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

[Zebo]

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.

There is no reason to guess. The review is right here Link...

I agree with Naustica, the 2.4 moblie wins some (anything FPU related) but mainly the 3.2 northwood beats it. About a 3.0 -3.1, have a look.

 

[KDKPSJ]

Originally posted by: 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.

Oh well, Intel does have Dothan, which satisfies that. Just imagine Dothan running at 2.0+ GHz and priced around 200 bucks. Well, seems like there's no end for our imagination

I personally think dual-core (or HT, or normal dual setup) is pretty useful for this day normal users, too. Just run 3D game while encoding running background. Or watch high resolution DivX while you play 3D game. You sure will feel the difference.

 

[shinzwei]

Wow thanks for all of your responses, I'm really learning alot here

 

[Zap]

Originally posted by: everydae
Oh well, Intel does have Dothan, which satisfies that. Just imagine Dothan running at 2.0+ GHz and priced around 200 bucks. Well, seems like there's no end for our imagination

That's some pretty good imagination you have there. Let's see, how many years of price drops would have to occur for that CPU to drop from $700 to $200...

Here's my Xmas wish list computer if the stuff becomes available and a bigger IF I CAN AFFORD IT:
Rumored Shuttle XPC for Pentium M
Dothan 2.133
Pioneer 108 burner (already available)
two 400GB Seagate SATA HDD with 16MB cache and 7200RPM (no RAID needed, just need data space)
Geforce 6800GT (limited availability)

As some famous dead dude said, "I have a dream.

 

[3chordcharlie]

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......

The AXP is a really efficient design (much better than P3, not as good as Banias), and at higher clock speeds it really got some benefit from the increased 333 and 400fsb speeds. But a quad-pumped bus wouldn't significantly improve things; AXP seems to operate quite well on the old rule of 5xbus speed = processor speed. Amazingly, even at 2.4ghz, the P4 showed it was bandwidth starved on the older 533fsb (4.5 effective multiplier). I find that incredible; the 2.4C ran with a final effective multiplier of 3!!.

Hyperthreading allows intel to really cement their lead in some types of processing, and to offer a somewhat better multitasking experience than the AXP; this is mainly needed because without it, the P4 offers a pretty terrible multitasking experience, as it spends most of its time flushing the pipe. The AXP was arguably the best available design when bus speeds were capped at 266/333 ddr and 400/533 qdr. When 400ddr and 800qdr became available, the Netburst architecture had enough bandwidth to take the AXP to the cleaners.

 

[Rottie]

what about 2400+ t-bread and barton close to what?

 

[rogue1979]

Ok, my wife just got a new 2.26B and overclocked it to a 188MHz fsb for 3.2GHz.

I compared this to my 2400+ mobile@2300MHz on a 200MHz fsb.

I only ran a few benchmarks and yes the AMD has a slightly higher fsb speed, so what.

The Asus P4S800D (SiS) scored just under 12K with a Radeon 8500 128MB@300/300.
Just over 15K with a Ti4600@315/700.

The nForce2 setup scored just under 12K with the Radeon, and just over 15K with the Ti4600.

Dead even in 3DMark2001.

Yes, by this time I was to lazy to bring out the 9700Pro, but I am sure similar results would have been found.

Using the older Sandra 2002 the P4 was generally ahead of the Barton in most benchmarks, never by much.
Only in memory bandwidth did the P4 hurt the Barton.

Mobile AMD 2400+ $73

Northwood 2.26B $116