I don't become too "harsh" to your eyes.


You don't shake me one bit, theres fanboyism and sometimes bias almost to the point of falsity all over your posts.

There is a faction here that sees through this blind intelism you got going on.

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100 in Dual DDR, Geforce 3, Audigy, Z560s, MX500
September 9, 2003 1:22:27 AM

Quote:
But it is looking rather shoddy in comparison to the A64.

Erm, the A64 is inferior in technology. It is a K7, it still is, always will be. It's a K7, with added SSE2, and a mem controller. The ODMC is not even a new tech, it's been done before, and it's just a hardware change of place. The 64-bit extension does not change the core component technology.
So, it sounds clear now, that YOU are the one fanboying AMD with their architecture. Don't come crying later on about when they'll reach the silicon limit because they did not opt for a long pipeline design.

By uncovering the fact you really do favor the inferior architecture (due being dated), simply because you love the underdog, I conclude I needn't debate you.
Quote:
Faster games, faster Longhorn support when its available. Can't ever have too much CPU power

64-bit drivers will not change your lifelong experience dude. They don't address 64-bit space anyways. We'll have to wait till we get nVidia's bloated Detonators at 4GB for this to apply. I wasn't implying 64-bit in general to gaming, but you thought so. The A64 is an excellent gaming processor, I pointed it out days ago in the CPU forum. But it is not 64-bit that will be the saving grace.

Quote:
There is none for either, that was my point.

Have you really been away from the CPU industry to not know how succesful SSE2 is?
Quote:
Until Intel produces a CPU faster than the P4

The P4 arse-screws the AMDs, where have you been? Oh wait, you check AMD Zone don't you? Can't have enough Apple-like PC users I guess.
Quote:
there is no reason to be one of their little fanboys eden.

I like the A64, but I prefer a CPU with a longer longevity. The P4 has that. The K8 or K7 in disguise does not. Eventually AMD will be at a dead-end. Have you at least, for the sake of looking a bit more ready to argument, studied pipeline design and why AMD will reach a physical limit that may hinder them A LOT, sooner or later?
Quote:
If you own a NV gfx card or have been burnt by NV driver support then do share... but I have seen little in that regards in my personal experience.

I own a Ti200. I had a lot of problems with the 40.70s, but that is beside the point. I was pointing you at the new horrid drivers for the FX SERIE.
Quote:
which Intel is not certainly known for flaunting their crap on TV and in stores everywhere... please.

I know it sounds silly but: Prove me which.

Quote:
100watt CPUs?

There won't be a 100W Prescott. And btw, what makes you think AMD is not reaching that soon as well, out of a natural progression?
Quote:
A maxed out P4 architechure,

Again, have you studied Pipeline design, read Ars Technica's P4 architecture comparison?
The way you say things, it sounds so much you have no idea whatsoever the underlying potential and technology the P7 core has. (not just P4, we're talking about the core)
Quote:
IIRC wasnt the willamette actually SLOWER than some P3s?

Yeah, big mistake, but it was a good thing for AMD, because they were actually DOMINATING and KNOWING HOW TO DO GOOD CPUs. What's to be said about their Barton 3200s now? They're screwing up their PR so badly, both PR model and PR marketting.
Luckily it seems they will finally change that come Sept. 23rd. If not, let god have mercy on that company.

Quote:
theres fanboyism and sometimes bias almost to the point of falsity all over your posts.

Prove it.

Quote:
There is a faction here that sees through this blind intelism you got going on.

Speak for yourself. That alone proves you are getting defensive because you DO want to support AMD so badly, simply because they were down so much. That's the plain out reason. I'm starting to know your mind already. GrapeApe can do so too. That faction, is you and only you. Because you're the one with that attitude.

I am not for either AMD nor Intel. But when one company does things right, I'll gladly show my praises for them. I don't want Intel to dominate, nor do I want AMD to. I want equal competition.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</b></font color=blue></A>
September 9, 2003 5:03:48 AM

Quote:
Erm, the A64 is inferior in technology. It is a K7, it still is, always will be. It's a K7, with added SSE2, and a mem controller. The ODMC is not even a new tech, it's been done before, and it's just a hardware change of place. The 64-bit extension does not change the core component technology.

And that is the beauty of it.
The K7 is nothing to be ashamed of, as you connotate in your text.
In fact if you dont remember the K7 was the most popular and successful of the P4 vs Athlon era which is now over.
It still is more popular overall with enthusiasts. This forum does not reflect it but nearly all my friends are using 2500+ or similar o/c'd systems.
It was the first consumer processor to hit 1Ghz to jog your memory.
The performance king for a long time. And still the price/performance king today.
To somehow try to degrade the K7 core is ridiculous.
Depending on how you look at it, it has lasted as long as the Pentium Pro core if not longer!
Again to jog your memory, the PPro was the same basic processor used in the PPro-P3. P4 being a 'new' architechure.
Again its kind of subjective. But the PPro stuff was pretty much scratched with the P4s creation.
Hence it was a POS! Until they finally got it right with the 800mhz FSB cores, or 'C' revision IIRC.

Quote:
The A64 is an excellent gaming processor, I pointed it out days ago in the CPU forum. But it is not 64-bit that will be the saving grace.

Your right about the first part.
Saving grace? 64bit support isnt its saving grace, its what sets it apart.
And why many consumers will chose it over the same basic 32bit one they had for the last 10 years.

Quote:
Have you really been away from the CPU industry to not know how succesful SSE2 is?

No consumer in their right mind, supports brand specific optimizations.

So eden, you like ATI right?
Funny how the tables are turned on your favorite companys.
ATI fanboys are screaming how everyone needs to be "on a level playing field", how without NVs opengl enhancements that NV is slower than ATI... looks like old Intel is kinda in the same boat with NV with SSE2 and whatever else proprietary they can do to stunt the next guy who has better product.

Kind of a double standard dont you think.

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

Until Intel produces a CPU faster than the P4



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

The P4 arse-screws the AMDs, where have you been? Oh wait, you check AMD Zone don't you? Can't have enough Apple-like PC users I guess.

The entire quote was
<i>Until Intel produces a CPU faster than the P4 with 64bit processing support, cheaper and faster than AMDs A64, there is no reason to be one of their little fanboys eden.</i>

And the point was, AMDs approach to 64bit is of perfect execution at this early stage of 64bit consumer computing. They lose no speed in 32bit and run full speed in 64 also.

So until Intel produces a 64bit processor that is faster in 32bit than their current 32bit generation or the "K7" generation, I will not be buying one.

Using a scaled down Itanium core to emulate 32bit would result in disasterous results for Intels 32bit performance, still of #1 importance.

While if the P5 was to somehow emulate 64bit it would be a waste of its time.

Maybe all your hyperthreads can work together to emulate 64bit.
LOL

Quote:
I like the A64, but I prefer a CPU with a longer longevity. The P4 has that.

So now my 1700+ somehow has less longevity than my neighbors 1.7ghz P4?

Just to lay the smack down on your monkey a$$, if that 1.7ghz P4 happened to be a socket 423 then my socket A 1700+ would not only outperform it but also have had much more "LONGEVITY" than your wonderous Willamette in its socket 423 form once they moved to 478pins. Socket A is still here.

And a 2.2Ghz A64 that performs as well as a theoretical 3.5ghz P4 reduces its longevity??!!??
That makes no sense.
Especially considering when it comes to 64bit, the Pentiums cannot even compete! Let alone have more or less "longevity"...

Quote:
Have you at least, for the sake of looking a bit more ready to argument, studied pipeline design and why AMD will reach a physical limit that may hinder them A LOT, sooner or later?

I've studied your art of believing that Intel is free of physical limits.. and that an unlimited amount of fanboyism will free them of all competition.. regardless of how great the competing product might be.

Quote:
I was pointing you at the new horrid drivers for the FX SERIE.

I'm using the 44.03s on this system right now. I dont know how going from my GF3 to a FX would make a difference if they are the same unified drivers.
But honestly I dont own a FX card, just a GF3, GF2, Radeon 9800 at the moment so I cant say.

Quote:
I know it sounds silly but: Prove me which.

Are you asking me to prove to you how Intel advertises in stores, on TV, everywhere? Because I dont know how to PROVE that, just take a look around.
But that is a silly thing to ask me to prove when its so evident.

Quote:
There won't be a 100W Prescott. And btw, what makes you think AMD is not reaching that soon as well, out of a natural progression?

Of course they are.
Point being, the P4 isnt exactly great IPC performance. Sad to see it so hot and relatively underperforming at such high clocks.
The P3 performed about the same IPC as any Athlon has. The P4 is the one that went the route of "marchitechure" as you put it.
Now we have 3GHZ cpus that are performing as a 2.2ghz or less should.
Though in the end I feel it doenst matter how you go about it, high IPC or high clock.. the latter being great for MARCHITECHURE while the former being great for FPC.
I am not positive if high IPC is related to good FPC perfomance though.
I'd like confirmation or not on this from someone for my own information.

Quote:
Luckily it seems they will finally change that come Sept. 23rd. If not, let god have mercy on that company.

Well I could care less. Hopefully IBM will buy out AMD and stuff a big blue boot up Intels arse.

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

theres fanboyism and sometimes bias almost to the point of falsity all over your posts.




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

Prove it.

The proof is in da pudding man. Just reread your posts with a open mind.. they usually lean strongly to intel without any odvious reason besides preference.
I actually have REASONS why I use AMD and why I plan on making my next system 64bit.

Quote:
Speak for yourself. That alone proves you are getting defensive because you DO want to support AMD so badly, simply because they were down so much. That's the plain out reason. I'm starting to know your mind already. GrapeApe can do so too. That faction, is you and only you. Because you're the one with that attitude.

I am not for either AMD nor Intel. But when one company does things right, I'll gladly show my praises for them. I don't want Intel to dominate, nor do I want AMD to. I want equal competition.

Right, clear yourself of any doubt or blame like some kind of forum jesus.

Many, many times have I seen people drop in, call ALL of us THGC members intel fanboys and then leave.
I'm not a fanboy, I've proved myself over and over by voting with my wallet.

I've switched, from 3dfx to Nvidia, from Nvidia to ATI. From intel to AMD.
I go with the best product at the moment combined with my previous experience and the support they provide.
Trust me, I don't buy inferior products.. I'm much to frugal.

I believe you want competition, but seems whenever AMD might have a leg up on Intel at all... you attempt to discredit it.. as if it makes you uncomfortable.
Like I've said, its damn odvious AMD has earned some friggin credit here, from the K7 till now they are incredibly respectable.
When i first read about the future of the Athlon after the XP series I was worried. But now, its apparant the A64 was a brilliant idea and wise in how they took their CPU line and that fact is becoming more and more evident.
Intel is clearly more marchitechure oriented, clockem high, throw up some ads, pressure OEMs, put in some properitary enhancements and bingo!

Will the 64bit be great marchitechure? YES!!!
Its about time AMD actually got SOME marchitechure besides the PR system, which worked out better than anyone suspected.
Its a great time for AMD once again.. just in time for my upgrade.

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100 in Dual DDR, Geforce 3, Audigy, Z560s, MX500
September 9, 2003 5:17:15 AM

Excellent kinney:) 

I'm with you on this one:) 

"Mice eat cheese." - Modest Mouse

"Every Day is the Right Day." -Pink Floyd
September 9, 2003 3:53:24 PM

Argumenting with you makes no sense.

I've decided, after seeing that you have no backup facts, that I'll just opt out. I realize every time I debate someone in this forum regarding CPUs, it turns out an AMD bloke. Furthermore, you argue with what YOU think is right and not with FACTS as a debate should be.
It is no wonder I am agressive when I debate sometimes, I have to talk to walls when that happens, really.

You blantantly say things that are worse than FUD. SSE2 proprietary? What the hell? Oh and I suppose OpenGL's ARB path is proprietary for ATi too?

I'd rather see you post all this in the CPU forum, and get the proper responses you deserve by the other more intelligent members.

You've proven you don't even read or have not researched to debate CPU architecture, and are pretty much acting like any AMD boy would, without reasoning. You haven't proven much in fact. I've conceded several times, and when wrong I admit it. But you haven't seen any of my points and I don't feel at all like you proved me wrong. I can right now go fetch links to prove you what I was argumenting. But it'd go right through ya.

So, I will opt out, because I can't debate with that mind of yours. It's in your personality, like Spitfire, like WS, when it comes to talking about AMD and Intel's CPU architecture. Luckily WS is a more respectable person to me, for now, so I don't desire debating him. However I know he's in your ballpark in this situation as well, which is disappointing.

Go read some Ars Technica, and if you do, come back, we might have a more intelligent and rational conversation. Chances are your views on the P7 core will change a lot.
But I don't expect much from you anyways, you've proven too often in past discussions just how irrational and little minded you are.

Good day Kin.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</b></font color=blue></A>
September 9, 2003 4:06:59 PM

Really though Eden you havn't said much either that makes me go, "Wow... hes right."
No, both sides have their advantages. You refuse to acknowledge ANY AMD advantages. How bout kick-ass FPU performance? Why do you think top end AMD systems come so close to top end P4 systems in GAMES, whereas in other situations, they are usually further behind.

The A64 is NOT inferrior technology... it can do everything hte Prescott will be able to do, and more. You think Intel is so revolutionary with the p4 design? It's the same basic concept eden. OOOOO trace cache! Wow. Screw that.

I agree SSE2 is a good thing (and certainly not proprietary), AMD is just late in adopting it.

"Mice eat cheese." - Modest Mouse

"Every Day is the Right Day." -Pink Floyd
September 9, 2003 5:30:28 PM

Eden he’s short sighted, the P7 architecture is superior to the K7 and K8 he’s just bitter than the core was designed to scale and perform extremely well with highly optimized code. Its that superiority in product that upsets him since he’s defends AMD with no facts other than x86-64 is different. He will see when the Prescott comes and gets a chance to spread its wings that Intel is the better semi conductor manufacture.

:evil:  <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6940439" target="_new">Busting Sh@t Up!!!</A> :evil: 
:evil:  <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1228088" target="_new">Busting More Sh@t Up!!!</A> :evil: 
September 9, 2003 6:24:00 PM

Quote:
K7 and K8 he’s just bitter than the core was

That sounds like something Eden would say.

Quote:
He will see when the Prescott comes and gets a chance to spread its wings that Intel is the better semi conductor manufacture.

Nice blanket statement... I dunno if I would be making one of those personally.
Such as, "AMD is always better", "Intel OWNZZ", or "ATI sucks balls Mr. Garrison!"
It'll always burn you in the end, its gotten me before and it'll get you all too.

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100 in Dual DDR, Geforce 3, Audigy, Z560s, MX500
September 9, 2003 6:36:15 PM

Quote:
SSE2 proprietary? What the hell?

It isnt? Oh well looks like I was wrong on that note. See how easy that was eden? I presented information, you countered, I admit I was wrong. You should try it when you are wrong my friend.

Quote:
can right now go fetch links to prove you what I was argumenting. But it'd go right through ya.

Really? I have certainly not proven to be one to adapt to logic out of anyone in this forum. I have humility, and have much less silly pride than you.
For one, I don't get where you get the idea I "disrespect" you, I call you out when I disagree... its a man to man exchanging of thoughts, nothing disrespectful there.
Ignoring you would be disrespectful.

Quote:
in your personality, like Spitfire, like WS, when it comes to talking about AMD and Intel's CPU architecture

Whats wrong with me, spitfire and WS?
We disagree with you when it comes to amd/intel, you just said that.
Is that not OK with you? boss?
sheesh.

Quote:
you've proven too often in past discussions just how irrational and little minded you are.

Thanks thats yet another nice 'blanket' that can be used to easily disregard my ideas.
Just because I got the better of you here doesn't the end of the world.

Anyway, since you have successfully diverted the topic fully.. I will also be leaving the arguement.

Good day Ed.

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100 in Dual DDR, Geforce 3, Audigy, Z560s, MX500
September 9, 2003 6:55:37 PM

Quote:
How bout kick-ass FPU performance

That's correct, but have you seen many late multimedia applications that did not utilize SSE2 more? In reality, SSE2 far exceeds a modern FPU. No wonder most apps have been so well made for the P4.
In FP wise, the K7 triumphs, not doubt. When you have 2 FP units for the P4, one dedicated for SSE2, it just ain't much, and we all agree on that.

Quote:
Why do you think top end AMD systems come so close to top end P4 systems in GAMES, whereas in other situations, they are usually further behind.

In general that isn't very plausible. Since when do CPUs play the main role of rendering 3D FP?

One problem I see coming, is that the K8 simply won't be able to compete the Pentium 4 in multimedia. Since it is established that SSE2 is the better norm for FP precision and speed, and that SSE2 is streaming, the clock speed determines almost everything. The A64 will need to be at 2.6GHZ or more to really make do with the P4 in rendering and movie/audio.
When I said the K8 is a dated architecture, I meant it, and that is just one of the examples.

Quote:
The A64 is NOT inferrior technology

It is inferior RELATIVELY. It's still a viable core, but compared to the P4, it has no real future-proofness. (save for extension support, which in that case, the P4 could very well adopt x86-64 due to a cross-license agreement)

Quote:
it can do everything hte Prescott will be able to do, and more.

If games and next generation rendering applications utilise Hyper Threading well, this is gonna spell bad. If multimedia adopts the PNI extension set of Prescott, that adds even more to the Prescott arsenal.

What it will do right is 64-bit, but how can we be sure if 64-bit addressing is far from here, and the only thing it can do for performance is utilising the extra registers, which has been proven to add about 15%. I don't expect more, but I could be wrong.

Quote:
You think Intel is so revolutionary with the p4 design?

I think the P7 core is revolutionary, mind you.

Quote:
It's the same basic concept eden. OOOOO trace cache! Wow. Screw that

With all due honesty, did you ever read up or know what it does? Do you have ANY IDEA, ANY WHATSOEVER, what it could do if put on the K8?

Intel designed the Pentium 4 with a lot of architectural components designed for serious performance eventually. Screw the Wilamette, it was Intel's fault for releasing it so early since AMD was competing so well. It's a life disaster, and yeah, your name says it all so well. :wink:

The K7, don't take this anti-AMD, is extremely inefficient. x86 is very anti-parallel computing, and you need so much to extract a little bit of parallelism. The K7 has 9 pipelines, 9. Out of all this, the most frequent and average amount used per clock, is not more than ~4.5! The P4 even does less proportionally, at ~2.5. (those are all estimates based on this forum's Comp Sci. graduates' and programmers' estimation)
That means, while the K7 does get hot, it's not even using its full power.

So you and Kinney bashed Hyper-Threading, the question I have to ask is do you have any idea what HT could to the K7, if already we see some spectacular differences on the P4 (take 3DS Max for example)? Why bash something when A: You don't know what it can do for real, and B: that the K7 could use for a significant advantage?

The K7-K8 as I said is inferior relatively, because it still uses inefficient technology, and does no longer have what it takes for x86. You can try to counter as much as you want, but in the end, it's the programmer who suffers trying to make it use 9 pipes per second. Though yeah the P7 core is just as problematic, all x86 CPUs are. IA-64 would be the best way to go, btw.
-As to why people code for the P4 too when they don't need to, well, that's up to them, seems like they like coding for this "slim and deep" design.-

The Trace Cache and HT are both P7 features that could make the K8 a devastating behemoth. But, it doesn't stop here, AMD will have even more clock speed problems because of the 10-stage pipeline design. I am aware the K8 has 12, but they ADDED stages not DIVIDED, ergo the work is still as hard on each stage. I think it is ridiculous trying to get the x86 platforms to be only IPC oriented as AMD does. Intel has been aware of their clock speed issue and has stopped focusing on clock speed only. They even ADMITTED that clock speed is not everything, since HT was introduced. Finally they woke up heh.
What I don't like of the K8 core is it is too temporary and prone for future limits. The design needs to change, point à la ligne.

From an RPG game point of view (taking FF7's engine), the K8 is the ultimate armor with 8 slots for materia. The P7 core's technology (components) are the last thing it needs, equipped, before it devastates. Equip all 8 materia that each give it a property, such as responsiveness, ability to cut short something, ability to be pre-emptive, ability to be faster, and you get what, the killer.

Once again Wil, if you understand more than Kinney, (oh please god please!), you'd see why I am not as enthusiastic of the A64 core. It is simply an updated core on an outdated design while the P7 core has tons more space. The P7 core was rushed, therefore it never was complete. The K7 is. All it has, is the extra space for added core components like extensions, but in the end, it is limited with some design issues.
And that is why I fear in the long run, AMD will be stuck, a bit like nVidia with the FX. It was pretty full in components, but they are outdated, unused, inefficient, and in the long run (when DX9 games come), it'll run into problems, serious ones. Hopefully the K9 is a fresh core.

Mind you, as a small factoid, don't mistakenly praise AMD as the real makers of the K7. They didn't, that was NexGen, whom AMD acquired. Just like saying ATi made the GC graphics, or Apple made the G5. Apple never even touched it, IBM did it all. (ironically IBM made the PC, so in a way, IBM's PowerPC 970, the G5, is actually a PC, MUAHHAHA!)
So far, I dunno just how good AMD's internal circuit design enginners are, but the next NEW core, will show us for real if they are good. I believe I read somewhere, the K6 is loosely based on the P6. Just don't ever come to the asumption that the P7 core is "basically the same basic concept" as a K7, because god knows, nothing is comparable. The P7 has NOTHING of the P6 core, while the K7 had lots of P6 elements, so logically the P7 is far from even being similar to the K7.


Just some friendly Canasian advice. :wink:

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</b></font color=blue></A><P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 09/09/03 02:58 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
September 9, 2003 7:00:33 PM

Kinney, I may have been harsh, but that's the way I get when I have to deal with your mind type. You simply don't see facts. I asked you if you researched anything, you did not respond and continued to talk about the K7 like you knew what it was made of and how relative its technology is to today's modern demands.

I admit anytime when I am wrong, but since even Spud and Ape have seen that too often you demonstrate weak arguments mostly based on personal liking than facts, I know for sure I wasn't wrong very often in this. I may have been once, or twice, at most.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</b></font color=blue></A>
September 9, 2003 7:38:42 PM

I've got to say, I only have a rudimentary grasp of CPU technologies, but I find it hard to understand how any of you guys can claim that any existing Intel and AMD architectures are vastly superior to one another.

Differences in graphics cards... that's tangible. Visibly less quality with antialiassing I can see with my own two eyes. And a blurred texture is a blurred texture. There is a very concrete difference in how these frames are being rendered. Sure, we count frames-per-second, but the difference is usualy quite meaningful in the context of a first person shooter where FPS is life.

But with CPUs? If I encode a DivX video with either an AMD or Intel chip, the data is exactly the same. Ditto with sending e-mails, playing games, using databases, and rendering 3d scenes. There is no optimized CPU driver that's mushing about with the quality of my data.

Sure, a 5% speed difference in this app, 10% speed loss in this one. Depending on which chip you go for, and which apps you use most of the time, I guess you'll notice a slight difference.

But regardless of theoretical architecture arguments, can you really show me a tangible reason that the P IV, K7, or A64 is a crappy chip?

No matter which top-of-the-line CPU you get, you can encode your DIvX movies in realtime, play games quick, and write word documents.
Aside from minor speed advantages depending on the apps you use, how can you argue that *ANY* of the major CPU designs are flawed when they all do the jobs they are tasked to very nicely?

------------------
Radeon 9500 (modded to PRO w/8 pixel pipelines)
AMD AthlonXP 2000+
3dMark03: 3529
September 9, 2003 8:36:20 PM

Quote:
You simply don't see facts.

I see little to no facts in your arguements here in this thread.
Mostly assumptions that whatever intel is going to have is going to be better, magically.

What the hell are you saying? That you want me to go read and read and read until I somehow agree with you?

You are the one with personal arguments and no facts.

Quote:
to talk about the K7 like you knew what it was made of and how relative its technology is to today's modern demands.

Do you want an essay?
Or do I have to simply pull down benchmarks of a 2GHZ A64 smoking Pentium 4s in 32BIT?!?
Let alone 64.
Go read anantechs A64 preview.

Or do you think that because you feel you know more about white papers than I do that somehow your opinion is correct?
I think you've been reading a bit too much.

Anyway, you have made this a silly reiteration of earlier posts.
The smack was layed down much earlier and I'm leaving how.

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100 in Dual DDR, Geforce 3, Audigy, Z560s, MX500
September 10, 2003 12:13:38 AM

Cleeve, as I wrote, the architecture will affect now and later.

I see you're not as into speed performance with chips as with graphics cards, but really, it is the same thing, the architecture argument. In fact now more than ever the example is concrete.

The FX has a HORRIBLE INFERIOR architecture. You agree, right? Its parts, as Dave stated, are recycled and updated. The result can be clear, you would need for example higher clock speeds, but it's not just there, it's because even the things made for it, run less good on it than the competition if it tried to emulate! (Dawn demo) Furthermore, the way the FX architecture was made is far from a Pentium 4, in case anyone started thinking I was implying a ressemblance factor between the FX and P4. It isn't designed to scale high in clock speeds, it has odd pipeline arrangement with little justification, etc.

My reasoning comes from the fact that logically, new cores introduce better technologies. Itanium's core is the latest example. Far superior to the Opteron, and Pentium 4/Xeon, it manages to make sure its pipelines are all used thanks to compiler and the IA-64 nature. The Opteron is an old technology with added components. It has proven to work, I don't doubt it, the mem controller lets it live. But the design is still old, meaning it will die out earlier than the competition's newer core.

Besides that, like in graphics cards, the difference can lie in image quality, in CPUs, speed and multimedia extension support makes all the difference. Noticed how the C3 at 1 GHZ can't even compete the 667MHZ Celeron? It lacks much support. Furthermore there CAN be a visual difference, should the CPU lack serious FP power and precision. I believe an old THG article showed the visual difference Black & White had with SSE2 support. It was minor but there.

Quote:
But regardless of theoretical architecture arguments, can you really show me a tangible reason that the P IV, K7, or A64 is a crappy chip?

I never said any of this and wouldn't. Now the FX, there's a crappy chip. :wink:
The K7 isn't crappy, in fact if we were in 1999, I'd tell you this is the world's most amazing core. But it's got a competitor and it doesn't have that much anymore to take on future x86. The K7 is simply getting too dated. I honestly don't see right now just how far will the K8 go in clock on 0.13m, but at 2.4GHZ it's pushing it badly. One had to wonder how much it can really clock. If AMD can for example, transfer this core to a 20-stage pipeline design, add a Trace Cache, improve Branch Prediction (due to pipeline bubbles becoming a big issue with long pipelines), get HT, no problem man, that is like a P4 on steroids. I wish it were the case. So I am hoping AMD's engineers are thinking now of the K9. It took 5 years to conceive the P4 architecture, mind you.
Quote:
No matter which top-of-the-line CPU you get, you can encode your DIvX movies in realtime, play games quick, and write word documents.

Now don't take this personally, but I believe this is relative, and in your case, you're simply just not into CPUs as the people in the CPU forum. So to you, you're less concerned about speed but more about what gets the task done for a good price. We do look for that too, in the CPU forum, but we are picky on speed.
Just think of how you are picky in GFX cards, and you can relate to the CPU's world of crazy peeps :wink: .
Quote:
Aside from minor speed advantages depending on the apps you use, how can you argue that *ANY* of the major CPU designs are flawed when they all do the jobs they are tasked to very nicely?

As I explained before, it's not about flawed or crappy, it's about how a design can stand the test of time against silicon physical limits or even the imposition of new programming limits. The FPU of the Athlon is becoming less important as SSE2 moves in, making the 3 K8 FPUs for most new multimedia apps rather less useful and a waste of die space. (if not heat)

But hey, I respect your view, you didn't argue fanatically.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</b></font color=blue></A>
September 10, 2003 1:00:04 AM

Branch prediction is one of the XPs strongpoints, everyone knows that. Yes the change/addition of or to many of the things you mentioned could/would help, possibly considerably. My xp2700 can go to 2.4/2.5 ish, I'm sure an A64 with a heatspreader (another great addition!!) could surpass that.

"Mice eat cheese." - Modest Mouse

"Every Day is the Right Day." -Pink Floyd
September 10, 2003 1:15:54 AM

Can I ask now if you have learned anything from what I said or do you still say to any feature "Screw that" and the P7 core is basic?

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</b></font color=blue></A>
September 10, 2003 2:25:46 PM

Certainly not taken personally, you're right... I'm not a CPU fanatic (although being someone who plays games and uses 3dsMAX, I certainly do appreciate the benefits of a great CPU :) 

I think what I'm really saying is... I'm surprised you fellows haven't adopted the same kind of attitude towards CPUs as you have GPUs; that each one has a niche it fills.

Who among us (except Phial because of his affinity for anistropic filtering - no offense Phial :)  wouldn't recommend the Ti4200 in the low end? And in the same breath we can recommend the 9700 non-pro in the higher end. Each GPU has value in it's market segment.

The same with CPU's, in my opinion. You want a cheap rig to play games? Yep, you want an Athlon XP. You want to use professional 3d rendering programs? Yep, you want a hyperthreading P4. You want fast encryption? Opteron might be the way to go. You want a powerful laptop with tons of battery life? Hey, Centrino is for you...

I mean, architecture is important, but bottom-line price/performance is what counts, doesn't it?
For an example, the Radeon 8500 has 4 pipelines with 2 TMUs each pipeline... the Radeon 9600 has 4 pipelines with 1 TMU each. Does that mean we should recommend an 8500 over a 9600?
Of course not. While the architecture of the 8500 is more impressive, the bottom line is what it can do.

I'm not sure what reasons you have to purport that the FX (You're talking about the Athlon FX right?) is a crappy chip... frankly, I'll take your word for it that the architecture sucks, as I have no real understanding of what makes it crappy (maybe I'll reread the thread heheh)...

but at the end of the day, it can perform well in a market segment, should we tell people to steer clear of it based on architecture - even if it offers the best price/performance in that segment?

(I'm not saying it does, I'm just trying to make a point. The chip may indeed perform so poorly that it is entirely useless)

I guess time will tell, as it always does.

[EDIT] lol after rereading I see you mean the GeforceFX. Sorry, I was in CPU mode, not GPU mode. To be truthful, I think the GeforceFX is probably decent hardware, but the problem was whoever spec'd it out decided to completely ignore the DirectX 9 24-bit spec... and instead implement a 16/32 bit spec, which rediculously slows the GPU down when working in true DX9 mode because it has to do all the calculations in 32 bit and then step them down to 24 bit. Or, the alternative is to do all the calculations speedily in 16 bit and then have sub DX9 visual quality and "hacked" drivers. Nvidias pompous and ignorant decision to ignore the DirectX 9 specifications is how they have screwed themselves with the entire FX line, in my opinion. They can't really recover until the next ground-up GPU is designed.

Peace out bros,

------------------
Radeon 9500 (modded to PRO w/8 pixel pipelines)
AMD AthlonXP 2000+
3dMark03: 3529<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Cleeve on 09/10/03 10:45 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
September 10, 2003 4:14:59 PM

I didn't say either were 'basic', and I'm always learning new stuff:) 

"Mice eat cheese." - Modest Mouse

"Every Day is the Right Day." -Pink Floyd
September 10, 2003 4:16:38 PM

You're dead on about Price Performance, of course. And I know for sure I would not recommend a P4 for a guy with a 200$ budget ya know?

However, what is becoming more clear lately, is that the P4 has taken over even in mainstream, the mid-end. The 2.4C is a value and contends against the 3200+ which is twice more costly.

Of course, as I said before, I don't look at architecture to make the decision, but the end-result. It's when someone bashes something of the core that he has no idea what it does, or the benefits it can bring as an innovation, that things get complicated. That's why I asked Kinney to read before he says such crap.


Yup, I meant crappy for the FX. It's not just because of the bit precision, it's because indeed it is recycled. All those transistors, as Dave mentioned, are from old parts from the TNT2 to the GF4 Ti. Then they added. If what he says is right, also, it emulates PS2.0 badly compared to a direct approach by the R300. All of these things show a true weak mindedness by the engineers at nVidia. Time for a new core entirely from scratch.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>Are you ugly and looking into showing your mug? Then the THGC Album is the right place for you!</b></font color=blue></A>
September 10, 2003 4:35:06 PM

Eden to be fair we do not know exactly what he internal make up of the FX is. Specualateing because Dave cant get a OpenGL or DirectX API call to work doesnt mean its not there. It means the drivers havent been coded to utilize the feature. It's like the P7 you need to run specialized code to get real performance from the core. The FX may be the same case we have yet to see. If the Det 50's dont do anything for the FX performance wise then I will stop defending it and admit it might just be a peice of crap.

-Jeremy

:evil:  <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=6940439" target="_new">Busting Sh@t Up!!!</A> :evil: 
:evil:  <A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1228088" target="_new">Busting More Sh@t Up!!!</A> :evil: 
      • 1 / 2
      • 2
      • Newest