I read Tom's 2Ghz article and I am at a loss at why the numbers are so different compared to Anand's. I see 3 major differences in terms of the testing hardware used, in video card, video drivers, and Motherboards.
Anand used SiS 735 based K7S5A, Tom used MSI K7 Master. In P4 Mobo's, Tom used Intel's refrence 850 S478 mobo, Anand used Abit Th7II-RAID. Anand used GeForce3, Tom used GeForce2 Ultra. Finally, Anand used Detonator3, but Tom used Detonator4, but that doesn't matter much because Tom wasn't using a GeForce3.
According to Tom, Athlon 1.4 gets beat in SYSMark 2001 Offfice Apps, that doesn't seem possible, it's not the Athlon's low score that I'm confused at (It's 8% slower, right around the diff between 760 and SiS 735), but what I cannot understand is how Intel's reference 850 board beat Abit TH7II-RAID by 10%.
Q3A no suprises, but another one is AquaMark. I'm gonna quote Tom:
<< The new game AquaNox is already equipped with P4-enhancements, so that Athlon does not stand much of a chance. >>
Ok, now from Tom's view it's no suprise that P4 beats Athlon 1.4 by 3 fps, but what I still cannot understand how does he get that while Anand see's First not only the A 1.4, but the MP 1.2 beat the 2GHz. Did the GF3 that Anand use make this big of a difference?
Finally, CINEMA 4D Raytracing Anand and Tom are about the same, but in iDCT Flask according to Anand the SSE2 algorithm did not make any difference so he sticked with the MMX algorithm, now despite Anand's was a 352 x 288 video and Tom's was 720x576 still would a resoultion increase help the P4 so much and hurt the Athlon?
The bottom line is that I think this is very fishy. The lower Athlon results in Tom's review are understandable, they were about 10% or so less than anand's, that's right in range of how much SiS 735 beats AMD 760. But what I cannot understand at all is how does he get these so much better P4 results, peticularly in SYSMark2001 Office apps? If anything Intel's reference board should be slower than Abit TH7II-RAID, and yet it's faster by as much as 10% in some cases. What do you think? Am I out of my mind?
Anand used SiS 735 based K7S5A, Tom used MSI K7 Master. In P4 Mobo's, Tom used Intel's refrence 850 S478 mobo, Anand used Abit Th7II-RAID. Anand used GeForce3, Tom used GeForce2 Ultra. Finally, Anand used Detonator3, but Tom used Detonator4, but that doesn't matter much because Tom wasn't using a GeForce3.
According to Tom, Athlon 1.4 gets beat in SYSMark 2001 Offfice Apps, that doesn't seem possible, it's not the Athlon's low score that I'm confused at (It's 8% slower, right around the diff between 760 and SiS 735), but what I cannot understand is how Intel's reference 850 board beat Abit TH7II-RAID by 10%.
Q3A no suprises, but another one is AquaMark. I'm gonna quote Tom:
<< The new game AquaNox is already equipped with P4-enhancements, so that Athlon does not stand much of a chance. >>
Ok, now from Tom's view it's no suprise that P4 beats Athlon 1.4 by 3 fps, but what I still cannot understand how does he get that while Anand see's First not only the A 1.4, but the MP 1.2 beat the 2GHz. Did the GF3 that Anand use make this big of a difference?
Finally, CINEMA 4D Raytracing Anand and Tom are about the same, but in iDCT Flask according to Anand the SSE2 algorithm did not make any difference so he sticked with the MMX algorithm, now despite Anand's was a 352 x 288 video and Tom's was 720x576 still would a resoultion increase help the P4 so much and hurt the Athlon?
The bottom line is that I think this is very fishy. The lower Athlon results in Tom's review are understandable, they were about 10% or so less than anand's, that's right in range of how much SiS 735 beats AMD 760. But what I cannot understand at all is how does he get these so much better P4 results, peticularly in SYSMark2001 Office apps? If anything Intel's reference board should be slower than Abit TH7II-RAID, and yet it's faster by as much as 10% in some cases. What do you think? Am I out of my mind?
Facebook
Twitter