DISGUSTING! Anand is obviously an AMD stockholder and attempting to skew results by equipping the intel system with pc800 rdram! I feel that I can no longer trust anand, and will have to look elsewhere for quality hardware reviews.
Price? Are you aware that when the 2.8 launches in a couple of days, the 2.53 and the 2600+ will be priced similarly? The price performance will be the same for these two chips. Intel will still hold the performance crown though which is important.
Yes, I am aware of that. I am also aware that there are other chips besides the top of the line chips. For many price ranges, AMD still holds the price vs performance crown.
Holding the performance crown is important to people who want the fastest system when money is no object and to fanboys. Most computer buyers don't fall into either of these catagories, which is why I think the "performance crown" is overrated. But that's just my opinion of course.
The Athlon XP 2800+ with 333mhz and 512mb of cache will compete very strongly agianst the 2.8 Ghz P4.............can't wait.
Since when did the federal debt go to 35trillion so fast?
So many different platforms on the same CPU, not like the old days when it was 1 platform for everything. The fact of the matter that most people are overlooking is that the P4 scales better than the XP. The ratio of Mhz difference is slowly dissipating, so people should not expect that a 2800Mhz XP to overwhelm a 2800Mhz P4 like a 1600Mhz XP overwhelms a 1600Mhz P4.
So many different platforms on the same CPU, not like the old days when it was 1 platform for everything. The fact of the matter that most people are overlooking is that the P4 scales better than the XP. The ratio of Mhz difference is slowly dissipating, so people should not expect that a 2800Mhz XP to overwhelm a 2800Mhz P4 like a 1600Mhz XP overwhelms a 1600Mhz P4.
What's really interesting is that in some of the benchmarks we've seen, like that of Toms and Aces, overclocked 2.4 Athlons still didn't win "across the board" as one would expect. I mean, with 133MHz lead a P4 of lower clockspeed would've been pounded again and again by an Athlon with that little difficiency as far as clockspeed. Now that the difference in MHz percentage-wise is even less at the higher clockrates, the Athlons should be scaling better, not worse. Btw, these benches were done on 166MHz oced bus. Any idea as to why this may be happening?
The only way to compare 2 cpus is to use the same chipset
KT266(a) VS PX266
or SIS 64x VS SIS 64x
In the end Anand showd nothing maybe except PC1066 is better then PC2700 !!!!
thats the reason the review was part crap and wrong
KT266(a) VS PX266
or SIS 64x VS SIS 64x
In the end Anand showd nothing maybe except PC1066 is better then PC2700 !!!!
thats the reason the review was part crap and wrong
Or it could be that the review is not crap and wrong. It could be that you are. Anand did not show that PC1066 is better than DDR333. What he showed, among other things is that the P4 has a bus capable of taking advantage of faster memory. You might be interested in this exerpt from Aceshardware. For your education:
"...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."
"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."
Once again so you can get it:
"...the AGP port and memory bandwidth of the current AMD platform is simply not up to par with Intel's."
"...the AGP port and memory bandwidth of the current AMD platform is simply not up to par with Intel's."
SO we are the same opinion its more a platform test then a CPU test!
this way the review was crap
this way the review was crap
Yeah, I guess that makes sense if you plan on buying a CPU and not run it on either platform. Are you planning on using it as a keychain? You have to run the CPU on its appropriate platforum buddy. Besides, the 266FSB is a limitation of the Athlon Processor (currently) not the platform. It's as much part of the processor as the cache.
No, we are not of the same opinion. It's not a platform test. It's a CPU test. The FSB is part of the CPU. The review was not crap.
seeing as anandtech has plenty of 850e boards that can support pc1066 instead of the intel i850e that they did use
thus they either didnt have any pc1066 (unlikely as theyve done reviews with 1066 before) or anandtech has some other reason not dont the benchmarks with pc1066
had they compared it with even an i845g board with ddr266 as ddr333 is not supported on the i845g until the i845ge it likely would have been faster.
an sis 645dx a dated chipset, via p4x333 anything would be better.
I have always suspected anandtech was somewhat underdog biased, but they still write good articles. I.E. if you read that ATI radeon 9700 articles at AT vs. tomshardware, the AT article sounds like the reviewer is about to jizz his pants from having the card. Toms has charts that show fsaa vs non fsaa performance on the same graph and for the most part you just get a less "gushing and drooling" tone from it. Not to say toms is perfect, as people think he's intel and nvidia biased. but whatever, anandtech is not perfect, just accept it for what it is.
thus they either didnt have any pc1066 (unlikely as theyve done reviews with 1066 before) or anandtech has some other reason not dont the benchmarks with pc1066
had they compared it with even an i845g board with ddr266 as ddr333 is not supported on the i845g until the i845ge it likely would have been faster.
an sis 645dx a dated chipset, via p4x333 anything would be better.
I have always suspected anandtech was somewhat underdog biased, but they still write good articles. I.E. if you read that ATI radeon 9700 articles at AT vs. tomshardware, the AT article sounds like the reviewer is about to jizz his pants from having the card. Toms has charts that show fsaa vs non fsaa performance on the same graph and for the most part you just get a less "gushing and drooling" tone from it. Not to say toms is perfect, as people think he's intel and nvidia biased. but whatever, anandtech is not perfect, just accept it for what it is.
You can put DDR400 in an AThlon system but you're still only going to get DDR266 bandwidth out of it. PC800 being as comparable to DDR333 as it is and Aceshardware using DDR333 shows me that the reviewers tried to use similar performing memory for each platform. The difference is that the P4 can use the bandwidth of DDR333/PC800 while the Athlon can't at present and in workstation applications where all of that vertex data is flying across the FSB, the Athlon sits idle and can't compete with the P4. Just because Intel doesn't officially support DDR333 on its chipset doesn't mean it's not supported with the P4. Sis chipsets run it officially and, unofficially, DDR400 aswell. My guess is that aces used DDR333 is both platforms and anand did similarly with equal performing memory to show that even with the same memory, Intel has an edge in bandwidth intensive applications.
another problem with using pc800 on a 533 bus CPU , is the asynchronous buses which add unnecessary wait states during memory reads.
pc800 runs at 100mhz and 133mhz is the base clock on a p4.
when you run a 133bus processor with 166mhz ram as with the kt333 and athlonxp , the cpu really doesnt have to wait, because the ram's base clock speed is faster than the cpu's base bus speed since data has to be sent on synchronous clocks. you eluded to that earlier by saying that an athlon couldnt really absorb pc2700 ram..
what everyone was saying was that a p4 needs the bandwith. and pc800 is really lagging the 533 bus down, since the bus clock is higher than the mem clock speeds. anyways, i'd like to see him test them on ideal platforms. if this means the kt400 with ddr400 on the athlon xp vs. p4 with pc1066 then so be it.
Basically , all i can say is that this was a very crappy review. Part of having a good review is being comprehensive and this was not that, this was almost as bad as a zdnet review. its like this new chip was put into some sort of generic review making perl script. oh well, i suppose ANY review is better than none and i'm hoping for a better review later, but whatever...
The P4 does require fast memory, true. BUT so does the Athlon as evidenced by the fact that in both anand's and acehardware's review the FSB of the Athlon became saturated with vertex data during 3d rendering. This means that the Athlon does require DDR333 to keep up with P4 in this area (3d rendering) as well. They both require very fast memory. Keep in mind that even though the Athlon was paired with DDR333 it was in effect only DDR266 because of the FSB. The Athlon needs fast memory just as much as the P4 as you can tell from ace's review. I would recommend that you read aces review since he uses DDR333 for both platforms. The review was not bad. You points are not making ANY sense.If you would like these reviewers to IGNORE the fact that the Athlon is stuck with 2.1/sec of bandwidth and say that the architecture of the processor is so great and fast and ignore the fact that this great architecture can't perform in 3d rendering because of the FSB limitation then what you are looking for is a biased review. This is review is great and so is ace's. The ideal review that you have in your head would be an abomonation.
i think its a system flaw to compare on two diff systems with RD and DDR when DDR VS DDR was possible
Anyway the review its free and for example I still wait to see any 2D quality reviews on a higher level then right now (which is near zero)
Anyway the review its free and for example I still wait to see any 2D quality reviews on a higher level then right now (which is near zero)
There's nothing wrong with it since they perform about the same. IF YOU WANT A DDR to DDR REVIEW THERE IS ONE ON ACES. THE RESULTS WERE THE SAME SO IT OBVIOUSLY DOESN"T MATTER!
I'm arguing against his statement that anand's review was crap because he used DDR on one system and RD on the other. Since aces used the same stick of memory in both and got the same results it obviously doesn't matter. If you scroll up and read you would be able to determine exactly what the conversation was about.
Again Hardware, it is everyone else?s fault that AMD has no other solution then VIA (poor bandwidth management etc.).
Has it ever occurred to you when people state, ?I hope AMD would make their own chipsets?, they know it obviously offers better support then the third party chipsets (VIA, SiS)? It?s no secret that AMD makes great chipsets for their own CPU?s, the same way Intel makes better performing chipsets for their CPU?s.
People, who understand this, know that if you want the best support for your Intel CPU, you should use an Intel chipset! This has been stated over and over again at AT, that?s why people have hoped AMD would do the same.
I don?t understand your logic; then again, many people don?t understand your logic. Right, Master of Confirmed!
When you do a review, I would imagine you would use the best of both offerings. In this case RDRAM/850E make the most of the P4 much better then DDRAM and the 845 would. It has superior memory, bandwidth management, then the 845, and DDRAM. That?s not to suggest that a DDRAM solution wouldn?t be viable, just look at Ace?s review. <--- Added link just for Hardware.
Again, don?t blame Anand or Intel for supporting its own CPU. AMD can do the same if they wanted; they have done it in the past!
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