the k7 core is soo damn old, and being able to still compete with intel's p4 is pretty impressive. the k7 started at like 600 mhz? i think..and now all the way up to 2ghz+. thats pretty amazing for one old ass core;) cant blame amd too much. and mhz isnt everything, those g4s and g5s..drool. intel went from 1.4ghz to 3+. good feat, but the architecture is a lot newer too..
No announcement yet.
amd vs intel article
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by aznxamd vs intel article
the K7 line of processors has had serveral different cores...thunderbird, palamino, thoroughbred, barton,...and that is just the Athlon line, the Duron's had a few upgrades too
-
Cameron "Mr.Tweak" Wilmot
Managing Director
Tweak Town Pty Ltd
Comment
-
The conclusion was certainly overstated.
"While supporting a 400MHz FSB, this [AMD 3200+] is no where near enough to handle what is needed by today’s games and applications."
Funny. Looking at the benches the games are pushing over 200 fps. I'd say either chip is more than capable. Better upgrade though since to handle today's games a 3200+ isn't powerful enough.
Comment
-
200 FPS.. thats a dream for me.. when im hitting 25 im in heaven! I really do not think anything about 50 matters.. I mean I will be keeping my 1700+ for a long time.. untill the clawhammer get well underway, and you know what, ill bet you once i get my 9800 pro seated in here ill be doing 100FPS easy.. so whats the point at looking at game benchs for a CPU? One word.. picky!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cameron JohnsonThe AMD Athlon XP 3200+, while fast is no match for the top of the line Pentium 4. Athlon XP is simply a faster version of the original Thunderbird core released in 1999 since there have only been two major changes: Cache increase from 256Kbyte to 512Kbyte in the Barton core and the addition of SSE in the CPU to allow the Athlon XP CPU to run Intel SSE applications.
Originally posted by Cameron JohnsonWhile supporting a 400MHz FSB, this is no where near enough to handle what is needed by today’s games and applications.
What kind of joke statements are those? That article had "Intel bias" written all over it. What a joke!
Comment
-
It was a fair test of two competing products, done by our own Cameron. I love those tests that can help clearing out what's good and what's less good. It was a great review done in a very professional way, as always. :) :2cents:
Btw he was talking about major performance changes, branch prediction etc has nothing to do with it. :)
:cheers:
Comment
-
Originally posted by The__tweakerIt was a fair test of two competing products, done by our own Cameron. I love those tests that can help clearing out what's good and what's less good. It was a great review done in a very professional way, as always. :) :2cents:
Btw he was talking about major performance changes, branch prediction etc has nothing to do with it. :)
:cheers:
Comment
-
My only response is... WTF!?
I think it's funny that it is almost impossible to find a set of benchmarks for these 2 competing processors that will accurately compare them. In this article they use mostly Intel Biased benchmarks, and in others I have read you can see that Athlon XP can beat the latest P4. I just wish someone would do a review using a comparable number of Intel Biased benches vs. AMD Biased benches.
I agree that there is no need for over 200 fps. The average person can see no more than 70fps in the first place.
Here's a benchmark you can use on any system to see how well it will really work doing everyday activities.
www.caosciotocounty.org/rcable/zipcodes.zip
I haven't put up a reporting site yet so that you can compare scores but I have a P4 1.6 here at work and it completed the test in 42:13.
Comment
-
Originally posted by rkaneHere's a benchmark you can use on any system to see how well it will really work doing everyday activities.
www.caosciotocounty.org/rcable/zipcodes.zip
I haven't put up a reporting site yet so that you can compare scores but I have a P4 1.6 here at work and it completed the test in 42:13.
Comment
Comment