3.06 P4 with HT benchmarks - Page 2

Thanks...now I'll have to edit my sig...

...ummm...sorry, I forgot what I was going to say...

yes of course it isn't worth to buy now a 3.06 HT enabled P4. That's absolutely correct. Even Intel knows that they didn't released the super duper PC, the pinnacle of its kind. It's not about that. It's about "having" released HT on the general user market and that we can get sometime later next year reasonable priced P4s for the average user with maybe even HT optimized software.

Intel wanted to start offering HT for their P4 line and they did it now with their fastest P4 available. Why not? You have to begin with one model anyway...

Again, this P4 is not meant for the homeuser and no one should dare to buy it. Wait till next year until HT has established itself on the market...

Nice comment makaveli, unfortunately we are not here on a flirting channel and talking about girls but this happens to be a PC hardware site... so I guess it's ok to talk here about PCs, now is it? No offense though

good points vacs. I agree with you for the most part of your post.

I know this is not a flirting channel but some of the users act like they are inlove with the damn processors, like its gonna cure cancer or make them millions. Some of them need to grow up!

No offense taken, and I hope I didn't offend some of the respect full posters like yourself. I don't put much stock in any new technology until its been out for awhile. HT seems like it has potentional but for the time being its still to new.

Some of you guys should checkout some of the other Benchmarks on the other sites like Ace,Anand, and Firingsquard. They are somewhat better than toms.
Toms benchs have just gone done the drain the last couple months. Any one know why?

I have not seen this covered yet, and honestly it leaves me wondering.

The 2cpus pictures show HT on the zeons mimicking 4 processors on the task manager ( <A HREF="http:// http://www.2cpu.com/Hardware/ht_an [...] html&#034; target="_new">http:// http://www.2cpu.com/Hardware/ht_an [...] &lt;/A&gt; ) . To enable 4 processors they would have to normally running W2K Server (they do not mention which 2k they are using). Does the OS recognize HT and mimick another processor? Does it do this even if the OS is only meant for 1 processor enabled?

I ask is simply, Toms DID NOT seemingly state if they were using XP Home (1 processor) or Pro (Dual) in the benchmarks. ("Windows XP, Build 2600 SP1" ) Great! Home or Pro since I thought they had the same build number? Since I am a lowband connection, looking at the video is out of the question.

What one are they using? Did they show a picture of the Task Manager CPU(s)?

To take advantage of HT, won't companies have to bundle this CPU with Pro versus home (since home is again only 1 processor enabled?). I realize the variation of smp versus smt, but does the OS itself recognize this difference?

The Picture of the task manager from 2cpus suggests that the OS does not recognize the difference between a virtual and real.

<<<I want the best for my money plain and simple. And unforunately for intel its still not them.>>>

i work for a small company and part of what we do is build pc's and intel is defentily the best for the money. in fact i would say its cheeper. especially if you consider the time to setup and maintain the computers. we put intel processors on intel boards and we have very few problems. up to a year ago we sold almost all amd on asus boards. what a pain in the ass that turned out to be. just because you can get a cpu at X speed for cheeper doesn't mean your getting a better deal.

It is important to have perspective. I know Intel and AMD aren't the most important things to worry about on this earth, but I personally love the debate. I think it is fun. I say that people don't need to calm down. I like reading why people think Intel is best or why AMD is best on one condition. If they try backing up their claims. Comments like AMD sucks! Or Intel is just an evil empire are stupid. If people's comments get you heated up too much so you can't make an educated reply, just don't reply. So far most of the posts on this forum have been fun to read. If you have more evidence, please share it. This is a forum. This is about the only place where we can share all our views to people that will actually read them. If I mention computers to my wife or someone else, they just nod their head and wait for me to finish. I like talking with people that might have different views.

Personally, I applaud Intel for their work on HT. I am also glad their prices have dropped. I consider myself more of a supporter of AMD than Intel mostly because I tend to always support the underdog. Intel seems to have enough support from other people. I am not against Intel, but their views seem to get stated whether or not it is from me. Anyway, to me the biggest question is what CPU will give me the best performance on a budget. My budget is usually around $200.00 for the CPU. AMD still holds the performance crown for cpu's in that price range. Stability is also important. I have been using AMD cpu's for a few years now and I still haven't had any stability issues.

It sure is fun to dream about having money though and right now if I had a much larger budget I wouldn't hesitate about buying an Intel cpu. I won't be upgrading for another 6 months and I am crossing my fingers that the 333 MHz FSB Athlons will finally drop to my price range. I also think it would be cool to see VIA come out with another CPU and have it perform as well as an Athlon 1600+ or better (these are just hopes and wishes, no predictions are being made). I would love to have a cpu that could be run with a passive heatsink and NO fan and if that happens I might just quit supporting AMD with my wife's money (I say it is hers because she has 60% of the decision if we can spend it or not) and give it over to VIA instead.

Thanks for correcting me. It has been a while since I have priced CPU's. The last time I priced them, AMD was the best I could get for under $200. Maybe my next cpu will be an Intel.

As for building computers for friends. I will still stick an AMD cpu in theirs. You can get a decent AMD cpu for under $100.00, while Intel is still priced higher. Just depends on if the friend is a power user or not I guess. There is no question that Intel can beat AMD in performance. I am excited for AMD's clawhammer even though I won't be able to afford one. Who knows if it will be able to beat Intel, but I just want it to give Intel a challenge again in anything other than budget CPU's. It has been a while since we have seen that.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Lamoni on 11/14/02 07:14 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

I sure hope it isn't, but only time will tell. It will be a while before I stop hoping the best for AMD even if I stop supporting them with my pocketbook now that Intel has better performance within my budget. I know no one wants AMD completely out of the picture... otherwise we will see the end of reasonably priced cpu's and I will have to upgrade every 3-4 years instead of every 1-2.

AMD isn't just going to go out of business.. lol, seriously now.

They make many other components beside processors and have sales beyond the US market. We are not the center of the world! It's also in intels best interest to keep some type of competition afloat due to what was mentioned above, monopoly laws! Actually they should start building their case against intel now seeing that they do have almost all of the home desktop market share. But look what happened with the MS thing, little to nothing. Fines! whooooptie do', they jack the price of office up $15 on the next release and make the fines up within hours of product launch )

sure it anit the end they're ust lagging behind a little bit is that so bad , sure they don't have the top chips but is that so bad.... no caus there are oly a few people out there actually willing to pay 800$ for a 3.06 Ghz
I have one problem with each of them (amd intel) amd has the chipset providing bandwidth (nforce 2) giving 6,4GB of bandwidth wit dual ddr 400 but can onley take 2.1 or 2.7 in the latest versions, and intel has the 533fsb but they don't have the chipset (i'm excluding rambus) best they have is DDR 333 giving it 2.7 BG when the processor can take 4.2 GB , maybe they should just merge and teach each other what they now and then we wouldn't be argiung about it any more :-)

Remember the time You used 20Mb harddrives

Granite Bay, which will be released this month, offers AGP 8x, HT and Dual DDR333 support. Is 5.4GB/s bandwidth enough for you wshuerm?

Ok, in 4 lines or less, please summarize this thread.

<font color=red>
<A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?dhlucke" target="_new">Forum Assassin</A></font color=red>

nothing for me to argue I don't live belgium. You prices don't affect me. Canadian prices are what matter to me since it my hard earned money going into purchasing components.

As I said intels pricing and Amd's are more leveled now so the gap between the highend processors isn't as much as it use to be but still cheaper for AMD here in Canada.

AMD Athlon XP 2400+ $314
Pentium 4 2.4B GHz $326

AMD Athlon XP 2600+ $464
Pentium 4 2.6B GHz $629

And thats what I have to work with for pricing!

Ok, I didn't even say anything yet, so I shall now.

THG's review of HT 3.06GHZ, was in short, weak.
The review itself was good, in fact I thought the commenting has finally improved, as they did not give the AMD system praises while the P4 didn't. They did neglect HT comments until the end which was not a good thing IMO.
Now, the results however, simply confirmed what I kept saying in the beginning, and people kept countering. The improvement just isn't there in the benchmarks as some made it out to be. Even CPU intensive apps didn't benefit more than a general frame or second.
I will say that the 3d Studio Max led by Anandtech showed some real improvement. Very interesting, and very significant, twice the delta between the 2.66 to 2.8GHZ, or between P4 speed grades. The improvement was by 23%.
I have no problem officially declaring that what was once dominated by a CPU which was more than TWICE faster in rendering in it, is now the competition's advantage. Intel now leads with 3dS Max 5, by a significant lead.
However, there were quite many performance drops, which isn't a nice thing. On Anand, I saw more than I had expected.
Perhaps the high temps are causing too much throttling, considering they require more voltage, and temps seem to hover the 50s, and I noticed the delta increase for 266MHZ more from 2.8GHZ to 3.06GHZ wasn't as scaling as the 2.66GHZ to 2.8GHZ which is a 133MHZ jump (therefore theoretically the 2.8 to 3.06 would have twice more performance delta).
Which brings me to your question Poobaa which I was about to address anyways.
I find it very ironic how people just kept yelling at AMD for their chip power and heat disspation problems. Now the P4 is at 82W? Lol, talk about a backstabber. So now, as much as I hate to beleive it, the P4s run hotter than Athlons, even the highest end?
Never expected that out of a "high quality" yeild that Dark seemed to indicate. It's even a bigger blow at Dark's constant touting of Intel's good job on thermals for P4s. Now they officially are worse than AMD's, not that it's anything to be happy at.
Yes, 0.09m is needed, because if INTEL is the one to break 100W before Hammer, it ain't good news people. I also wonder if the new high-tech cooler is noisy.
At least I can make the joke: In wintertime, now a P4 can heat as good if not better, your room!

Regarding HT itself, while I wasn't all too happy about the reviews' benchmark results, I will say that THG's video was all that was needed to confirm the kicker it is. I just loved how when I was seeing it performing so well in opening tasks, the music was playing a "discover and witness a new wonder" feel. It is impressive, no doubt about it.
I was led by so many, to beleive over time that CPUs have little to do in loading! Now it's so contradictory as HT is actually making HDDs perform better when loading programs, which I find just weird.

Again, 600$ is not gonna make desktops any more equipped, Intel has GOT to get lower-end chips.

My view on HT btw, has been like this: It's just yet another way to create parallelism over x86's problems. Until a new architecture is adopted like IA64, HT is another way of showing us how badly we need to switch. It's in fact a way to make 3GHZ FEEL more 3GHZ. Be more 3GHZ. Act like a real 3GHZ. 3GHZ can mean anything of course, which is why I say that since P4s have the lower IPC, with this, it brings them closer to making 3GHZ feel powerful. HT makes CPUs feel more like the speed they should run at. I also wonder as well how Celeron performance would be if they added it. I wouldn't expect anything off it, with the measily cache.

I guess what annoyed me was that HT is wrongfully touted. It should be touted as an OS-performance enhancing feature, not a program performance enhancer. It makes multitasking extremly powerful, not all benchmarks get over 20% boosts, and it even makes that 70% increase claim so obscure in itself and the program which benefitted. It should have been hyped as the OS power, that way I'd never have been criticizing it like this, as I would see the side-increase in benchmarks as an added plus.

--
*You can do anything you set your mind to man. -Eminem

"Does anyone have any comments about how much thermal energy the latest P4 is putting out? Thats a hell of a lot for a non-overclocked unit. Plus the new power supply circutry on the motherboard... Does this mean that if you want a 3.066 you have to have a new/newish motherboard?"

82w 1.55v default

You are limited to what your mind can perceive.

Regarding your vicious comments on 3.06G, here are some of my thoughts:
1. the gap between 2.8G and 3.06G, is less than between 2.66G and 2.8G, as you noticed. Use your own words, 2.66G is on B0 stepping, while both 2.8 and 3.06G are on C1 stepping. There is a major core redesign on C1, which can improve the performance better than as simply scaled in frequency
2. temperature and power consumption are totally different. CPU uses higher wattage could end up with running on lower temperature, if heat dissipation pass is superior.
3. yield is nothing even related to power consumption. I donot see how you came up with Intel "officially are worse than AMD's". Do you ever have a 3G chip made by AMD? Compare the power and yield until that happens.

If you want to compare power consumption MHz vs. MHz, then also compare how much Athlon XP 2250 MHz is better compared to P4 2.26 GHz.

Let us know <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/community/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=25703#25703" target="_new"> What File compression format you use? </A>

Castle you are one fanboy that I can finally classify as "10 times worse than Dark". Dark at least has some sense when talking to people, while you just twist words, like mine.

Freaking hell don't put words in my mouth you fanboy. I said the THERMALS are now worse, not INTEL. Jesus Christ you will go as far as possible to twist words and make them look like I bashed Intel, just so you get the good treatment as the innocent Intellite.

While I cannot confirm what a 3GHZ AthlonXP would churn out as power, and though it'd probably insanely high, you shouldn't even forget that one CPU here has 20 stages that are almost all split in half, which allow it to barely force itself to work too hard, therefore less W is dissipated.
I also said at the moment, Intel has broken a new heat barrier with their TOP of the line. AMD's are at 74W, so as far as I'm concerned, who's got the hottest CPU?
If we were to compare clock per clock then yes P4s are cooler, but that means comparing the core's 20 stages to one that works nearly 'twice harder' to output calculations, and as someone else said, we could go for comparing IPC performance if you want, therefore the best thing to say here is to compare the best of each.

Also, I didn't say temperatures would be higher than Athlons. Hell, that is not comparable at all no matter what. An AthlonXP 2000+ can run as low as 42ºC, like it can run at 60ºC with another setup. Comparing temps IS IMPOSSIBLE due that NO CHIP is the same. However yes Intel's CPUs allow better heat dissipation due to the IHS and a more laid-out core (bigger), so there's little doubt when claiming the majority of P4s hover in the 40sºC, few on 50ºC. Though with the 3.06GHZ, I do not have doubts that it can easily run at 50ºC+. My AthlonXP 1600+ runs at ~45ºC in winter, while it runs at 55ºC in summer.

BTW where in god's green earth did you pick up me talking about yeilds? Look man, you obviously have communication problems, because you twist words, you "fanboy" your posts, and on top of that you have the nerve to just put words in my mouth?
RUN ALONG...


PS:

Good contradiction bud. The 2.66GHZ is 133MHZ lower than 2.8GHZ, while the 2.8GHZ is 266GHZ less than 3.06GHZ. If the 2.8 to 3.06GHZ did not scale more linearly, and was weaker (though HT more often than not thankfully balances that more) than the 2.66GHZ to 2.8, or was simply not as linear, and for you to then tell me that the new stepping improves performance, is, dare I say, hypocritical.

--
*You can do anything you set your mind to man. -Eminem<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 11/15/02 04:11 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

1. Did you say this? Do I see "yeild", and "officially worse than ..."

>>> Never expected that out of a "high quality" yeild that Dark seemed to indicate. It's even a bigger blow at Dark's constant touting of Intel's good job on thermals for P4s. Now they officially are worse than AMD's, not that it's anything to be happy at.

2. Did you say this as well?
>>> "and I noticed the delta increase for 266MHZ more from 2.8GHZ to 3.06GHZ wasn't as scaling as the 2.66GHZ to 2.8GHZ which is a 133MHZ jump (therefore theoretically the 2.8 to 3.06 would have twice more performance delta). "


I very unfortunately believed in your claim yesterday. Today I took sometime checked every single benchmark in THG's review, and figured the following numbers (by using some basic math that I am capable of):

Benchmark ~ delta b/w 2.66 and 2.8 ~ delta b/w 2.8 and 3.06 (no H/T)
QIII 640 11.2 23.8
3D2000 519 300
3D2001 386 321
Comanche 2.41 4.58
Unreal 5.75 10.30
Lamp MP3 5 8
MP3 Maker 3 8
VirtualDub 14 21
P Studio 8.11 10.9 21

Sisoft Sandra
CPU 166/88 335/823
Multimedia 666/547 1328/1064

PC Mark2002
CPU 322 644
Memory 102 313

Spec Viewperf.7
DRV08 0.04 0.25
DX07 1.56 2.53
Light05 0.42 0.82
PROE01 0.21 0.44
UGS01 0.145 0.368

WINACE2.2 4 10
Lightware7.5 9.5 17.5
Cinema4D 10 16
3D Studio 6 9

Sysmark
Overall 8 10
Internet 16 29
Office 2 0

It doesnot take any effort to find the almost all improvements from 2.8G to 3.06G are roughly 2X better than from 2.66G to 2.8G. This is what scalability means. You are welcome to check my numbers, and then take your words back.

thanks eden, keep complaining about intel

same for all the other people doing that too...

keep complaining!!!!

what you're doing in essence is making intel even better than it is, so i commend you guys for it... those who support amd and doesn't complain about it are doing a great dis-service to amd (that's right!).

we should all make intel make 3.0GHz feel like 30GHz, heck let's make 3.0GHz feel like 100THz.. but i'm glad there will be people who can't just sit and enjoy the moment all the while complaining, those people are the ones intel is most trying to please... when they have a 15GHz in several years, let's have a reunion and repeat all the complaints until we get to 30GHz?

again, pro-amd fans... be happy with your amd and it won't go anywhere.

<font color=green> there's more to life than increasing its speed -Ghandi</font color=green>

I didn't get what you meant by the % improvement thing.
However I can assume it has a 2x delta. Though I had noticed many benchmarks lacked that, such as Cinema 4D and some encoding benches, I guess I went overboard.

--
*You can do anything you set your mind to man. -Eminem

Ok so I said yeild, I guess I forgot about it.

But you are still twisting words, you are still putting words in my mouth. I specifically stated the thermals are now worse, nowhere do I state Intel is worse. And you can dig for months and you won't find such a comment by me.

It remains you are putting words in my mouth, and I suggest you start seeking communication rehab centers before next time I say a normal phrase, you make it a pro-AMD comment which puts Intel in a dark shadow.

--
*You can do anything you set your mind to man. -Eminem<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 11/15/02 11:54 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

Take any delta, the change from one sample to another.

delta = b - a

percent delta = 100 * ( b - a ) / a

Take the percent delta percent delta and you have the percent change in percent change.

Average that and you have the average change in change...

It's all first and second derivatives.

Dichromatic for your viewing plesure...

Thank you for putting 4 posts in a row admitting you were wrong.

>> It remains you are putting words in my mouth, and I suggest you start seeking communication rehab centers before next time I say a normal phrase, ...

Guess there is one more thing you should learn (maybe long time ago) that this is a place for technical discussion, not for personal attack. Your smart ass suggestion wouldnot make any of your points less absurd. This thread has been viewed >1200 times. I donot think you look too good.

The best the best the best, weet jij misschien een winkel waar je niet afgezet wordt, op newegg kost een radeon 9700 maar 330$ en hier vind je die dingen niet onder de 430€

Remember the time You used 20Mb harddrives