P4 3.2Ghz Reviews

[AgaBoogaBoo]

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030623/index.html

It topped every single cpu setup in that review.

http://www.hothardware.com/hh_files/CCAM/p4_32ghz.shtml

It topped everything but Business Winstone in that review.

 

[LikeLinus]

Originally posted by: AgaBooga
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030623/index.html

It topped every single cpu setup in that review...

Wow what a beating AMD chips are taking lately. Honestly in many of those test 3200+ can't even really keep up with the 2.8ghz P4. I love AMD chips (use them in 3 pc's) but Intel just keeps pushing out good products. Can't wait to see what happens with Athlon 64 and P5. Should be exciting.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus

Originally posted by: AgaBooga
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030623/index.html

It topped every single cpu setup in that review...

Wow what a beating AMD chips are taking lately. Honestly in many of those test 3200+ can't even really keep up with the 2.8ghz P4. I love AMD chips (use them in 3 pc's) but Intel just keeps pushing out good products. Can't wait to see what happens with Athlon 64 and P5. Should be exciting.

I somehow get the feeling either one will dominate entirely or AMD will lead in the beginning and Intel will lead later on just like how it happened with the P4 and XP lines....

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

No one else is interested? Maybe you're all asleep.... doh!

 

[T9D]

..

 

[Corporate Thug]

i like AMD but i'm glad the 3200+ is getting OWNED by the 3.2Ghz, maybe it'll teach AMD not to stretch their PR so much

 

[Rand]

I continue to think THG desperately needs to revise their test suite.
One of these days I honestly expect them to label the P4 2.0GHz as faster then the AXP 3200+.

Not that I think the Barton deserves it's rating or is comparable to the P4 3.2Ghz overall.

 

[Rand]

Another couple reviews...
Xbit Labs Review
Lost Circuits Review
Tech-Report review

Of the sites that have reviewed it thus far I put the most faith in Tech Report, though THG could very conceivably jump to the front if Tom Pabst himself actually decided to put in an effort to write something halfway decent himself.

I look forward to seeing what Aces/Anand presents, if anything.

 

[nanyangview]

yeah i am jumping boat soon
at least intel procs have thermal protection, ur HS fall off u won't burn up $600 unlike AMD

 

[Wingznut]

Most interesting quote so far...

Originally posted by: The Tech Report
Those prices indicate a bit of trouble for AMD. The Pentium 4 2.8GHz generally matches or outperforms the Athlon XP 3200+, and the P4 2.8GHz is selling for around $275, or over $160 less than the 3200+. Unless AMD recognizes that its ratings system has been blown up by advances in Pentium 4 clock-for-clock performance and lowers prices accordingly, the question for many PC enthusiasts may no longer be whether to buy an Intel or AMD, but simply which Pentium 4 chip to buy.

I haven't been paying much attention to AMD's prices of late. I didn't realize their 2.2ghz Barton was still so expensive.

 

[srk]

I wonder how much its gona cost in INDIA, every top line CPU from Intel comes in at around Rs 34,000 thats approx. US$650.

 

[srk]

I seriouly think this is wake up alarm for AMD....
AMD should really consider dropping PR system and start to deliver real MHz.
Look at Sandra benchies or even games, the whole top chart looks blue and red......

Its time for AMD to launch Athlon64 ASAP.

 

[FishTankX]

Originally posted by: nanyangview
yeah i am jumping boat soon
at least intel procs have thermal protection, ur HS fall off u won't burn up $600 unlike AMD

Wrong.

When building a system with a 2000+ CPU the heatsink actually fell off because I didn't put it on correctly. Result?

Soltek Mobo saved my CPU. No damage done to CPU or motherboard. Infact, no damage done to anything. Thank God it was an integrated system with no cards, or else something might have been crushed by rampant charging heatsink.

I'd say that the P4 is superior thermally in that the heatsink falling off will result in the system still being usable for a few minutes.

 

[gramboh]

Buying a 2.6 "C" and running it at 3.25/3.3 (trying to flesh out absolute 100% stability still) for $365 CAD for this level of performance makes me happy (the 3.0 is about $700 CAD, no price on the 3.2 yet).

 

[fkloster]

Cool!

 

[DaveSimmons]

It's too bad AMD is not competing very well, or this would have come with a price reduction in the slower chips instead of just adding the 3.2 at $600 for suckers. If AMD had been doing their job the P4 3.2 would be ntroduced at $4xx and the 2.8 / 3.0 would be dropping $50+ today.

Wake up AMD!

 

[Macro2]

RE:"It's too bad AMD is not competing very well"

In what way? Pricing?

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: Macro2
RE:"It's too bad AMD is not competing very well"

In what way? Pricing?

Exactly. Check the prices of the 3000+ and 3200+ and look at the gaming benches. Right now AMD is only a better value at the lower end (up to maybe 2600+, slower than a 2.4C in games). For performance, since the 2.8C matches or more often beats the 3200+, AMD is 2 steps behind intel's best chips.

 

[Lyfer]

AMD has great value chips, XP1700 for $42 that does 2.2ghz easily, XP2500 for barton performance which does 2.1ghz easily for $96. Those are AMD's best two creme of the crop cpu's, if you wanna spend more, the new P4 "C" are freaking awesome, 2.6C at 3.3ghz for $215, major value! Like stated before by other, AMD just needs to get there highend chips to perform like high end chips.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
It's too bad AMD is not competing very well, or this would have come with a price reduction in the slower chips instead of just adding the 3.2 at $600 for suckers. If AMD had been doing their job the P4 3.2 would be ntroduced at $4xx and the 2.8 / 3.0 would be dropping $50+ today.

Wake up AMD!

I don't think the pricing is affected at all by AMDs chips. The top Intel chip has been at the $600 level for 2.5 years. The only exception was when the prices were cut just before a new chip came out. In that case the top chip dropped to the $400 level but as soon as the new chip came out it refilled the $600 level. This was true when AMD was killing the 1.5 GHz P4, it was true when AMD's 2400+ was far outpaced by the 3.06 GHz P4, and it is still true when AMD's 3200+ is out against the 3.2 GHz P4.

Summary: AMD's presence has had no effect at all on the P4 prices since late 2000.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: LikeLinus
Wow what a beating AMD chips are taking lately. Honestly in many of those test 3200+ can't even really keep up with the 2.8ghz P4. I love AMD chips (use them in 3 pc's) but Intel just keeps pushing out good products. Can't wait to see what happens with Athlon 64 and P5. Should be exciting.

We knew this was coming since the day the PR rating was created. AMD basically followed the formula:

PR = Frequency * 1.5 - X

Where X was a constant that has varied from 400 to 600 depending on the amount of cache and FSB speed. Note that X was quite small in the overall equation, so as frequency increases the formula approaches this approximation:

PR ~= Frequency * 1.5

That claims that the Athlon XP was a full 50% faster clock/clock as the Thunderbird and if you compare it to the P4 it claims the Athlon XP is a full 50% faster clock/clock as the P4. Yes the Athlon XP had improvements over the Thunderbird, but it is NOT a full 50% faster. A few minor changes doesn't get you that boost. So it was clear from the start that the PR rating would become quite troublesome as time passed.

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: shady06
i like AMD but i'm glad the 3200+ is getting OWNED by the 3.2Ghz, maybe it'll teach AMD not to stretch their PR so much

:werd: They really need to start upping the clocks on their processors instead of upping the rating more and more and not really gaining that much more speed.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Originally posted by: srk
I wonder how much its gona cost in INDIA, every top line CPU from Intel comes in at around Rs 34,000 thats approx. US$650.

You also have to consider that Intel usually has a flagship CPU at that price. And when new ones come out, there is a chain reaction in prices. BTW, I lived in India 2 years when I was very little and still visit every 2 or 3 years

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
It's too bad AMD is not competing very well, or this would have come with a price reduction in the slower chips instead of just adding the 3.2 at $600 for suckers. If AMD had been doing their job the P4 3.2 would be ntroduced at $4xx and the 2.8 / 3.0 would be dropping $50+ today.

Wake up AMD!

I don't think the pricing is affected at all by AMDs chips. The top Intel chip has been at the $600 level for 2.5 years. The only exception was when the prices were cut just before a new chip came out. In that case the top chip dropped to the $400 level but as soon as the new chip came out it refilled the $600 level. This was true when AMD was killing the 1.5 GHz P4, it was true when AMD's 2400+ was far outpaced by the 3.06 GHz P4, and it is still true when AMD's 3200+ is out against the 3.2 GHz P4.

Summary: AMD's presence has had no effect at all on the P4 prices since late 2000.

True, I too have noticed that for a long time Intel has a $600 CPU. But, AMD in my mind DOES have an affect because it urges Intel to push out more cpus causing the availability of faster cpus at the same price. Had AMD been pwning Intel cpus right now, Intel may have released a 3.4Ghz chip by now. If you look at how far the overclocks are getting, Intel still has a few hundred Mhz to play around with if needed even if it calls for a better cooling solution.

As for the mainstream market for those buyings Dells, HP's, Compaq's, etc. I think Intel h asn't adjusted prices or speed from competition from AMD because they aren't a threat there... right now atleast...

 

[XBoxLPU]

at'S is up