HAHAHA Had to laugh Intel sad :( Need cookie.

[imported_Soldier]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
If Doom3 AND HL2 were FAR from sluggish on my P4 2.66/533, how in the world are you going to convince everyone here that it was sluggish on a P4 3.4/800?

Everyone has different levels of tolerance for framerate min's/max's, load times between levels, dropped frames and other game effecting issues. I found the 3.4 Ghz Intel rig basicly playable but not great, the 3400 especialy OC'd walks away from it with much higher frame rates and noticable differences in load times and smooth game play. If a 2.66 Ghz P4 makes you happy then cool for you bud. Im a bit more demanding.

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

You see, this is what crack does to you. A single P4 2.8/800 is substantially more than anyone needs for an awesome gaming experience in ANY game as long as you have the graphics card to go with it of course as is true with any game. A dual core 2.8 will run a bit faster due to the DDR2 @667. So, who's going to own me? Not even a QuadCore FX-59 can have an edge on me. My point is that there is only so much power that we need for great gaming. 80fps on a 2.8 vs 110 on and equivalent A64/FX? you cant tell.

You are probably satisfied with a Chevy Cavalier as your car also. Im not. I enjoy driving an Acura just like Im not satisfied with 80 fps while gaming, I prefer 110 thank you very much.
It should be no insult to you that someone wants more than you feel is needed, so why do you seem so offended?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Soldier

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
If Doom3 AND HL2 were FAR from sluggish on my P4 2.66/533, how in the world are you going to convince everyone here that it was sluggish on a P4 3.4/800?

Everyone has different levels of tolerance for framerate min's/max's, load times between levels, dropped frames and other game effecting issues. I found the 3.4 Ghz Intel rig playable, but the 3400 especialy OC'd walks away from it with much higher frame rates and noticable differences in load times and smooth game play. If a 2.66 Ghz P4 makes you happy then cool for you bud. Im a bit more demanding.

You are a bit more demanding from a numbers (benchmark) point of view. Fact is, I could sit you down in front of 2 machines and not tell you which one has a P4 3.4 and which one has a AMD 3400+. You will play Doom3 on one of them for a half hour, then swivel your chair around and play on the other. Then you tell me which is which. I would venture to guess that you could not pick which was which without pure 50/50 luck.
If your into benches, by all means you made the right choice with your AMD 3400+.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Soldier

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
If Doom3 AND HL2 were FAR from sluggish on my P4 2.66/533, how in the world are you going to convince everyone here that it was sluggish on a P4 3.4/800?

Everyone has different levels of tolerance for framerate min's/max's, load times between levels, dropped frames and other game effecting issues. I found the 3.4 Ghz Intel rig playable, but the 3400 especialy OC'd walks away from it with much higher frame rates and noticable differences in load times and smooth game play. If a 2.66 Ghz P4 makes you happy then cool for you bud. Im a bit more demanding.

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

You see, this is what crack does to you. A single P4 2.8/800 is substantially more than anyone needs for an awesome gaming experience in ANY game as long as you have the graphics card to go with it of course as is true with any game. A dual core 2.8 will run a bit faster due to the DDR2 @667. So, who's going to own me? Not even a QuadCore FX-59 can have an edge on me. My point is that there is only so much power that we need for great gaming. 80fps on a 2.8 vs 110 on and equivalent A64/FX? you cant tell.

You are probably satisfied with a Chevy Cavalier as your car also. Im not. I enjoy driving an Acura just like Im not satisfied with 80 fps while gaming, I prefer 110 thank you very much.
It should be no insult to you that someone wants more than you feel is needed, so why do you seem so offended?

Listen, I am not one to pepper my posts with tons of emoticons and smiley's. Don't think I'm insulted or offended. Get off that route. We are just sharing points of view here. Please don't turn this into a "I hurt your feelings" discussion. :::emoticon placed here so you can see my state of mind:::: 🙂

 

[Zebo]

I laugh everytime I read this thread title.🙂
Funny.


For as flame bait as it is, this thread is surprisiingly civil.

 

[Keysplayr]

It's good to see that happen. Refreshing once in a while.

 

[imported_Soldier]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

You are a bit more demanding from a numbers (benchmark) point of view. Fact is, I could sit you down in front of 2 machines and not tell you which one has a P4 3.4 and which one has a AMD 3400+. You will play Doom3 on one of them for a half hour, then swivel your chair around and play on the other. Then you tell me which is which. I would venture to guess that you could not pick which was which without pure 50/50 luck.
If your into benches, by all means you made the right choice with your AMD 3400+.

I know what your saying, at some point the differences become negligable, and I agree to some extent. But my experiences running the 3400 and the 3.4 side by side say the 3400 is faster, noticably. And Im glad to see your not the thin skinned type, some get insulted when other people dont agree with them 😉

 

[Keysplayr]

Oh and soldier, My car happens to be a 2000 Chevy Camaro Z-28. I like my cars more than I like my computers. 😀

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Soldier

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

You are a bit more demanding from a numbers (benchmark) point of view. Fact is, I could sit you down in front of 2 machines and not tell you which one has a P4 3.4 and which one has a AMD 3400+. You will play Doom3 on one of them for a half hour, then swivel your chair around and play on the other. Then you tell me which is which. I would venture to guess that you could not pick which was which without pure 50/50 luck.
If your into benches, by all means you made the right choice with your AMD 3400+.

I know what your saying, at some point the differences become negligable, and I agree to some extent. But my experiences running the 3400 and the 3.4 side by side say the 3400 is faster, noticably.

Ok, well, if your happy, that's all that really matters. As goes for us all I suppose.

 

[Capt Caveman]

All I know and it's not much, I can't wait for all this stuff to be available: Pentium D, A64 X2, Windows64, Antec P180, etc. I'm tired of having to wait.

 

[Drizzy]

I just love the fact that they are finding such great innovations and advances in technology and putting them onto the mass market. First 64 bit technology and now dual core.. man once the price comes down I'm going to have to lose my OC'ed Athlon XP for a big upgrade! 🙂

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: cbehnken
Benches up!

Intel looses almost everything.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2397&p=1

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Just compare the performance of the single core speeds (3200MHz P4 vs. 2.2 GHz A64) since most applications are single threaded anyway. Now even for multitasking just multiply the power of each proc x 2. The AMDs will be faster. It's almost intuitive.

 

[MDme]

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: cbehnken
Benches up!

Intel looses almost everything.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2397&p=1

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Just compare the performance of the single core speeds (3200MHz P4 vs. 2.2 GHz A64) since most applications are single threaded anyway. Now even for multitasking just multiply the power of each proc x 2. The AMDs will be faster. It's almost intuitive.

yes, as simple as it may seem, it is really comparing an A64 2.2 vs P4 3.2 or 2.8 depending on how you look at it. simply this really kills intel since we are used to seeing 3.6-3.8 ghz intel cpus battle with 2.4-2.6 ghz A64s. so now if you scale back to a 2.2 A64 vs a 2.8 or a 3.2 intel really loses out even in the encoding benchies. add to that the second core of amd is "faster" than intel's then it makes for a truly superior system.

the cost issue is still an issue though. i hope AMD can cut down on the prices. maybe they'll cut it by the time they get volume out???

 

[Brian23]

Originally posted by: MDme

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: cbehnken
Benches up!

Intel looses almost everything.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2397&p=1

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Just compare the performance of the single core speeds (3200MHz P4 vs. 2.2 GHz A64) since most applications are single threaded anyway. Now even for multitasking just multiply the power of each proc x 2. The AMDs will be faster. It's almost intuitive.

yes, as simple as it may seem, it is really comparing an A64 2.2 vs P4 3.2 or 2.8 depending on how you look at it. simply this really kills intel since we are used to seeing 3.6-3.8 ghz intel cpus battle with 2.4-2.6 ghz A64s. so now if you scale back to a 2.2 A64 vs a 2.8 or a 3.2 intel really loses out even in the encoding benchies. add to that the second core of amd is "faster" than intel's then it makes for a truly superior system.

the cost issue is still an issue though. i hope AMD can cut down on the prices. maybe they'll cut it by the time they get volume out???

Not exactly. The benches we're used to seeing have HT. The dual intel procs do NOT have HT, so that hurts them even more.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: Brian23

Originally posted by: MDme

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: cbehnken
Benches up!

Intel looses almost everything.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2397&p=1

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Just compare the performance of the single core speeds (3200MHz P4 vs. 2.2 GHz A64) since most applications are single threaded anyway. Now even for multitasking just multiply the power of each proc x 2. The AMDs will be faster. It's almost intuitive.

yes, as simple as it may seem, it is really comparing an A64 2.2 vs P4 3.2 or 2.8 depending on how you look at it. simply this really kills intel since we are used to seeing 3.6-3.8 ghz intel cpus battle with 2.4-2.6 ghz A64s. so now if you scale back to a 2.2 A64 vs a 2.8 or a 3.2 intel really loses out even in the encoding benchies. add to that the second core of amd is "faster" than intel's then it makes for a truly superior system.

the cost issue is still an issue though. i hope AMD can cut down on the prices. maybe they'll cut it by the time they get volume out???

Not exactly. The benches we're used to seeing have HT. The dual intel procs do NOT have HT, so that hurts them even more.

The PD EE has HT, and we have seen what that can do

 

[Blazin Trav]

Originally posted by: Duvie
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2005q2/opteron-x75/index.x?pg=1

I will be scraping my plans for the dual core dual opteron setup...I will not pay that premium for waht is obviously shown as very little use for 4 threaded apps (workstation type).....It should have been 1.6x the single cor ecost...AMD is a bunch of idiots....Pay 3x more for a handful of apps....Yeah right!!

Who's to say that's the offical price?

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Soldier

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Slow as hell lol, you make it sound slower than the K-6-2.

2.8 on an Intel core is slow, very slow running anything single threaded it would leave a lot to be desired.. I know, I broke up a 3.4 Ghz Intel rig after building a A64 3400 rig last year. In gaming the A64 3400 blows the 3.4 Intel rig out of the water. I also do a lot of video encoding and found the A64 was just as fast if not faster in video encoding under some conditions (smaller files sizes). I work with files between 700meg and 4.3 Gig on average. Granted the 3.4 Intel was just as fast encoding most video, but the A64 puts a smile on my face everytime I fire up Doom3 or HL2 where the 3.4 Intel was decidedly sluggish...

The pentium 4 with HT is just as fast in doom 3 on average. Half life 2 (and most other games for that matter) loves the A64.

I completely agree that Dual core performance is in AMDs boat right now, i dont agree with the price AT ALL. The platform change for me to go AMD DC would be astronomical compared to intel. People who already have socket 939 are in a good spot though, although for what it is, it is still very pricey, especially for home users that wont take advantage of it.

Me however, i do heavy CPU multitasking, and id love a DC CPU, but i want to see overclocking results 1st. If we can swing a 3.0ghz DC Pentium 4 @ 4ghz on water, ill definately be sticking with intel. If AMD can hit 2.6-2.8ghz on water and release a MUCH cheaper cpu, ill go that way.

Right now im just watching the fanboi firestorm and laughing 😛

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Zebo
I laugh everytime I read this thread title.🙂
Funny.

For as flame bait as it is, this thread is surprisiingly civil.

From what I have seen many of the Intel only folks actually never tried an AMD based machine yet they bashed AMD machines. It was bizarre.

Now many of them actually have tried AMD machines.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Brian23

Originally posted by: MDme

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: cbehnken
Benches up!

Intel looses almost everything.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2397&p=1

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Just compare the performance of the single core speeds (3200MHz P4 vs. 2.2 GHz A64) since most applications are single threaded anyway. Now even for multitasking just multiply the power of each proc x 2. The AMDs will be faster. It's almost intuitive.

yes, as simple as it may seem, it is really comparing an A64 2.2 vs P4 3.2 or 2.8 depending on how you look at it. simply this really kills intel since we are used to seeing 3.6-3.8 ghz intel cpus battle with 2.4-2.6 ghz A64s. so now if you scale back to a 2.2 A64 vs a 2.8 or a 3.2 intel really loses out even in the encoding benchies. add to that the second core of amd is "faster" than intel's then it makes for a truly superior system.

the cost issue is still an issue though. i hope AMD can cut down on the prices. maybe they'll cut it by the time they get volume out???

Not exactly. The benches we're used to seeing have HT. The dual intel procs do NOT have HT, so that hurts them even more.

You actually said this "out-loud"?

 

[Sunbird]

You guys also have to remember how AMD historically does things:

They are making these chips, and as they produce them, there are ones that won't work at the wanted speeds or have other difficulties.

These will then be sold as lower speed chips, when AMD has enough of them gathered, so as not to have to have a lot a difficulty with the supply side, as they ramp up production even more.

I'm pretty sure that's what they did with the lower clocked socket Semprons skt754.

 

[PetNorth]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
I completely agree that Dual core performance is in AMDs boat right now, i dont agree with the price AT ALL.

The price/perfomance ratio is OK.

Originally posted by: Acanthus
The platform change for me to go AMD DC would be astronomical compared to intel.

I don't think so. You have DDR. If you change to AMD DC you have to buy only CPU and board. If you change to Intel DC, you have to buy CPU, Board (I´ve only seen an Intel 955X for sale for $250) and DDR2 mem. And a similar quality DDR2 than your DDR costs a lot. Make numbers. And not to mention perfomance, silent and cool advantages with AMD solution.

 

[imported_Soldier]

I wonder...are the D's unable to run HT at all? Or is this just a BIOS setting that disables it? Seems rather silly of Intel to turn off HT when it might make up some of the performance losses associated with going back to a 2.8 Ghz core speed. Anyone say BIOS hack ? 🙂

 

[Brian23]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Brian23

Originally posted by: MDme

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: cbehnken
Benches up!

Intel looses almost everything.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2397&p=1

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Just compare the performance of the single core speeds (3200MHz P4 vs. 2.2 GHz A64) since most applications are single threaded anyway. Now even for multitasking just multiply the power of each proc x 2. The AMDs will be faster. It's almost intuitive.

yes, as simple as it may seem, it is really comparing an A64 2.2 vs P4 3.2 or 2.8 depending on how you look at it. simply this really kills intel since we are used to seeing 3.6-3.8 ghz intel cpus battle with 2.4-2.6 ghz A64s. so now if you scale back to a 2.2 A64 vs a 2.8 or a 3.2 intel really loses out even in the encoding benchies. add to that the second core of amd is "faster" than intel's then it makes for a truly superior system.

the cost issue is still an issue though. i hope AMD can cut down on the prices. maybe they'll cut it by the time they get volume out???

Not exactly. The benches we're used to seeing have HT. The dual intel procs do NOT have HT, so that hurts them even more.

You actually said this "out-loud"?

Sure
He's talking about how the DC benchmarks are just like regular single core benchmarks and all. I'm not being a fanboi, I'm just pointing out that the Pentium D does not have HT. INtel did this to cripple it so they could sell their EE edition. If you were to turn off the HT in one of today's single core P4s and then benchmark it against an A64 then I would agree that it's a similar comparison to the dual core benchmarks minus the extra core. However, since the PD does not have HT, the benchmarks are a bit skewed from what the single core versions would look like at those speeds.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Soldier
I wonder...are the D's unable to run HT at all? Or is this just a BIOS setting that disables it? Seems rather silly of Intel to turn off HT when it might make up some of the performance losses associated with going back to a 2.8 Ghz core speed. Anyone say BIOS hack ? 🙂

HT is definately present in the Pentium D. It's just not enabled intentionally by intel. The Pentium EE has HT enabled. I doubt that users would be able to turn on HT. The pentium b's had HT present on the chip just not enabled until the 3.06GHz/533 chip came out. AFAIK

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Brian23

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Brian23

Originally posted by: MDme

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: cbehnken
Benches up!

Intel looses almost everything.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2397&p=1

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Just compare the performance of the single core speeds (3200MHz P4 vs. 2.2 GHz A64) since most applications are single threaded anyway. Now even for multitasking just multiply the power of each proc x 2. The AMDs will be faster. It's almost intuitive.

yes, as simple as it may seem, it is really comparing an A64 2.2 vs P4 3.2 or 2.8 depending on how you look at it. simply this really kills intel since we are used to seeing 3.6-3.8 ghz intel cpus battle with 2.4-2.6 ghz A64s. so now if you scale back to a 2.2 A64 vs a 2.8 or a 3.2 intel really loses out even in the encoding benchies. add to that the second core of amd is "faster" than intel's then it makes for a truly superior system.

the cost issue is still an issue though. i hope AMD can cut down on the prices. maybe they'll cut it by the time they get volume out???

Not exactly. The benches we're used to seeing have HT. The dual intel procs do NOT have HT, so that hurts them even more.

You actually said this "out-loud"?

Sure
He's talking about how the DC benchmarks are just like regular single core benchmarks and all. I'm not being a fanboi, I'm just pointing out that the Pentium D does not have HT. INtel did this to cripple it so they could sell their EE edition. If you were to turn off the HT in one of today's single core P4s and then benchmark it against an A64 then I would agree that it's a similar comparison to the dual core benchmarks minus the extra core. However, since the PD does not have HT, the benchmarks are a bit skewed from what the single core versions would look like at those speeds.

Ahh, I thought you meant ALL Intel DC chips. My mistake.

 

[Brian23]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Brian23

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: Brian23

Originally posted by: MDme

Originally posted by: sxr7171

Originally posted by: cbehnken
Benches up!

Intel looses almost everything.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2397&p=1

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Just compare the performance of the single core speeds (3200MHz P4 vs. 2.2 GHz A64) since most applications are single threaded anyway. Now even for multitasking just multiply the power of each proc x 2. The AMDs will be faster. It's almost intuitive.

yes, as simple as it may seem, it is really comparing an A64 2.2 vs P4 3.2 or 2.8 depending on how you look at it. simply this really kills intel since we are used to seeing 3.6-3.8 ghz intel cpus battle with 2.4-2.6 ghz A64s. so now if you scale back to a 2.2 A64 vs a 2.8 or a 3.2 intel really loses out even in the encoding benchies. add to that the second core of amd is "faster" than intel's then it makes for a truly superior system.

the cost issue is still an issue though. i hope AMD can cut down on the prices. maybe they'll cut it by the time they get volume out???

Not exactly. The benches we're used to seeing have HT. The dual intel procs do NOT have HT, so that hurts them even more.

You actually said this "out-loud"?

Sure
He's talking about how the DC benchmarks are just like regular single core benchmarks and all. I'm not being a fanboi, I'm just pointing out that the Pentium D does not have HT. INtel did this to cripple it so they could sell their EE edition. If you were to turn off the HT in one of today's single core P4s and then benchmark it against an A64 then I would agree that it's a similar comparison to the dual core benchmarks minus the extra core. However, since the PD does not have HT, the benchmarks are a bit skewed from what the single core versions would look like at those speeds.

Ahh, I thought you meant ALL Intel DC chips. My mistake.

I was unclear. I ment the Pentium D in my original post. Who would buy one of those Extremely Expensive editions for like 3x the price when the only thing they offer is HT?