My AMD VS P4 Prescott comparison of the day...

[Wiz]

I have on my desk an AMD 1700+ running at 2Ghz that is my main machine.
I just built a P4 Prescott 2.8 @ 3.6ghz.

So I have been making comparisons today, first with seti@home since I'm one of those guys who started seti back in May, 1999 I find it hard to *not* try it out on the new hardware...

The P4 Seems to be just about 2x faster than the AMD.
Not just at Seti - it does 20+ WU's per day while my AMD box does 10 WU per day.

I have also been converting DVD to MPEG so I can watch my Red Dwarf on the Pocket PC.
On my AMD system it takes 46 minutes to convert a 1 GB VOB file.
On the Intel box it takes only 23 minutes per GB!!
So it does 2x the number of seti WU's per day and it converts DVD to Mpeg in half the time per GB.

Not bad!!!

Now I want one of my own, so I can get truly radical with the OC (2.8 @ 3.6 isn't truly radical, since I am still using the retail HSF ) This Prescott is for a client, but it's been a good experience and I can truly say it is "burned in".

Of course it would be different if I had a newer AMD chip - a 64bit unit might compare more favorably but what I've got is a 1700+ OC'd to 2Ghz so that is what I use to compare with.

 

[ericgl]

I couldn't get my 2.8e anywhere near 3.6 although temps were fine.

Can you provide more info on the system?

 

[Acanthus]

I am VERY suprised your temps arent wildly high with that OC on that chip using that heatsink.

 

[jagec]

video encoding has always been strongly biased in Intel's favor. Also, chances are the P4 has a BUNCH more memory bandwidth.

 

[clarkey01]

hmmmm, well if i ever feel like BBQ'in on my CPU i'll get a prescott, untill then I'll stick to AMD and play games faster, i dont do any encoding so im fine, BTW comparing a 1700+ to an 3.2e@3.6 is alittle unfair, try a fx-53 overclocked to 2.9Ghz and see, might close the gap.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Just confirms what is already known, Prescott is even faster than NW@most encoding and HT is real and works. The comparison is unfair, I'm certain if we test thatPrescott against my A64@2.4ghz it won't be anymore a blowout on the encoding than it is for the A64 in gaming HT owns for DC projects so no contest there.

 

[joe2004]

Fair or not, this indicates Prescott is a good chip only the heating problem is really bad. I sold one of my PC that was waiting to get upgraded with Prescott because of that. At this point, unless Intel solves heating problem I have no plans for Prescott. And Intel on notice, I am not the only one abandoning Intel ship.

 

[joe2004]

By the way, I have one question only. What is SuperPI @2 MB. This is the only thing important to me. I've seen AMD 64 doing it in low 80ies, FX-53 nicely overclocked can go below 80 seconds. So what is your Prescott capable of?

 

[Soulkeeper]

Check out this Athlon FX @ 3.3ghz

this seems to compare with a prescott clocked near or above 4.6ghz

interesting

if you are getting a prescott try to get a D0 stepping
the older steppings (like i have) seem to have no shot at 4ghz on air

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Soulkeeper
Check out this Athlon FX @ 3.3ghz

this seems to compare with a prescott clocked near or above 4.6ghz

interesting

if you are getting a prescott try to get a D0 stepping
the older steppings (like i have) seem to have no shot at 4ghz on air

WOW! :shocked: Thge overclock on that 2.8E ES D0 Stepping 4 is just wild!

 

[Soulkeeper]

yeah i saw two or three who hit over 4ghz with prescotts with aircooling and 1.6v or less

this makes me wanna start my refridgerator cooling project early...... hehe