You can say AMD still have the advantage for the rest of AUGUST in price...but where can you find a 2600+? they are just being ship to vendors as we speak...so it might take another week or so...by then sept comes around and intel will have their 2.53GHz at ~$240...but i would say the 2400+ looks attractive...even at $193...= 2.26GHz (on sept 1st)
You can say AMD still have the advantage for the rest of AUGUST in price...but where can you find a 2600+? they are just being ship to vendors as we speak...so it might take another week or so...by then sept comes around and intel will have their 2.53GHz at ~$240...but i would say the 2400+ looks attractive...even at $193...= 2.26GHz (on sept 1st)
We refrained from making any direct comparisons to other processors in this article other than on an architectural level simply because it's far too early to make any assumptions about the real world performance of Hammer or the processors it will be competing against. The two Hammer based processors we do know about that are codenamed SledgeHammer and ClawHammer (server and performance desktop respectively) should begin sampling in the second half of 2002. You can equate this sampling to the limited quantities of Athlons that were in the market towards the end of 1999, but hopefully we won't have to endure the same motherboard fiasco with the Hammer line. The real ramp of the Hammer architecture will occur in 2003 where the Athlon will begin to fade out of the picture.
Anandtech - Oct23rd 2001 I stand corrected on release date
Sampling hasnt begun yet, but they have had working silicon for a LONG time now. So i would hope it would start soon.
Anandtech - Oct23rd 2001 I stand corrected on release date
Sampling hasnt begun yet, but they have had working silicon for a LONG time now. So i would hope it would start soon.
well, if you can do better then get your lazy bum off this forum and go do it. if not, you should probably not be criticizing the engineers that are working on it.
alexruiz
Platinum Member
- Sep 21, 2001
- 2,836
- 556
- 126
Originally posted by: Boonesmi
wow i didnt expect the xp2600+ to put on such a strong showing
from all the reviews and benchmarks ive been reading this morning it seems there is no clear winner as far as fastest cpu
I totally agree! In fact, that is also what I wreote in my firts post in this thread...
I DID NOT enjoy anandtechs review because they used the fastest AMD chipset and fastest ram for it, and the fastest intel chipset but slower ram. PC-800 like I have said before is about 5% slower then even DDR333 cas2, and I liked how tom used both PC800/PC1066 to give the full 400Mhz 3.2gb/s and 533MHz 4.2gb/s bandwidth. And tom is far from bias twords amd, he really just says what he feels at the point he feels the need to. He did a great review.
SSXeon
SSXeon
Originally posted by: SSXeon5
I DID NOT enjoy anandtechs review because they used the fastest AMD chipset and fastest ram for it, and the fastest intel chipset but slower ram. PC-800 like I have said before is about 5% slower then even DDR333 cas2, and I liked how tom used both PC800/PC1066 to give the full 400Mhz 3.2gb/s and 533MHz 4.2gb/s bandwidth. And tom is far from bias twords amd, he really just says what he feels at the point he feels the need to. He did a great review.
SSXeon
I think the point a lot of people have been making is that PC800 is the fastest official Intel RAM speed. PC1066 is not supported. You can use it, yes, and many motherboards support it. But you can also unlock an Athlon XP and run it at 166 FSB with very little trouble in many boards, should Anand have done that as well? If/when Intel "officially" supports PC1066 RAM then Anand will include it in his reviews (I would think). Just my thoughts.
WELL..we are back to comparing apples vs oranges again...
these are two very different cpu:
1) uses different technology
2) hence different chipset
3) different memory support (only if using RAMBUS for intel, we can eliminate this if both system use ddr)
4) AMD uses 133FSB w/o quadpump; Intel uses 133FSB w/ quadpump. Hence, different bandwidth
these are just a few from the top of my head...
these are two very different cpu:
1) uses different technology
2) hence different chipset
3) different memory support (only if using RAMBUS for intel, we can eliminate this if both system use ddr)
4) AMD uses 133FSB w/o quadpump; Intel uses 133FSB w/ quadpump. Hence, different bandwidth
these are just a few from the top of my head...
apoppin
Lifer
Not exactly true . . . "apples" to oranges would be a PowerMac to an PC system.
Different CPUs or not - the PERFORMANCE can be directly compared with apps and benchmarks; that is why AMD is so careful with their PR system which is tied directly to Chipzilla's Mhz rating. It's the results that count.
not to start a flame war...
but you still can compare powermac to pc with benchmarks if you want to compare benchmarks...
quite funny when you said mac...which is really APPLE...i guess pc = orange
but you still can compare powermac to pc with benchmarks if you want to compare benchmarks...
quite funny when you said mac...which is really APPLE...i guess pc = orange
I didnt criticize anyone, you talk big for someone new to these forums. If you want any respect at all dont treat your forum mates like dirt bro. Just a hint. What i was saying BEFORE was that sampling was supposed to have begun, and i want to see some numbers soon. You turned that into AMD sux at everything intel R0xors!! W000000T!! WEEEE IM acting like im 5 Y3Ar$ 0ld!
When in reality you make me think its hard for you to spell AMD.
If you have nothing intellegent to say, dont say it.
apoppin
Lifer
Pun intended.
PowerMac to PC is far more difficult to compare than Intel to AMD . . . that is ALL I am getting at. Sure there are benchmarks but they run different O/Ss (unlike Intel/AMD).
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: SSXeon5
I DID NOT enjoy anandtechs review because they used the fastest AMD chipset and fastest ram for it, and the fastest intel chipset but slower ram. PC-800 like I have said before is about 5% slower then even DDR333 cas2, and I liked how tom used both PC800/PC1066 to give the full 400Mhz 3.2gb/s and 533MHz 4.2gb/s bandwidth. And tom is far from bias twords amd, he really just says what he feels at the point he feels the need to. He did a great review.
SSXeon
I think the point a lot of people have been making is that PC800 is the fastest official Intel RAM speed. PC1066 is not supported. You can use it, yes, and many motherboards support it. But you can also unlock an Athlon XP and run it at 166 FSB with very little trouble in many boards, should Anand have done that as well? If/when Intel "officially" supports PC1066 RAM then Anand will include it in his reviews (I would think). Just my thoughts.
That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard, 1066 is Supported, offically no. The Intel i850E can use PC1066 running at 1066Mhz very nicely. You comparing memory to a overclocked unlocked Athlon
SSXeon
pow...you missed....just kidding
but of course there are similarities too...
was just trying to look at the entire picture...
but of course there are similarities too...
was just trying to look at the entire picture...
Originally posted by: Boonesmi
166mhz fsb is supported on most kt333 and all kt400 motherboard
hehe not officially, but still supported
Hmm so it 200Mhz fsb for the p4 ..... is that overclocking? Yes yes it is
SSXeon
mechBgon
Super Moderator<br>Elite Member
- Oct 31, 1999
- 30,699
- 1
- 0
All AthlonXPs, and in fact all AMD chips or AMD-related products, are complete trash, made and marketed by crooks, and suitable only for use by wannabe poser hypocrite losers, or lab animals!
...or something. Let's worry about it, shall we? It'll be relevant for at least a couple of months before it's a moot question due to the release of something faster.
...or something.
Let's worry about it, shall we? It'll be relevant for at least a couple of months before it's a moot question due to the release of something faster. You know your just saying that because wile anandtech handicaped (CrazySaint this time i can say it) the 533Mhz fsb with 800Mhz Ram, and when tom didnt handicap it, the P4 2.53GHz wooped up on the 2600+
SSXeon
Yes, aceshardware also did a much better review than anandtech. A lot of people will be buying the high end processor for 3d rendering and the like (maybe a xeon even) and in this case anand should have highlighted the points that aces did below: Read the last sentence especially.
"...our latest tests indicate that with some different BIOS settings we might get 5% better performance out of the Athlon XP. Nevertheless, it is clear that the Athlon XP 2600+ is not even close to the Pentium 4 in this kind of workload. We suspect that VIA's AGP driver and chipset implementation might not be so effective and rather poorly optimized for professional OpenGL applications. Typically these kind of applications move around huge amounts of geometry data, and therefore memory bandwidth and AGP drivers can make a big difference. Both systems were running at AGP 4x, though. In any event, the 2.53 GHz Pentium 4 is the clear leader in this benchmark."
"Four out of seven gaming benchmarks proved to be faster on the Athlon XP 2600+ than on the 2.53 GHz Pentium 4. So, for gamers, the Athlon XP 2600+ lives up to its QS rating and will be a very attractive alternative considering its price.
However, the 2.53 Pentium 4 outperforms the Athlon XP 2600+ by a significant margin in typical workstation creative work. For those kinds of applications, AMD's platform will not outperform Intel's before the Hammer family arrives. We strongly suspect that the Athlon has enough firepower on board to perform well in CAD and 3D-modeling workloads, but that the AGP port and memory bandwidth of the current AMD platform is simply not up to par with Intel's. On the flipside, the Athlon XP 2600+ is clearly the fastest processor in the scientific workloads.
This shows clearly that it is pretty hard to give PR ratings that work for everybody. Of course, both "content creation on high end workstation applications" and scientific workloads are smaller markets, compared to the amount of people that buy a processor to run their games smoothly, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are any less important."
"...our latest tests indicate that with some different BIOS settings we might get 5% better performance out of the Athlon XP. Nevertheless, it is clear that the Athlon XP 2600+ is not even close to the Pentium 4 in this kind of workload. We suspect that VIA's AGP driver and chipset implementation might not be so effective and rather poorly optimized for professional OpenGL applications. Typically these kind of applications move around huge amounts of geometry data, and therefore memory bandwidth and AGP drivers can make a big difference. Both systems were running at AGP 4x, though. In any event, the 2.53 GHz Pentium 4 is the clear leader in this benchmark."
"Four out of seven gaming benchmarks proved to be faster on the Athlon XP 2600+ than on the 2.53 GHz Pentium 4. So, for gamers, the Athlon XP 2600+ lives up to its QS rating and will be a very attractive alternative considering its price.
However, the 2.53 Pentium 4 outperforms the Athlon XP 2600+ by a significant margin in typical workstation creative work. For those kinds of applications, AMD's platform will not outperform Intel's before the Hammer family arrives. We strongly suspect that the Athlon has enough firepower on board to perform well in CAD and 3D-modeling workloads, but that the AGP port and memory bandwidth of the current AMD platform is simply not up to par with Intel's. On the flipside, the Athlon XP 2600+ is clearly the fastest processor in the scientific workloads.
This shows clearly that it is pretty hard to give PR ratings that work for everybody. Of course, both "content creation on high end workstation applications" and scientific workloads are smaller markets, compared to the amount of people that buy a processor to run their games smoothly, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are any less important."
I liked XBitlabs review but once again they used a crappy i845G, the MSI ver. IF you read tomshardware i845G roundup it was the worst i845G out of all of them. It got beat with i845E's and DDR266, wile the MSI had DDR333. But whatever .... i am very pleased with toms reviews.
SSXeon
SSXeon
Boonesmi
Lifer
- Feb 19, 2001
- 14,448
- 1
- 81
SSXeon5 refering to toms review you said it showed "the P4 2.53GHz wooped up on the 2600+"
im not sure how you figure that... looking through the pages of benchmarks there are several the P4 takes the top mark and several the athlon kicks butt on
if anything the article at toms is saying that the athlon is back in the running with the P4 (meaning neither the p4 nor the athlon "wooped up on the" other)
im not sure how you figure that... looking through the pages of benchmarks there are several the P4 takes the top mark and several the athlon kicks butt on
if anything the article at toms is saying that the athlon is back in the running with the P4 (meaning neither the p4 nor the athlon "wooped up on the" other)
Originally posted by: SSXeon5
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: SSXeon5
I DID NOT enjoy anandtechs review because they used the fastest AMD chipset and fastest ram for it, and the fastest intel chipset but slower ram. PC-800 like I have said before is about 5% slower then even DDR333 cas2, and I liked how tom used both PC800/PC1066 to give the full 400Mhz 3.2gb/s and 533MHz 4.2gb/s bandwidth. And tom is far from bias twords amd, he really just says what he feels at the point he feels the need to. He did a great review.
SSXeon
I think the point a lot of people have been making is that PC800 is the fastest official Intel RAM speed. PC1066 is not supported. You can use it, yes, and many motherboards support it. But you can also unlock an Athlon XP and run it at 166 FSB with very little trouble in many boards, should Anand have done that as well? If/when Intel "officially" supports PC1066 RAM then Anand will include it in his reviews (I would think). Just my thoughts.
That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard, 1066 is Supported, offically no. The Intel i850E can use PC1066 running at 1066Mhz very nicely. You comparing memory to a overclocked unlocked Athlon
SSXeon
166 FSB is also supported, but not officially. And changing the FSB (if you lower the multiplier) is not overclocking the Athlon, just the FSB. What's your point? Neither of those two things are in spec with AMD and Intel's "official" specs. The VIA KT333 can run every single Athlon XP ever created at 166 FSB, all you have to do is unlock the CPU. Just because it works doesn't mean it should be tested that way.
there both fast. unless your into benchmarks crazy you cant go wrong. they both get 100fps+ in the latest games. so one might beat the other by a few fps but if your past 100fps in a game it makes no odds. get either be happy. if yer a millionaire get both and be happier
just my 2 cents
just my 2 cents
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter