Your Computer Specs

currahee · Post by **currahee** » Fri 28 Oct, 2005 8:03 am

Maybe he'[s referring to the Far Cry 64-bit patch. In that case it's nothing special. Just looks more detailed because they made it to look more detailed on 64-bit systems.

CompWiz · Post by **CompWiz** » Fri 28 Oct, 2005 11:34 am

AndySoft wrote:
CompWiz wrote:
AndySoft wrote: No, it's got to be chaning the multiplier -- they have 200, 233, 266, 300, and 333 MHz options in the BIOS. I don't see how the hell you'd acheive that by just changing the FSB speed as that would severly slow down the rest of the system for the slower clock speeds.
those are not multiplyer settings. P4 multiplyers are locked. Check online if you like.
RTFT. I'm talking about Pentium II's, you were saying *ALL* Pentiums were like that.

Edit:
CompWiz wrote:I have a challenge!If you want to prove P4's are better, post here the benchmarks of identically outfitted systems that cost the same, one with intel and one with AMD. And make sure the benchmarks are of some applications and uses that the average computer user would actually do. I doubt that the Intel system will be faster, and if it isn't, I don't see why anyone should buy an Intel.
Uhh... You can't use the same mobo for both AMD and Intel, therefore your entire base of reasoning is flawed.

No, it is not. If you buy an Intel CPU, you will have to get a motherboard that supports Intel chips. If Intel motherboards stink, then thats something you need to consider before buying an Intel processor. If Intel ,motherboards are not as good as AMD ones, then that's just one more reason to get an AMD. If the two systems cost the same and have all the rest of the same components(ram, graphics, hard drive, etc...) then it would be a fair comparison of what you could purchase for that amount of money. Wouldn't you say?

coelurus · Post by **coelurus** » Fri 28 Oct, 2005 3:19 pm

There's a mobo in which you can run both a P4 and an A64.

CompWiz · Post by **CompWiz** » Fri 28 Oct, 2005 6:04 pm

coelurus wrote:There's a mobo in which you can run both a P4 and an A64.

Actually, it would probably be better if you got processor specific motherboards, as that is what people will most likely get.

What motherboard supports both?

currahee · Post by **currahee** » Fri 28 Oct, 2005 7:21 pm

CompWiz wrote:
AndySoft wrote:
CompWiz wrote: those are not multiplyer settings. P4 multiplyers are locked. Check online if you like.
RTFT. I'm talking about Pentium II's, you were saying *ALL* Pentiums were like that.

Edit:
CompWiz wrote:I have a challenge!If you want to prove P4's are better, post here the benchmarks of identically outfitted systems that cost the same, one with intel and one with AMD. And make sure the benchmarks are of some applications and uses that the average computer user would actually do. I doubt that the Intel system will be faster, and if it isn't, I don't see why anyone should buy an Intel.
Uhh... You can't use the same mobo for both AMD and Intel, therefore your entire base of reasoning is flawed.
No, it is not. If you buy an Intel CPU, you will have to get a motherboard that supports Intel chips. If Intel motherboards stink, then thats something you need to consider before buying an Intel processor. If Intel ,motherboards are not as good as AMD ones, then that's just one more reason to get an AMD. If the two systems cost the same and have all the rest of the same components(ram, graphics, hard drive, etc...) then it would be a fair comparison of what you could purchase for that amount of money. Wouldn't you say?

1) AMD Does not make motherboards nor chipsets.
2) AMD mobos suck more than Intel mobos

Andy_J · Post by **Andy_J** » Fri 28 Oct, 2005 9:14 pm

Can we PLEASE get a mod to lock this since it's way off topic now, we're quote spamming, and we're getting nowhere?

Spengo · Post by **Spengo** » Fri 28 Oct, 2005 11:07 pm

Nah, but seriously, enough of the quoteage.

How bout we just split it into two topics?

CompWiz · Post by **CompWiz** » Fri 28 Oct, 2005 11:42 pm

currahee wrote: 1) AMD Does not make motherboards nor chipsets.
2) AMD mobos suck more than Intel mobos

1) I know that, I just used the term AMD motherboards to indicate motherboards that support AMD processors.
2) And how can you possibly say that Intel boards are better than the AMD supporting nforce 4 motherboards?!? Don't just say they're better, back it up! What features and performace make the Intel boards better? According to what I've read, nforce 4 motherboards pwn all other boards, expecially Intel ones. Between their features and performance Intel boards cannot hope to match up. Not to mention, nforce 4 boards support the superior processor.

You know, for the last 2 years, the top end AMD powered computers have consistently won computer of the year in my Computer Gaming World magazine. That was because they always beat the Intel systems. And price was not even a factor! Computer manufacurers such as Dell, Vodoo, and IBuyPower assembled machines with the best components possible, and never skimped on anything. Each year, the Intel systems were proven too be slower by a large margin, even though they cost more. For similarly priced systems, AMD systems almost always perform better, and they perform better by no small amount. How can you even think to reccomend Intels when this is true? I mean, WHAT IS BETTER ABOUT INTELS THAT YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO PAY MORE FOR A SLOWER PROCESSOR?!?

And don't tell me the pipes or the clockspeed, tell me what benefits the user of the computer would experience. Those pipes cause larger latency because they are bigger than AMD. That is usually a disadvantage, not an advantage. Clockspeed does not translate directly into performance. Programs almost always run faster on similarly priced AMDs. Features must result in faster performance for the user too be worth listing as an advantage. Like AMD's hypertransport, and much more efficiently designed dual core chips. Those kind of features that actually benifit the user in most cases are the ones that make AMD's so much better for the user. Intel has become so clock speed centered, they have forgotten the very thing most people would want if they pay more for a CPU, namably, it's actual performance on actual applications. Until Intel changes from braging about clock speed to bragging about performance, AMD will continue to outperform them. In fact, even if Intel does change, there's a good chance that AMD will continue to outperform them anyway, but perhaps not by such a large perfomance gap or price difference.

*yells at Intel CPU in computer for thinking its better than everything else, but makes sure not to damage it in case anyone wants to buy a great Intel powered computer that plays Rome: total war with decent framerates at medium res, and AOE 3 well, and B.O.S. also with decent framerates and adequete detail.*

[/heated discussion]

splitting into a new topic for this specifically would be good

but don't lock it, I mean look at UTI. They have a 32 bit vs 64 bit topic pinned at the top of their computer forum. Why can't we have an AMD vs Intel topic?

[heated discussion]

currahee · Post by **currahee** » Sat 29 Oct, 2005 3:30 am

Thanks, actually I didn't know why you were saying AMD mobos rocked hard ass so i'd knew you'd go into detail if i just said AMD mobos sucked

But obviously you're missing the point here, AMD64 is a new processor with something completely different from those Athlon XPees. The Pentium 4 is a relatively old and outdated design, in the market for about a good 4 years and counting. Therefore it's really amazing that with a new core, AMD managed to outstrip it marginally in terms of performance rahter than a full blown victory.
If you take a look at Intel CPUs, well they have only updated and modified deisgns throughout their life. They ain't completely new compared to the AMD64 CPUs. As we all know, until AMD64 Intel was having a bit of success with their P4. It's like the whole Radeon 9700 vs GeForce 4 Ti 4600 thing again. Intel is coming out with a new CPU architecture soon enough and we all know they're moving to efficiency rahter than raw clock speeds.

CompWiz · Post by **CompWiz** » Sat 29 Oct, 2005 3:47 am

Um, marginally?

MARGINALLY?

Have you already forgotten my benchmarks I posted a couple pages back?

The systems are identical except for the CPU and motherboard, and the processors cost the same.

Doom 3 with high quality video settings, 1024x768 32 bit color:
AMD 64 3000: 82.3 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 2.6 ghz: 105.9 FPS

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

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

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

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

please note carefully, the

HUGE AMOUNT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PERFORAMCE OF EACH CHIP

To simplify the benchmarks, I am comparing now only 2 chips that cost the same. One from Intel, one from AMD. Notice that the AMD is almost

TWICE AS FAST AS THE INTEL!

Would you consider that "marginal"? Not to mention that this lead will only extend when 64 bit programs come out. And yes, 64 bit does much more than just allow the processor to use more ram.

Additionally, AMD's don't have the room heater effect commented upon by a couple of people right on this forum. They also have better motherboards(such as the nfoce 4 ones, which also cost a lot less than the intel ones). And, looking back at new Intel CPU architecture releases in the past, recall that initial Pentium 4's were slower than the Pentium 3's. With this kind of track record, I doubt that the new release from intel will really be all that amazing.

currahee · Post by **currahee** » Sat 29 Oct, 2005 4:34 am

lol really funny, like I stated before I don't understand why you find it shocking that the Pentium 4 lags behind.
If you keep ignoring what I say: color=red]THE PENTIUM 4 IS AN OUTDATED DESIGN COMPARED TO THE ATHLON64. OF COURSE ITS SUPPOSED TO RUN SLOWER COMPARED TO IT[/color]

The prices? As I said, if you buy chips yourself you get them at a higher cost. If you buy a computer, usually the prices are cheaper because they're brought in volume. Go take a look see. The P4 is only $30 more expensive than the Athlon64 and the Celery D is the same price as the Sempron. As I said before it doesn't matter if AMD performs better. No one cares in the home market about performance as long as it works. If AMD is so much better why do I keep on seeing Pentium 4 based desktops everywhere than Semprons?
http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopp ... aoid=11074

And plus, you're ALWAYS FORGETTING about Cedar Mill CPUs.

Not only has the production process been modernized: Intel is going to produce 65-nm chips in Hillsboro, Oregon (D1C, D1D), Chandler, Arizona (Fab 22) and Leixlip, Kildare, Ireland (Fab 24). Also, Intel managed to implement energy-saving features such as sleep transistors that apparently help to bring down leakage currents and, finally, heat dissipation. We still can't talk much about virtualization technology (VT) today as this is something that cannot possibly be reviewed by just running some benchmarks within a couple of days.

Those of you who may be disappointed by the lack of performance gains should keep in mind that Intel might easily be able to finally add faster Pentium 4 processors at 4+ GHz if there is market demand. At the end of the day, the TDP of 86 Watts is still pretty far away from the 130 W that today's performance FMB would allow for.

With the performance per Watt level Intel is obviously capable of offering by the end of this or the beginning of next year, the Pentium 4 based on Cedar Mill also has bright prospects of being used for a tremendous number of Viiv based consumer system solutions which is a space that still requires addressing by AMD. Get going, Texas, because Intel is almost back on the road.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20051007/index.html
But then again I have no appreciation for bandwagons who keep switching allegences just because performance is higher for a different company.

While the current mainstream FMB (Flexible Motherboard - this is an Intel specification for processor and system power requirements) allows for a TDP (Thermal Design Power or a maximum heat dissipation) of 95 Watts, the Cedar Mill core is specified for up to 86 W now. As far as we know, this includes Pentium 4 631 to 661 (3.0 to 3.6 GHz), but it might easily be the case for faster models as well.

As you will see in the test result section, Cedar Mill actually manages to reduce the system power consumption under load by as much as 20% when compared to Prescott 2 MB (see test setup table for system details). This difference is large enough to bring Intel back into the performance per watt game when competing with AMD. However, the difference gets smaller in idle mode and when SpeedStep is enabled. Obviously this is because the voltage our test motherboard applied to Cedar Mill was not that different from the 1.35 V that Prescott requires.

These unexpected results at high loads also make it clear that the Pentium 4 is getting closer to the Athlon 64 since the TDP specification is high, but it is usually far from being reached.

And As I keep saying over and over again, if the resolution is over 800x600 then its not an accurate representation of what a CPU can do. You stated that whoever plays games under 1024x768? Thats completely irrelevant. You'll notice in 3DMark 2001, 2003 that the res tones down to 640x480 for CPU performance benching. The adapter does affect performacne to a point but in 640x480 the CPU needs to move quickly because it's more of a CPU test than a GPU test

crzyrbl · Post by **crzyrbl** » Sat 29 Oct, 2005 4:53 am

SHEESH, SHORTEN THE FRIGIN LINK. the page is huge now. i agree with spengo, lets slit this thang

currahee · Post by **currahee** » Sat 29 Oct, 2005 4:58 am

You haven't been here long before the maxcoderz board was wiped twice were you? THere was a debate thread I made and I went well over 90+ pages if I remember correctly with over 1000 posts so this is really nothing.

Oh yeah what performance you guys get on 3DMark 2003?

Jim e · Post by **Jim e** » Sat 29 Oct, 2005 5:19 am

http://joepnet.com/hosted/maxcoderz/php ... .php?t=757

currahee · Post by **currahee** » Sat 29 Oct, 2005 5:34 am

Whoops, thanks for pointing that out. Looks like ive been gone way to long