MaxCoderz

benryves wrote:

CompWiz wrote:Also, the number for AMD chips (ex. 3000) is approximately what mhz P4 processor the AMD chip is comparable to. (AMD 64 3000 = Intel P4 3 ghz)

Not in a million years is that an accurate figure... Or even close. It entirely depends on what you're running.

As for the overclocking, every Intel system I've owned has been able to have the CPU overclocked, whether through ye olde motherboard switches system through to software overclocking. Intel even offer their own software to do it.

so, it lets you change CPU multiplier through the BIOS?

threefingeredguy wrote:An AMD 64 3000 runs at 1.9-2.1 ghz. I would know, I have one.

Mine runs at 800, 1.6, or 1.8...

almighty newegg says the amd 64 3000+ runs at 1.8 ghz stock

benryves wrote:

CompWiz wrote:Also, the number for AMD chips (ex. 3000) is approximately what mhz P4 processor the AMD chip is comparable to. (AMD 64 3000 = Intel P4 3 ghz)

Not in a million years is that an accurate figure... Or even close. It entirely depends on what you're running.

As for the overclocking, every Intel system I've owned has been able to have the CPU overclocked, whether through ye olde motherboard switches system through to software overclocking. Intel even offer their own software to do it.

Intels never have an unlocked multiplyer, while most AMD's do. Also, that processor number is pretty accurate.

I have some benchmarks for the Intel P4 3 ghz vs the AMD 64 3000 vs the Intel P4 2.6 ghz. The AMD 64 3000 costs about the same as the Intel P4 2.6 ghz, but performs about the same as the P4 3 ghz.
According to Tom's hardware guide, Here are the benchmarks:

Doom 3 with high quality video settings, 1024x768 32 bit color:
AMD 64 3000: 82.3 FPS
Intel 3 ghz: 75.2 FPS
Intel 2.6 ghz: 53.2 FPS

Farcry with low quality video settings, 1280x1024 32 bit color:
AMD 64 3000: 163.8 FPS
Intel 3 ghz: 149.3 FPS
Intel 2.6 ghz: 105.9 FPS

3DMark03 - CPU 1024x768 32 bit color
AMD 64 3000: 887
Intel 3 ghz: 822
Intel 2.6 ghz: 539

3DMark05 - CPU 1024x768 32 bit color
AMD 64 3000: 4212
Intel 3 ghz: 4164
Intel 2.6 ghz: 2652

WinRAR 283 mb 246 files compression time(less is better)
AMD 64 3000: 4:22
Intel 3 ghz: 4:42
Intel 2.6 ghz: 8:22

Lame MP3 encoder 182 mb/17 minute CD wave source encoding to mp3 time
AMD 64 3000: 1:59
Intel 3 ghz: 1:36
Intel 2.6 ghz: 1:52

Unreal Tournament 2004 THG8 assault single, 1280x1024 32 bit color:
AMD 64 3000: 130.6 FPS
Intel 3 ghz: 116.6 FPS
Intel 2.6 ghz: 84 FPS

As you can see, the less expensive AMD 64 3000 performed faster than the 3 ghz P4 for most of the benchmarks, with the P4 winning the Lame MP3 encoding by a few seconds. The P4 2.6 ghz cpu did terribly in all of the tests but one, as it had a slight lead in the MP3 encoding. You could definiely confirm from this that the AMD's perform equally or better than the P4 with mhz matching the AMD number. And AMDs perform much faster than any comparably priced pentiums almost across the board.
How could Intel have maintained superior marketshare without unfair business practices when their processors are so much worse? Also, the P4 3 ghz was not 64 bit, and will not be able to run the new programs coming out that support this. It will be obsolete in a few years when everything switches over. Also, AMD 64's can run 64 bit versions of programs much faster then the P4's can run the 32 bit versions.

this might help...
http://www.systemshootouts.org/processors.html

crzyrbl wrote:this might help...
http://www.systemshootouts.org/processors.html

Definitely. Great easy to read comparison. Notice that at the bottom a lot of video/picture editing tests were used, more than games. AMDs rock at games, but are very good for a lot of stuff.

now if only you had posted that before I wrote out that long benchmark comparison.

Haha, my $70 Athlon 2600+ is equivalent to a 2.8 ghz P4....

dysfunction wrote:Haha, my $70 Athlon 2600+ is equivalent to a 2.8 ghz P4....

I hate you now. I have a 2.6ghz p4, and dear god it heats my room better than any heater could. Can't wait for winter.

CompWiz wrote:

benryves wrote:

CompWiz wrote:Also, the number for AMD chips (ex. 3000) is approximately what mhz P4 processor the AMD chip is comparable to. (AMD 64 3000 = Intel P4 3 ghz)

Not in a million years is that an accurate figure... Or even close. It entirely depends on what you're running.

As for the overclocking, every Intel system I've owned has been able to have the CPU overclocked, whether through ye olde motherboard switches system through to software overclocking. Intel even offer their own software to do it.

Intels never have an unlocked multiplyer, while most AMD's do. Also, that processor number is pretty accurate.

I have some benchmarks for the Intel P4 3 ghz vs the AMD 64 3000 vs the Intel P4 2.6 ghz. The AMD 64 3000 costs about the same as the Intel P4 2.6 ghz, but performs about the same as the P4 3 ghz.
According to Tom's hardware guide, Here are the benchmarks:

Doom 3 with high quality video settings, 1024x768 32 bit color:
AMD 64 3000: 82.3 FPS
Intel 3 ghz: 75.2 FPS
Intel 2.6 ghz: 53.2 FPS

Farcry with low quality video settings, 1280x1024 32 bit color:
AMD 64 3000: 163.8 FPS
Intel 3 ghz: 149.3 FPS
Intel 2.6 ghz: 105.9 FPS

3DMark03 - CPU 1024x768 32 bit color
AMD 64 3000: 887
Intel 3 ghz: 822
Intel 2.6 ghz: 539

3DMark05 - CPU 1024x768 32 bit color
AMD 64 3000: 4212
Intel 3 ghz: 4164
Intel 2.6 ghz: 2652

WinRAR 283 mb 246 files compression time(less is better)
AMD 64 3000: 4:22
Intel 3 ghz: 4:42
Intel 2.6 ghz: 8:22

Lame MP3 encoder 182 mb/17 minute CD wave source encoding to mp3 time
AMD 64 3000: 1:59
Intel 3 ghz: 1:36
Intel 2.6 ghz: 1:52

Unreal Tournament 2004 THG8 assault single, 1280x1024 32 bit color:
AMD 64 3000: 130.6 FPS
Intel 3 ghz: 116.6 FPS
Intel 2.6 ghz: 84 FPS

As you can see, the less expensive AMD 64 3000 performed faster than the 3 ghz P4 for most of the benchmarks, with the P4 winning the Lame MP3 encoding by a few seconds. The P4 2.6 ghz cpu did terribly in all of the tests but one, as it had a slight lead in the MP3 encoding. You could definiely confirm from this that the AMD's perform equally or better than the P4 with mhz matching the AMD number. And AMDs perform much faster than any comparably priced pentiums almost across the board.
How could Intel have maintained superior marketshare without unfair business practices when their processors are so much worse? Also, the P4 3 ghz was not 64 bit, and will not be able to run the new programs coming out that support this. It will be obsolete in a few years when everything switches over. Also, AMD 64's can run 64 bit versions of programs much faster then the P4's can run the 32 bit versions.

Intel has had unlocked multipliers in their later P4 versions. Even if you say P4s are locked, they can be unlocked. Most "premium" motherboards feature BIOSes that let you select the multiplier you want. Even some Intel made BIOSes have that feature.

The game performance benchmarks is really unfair. anything about 1024x768 becomes more of a GPU bench than a CPU bench. They would need to have it set to 640x480 so the results are most likely inaccurate at best. What Ben said about speed and bench number is also correct: GHz is GHz. Model number is a model number even AMD says that (though we all know it means it's equal to that performance).

64-bit is insignificant ATM, most machines don't even need more than 2GB of RAM (the typical user, esp. the gamer). High consuming memory games will come in the near future but just having a 64-bit CPU now doesn't really mean anything. Just because you have a 64-bit CPU are you going to get the 64-bit Windows XPee Professional Ed? You really can't do much with it right now. Probably you could take a mobo and add in 2GB x 4 sticks but then again 8GB isn't the best way to take advantage of a 64-bit chip.

currahee wrote:

CompWiz wrote:

benryves wrote:Not in a million years is that an accurate figure... Or even close. It entirely depends on what you're running.

As for the overclocking, every Intel system I've owned has been able to have the CPU overclocked, whether through ye olde motherboard switches system through to software overclocking. Intel even offer their own software to do it.

Intels never have an unlocked multiplyer, while most AMD's do. Also, that processor number is pretty accurate.

I have some benchmarks for the Intel P4 3 ghz vs the AMD 64 3000 vs the Intel P4 2.6 ghz. The AMD 64 3000 costs about the same as the Intel P4 2.6 ghz, but performs about the same as the P4 3 ghz.
According to Tom's hardware guide, Here are the benchmarks:

Doom 3 with high quality video settings, 1024x768 32 bit color:
AMD 64 3000: 82.3 FPS
Intel 3 ghz: 75.2 FPS
Intel 2.6 ghz: 53.2 FPS

Farcry with low quality video settings, 1280x1024 32 bit color:
AMD 64 3000: 163.8 FPS
Intel 3 ghz: 149.3 FPS
Intel 2.6 ghz: 105.9 FPS

3DMark03 - CPU 1024x768 32 bit color
AMD 64 3000: 887
Intel 3 ghz: 822
Intel 2.6 ghz: 539

3DMark05 - CPU 1024x768 32 bit color
AMD 64 3000: 4212
Intel 3 ghz: 4164
Intel 2.6 ghz: 2652

WinRAR 283 mb 246 files compression time(less is better)
AMD 64 3000: 4:22
Intel 3 ghz: 4:42
Intel 2.6 ghz: 8:22

Lame MP3 encoder 182 mb/17 minute CD wave source encoding to mp3 time
AMD 64 3000: 1:59
Intel 3 ghz: 1:36
Intel 2.6 ghz: 1:52

Unreal Tournament 2004 THG8 assault single, 1280x1024 32 bit color:
AMD 64 3000: 130.6 FPS
Intel 3 ghz: 116.6 FPS
Intel 2.6 ghz: 84 FPS

As you can see, the less expensive AMD 64 3000 performed faster than the 3 ghz P4 for most of the benchmarks, with the P4 winning the Lame MP3 encoding by a few seconds. The P4 2.6 ghz cpu did terribly in all of the tests but one, as it had a slight lead in the MP3 encoding. You could definiely confirm from this that the AMD's perform equally or better than the P4 with mhz matching the AMD number. And AMDs perform much faster than any comparably priced pentiums almost across the board.
How could Intel have maintained superior marketshare without unfair business practices when their processors are so much worse? Also, the P4 3 ghz was not 64 bit, and will not be able to run the new programs coming out that support this. It will be obsolete in a few years when everything switches over. Also, AMD 64's can run 64 bit versions of programs much faster then the P4's can run the 32 bit versions.

Intel has had unlocked multipliers in their later P4 versions. Even if you say P4s are locked, they can be unlocked. Most "premium" motherboards feature BIOSes that let you select the multiplier you want. Even some Intel made BIOSes have that feature.

The game performance benchmarks is really unfair. anything about 1024x768 becomes more of a GPU bench than a CPU bench. They would need to have it set to 640x480 so the results are most likely inaccurate at best. What Ben said about speed and bench number is also correct: GHz is GHz. Model number is a model number even AMD says that (though we all know it means it's equal to that performance).

64-bit is insignificant ATM, most machines don't even need more than 2GB of RAM (the typical user, esp. the gamer). High consuming memory games will come in the near future but just having a 64-bit CPU now doesn't really mean anything. Just because you have a 64-bit CPU are you going to get the 64-bit Windows XPee Professional Ed? You really can't do much with it right now. Probably you could take a mobo and add in 2GB x 4 sticks but then again 8GB isn't the best way to take advantage of a 64-bit chip.

The game benchmarks are tests of the CPU if the rest of the system is the same, which it is. It is expecially CPU dependant if the graphics cards are the high end ones, which they are. What else is there that would make it not a CPU test? And what about the WinRAR? AMD won that, and that does not depend in the least on the graphics card. Also, when the game benchmarks are set to decent resolutions, you can get an estimate of what CPU will play games faster on resolutions you would actually use. I don't think anyone actually plays games at 640x480 anymore, expecially on a new computer. How exactly would you propose to test how fast CPUs are at tasks people actually perform if you refuse to test them in common applications like games at common resolutions? If you don't intend to play games, then just consider other benchmarks. Remember, people want to buy the CPU that runs the programs they use the fastest. If higher mhz on the P4's does not translate into faster framerates and compressing, etc, over the AMDs then people should get the AMD processors. The purpose of all this is not to determine which processor is theoretically faster with the ghz, or pipes, or any processor test, but to find the better processor for the programs a person will actually use.

And for the overclocking, I doubt that you can actually gain much performance by overclocking a high end Intel chip, as they run so hot already, any overclocking would probably cause it to overheat(unless you want to go the liquid nitrogen route. http://forevergeek.com/geek_articles/6g ... broken.php It's kind of expensive though)

CompWiz wrote:

benryves wrote:[As for the overclocking, every Intel system I've owned has been able to have the CPU overclocked, whether through ye olde motherboard switches system through to software overclocking. Intel even offer their own software to do it.

Intels never have an unlocked multiplyer, while most AMD's do. Also, that processor number is pretty accurate.

Horseshit. We got a load of old Pinnacle Pentium II systems in at work (Computer Surplus for the UA campus) and they had processor speed settings in the BIOS. Gateways from the same era had them too.

AndySoft wrote:

CompWiz wrote:

benryves wrote:[As for the overclocking, every Intel system I've owned has been able to have the CPU overclocked, whether through ye olde motherboard switches system through to software overclocking. Intel even offer their own software to do it.

Intels never have an unlocked multiplyer, while most AMD's do. Also, that processor number is pretty accurate.

Horseshit. We got a load of old Pinnacle Pentium II systems in at work (Computer Surplus for the UA campus) and they had processor speed settings in the BIOS. Gateways from the same era had them too.

Yes, but as I stated before, the multiplyer was locked. You cannot change it(go check if you don't believe me). When the multiplyer is locked, you cannot overclock very much without hitting stability problems. According to currahee, the multiplyers have been unlocked on the later p4s, but high end P4's generate so much heat, if you overclocked it a reasonable amount, it would overheat.
Another reason the AMD motherboards are so good is that they support automatic overclocking. If you are using the CPU to its capacity, and the automatic overclocking is turned on, the motherboard automatically increaces the speed of the CPU. If you stop using it so much, the speed is put back to normal again. And if the processor is idle, AMD's "cool and quiet" feature turns the speed of the processor way down, and speeds it up the instant you begin to use it. Just another reason AMDs are better.

CompWiz wrote:Another reason the AMD motherboards are so good is that they support automatic overclocking. If you are using the CPU to its capacity, and the automatic overclocking is turned on, the motherboard automatically increaces the speed of the CPU. If you stop using it so much, the speed is put back to normal again. And if the processor is idle, AMD's "cool and quiet" feature turns the speed of the processor way down, and speeds it up the instant you begin to use it. Just another reason AMDs are better.

Another reason why Pentiums are seen as slower; they do something similar - but most package PCs have crap fans so the processor is constantly running throttled rather than at the full speed. (You can get clock monitors; a number of Dells at my school were running at about 1.5GHz even though the CPU was rated at 2.4GHz owing to poor cooling). The Pentium M (closer to the P3 architecture) will slow the speed right down when idling in a similar fashion to the way the AMD chips will.

CompWiz wrote:

AndySoft wrote:

CompWiz wrote: Intels never have an unlocked multiplyer, while most AMD's do. Also, that processor number is pretty accurate.

Horseshit. We got a load of old Pinnacle Pentium II systems in at work (Computer Surplus for the UA campus) and they had processor speed settings in the BIOS. Gateways from the same era had them too.

Yes, but as I stated before, the multiplyer was locked. You cannot change it(go check if you don't believe me). When the multiplyer is locked, you cannot overclock very much without hitting stability problems. According to currahee, the multiplyers have been unlocked on the later p4s, but high end P4's generate so much heat, if you overclocked it a reasonable amount, it would overheat.
Another reason the AMD motherboards are so good is that they support automatic overclocking. If you are using the CPU to its capacity, and the automatic overclocking is turned on, the motherboard automatically increaces the speed of the CPU. If you stop using it so much, the speed is put back to normal again. And if the processor is idle, AMD's "cool and quiet" feature turns the speed of the processor way down, and speeds it up the instant you begin to use it. Just another reason AMDs are better.

Nope. They wouldn't encounter stability problems if you provided the right type of cooling. Any enthusiast knows that. What kind of an idiot would use the stock fan to cool and overclocked chip?
As I said, 30 hyper pipes provide maximum overclockability. Way more than what could be achieved with the Athlon. In terms of pure clock speed the Pentium 4 has the ability to double it's clock speed. I haven't seen any tech group post an overclocking of an Athlon. If they did find a way i'm sure it'd be like what happened when we saw the Radeon 9700 come out and beat the living crap outta the GeForce 4 Ti 4600. But they haven't. But if you take a look at the P4 side you see articles such as the 5GHz P4 and the 6GHz P4
As ben said some P4 CPUs come with shitty fans that force the CPU to throttle down so it doesn't burn up. You know the first generation Athlons didn't even have this? A pentium 4 did prove its survivability by throttling down for ages while AMD had just implemented this with their "CoolNQuiet" tech. AMDs arn't the only one with clock throttling. Intel's Pentium 4 6xx models also throttle their clock speeds.
Also keep in mind that you're forgetting about the mobile market- which turns out to be a completely different arena.
There is nothing an AMD does that an Intel can't in this market. Also of course Intel's mobile CPUs are far better than Sempron mobiles or AMD64 mobiles thanks to in part that the Pentium M uses FAR less power and outputs less heat than any of them.

you seem to be forgetting the turion AMD chips for laptops. They use less power than AMD mobiles and 64, and they do something Intel mobiles cant - 64 bit. Also hypertransport.

And sure, you can overclock the P4 with the right cooling, but do you really want to pay for liquid cooling on top of the already rediculously high P4 prices?

Also, when you talk about the P4 thermal throttling, you mean that when it hits too high of a temperature, it slows down. AMD's are much better. When they are idle they slow down, so the high temperature is never reached, and when you are using them, they will always be at full speed. It would be kind of inconvienient if you were playing a multiplayer game and your P4 decided to slow down in the middle of it, ruining your framerate and any chance you had at winnning, wouldn't you say?

You know, I noticed something about your argument for P4's. You are basically admitting that they run most applications slower than the AMD's, they cost a lot more, they generate more heat, they have some features that slow them down for many tasks(hyper pipes, thermal throttling), and they don't have 64 bit. So, you are in fact saying that the P4's are either equal or slower in most applications(similarly prices ones are a lot slower) and don't have some features you claim we don't need(64 bit).



IF ANYONE HERE WANTS A SLOWER, MORE EXPENSIVE PROCESSOR THAT HEATS YOUR ROOM AND HAS LESS GOOD FEATURES, PLEASE SAY SO HERE