Looking for benchmarks P4 3.6 vs AMD's line

[exar333]

how can the AMD be faster? It's only running @ 2.4 Ghz...the P4 is at 3.6!!!!

3.6>2.4!!

(Im just kidding! have a smile on me!)

 

[fatty4ksu]

Originally posted by:
YOU WANT THE TRUTH, YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH!

Here it is all broken down for you. (SINGLE CORE ONLY) with dual core AMD just dominates.

AMD (PGA THAT WORKS)

The Athlon 64 is faster for gaming
The Athlon 64 is faster with buisness and office apps
The Athlon 64 has better bang for the buck
The Athlon 64 Overclocks better

INTEL P4 (LGA THAT BREAKS)

The P4 is faster for encoding Mp3's, DIVX, MPG you name it!
The P4 is better for multitasking
The P4 is beter for 3D Rendering Applications

THATS IT, THATS THE OVERALL TRUTH WHEN TALKING ABOUT SINGLE CORE ATHLON 64's (Venice,Winchester,Newcastle,San Diego) and Pentium 4 Prescotts.

:thumbsup:

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: fatty4ksu
:thumbsup:

:thumbsdown:

 

[Mr Bob]

Interesting to see how some people get their post counts up.

"And as I and Duvie have said, they are all over the place. "
- All over? I haven't found too many. The ones I know about are @ anandtech, neoseeker, and techreport.com

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Mr Bob
Interesting to see how some people get their post counts up.

"And as I and Duvie have said, they are all over the place. "
- All over? I haven't found too many. The ones I know about are @ anandtech, neoseeker, and techreport.com

Pull your head out and use google...I did and in 2 pages found 7 legit review sites...try not be so lazy!!!!!!

 

[Shenkoa]

All the reviews I have found have showed the P4 to be faster with Mp3 encoding. Compare PR to frequency 3400+ with 3.4 and 3200+ with 3.2, DUVIE I was not comparing them on how much they cost. I was only comparing them to how they perform against each other at same PR/Frequency.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Shenkoa
All the reviews I have found have showed the P4 to be faster with Mp3 encoding. Compare PR to frequency 3400+ with 3.4 and 3200+ with 3.2, DUVIE I was not comparing them on how much they cost. I was only comparing them to how they perform against each other at same PR/Frequency.

that makes sense somewhat, but what would you compare a 3.6ghz or 660 to??? I would have to say a 3500+ is a bit low and most reviews are not new enough to compare a 3700+ yet...needless to say it should be more on price and his purchasing power....You cannot directly compare PR ratings as they dont mean squat. Look at price and when they arrived to the market...

Where do you get the idea to compare them on this level??? please link where it says the AMD pr rating relates to P4 mhz...Noitce how ith e 5xx and 6xx series cpus they (intel) themselves are dropping the mhz number. So waht are you comparing them to???


$615 - Pentium 4 670 $749 - Athlon 64 FX 55
$395 - Pentium 4 660 $350 - Athlon 64 4000 90nm Rev
$265 - Pentium 4 650 $255 - Athlon 64 3700 90nm Rev -or-
$277 - Athlon 64 3800 512K 90nm Rev E
$210 - Pentium 4 640 $219 - Athlon 64 3500 512K 90nm Rev E -or-
$190 - Athlon 64 3200 512K 90nm Rev E
$160 - Pentium 4 630 $146 - Athlon 64 3000 512K 90nm Rev E

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: DarkKnight69
I visit other forums where we have good discussion, not just AMD PWNS JOO!!!!

INTEL SUCKS!!! INTEL IS GONNA DIE!!!!

Then why post crap in this one? Why not add something useful to try and make the discussion ?good?? Duvie did. It does make sense. If you're going single core, want to multitask, do not want to overclock at all, and need encoding performance as priority, then Intel is an easy decision to make. However it doesn?t help it when Intel?s processors are generally more expensive than competing AMD solutions, therefore a smart person would deduce that going Intel at this juncture would make sense only for very small niches in the market ? that is if people made educated decisions before purchasing.

If you can?t handle the one sided discussions here, you can?t handle the truth, because right now it is one sided ? in favor of AMD.

Although I agree, good discussions are better than one sided ones, intel needs something better than what they have on the market so we can have a better time talking about stuff like this, its too easy right now.

 

[Shenkoa]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: Shenkoa
All the reviews I have found have showed the P4 to be faster with Mp3 encoding. Compare PR to frequency 3400+ with 3.4 and 3200+ with 3.2, DUVIE I was not comparing them on how much they cost. I was only comparing them to how they perform against each other at same PR/Frequency.

that makes sense somewhat, but what would you compare a 3.6ghz or 660 to??? I would have to say a 3500+ is a bit low and most reviews are not new enough to compare a 3700+ yet...needless to say it should be more on price and his purchasing power....You cannot directly compare PR ratings as they dont mean squat. Look at price and when they arrived to the market...

Where do you get the idea to compare them on this level??? please link where it says the AMD pr rating relates to P4 mhz...Noitce how ith e 5xx and 6xx series cpus they (intel) themselves are dropping the mhz number. So waht are you comparing them to???


$615 - Pentium 4 670 $749 - Athlon 64 FX 55
$395 - Pentium 4 660 $350 - Athlon 64 4000 90nm Rev
$265 - Pentium 4 650 $255 - Athlon 64 3700 90nm Rev -or-
$277 - Athlon 64 3800 512K 90nm Rev E
$210 - Pentium 4 640 $219 - Athlon 64 3500 512K 90nm Rev E -or-
$190 - Athlon 64 3200 512K 90nm Rev E
$160 - Pentium 4 630 $146 - Athlon 64 3000 512K 90nm Rev E

PR and frequency does not relate, we all know the story behing AMD's choice to use PR *coughs K7 coughs* but the point is PR is the only thing we have to compare the A64 to the Intel P4 (commercially that is) Its easier to explain to someone that a 3800+ is faster then a 3.6 then it is to explain to them that a 2.4 GHz Venice with 512K of L2 cache is faster then the 3.6 GHz Prescott with 1 MB of L2 cache.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Shenkoa

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: Shenkoa
All the reviews I have found have showed the P4 to be faster with Mp3 encoding. Compare PR to frequency 3400+ with 3.4 and 3200+ with 3.2, DUVIE I was not comparing them on how much they cost. I was only comparing them to how they perform against each other at same PR/Frequency.

that makes sense somewhat, but what would you compare a 3.6ghz or 660 to??? I would have to say a 3500+ is a bit low and most reviews are not new enough to compare a 3700+ yet...needless to say it should be more on price and his purchasing power....You cannot directly compare PR ratings as they dont mean squat. Look at price and when they arrived to the market...

Where do you get the idea to compare them on this level??? please link where it says the AMD pr rating relates to P4 mhz...Noitce how ith e 5xx and 6xx series cpus they (intel) themselves are dropping the mhz number. So waht are you comparing them to???


$615 - Pentium 4 670 $749 - Athlon 64 FX 55
$395 - Pentium 4 660 $350 - Athlon 64 4000 90nm Rev
$265 - Pentium 4 650 $255 - Athlon 64 3700 90nm Rev -or-
$277 - Athlon 64 3800 512K 90nm Rev E
$210 - Pentium 4 640 $219 - Athlon 64 3500 512K 90nm Rev E -or-
$190 - Athlon 64 3200 512K 90nm Rev E
$160 - Pentium 4 630 $146 - Athlon 64 3000 512K 90nm Rev E

PR and frequency does not relate, we all know the story behing AMD's choice to use PR *coughs K7 coughs* but the point is PR is the only thing we have to compare the A64 to the Intel P4 (commercially that is) Its easier to explain to someone that a 3800+ is faster then a 3.6 then it is to explain to them that a 2.4 GHz Venice with 512K of L2 cache is faster then the 3.6 GHz Prescott with 1 MB of L2 cache.

Well here is the problem...Intel is gone to numbers other then mhz as well...The have prescotts with 1mb of cache and ones with 2mb of cache....What you may think is easier is fine, but the fact is a person should look at cost cause you cannot compare them directly across platforms like this...Their are clawhammers, newcastles, winchesters, venices, san diegos, chips with 512kb of cache, chips with 1mb of cache, single channel chips and dual channel chips.

espceially not you 3.4ghz versus a 3400+ chip...Again what are you comparing against a 3.6ghz chip??? Sounds like it is a chip 150 dollars less....

 

[Shenkoa]

Nerermind :laugh: