Go Back   nV News Forums > Hardware Forums > CPUs, Motherboards And Memory

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-22-02, 02:22 PM   #13
Cotita
Nvidia God
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 341
Default

The thing is that AMD spoiled us when the Athlon XP was first released.

My XP1700+ beats the p41.7ghz I use at work in almost every test, and by a wide margin. As clock speeds increased though, the margin got smaller. The xp2000+ did still beat the p4 2ghz but not by much.

As intel moved to a .13 process and 533mhz bus, the performance difference turned around. Now the Athlon XP can barely keep up with the P4.

As I said before AMD needs a faster bus to turn the table again.

One fact remains though.

AMD has the best bang for the buck. And for me that alone makes the difference.
__________________
Sometimes I hate being right everytime.
Cotita is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-02, 08:16 PM   #14
netviper13
Treehugger
 
netviper13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 942
Default

Intel has a temporary counter to the IPC issue with their massive FSB. If AMD can release a 333 FSB processor that can finally take advantage of the bandwidth of DDR 333, then they will have a winner.
netviper13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-22-02, 08:41 PM   #15
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

well, i personally disagree with your assessment that TH favors Intel. if you read the conclusions on just about every CPU review over there it goes something like this.

for new AMD CPU: AMD has done a great job in taking the performance crown from Intel

for new Intel CPU: Intel has the fastest chip on the block, but AMD offers a much better value and comes close to its performance

comparing a high end CPU with mainstream memory, and not a configuration that gives top performance is silly. no one in their right mind is going to buy a 2.53GHz P4 and pair it with SDRAM. no one in their right mind would even buy a P4 with SDRAM now, given that DDR is supported and is more or less the same price. i will concede that DDR333 or DDR400 scores should have been included though, i can see that as a viable pairing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-02, 12:00 AM   #16
Essense
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I don't buy the Athlon XP PR rating being compared to a Thunderbird. The differnce between the Thunderbird and XP core is like 3-5%. And IF It was indeed there to compare to a Thunderbird core, why would it need to be altered in the higher speed versions? (2600 and 2400 use a differnt scale)

2133 + 5% = 2239

so 2133 + 22% = 2600. There is no way in hell, the XP core was EVER even close to 22% faster then a equally clocked Thunderbird.

Regards,
Mike

Edit: I think everyone knows a Thunderbird clocked at 2600 Mhz Would stomp all over a Athlon XP 2600+, and the P4's as well. Of course the Tbird core is not capapble of reaching such speeds.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-02, 03:10 AM   #17
Richthofen
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Berlin / Germany
Posts: 212
Default

larger TLBs, SSE support and a Data prefetch Unit is more than 5 %. I think the advantage is near the 10% range.

In the end i dont care to which CPU the rating is compared too.
The 2600 is superiour to the P4 2,53 GHZ in those applications i use with DDR RAM of course.

And i do not use Sysmark at home
Richthofen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-02, 03:48 PM   #18
Essense
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Even if it was 10%, which I suppose would be possible in certain situations, but most definatly not a solid 10% all the time. It will still only be an Athlon XP 2350, not 2600+

The PR is clearly there to compare to the P4.

Regards,
Mike

EDIT: if you dig around you can find some reviews of the orginal Athlon XP's that pit it against the old Thunderbird core, I remeber reading them, the differnce was marginal.
  Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-02, 03:41 PM   #19
Dazz
"TOON ARMY!"
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Newcastle, United Kingdom
Posts: 5,138
Send a message via AIM to Dazz
Default

Compairing Rambus to DDR is not right! Expensive PC1066 Vs PC2100 lmao heck even PC3200 can't beat PC1066!
Dazz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-01-02, 08:17 PM   #20
TheOneKEA
Fifteen-K Saiyan Bastard
 
TheOneKEA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Somewhere in England, waiting for ROTK and drooling over the A64 3000+
Posts: 417
Send a message via ICQ to TheOneKEA Send a message via AIM to TheOneKEA Send a message via Yahoo to TheOneKEA
Default Hold it!

Essense: Yes, it can. The B cores can reach 2.6GHz with either a 133MHz FSB or a 166MHz FSB. (133x20=2660, 166x16=2600). I think somebody even got a 2.88GHz clock with a supercooler.

The B core has a LOT of clock potential. I think that once AMD makes an Athlon with a 333MHz FSB AND once VIA fixes their DDR400 memory woes and gives us a decent platform, THEN the Athlon will be on even ground with the P4, even though it almost is, IMO.
__________________
/me \/\/@|\|t5 $$$$$ F0r @|\| u65r 3|33t G@/\/\1|\|G r1G

SCREW THE ADS! http://adblock.mozdev.org/
Proud user of teh Fox of Fire - Mozilla Firefox 0.8

Registered Linux User #289618
TheOneKEA is offline   Reply With Quote

Old 09-02-02, 10:44 PM   #21
Essense
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Read my post again silly, I said Tbird Core. Not Thoughbred.

There's Thunderbird, Palamino, Thorughbred and now Thorughbred B.

Regards,
Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-02, 06:02 PM   #22
LuckyNV
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 21
Default

it is compared to the T-bird core, officially anyway....

if you recall the original P4 (256kb) 1.4Ghz was smashed up by the 1.4ghz T-bird

if you compare the XP1700+ to the P4 256kb 1.7ghz it should have roughly the same performance increase in proportion to the above set up (*i think if i recall correctly*)
LuckyNV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-02, 12:04 AM   #23
Essense
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Even if AMD did state that it was officially a comparison to the Old Tbird Core's, it's obvious that it is there to compare to the Pentium 4. And there statement is nothing more then marketing to keep them from looking bad. The numbers don't lie.

Regards,
Mike
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-02, 04:14 AM   #24
LuckyNV
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 21
Default

took me bloody ages to find it btu here

stuff

read down to the graph part....
LuckyNV is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CPUMark99 - how do you compare fuelrod Benchmarking And Overclocking 66 07-19-11 08:32 AM
Athlon XP 2000 wont get recognized properly...!! demonized CPUs, Motherboards And Memory 9 10-10-02 05:01 PM
AMD 2400+ and 2600+ Benchmark Extrapolations savyj CPUs, Motherboards And Memory 2 08-17-02 09:32 PM
Athlon 2400+ and 2600+? 333 MHz Front-side bus?? PaiN Rumor Mill 26 08-16-02 10:49 AM
Help with an athlon XP.. demonized CPUs, Motherboards And Memory 23 08-07-02 09:37 AM

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 1998 - 2014, nV News.