My two rigs in UT2K4: Intel vs AMD

[Naruto]

Ok here is a breakdown of my two rigs:

AMD System:
1800+ T-bred B @ 2.2ghz (200x11)
Biostar nforce 2 ultra400 w/ nvidia driver 3.38
512mb ddr 400 (2x256mb dual channel @ 2.5,3,3,7) (Sandra ~ 3050MB/s)
Geforce 4 ti4200 128mb @ 310/700 w/ detonator 44.03
Sound Blaster Live!
Seagate 120gb Barracuda 7200.7 8mb
WinXP Pro SP1
3dmark2k1 Score: 14250

Intel System:
P4 2.4C @ 3.2ghz (266x12)
Abit IS7-E i865pe
512mb ddr 355 (2x256mb dual channel @ 2.5,3,3,7) (Sandra ~ 5150MB/s)
Geforce 3 ti200 64mb @ 240/540 w/ detonator 44.03
AC97 6ch audio
Seagate 40gb Barracuda IV 2mb
WinXP Pro SP1
3dmark2k1 Score: 10750

Basically both have UT2k4 installed with pretty much the same settings: normal details, all other graphics turned on, 32bpp color, preload skins/speech rec = off. Problem is my AMD takes a lot longer to load when starting the the game, it has the lag when the game starts and the performance midgame is pretty much the same as the intel, even tho the intel has inferior graphics. What could be wrong? Intel has about a 1 second lag when the game starts after countdown, whereas AMD has a 3 to 4 second lag. And it also doesn't perform faster even though it has better graphics. Thanks.

 

[Soulkeeper]

of course the intel system has gobs of memory bandwidth but the athlon system looks like a better deal

 

[Zebo]

AMD 2.2 System: = 3dmark2k1 Score: 14250

Intel 3.2 System: = 3dmark2k1 Score: 10750

I don't get it where you're coming from with the intel winning? Numerically youve shown it looks the opposite prolly due to video.

I most tests a 2.5 BARTON is equal to a 3.2 P4C though.

You're 300 Mhz too slow and 256 kb of cache to less on that tbredB.

 

[Naruto]

Originally posted by: Zebo
AMD 2.2 System: = 3dmark2k1 Score: 14250

Intel 3.2 System: = 3dmark2k1 Score: 10750

I don't get it where you're coming from with the intel winning? Numerically youve shown it looks the opposite.

Keyword is UT2k4.

 

[AnnoyedGrunt]

What resolution you running?

Maybe you are at a low enough resolution that you are CPU limited, and therefore the 2.4@3.2 is making the difference.

Try running at 1280x1024 and then see which is faster, hehe.

-D'oh!

 

[gwag]

ut runs better on AMD too, wierd.

 

[Dman877]

UT is pretty much cpu limited at all resolutions which is why the performance is the same in-game. As for loading, it must be a bandwidth thing. My A64 had some lag at startup in ut2k4 when I had 512mb and precache on. With precache off or 1 gig of ram there's no slowdown though.

It's annoying to lag in the beginning cuz then everyone gets the vehicles and you gotta hoof it .

 

[eBauer]

Where are the UT2k4 timedemos?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Your P4c is faster than a stock 3.2c thanks to the extra bandwidth, your 1800+ is slower than a stock XP3200+ because of the smaller cache all other settings being equal. then there's the fact the 3200+ performance rating is off by a several hundred mhz and should be a 2900+ IMO. I'd also make sure both HDDs are defragged so thatb isn't a cause of lag. Then as suggested I'd run the time demos and/or use FRAPS in-game.

 

[InlineFive]

I hate that people always compare Intel systems to AMD systems that are insanely slower. "Yeah, well my 3.2Ghz P4 0wnz00rzZZ your 2.2Ghz AMD!" Make it a fair clock to clock comparison people.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: PorBleemo
I hate that people always compare Intel systems to AMD systems that are insanely slower. "Yeah, well my 3.2Ghz P4 0wnz00rzZZ your 2.2Ghz AMD!" Make it a fair clock to clock comparison people.

Well you cannot do that because the 2 architectures are entirely different. AMD has a much shorter pipeline making it more efficient per clock cycle. Therefore, a 3.2ghz AMD will be faster than a 3.2 p4. For this reason and others, AMD decided to come up with a rating system at which point they decided to rank 2.2ghz Barton AMD processor as 3200+ or claiming to be equivalent to a P4 3.2ghz. Of course, there ranking was too optimistic and that is where the problem came up with many users stopping to buy high end AMD chips. Thankfully A64 helped to alleviate the problem by actually backing up the speed rating.

Initially it makes sense to compare a 2.2ghz Barton and a 3.2ghz p4, because they were positioned as competitors in the first place. But his T-bred lacks the 512kb L2 cache as has been mentioned before, and his p4 is running at 266FSB (1064 effective vs. 800fsb stock!) This makes the comparison even worse, adding to the fact that AMD's rating system started to become unjustfied after about A-Tbred 2600+. Still I have an 8500 and I think if he played at 1280x1024 or above that, the 4200 will be faster than the P4 rig because at higher resolutions you will be GPU bounded.

I suggest you install FRAPS and tell us what numbers you get for both rigs at equal setting to make just how much much slower one is over the other.

 

[NeoZGeo]

hm... quick question...


why is the intel rig runs on a 64MB TI200 and the AMD rig runs on a 128MB TI4200?

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: PorBleemo
I hate that people always compare Intel systems to AMD systems that are insanely slower. "Yeah, well my 3.2Ghz P4 0wnz00rzZZ your 2.2Ghz AMD!" Make it a fair clock to clock comparison people.

Well you cannot do that because the 2 architectures are entirely different. AMD has a much shorter pipeline making it more efficient per clock cycle. Therefore, a 3.2ghz AMD will be faster than a 3.2 p4. For this reason and others, AMD decided to come up with a rating system at which point they decided to rank 2.2ghz Barton AMD processor as 3200+ or claiming to be equivalent to a P4 3.2ghz.

actually the rating system is supposed to be comparative to how fast a Tbird would have to run to keep up. It's not technically supposed to be "Pentium 4 equivalent" speed.

 

[Naruto]

Originally posted by: NeoZGeo
hm... quick question...


why is the intel rig runs on a 64MB TI200 and the AMD rig runs on a 128MB TI4200?

That's because I use the intel to do encoding jobs. And if I want to game, I don't want to be encoding at the same time, so I use the AMD as general usage and gaming pc.

The lag at the start is what annoys me on the amd one, it has some lag after loading the map and lags for 3 seconds at the end of the countdown.

I know its obvious that the P4C has alot more power than the AMD, but I would figure the ti4200 would cover that and also make a little faster because the P4C is gpu limited.

 

[JSSheridan]

Something else that might be slowing down the AMD system is the Creative soundcard and drivers. Have you thought about testing these systems with no sound devices installed? Peace.

 

[CraigRT]

uh, well i am pretty sure I could make the Athlon run it better if I took it

I HAD a P4 at 3GHz and am much happier with the performance my XP2500+ @ 3000+ gives me.. I actually have seen on benchmarks that with UT2k3 and 2k4, AMD systems typically have the higher score also. (video card and other factors similar)

q3 based games are favored by the Intels though for sure.

 

[Mik3y]

a t-bred at 2.2GHz is equivalent to a barton 2800+, which is what your compering with a p4 3.2ghz. obviously the pentium would beat the athlon. a barton at 2.2GHz is equivalent to the 3200+, but since the t-bred has half the L2 cache, performance drops a little bit.

 

[Shimmishim]

also
200 fsb vs. 266 fsb.

of course the p4 is gonna win...

try 266 fsb vs. 266 fsb

3dmark2k1 is fsb intensive... higher fsb's give better scores..

for example..

i had a 2.4C runing at 292 mhz fsb and could get a score of 20.2k on 3dmark2k1
with a 3.0C running at 266/7 mhz fsb i could get a score of 20.8k

even with 500 more mhz of pure speed, i only gained 600 points due to the lower fsb...

 

[jediphx]

get rid of that SB Live also and put a Turtle Beach Santa Cruz, much better card, drivers and performance I love mine

Plus I would think a ti4200 is pretty weak for UT 2004

 

[Dman877]

Originally posted by: Naruto

Originally posted by: NeoZGeo
hm... quick question...


why is the intel rig runs on a 64MB TI200 and the AMD rig runs on a 128MB TI4200?

That's because I use the intel to do encoding jobs. And if I want to game, I don't want to be encoding at the same time, so I use the AMD as general usage and gaming pc.

The lag at the start is what annoys me on the amd one, it has some lag after loading the map and lags for 3 seconds at the end of the countdown.

I know its obvious that the P4C has alot more power than the AMD, but I would figure the ti4200 would cover that and also make a little faster because the P4C is gpu limited.

Loading the game is all about the cpu/mem and bandwidth (prolly hard drive speed too), it isn't handled by the video card. That's why you have loading slow-down on the slower cpu. Once everythings loaded and you've been playing for 30 sec or 1 min, is the performance similar then?