P4ee vs a64 vs afx51. THE P4 WON!!!!

[mrgoblin]

The Intel fanbois are gonna have a fit and the amders will riot. The p4 SMASHED the a64fx. Heres a direct quote. "This said, INTEL answered the evil by the evil and Pentium 4 ' EE' is a success in term of performances. Catching up with Athlon 64 FX in all the tests (except for UT2003 in BotMatch) and exceeding it, sometimes largely, in others, Pentium 4 ' EE' are as powerful as expensive and inalienable" Its in french so heres the english translation. LINK Bad bad bad news for amd. If the prescott second revision fixes power problems, it looks like the prescott will be cheaper, faster and might have 64 bit code in it , making it a clear winner. That just me be enough to knock amd out for good. Lets hope amd can ramp these things up and quit dicking around.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Nice link! :beer:

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

I skimmed the charts and it seems as if in some cases the FX wins and in some the P4EE wins, but I didn't pay close attention to some charts where lower score is better or not. I think Intel has made some nice movies in this case.... so far, atleast

 

[mrgoblin]

It smashed amd in every video test and it did alot better than the p4 in games. I think we have a winner....

 

[DannyBoy]

I think its safe to say AMD have a lot of catching up to do now.

Lets hope they have made themselves a decent foundation to work on for the next 6-12 months.

 

[Ionizer86]

Hmm, how did some of us think that the Athlon 64 would perform uber well at 2.0 or 2.2Ghz anyway? The opteron at these speeds should have showed that the benches are kind of "wilametteish" in a way. I guess the issue here is still core frequency. 2.2Ghz isn't going to cut it. The enhancements from K7 to K8 don't look uber-awesome, whereas I was impressed by the AMD760 and SiS735 --> KT266A DDR performance.

Looks like Intel is still king of the high-end. This is very much unlike that Palomino 1800+ launch...where AMD ruled supreme for a little while.

I'm gonna stick with my 1700+ running at >2ghz when I need the extra kick in performance

 

[Czar]

I'm surprised how wastly different these tests are different from Anand's, but we will all know in a few... days

 

[Actaeon]

Confirmation on the reliability of this source?

 

[shabby]

Seems like both win in some cases and loose in others, but amd makes a new chip while intel just stuff's more cache into an old chip.
How about 4 megs of cache intel? *hint hint*

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: mrgoblin
The Intel fanbois are gonna have a fit and the amders will riot. The p4 SMASHED the a64fx. Heres a direct quote. "This said, INTEL answered the evil by the evil and Pentium 4 ' EE' is a success in term of performances. Catching up with Athlon 64 FX in all the tests (except for UT2003 in BotMatch) and exceeding it, sometimes largely, in others, Pentium 4 ' EE' are as powerful as expensive and inalienable" Its in french so heres the english translation. LINK Bad bad bad news for amd. If the prescott second revision fixes power problems, it looks like the prescott will be cheaper, faster and might have 64 bit code in it , making it a clear winner. That just me be enough to knock amd out for good. Lets hope amd can ramp these things up and quit dicking around.

Did you read the same review I did? It didn't SMASH the a64. IT did better in video work, but in ut2003 it dominated, completely, and in superpi. How much will this 3.2EE cost, too.

 

[Mikewarrior2]

The Athlon 64 FX(hte socket 939 version ) is supposed to be priced in the 700 + dollar range, same as the Pentium 4 EE, so price is a null argument.

Considering the A64 plain jain 2.0ghz is ~$500, it makes sense that hte fx will cost more, plus this fx is running 2.2ghz.


Mike

 

[Tab]

I'll wait for the AnAndTech.com benchmarks You've got to remeamber we are comparing a 2.2Ghz to a 3.2

 

[mechBgon]

Very interesting result there in the Minigzip! :Q Look at the difference between A64 in 32-bit and 64-bit! Dasm! :Q

 

[Engineer]

I would guess once some 64 bit optimizations occur, you'll see this gap decrease. However, that EE chip looks pretty good. Wonder how many of the current breed of motherboards will give this baby enough power to run?!?.

 

[Adul]

From the Inq

The FX51 2200MHz chip scores 9370 on Linux Kernel tests, the Opteron 146 2GHz 8339, the Athlon 64 3200 plus scores 8632, the XP 3200 plus 7334m a P4 at 3.2GHz scores 8437, a dual 3.06GHz Xeon 1M 15706, a dual Xeon 1MB 3.06GHz with 533MHz bus 12444, and a dual Opteron 246 16332.

 

[Pariah]

We can all gawk and argue over the FX vs EE benchmarks. But realistically, it's the P4 vs A64 benchmarks that should really draw most of our attention. From that standpoint, it appears that on average the P4 still holds down the performance crown for Joe Average. AMD has a good base to work with, but in order to compete longterm they better be able to ramp up clock speeds quickly. Having a new generation that doesn't quite catch the competition's last generation isn't something to get to excited over, especially with Prescott just around the corner and undoubtedly faster than the current P4 clock for clock.

 

[Pandaren]

I wouldn't call it a victory for either side. The Pentium 4 reigned supreme in some tests, the FX in others. I'm surprised the Pentium 4 EE held out as well as it did, actually.

 

[AgaBoogaBoo]

Originally posted by: Pandaren
I wouldn't call it a victory for either side. The Pentium 4 reigned supreme in some tests, the FX in others. I'm surprised the Pentium 4 EE held out as well as it did, actually.

Same here, I'm surprised how well it performed!

 

[draggoon01]

now this is hardcore:

http://www.x86-secret.com/pics/cpu/k8-2/xeon5b.jpg

 

[mrgoblin]

Originally posted by: Tabb
I'll wait for the AnAndTech.com benchmarks You've got to remeamber we are comparing a 2.2Ghz to a 3.2

We sure are but the price is the same. Youve got to remember that. Thats a poor arguement,

 

[TheNoblePlatypus]

Originally posted by: mrgoblin

Originally posted by: Tabb
I'll wait for the AnAndTech.com benchmarks You've got to remeamber we are comparing a 2.2Ghz to a 3.2

We sure are but the price is the same. Youve got to remember that. Thats a poor arguement,

Got links to the 100% prices that are going to be set for them?

 

[Pocatello]

I have to think intel is the winner, strategically, even if it's a tactical tie. Intel has the answer for the AMD highly touted A64, and more people know about intel than AMD, because of intel marketing's machine. Intel has spend millions of bucks on ads so that people are willing shell out more money to buy an intel system (I have friends who believe their internet connection is faster because they got a P4 system

). Now AMD is going to charge the same amount of money for each processor as intel's, yet most people on the street don't know anything about the Athlon 64.

 

[Snooper]

Tabb,

Actually, we DON'T have to remember that one is a 2.0Ghz and the other is 3.2Ghz. Why? Well, AMD is the company that went to the "Mhz (or Ghz) doesn't matter, only performance" route in the first place. And I can't say that I disagree either. IF AMD had a 2.4 or even 3.0Ghz part ready for testing and sale and they went ahead and compared the 2.0 vs. the 3.2, THEN you could start playing the "Ghz" card. Until then, it is top of the line vs. top of the line and both appear to be about the same cost, so let the best chip win! (and compiler and software optimization and....)

And don't worry about the P4EE being the last chip from Intel. There is some really cool stuff in the mix right now. I mean, come on! Intel DID finally catch up with the 810/815/820 chip set mess....

 

[paperfist]

I don't buy it or maybe I don't want to How can a dated P4 architecture with just the addition of cache outperform the semi-brand new AMD64 bit architecture?!?! Seems to easy.

 

[draggoon01]

nm...)