Anand: "Intel has performance crown in all measurable categories"

KenAF

Senior member
Jan 6, 2002
684
0
0
I was personally surprised that Intel has taken the performance lead in such new and upcoming games as Unreal2 and Return to Castle Wolfenstein.

From Anand's summary right here"

As the last 100MHz FSB Pentium 4 processor there's not much you can say about the 2.4GHz part; on the one hand it has given Intel the performance crown in all of the measurable categories, but on the other it lacks the 133MHz FSB support that will give its successors a little extra boost.

The Athlon and Athlon XP processors have been outperforming Intel's Pentium 4 line ever since its release in November of 2000; but now with the Northwood core and higher clock speeds, the performance game is much more competitive. Bringing the 133MHz FSB to the table will grant these CPUs another 0 - 15% boost in performance (depending on the application, but most will be around 5%) and that performance delta will only grow as applications become more demanding and the Pentium 4 increases in clock speed even more.

In terms of frequency headroom, the Northwood core definitely has a lot of breathing room. It's not difficult at all to take even these 2.4GHz CPUs up to close to 3GHz levels without resorting to anything other than conventional air-cooling. It will be very interesting to see what sort of headroom the 0.13-micron AMD Thoroughbred core offers as it could bring AMD some very compelling clock speed options going forward.

The one area where AMD still holds the advantage over Intel (at least in the DIY enthusiast market) is in pricing. The Athlon XPs are still more affordable than the Pentium 4s when comparing model numbers to identical clock speed Northwood cores (e.g. XP 2000+ to a Pentium 4 2.0A). The move down to 0.13-micron cores will grant AMD even more pricing flexibility if necessary. On the Intel side, the use of 300mm wafers helps cut production costs by significant amounts as well.

By now we have already said good-bye to two of the most highly anticipated CPU cores in recent memory. Intel's Northwood won't change much outside of being officially validated for 133MHz FSB operation while AMD's Thoroughbred will put their 0.13-micron process to the test. Intel has the potential to pull ahead even more in the performance game provided that AMD doesn't introduce Barton with any architectural enhancements. However, the rules of the game will change once Hammer hits.
 

ST4RCUTTER

Platinum Member
Feb 13, 2001
2,841
0
0
This was pretty much expected. It was evident that the 2.2 was pretty much neck-in-neck with the Athlon 2100+ in Anand's earlier review. The 2.4Ghz version widens that gap even more.

AMD has nothing that can compete agains the 2.4Ghz model, at least nothing that runs on the .18um process. After reading the aformentioned Anandtech article it becomes clear that a 166FSB Athlon doesn't offer enough improvement in performance to be justified. AMD is better off getting Hammer out in October rather than try and compete with the Athlon which is getting pretty long in the tooth.

It's also interesting that Tom's hardware shows a 1.5V Thoroughbred. Most people here are predicting 1.6 to 1.65 core voltage. I think AMD's strategy may be to give up some desktop marketshare in exchange for a bite of laptop sales for now and then pull out the Hammer later. From a business point of view it makes more sense. The mobile P4 at 1.7 w/SDR SDRAM or even DDR will be hard pressed to compete against a Tbred based laptop. AMD could afford to sell desktop Thouroughbreds for less by selling mobile processors for more. I certainly hope that's the case anyway...I'm not in the market for a laptop. :D
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
the tom's hardware one might be a guestimate based on the voltage of the northwood.
 

nortexoid

Diamond Member
May 1, 2000
4,096
0
0
that's cuz the dink ran the athlon on an inferior platform...check out all the other reviews, where it shows the athlon running on a KT333 w/ PC2700 @ CAS2 beating the P4 in a number of benchmarks...try these.

hardOCP
check out the XP own in sciencemark
firing squad (ignore the o/ced P4 scores at the top)

etc., yawn

anyway, both are excellent procs..the 2100+ is far better for the price...unless u're a hardcore overclocker...at any rate, i'd still take a lower clocked northwood (i.e. 1.6/1.8) over an athlon and o/c it to 2.2ghz+ and still have it run cooler than the XP.
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
Makes me happy I just upgraded to a Northwood. :)

Either AMD or Intel gets you into the top performance class right now. Pick one or the other and add a WD1200JB and a Ti4400/4600. In video-limited games you'll experience identical performance.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0


<< Makes me happy I just upgraded to a Northwood. >>

I feel that I bought into Intel Fanboys hype when I upgraded my 1.2 Tbird to a P4 1.6a OC'd 2.24. You'd think a 1000MHZ bump would really be noticable to the naked eye. While it's faster it isn't a whole ghz faster.
 

AGodspeed

Diamond Member
Jul 26, 2001
3,353
0
0
Yeah, I was wondering if Tom made a typo or something. 1.5V would certainly help Tbred for cooling and overclocking purposes.

Anyway, it's clear that the 2.4GHz P4 is faster, by about an average of 5-10% in Anand's review. Some other reviews used faster Athlon boards though, so that lead is actually somewhat less. Still, AMD won't have anything that can compete with this until the AXP 2200+ Palomino is released, which should close the gap to around 5% or less with the 2.4GHz P4.
 

NFS4

No Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
72,636
47
91


<<

<< Makes me happy I just upgraded to a Northwood. >>

I feel that I bought into Intel Fanboys hype when I upgraded my 1.2 Tbird to a P4 1.6a OC'd 2.24. You'd think a 1000MHZ bump would really be noticable to the naked eye. While it's faster it isn't a whole ghz faster.
>>


I'm sticking with my 1.4GHz T-Bird until Hammer gets here.
 

Legendary

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2002
7,019
1
0
Heh I'm with that...I'm holding onto my 500 mhz P3 until Hammer gets here :D
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0


<< LOL, I hear ya Red Dawn. The fan boys are just blinded by the MHz (err, GHz) jump. When in reality, it's not that much of a difference. That's why I'm sticking with my 1.4GHz T-Bird until Hammer gets here. >>

Well to be honest my system is cooler and quiter and the Motherboard I'm using is better than the one I had. There just isn't that "Wow" factor one would expect. The P4 is not an impressive CPU.
 

gregor7777

Platinum Member
Nov 16, 2001
2,758
0
71
When I upgrade a CPU I want a straight kick in the nuts. I mean, something that says "How ya doin'?", you know.

I have nothing against Intel (except for that damn jingle) but from what everyone says, even though it's a GHz o/c, you have to take it for what it's worth: an Intel GHz. Just doesn't mean as much as an AMD GHz. Doesn't get as much done in that 1000MHz as an Athlon would.

Just my $0.02. :)
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Red Dawn wrote:

"Well to be honest my system is cooler and quiter and the Motherboard I'm using is better than the one I had. There just isn't that "Wow" factor one would expect. The P4 is not an impressive CPU."

That's the big advantage right there: cooler. quietier. and higher performing.

Northwood isn't significantly faster than AthlonXP (speaking broadly; in some areas, it most certainly is), but it runs much cooler, has (IMHO) much better mainboards, and the on-die thermal monitoring and protection are invaluable. AMD could take a few lessons ...
 

grant2

Golden Member
May 23, 2001
1,165
23
81
The one area where AMD still holds the advantage over Intel (at least in the DIY enthusiast market) is in pricing. The Athlon XPs are still more affordable than the Pentium 4s when comparing model numbers to identical clock speed Northwood cores (e.g. XP 2000+ to a Pentium 4 2.0A).

Athlon XP 1.6ghz -> $160
Pentium 4 1.6ghz -> $132

What happened to AMD supposed policy of pricing their processors below intel processors clocked the same speed?

Personally I think it's a mistake to end that policy, not while public perception still often labels AMD an "inferior" products and they are losing OEMs (eg ibm) rather than gaining them (eg dell)
 

flight23

Senior member
Aug 5, 2000
509
0
0
Its not really fair to compare the XP 1.6GHz with the Intel 1.6GHz when the first is a superior chip.
AMD is pricing model #s similar to Intels chips... last time I checked the XP 1600+ was below $100 so still significantly less than the 1.6Ghz P4.
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81


<< I feel that I bought into Intel Fanboys hype when I upgraded my 1.2 Tbird to a P4 1.6a OC'd 2.24. You'd think a 1000MHZ bump would really be noticable to the naked eye. While it's faster it isn't a whole ghz faster. >>

I went from an 866 P3 to a 1.6A@2.24, from a GF2 to a GF4@300/650, from a 75GXP to a WD1200JB, from a loud system to a very quiet one...all at the same time. I definitely feel the difference!
 

Shagga

Diamond Member
Nov 9, 1999
4,421
0
76
Surely it's a question of speed, reliability etc. We don't need this Clock for Clock stuff again. As anand said -



<< In the end what truly matters is the overall performance of the CPUs and the price they're going for. If AMD accomplishes great performance through high IPC rates and lower costs through small die sizes, or if Intel does the same through high clock speeds and larger Silicon wafers, so long as the end result is a high-performance, low-cost CPU the end user should be satisfied. >>



What it comes down to is price in the end. However, AMD are the relitive new boys when it compared to Intel. People tend to go with tried and tested options. Better the devil you know as they say.

;)
 

christoph83

Senior member
Mar 12, 2001
812
0
0
I feel that I bought into Intel Fanboys hype when I upgraded my 1.2 Tbird to a P4 1.6a OC'd 2.24. You'd think a 1000MHZ bump would really be noticable to the naked eye. While it's faster it isn't a whole ghz faster.

Most of those people are using their processor and putting it to use. I remember you stating in a past thread that you dont game that much? So why exactly did you buy the northwood in the first place? What did you expect to get out of it? You didnt get caught up with Intel's marketing hype that the P4 makes the internet 400% faster?

LOL, I hear ya Red Dawn. The fan boys are just blinded by the MHz (err, GHz) jump. When in reality, it's not that much of a difference. That's why I'm sticking with my 1.4GHz T-Bird until Hammer gets here.

Maybe you should actually use one for a long period of time. I've seen a very nice improvement from my 1.4tbird in the programs I use and according to Anandtech the 2.4ghz northwood is overall the fastest processor out. Surfing the net and using word is definatly not putting the cpu to good use. If you dont see a difference between a 1.4 tbird and 2.4ghz northwood, then your not using any program really that stresses the cpu, and if your not using this then why would you even need a hammer processor? Sounds like your blinded to the reality that the northwood is in fact faster in many programs, and noticable, and Anandtech agree's.
 

smp

Diamond Member
Dec 6, 2000
5,215
0
76
Well to be honest my system is cooler and quiter and the Motherboard I'm using is better than the one I had. There just isn't that "Wow" factor one would expect. The P4 is not an impressive CPU.

Windows can only move so fast. I think that straight up windows performance is hindered by hard drive speeds more than anything. As soon as your hard drive starts getting read/written it wouldn't make a difference if you're using a P4 2.2 ghz or a Duron. Encode some DIVX, or some MP3's, you should get a performance 'kick in the nuts' doing that. I think it's unfair to judge a processor based on that criteria. I am an AMD fan myself, but I do think that the P4 is an impressive CPU (northwood that is).
 

spanky

Lifer
Jun 19, 2001
25,716
4
81


<< When I upgrade a CPU I want a straight kick in the nuts. I mean, something that says "How ya doin'?", you know. >>



i'd be happy just to run minesweeper @ 1600x1200. no nut kicking necessary here.
 

FuManStan

Senior member
Jan 19, 2001
668
0
0
When i read over Firingsquad's review this morning it seemed like AMD had at least as many benchmarks in its favor than Intel, including Return to Castle Wolfenstein. That being said, i don't see how Intel has the performance crown at all
 

RanDum72

Diamond Member
Feb 11, 2001
4,330
0
76
AMD needs to concentrate and try to break the 2ghz barrier for their CPU's. I mean, Intel releases new CPU's with 100-200mhz increases, AMD ges for what? Less than 100mhz?
 

ST4RCUTTER

Platinum Member
Feb 13, 2001
2,841
0
0
AMD needs to concentrate and try to break the 2ghz barrier for their CPU's. I mean, Intel releases new CPU's with 100-200mhz increases, AMD ges for what? Less than 100mhz?

Pentium 4 = 20 stages

Athlon XP = 12 stages


Nuff said...
 

AGodspeed

Diamond Member
Jul 26, 2001
3,353
0
0


<< AMD needs to concentrate and try to break the 2ghz barrier for their CPU's. I mean, Intel releases new CPU's with 100-200mhz increases, AMD ges for what? Less than 100mhz?

Pentium 4 = 20 stages

Athlon XP = 12 stages


Nuff said...
>>

Athlon XP = 10 stages (its integer pipeline of course). :)
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
The revenge of the Fanboys


<< Northwood isn't significantly faster than AthlonXP (speaking broadly; in some areas, it most certainly is), but it runs much cooler, has (IMHO) much better mainboards, and the on-die thermal monitoring and protection are invaluable. AMD could take a few lessons ... >>

And that's good because those only things that make the Pee 4 a viable alternative. BTW, Intel can take a few lessons from AMD. They both have their flaws.




<< remember you stating in a past thread that you dont game that much? So why exactly did you buy the northwood in the first place? What did you expect to get out of it? You didnt get caught up with Intel's marketing hype that the P4 makes the internet 400% faster? >>


What did I expect? Well more performance than I got. I guess I was expecting to much. As far as Kiddie Games and Kiddie Gamers go, you guys are the laughing stock of the industry. You spend big bucks to get a few more FPS just so you can nuke some other no life bitch who wastes his money trying to get a few more FPS to nuke your sorry ass... Plus I suck at those games so anybody that plays them must be a loser:)



<< Windows can only move so fast. I think that straight up windows performance is hindered by hard drive speeds more than anything. As soon as your hard drive starts getting read/written it wouldn't make a difference if you're using a P4 2.2 ghz or a Duron. Encode some DIVX, or some MP3's, you should get a performance 'kick in the nuts' doing that. I think it's unfair to judge a processor based on that criteria. I am an AMD fan myself, but I do think that the P4 is an impressive CPU (Northwood that is). >>

Look dudes, you CPU isn't your penis so if I say the P4 it isn't impressive don't take it like that $20.00 hooker your dad bought for your birthday you laughing at ya when you dropped trou. Face it Fanboys, it's overhyped and underpowered. When I upgraded to a 1.2 from a 1 gig P3 I noticed as much performance difference as I did jumping from a 1.2 to a 2.24 Pee 4. The Pee 4 is not that great of a CPU and as soon as you Fanbitches admit it the sooner you will not be a laughing stock.

Before you guys roast me, I'll come clean here. I do like the motherboard I have (MSI 845 ARU) and actually the money I spent and the money received for my old setup made it well worth it. I just think those who are deciding between the P4 and the XP really can't go wrong with either choice. They both have the good points and they both have their flaws. We all know what they are and what I've said is the truth (well except the part about the Hookers and the Gamers). I'm also not an AMD Fanboy as I have more Intel systems that AMD (at this point 0 AMD and 3 Intel).