2400+ mobile at 2400MHz is equivalent to a P4 what?

[shinzwei]

I'm getting my 2400+ mobile sometime next week and plan on getting it to 200x12 which is 2400MHz. What is the P4 equivalent to a 2400MHz Athlon XP?

 

[Manzelle]

It's equivalent to about a P4 3.4-3.5GHz...

 

[shinzwei]

Wow that's very impressive. I'm glad I got me one of these overclocking wonders

 

[JavaMomma]

I just got a Mobile 2500+ its running well at 2400Mhz @ 1.725 Volts.
It runs at 2500Mhz but failed prime after 4 hours....so I think I am just going to leave it at 2400Mhz

 

[Manzelle]

Originally posted by: JavaMomma
I just got a Mobile 2500+ its running well at 2400Mhz @ 1.725 Volts.
It runs at 2500Mhz but failed prime after 4 hours....so I think I am just going to leave it at 2400Mhz

Push that voltage up to 1.750 or 1.775 and I bet it remains stable...what are your current temps?

 

[JavaMomma]

I was at 1.85volts at 2500Mhz when it failed, and I'm not sure if I want to push the volts any higher.
The CPU temps are low-mid 50s under load (51-54)

Oh well even at 2400Mhz I am happy with this CPU.
Shinzwei you'll enjoy it.

 

[Jeff7181]

Well, it's PR rating would put it close to a 3.4 or 3.5 GHz P4... but as we have come to know, the Athlon XP PR ratings were a little big inflated when compared to 800 MHz bus P4's... so... I'd say a 2.4 GHz Athlon XP is more closely comparable to a 3.2 GHz P4.

 

[MrK6]

Ditto, I was gonna say 3.2-3.3 P4.

 

[dannybin1742]

got mine last week from new egg, does 2.4 @ 1.7V, tried 2533, but computer crashes after windows boot, won't even do it at 1.75V, so i'm happy with 2400mhz from a $77 dollar cpu

 

[ponyo]

This is general rule I use when comparing AMD XP vs Intel P4c. (P4c speed)(.8)=(AMD XP speed)

So AMD XP 2.4ghz is similar to P4c 3.0ghz. This is about right considering AMD Barton XP 3200+ @ 2.2ghz is similar speed to P4c 2.8ghz. Barton 2500+ @ 1.8ghz is similar to P4c 2.4ghz.

If you look at past benchmarks you'll see that's about right. AMD started to cheat heavily in their PR ratings after Barton 2500+. XP 3200+ was never competition to P4c 3.2ghz and more line line with P4c 2.8ghz. XP 3200+ should have been named XP 2800+ but AMD was getting their butt kicked by Hyperthreading Northwoods at the time and they stretched the PR ratings with that one.

 

[Manzelle]

Originally posted by: Naustica
This is general rule I use when comparing AMD XP vs Intel P4c. (P4c speed)(.8)=(AMD XP speed)

So AMD XP 2.4ghz is similar to P4c 3.0ghz. This is about right considering AMD Barton XP 3200+ @ 2.2ghz is similar speed to P4c 2.8ghz. Barton 2500+ @ 1.8ghz is similar to P4c 2.4ghz.

If you look at past benchmarks you'll see that's about right. AMD started to cheat heavily in their PR ratings after Barton 2500+. XP 3200+ was never competition to P4c 3.2ghz and more line line with P4c 2.8ghz. XP 3200+ should have been named XP 2800+ but AMD was getting their butt kicked by Hyperthreading Northwoods at the time and they stretched the PR ratings with that one.

Is this a joke?

 

[KDKPSJ]

I'd say around P4 3.2 without HT (So.. 3.2b?!?). I think there's no meaning to compare non-HT CPU with HT CPU. They are not totally different like Athlon 64 and the other 32-bit only CPUs, but still they are pretty different to be compared.

 

[lobadobadingdong]

Originally posted by: Manzelle

Originally posted by: Naustica
This is general rule I use when comparing AMD XP vs Intel P4c. (P4c speed)(.8)=(AMD XP speed)

So AMD XP 2.4ghz is similar to P4c 3.0ghz. This is about right considering AMD Barton XP 3200+ @ 2.2ghz is similar speed to P4c 2.8ghz. Barton 2500+ @ 1.8ghz is similar to P4c 2.4ghz.

If you look at past benchmarks you'll see that's about right. AMD started to cheat heavily in their PR ratings after Barton 2500+. XP 3200+ was never competition to P4c 3.2ghz and more line line with P4c 2.8ghz. XP 3200+ should have been named XP 2800+ but AMD was getting their butt kicked by Hyperthreading Northwoods at the time and they stretched the PR ratings with that one.

Is this a joke?

That's what I was wondering. the pr ratings are usually a little under the p4 clock speed, not over.

 

[ponyo]

Originally posted by: Manzelle

Originally posted by: Naustica
This is general rule I use when comparing AMD XP vs Intel P4c. (P4c speed)(.8)=(AMD XP speed)

So AMD XP 2.4ghz is similar to P4c 3.0ghz. This is about right considering AMD Barton XP 3200+ @ 2.2ghz is similar speed to P4c 2.8ghz. Barton 2500+ @ 1.8ghz is similar to P4c 2.4ghz.

If you look at past benchmarks you'll see that's about right. AMD started to cheat heavily in their PR ratings after Barton 2500+. XP 3200+ was never competition to P4c 3.2ghz and more line line with P4c 2.8ghz. XP 3200+ should have been named XP 2800+ but AMD was getting their butt kicked by Hyperthreading Northwoods at the time and they stretched the PR ratings with that one.

Is this a joke?

Why do you think that? Do you have benchmarks that say otherwise?
Would you call this review by Anand a joke? Anand P4c 3.2ghz review

Barton 3200+ 2.2ghz is not even competition to P4c 3.2ghz. It's more competition to P4c 2.8ghz and even then is slower to P4c 2.8ghz. Barton 3200+ 2.2ghz should have been named 2800+ 2.2ghz from the beginning. If you believe AMD Barton 3200+ PR rating, the joke is on you.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Naustica
This is general rule I use when comparing AMD XP vs Intel P4c. (P4c speed)(.8)=(AMD XP speed)

So AMD XP 2.4ghz is similar to P4c 3.0ghz. This is about right considering AMD Barton XP 3200+ @ 2.2ghz is similar speed to P4c 2.8ghz. Barton 2500+ @ 1.8ghz is similar to P4c 2.4ghz.

If you look at past benchmarks you'll see that's about right. AMD started to cheat heavily in their PR ratings after Barton 2500+. XP 3200+ was never competition to P4c 3.2ghz and more line line with P4c 2.8ghz. XP 3200+ should have been named XP 2800+ but AMD was getting their butt kicked by Hyperthreading Northwoods at the time and they stretched the PR ratings with that one.

Nobody's cheating at anything... they can name their processors whatever they want... they could name it an XP6500 and it's not cheating. And as far as I know, AMD still maintains that their PR ratings have nothing to do with the Pentium 4... that "XP3200" means it would perform similarly to a 3.2 GHz Athlon (the original Athlon, the one before the Athlon XP).

 

[ponyo]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: Naustica
This is general rule I use when comparing AMD XP vs Intel P4c. (P4c speed)(.8)=(AMD XP speed)

So AMD XP 2.4ghz is similar to P4c 3.0ghz. This is about right considering AMD Barton XP 3200+ @ 2.2ghz is similar speed to P4c 2.8ghz. Barton 2500+ @ 1.8ghz is similar to P4c 2.4ghz.

If you look at past benchmarks you'll see that's about right. AMD started to cheat heavily in their PR ratings after Barton 2500+. XP 3200+ was never competition to P4c 3.2ghz and more line line with P4c 2.8ghz. XP 3200+ should have been named XP 2800+ but AMD was getting their butt kicked by Hyperthreading Northwoods at the time and they stretched the PR ratings with that one.

Nobody's cheating at anything... they can name their processors whatever they want... they could name it an XP6500 and it's not cheating. And as far as I know, AMD still maintains that their PR ratings have nothing to do with the Pentium 4... that "XP3200" means it would perform similarly to a 3.2 GHz Athlon (the original Athlon, the one before the Athlon XP).

I know that's their official line, but I've never bought that line. They were pretty conservative in their PR rating until XP 3200+.

 

[klah]

Mobile 2500+ @ 2.5GHz is pretty close to a 3.2E: http://www.bit-tech.net/review/309/8

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: lobadobadingdong

Originally posted by: Manzelle

Originally posted by: Naustica
This is general rule I use when comparing AMD XP vs Intel P4c. (P4c speed)(.8)=(AMD XP speed)

So AMD XP 2.4ghz is similar to P4c 3.0ghz. This is about right considering AMD Barton XP 3200+ @ 2.2ghz is similar speed to P4c 2.8ghz. Barton 2500+ @ 1.8ghz is similar to P4c 2.4ghz.

If you look at past benchmarks you'll see that's about right. AMD started to cheat heavily in their PR ratings after Barton 2500+. XP 3200+ was never competition to P4c 3.2ghz and more line line with P4c 2.8ghz. XP 3200+ should have been named XP 2800+ but AMD was getting their butt kicked by Hyperthreading Northwoods at the time and they stretched the PR ratings with that one.

Is this a joke?

That's what I was wondering. the pr ratings are usually a little under the p4 clock speed, not over.

Back in the P4 and P4B days, this was true. Actually, the ratings line up very nicely with the performance of 533fsb P4s. With Hyperthreading and 800fsb though, the P4 really laid a beating on the Athlon XP in most applications, and absolutely throttled them in any sort of encoding. I would say getting a mobile up to 2.4 or 2.5 ghz would pretty much be enough to call it 'equivalent' to a 3.2ghz P4 for general use.

 

[Dman877]

I'd say it varies from app to app with the range being a 2.4 barton = a P4 from 2.8 (encoding/rendering in general) to 3.3ish(gaming, math intensive stuff).

 

[cremefilled]

Anybody care to compare the A64 3000+ or 3200+ with the P4? I think that most would agree that an A64 3000+ beats an XP 3200+ pretty conclusively.

I'd guess that A64 3200+ ~ P4 3.4E. . . but I'm willing to be proven wrong.

 

[Shimmishim]

i'm pretty sure that the A64 3000+ is faster than a 3200+ XP (this is at stock of course)

as for guessing what an A64 3200+ is comparable to...

yeah, i have no idea

 

[rogue1979]

A stock 3200+ at 2200MHz is good competition for a 2.8C. But we are taking about a 2400MHz, probably above a 200MHz fsb.

So I would guess 3.1-3.2GHz P4 = Barton @ 2400MHz.

 

[DragonFire]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Back in the P4 and P4B days, this was true. Actually, the ratings line up very nicely with the performance of 533fsb P4s. With Hyperthreading and 800fsb though, the P4 really laid a beating on the Athlon XP in most applications, and absolutely throttled them in any sort of encoding. I would say getting a mobile up to 2.4 or 2.5 ghz would pretty much be enough to call it 'equivalent' to a 3.2ghz P4 for general use.

Just think, the only way intel could beat the XP was to increase the FSB 4X and add there hyberthreading crap........

Just think what a XP at 2.0Ghz would do if it had the same things......

 

[KDKPSJ]

Originally posted by: DragonFire

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
Back in the P4 and P4B days, this was true. Actually, the ratings line up very nicely with the performance of 533fsb P4s. With Hyperthreading and 800fsb though, the P4 really laid a beating on the Athlon XP in most applications, and absolutely throttled them in any sort of encoding. I would say getting a mobile up to 2.4 or 2.5 ghz would pretty much be enough to call it 'equivalent' to a 3.2ghz P4 for general use.

Just think, the only way intel could beat the XP was to increase the FSB 4X and add there hyberthreading crap........

Just think what a XP at 2.0Ghz would do if it had the same things......

Well, I can't think of that because that Hyperthreading crap is the most efficient way Intel to use Intel's long pipeline, which AMD can't because of its short pipeline. Both architecture has its advantage and disadvantage, but for sure, Intel sure does know what the most efficient way to use it, and so does AMD. Anyway, I think it's pretty meaningless to imagine "what if AthlonXP has HT...", because it's just not for AMD's CPUs with those short pipeline.

BTW, for me, Hyperthreading crap is absolutely one of the best (and smart) feature Intel brought to the market. And because of that, I won't be heading back to AMD until actual dual-core CPUs show up.

 

[DragonFire]

I do see your point but how about this, what if Intel used short pipelines instead? Then again they wouldnt have cpus running at 3Ghz+....

You know, I really dont see the point of dual cores intill almost all apps and games are coded to use it. Otherwise it nothing more then a dual setup which most destop users dont need.