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

Newegg Daily Deals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 10-12-02, 11:43 AM   #1
Mad Hatter
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Question Tom's hardware shows a 2.4ghz+GeForce3 is as fast as 3.06ghz+GeForce4 4600?!?

I need some help figuring out what's up with some of the benchmarks shown on separate articles from Tom's Hardware. I'm looking to buy a new machine, and so I was interested in looking at some performance figures on RDRAM motherboards. When I noticed a large inconsistencies across different types of articles @Tom's.

May 1, 2002 - Here we have a Pentium 4 2.4ghz/133Mhz w/ PC1066 533Mhz running Quake at 640x480, the Framerate is at: 381.6fps
http://www17.tomshardware.com/mainbo...rambus-06.html

September 9, 2002 - Pentium 4 3.06ghz/133Mhz w/ PC1066 533Mhz running also Quake at 640x480. The Framerate? 384.6fps
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q...4_3600-06.html

The benchmark setups are identical, except that the Pentium4 3.06ghz benchmark is runned on WindowsXP, while the 2.4ghz is on Windows2000

So how in the freaking world can a
Pentium4 3.06ghz + GeForce 4 4600 be running as slow as a Pentium4 2.4ghz + GeForce 3 Ti500 ?!?

Mad Hatter
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-02, 01:46 PM   #2
OliverRedfox
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 77
Default

Given the first article on the rdram with the PC1066 getting 381.6 fps and PC1200 getting 414.3 fps. I would assume similar result between the 2.4ghz and the 3.06ghz were a result of memory and not the processors.
And as for the video card difference, at 640x480 resolution, the main limitation is CPU/Memory bandwith and not the video card.
OliverRedfox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-02, 02:07 PM   #3
Mad Hatter
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by OliverRedfox
Given the first article on the rdram with the PC1066 getting 381.6 fps and PC1200 getting 414.3 fps. I would assume similar result between the 2.4ghz and the 3.06ghz were a result of memory and not the processors.
And as for the video card difference, at 640x480 resolution, the main limitation is CPU/Memory bandwith and not the video card.
First of all, both benchmarks are using the same PC1066 memory. But take a second look at the benchmarks. It shows that on September 9th, a P4 2.4ghz w/ PC1066 was retested. And this time it got a score of 330fps. But on the May 1st article, it got 381.6fps. How do you explain that? Same processor speed. Same memory type. Same bus type. Something is fishy with those benchmarks.

Mad Hatter
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-02, 02:34 PM   #4
legion88
WhatIfSports.com Junkie
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 135
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Mad Hatter


First of all, both benchmarks are using the same PC1066 memory. But take a second look at the benchmarks. It shows that on September 9th, a P4 2.4ghz w/ PC1066 was retested. And this time it got a score of 330fps. But on the May 1st article, it got 381.6fps. How do you explain that? Same processor speed. Same memory type. Same bus type. Something is fishy with those benchmarks.

Mad Hatter
a) I'm unable to determine if the same motherboard was being used here.

b) The May 1 article mentions an "AGP Driver (SIS)" while the September article did not.

c) Clearly, two different operating systems were in use, something you already mentioned.

d) Memory ratings are different (Kingstone 32ns versus Samsung 35ns).

e) The size of the memory is clearly different. (512MB versus 256MB). One has to ask: which is faster to access, 512MB or 256MB?
legion88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-02, 02:57 PM   #5
LORD-eX-Bu
Horus the pointy master
 
LORD-eX-Bu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 4,609
Default

Maybe its a video card bottleneck? Once it becomes more CPU intensive it wil change.
__________________
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=171&dateline=12152329  84
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!
LORD-eX-Bu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-02, 04:05 PM   #6
thcdru2k
Registered User
 
thcdru2k's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Milpitas, CA
Posts: 1,142
Send a message via ICQ to thcdru2k Send a message via AIM to thcdru2k
Default

who cares its 640x480
__________________
Athlon XP 1.58GHz | MSI KT3 Ultra2 | 256MB DDR PC-3000 | GeForce 4 ti4200 64mb @ 310/533 | IBM 120GXP 40.0GB | Det. 41.09 | DX 9 RC2 | Win XP SP1

11118 3DMarks
thcdru2k is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-02, 04:06 PM   #7
LORD-eX-Bu
Horus the pointy master
 
LORD-eX-Bu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 4,609
Thumbs up

Yeah
__________________
http://www.nvnews.net/vbulletin/image.php?type=sigpic&userid=171&dateline=12152329  84
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ!
LORD-eX-Bu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-02, 08:57 PM   #8
StealthHawk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

there are just too many factors present to be able to totally isolate what is causing the benchmark discrepancy. different OSes, different video drivers, and possibly different motherboards. i don't see why an Intel mobo would be using a SiS AGP driver for example. newer BIOSes and drivers don't guarantee better performance, they can actually decrease performance. especially video drivers; wide range of performance there, and i'm sure nvidia is optimizing more for higher resolutions, low resolutions like 640 are plenty fast enough anyway.

but, as has been already stated, it's 640X480. who really cares? the gf4 should still be CPU limited at 800X600 and 1024X768 in many games. i doubt anyone buying either of those systems would use 640.
  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


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:06 AM.


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