P-4 puts Thunderbird to shame !!!!!!!!!!!

[frozenflame]

I see that the discussion has now entered the land of SSE-2. When applications use SSE-2, they completely fly on the Pentium 4. _But_ the problem with SSE-2 for Intel is 2-fold (no pun intended). As stated above, applications that use SSE-2 are still a few months (at least) off. Second, AMD's Clawhammer/Sledgehammer (K8) chips will use SSE-2 instructions. These chips are expected out late this year to early next year. By that time, there should be a good number of SSE-2 software released. This could get really interesting if AMD can integrate the SSE-2 instructions into their chips as good if not better than Intel. There really won't be room for excuses next year as the playing field should be quite level. It will probably come down to who has the most cache, fastest FSB, best FPU and who uses SSE-2 the best.

P.S. AMD's upcoming 760MP chipset will let people use multiple Thunderbirds/Palominos/Durons with DDR memory, the Clawhammer chip will support 1-4 processors while the Sledgehammer will support up to 8 chips.

 

[NOS440]

IF AMD can keep this roadmap true to life then things will get really interesting in the next year.

 

[MGMorden]

Quad Clawhammer chips . . . at 1.5ghz each (at least) . . . with DDR . . . oh be still my beating heart.

 

[BW]

Yea but more so with sse.Alot more from what ive read.
Anyway im done here.BTW you do have a nice rig.It just doesnt put the t-bird to shame like you posted.Thats what all the fuss is about.Later.

 

[frozenflame]

You know, it might have been that the Clawhammer only supported up to 2 processors in SMP, but I know the Sledgehammer supported 8. Oh well, I guess I'll need to upgrade to a Sledgehammer (yea right)!

 

[MGMorden]

Dude, don't be spoiling my dreams. I wanted 4 cpu's. Now I'm gonna be limited to 2 of them? It just ain't right . . . .

 

[Hanky]

Zephyr,



<< The K6-2 was a very excellent cpu. It was pretty much on par with a celeron A clock for clock in integer preformance. To say it was &quot;poor&quot; is a pretty ignorant statement. >>



I think I know what I'm speaking of when commenting on K6's...I had a total of 5 different K6 CPUs (K6-2 @ 400,533,550 / K6-III @ 400 / K6-2+ @ 500) and still use the K6-2+. A K6-X is a good CPU if you know what you can do with it. It's nice for office use and as a CPU for a TV/DVD machine (which is what I use my K6-2+ for). BUT, it was NOT a good allround-CPU because its FPU was awful! Most of the games were choppy and my FPU-intensive calculations I already talked about, took VERY long. I'm now using a T-Bird and really noticed a difference in this area!
Integer performance is not very important anymore in MOST cases because every CPU since the K6-2/300 or so is fast enough for any integer-intensive application most users can think of.

 

[WindBoy2000]

I dunno but how can you beat AMD when you can build a 1GHZ duron system for around 500 bucks

MSI K7T pro2-a $120
AMD DURON 700 MHZ@1000 $60
BUIlT IN SOUND ON MSI.
RIVA TNT2 32MB $100
MOUSE + KEYBOARD $50
256MB CRUCIAL PC133 $150

 

[NOS440]

aRyll thank you I knew I must of had some fans out here somewhere !!! Thanks again I need all the help I can get these Zealots with there AMD zealotry are a hard bunch LOL!!!!



frozenflame I often wonder about AMD naming pratices when are they going to call a chip the Ballpeen Hammer LOL!!!!!!!!!! By the time they put the hammer down the nail will be already driven into there coffin !!

aRyll how are my buttons doing ???


MGMorden <<<Dude, don't be spoiling my dreams. I wanted 4 cpu's. Now I'm gonna be limited to 2 of them? It just ain't right>>>>

I have a little Question for you to chew. With the limited Bandwidth of DDR where will the 4 processors you speak of get the code to process ????

WindBoy2000 where are the rest of the components of this Duron Dream machine of yours..CDrom,Hard Drive ?? Build a 1GHZ machine and put a TNT2 in it !!! AHHH YAAAA what a waste of a descent processor.

 

[pen^2]

LOL LOL LOL
very funny LOL LOL LOL
intel roxors LOL LOL LOL
do u always write like this? LOL LOL LOL
btw, i hope ur daddy doesnt go bankrupt due to all that wasted money on your pee x4 LOL LOL LOL

oh, did u know it makes your internet go faster? LOL LOL LOL

 

[NOS440]

BrotherMan I hope you don't laugh yourself into a coma !!! your daddy can't afford the Hospital bill !!!!!!!!! LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL what a dork

 

[jaydee116]

Well I can't say I read through all of this. But how can there be any comparison with the P4 with AMD chips until Amd puts out a 1.4, 1.5 gig chip. Untill then who cares. No one can claim one is better than the other because there is no other yet. Advantage Intel for getting the jump on Mhz but when the 1.5 T-Bird comes out look out P4. Also if it wasn't for AMD no one could afford the overly priced pentium line and no one right now would have a gig chip. If it wasn't for the competition between the two the computer industry would be crawling along instead of leaping. No one can bash the other just for this reason. Both are great chips. Neither one would be where they are if it wasn't for the other.

 

[DABANSHEE]

&quot;And here is all of ya's proof that clock for clock the P-4 is faster Compare&quot;

Hey Nos440, did you bother to read the article you linked &amp; click the
'>>' link at the bottom of the page (its labeled 'The New MPEG4-Encoding Situation, Continued '?

If you had, I doubt you would have linked that page, because it actually shows how slow the P4 is.

 

[jaydee116]

Did you read the next page??????

http://www4.tomshardware.com/cpu/00q4/001122/p4-03.html

Ouch P4. But who uses Mpeg Encoding reguarly at home?

 

[DarkMajiq]

NOS brought it up. I find it funny though that he didn't even link to the original article which had the P4 on top, but rather the same one which on the next page showed that it was slower, and that on this page (and the next) lists all of the problems of the P4, and recommends to stay away from it! Thanks for the laughs NOS

 

[Dexion]

<< I applaud NOS440 for evoking such heated emotions from AMD zealots all around. >>



You can call me a AMD zealot, but I'm far from it. I don't promote or spread useless propaganda with it, nor do I only use AMD products, Intel's are viable solutions. If only they were as competitive in pricing as the AMD counterparts.

The only heated arguements were raised when NOS evoked Name calling from a previous thread. Fortunately, that has stopped and has turned into more of a insightful topic here. Keep it up NOS.

 

[Zephyr]

<< I applaud NOS440 for evoking such heated emotions from AMD zealots all around. >>


Yes... true ignorance and Intel zealotry on NOS's level is always good if you wanna get people to argue with you. Where I'm from that what we call trolling but that's another story.

 

[plush]

bah I don't care what anyone says P4's are horrible I have used a few of em and they suck

 

[TELeast]

Dood,

Check out these scores...playing MDK, you get more frame rates with the TBird 1.2G running on the ABIT KT7 (not the KT7A, which scores even higher) than the P4 1.5G.

http://www.gamepc.com/reviews/hardware_review.asp?review=abitkt7a&amp;page=7&amp;mscssid=&amp;tp=

...so...I don't know why you paid the extra cash for...

true...this is only one of the many different type of benchmark out there...and a lot of them has the P4 faster than the TBird...but still...I don't think it is correct to say the P4 kicks TBird ass, becoz it doesn't. You can only say the P4 is generally slightly faster.

And think about where you will be at the end of the year when your motherboard becomes obsolete when Intel uses a new socket design for their next generation of P4's.

I was a fan of Intel too, back when the Celeron was King and kicked ass...in fact I still run my 300A's at up to 600Mhz. But I'd have to say Intel hasn't done as good a job on the P3 and P4 in terms of CPU, chipset (especially i820), bugs, recalls, RDRAM....

 

[BW]

I have about 1 1\2 months till i get my ford profit sharing then im gonna treat myself.i may get a p4 if they are looking better at that time.I would really likee a 1.2 gig athlon that will do 1500 but i cant count on that.

 

[MSNY]

Not taking sides here on this issue. I think that if you choose either AMD or Intel you get good things either way. Price can be a factor on a budget. Quality always costs more no matter if its cars, boats or computers. Intel has a quality edge over AMD.

Overall the real point would be stability. I like to dicker with price anyways when I assemble a system. I tend to think Intel is slightly ahead chipset wise when it comes stability. Problem is both Intel and AMD have new chipsets neither of which have stood the test of time. This makes me cautious and I'm not upgrading right away because of it. I read a lot of forums and mostly I hear a lot of problems out there with VIA and 815E.

So really it's not right to bash AMD or Intel. Neither is superior in my book...and neither seems stable enough at this point to upgrade. I'd wait several months then look at this issue again because I think there will be a clear winner.

 

[Zephyr]

<< Quality always costs more no matter if its cars, boats or computers. Intel has a quality edge over AMD.[ >>


I do realize you are not trying to take sides here, but you hit the very core of the issue here I think. This statement is what I argue is a myth. Buying Intel is not paying for a better quality, you are paying for a higher marketing budget and a fancy brand name.
To use your car anology, Volkswagen in germany procudes (ofcourse) Volkswages, and they they also produce a lot of other car brands amongst those the budget brand Skoda. Now oit's been established by every car magazine that a Skoda is 1)virtually identical to a volkswagen and 2)at least as good in terms of quality. Yet the price is quite different (we're talking 30-40% difference) Why? the answer is simple, quality has nothing to do with it, Skodas and volkswagess are produced on the same manf. lines. You pay for a fancy brand name. Advertising and brand names is the way corporations have ripped off consumers for a long time and continue to do so as long as people blindy put their faith in &quot;you get what you pay for&quot;. If Intel comes up with a competitative solution to AMD I'd go Intel (and I'm not talking raw preformance here, but an overall evaluation with high emphasis on &quot;preformance/$-spendt&quot The celeron is a good example that Intel can offer competitative solutions, but they are few and far between. Generelly I'd say AMDs product lineup has been vastly superiour since the introduction of the Athlon and I don't see the P4 changing that anytime soon.

 

[osgood111]

A SuperComputer base on AMD Athlon Cpu SuperCpmp. Spsct. :Q

 

[MSNY]

Zephyr -

Agreed, paying for a brand name always costs more. But you have to look at the Intel record over the years. That is not myth but fact. Things are changing ever so slow. My point really is more about chipsets then CPU's and I failed to emphasize this before. The Intel BX is rock solid whereas the newcommers 815e and K133 are not. To me I would not out my dollars in anything that does not have a track record. I'm not at all slamming AMD, they have great products and are getting better all the time.

Hope I've clarified things.

 

[peemo]

It's really only fair to compare the P4 to the first generation Athlon slot A CPUs and mobos. Which caused/causes fewer headaches? Which company really sells you beta products to pay for their development? Equally guilty. I'm glad NOS440 and flkoster are contributing to the Intel CPU debug programme just as I'm glad to see so many users working on a stable AMD compatible chipset/mobo. I'm still waiting for a worthy successor to the PIII + BX.