-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
P4 660 couldn't beat 64 FX55 until @ 5.2ghz
- Thread starter Koyanisquatsi
- Start date
Gamingphreek
Lifer
Well i would definitely say the Intel processor was well more than a match in everything but gaming in which it was close.
I find it kind of funny also that these people just happened to have a chip lying around that with cooling could just jump right up to 5.2ghz.
-Kevin
Edit: Good find, and good read though.
I find it kind of funny also that these people just happened to have a chip lying around that with cooling could just jump right up to 5.2ghz.
-Kevin
Edit: Good find, and good read though.
Corporate Thug
Lifer
my thoughts exactly
I think that the point was to show that intel couldn't reach the FX-55 where AMD is stonger not even extremely overclocked. And c'mon if you already know that intel performs barely better than the FX-55 is some tests like video encoding, overcloked it will perform a little better, that is not the point of the article because you alredy know the results.
Besides you can be sure that overcloked Athlon 64FX-55 will perform better than stock intel CPUs in encoding, it would be also a good article. In this case I wouldn't be ineterested to see the benchmarks where AMD wins not overclocked because I already know the results.
Besides you can be sure that overcloked Athlon 64FX-55 will perform better than stock intel CPUs in encoding, it would be also a good article. In this case I wouldn't be ineterested to see the benchmarks where AMD wins not overclocked because I already know the results.
Yossairian
Senior member
I noticed that too. 4ghz at 1.3V, can that be right ?
leedog2007
Senior member
Obviously the author(s) love amd as evidenced by the benchmarks used. No video editing or encoding which the pentium dominates.
stevty2889
Diamond Member
The default voltage for the 600 series 3.6ghz chip is 1.287-1.4v, so it's quite possible they had it running at 1.31v@4ghz.
Dominate is not the word , I would say, Perform barely better. Diferences are like 5% in DIVX. It is not dominating. Besides encoding is just like 10% of the benchmarks , AMD is still winning in MOST of the tests even with the Pentium at 5.2GHz. So if it still wins in MOST of the tests, it is still winning.
bunnyfubbles
Lifer
moral of the story is they need to develop dual cpu motherboards that allow for an intel and AMD to work side by side, the intel doing all the encoding and the AMD doing all the gaming 😉
Capt Caveman
Lifer
How about comparing two CPUs at the same price range? FX-55 - $1000 to a 660 - $625? That's dumb. A comparison between the 660 and a A64 4000+ puts you at the same price range.
StrangerGuy
Diamond Member
The entire idea of the article was to show that a Prescott 5.2GHz still could not significantly outperform a stock 2.6GHz FX-55 in most of their benchmarks. It's not about "$300 A64 vs equivalently-priced P4"
Capt Caveman
Lifer
Found this review. Comparing things between the 3000+ and 630 (personally, I'm comparing a 3200+ to a 640) I'm not a huge gamer. I'm now sold on Intel. Damn, now I have to return everything.
http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-263-1.htm
http://www.hardcoreware.net/reviews/review-263-1.htm
RussianSensation
Elite Member
OK this is simply RIDICULOUS. I admire AMD's ability to be faster than P4 at gaming, but some ppl in this thread are taking this overboard. We all know FX55 is the fastest stock processor right?
Ok so everyone here on the forums screams how FX55 smokes Extreme Editions and so on. I am assuming these conclusions are drawn from % increases in benchmarks. Fair enough, so lets analyze the % increases of 5.2 vs FX55 AND FX55 vs. 4.0
Doom 3 (5.2/FX55/4.0)
1024x768 = 119.3 (+17.8%) / 107.9 (+5.9%) / 101.3 (100%)
1280x1024 = 92.7 (+6.1%) / 87.4 (+3.9%) / 84.1
1600x1200 = 68.7 (+1.3%) / 69.1 (+1.9%) / 67.8
From here you can clearly see that the % increase in performance for P4 5.2 over FX55 at 1024x768 is much larger than that of FX55 over P4 4.0ghz. At 1280x1024 P4 5.2ghz is 6.1% faster than FX55 but FX55 is only 3.9% faster than P4 4.0ghz. At 1600x1200 the performance differences are so small, no one in the world would notice it.
This also helps to highlight the dependence of today's games on graphics cards, and much less on CPUs. Also most ppl who buy these expensive cpus, play at high resolutions, making the whole AMD is better at gaming argument pathetic. So now all those that were saying how much AMD smokes P4, are saying 5.2ghz is just enough to tie FX55? or barely beat it? This is non-sense Even the person who reviewed the systems is not capable enough to analyze the mathematical data effectively.
Here P4 will match FX55 way before 5.2ghz
Far Cry
1024x768 = 94.11 (+17.3%) / 80.23 (+9.4%) / 73.34
1280x1024 = 93.52 (+17.7%) / 79.48 (+9.6%) / 72.55
1600x1200 = 91.47 (+17.4%) / 77.91 (+8.5%) / 71.78
Please read above ^. Same thing here. Also notice, how at 1600x1200 P4 5.2 is 17% faster than FX55. FX55 is only 8.5% faster. In the real world, you can't notice imrovement unless its >10%. So technically a person with FX55 wont be able to tell if given p4 4.0ghz system side by side.
Again, here P4 will match FX55 way before 5.2ghz
HL2
1024x768 = 61.69 (+20.8%) / 51.07 (+19%) / 42.93
1280x1024 = 59.17 (+17.8%) / 50.55 (+23%) / 41.09
1600x1200 = 54.61 (+15.7%) / 47.18 (+14.8%) / 41.09
P4 5.2 is roughly just as fast over FX55 as FX55 is over P4 4.0ghz. Therefore, mathematically about (5.2 - 4)/2 = 600mhz increase over P4 will give you same performance as FX55. This puts us at P4 4.6ghz. Still, not to take away from AMD's prowess in gaming, FX55 beating P4 4.6ghz is amazing. But 5.2 smokes FX55 just as much as FX55 smokes P4 4.0ghz.
Futuremark 3d03
5.2ghz = 13967 (+5.2%)
FX55 = 13279 (+1.7%)
4.0ghz = 13058 (100%)
The performance increase is much greater for 5.2ghz against FX55.
To conclude the gaming section, P4 5.2 is MORE than enough to match and beat FX55. In fact its % increases over FX55 are much larger than of FX55 over 4.0ghz. So all of those who claim its barely faster or it loses to FX55, need to go take grade 3 math class.
WinRAR
5.2ghz = 612
FX55 = 599
4.0ghz = 473
I dont need to do % here since AMD dominates here. However, with that in mind, why dont we compare a test where compression and decompression are done using WinZip and see who wins?
winZip From Anandtech - FX 55 = 385seconds, P4 3.8 = 394 seconds, A64 4000+ = 398 seconds
P4 3.8 beats A64 4000+, it doesnt take a genious to see that 4.0ghz will be faster than FX55 and 5.2 will smoke FX55. Also, XbitLabs - P4s are faster than A64 at WinZip
Why didnt we see a WinZip test side by side a WinRAR test? I wonder.....:roll:
Lame HQ MP3
P4 5.2ghz = 16.24 seconds
FX 55 = 25.14 seconds
P4 4.0ghz = 23.59 seconds
P4 and 5.2 are faster than FX55 and 5.2 is almost 10 seconds faster or 35% faster than FX55.
A quote from the Review:
"Due to diminishing returns the Pentium 4 processor needs a whopping 5.2GHz clock speed to keep up with AMD?s flagship processor. " This is the largest piece of BS i've ever heard in my life. P4 at 4.5 ghz will match FX55 in games, and smoke it in everything else out there. But wait, all those other benchmarks where P4 is good at are missing because gaming is most important right? Well if it is for you, then you'll quickly realize that performance difference between a 6800GT ($400) and X850XT $490 (both PCIe) is much greater than the difference between $884FX55 and a $645 570 3.8ghz P4. So the whole point of this article with relation to gaming was? Well Worthless. Not only that at 1600x1200, hardly anyone will notice a difference.
Now for all the AMD fanatics out there, lets get serious for a second. P4 architecture was MUCH FASTER than XP as opposed to A64 vs. P4. Yet these forums are full of ppl who continue to claim how much A64 smokes P4 at gaming. Where were all those AMD fans crying when XP was SEVERELY more destroyed by P4???? Oh I am sorry....they kept saying how AMD is JUST as fast at lower prices. (When the just as fast comment was a bunch of BS)
In our extensive benchmark tests (The Top Models Together: P4 3.2 GHz And Athlon XP 3200+ , the P4 is always in the lead - we talked about this in our last article High-Flying: AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Squares Off Against Intel P4 3 GHz. - Tomshardware.com
Can anyone here say that A64 wins every 30+ out of 30+ benchmarks against P4 across various applications? Didn't think so. It is common knowledge that P4 2.4ghz was faster than AXP2800+ in gaming applications. And those overclocked to 3.4ghz or higher, putting Axp price performance ratio nowhere when you could pick up P4 2.4 at $180 and have the fastest rig. Again AXP users continued to claim how XP is just as fast. But now when A64 is faster (but % wise less than P4 over XP), all of a sudden P4 is SLOW and crap. Grow up! My next system might be A64, but overexaggerating A64's performance advantage over P4 is simply ridiculous.
Lets look for 1 second at a recent demanding game = World of Warcraft => CPU Performance Tests
1600x1200 Max Quality detail:
A64 4000+ = 59 FPS
P4 3.4ghz = 51
P4 2.4ghz = 40
AXP 3200+ = 40
AXP 2500+ = 33
Ok so P4 2.4ghz is just as fast as XP3200+ and P4 3.4ghz should be 4000/3400 = 17.6% slower than 4000+. Indeed, 4000+ is 15.7% faster (59/51), justifying its rating. However, this makes sense because A64 4000+ should be faster than 3.4ghz P4. If you tossed P4 4.0ghz in there I bet it'll get 57 frames and be quite competitive. On the other hand XP Processors are just downright sad. So is A64 really that dominant in gaming putting P4 to shame? I dont think so.
Lets look at minimum framerates because they are better representative of gameplay than average frames:
Choosing the Best CPU for Doom III
Ok so P4 is very good for gaming while XP is just pathetic. Also A64 dont appear to be just as good anymore once we consider minimum framerates. This makes sense since A64s can score 80-120frames in games while P4 might only reach a max of 70 due to lacking memory bandwidth, on die memory controller, etc. But if the minimum framerate is close to the same, what difference does it make? XP users should know all about what matters the most, when their games stutter. While users who claim that 150 frames is worlds better than 100 frames, should open their eyes.
So please, next time someone brings how A64 is so good at gaming, why dont you think twice before making an informative comment. If you want to talk about gaming, talk about videocards. If you want to talk about cpu performance, analyze a variety of applications.
Ok so everyone here on the forums screams how FX55 smokes Extreme Editions and so on. I am assuming these conclusions are drawn from % increases in benchmarks. Fair enough, so lets analyze the % increases of 5.2 vs FX55 AND FX55 vs. 4.0
Doom 3 (5.2/FX55/4.0)
1024x768 = 119.3 (+17.8%) / 107.9 (+5.9%) / 101.3 (100%)
1280x1024 = 92.7 (+6.1%) / 87.4 (+3.9%) / 84.1
1600x1200 = 68.7 (+1.3%) / 69.1 (+1.9%) / 67.8
From here you can clearly see that the % increase in performance for P4 5.2 over FX55 at 1024x768 is much larger than that of FX55 over P4 4.0ghz. At 1280x1024 P4 5.2ghz is 6.1% faster than FX55 but FX55 is only 3.9% faster than P4 4.0ghz. At 1600x1200 the performance differences are so small, no one in the world would notice it.
This also helps to highlight the dependence of today's games on graphics cards, and much less on CPUs. Also most ppl who buy these expensive cpus, play at high resolutions, making the whole AMD is better at gaming argument pathetic. So now all those that were saying how much AMD smokes P4, are saying 5.2ghz is just enough to tie FX55? or barely beat it? This is non-sense Even the person who reviewed the systems is not capable enough to analyze the mathematical data effectively.
Here P4 will match FX55 way before 5.2ghz
Far Cry
1024x768 = 94.11 (+17.3%) / 80.23 (+9.4%) / 73.34
1280x1024 = 93.52 (+17.7%) / 79.48 (+9.6%) / 72.55
1600x1200 = 91.47 (+17.4%) / 77.91 (+8.5%) / 71.78
Please read above ^. Same thing here. Also notice, how at 1600x1200 P4 5.2 is 17% faster than FX55. FX55 is only 8.5% faster. In the real world, you can't notice imrovement unless its >10%. So technically a person with FX55 wont be able to tell if given p4 4.0ghz system side by side.
Again, here P4 will match FX55 way before 5.2ghz
HL2
1024x768 = 61.69 (+20.8%) / 51.07 (+19%) / 42.93
1280x1024 = 59.17 (+17.8%) / 50.55 (+23%) / 41.09
1600x1200 = 54.61 (+15.7%) / 47.18 (+14.8%) / 41.09
P4 5.2 is roughly just as fast over FX55 as FX55 is over P4 4.0ghz. Therefore, mathematically about (5.2 - 4)/2 = 600mhz increase over P4 will give you same performance as FX55. This puts us at P4 4.6ghz. Still, not to take away from AMD's prowess in gaming, FX55 beating P4 4.6ghz is amazing. But 5.2 smokes FX55 just as much as FX55 smokes P4 4.0ghz.
Futuremark 3d03
5.2ghz = 13967 (+5.2%)
FX55 = 13279 (+1.7%)
4.0ghz = 13058 (100%)
The performance increase is much greater for 5.2ghz against FX55.
To conclude the gaming section, P4 5.2 is MORE than enough to match and beat FX55. In fact its % increases over FX55 are much larger than of FX55 over 4.0ghz. So all of those who claim its barely faster or it loses to FX55, need to go take grade 3 math class.
WinRAR
5.2ghz = 612
FX55 = 599
4.0ghz = 473
I dont need to do % here since AMD dominates here. However, with that in mind, why dont we compare a test where compression and decompression are done using WinZip and see who wins?
winZip From Anandtech - FX 55 = 385seconds, P4 3.8 = 394 seconds, A64 4000+ = 398 seconds
P4 3.8 beats A64 4000+, it doesnt take a genious to see that 4.0ghz will be faster than FX55 and 5.2 will smoke FX55. Also, XbitLabs - P4s are faster than A64 at WinZip
Why didnt we see a WinZip test side by side a WinRAR test? I wonder.....:roll:
Lame HQ MP3
P4 5.2ghz = 16.24 seconds
FX 55 = 25.14 seconds
P4 4.0ghz = 23.59 seconds
P4 and 5.2 are faster than FX55 and 5.2 is almost 10 seconds faster or 35% faster than FX55.
A quote from the Review:
"Due to diminishing returns the Pentium 4 processor needs a whopping 5.2GHz clock speed to keep up with AMD?s flagship processor. " This is the largest piece of BS i've ever heard in my life. P4 at 4.5 ghz will match FX55 in games, and smoke it in everything else out there. But wait, all those other benchmarks where P4 is good at are missing because gaming is most important right? Well if it is for you, then you'll quickly realize that performance difference between a 6800GT ($400) and X850XT $490 (both PCIe) is much greater than the difference between $884FX55 and a $645 570 3.8ghz P4. So the whole point of this article with relation to gaming was? Well Worthless. Not only that at 1600x1200, hardly anyone will notice a difference.
Now for all the AMD fanatics out there, lets get serious for a second. P4 architecture was MUCH FASTER than XP as opposed to A64 vs. P4. Yet these forums are full of ppl who continue to claim how much A64 smokes P4 at gaming. Where were all those AMD fans crying when XP was SEVERELY more destroyed by P4???? Oh I am sorry....they kept saying how AMD is JUST as fast at lower prices. (When the just as fast comment was a bunch of BS)
In our extensive benchmark tests (The Top Models Together: P4 3.2 GHz And Athlon XP 3200+ , the P4 is always in the lead - we talked about this in our last article High-Flying: AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Squares Off Against Intel P4 3 GHz. - Tomshardware.com
Can anyone here say that A64 wins every 30+ out of 30+ benchmarks against P4 across various applications? Didn't think so. It is common knowledge that P4 2.4ghz was faster than AXP2800+ in gaming applications. And those overclocked to 3.4ghz or higher, putting Axp price performance ratio nowhere when you could pick up P4 2.4 at $180 and have the fastest rig. Again AXP users continued to claim how XP is just as fast. But now when A64 is faster (but % wise less than P4 over XP), all of a sudden P4 is SLOW and crap. Grow up! My next system might be A64, but overexaggerating A64's performance advantage over P4 is simply ridiculous.
Lets look for 1 second at a recent demanding game = World of Warcraft => CPU Performance Tests
1600x1200 Max Quality detail:
A64 4000+ = 59 FPS
P4 3.4ghz = 51
P4 2.4ghz = 40
AXP 3200+ = 40
AXP 2500+ = 33
Ok so P4 2.4ghz is just as fast as XP3200+ and P4 3.4ghz should be 4000/3400 = 17.6% slower than 4000+. Indeed, 4000+ is 15.7% faster (59/51), justifying its rating. However, this makes sense because A64 4000+ should be faster than 3.4ghz P4. If you tossed P4 4.0ghz in there I bet it'll get 57 frames and be quite competitive. On the other hand XP Processors are just downright sad. So is A64 really that dominant in gaming putting P4 to shame? I dont think so.
Lets look at minimum framerates because they are better representative of gameplay than average frames:
Choosing the Best CPU for Doom III
Ok so P4 is very good for gaming while XP is just pathetic. Also A64 dont appear to be just as good anymore once we consider minimum framerates. This makes sense since A64s can score 80-120frames in games while P4 might only reach a max of 70 due to lacking memory bandwidth, on die memory controller, etc. But if the minimum framerate is close to the same, what difference does it make? XP users should know all about what matters the most, when their games stutter. While users who claim that 150 frames is worlds better than 100 frames, should open their eyes.
So please, next time someone brings how A64 is so good at gaming, why dont you think twice before making an informative comment. If you want to talk about gaming, talk about videocards. If you want to talk about cpu performance, analyze a variety of applications.
RussianSensation
Elite Member
But FX55 could significantly outperform P4 4.0ghz? Please read my long thread above and reconsider what you just said.
RussianSensation
Elite Member
I was bored..and I simply got tired of all the AMD fanboys talking smack...
Markfw
Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
OK, they are comparing a Max overclocked P4 to a stock FX-55 ? WHF ???
Quote:
So we hope our findings put an end to all of the discussion about who?s got the fastest processor on the market, that processor is none other than AMD?s Athlon 64 FX55. Due to diminishing returns the Pentium 4 processor needs a whopping 5.2GHz clock speed to keep up with AMD?s flagship processor. So was it a good decision on Intel?s part to announce it will not be shipping a 4GHz processor? We think so, as the Pentium 4 was just never going to best AMD?s Athlon 64. Craig Barret clearly had guts and vision when making that decision, or, and that?s just as likely, he knew the 4GHz Pentium 4 needed another 1.2GHz to soundly beat AMD?s fastest, and that just wasn?t feasible.
End quote......
So I think its obvious, that an overclocked FX-55 would crush a 5.2ghz P4 in ANYTHING !!!!
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
