OMG! my old t-bird beats my new p4

Xtasy

Banned
Nov 23, 2001
568
0
0
I currently have two systems:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATHLON T-BIRD 1.2ghz (rev b) @ 1.43ghz (110mhz fsb x 13)
FIC AZ11E KT-133 chipset mobo
512mb pc-133 @ 147mhz, cas 2, 4-bank interleave
Geforce 2 GTS 32mb ddr @ (200/370) det 23.11
IBM 75GXP 7200 RPM HDD
WINDOWS XP (windows supplied via 4 in 1 drivers)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pentium 4 "WILLY" 1.6ghz @ 1.93ghz (120mhz fsb x 16)
MSI 645 ULTRA SIS 645 chipset mobo
256mb pc-2700 DDR @ 320mhz (3:4 ratio), cas 2, ultra timings
Geforce 3 ti200 64mb ddr @ (240/500) det 23.11
Seagate Barracuda IV 7200 RPM HDD
WINDOWS XP (SIS 1.09F AGP Drivers installed)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am using Jedi Knight 2 Jedi Outcast to determine the differences. Other than the obvious difference between the geforce 3 (running in 1280x1024x32bpp) and the geforce 2 (running in 1024x768x32bpp), my athlon loads just as fast as my p4 does (in jedi knight capture the flag maps w/ 16 bots), but when it comes to the awaiting snapshot, my p4 takes 6 times as long as my athlon. The p4's peak performance tops my athlon, but it has alot of stutters and stops when playing (usually after a few minutes, it gets more constant), while my athlon is smooth and only gets a little sluggish when there is alot more action going on. Both systems are tweaked to the max, but the only difference i could see is that the athlon has double the system memory over my p4. Thanks.
 

RaynorWolfcastle

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
8,968
16
81


<< I currently have two systems:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATHLON T-BIRD 1.2ghz (rev b) @ 1.43ghz (110mhz fsb x 13)
FIC AZ11E KT-133 chipset mobo
512mb pc-133 @ 147mhz, cas 2, 4-bank interleave
Geforce 2 GTS 32mb ddr @ (200/370) det 23.11
IBM 75GXP 7200 RPM HDD
WINDOWS XP (windows supplied via 4 in 1 drivers)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pentium 4 "WILLY" 1.6ghz @ 1.93ghz (120mhz fsb x 16)
MSI 645 ULTRA SIS 645 chipset mobo
256mb pc-2700 DDR @ 320mhz (3:4 ratio), cas 2, ultra timings
Geforce 3 ti200 64mb ddr @ (240/500) det 23.11
Seagate Barracuda IV 7200 RPM HDD
WINDOWS XP (SIS 1.09F AGP Drivers installed)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am using Jedi Knight 2 Jedi Outcast to determine the differences. Other than the obvious difference between the geforce 3 (running in 1280x1024x32bpp) and the geforce 2 (running in 1024x768x32bpp), my athlon loads just as fast as my p4 does (in jedi knight capture the flag maps w/ 16 bots), but when it comes to the awaiting snapshot, my p4 takes 6 times as long as my athlon. The p4's peak performance tops my athlon, but it has alot of stutters and stops when playing (usually after a few minutes, it gets more constant), while my athlon is smooth and only gets a little sluggish when there is alot more action going on. Both systems are tweaked to the max, but the only difference i could see is that the athlon has double the system memory over my p4 . Thanks.
>>



Windows XP runs smoother with 512 MB, especially when playing a recent 3D game

-Ice
 

Booster

Diamond Member
May 4, 2002
4,380
0
0
It's not only memory size differences, you have witnessed the P4 performance deficiency in first person.

Aside from synthetic benchmarks, the P4 performance is incredibly low in real-world apps, especially games.

Yes, it's got nice thermal protection feature, but when the CPU you buy costs 150+ bucks and performs slower than a 40 buck 1Ghz Duron in games (meaning real-world apps), it makes you think.

And pls don't point at the Q3 benchmarks. I don't play Q3 any more. The last game I played, it was The Blade Of Darkness, and the 1GHz Duron I tested it on, blew away both the PIII 1GHz and the P4 1.7GHz with the same video card. I don't need any synthetic benchmarks, I can actually see when a game is slow or not.
 

BD231

Lifer
Feb 26, 2001
10,568
138
106
P4's are only fast at 133mhz+ fsb, and at an insane clock rate, like 2.4ghz+.

Edit: SiS P4 chipsets "SUCK", if you were using an Intel chipset with RDRam it wouldn't perform so bad
rolleye.gif
 

Configurator

Junior Member
May 5, 2002
13
0
0
I going to have to completely disagree with both of the last 2 posts.

Icecool83 hit the nail on the head. In Windows XP the difference between 256MB and 512MB of RAM is mind blowing.

 

Daovonnaex

Golden Member
Dec 16, 2001
1,952
0
0


<< It's not only memory size differences, you have witnessed the P4 performance deficiency in first person.
And pls don't point at the Q3 benchmarks. I don't play Q3 any more. The last game I played, it was The Blade Of Darkness, and the 1GHz Duron I tested it on, blew away both the PIII 1GHz and the P4 1.7GHz with the same video card. I don't need any synthetic benchmarks, I can actually see when a game is slow or not.
>>

What kind of benchmarks would you like to see? Aquanox? Unreal 2? Jedi Knight II? Return to Castle Wolfenstein? I could go on, but the P4 is the current performance leader.
 

308nato

Platinum Member
Feb 10, 2002
2,674
0
0


<< It's not only memory size differences, you have witnessed the P4 performance deficiency in first person.

Aside from synthetic benchmarks, the P4 performance is incredibly low in real-world apps, especially games.

Yes, it's got nice thermal protection feature, but when the CPU you buy costs 150+ bucks and performs slower than a 40 buck 1Ghz Duron in games (meaning real-world apps), it makes you think.

And pls don't point at the Q3 benchmarks. I don't play Q3 any more. The last game I played, it was The Blade Of Darkness, and the 1GHz Duron I tested it on, blew away both the PIII 1GHz and the P4 1.7GHz with the same video card. I don't need any synthetic benchmarks, I can actually see when a game is slow or not.
>>



rolleye.gif

 

dexvx

Diamond Member
Feb 2, 2000
3,899
0
0
And pls don't point at the Q3 benchmarks. I don't play Q3 any more. The last game I played, it was The Blade Of Darkness, and the 1GHz Duron I tested it on, blew away both the PIII 1GHz and the P4 1.7GHz with the same video card. I don't need any synthetic benchmarks, I can actually see when a game is slow or not.

My p3-933 Smokes my friend's Duron 1Ghz in almost every category.

What kind of benchmarks would you like to see? Aquanox? Unreal 2? Jedi Knight II? Return to Castle Wolfenstein? I could go on, but the P4 is the current performance leader.

yea... im wondering that too. The only thing close to real world that sucks on a Pentium IV is RC5 or any kind of distributed computing because the P4's raw FPU is weak. With SIMD optimizations its another story.
 

JackBurton

Lifer
Jul 18, 2000
15,993
14
81
Here is a little rule I live by:

Intel CPU, Intel chipset. :)

Also, add another 256MB of ram to that P4. ;)
 

Nate420

Senior member
Feb 4, 2002
264
0
0
The whole comparison was poopooed from the very beginning. SIS, diff vid cards, diff HDDs, diff ram amounts. And could you share some numbers behind your "6 times as long" statement?

Booster...Got any more of whatever you've been smoking?
 

WarCon

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2001
3,920
0
0
yea... im wondering that too. The only thing close to real world that sucks on a Pentium IV is RC5 or any kind of distributed computing because the P4's raw FPU is weak. With SIMD optimizations its another story.

Thats not what I am seeing. I went from 5 hours for a work unit in SETI on a 1gig @ 1.4gig T-bird to 3 hours with my P4 1.6A @ 2.37gig. Maybe its was the difference in memory (SDRAM vs DDR).
 

zzzz

Diamond Member
Sep 1, 2000
5,498
1
76


<< I went from 5 hours for a work unit in SETI on a 1gig @ 1.4gig T-bird to 3 hours with my P4 1.6A @ 2.37gig. >>


hmmm, might be because the P4 is like 1ghz faster?
 

BillyBatson

Diamond Member
May 13, 2001
5,715
1
0


<< The whole comparison was poopooed from the very beginning. SIS, diff vid cards, diff HDDs, diff ram amounts. And could you share some numbers behind your "6 times as long" statement? >>



I have to admit, i am not an Intel fan other than the p3.. and MUCH prefer AMD anyday when comparing price AND performance over that of the p4.... but i agree with nate420, others than the OS and the game used to determine the "differences" in performance, nothing else is the same.. is the type of memory even the same?! lol.... so yes, get another 256 for the P4 and definatly go with an intel chipset... /me kicks SiS !!!!!
 

Priit

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2000
1,337
1
0


<< The only thing close to real world that sucks on a Pentium IV is RC5 or any kind of distributed computing because the P4's raw FPU is weak. With SIMD optimizations its another story. >>



Not all true. RC5 cracking doesn't even use FPU, it's pure integer operations. And it is hand-optimized for P4, too (gained about 50+% performance increase from that). Main reason why P4 sucks in RC-5 cracking is that it's barrel shifter is very slow compared to other x86 processors.
 

Sid03

Senior member
Nov 30, 2001
244
0
0


<< ...my p4 takes 6 times as long as my athlon. The p4's peak performance tops my athlon, but it has alot of stutters and stops when playing >>

sounds like you have problems with that system... not the cpu.
 

WarCon

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2001
3,920
0
0


<<

<< I went from 5 hours for a work unit in SETI on a 1gig @ 1.4gig T-bird to 3 hours with my P4 1.6A @ 2.37gig. >>


hmmm, might be because the P4 is like 1ghz faster?
>>



I know that, but was answering the comment that the P4 sucked at this kind of operation, which just doesn't to be true. It is almost in direct scale mhz for mhz was the reason I posted.
 

WarCon

Diamond Member
Feb 27, 2001
3,920
0
0
One of the primary problems you might be looking at is that its a Williamette processor, not a Northwood.

Cache can make a world of difference in performance.
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
The difference in the amount of memory is almost certainly causing the difference you are describing as has been stated.

Just wanted to add a dissenting opinion with regards to the people who are blaming the SiS chipset, tihs is very unlikely to be true, the SiS645 boards perform very close to the Intel DDR boards, in many cases even better. There are valid reasons for choosing the Intel boards, but in my experience performance isn't one of them.
 

BD231

Lifer
Feb 26, 2001
10,568
138
106
<< I went from 5 hours for a work unit in SETI on a 1gig @ 1.4gig T-bird to 3 hours with my P4 1.6A @ 2.37gig. >>


hmmm, might be because the P4 is like 1ghz faster?



LOL!!!
 

dexvx

Diamond Member
Feb 2, 2000
3,899
0
0
Not all true. RC5 cracking doesn't even use FPU, it's pure integer operations. And it is hand-optimized for P4, too (gained about 50+% performance increase from that). Main reason why P4 sucks in RC-5 cracking is that it's barrel shifter is very slow compared to other x86 processors.

I worked a p4 system when it first came out, and its performance in distributed computing, well to be honest was disappointing. I assumed most of them were FPU and low performance was due to an unoptimized FPU, but you are right that RC5 is integer operations. Although I have to say that I havent touched distributed computing in a long time.
 

Xtasy

Banned
Nov 23, 2001
568
0
0
WOW! Is there alot of heat in here! This post hit the hot spot (INTEL vs. AMD). Just wanted to say,
1. I bought this on sale combo really cheap, $150 for both cpu and mobo, so i decided to go for the willie instead of the woodie, but with plans to upgrade to a woodie when lets say the 3 to 4 ghz version comes around under $200.
2. After reading many articles on the sis 645 and 645dx from many big review sites (ie. anandtech, tomshardware, sharkyextreme, etc...), the sis 645 chipset took the crown over the intel 845d and tied the i850 usually due to the official support of 333mhz and this mobo only cost me an arm instead of an arm and a leg. (i'm a bargain bin kinda guy, only looking for the good deals heh)
Before i buy another stick of ddr ram, i can make sure it's a lack of mem problem by pulling out one stick from my athlon and testing that. If so, gotta save up for my extra stick of ddr ram. If not, gotta wait that long dreaded year until i will upgrade my willie to the woody (ha boy does that sound funny! and Intel likes to associate it's processors with certain austin power's jokes). Thanks for the help.
Jeff
 

Xtasy

Banned
Nov 23, 2001
568
0
0
Also, just wanted to point out something about the i845d

It could only benefit me if i have the mem overclocked to ddr333 on that board, which would do crap for me since i have a willie currently.