Guest
^Bad_Boy^
2004-01-07T23:40:54Z
Hi..

Well I know that there's a HotHardware Review for the AMD Athlon 64 3400+..

But the Review from HardOCP.. Has the benchmarks with more Processors which is good for comparison.

Again, Watch all the Benchies.. And Tell Me Who Leads the Most Benchies from the Top Intel Processors and AMD Processors :cool:

http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc1 
Sponsor
scaVenger
2004-01-08T00:36:46Z
Quote:

Originally posted by ^Bad_Boy^
Hi..

Well I know that there's a HotHardware Review for the AMD Athlon 64 3400+..

But the Review from HardOCP.. Has the benchmarks with more Processors which is good for comparison.

Again, Watch all the Benchies.. And Tell Me Who Leads the Most Benchies from the Top Intel Processors and AMD Processors :cool:

http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc1 




Out of seven processors theres only two intel processors not much of a comparison so no kidding AMD leads the benchmarks...:eek:

BTW does this make you a AMD FANBOY??
Telexen
2004-01-08T01:29:39Z
Quote:

Originally posted by scaVenger
Out of seven processors theres only two intel processors not much of a comparison so no kidding AMD leads the benchmarks...:eek:



Uh...what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Intel's BEST CPUs are in the comparison...and AMD's BEST CPUs are in the comparison

Your arguement has no basis.
pcs2000
2004-01-08T06:29:26Z
Quote:

Originally posted by ^Bad_Boy^
Hi..

Well I know that there's a HotHardware Review for the AMD Athlon 64 3400+..

But the Review from HardOCP.. Has the benchmarks with more Processors which is good for comparison.

Again, Watch all the Benchies.. And Tell Me Who Leads the Most Benchies from the Top Intel Processors and AMD Processors :cool:

http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc1 



Let see, there were 11 tests, Intel clearly won 5 of them and AMD won 6 (some by very small margins and some were almost ties) so it is basically a draw in the test of AMD's latest technology CPU rated at a 3400mhz P rating against a 3.2ghz rated, 3 year old core design Intel chip with and without extra cache. Overclock the P4EE to at least 3.4 ghz (to be fair and give it same rating as AMD) and it will win nearly all of the tests. Overclock the regular P4 and it will do better too. This test only proves that 32 bit CPU's still are very viable and a force to be dealt with at high clock speeds. Throw a Prescott into test in the next month or so and it could look even worse for AMD when they test it against a more modern core. There is nothing to brag about in this test for either "fans".
^Bad_Boy^
2004-01-08T06:36:42Z
What are you talking about
the AMD Athlon 64 3400+ is just a (2200 Mhz Processor not a 3400 Mhz Processor) !!!

You see What I tell ya.

What do you have to Say, You saw Real World Performance..
and the AMD Processor that is Less than Half the Cost of the Intel Processor Leads in most Areas, and the others are almost on Pair with the 2 times and more expensive Intel 3.2Ghz EE..

This is just a 2.2Ghz Processor..

Impressed Huh?
The_Punisher29
2004-01-08T11:20:38Z
Remember that the Socket 754 will become low-cost platform. Also the Athlon FX-51 isn't optimized for desktop applications since it's a opertron that isn't an opertron. Also the 3.2Ghz EE has a 2mb cache.

This bring me to the conclusion that comparing the 3400+ to a 3.2/3.4Ghz today P4 is fair because this today P4 will become the tomorow low cost CPU like the 754pin Athlon64.

AMD has made an error thinking that they could get along with a normal DDR platform. Now when the socket 939 commes out with DCDDR and optimized drivers or whatever for the desktop and bigger FSB, it will be fair to compare it to the 3.2EE or Prescott.
Ramman
2004-01-08T11:45:36Z
From what I gathered in the synthetic tests the P4 was the clear winner. But these are not real world tests.

In the other tests the P4 won, were software favoring Intel design. The 3400 won out in sofware favoring AMD design. Not much of a surprise here. However, what I found to be interesting was the inroads AMD made on those Intel favored tests.

What impressed me was the 3000's placement in the tests against the P4EE. True, it didn't win, but came close in several benches. The "economy" 64 coming that close to Intels flagship chip makes you think.

But as pcs2000 said, I want to see what the Prescott has to offer and what will the price be? Will it be worth hundreds of dollars if all we see are a few fps difference in Quake :rolleyes:.

I just hope that Intel is not rushing the release of Prescott. I don't want to see a repeat of the 1.3 PIII farce.
SS Joe
2004-01-08T12:51:07Z
"What impressed me was the 3000's placement in the tests against the P4EE. True, it didn't win, but came close in several benches. The "economy" 64 coming that close to Intels flagship chip makes you think."

lol, yeah, you gotta love how a ~$210 2GHz AMD Chip comes close to a ~$1000 3.2GHz P4 Chip

...Wait, Around $210? heheh, those Chips are looking more appealing every day Maybe i'll get one this summer? Certainly by next X-Mas
Beast
2004-01-08T13:53:03Z
Kudos to AMD there,and a shot in the foot in my opinion,its given its own FX51 a run for the money too.
754's are quickly becoming the new 'bang for buck'.
Who's got the new AMD platforms here any who's ?
pcs2000
2004-01-08T17:11:26Z
Quote:

Originally posted by ^Bad_Boy^
What are you talking about
the AMD Athlon 64 3400+ is just a (2200 Mhz Processor not a 3400 Mhz Processor) !!!

You see What I tell ya.

What do you have to Say, You saw Real World Performance..
and the AMD Processor that is Less than Half the Cost of the Intel Processor Leads in most Areas, and the others are almost on Pair with the 2 times and more expensive Intel 3.2Ghz EE..

This is just a 2.2Ghz Processor..

Impressed Huh?



You must have miss read what I said. AMD has used rated speed, not true speed, for a long time and I said a AMD64 rated as a 3400+ against a Intel chip running at a rated speed of 3200. It was not tested against a 3400 intel P4C or P4EE. If it had it would have maybe won just a few of those tests if any. In todays environment it is not a lot faster than its 32bit athlon cousin that also runs around 2200 mhz true speed so it proves little. Most of the gains in 32 bit world can be atributed to improved memory bandwidth over Athlon (which was sorely needed) but it still does not exceed that of the 32 bit P4. Math is only other thing that saw a big gain. If AMD would drop the P rating and focus on getting a chip to run at a true 3ghz today they would have something to crow about because it would easily beat present Intel chips accross the board but it doesn't so it can't. Overclock a standard $300 P4C to 3400 mhz and beyond (which is easily done) and the AMD64 would not catch it either overall. AMD needs to get serious and get clock rate up if they want to make a mark for themselves. If they had a 64 bit processor today running at a true 3ghz at a reasonable price even I would seriously consider buying it!
^Bad_Boy^
2004-01-08T17:53:14Z
Quote:

Originally posted by pcs2000
If they had a 64 bit processor today running at a true 3ghz at a reasonable price even I would seriously consider buying it!


Damn that's the only way you would buy an AMD processor?? haha.. Intel Boy you


Anyways I agree on the fact that AMD should bring Real Mhz Speed Up. Like when the fight was betwen the Pentium3 and the Athlon Tbirds.

But still you can't miss the Fact how AMD has so competitive processors for half the price of the Intel processors and less Mhz.

Even outperforming processors that have 1ghz more.
neocitron
2004-01-09T00:15:29Z
this argument is really unclear... because AMD has their next gen technology out NOW.... whereas the P4 core is about 3 years old... i'd say wait for the P4 Prescott... then you shall compare all you want...
^Bad_Boy^
2004-01-09T00:37:47Z
So Now is not Fair Huh???

I thought you guys were saying the AMD64 was so weak against the P4 3.2Ghz,,

0 // 3 || 3 D
StukaSt1
2004-01-09T02:19:33Z
Quote:

Originally posted by pcs2000
Overclock a standard $300 P4C to 3400 mhz and beyond (which is easily done) and the AMD64 would not catch it either overall.


So what your saying is that an intel chip needs to be overclocked 1.2 ghz faster than the speed of an AMD 3400+ in order to compete with orbeat it?
Just more proof that mhz isnt everything
pcs2000
2004-01-09T05:43:04Z
Quote:

Originally posted by ^Bad_Boy^
Damn that's the only way you would buy an AMD processor?? haha.. Intel Boy you


Anyways I agree on the fact that AMD should bring Real Mhz Speed Up. Like when the fight was betwen the Pentium3 and the Athlon Tbirds.

But still you can't miss the Fact how AMD has so competitive processors for half the price of the Intel processors and less Mhz.

Even outperforming processors that have 1ghz more.



Wow, we agree on something! Dont know where you get half price. You do not need a P4EE to beat a AMD64. You could easily do it with a overclocked P4C at 3400mhz and beyond. Plus with HT in Intel chip you can video encode (at which it easily beats a AMD64 too) and even play a game at same time. Try that with AMD32 or 64 and it will choke. AMD will have no HT support of its own for at least a year. They really missed the boat there.