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..
Announcement
Collapse
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
-
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.
Ohhhhhh.... I see! So that has been my problem the whole time!! Cause when I play UT2003 or BF1942 my system can only play them at like 2 or 3 frames per second! Apparently it has escaped me that my Athlon XP 2800+
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.
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.
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