How do you convert Barton mhz to P4 mhz equivelants

[glen]

I am sure there will be some debate on this, but roughly how do they compare?

 

[Soulkeeper]

only true way is by benchmarking

 

[glen]

Yes, I agree.
But, benchmarks only help if you have them or can do them.
Does someoen have them?

 

[Soulkeeper]

the amd ratings seem to be kinda lagging behind intel lately
especially with the 800mhz fsb chips

anandtech and tomshardware have some benchmarks comparing barton to the P4 if you search the sites

 

[glen]

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1783&p=12
Shows a Barton 2.167GHz edging out a P4 3.06GHz in UT2003
and losing to the P4 in Quake 3...

 

[Chumpman]

umm, ok

 

[eklass]

Originally posted by: glen
I am sure there will be some debate on this, but roughly how do they compare?

there is no comparison. it's not the cycles that are important, it's the amount done in a cycle. different processors are better at accomplishing different things

 

[glen]

Originally posted by: eklass

Originally posted by: glen
I am sure there will be some debate on this, but roughly how do they compare?

there is no comparison. it's not the cycles that are important, it's the amount done in a cycle. different processors are better at accomplishing different things

Thanks Captain Obvious!

 

[Jeff7181]

Yeah, it's really hard to compare them with just one benchmark. As I always say... figure out what's important to you, and buy your hardware to give you the best performance in that area. In some areas, a P4 3 Ghz HT can barely keep up with an XP2000... and in other areas, an XP3000 can barely keep up with a P4 @ 2 Ghz.
If you want to compare in certain areas, best way to do that is to go look at the benchmarks yourself... and if price is a factor in your decision, figure out what gives you the best value in your opinion.

 

[pspada]

My understanding is that the P4 is better at video encoding, and AMD is better at most anything else. And wouldn't benchmarks done in 3D progams like UT2003 and Quake3 reflect more about the video card than the processor itself?

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: pspada
My understanding is that the P4 is better at video encoding, and AMD is better at most anything else. And wouldn't benchmarks done in 3D progams like UT2003 and Quake3 reflect more about the video card than the processor itself?

That's my understanding as well.
Benchmarks in 3D games do mostly reflect the video card's performance, however, some games are more CPU intensive than they are GPU intensive... for example, flight simulators.
I still think a test that doesn't involve the video card is a more accurate test of the CPU though.

 

[Duvie]

Go ahead and take a look at anandtechs latest p4c 800fsb 3.0ghz cpu against the Barton 3000+ (2.167ghz).....

Test-----------------------------p4c 3.0ghz vs 3000+----------p4c 3.0ghz vs 3.06ghz p4 (533)

Content Creation------------------- +21.5% ----------------------- +2.2%
Business Winstone 2002--------- -18.8% ------------------------ -3.9%

UT2003 FlyBy------------------------ -0.5% -------------------------- +4.0%
UT2003 Botmatch------------------- +9.0% ------------------------- +17.0%
Quake 3------------------------------- +15.4% ----------------------- +7.4%
Jedi Knight 2-------------------------- +9.0% ------------------------ +6.8%
Commanche -------------------------- +12.8% ---------------------- +6.1%

Xmpeg Divx 5.02--------------------- +41.8% ---------------------- +3.0%
Windows Media 9 ------------------- +27.9% ---------------------- +1.6%

3dmax5 (1)---------------------------- +35.1% ---------------------- +0.6%
3dmax5 (2)---------------------------- +25.8% ---------------------- -1.3%
3dmax5 (3)---------------------------- +22.2% ---------------------- 0.0%
3dmax5 (4)---------------------------- +37.5% ---------------------- +3.1%
3dmax5 (5)---------------------------- +40.0% ---------------------- 0.0%
Lightwave7.5 (1)--------------------- +36.0% ---------------------- +2.9%
Lightwave7.5 (2)--------------------- -18.5% ----------------------- -1.2%
Lightwave7.5 (3)--------------------- +87.5% ---------------------- +0.6%
Maya 4.01------------------------------ +3.2% ----------------------- -1.6%


so lets see!!!! Barton 3000+ won 3 test out of 18.....With most loses well beyond the 6.5% of pr rationg increase of the soon to be 3200+ and 1.6% of actual mhz increase of the barton 3200+....I would say with most of those leads and this same testing procedure 3200+ wins 4 out of 18 and tighten the huge gaps to large gaps on many....


the noticeable thing is the rather sizeable increase the p4c 3.0ghz added with the i875 platform versus a chip with 60+ more mhz of cpu power (which was evident in the cpu dependent apps... ) The p4 3.0c managed tio build on the lead the 3.06ghz HT had already...

As for gaming it looked in this case the games went to the P4...as well as cadd and multimedia...Lame mp3 encoder program in other test show same nice lead....

 

[pspada]

How interesting. Too bad there is no actual information content involved. In fact, I came up with my own:

Test-----------------------------K6-2 300 vs p4c 3.0ghz----------p4c 3.0ghz vs itself

Weight----------------------------- +400.0% ----------------------- 0%
Height------------------------------ +300.0% ----------------------- 0%
Pin Count-------------------------- -0.25% --------------------------0%
Voltage---------------------------- +95.0% ------------------------- 0%

So, as you can see, the P4 only wins one out of 4, when compared to the AMD K6-2 chip. Of course, the P4 performs just about exactly like itself in each catgegory!

Now don't you want to run out and get one of those winning K6-2 chips?

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: Duvie
Go ahead and take a look at anandtechs latest p4c 800fsb 3.0ghz cpu against the Barton 3000+ (2.167ghz)..... blah blah blah...

Now if you take a look at the price... you're definately paying for that extra performance.

P4 3 Ghz 800 Mhz FSB
875P motherboard
510+145=$655

XP3000
A7N8X Deluxe motherboard
322+131=$453

P4 Setup costs 45% more than XP3000 Setup...

So lets see... 45% more money gives you at least 45% better performance in... 1 test.

(see, I can do math and throw figures and percentages around too )

On a side note... I find it odd that in one of the SSE2 benchmarks, Athlon XP's are on top of the P4's... is there a problem with the test? Or does SSE2 just not give the P4 a big enough boost to keep up in that particular task?

 

[rogue1979]

Oldfart posted this link in another thread. It shows a 400MHz Barton compared to a 800MHz P4. The 2500+ overclocked at 2400MHz was an even match for the 2.4B overclocked at 3000MHz. When the 2.4B was maxed out at 3.2GHz and 433MHz DDR memory speeds it definately moved ahead. I think a 1700+ at 2300-2400MHz on an Nforce board running 220-230MHz fsb speeds would be very close to a 3.0GHz/800MHz fsb P4. If you want the absolute best performance than a C1 800MHz fsb speed P4 at 3.2GHz+ is where it is at. I still prefer the 1700+ t-bred which can give you 90-95% of that performance for $60 or less!

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Now if you take a look at the price... you're definately paying for that extra performance.

Since when did the price have anything to do with the subject of this thread? (How do you convert Barton mhz to P4 mhz equivelants)

I don't think anyone is surprised that you are going to be paying a premium if you want the fastest desktop cpu. (By the way... If you wanted to make a similar comparison, make a comparison with the P4-3.06ghz for $370. It'll benchmark quite closely with the 3.0ghz.)

At any rate... Duvie was just pointing out how the PR ratings have faltered lately, for comparing Barton with Northwood.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: pspada
How interesting. Too bad there is no actual information content involved. In fact, I came up with my own:

Test-----------------------------K6-2 300 vs p4c 3.0ghz----------p4c 3.0ghz vs itself

Weight----------------------------- +400.0% ----------------------- 0%
Height------------------------------ +300.0% ----------------------- 0%
Pin Count-------------------------- -0.25% --------------------------0%
Voltage---------------------------- +95.0% ------------------------- 0%

So, as you can see, the P4 only wins one out of 4, when compared to the AMD K6-2 chip. Of course, the P4 performs just about exactly like itself in each catgegory!

Now don't you want to run out and get one of those winning K6-2 chips?

Hmmm...I thought the content was quite clear...I guess to the literate!!! I guess also Anandtech does a piss poor job and we should view his reviews as worthless, right??? What is wron with the AMD fanboys??? I am pointing out proven benchmarks to ry to answer authors thread and I am blasted....

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: Duvie
Go ahead and take a look at anandtechs latest p4c 800fsb 3.0ghz cpu against the Barton 3000+ (2.167ghz)..... blah blah blah...

Now if you take a look at the price... you're definately paying for that extra performance.

P4 3 Ghz 800 Mhz FSB
875P motherboard
510+145=$655

XP3000
A7N8X Deluxe motherboard
322+131=$453

P4 Setup costs 45% more than XP3000 Setup...

So lets see... 45% more money gives you at least 45% better performance in... 1 test.

(see, I can do math and throw figures and percentages around too )

On a side note... I find it odd that in one of the SSE2 benchmarks, Athlon XP's are on top of the P4's... is there a problem with the test? Or does SSE2 just not give the P4 a big enough boost to keep up in that particular task?

how cute with the ...Blah Blah Blah....Third grade I guess, right????

(see, I can do math and throw figures and percentages around too )

I hope so considering it is like 3rd grade math....Anandtech did all the work with the actual benchmarks...I just converted them to percentages to see how the Barton 3000+ did against the 3.0ghz p4c...I though we were trying to answer a question but the AMD moron Fan club blast any number that makes their beloved look less then stellar....

I know the cost is a bit more and mostly that is because of the cost of the i875 mobo....BUt!!! Figure i865 mobos should give the same performance in theory and already they can be had for right at 100.00 dollars...So go peddle your crap elsewhere....

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Wingznut

Originally posted by: Jeff7181
Now if you take a look at the price... you're definately paying for that extra performance.

Since when did the price have anything to do with the subject of this thread? (How do you convert Barton mhz to P4 mhz equivelants)

I don't think anyone is surprised that you are going to be paying a premium if you want the fastest desktop cpu. (By the way... If you wanted to make a similar comparison, make a comparison with the P4-3.06ghz for $370. It'll benchmark quite closely with the 3.0ghz.)

At any rate... Duvie was just pointing out how the PR ratings have faltered lately, for comparing Barton with Northwood.

Exactly.....I was answering the question with documented info from a site I think we all respect as being a good hardware reviewer....Don't hate me for the facts the 3000+ doesn't act or compare to a 3.0ghz p4c....Don't hate me that when intel drops mhz it can still gain performance unlike the miserable Barton 3000+ did against the 2800+xp....

 

[Jeff7181]

LOL... looks like I PO'd the "regulars"

No wonder you have over 6000 posts... you make 3 different posts with 3 comments about the same thing...

By the way... the motherboard being less expensive for P4's is such a load of crap... the 875P was just $14 more than the one I listed for AMD. You say you can get the 865 for $100? Here's one of the top motherboards for AMD processors.

 

[pspada]

Actually, what I was trying to say is that for the Pentium to perform better than the comparable Athlon, you have to add about a gig to the clockspeed, not to mention ~50% more in price. Indeed, the current highest end Pentium does beat out the current highest speed Athlon. But I think it says much more that a AMD chip running at 2 gig is roughly equal to a Intel chip running at 3 gig. That's just embarrassing. That's why a Pentium needs such a big heat sink, to hide it's shame from the world.

Oh, btw, a link to the "anandtechs latest p4c 800fsb 3.0ghz cpu against the Barton 3000+ (2.167ghz)" would have been much more useful than what was presented. I'm much more likely to garner useful information from their literate article, than from your, ah, interpretation of it.

 

[Jeff7181]

Originally posted by: pspada
Actually, what I was trying to say is that for the Pentium to perform better than the comparable Athlon, you have to add about a gig to the clockspeed, not to mention ~50% more in price. Indeed, the current highest end Pentium does beat out the current highest speed Athlon. But I think it says much more that a AMD chip running at 2 gig is roughly equal to a Intel chip running at 3 gig. That's just embarrassing. That's why a Pentium needs such a big heat sink, to hide it's shame from the world.

You're not allowed to post anything that doesn't have to do with how you convert Barton mhz to P4 mhz "equivelants"... you might get yelled at

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Jeff7181

Originally posted by: pspada
Actually, what I was trying to say is that for the Pentium to perform better than the comparable Athlon, you have to add about a gig to the clockspeed, not to mention ~50% more in price. Indeed, the current highest end Pentium does beat out the current highest speed Athlon. But I think it says much more that a AMD chip running at 2 gig is roughly equal to a Intel chip running at 3 gig. That's just embarrassing. That's why a Pentium needs such a big heat sink, to hide it's shame from the world.

You're not allowed to post anything that doesn't have to do with how you convert Barton mhz to P4 mhz "equivelants"... you might get yelled at

Just the stupid comments from the ppl who never seem to contribute to anything useful here!!!!

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: pspada
Actually, what I was trying to say is that for the Pentium to perform better than the comparable Athlon, you have to add about a gig to the clockspeed, not to mention ~50% more in price. Indeed, the current highest end Pentium does beat out the current highest speed Athlon. But I think it says much more that a AMD chip running at 2 gig is roughly equal to a Intel chip running at 3 gig. That's just embarrassing. That's why a Pentium needs such a big heat sink, to hide it's shame from the world.

Oh, btw, a link to the "anandtechs latest p4c 800fsb 3.0ghz cpu against the Barton 3000+ (2.167ghz)" would have been much more useful than what was presented. I'm much more likely to garner useful information from their literate article, than from your, ah, interpretation of it.

Like I said literate!!! I said in the first line it was from anandtech's latest p4c 3.0ghz review....click the home page once in awhile....

Interpertation??? I don't really suggest much...go ahead and read it I recommend it...It is always good to see which programs have sse2 optimizations or not...It is also important to see what programs are bandwidth dependent or plain raw mhz dependent...

 

[Jeff7181]

Doesn't that hurt after a while? Reaching around behind yourself to pat yourself on the back?