PDA

View Full Version : P4 not fast enough for SLI!!!


Pages : [1] 2 3

Stryker1
09-28-05, 07:44 PM
I just bought a new computer to replace my old junker. It's a Dell XPS 600 with two 7800 GTX cards. I know I was stuck with Intel, but I didn't think I would be so CPU limited. I get 96.5fps in Doom III with no AA or AF at all resolutions from 640X480 to 1600 X1200. The same is true for Quake III except my 640X480 score is a little higher. Hmmmm. It certainly sounds like my P4 3.6 isn't up to the task. I read that even an Athlon FX-55 can really be pushed by SLI. I didn't know it would be so bad with a P4. I'm glad I didn't go for the Pentium D 3.0GHz dual core. I'm definitely caught in CPU hell.

PikachuMan
09-28-05, 08:15 PM
Well, if it's any consolation, those new games coming out (fear, oblivion, cod2) are really going to stress that SLi setup. :)

aZn_plyR
09-28-05, 08:30 PM
first of all... USE AA AND AF... second of all... quake 3 and 7800gtx SLI dont belong in the same sentence.. and also... play the FEAR demo lol

OWA
09-28-05, 08:33 PM
So, how do you like the Intel NForce 4 SLI setup (disregarding the CPU performance)?

Stryker1
09-28-05, 08:41 PM
The NForce 4 is a great board. It has spotty CPU support as the Pentium D 2.8GHz won't work with it. Not that I would want one of those, but I'm hoping it will support faster dual core CPUs when they come out. I really like this board. I'm not crazy about the Dell XPS case, but I can't complain when I only paid a little over $2600 for the system with a 19-inch LCD monitor and printer.

Rytr
09-28-05, 08:47 PM
I just bought a new computer to replace my old junker. It's a Dell XPS 600 with two 7800 GTX cards. I know I was stuck with Intel, but I didn't think I would be so CPU limited. I get 96.5fps in Doom III with no AA or AF at all resolutions from 640X480 to 1600 X1200. The same is true for Quake III except my 640X480 score is a little higher. Hmmmm. It certainly sounds like my P4 3.6 isn't up to the task. I read that even an Athlon FX-55 can really be pushed by SLI. I didn't know it would be so bad with a P4. I'm glad I didn't go for the Pentium D 3.0GHz dual core. I'm definitely caught in CPU hell.

A review I did was just posted using a P4 3.4E http://www.nvnews.net/reviews/msi_p4n_diamond/index8.shtml
On the particular page referenced you can see my comparison with a single GTX and a pair of 6800GTs in SLI. I started with 10x7 (which is actually too low for SLI use) and went thru 16x12 with high settings. Yes, there was some bottleneck indications in both DOOM3 and FarCry but nothing like I experienced in HL2. Still, actual game play was great at either 12x10 or 16x12 using 4xAA/8xAF, not to mention 2048x1536 with no AA/AF. When I ran the P4 at 3.7GHz performance increased another 5-6%. Not as good as my AMD 3700+ system but still no slouch!

ViN86
09-28-05, 09:00 PM
well, its nice to see some nforce4 intel guys on the board :D

j0j081
09-29-05, 03:40 AM
well, its nice to see some nforce4 intel guys on the board :D
not really. :thumbdwn:

radekhulan
09-29-05, 05:38 AM
Well, overclocked singlecore Pentium 630 to 3.73GHz (stock Intel cooler; with better cooler 4.0-4.2 is possible) is way faster than *any* singlecore Athlon, including that overpriced FX-55/57. And Pentium has HT as well, which means 40% more in DivX encoding. It is an excellent CPU, and Intel CPU + Intel chipset is the most stable platform on the market.

And I am saying this as proud X2 4400+ owner ;-)

Memory:
http://www.pctuning.cz/ilustrace2/lqf/P4_955X/i955_san05_mem.png

PCMark04:
http://www.pctuning.cz/ilustrace2/lqf/P4_955X/i955_pcm04_mem.png

3DMark05:
http://www.pctuning.cz/ilustrace2/lqf/P4_955X/i955_3d05.png

Doom 3:
http://www.pctuning.cz/ilustrace2/lqf/P4_955X/i955_doomIII.png

FarCry:
http://www.pctuning.cz/ilustrace2/lqf/P4_955X/i955_farcry.png

Mr_LoL
09-29-05, 06:43 AM
Well every other review seem to show athlons spanking the pentiums so i dont know where those numbers came from. That far cry test at the end is baffling. To be almost 20fps faster than the 3500 is not believable at all.

radekhulan
09-29-05, 07:01 AM
Well every other review seem to show athlons spanking the pentiums so i dont know where those numbers came from. That far cry test at the end is baffling. To be almost 20fps faster than the 3500 is not believable at all.


Remeber we compare here *overclocked* Pentium 630 3.0GHz @ 3.73GHz, when you overclock, not only CPU speed, but also FSB goes up, and Intel rocks then.. That is why overclocked 3.0@3.8 is way faster than "stock" and expensive 3.8GHz.

Truth is, every 3.0GHz Pentium 4 630 I have seen goes up to 3.8GHz easily, some of them do 4.0GHz, and about 10% do even more.

fatal1ty
09-29-05, 12:11 PM
The Intel CPUs get owned in gaming. Even though this 3.7 P4 doesnt have an overclocked FSB I can't see that making enough difference to even CATCH the FX57.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-fx57_8.html

"There can be no doubt now that the Athlon 64 FX-57 is currently the fastest processor in games."

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/athlon64-fx57/fc.png

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/athlon64-fx57/hl2.png

Im running a 3200 @ 2.8 Ghz anyways. Its a $200 chip overclocked to the speed of the $1000 chip minus some cache. AMD64 is just far more advanced technology than anything Intel has out right now.

Dr.Nick
09-29-05, 01:46 PM
Well, overclocked singlecore Pentium 630 to 3.73GHz (stock Intel cooler; with better cooler 4.0-4.2 is possible) is way faster than *any* singlecore Athlon, including that overpriced FX-55/57. And Pentium has HT as well, which means 40% more in DivX encoding. It is an excellent CPU, and Intel CPU + Intel chipset is the most stable platform on the market.

And I am saying this as proud X2 4400+ owner ;-)



I'm sorry mate but you are WAY off on that one. Raising the fsb even on P4 does not even come close to making that much difference

fatal1ty
09-29-05, 01:48 PM
I'm sorry mate but you are WAY off on that one


Agreed - only someone from Tomshardware could actually believe it and spin that in a review!!

:rolleyes:

Ninjaman09
09-29-05, 01:52 PM
I'm sorry mate but you are WAY off on that one. Raising the fsb even on P4 does not even come close to making that much difference
Yep...pretty delusional observation. And dual core A64s offer no benefits for current games, so I don't know what the point in bringing that up was. Comparing an extremely overclocked P4 to a stock 3500+ isn't exactly a valid comparison either; try overclocking the A64 to 3.0 and I think we'll see that there's no contest. Well, actually, those FX-57 benchmarks tell the whole story anyway...

radekhulan
09-29-05, 02:18 PM
And dual core A64s offer no benefits for current games

Not true. Unlike most people, I have both Intel (Pentium 630) and AMD machines, and both singlecore and dualcore ones (for AMD). Going from (incredibly slow) Venice 3200+ @2.6GHz to X2 4400+ @2.6GHz gives me about 10-15 FPS increase in Doom 3 (demo timedemo1 1) itself. How do you explain that? Using 78.05 Forceware drivers..

Pentium 630 HT feels way faster for daily usage than Venice 3200+ @2.6GHz. Run PCMark04, and you will see. Multitasking is way better.

However, X2 4400+ @2.6GHz is a whole different story. No Intel can match that. That is why I use it for my primary computer :-)

I do not care about THW tests. I do not even care about tests I have posted. For me, it is clear, X2 4400+ >> Pentium 630 >> Venice 3200+. Simple. Overclocked Venice 3200+ is not very much different from FX-55/57 (except cache).

>> = much better

saturnotaku
09-29-05, 02:34 PM
Pentium 630 HT feels way faster for daily usage than Venice 3200+ @2.6GHz. Run PCMark04, and you will see. Multitasking is way better.

That's because of Hyperthreading. Disable HT on the Intel processor, then run the program and see what you come up with.

radekhulan
09-29-05, 02:36 PM
That's because of Hyperthreading. Disable HT on the Intel processor, then run the program and see what you come up with.

Haha. WHY should anybody disable it? It was a great Intel technology, until dual-cores came ;-)

Dr.Nick
09-29-05, 02:38 PM
Not true. Unlike most people, I have both Intel (Pentium 630) and AMD machines, and both singlecore and dualcore ones (for AMD). Going from (incredibly slow) Venice 3200+ @2.6GHz to X2 4400+ @2.6GHz gives me about 10-15 FPS increase in Doom 3 (demo timedemo1 1) itself. How do you explain that? Using 78.05 Forceware drivers..

Pentium 630 HT feels way faster for daily usage than Venice 3200+ @2.6GHz. Run PCMark04, and you will see. Multitasking is way better.

However, X2 4400+ @2.6GHz is a whole different story. No Intel can match that. That is why I use it for my primary computer :-)

I do not care about THW tests. I do not even care about tests I have posted. For me, it is clear, X2 4400+ >> Pentium 630 >> Venice 3200+. Simple. Overclocked Venice 3200+ is not very much different from FX-55/57 (except cache).

>> = much better

True for multitasking the P4 is better but that Venice@2.6 would rock that P4@3.8 in gaming. The main reason you notice a boost in fps over the single core shows that you have stuff running in the backround while gaming that are now offloaded to the second core on the X2;)

saturnotaku
09-29-05, 02:46 PM
Haha. WHY should anybody disable it? It was a great Intel technology, until dual-cores came ;-)

It would need to be disabled for a true apples-to-apples comparison. PCMark can take advantage of HT, which would give the Intel CPU the advantage in that test.

I've owned both Intel and AMD machines, and in a lot of cases the Pentium "felt" faster. But when it came to gaming and other things I did with my machines (MP3 encoding among others), my AMD machines kicked Intel to the curb.

Ninjaman09
09-29-05, 03:10 PM
Not true. Unlike most people, I have both Intel (Pentium 630) and AMD machines, and both singlecore and dualcore ones (for AMD). Going from (incredibly slow) Venice 3200+ @2.6GHz to X2 4400+ @2.6GHz gives me about 10-15 FPS increase in Doom 3 (demo timedemo1 1) itself. How do you explain that? Using 78.05 Forceware drivers..

Pentium 630 HT feels way faster for daily usage than Venice 3200+ @2.6GHz. Run PCMark04, and you will see. Multitasking is way better.

However, X2 4400+ @2.6GHz is a whole different story. No Intel can match that. That is why I use it for my primary computer :-)

I do not care about THW tests. I do not even care about tests I have posted. For me, it is clear, X2 4400+ >> Pentium 630 >> Venice 3200+. Simple. Overclocked Venice 3200+ is not very much different from FX-55/57 (except cache).

>> = much better
Well,
True for multitasking the P4 is better but that Venice@2.6 would rock that P4@3.8 in gaming. The main reason you notice a boost in fps over the single core shows that you have stuff running in the backround while gaming that are now offloaded to the second core on the X2;)
Yes and...
It would need to be disabled for a true apples-to-apples comparison. PCMark can take advantage of HT, which would give the Intel CPU the advantage in that test.
What they said. If you're talking about a gaming system, A64 beat the pants off of P4s of comparable price in every test, bar none.

radekhulan
09-29-05, 03:42 PM
It would need to be disabled for a true apples-to-apples comparison. PCMark can take advantage of HT, which would give the Intel CPU the advantage in that test.

No. Windows XP SP2 supports Indel HT. DivX supports Intel HT. Photoshop CS2 supports it. PCMArk04 does. Games don't..

Why should you disable something, that can have 30-50% performance inpact, in the real (non-gaming) world for a "fair" comparison? It would NOT be a fair comparison than ;-)

radekhulan
09-29-05, 03:45 PM
True for multitasking the P4 is better but that Venice@2.6 would rock that P4@3.8 in gaming. The main reason you notice a boost in fps over the single core shows that you have stuff running in the backround while gaming that are now offloaded to the second core on the X2;)


True! And this is why dual-core ROCKS in real-life for gaming, and is so much faster than single-core, while it shows almost no improvement in FPS for tests in labs like THW and others.

Why? Because these "labs" do not run "fully-installed" Windows, with AV, firewall, disk encryption, and many other stuff..

coldpower27
09-29-05, 05:20 PM
Why should he disable HT to give a fair comparsion? It's an technology Intel implemented on their processors and AMD didn't. It isn't Intel's fault that AMD doesn't want HT on their processors. For instance should Intel be limited to DDR1 options due to AMD's slow adoption of DDR2 technology. They chose to implement it early, and can reap whatever benefits and faults of this decision, just as AMD reaps some faults of having a ODMC, which is a new socket/CPU revision for a new memory type. Same thing can apply to HT.

grimreefer
09-29-05, 05:28 PM
i dont think anything is wrong with intel, maybe dells are just really crappy...
my cpu can beat a stock athlon x2 3800 in games i think, so thats not bad, considering mine was cheaper than an x2 3800. i also think my cpu can beat ALL single core cpu's in future games. u should of gotten the dual core, double the performance!