Intel P4 > Athlon XP?

[Bar81]

See, AT agrees with me (try *reading* my posts before you reply.) Also, try reading the conclusion and looking at the charts. A P4-M at 2.13Ghz drops the beatdown on an A64 running at the same speed and matches a 2.6Ghz FX-55 with full 1MB L2 in office apps. In Mozilla, the P4-M at 2.13Ghz is right behind the FX-55 and at the same clockspeed will beat it. In gaming same story, in D3 in this review at the same clockspeed it would trump even the FX-55. And from other reviews it holds an edge in every other current game out there (HL2, FarCry, Halo)

As a futher note, that review is ANCIENT. The P4C800-E Deluxe is now fully supported WITH full voltage and multiplier adjustments and is a superior platform to that used in the review.

SO, kids, like I've said SEVERAL times, for office app, websurfing (admittedly didn't mention this), and gaming the Dothan is the desktop chip of choice. The thermal characteristics are just the icing on the case. If you are heavily invovled in other things that the Dothan doesn't do so well, then and A64 may be for you. But in those areas I've mentioned the Dothan is unparalleled.

 

[Hacp]

Yawn. The review is not ancient. Also even with FUll voltage and multiplier adjustments, its performance is still the same. Its just that you can oc it a LITTLe more. Again, Anandtech says that the Pentium M is not a good Desktop Chip, and also in the previous review, on PartI, it said that the Athlon 64 was the better buy. Hard to argue against that, and I don't blame you for trying.

Another article supporting my view.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentiumm-780_20.html

In the opposite side of the spectrum, tom's is very enthusiastic. Still, DDR and AGP are still very competative with ddr2/pci-e

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/pentium4-21.html

 

[imported_Kensai]

Originally posted by: Bar81
See, AT agrees with me (try *reading* my posts before you reply.) Also, try reading the conclusion and looking at the charts. A P4-M at 2.13Ghz drops the beatdown on an A64 running at the same speed and matches a 2.6Ghz FX-55 with full 1MB L2 in office apps. In Mozilla, the P4-M at 2.13Ghz is right behind the FX-55 and at the same clockspeed will beat it. In gaming same story, in D3 in this review at the same clockspeed it would trump even the FX-55. And from other reviews it holds an edge in every other current game out there (HL2, FarCry, Halo)

As a futher note, that review is ANCIENT. The P4C800-E Deluxe is now fully supported WITH full voltage and multiplier adjustments and is a superior platform to that used in the review.

SO, kids, like I've said SEVERAL times, for office app, websurfing (admittedly didn't mention this), and gaming the Dothan is the desktop chip of choice. The thermal characteristics are just the icing on the case. If you are heavily invovled in other things that the Dothan doesn't do so well, then and A64 may be for you. But in those areas I've mentioned the Dothan is unparalleled.

Typo in your post. P4-M were and never will be "Dothan" core CPUs.

~How can Pentium Ms be the desktop chip of choice? Can you really justify the price?

 

[Bar81]

You don't know how to read and you are clueless. I don't blame you for being an idiot but just stop pointing it out over and over in the same thread.

 

[Bar81]

dp

 

[Hacp]

Hmm now it results to name calling. Seems like someone wants to start a flame thread. Can't really blame you when reputable sites point out the weaknesses of the Pentium M and you have to try your hardest to make us try to overlook them.

Still trying to look for the 2.6 vs 2.6 one.

 

[Bar81]

Originally posted by: Kensai

Originally posted by: Bar81
See, AT agrees with me (try *reading* my posts before you reply.) Also, try reading the conclusion and looking at the charts. A P4-M at 2.13Ghz drops the beatdown on an A64 running at the same speed and matches a 2.6Ghz FX-55 with full 1MB L2 in office apps. In Mozilla, the P4-M at 2.13Ghz is right behind the FX-55 and at the same clockspeed will beat it. In gaming same story, in D3 in this review at the same clockspeed it would trump even the FX-55. And from other reviews it holds an edge in every other current game out there (HL2, FarCry, Halo)

As a futher note, that review is ANCIENT. The P4C800-E Deluxe is now fully supported WITH full voltage and multiplier adjustments and is a superior platform to that used in the review.

SO, kids, like I've said SEVERAL times, for office app, websurfing (admittedly didn't mention this), and gaming the Dothan is the desktop chip of choice. The thermal characteristics are just the icing on the case. If you are heavily invovled in other things that the Dothan doesn't do so well, then and A64 may be for you. But in those areas I've mentioned the Dothan is unparalleled.

Typo in your post. P4-M were and never will be "Dothan" core CPUs.

~How can Pentium Ms be the desktop chip of choice? Can you really justify the price?

OOPS, sorry about that, meant P-M obviously

I'm coming at it from two angles. First, I was just talking about performance besides price but price is an EXTREMELY valid point to bring up but then again it's not a factor as I can pick up a P-M 745 and clock it to 2.5Ghz plus without much effort and that runs what like $300 which isn't anything outrageous. The Cheapest 939 San Diego chip is running $325 and that can be clocked to around 2.6Ghz without much effort. So it's a draw really in my mind.

 

[Bar81]

Originally posted by: Hacp
Hmm now it results to name calling. Seems like someone wants to start a flame thread. Can't really blame you when reputable sites point out the weaknesses of the Pentium M and you have to try your hardest to make us try to overlook them.

Still trying to look for the 2.6 vs 2.6 one.

Well, what were you expecting, a little sunshine blown up your butt??? Come on. Are we even in the same thread??? I've acknowledged and even pointed out the weaknesses with the P-M architecture, you'd have to be BLIND not to see them but then again you seem to be blind such that you can't read and understand that in office, internet, and gaming the Dothan is *the* superior platform.

As to a highly clocked Dothan v. highly clocked A64 desktop review, here you go (I'm sure there are more this is a sec of googling) (remember these still aren't using the superior Asus P4C800-E Deluxe mobo NOR are they setting the FSB to 200+ as they should be doing - it's only at 130FSB):

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=133&type=expert&pid=10
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=133&type=expert&pid=11

 

[Hacp]

Seems like you mentioned the weakness once and the strenghts like 5 times. I would call the minimizing the weaknesses and trying to make us overlook them. Also, looks like you continue to clinch to your outdated thoughts. Too bad your thinking about yesterdays technology. Nice job defending something pointless. How much does Intel pay you? Nice job Troll. The Dothan isn't superior at anything, its just a wasted chip. Your obvioiusly trying to find whatever little hope you have with Intel.

Do you see what I'm getting at? I can flame all day if you want me to. Your insults really do nothing to improve your areguments. You have not read any of my posts, and are obviously comming in here completely biased. I have tried to point out the strengths and weaknesses of the Pentium M, saying that it is more expensive than an A64 3000+ and even though it will provide more performance overclocked, the a64 3000+ is good at overclocking too and will provide similar performance overclcoked at a lower price. Yes, if you want to spend the money, liquid cooling+the pentium M will you get way past the 3GHz mark, and it will be a good processor for gaming,etc, but thats overdoing it. Right now, the a64 is the superior desktop chip BECAUSE of the price. Don't compare a Sandiego to the 300 Dothan, compare a venice to the dothan. A 3000+ Venice has the potential to oc very high, and will provide similar performance to an OCed dothan. (the 512 cache gives what? 3-5 % at most?). So basically, your getting similar performacne out of an oced 3000+ as you do with an oced Dothan, altough the Dothan will have a lead.

Edit: I am not implying that you NEED liquid cooling to oc a Pentium M.
Edit Number 2:
Right now a good alternative to the Dothan Pentium M is the similar Celeron M priced at 100 dollars I think. I've heard that those chips aren't binned as agressivly as the Pentium Ms, but will still provide a good OC if you try.

 

[Bar81]

I would call your response avoiding the truth. The numbers don't lie. End of story.

edit: Wow, you added to the one line I was responding to and in the process provided complete evidence that you're an ignorant moron. Liquid cooled P-M? You're a clueless idiot (edit2: and YES, you are implying that you need liquid cooling for a P-M or else you wouldn't have said it.) And as to price I'm comparing the best performing A64 939 non-FX chip. If you want to lose the 5% performance and go with the Venice at the neutered 512k L2 cache that's your call, but it just puts the performance advantage for the P-M in office, gaming, and web that much farther in Intel's camp.

edit3: DOH! I was so close to getting away with it but you just caught me on the whole Intel BIAS you sly little ignoramus. I guess I don't have an A64 in my rig right now nor did I have A64 DTRs in my rig as well as help popularize their usage on the desktop. I guess it also wasn't me that started a 600+ reply thread extolling the virtues of the A64 DTR/Mobile chips and helping everyone who wanted to set up a rig get all the information they needed to go A64.

DAMMIT! I have been EXPOSED! I am the bastard son of Craig Barrett. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

 

[engineereeyore]

I had a P4 2.8GHz HT and now have a 3200+ Venice core. Personally, I've noticed much better performance with the AMD. As from a technical aspect, I'm a electrical engineering student working on my master's degree with emphasis on processor design. I can tell you from a processor design aspect that the AMD processor beats the Intel processor hands down, no question. It is designed much better. However, in defense of intel, they have always had a tight history with microsoft. Intel never took chances. If microsoft's operating system wasn't made for 64-bit computing, intel didn't worry about a 64-bit processor. They just concentrated on the hyper-threading, which is a very good feature. However, due to their "cooperation," windows has almost always run better on intel processors. If you want a true comparison, run a test on a system with Linux. I've tried UT2004 on linux with an AMD system and an equivalent Intel system, and the AMD outperformed the Intel. It was close, but still the AMD come out ahead. I'm not trying to convince anyone that one is better than the other. You make up your own mind. Just trying to give you some technical information. Besides, both processors still lack behind the IBM G5 processor anyway. It'll be interesting to see Intel's pathetic attempt to keep up with what motorola and IBM have done with the PowerPC.

 

[Hacp]

Keep in mind that were talking about the Pentium M here. Also the netburst architecture isn't that bad. People just like to bash it.

 

[engineereeyore]

I agree, the netburst is a very good architecture. Both companies have great processors. They wouldn't be around if they didn't. I'm just saying that AMD didn't have the same relationship to microsoft that intel did, so they were free to take more chances, and they did. So right now, I think AMD has a better processor. However, now that microsoft has moved up to 64-bit and they're also working with apple, which also has a 64-bit os, you can bet their new processors are going to kick some serious butt. I like both processors and have nothing against either of the two. Realistically though, I'll be honest, I think Intel will take over as the hands-down top processor again within two years. But we'll see.

 

[Hacp]

Liquid cooling to get way past 3.0 GHZ? You can get by with air in the 2ghz range, but if you want to get WAY OVER 3.0 liquid is the way to. Also, yes if you want to pay 200 extra dollasr for the chip and 30 extra dollars for the adaptor, then go ahead. Your paying 230 more for a processor that will provide you a performance advantage in the three areas that you mentioned, but will also have disadvantages in other areas. Also finally, even if you did tout the advantages of the A64 before, it does not mean that you could be wrong? Could you not? If I received a perfect score on my SATs, could I not get below that perfect score the next time I take it? A64s are still the processors for the desktop environment even if your gaming/etc because of the price. Point proven.

 

[Bar81]

No, you're an idiot. I'm done with you. Everyone's losing IQ points just reading your nonsensical drivel.

 

[Hacp]

Yawn. Looks like you revert to the flame again. Is that all you can do? Flame people? Please try to make a logical arguement without doing so. Thank you. Also nice job giving up once you have seen that you lost.

 

[imported_Kensai]

Don't forget about the Venice core. You can get one of those bad boys for about 200$ CAD here. They generally clock to 2.6GHz to 2.7GHz and give some adequate performance for the price.

 

[Hacp]

Ummm ya I've been mentioning that for the past few posts.

 

[Fox5]

Originally posted by: engineereeyore
I had a P4 2.8GHz HT and now have a 3200+ Venice core. Personally, I've noticed much better performance with the AMD. As from a technical aspect, I'm a electrical engineering student working on my master's degree with emphasis on processor design. I can tell you from a processor design aspect that the AMD processor beats the Intel processor hands down, no question. It is designed much better. However, in defense of intel, they have always had a tight history with microsoft. Intel never took chances. If microsoft's operating system wasn't made for 64-bit computing, intel didn't worry about a 64-bit processor. They just concentrated on the hyper-threading, which is a very good feature. However, due to their "cooperation," windows has almost always run better on intel processors. If you want a true comparison, run a test on a system with Linux. I've tried UT2004 on linux with an AMD system and an equivalent Intel system, and the AMD outperformed the Intel. It was close, but still the AMD come out ahead. I'm not trying to convince anyone that one is better than the other. You make up your own mind. Just trying to give you some technical information. Besides, both processors still lack behind the IBM G5 processor anyway. It'll be interesting to see Intel's pathetic attempt to keep up with what motorola and IBM have done with the PowerPC.

Eh, both Intel cpus are comfortably ahead of the PowerPC, I believe Anandtech even had a Linux performance comparision that shows so. And that's just considering the G5, P-M versus G4 is not even close.

 

[designit]

Originally posted by: Kai920
I made a comment in another forum that my Athlon XP2800+ Barton will have comparable performance to a P4 2.8, especially in games (note I only used the word comparable). Here's the response:

well known that the pentium 2.8 - 3.2 outperforms even in games the athlon xp 2800 - 3200. and thats not even the prescott core either. Northwood beats it too.
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030623/
as for athlon 64s in games they are dethroned by pentium m dothan in any game!
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/pentium4-12.html

Any truths to these statements?

Well i see you are a long time member here, so i can not tell you- you are in a wrong forum and wrong website, and everyone here are AMD "poster child"
But i can tell you this: You are starting to P off everyone here..
I love it

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: Bar81

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33
The Dothan is great at games but is smoked in almost every other area by the Pentium IV's and AMD64's/FX's. Its floating point performance is dismal. I don't understand why everyone says the Dothan outperforms the FX-57 or Pentium IV 3.8. It does great in one specific aspect but looks at all the other situations in which it is obliterated in performance. Its wattage is awesome but so is the AMD Turion's. I can't wait for the low watt dualcores from both companies. No 64bit, no SSE3, no integrated or 800"FSB" poor floating point performance, I don't get it.

Well, it's pretty simple actually, the VAST (I'm talking all but maybe low single digits of home users) out there do two things and not much else with their computers - game and office/productivity work. It just so happens that those are exactly the areas the Dothan is a monster. 64bit and SSE 3 are pointless as I've said above. An integrated memory controller is not itself some sort of amazing checkpoint, it's rather what performance advantages the integrated memory controller provides and in the case of games and office usage it doesn't provide any over a Dothan without such a feature. You need to get out more, the Dothan already works at "800FSB" full dual channel RAM on 875P chipsets such as the Asus P4C800-E Deluxe with the Asus CT-479 adapter.

Who wants a Dothan? Those people who game and/or do office work almost exclusively as well as are concerned with the ridiculous heat generation of the PIV particularly and of the A64. When you care about noise and heat as much as performance (in those specific areas) the Dothan is the only choice.

Or the Turion

 

[Pabster]

<sigh>

The AMD fanboys are never going to admit a lowly laptop processor (Dothan) can outperform the beloved Athlon 64.

The Intel fanboys are never going to admit the weaknesses of the Dothan core as it stands now.

Therefore, we have a draw. Let it die. This is like the 1000th time this debate has been hashed...

 

[engineereeyore]

Originally posted by: Fox5

Eh, both Intel cpus are comfortably ahead of the PowerPC, I believe Anandtech even had a Linux performance comparision that shows so. And that's just considering the G5, P-M versus G4 is not even close.

Um, yeah, the G4 came out in 2001 and the Pentium M came out in 2005. I sure hope it out performs the G4 because that would be pretty pathetic. Having to compare the Pentium M to a G4 is an insult to both companies, so don't even try it. The G5 is the only processor you can compare the Pentium M to and the Pentium M does not win that battle. End of story.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Originally posted by: Pabster
<sigh>

The AMD fanboys are never going to admit a lowly laptop processor (Dothan) can outperform the beloved Athlon 64.

The Intel fanboys are never going to admit the weaknesses of the Dothan core as it stands now.

Therefore, we have a draw. Let it die. This is like the 1000th time this debate has been hashed...

I don't know whether I'm an AMD fanboy or an Intel fanboy. I've always wanted a P4 system but the Athlon 64 90nm chips changed my mind. I have a Dothan 745 (1.8 GHz).

Now, let me say that Dothans perform VERY well in benchmarking, especially super pi. If you look at the world records, Dothans are up there. Even the 4 GHz Athlon can't compete.

I recognize that the Dothan is powerful, but it's great in benching and some gaming. In a lot of everyday use, it will get crushed by either the P4 or Athlon 64.

Please tell me the weakness of the Dothan....

BTW, I'm getting an Athlon 64 within the next 3 weeks, so it's not like I love the Dothan. You must admit though, the Dothan is better than the Turion in terms of power use, so I don't know how AMD is going to use the Turion to effectively combat the Dothan.

As for P4 strength I will repeat again. Once the 533 Northwoods came out and ramping of speed shot up, Athlon XPs could not compete. Even the Barton 3000+ with 400 FSB cut it close, but the 3.06 seriously kicked its @$$. Looking at prices then, the P4 2.26 was a dollar or two cheaper than the 2400+, and the P4 clearly won. I have kept system configs of all the rigs I wanted to build since the Northwood 533s.

Northwood 800s closed the door on the Athlon XP and really just slaughtered it. Bartons couldn't compete. And AMD didn't care. They were busy with Opterons and A64s, and so they let Intel kick ass for the whole 2003 before finally responding.

Today, the Intel strength is gone. So what? I don't care. Just give me the best processor (be it any brand) and I'll be happy

 

[Bar81]

Originally posted by: Pabster
<sigh>

The AMD fanboys are never going to admit a lowly laptop processor (Dothan) can outperform the beloved Athlon 64.

The Intel fanboys are never going to admit the weaknesses of the Dothan core as it stands now.

Therefore, we have a draw. Let it die. This is like the 1000th time this debate has been hashed...

Try learning to read. The only person pimping the Dothan in this thread is me and if you would actually have read anything I posted you would realize that I have very clearly acknowledged the Dothan's weaknesses which is why you see me repeating ad nauseam that the Dothan is for those that almost exclusively do office, web, and game.

Now, you do have it right when it comes to the AMD fanboy and the legions that exist particularly on these boards.