but that is online recently, in a few weeks/months they will have come down in price. check out all the other products.......
Printable View
but that is online recently, in a few weeks/months they will have come down in price. check out all the other products.......
Quote:
Originally posted by bisonator
but that is online recently, in a few weeks/months they will have come down in price. check out all the other products.......
And so will Intels as they prepare to launch their next chip.
my statement can apply to AMD or INTEL, point being they will all decline to appropriate prices, which as it happens, AMD seems to be cheaper.......1700+ Tbred B?
There all more or less the same price until you go below 2Ghz .Quote:
Originally posted by bisonator
my statement can apply to AMD or INTEL, point being they will all decline to appropriate prices, which as it happens, AMD seems to be cheaper.......1700+ Tbred B?
To the person who was kindof dising on the spec benches well first let me say that i am completely with moridin on how great spec is. Spec i by no means another 3dmark or some stupid little benchmark like that is is the benchmark that the big companies like Dell HP Compaq Gateway IBM AMD INTEL and many many other huge corporations pay attention to. The benchmarks are based on instructions that real world applications use suck as 3dsmax and others and they use these instructions to test almost every cpu imaginable. It is one of the few ways to compare cpus suck as power4 sparc itanium P4 athlon hammer and many others.
Now to moridin what do you mean by leagcy application are we talking about unreal2k3 or what because as far as im concerned legacy means programs designed for an OS prior to 98. So i guess most modern games must be leagcy games then becasue the Athlon clock for clock kicks some serious butt. As far as applications go both cpus have strong points and in those strong points one type will usually falt out dominate for instance 3dapplications and video rendering the P4 has from launch been very very strong in thse fields and seems to always take a strong lead there but AMD can also take a strong lead in its own fields.
The P4 optimization guide was not even available until 2000, so any application that started development prior to that isn’t likely to have much in the way of P4 optimizations. After that it still took time for developers to learn for themselves. It’s only been in the last the last year that we have even begun to see developers get anywhere near the capabilities of the P4.Quote:
Originally posted by joerg
Now to moridin what do you mean by leagcy application are we talking about unreal2k3 or what because as far as im concerned legacy means programs designed for an OS prior to 98. So i guess most modern games must be leagcy games then becasue the Athlon clock for clock kicks some serious butt.
Even worse for the P4 is that even 2-3 years ago many developers were using the Pentium classic (P5) as their optimization target. The P4 is VERY bad on code scheduled for the P5. Of course this will only show up in benchmarks, not real life since the fastest P5 was something like 233 MHz, so even the slowest P4 is plenty fast for this code.
This pattern isn’t new BTW, the predecessors of the P4 followed exactly the same pattern. The P5(Pentium classic) , and P6 (Ppro, PII, PIII) were slammed for the very same issues early in their life.
So basically what your sayign is that P7 or P4 is only now getting getting applications that are suing its matured code mainly sse2 instructions and that applications wriitten with such codes are the only non leagcy applications and games out there. So will you say the same thing abotu the new featyrse being added in hammer or will you proclaim them useless? Also once real world apps start to use sse2 AMD will have already added support for these instructions so in common apps and games Athlon will not fall behind at all. And again once more games and apps take advatage of HT i guess the same can be sayd. So maybe AMD is a parasite or maybe Intel has sofware compnaies on a leash and AMD just kinda supports what they do. The whole point of what i am saying is that Both companies will release code that can be optimized for but Intel is the company that has more chnce of seeing its instructions oprimized for because they have more of the market share, but as soon as the code becomes relavant AMD seems to always have adapted it in some form anyway so what we see in the most up to date bench marks can not be used to reflect the current state of software performance.
dude, you need to research before mouthing off like that. and i doubt there are much people in here who can hang with Moridin on processor debate. he is the authority on Sharky's about this stuff.Quote:
Originally posted by kirkyg
Two things i would ask...WHERE THE HELL! did you get those ******** benchmarks? and then why dont you take a look at what benchmarks the athlon wins in. All the important ones.
kirkyg
Spec is one of the most important and well known benchmarks out there, as Moridin pointed out. not a silly benchmark like 3dmark, which, i admit, is fun to increase your score (i fall into this every once in a while) but definitely not important.
Worthless?Quote:
Originally posted by steppy76
Man, I'm so tired of this worthless argument. You want to compare at equal price points, fine. But just simply testing them at the same clock does absolutely nothing but pit a strength of the AMD against a weakness of the P4... Let's just retire the "clock for clock" argument.
Even today we hear INTYEL officials lean on the "clock speed" factor/argument. So, let's humour them, let's compare chips speed for speed. By using INTEL's own arguments, the community knows that INTEL chips are easily beatable. What INTEL expects is simply this: maintain a MHZ (GHz) lead, that way it will stay ahead (even if by a slight margin) of AMD.
INTEL users/fans always resort to this type of reasoning, they seemingly dislike reality. I understand that, but face it, if people compare the 3GHz INTEL with the 3000+ XP, what lead does INTEL have here? Not much. Now, imagine if INTEL stood still and waited for AMD to catch up in terms of raw clockspeed: does anyone doubt that even a "thin" 2.7 GHz AMD would beat a "robust" 3GHz INTEL?
Chronus
Whats does it matter if the P4 3.06 is clocked higher than the XP 3000+ the P4 still cost less and overclock better. So for price/performance Intel wins in the show down.Quote:
Originally posted by Chronus
Worthless?
Even today we hear INTYEL officials lean on the "clock speed" factor/argument. So, let's humour them, let's compare chips speed for speed. By using INTEL's own arguments, the community knows that INTEL chips are easily beatable. What INTEL expects is simply this: maintain a MHZ (GHz) lead, that way it will stay ahead (even if by a slight margin) of AMD.
INTEL users/fans always resort to this type of reasoning, they seemingly dislike reality. I understand that, but face it, if people compare the 3GHz INTEL with the 3000+ XP, what lead does INTEL have here? Not much. Now, imagine if INTEL stood still and waited for AMD to catch up in terms of raw clockspeed: does anyone doubt that even a "thin" 2.7 GHz AMD would beat a "robust" 3GHz INTEL?
Chronus
Though I have to admit (after a new look at newegg and http://freespace.virgin.net/m.warner/CPUPricesAMD.htm)Quote:
Originally posted by crashed13
Whats does it matter if the P4 3.06 is clocked higher than the XP 3000+ the P4 still cost less and overclock better. So for price/performance Intel wins in the show down.
that INTEL's top is better in terms of performance/price (what a change!), I have to point you back to the initial post of this thread and some of the comparisons that followed.
INTEL is faster, yes. Not by a great margin, but faster it is.
But if we were to compare equal speeds cpus, INTEL would/will lose.
Now, that's a fact.
Though not really important, unfortunately for AMD right now.
Chronus
Quote:
Originally posted by Chronus
Though I have to admit (after a new look at newegg and http://freespace.virgin.net/m.warner/CPUPricesAMD.htm)
that INTEL's top is better in terms of performance/price (what a change!), I have to point you back to the initial post of this thread and some of the comparisons that followed.
INTEL is faster, yes. Not by a great margin, but faster it is.
But if we were to compare equal speeds cpus, INTEL would/will lose.
Now, that's a fact.
Though not really important, unfortunately for AMD right now.
Chronus
I know you like AMD but give it a rest already. You sound like a poor sport, when you give Intel credit for being faster and then say but if we compare equal clockspeeds its different. It seems to really bother you AMD guys that Intel's chips seem to run several hundred mhz higher. AMD's chip design is not the only way and Intels is not the wrong way. It doesnt make one bit of difference how the chips are designed to run as long as they accomplish the same thing, who cares? Even if one is faster than the other.
But then you payed $560 bux or so for your processor and i payed $93 shipped from newegg and my processor is faster in most benchmarks than the 3.06 DOH...who wins again?Quote:
Originally posted by crashed13
Whats does it matter if the P4 3.06 is clocked higher than the XP 3000+ the P4 still cost less and overclock better. So for price/performance Intel wins in the show down.
kirkyg
I dont need to do "research" i have nothing to prove in here. All im saying is in any games that you run (besides quake3) an equivalently clocked athlon system will DESTROY the p4...there isn't even an argument there. And your on here saying all these benchmarks prove that they are really close even clock for clock . But in real world application THEY ARE NOT period.Quote:
Originally posted by deeznuts
dude, you need to research before mouthing off like that. and i doubt there are much people in here who can hang with Moridin on processor debate. he is the authority on Sharky's about this stuff.
Spec is one of the most important and well known benchmarks out there, as Moridin pointed out. not a silly benchmark like 3dmark, which, i admit, is fun to increase your score (i fall into this every once in a while) but definitely not important.
kirkyg
Colossus,
I have a question regarding your Asus P4S533 system running at 160x21. I have the same motherboard and am just curious what "160x21" means. I presume it's 160 FSB, but 21? I don't have that option in my BIOS.
The highest I can get my system to boot at is 137/34, but it's not stable. I run it at 133/33 with memory at 4:5.
Anyway if you could help me by explaining the 160x21 thing I would very much appreciate it.
Sorry this message is unrelated to the thread...