Pentium 4 Discussion - Round 2

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Arcadian:
I can't find where I read it, but someone on Ace's Forums had a theory that the compression codec found in mpeg and jpeg files is a very optimized codec with very predictable program flow. This is really what the Pentium 4 accels at, and also what it was designed from the beginning to do well in.

---

Yes, the JPEG/MPEG coding consists of many highly parallel operations. Only the BitStream packing and ZigZag reordering parts can't take any significant advantage of SIMD optimizations, but most other stuff such as DTC/iDCT, colorspace conversion and shifting gains a lot from SIMD.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Arcadian:
I have to disagree with that. I believe MMX has become quite ubiquitous in software. In fact, you probably use it in most of your programs and don't even know it. Even AMD processors include MMX extensions, so I have a hard time believing that programs don't use a feature that is so easy to develop for.

...

MMX was a different story because it was hard to code, and only allowed for small performance gains

---

Eh, is MMX hard or not? https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gif

Actually, MMX isn't used in many applications since most compiler don't generate MMX code and MMX is only applicable to certain types of applications, the same goes for SSE/SSE-2/3dnow.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Elxman:
I heard some ppl talking about the limits of the X86 (or X87 don't know much about it, is it a machine code?)

---

x87 is the FPU.

hey guys - check out tom's updated p-4 review - looks like the high quality setting for DVD/mpeg conversion under the flask(something) program uses x87 fpu, and the k-7 wins two to one.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gaffo:
hey guys - check out tom's updated p-4 review - looks like the high quality setting for DVD/mpeg conversion under the flask(something) program uses x87 fpu, and the k-7 wins two to one.

---

The results aren't too surprising, are they? Man, that guy would do anything to stick it to Intel.

In my opinion, right now, the P4 is just a chip to "get people talking"... to the average Joe the P4 1.5GHz is going to look much better than the T-bird 1.2GHz and he'll form the opinion that "Intel is better"

The P4 is way to expensive and not really worth the money, what with the Almador chipset that only supports RDRAM... it'll only be good when the Northwood versions will be released, possibly supporting DDR

The P3 has life left in it, after Intel shrinks to a .13 die, it'll reach higher speeds, beating out the P4, which'll only be competitive after Intel shrinks it to a .13 die... whenever that'll happen... anyway, it should be pretty competitive when prices fall & 2GHz versions are available

------------------
Future Xmas Genetic Shark... maybe New Year Genetic Shark, why not?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Arcadian:
The results aren't too surprising, are they? Man, that guy would do anything to stick it to Intel.

---

Your own numbers have shown that AMD is overall better then the new P4. So how is Tom so bad at bashing Intel for releasing a product that is EXPENSIVE and UNDERPERFORMS. We all agree on the above so why is it so hard to say the product is not any good. Well it will be good when this program comes out, or it will be good when it hits 2+ GHz. I am talking about NOW, THE PRESENT. For now the P4 is not worth is weight in gold. We know not what the future will bring.

Bill P

Keeping my P3 700 @ 980 MHz for a very long time.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by casanova:
Your own numbers have shown that AMD is overall better then the new P4. So how is Tom so bad at bashing Intel for releasing a product that is EXPENSIVE and UNDERPERFORMS. We all agree on the above so why is it so hard to say the product is not any good. Well it will be good when this program comes out, or it will be good when it hits 2+ GHz. I am talking about NOW, THE PRESENT. For now the P4 is not worth is weight in gold. We know not what the future will bring.

Bill P

Keeping my P3 700 @ 980 MHz for a very long time.

---

My only gripe with Dr. Thomas Pabst was the fact that he turned his review around 180 degrees based soley on the results of one option in one test. I would even say his first review was somewhat positive towards the Pentium 4, yet his update was downright bashing it. Although he does have a good point, I think it's more his bias and ego working the discussion rather than the actual truth.

My opinion is that the Pentium 4 is too expensive right now, and that anyone planning on getting one should wait for January when their will supposedly be a set of price cuts (for introduction of new speed grades, I'm guessing). The Pentium 4 1.5GHz will be priced $200 less in lots of 1000, which should translate to a $250 to $300 price drop per chip. Then I can't see that buying one is a bad thing. Sure you'll have limited performance gains in some applications, but over time, they will improve, and your purchase will continue to grow with you. I kind of like the idea of a processor that upgrades itself (in a way). https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gif

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Arcadian:
My only gripe with Dr. Thomas Pabst was the fact that he turned his review around 180 degrees based soley on the results of one option in one test. I would even say his first review was somewhat positive towards the Pentium 4, yet his update was downright bashing it. Although he does have a good point, I think it's more his bias and ego working the discussion rather than the actual truth.

My opinion is that the Pentium 4 is too expensive right now, and that anyone planning on getting one should wait for January when their will supposedly be a set of price cuts (for introduction of new speed grades, I'm guessing). The Pentium 4 1.5GHz will be priced $200 less in lots of 1000, which should translate to a $250 to $300 price drop per chip. Then I can't see that buying one is a bad thing. Sure you'll have limited performance gains in some applications, but over time, they will improve, and your purchase will continue to grow with you. I kind of like the idea of a processor that upgrades itself (in a way). https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/5.gif

---

I'm also very dissapointed with Tom. He gets more and more biased and I've lost my respect for him. The only reason I read his site nowadays is because he runs the "right" kinds of benchmarks. I look at the result chart, but don't take his opinions into account.

However, I don't feel like the P4 will "grow with you" over time. The software industry is moving over to OOP, that is, many small classes with short methods => lots of branches => not so good for a 20 stage pipeline.
This is somewhat equivalent to the debate going on over at the video cards forums. It's mainly a Radeon vs GeForce2 thing. Radeon fans keep saying like "DirectX8 will make the Radeon better", while GF2 fans mainly don't believe it will improve much over time. I'm big fan of the Radeon, but don't believe that DX8 will give my Radeon more value since only some games will actually use it. However, I do believe that it'll get more value from the better memory managment, HyperZ and it's third texturing unit because the trend is higher resolution textures, more overdraw and more rendering passes. The parallel of this in the CPU market would be P4 with it's SSE-2 and higher speed bus. The high speed bus may give it more value over time since it's useful for many applications and doesn't have to be used explicitly. However, SSE-2 will only appear in some very few application that actually have a use for it. The software market today is driven by productivity and TTM, highest performance is less important.

buying one is a bad thing. Sure you'll have limited performance gains in some applications, but over time, they will improve, and your purchase will continue to grow with you. I kind of like the idea of a processor that upgrades itself

ARCADIAN! what? - my computer purchase will GROW in value? - what the hell http://dev.www.sharkyforums.forums.relay.cool/. Computer depreaciation is astonomical! worse than a new car! - My computer I buy today for 1500 bucks will be worth 500 in one year! GROW?! This is not common sence - Computers are now disposable items - like toasters - you buy them to run your software that you HAVE, - in 2-years all those SSE-2 apps (all three of them IMHO) will crawl on that p-4 1500 two year old outmoded investment worth a wopping 200 bucks! - My 486 never appreciated in worth/nor my p-166/nor my current winchip-2 (which is worth 150 bucks today and cost 1500 three years ago).

I read with some amusement(s) regarding the P4 performance with office apps.

really in some offices I have been in a P15 wooden help them achieve better than a 40% efficiency rating.

What difference has (say) word 97 performed whether you have a P4 or a pentium 166? https://www.sharkyforums.com/images/.../2005/06/6.gif
Office2K would of course get marginal benefits from a P4 but has it been written for a processor? Has it been written for a user even.....

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gaffo:
ARCADIAN! what? - my computer purchase will GROW in value? - what the hell http://dev.www.sharkyforums.forums.relay.cool/. Computer depreaciation is astonomical! worse than a new car! - My computer I buy today for 1500 bucks will be worth 500 in one year! GROW?! This is not common sence - Computers are now disposable items - like toasters - you buy them to run your software that you HAVE, - in 2-years all those SSE-2 apps (all three of them IMHO) will crawl on that p-4 1500 two year old outmoded investment worth a wopping 200 bucks! - My 486 never appreciated in worth/nor my p-166/nor my current winchip-2 (which is worth 150 bucks today and cost 1500 three years ago).

---

Gaffo, I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I meant to protray that a user with a Pentium 4 will have a perceived advantage over someone with a Pentium III over the next couple of years. That is to say that a program beched on both today may yield more in favor for the Pentium III, but later versions of that program appearing over the next year or so will progressively show the Pentium 4 in better light. Therefore, you will perceive added value over the life of the product. It won't be worth any more, but it will run apps faster as more optimizations get into place.

The real question is, will those optimizations really see the light of the day?

can anyone see 2 lines of intel processors rather than value and performance but 3d (games and graphics (p4)) and business.....?

------------------
'From now on I'm thinking only of me.'

Major Danby replied indugently with a superior smile: 'But, Yossarian, suppose everyone felt that way.'
'Then,' said Yossarian, 'I'd certainly be a damned fool to feel any othe way wouldn't I?'

I dont know if Intel's exec's would go for that.. being that the majority of their profits come from the server market, and most of the rest of their sales are from Compaq, Gateway, etc. for low end users.

I agree...value and gaming are pretty much fixed streams, with business usually looking like a gaming machine with more ram and less video card. Intel and amd both seem to play the comptition game in those two areas, and i can't really see that changing any time soon.

And like someone already said, most "businesses" use comps for tasks any 486 could do (and once did) just fine, and at some point, you simply cannot get any more increase in speed or productivity out of a particular application. I work in a college comp lab, and we have primarily two grades of pc's...one set that's running at about 400 to 450 mhz, intel, with 64 mb ram, and another set that's running at 850 mhz, intel, and running 128 mb ram. Given that the ONLY tasks that are supposed to be performed in this lab are basic word processing and email/internet access, there is absolutely no difference between the two setups.

I can't see all that many business apps that actually require anything running over 500 mhz, so the p4 definitely seems like overkill to me...an attempt to convince the consumer that he needs something he actually doesnt, because it's "better".

Dave.