AMD64VS P4EE - TOMS HARDWARE is cheating really

Hi,

I read the TOMS review about the athlon 64, fx51 and Intel EE..

he says that intel wins 30+ times AMD 15 times or so..

The main thing I want to say here is : this is bluffing

how can you compare two processors one with 3.2Ghz and the other is 2GHZ and then say that the 3.2GHZ one with 2mL3 cache wins 30 or so times in applications that are frequency Hungry...
when I see that a 2GHZ CPU is ONLY 5% lower in performance than a 3.2GHZ with more l3 cache then I say that the AMD is a winner 100% add to it the 150$-200$ price difference between the AMD and P4EE...

now if the AMD made an actual 3.2GHZ Processor and release it for the same price of INTEL P$ EE 3.2 I d expect that processor to KILL the P4..

we must be fair when we judge things... the AMD is "named" 3200+ but it is 2GH inside also it is cheaper and COMPARABLE to a 3.2GHZ P4 with add on 2mb cache... if they were at the same price then he argument of TOMS is right but there is a big difference

compare a 450$ athlon 64 to 600$ P4 3.2 and around 900$ EE

the FX is 2200 too...

I see the AMD ONLY PROBLEM is chipsets the INTEL chipsets are more powerfull and thats it

*snore*


These points are made over and over, and still have no more validity then when they were first made.

The FX and the EE are at the same price point in the same target market. That makes them competitors, and they should be tested under as many programs as possible. Sure, the P4 dos better at video encoding. The FX does better at games. Does this mean that we should test only in games or only in video encoding? No.

Incidentally, I also tend to mistrust anything from THG, mostly because their articles have shown so much technical innacuracy (they didn't know what they were talking about) and bias (to both sides - it all depends on author and timing). I'm wary of this review becuase it disagrees with most other net reviews.

The real question is - why are we comparing a chip I can buy today with a chip I might be able to buy in 2-3 months?

Well said

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nForcer
Well said

---

Alright so this works both ways the K8 has an ondie memory controller which the P4 does not so I guess thats unfair aswell?.

FYI The AthlonFX is the same price as the EE and the overall system cost will be alot higher since the FX requiers registerd ram.
As for the Athlon64 it is faster then the 3.2C but it also has more cache and a ondie memory controller so thats an unfair comparison.
Your argument about cache/mhz/controller works both ways so stop trying to use it like it only works one way.

You AMD fanfgts tried the same argument with the origonal P4 and its need for RDRAM well the FX is the same way now so stfu.

Is anyone else getting tired of these?

Hey, AMD chose to go the lower clock route and they market their 3200 against the 3.2 ghz p4, hence the 3200 rating. So you can compare a 3.2 ghz chip to a the 2ghz(i think it's 2ghz) fx. You can't say extra cache is unfair, if both chips had exactly equal specs, they'd be the same chip and perform the same.....duh. I mean sorry you're disappointed that the fx didn't destroy the p4 ee...but the comparison is fair, it tells you how 2 chips do head to head. If it makes you feel any better the p4 ee isn't available yet....

If one chip was made by earthlings and the other chip was made by martions, and the martions won everysingle benchmark, it would still be a fair comparision since they are testing PERFORMANCE, not who performs better under X price, or with X technology.

This doesnt show that toms is anywhere near cheating.


Now what i think is almost a crime is comparing the A64 and FX against the P4 EE, when the EE wasnt out at the time of the reviews, then going ahead and saying Intel Wins X out Y times. (while i havent read Toms, just looked at the benches i tend to think this is what he's done)


I know a fair share of poeple have done this, but come on, compare released technology to released technology, not "will be released soon" technology to released technology

If Tom were to compare a 200mhz Pentium MMX to the Athlon64... intel would win. :D www.tomsintelfudware.com/ is spam.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Colossus
Is anyone else getting tired of these?

---

Oh no! I LOVE listening to people argue about the very same things OVER AND OVER AND OVER again, Colossus! I must say though, that I really do want to see AMD release the Athlon64 at the same clock speed as the P4, and to keep matching its clock speed until Intel literally knuckles under. Once both companies are about 50% market share, then I'll be satisfied. O.k., o.k., I'll admit I'd like to see AMD with 51% of the market, and Intel with 49%.

;0

Quote:

---

Originally posted by anubis44
Oh no! I LOVE listening to people argue about the very same things OVER AND OVER AND OVER again, Colossus! I must say though, that I really do want to see AMD release the Athlon64 at the same clock speed as the P4, and to keep matching its clock speed until Intel literally knuckles under. Once both companies are about 50% market share, then I'll be satisfied. O.k., o.k., I'll admit I'd like to see AMD with 51% of the market, and Intel with 49%.

;0

---

True, if AMD does match clock for clock.. The Intel would be far to slow...

But Intel will never loose the market.. Unless they do something seriously stupid for a few years :)

There stand is just way to strong to even drop that hard.. Also AMD has to pull some prize out of their behinds to blow away Intel.. Which they havent done yet.. But the combo of those two might drop Intel's shares :)

You wanna know what's really depressing? We have to go through this all over again when the Pentium EE is released. We get to rehash all the same aurguements all over again. Now that's a depressing thought:(

Quote:

---

Originally posted by akaBruno
If Tom were to compare a 200mhz Pentium MMX to the Athlon64... intel would win. :D www.tomsintelfudware.com/ is spam.

---

LOL Tom was the original AMD fanboy. He didn't have a single good thing to say about Intel until he "discovered" the P4 was a much better processor then most people thought it was, and Tom is always willing to talk about the things he has "discovered".

It was only then anti Tom stuff became popular. It's strange how any/every site or benchmark that even remotely says anything positive about Intel immediately becomes a target for this kind of FUD…

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Moridin
LOL Tom was the original AMD fanboy. He didn't have a single good thing to say about Intel until he "discovered" the P4 was a much better processor then most people thought it was, and Tom is always willing to talk about the things he has "discovered".

It was only then anti Tom stuff became popular. It's strange how any/every site or benchmark that even remotely says anything positive about Intel immediately becomes a target for this kind of FUD…

---

So true. My AMD fan/Intel hating buddy sent me to Tom's for AMD support when researching what became the P4 in my signature ;) (research I got from THG was confirmed by other sites too, ah how a couple of months changes everything :p)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ranger2992
You wanna know what's really depressing? We have to go through this all over again when the Pentium EE is released. We get to rehash all the same aurguements all over again. Now that's a depressing thought:(

---

And... we'll have to go through it again when benchmarks start showing up running 64bit OS's and apps. :p ;) :D

BTW, Tom only grudingly gave AMD credit when it was stomping the early P4's. Hell, the P3 stomped the first P4's. :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by akaBruno
And... we'll have to go through it again when benchmarks start showing up running 64bit OS's and apps. :p ;) :D

---

During the transition from 16-bit to 64-bit this took more then a decade, and that is with a real need for 32-bit software and 100% of processor sales supporting the 32-bit extensions. Currently less then 1% of X86 processor sales support 64-bit extensions, and Most people never run an application that needs more then a couple hundred MB of memory, let alone 4GB.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by akaBruno

BTW, Tom only grudingly gave AMD credit when it was stomping the early P4's. Hell, the P3 stomped the first P4's. :D

---

The first P4's easily outperformed contemporary PIII's. At that time the P4 needed a roughly 20% clock rate advantage to achieve the same performance (less in FP intensive apps). But, the P4 was released at 1.5 GHz, and the PIII was only running at 1 GHz at the time. The Athlon had a small performance lead over the P4 but even then many sites were benchmarking the P4 with a buggy nVidia driver that didn't recognize the P4 which created a significant performance drop.