Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

amd vs intel article

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • amd vs intel article

    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..

  • #2
    Originally posted by aznx
    amd vs intel article
    what article :confused:

    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

    Comment


    • #3
      I'm guessing he's talking about the Intel 3.2Ghz vs AMD 3200+ review on TT.

      Comment


      • #4
        This one:

        http://www.tweaktown.com/document.ph...review&dId=487
        Cameron "Mr.Tweak" Wilmot
        Managing Director
        Tweak Town Pty Ltd

        Comment


        • #5
          k7 core is exactly the same though..whoopie, on core l2 and more l2 =)

          Comment


          • #6
            Anyway great review, Intel opened up a can of god ol' spankin as usual..
            Exept for this darn MP3 encoding.. :rolleyes2

            BTW I read that the P4 runs cooler than AMD's counterpart, that was news to me.. :shrug:



            Comment


            • #7
              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


              • #8
                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


                • #9
                  While supporting a 400MHz FSB, this is no where near enough to handle what is needed by today’s games and applications.
                  Great stuff you're smoking.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Samlind
                    Great stuff you're smoking.
                    It was a quote.. :devil win

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Cameron Johnson
                      The 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.
                      Hmmmm...... So they didn't go from .25 micron to .18 micron and then to .13 micron? And they didn't include better branch prediction starting with the XP line? What ever! :rolleyes2

                      Originally posted by Cameron Johnson
                      While supporting a 400MHz FSB, this is no where near enough to handle what is needed by today’s games and 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+ is no where near enough to handle what is needed by today’s games and applications...... NOT!

                      What kind of joke statements are those? That article had "Intel bias" written all over it. What a joke!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by The__tweaker
                          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:
                          Branch prediction can and does improve performance.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by rkane
                              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.
                              Um.... you wanna enlighten me on how it works?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X