AMD may pass Intel, and release a 3400 first.......(Intel in trouble they say, I doubt it)

[Markfw]

Check this out:AMD to release 3400+ on Tues the 6th
[/bad German accent] Vedy Interestink...................

 

[wetcat007]

Intel is too big to be in trouble, they already are in trouble with the Athlon 64 sure, but consumers=idiots and will see intel commercials and assume intel is faster.

 

[JustAnAverageGuy]

/wants some benchies

/wants cheaper A64 prices

 

[OddTSi]

This is from the inquirer. A site that is devoted to making up articles based solely on their opinion and bias (which seems to be against Intel and for AMD).

 

[Pocatello]

Originally posted by: OddTSi
This is from the inquirer. A site that is devoted to making up articles based solely on their opinion and bias (which seems to be against Intel and for AMD).

Not to mention bashing Microsoft everyday.

 

[Bovinicus]

That is good for AMD, but not necessarily bad for Intel. Consumers are still going to purchase Intel products just because they trust the brand name. Granted, it will improve the status of AMD, but it isn't going to spell any serious trouble for Intel.

Another important fact to note is that Intel has already lost the performance crown to the 3200+. Hell, even the 3000+ beats out the 3.2GHz P4 in multiple gaming and general usage benchmarks. The only area where Intel still has a clear performance lead is video encoding. So, the 3400+ only represents an increase in clockspeed for the A64, not a loss of the performance crown for Intel.

 

[ViRGE]

Naa, the Inq is equally stupid and biased against everyone. Their reporting method seems to be simply throwing darts to determine a story.

 

[sparks]

AMD needs to be more agressive than Intel in order for them to be competative. Intel is so big and dominant that AMD must always try to stay a step ahead in order to be profitable. Remember where their stock prices and profit levels were when AMD had a commanding lead with their Athlons VS Intels <2Ghz P4.

 

[Sid59]

they crack me up, i enjoy reading their stuff.

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: Bovinicus
Another important fact to note is that Intel has already lost the performance crown to the 3200+. Hell, even the 3000+ beats out the 3.2GHz P4 in multiple gaming and general usage benchmarks. The only area where Intel still has a clear performance lead is video encoding. So, the 3400+ only represents an increase in clockspeed for the A64, not a loss of the performance crown for Intel.

No it hasn't. The P4 3.2 wins more benchmarks than it loses and has clear leads in video/audio encoding, 3D rendering and beats the A64 handily in multi-tasking situations.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Accord99

Originally posted by: Bovinicus
Another important fact to note is that Intel has already lost the performance crown to the 3200+. Hell, even the 3000+ beats out the 3.2GHz P4 in multiple gaming and general usage benchmarks. The only area where Intel still has a clear performance lead is video encoding. So, the 3400+ only represents an increase in clockspeed for the A64, not a loss of the performance crown for Intel.

No it hasn't. The P4 3.2 wins more benchmarks than it loses and has clear leads in video/audio encoding, 3D rendering and beats the A64 handily in multi-tasking situations.

you must be reading THG to much the ONLY site ive ever seen to place the 3.2 ahead of the A64.

 

[Venomous]

Im with him ^^ ^^ above.

This is the year for AMD to take back speed crown while being clocked 1 gig slower.

 

[Accord99]

The P4 3.2 beats the A64 3200+ in most tests in Techreport, Extremetech, Computerbase to name a few.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Accord99
The P4 3.2 beats the A64 3200+ in most tests in Techreport, Extremetech, Computerbase to name a few.

OK, how about a respected site like ANANDTECH who doesn't see it that way. You got any respected sites, instead of ones nobody has heard of ?

Edit I also agree with Nick and others, the Athlon64FX beats the P4EE, and the Athlon64 3200+ beats the P4 3.2 in way more than half the benches. I even read Toms article, and if you exclude the OC'ed machines, his benches even give it to the Athlon64.

 

[Accord99]

Personally, I prefer reviews which do a more thorough job.

And are you talking about the same Tomshardware review where the P4 3.2 won 75% of the benchmarks compared the the A64 3200+?

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: Accord99
The P4 3.2 beats the A64 3200+ in most tests in Techreport, Extremetech, Computerbase to name a few.

OK, how about a respected site like ANANDTECH who doesn't see it that way. You got any respected sites, instead of ones nobody has heard of ?

Respected is relative. There are people on HardOCP, Arstechnica, Tomshardware, etc, that feel AnandTech is a bloke. Although mistakes and biases in Anand's reviews are few, saying that AnandTech is the sole "respected" site is foolish. Instead of relying on one source, you should extrapolate from a variety of sources. Given most tech review sites, its fairly evident that the 3.2C = A64 3200+ and the P4-3.2EE = AFX-51. When one beats the other by a whole +/- 5%, it is very well within the margin of error.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Accord99
Personally, I prefer reviews which do a more thorough job.

And are you talking about the same Tomshardware review where the P4 3.2 won 75% of the benchmarks compared the the A64 3200+?

yeah, thats the one. i think thats the same website that intel sponsors with ad banners.

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: nick1985

yeah, thats the one. i think thats the same website that intel sponsors with ad banners.

Do you trust the reviews from sites which are sponsored by AMD then?

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: Accord99
The P4 3.2 beats the A64 3200+ in most tests in Techreport, Extremetech, Computerbase to name a few.

OK, how about a respected site like ANANDTECH who doesn't see it that way. You got any respected sites, instead of ones nobody has heard of ?

Respected is relative. There are people on HardOCP, Arstechnica, Tomshardware, etc, that feel AnandTech is a bloke. Although mistakes and biases in Anand's reviews are few, saying that AnandTech is the sole "respected" site is foolish. Instead of relying on one source, you should extrapolate from a variety of sources. Given most tech review sites, its fairly evident that the 3.2C = A64 3200+ and the P4-3.2EE = AFX-51. When one beats the other by a whole +/- 5%, it is very well within the margin of error.

Where did I say that Anandtech was the ONLY respected site. There are several, Anandtech, Tomshardware, aceshardware,hardocp that are mentioned many times in these forums. This is the first I have heard of these other sites. And I have all but stopped reading Tomshardware since his reviews were handed out to flunkies who don;t know what they are doing. And though I agree the P4EE and FX51 are close, I don't think that holds true for the P4 3.2 and the Athlon64 3200+.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Accord99
Personally, I prefer reviews which do a more thorough job.

And are you talking about the same Tomshardware review where the P4 3.2 won 75% of the benchmarks compared the the A64 3200+?

yeah, thats the one. i think thats the same website that intel sponsors with ad banners.

Actually, there isnt a single Intel ad in Tomshardware at this moment (I dont know if you count Asus/MSI/Giga-byte ads as Intel ads).

When the Athlon64 launched, there was a slew of AMD ads. When the P4 and Centrino launched, there was a slew of Intel ads. It depends on when you visit. Odd that you mention Tomshardware is Intel biased because he has these supposed Intel banners, but you somehow ignore all the AMD banners on Anandtech.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Accord99
Personally, I prefer reviews which do a more thorough job.

And are you talking about the same Tomshardware review where the P4 3.2 won 75% of the benchmarks compared the the A64 3200+?

yeah, thats the one. i think thats the same website that intel sponsors with ad banners.

Next he'll toss the link where they decide to compare a 3.2C to an overclocked athlonxp at 2.4Ghz and announce that Intel is the winner

I would read all review sites but THG is biased- granted AT does have ad sponsers too, but I thikn if they are lying to us they are doing it in a much more subtle manner that gets us all

 

[mechBgon]

It's interesting to see how strongly the multitasking/hyperthreading card gets played sometimes Remember guys... not everyone runs WinXP. I don't. And if the time comes when I do, it'll almost certainly be WinXP 64-Bit Edition.

Intel has the HT card in their hand, and the SSE3 card yet to play. AMD has both the 64-bit card to play (whenever Microsoft's ready) and will be bringing the second memory controller online with Socket 939 Athlon 64's. Since that, not simply MHz, seems to be the key to the intense performance of the Athlon64 FX, it'll be interesting to see what it does for standard Athlon64s. As best I can figure out, the S939 and WinXP 64-bit are both due out this spring. It could be an interesting 1-2 punch if they both happened at the same time. It'll certainly be an interesting year

 

[Pocatello]

The Athlon 64 will give intel as much problems as the early Athlons gave the Pentium 3 and Pentium 4 a few years back, which mean intel doesn't lose much sleep .

 

[Bovinicus]

Originally posted by: Accord99

No it hasn't. The P4 3.2 wins more benchmarks than it loses and has clear leads in video/audio encoding, 3D rendering and beats the A64 handily in multi-tasking situations.

I did mention that Intel still has a strong lead in video encoding. No one is denying that. However, in Anand's review, the only leads that Intel has in the gaming arena are about 1%, indicating that the benchmarks are video card limited anyway. The 3200+ takes a significant lead in Q3A and UT2003. The other benchmarks are essentially even. I don't consider one CPU winning unless there is at least a 5-10% lead in performance. Again, workstation application performance is essentially even. Then, the A64 takes the lead in general usage performance, but the difference is right on the border of negligible. The point is, the CPUs are very close in performance. For video encoding, the P4 is the clear winner. However, for every other arena the A64 takes a couple of significant leads while the P4 takes no significant leads.

Also, I just noticed on Tom's Hardware that they used more aggressive memory timings for the P4 than the Athlon 64. They used 2-2-2-5 timings with the 875 based motherboard, and the Athlon 64 only got to see 2.5-3-3-7 timings on the K8T800 setup. Beyond this, they used 4 DIMMs on the 875 based motherboard and only 2 DIMMs on the Athlon seutp. This could definitely affect performance because of bank interleaving.

 

[Accord99]

Originally posted by: Bovinicus
I did mention that Intel still has a strong lead in video encoding. No one is denying that. However, in Anand's review, the only leads that Intel has in the gaming arena are about 1%, indicating that the benchmarks are video card limited anyway. The 3200+ takes a significant lead in Q3A and UT2003. The other benchmarks are essentially even. I don't consider one CPU winning unless there is at least a 5-10% lead in performance. Again, workstation application performance is essentially even. Then, the A64 takes the lead in general usage performance, but the difference is right on the border of negligible. The point is, the CPUs are very close in performance. For video encoding, the P4 is the clear winner. However, for every other arena the A64 takes a couple of significant leads while the P4 takes no significant leads.

And the P4 has significant leads in 3D rendering, MP3 encoding, speech recognition and also beats the A64 in ScienceMark's 2 most computing intensive benchmarks, which are traditionally strong areas for AMD. And when you multi-task with two computing intensive applications, then the P4s are clearly better than any Athlon.

Also, I just noticed on Tom's Hardware that they used more aggressive memory timings for the P4 than the Athlon 64. They used 2-2-2-5 timings with the 875 based motherboard, and the Athlon 64 only got to see 2.5-3-3-7 timings on the K8T800 setup. Beyond this, they used 4 DIMMs on the 875 based motherboard and only 2 DIMMs on the Athlon seutp. This could definitely affect performance because of bank interleaving.

From what I've read, its because the A64 platform was not stable with the faster timings or with 3 DIMMs filled, and typically 4 DIMMs are slightly slower than 2 DIMMs on the P4 platform.