P4's future is looking GOOD to me.

[fkloster]

Hey Karl, that Anands P4 review is BADLY in need of an update. That sucker was posted back in Nov. 20 2000 and there were only 3 games he benchmarked. The UT & MDK2 scores he (Anand) achieved I can attest are terribly innacurate. Trust me on this one.... (beta bios? certainly an early release...)

 

[KarlHungus]

Fkloster -

Fair enough. That review was the only one Anand has done on the P4, so there isn't much to reference...

 

[NOX]

<< Perhaps we have different ideas of what identical means. When I say identical it means that both computers have a Geforce2 Ultra in them. Yes, the P4 can be outfitted with a Geforce2 Ultra on Dell's site. If you want to compare that particular P4 to an &quot;identical&quot; Gateway I would suggest you find a Gateway with a 32MB Radeon. >>

The fact is Dell does not offer a Geforce2 Ultra, the ATI Radeon is offered instead. Everything else is still identical, even the monitor size, which you pointed out Gateway?s system was a 19?. Thanks again for pointing out that a P4 system can be bought for roughly the same price as an Athlon system.

<< Now I'm badly informed? Perhaps you would like to explain your logic here. I assume you think you laid the smack down on me by quoting some stats from Tom's P4 review. Perhaps you should refresh yourself by reading Anand's review again. The P4 1.5GHz gets beat by the Athlon 1.2GHz in every game but Q3. Anyway, this point is moot considering these tests are fillrate limited at the resolutions everyone actually plays at. I won't even bring up the results in the business suite tests since you obviously don't want to acknowledge them. All in all the P4 performs well in Q3, some streaming applications, and certain theoretical tests. In most of the others it gets stomped by the Athlon or the PIII. >>



<< Hey Karl, that Anands P4 review is BADLY in need of an update. That sucker was posted back in Nov. 20 2000 and there were only 3 games he benchmarked. The UT &amp; MDK2 scores he (Anand) achieved I can attest are terribly innacurate. Trust me on this one.... (beta bios? certainly an early release...) >>

Thanks fkloster, for pointing out the obvious.

<< I won't even bring up the results in the business suite tests since you obviously don't want to acknowledge them >>

What are you talking about, Tom?s review included business application benchmarks, and yes the Athlon did outperform the P4 1.4, and 1.5. So please, I was not trying to avoid any business test.

<< As for the reason to compare the P4 1.5 to the Athlon 1.2. They have vaguely the same performance level (i.e. they both beat the PIII 1GHz for the most parts at least), and are the highest clock speed/price available. The rationale behind comparing the P4 1.3 and Athlon 900/1G is just as simple, they are both the lowest rated speed before dropping to the next level down in processors (PIII and Duron respectively). >>

The reason why I suggested comparing the 1.2 Athlon with the 1.3 P4 is because they are the closest in terms of speed. Not that AMD?s 1.2 Atlhon outperformed Intel?s P4 1.5 in Anands review. If you bothered to visit other sites you would know that is not necessarily the case. Even if you took that into consideration the P4 1.5 is still very much able to outperform 1.2 Athlon under certain apps, since they are the highest speeds available from both manufacturers. The P4 1.5, and 1.4 was able to outperform an o/c Athlon 1.4 w/DDR/133FSB. But since you agree that Anands review is in need of an update I don?t know how you can suggest that so confidently.

<< I assume you think you laid the smack down on me by quoting some stats from Tom's P4 review. >>

I don?t try to lay anything onto anyone. Tom?s review is just another resource of information, X-Bits review is another etc.

The fact is as more up to date reviews pop up, the P4 start to show improvement, unlike earlier reviews suggest.

 

[MadRat]

You really need to use solid testing to prove your point. Your arguments that the P4 outperforms the Athlon is muddy and unfounded. Synthetic benchmarks (especially ones that pimp QDR RDRAM as 4x its reality in bandwidth) and Quake!!! (optimized for SSE) are not head to head comparisons.

If thats the case then an overclocked Celeron at 1gHz outperforms a normally-clocked 1gHz Athlon-Thunderbird in the same Quake!!! tests. A Pentium!!!-Xeon on an 820 chipset outperforms the Athlon, too. Are they practical products? Yes and no. Would the informed consumer buy them for home use? Probably not. Would the IT professional buy the current P4 or a Thunderbird for a server? Probably not. It all comes down to semantics. If you want to prove that the P4 or Thunderbird is faster, then use a whole slurry of tests optimized for x86 processors in general, and not optimized for either platform.

 

[NOX]

<< You really need to use solid testing to prove your point. Your arguments that the P4 outperforms the Athlon is muddy and unfounded. Synthetic benchmarks (especially ones that pimp QDR RDRAM as 4x its reality in bandwidth) and Quake!!! (optimized for SSE) are not head to head comparisons. >>

Just for clarification, are you suggesting that review sites use not using solid testing to prove their point, or not reviewing hardware products properly, and their reviews are muddy and unfounded? I?m getting this information from them, and not making this stuff up! If you care to point me to a site that is accomplishing, or has accomplished what you?re suggesting please feel free to do so.

<< If thats the case then an overclocked Celeron at 1gHz outperforms a normally-clocked 1gHz Athlon-Thunderbird in the same Quake!!! tests. >>

Sorry to disrupt your scheme of thinking but not every synthetic, SSE, or 3Dnow benchmark accomplishes this. Though I do remember a lot of you suggesting that a Celeron at same speed as a PIII would perform as well. Some even suggested this with the Duron and Tbird.

<< If you want to prove that the P4 or Thunderbird is faster, then use a whole slurry of tests optimized for x86 processors in general, and not optimized for either platform. >>

I?m not trying to prove anything, I don?t have to. The information is there, though what you believe is up to you. Why don?t you try to disprove what reviewers have outline as benefits for the P4?

<< you wont get much support for Intel on these message boards, which is one reason I very rarely visit. I have always been an Intel supporter(not RAMBUS though) It is always just a bunch of penis envy arguements. >>

I have to totally agree, its worthless arguing with a bunch of AMD Zombies who can?t appreciate the technology for what it is! And I thought them Mac addicts were bad!

 

[TravisBickle]

for those who delude themselves that RDRAM is at a good price and yield
newslink
nope

 

[MikeyP]

Although I am very intrigued by the P4's design--and hope to work at Intel in a few years for that matter--the tests where the P4 wins are due to the massive memory bandwith. Yes, this will be very valuable in future applications, but as of right now, the Athlon 1.2 offers better performance than the 1.5 P4. Ace's Review

Now tell me the Athlon 1.2Ghz does not meet or exceed the P4 1.5 Ghz. This review gives a much better perspective of real world performance as of now. The P4 core does have a brighter future than the current implementation of the T-Bird core, due to SSE2. They are both great processors, but as of right now, the Athlon 1.2Ghz is the fastest processor available.

 

[ElFenix]

does anyone happen to remember that intel is developing a P4 chipset for the server market, and it will be DDR? hmmm? yeah, thats what i thought. in high end applications, DDR rules the roost, and that is what intel thinks.

 

[NOX]

<< They are both great processors, but as of right now, the Athlon 1.2Ghz is the fastest processor available. >>

I agree, not only is it fastest, but also better. I never suggesting the Athlon was not, I said the P4 would out perform the Athlon in certain benchmarks (meaning only some). Though a lot of you AMD is everything people were suggesting the P4 has no future bla?bla?bla! The structure of the P4 does in fact have a future. You?ll see more of it when AMD releases its newest processor. This is to allow it to take DDR to it?s full potential.

 

[formulav8]

I don't see why anyone in thier right mind would buy a P4 right now. Unless they have money to burn. In the future it would probably be worth it. Maybe even after they change the socket design or whatever it is they are changing in a few months. Way overpriced and way underpowered right now.

 

[Mobiusx]

In response to Nox:

The fact is Dell does not offer a Geforce2 Ultra, the ATI Radeon is offered instead. Everything else is still identical, even the monitor size, which you pointed out Gateway?s system was a 19?. Thanks again for pointing out that a P4 system can be bought for roughly the same price as an Athlon system.Text

Why compare a P4 rig from Dell with an Athlon rig from Gateway? Just compare a P4 with an Athlon system from Gateway, they offer both.

Gateway model 1200
1.2 GHz Athlon
128MB of ram
19&quot; monitor
64MB NVIDIA Geforce 2 Ultra
40GB hd
16x/40x DVD-ROM drive
Microsoft Works Suite 2001
Gateway mouse
Total Price: $1999.00



Gateway model 1500
1.5 GHz P4
128MB RDRAM
64MB NVIDIA Geforce 2 Ultra
19&quot; monitor
60GB hd
same DVD
MS Office 2000 Small Business
Microsoft Intellipoint mouse
Total Price: $3499.00



I compared these two machines because they both have 19&quot; monitors, the same everything EXCEPT, the P4, the RDRAM, the difference in hd's, the software bundle, and the mouse.

Look at it another way. Take the P4 model 1400, upgrade it's monitor, video card, keep everything else the same. In this scenario, the only difference is the CPU, and memory type. Now what does the price look like? The price jumps to $2464.00 from $1999.00 ($1999.00 with a 32mb nvidia geforce mx, and 17&quot; monitor).

So, I can have either: a model 1200 Athlon rig @ $1999.00; a model 1400 P4 rig @ $2464.00; or a spec'ed out model 1500 P4 @ $3499.00. Hummm, which one should I throw my hard-earned dinero at?

My Analysis:
You'd have to be an f-in' loon to shell out roughly $1400 more for the 1.5GHz P4 rig when you're only getting 20 more Gigs of hd space, MS Office 2000 SB, and an Intellipoint Mouse. For that price I should at least get Office 2000 Premium. The increase in performance (I bet) wouldn't make a hill-of-beans difference to me. The analysis sways Intel's way a little better with the model 1400. You get the same rig with &quot;Intel Inside&quot; on the outside, and the vaunted RDRAM. It's a nice piece, but is it worth $465.00 more? To me, no way.


Conclusion:
Gimme' the Athlon rig. Thanks very much, but I don't like gravy.

 

[NOX]

<< Why compare a P4 rig from Dell with an Athlon rig from Gateway? Just compare a P4 with an Athlon system from Gateway, they offer both. >>

Uh?because it?s cheaper. Do you buy a product from Best Buy when CompUSA is offering that same product for $100 less?

Though I?ll ask you this, why buy the 1500, when you can get the 1300 Deluxe, which offer the same features as the 1500 (just no 1.5 P4)? You can also get the 1500 non-XL for $2823 and with the same specs as the AMD 1200.

Performance 1300 Dlx:

Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor 1300 MHz (1.3GHz)
128MB RDRAM PC800
40GB 7200RPM Ultra ATA Hard Drive
Monitor EV910 19&quot; Color Monitor (18.0&quot; viewable area)
Floppy Drive 3.5&quot; 1.44MB
CD-ROM/DVD 16X/40X DVD-ROM
64MB DDR NVIDIA GeForce2 Ultra Graphics w/TV Out
Sound Cards SoundBlaster Live w/ Digital Audio Output
Speakers Boston Acoustics®BA735 Digital Speakers with Subwoofer
56K Modem Combo Card
Case Gateway Mid-Tower Case
Keyboard Multi-Function Keyboard
Controller Specifications Integrated Ultra ATA Controller
Expansion slots Five PCI and One AGP
Mouse Microsoft® IntelliPoint Mouse and Gateway mouse pad
Operating System Microsoft® Windows® Millennium Edition
Application Software Microsoft® Office 2000 Small Business Edition
Bundled Software Quicken® 2001 New User Edition and Norton Anti-Virus
Warranty 3 Yr Ltd Warranty, 1 Yr Onsite Service, Ltd Hardware &amp; Software Tech Support

Total $2333


Select 1200 Deluxe:

AMD Athlon 1200MHz Processor with New Performance Enhancing Cache Memory
128MB 133MHz SDRAM
40GB 7200RPM Ultra ATA Hard Drive
Monitor EV910 19&quot; Color Monitor (18.0&quot; viewable area)
Floppy Drive 3.5&quot; 1.44MB
16X/40X DVD-ROM Drive
Video 64MB DDR NVIDIA GeForce2 Ultra Graphics w/TV Out
Sound Cards SoundBlaster Live w/ Digital Audio Output
Speakers Boston Acoustics®BA735 Digital Speakers with Subwoofer
Modem Home Networking/56K Modem Combo Card
Case Gateway Mid-Tower Case
Keyboard Multi-Function Keyboard
ControllerCard Ultra ATA 100 Controller for Windows
Expansion slots Five PCI and One 4X AGP
Mouse Microsoft® IntelliPoint Mouse and Gateway mouse pad
Operating System Microsoft® Windows® Millennium Edition
Application Software Microsoft® Office 2000 Small Business Edition
Bundled Software Quicken® 2001 New User Edition and Norton Anti-Virus
Warranty 3 Yr Ltd Warranty, 1 Yr Onsite Service, Ltd Hardware &amp; Software Tech Support

Total Price: US $2128

A difference of $200. Nice try, but there is more then one way to skin a cat.

Conclusion:

The consumer will have a nice choice of either system.

This is pointless, have a nice day all.

 

[Remnant2]

I have 2 points, Nox.

1) Price. First of all, your comparison is misrepresentative. Not wrong -- just deceptive. Of course Dell offers a very good deal on the P4. As the only pure-Intel vendor left, they get great pricing and first-choice on new chips. Others get P4s also, but at a higher cost.
In the DIY market, which is all that most Anandtechers care about, the price delta is :

Athlon 1200 (263) + Asus MB (131) + 128mb DDR 2100 (144)
P4 1400 (549) + Intel/Asus/MSI MB (219) + 128mb PC800 RDRAM (140)

All prices are the LOWEST given on pricewatch at the time of this post. (yes, the P4 price is an OEM version without the included rimms)

You could buy the entire Athlon 1200 DDR system for less than the price of the P4 1400 alone! Our total DIY price delta is $370. I don't know about how much you like your money, but $370 is very significant! I could buy an Athlon and take a nice little ski vacation to Whistler tacked on.

True, if you you always want to buy Dell, then you get a better price. But you tell me, do you want to be shackled to one vendor for every purchase you make?

2) Performance. The P4 does look good on a few benchmarks. Sisoft Sandra. Optimized version of Flask (that is UNAVAILABLE for love or money). Quake 3. Care to name some more? In every other gaming benchmark that I've seen, an Athlon 1200 DDR over the P4 1400 (&amp; 1500). Sometimes by a slim margin, but other times by up to almost 20%!

But you don't just play games. How about business apps? Nevermind, you definitely don't want to go there. DVD recording/video editing? Maybe the area that the P4 will really shine in when it gets optimized software, but not right now. How about 3d creation &amp; rendering? Buahaha. That one isn't even competitive -- an Athlon 600 SDR could probably equal your P4 1400/1500. (See Tom's 3dsmax benchmarks).
So what's left? Well, that Tom article you mention used only 3 benchmarks -- Bapco, Quake3, and WebMark 2001 to show the performance of the P4 vs Athlon@1400. Just one problem with WebMark -- what exactly is it measuring? Other web sites that have attempted to use Webmark have stopped because of the unreliable and context-free results that it generates (I believe it was Hardocp or thresh's that said this). Please benchmark using things that people will actually use. Someone else mentioned visiting Ace's Hardware for their review, and if you haven't, I strongly recommend you do. They benchmark the P4 with a variety of real-life modern gaming &amp; business benchmarks that expose performance outside of Quake3 and Sandra. They have a very fair review, exposing some good points of the P4 in various areas, mainly video stream related, but overall they paint a very different picture of the P4 than the one you attempt to.

I hope I've made my point. The P4 will not die -- even if the chip sucked, it's promoted by Intel and would be a winner -- but the fact is, it doesn't suck. When it reaches 2ghz clockspeeds and gets some optimizations, it might be a nice purchase.

But right now, why pay more, even a modest amount more, for so much less?

edit : recalculated the benchmark deltas. Max lead is ~25% lead for the Athlon.

 

[NOX]

<< The P4 will not die -- even if the chip sucked, it's promoted by Intel and would be a winner -- but the fact is, it doesn't suck. >>

Thank you, that?s all I?m trying to say.

I don?t believe the prices I?ve posted are deceiving, I did what any smart consumer would. Find a way to get a product at the cheapest price possible (could be cheaper).

I have read Ace?s P4 review before, and nowhere in the review did I see the author state the P4 has no future and is distend to fail. In fact, in the conclusion he mentions of few pluses for the P4. I agree with this part the most, ?Our bandwidth benchmarks clearly show what Ace?s Hardware has been pointing out in our previous articles: RAMBUS is good technology (from a controversial company), but the i820 chipset and the 133 MHz bus totally crippled it. The Pentium 4 will probably also ramp very fast in clock speed, so AMD should not rest on their laurels.? I hope that?s not misleading, after all I am quoting the article. The P4 again does win some of the benchmarks, real world according to you, and a few others. Though it also loses a number of other benchmarks, which I?m not trying to deny, but people feel the need to deny the Intel P4 has a future.

As for the rest of what you said, I clearly understand. I never once said the P4 was better, or the greatest. That was not my attempt, I understand the P4 is not something us AT members would consider (unless it?s free, or cheap), but we are not the market. We are just a small percentage of people who build our own systems. The larger Market will consider buying a P4, that?s just the way it is. The larger market will buy Dell, that?s just the way it is.

So you ask me if I want to be shackled to one vendor for every purchase I make?[/i] Me not all the time, only MSI?s motherboards! But try asking my company that, their answer will be yes, because my company bought 96 Dell workstations last year, and are looking at doing the same this year. I know a lot of other larger companies in our area that has all of one brand also (most of them Dells, some Compaq), and let me tell you they all have Intel Inside stickers on them.

TravisBickle,

Nice link, that just tells me that RDRAM is in demand, and Samsung can?t keep up with the load so prices will go up.

 

[KarlHungus]

<< The fact is Dell does not offer a Geforce2 Ultra, the ATI Radeon is offered instead. Everything else is still identical, even the monitor size, which you pointed out Gateway?s system was a 19?. Thanks again for pointing out that a P4 system can be bought for roughly the same price as an Athlon system. >>

Dell Link here's a P4 system that can be configured with a Geforce2 Ultra. And yes, I guess I've proven you can get a low end P4 system for around the same price as a high end Athlon...

<< The reason why I suggested comparing the 1.2 Athlon with the 1.3 P4 is because they are the closest in terms of speed. Not that AMD?s 1.2 Atlhon outperformed Intel?s P4 1.5 in Anands review. If you bothered to visit other sites you would know that is not necessarily the case. Even if you took that into consideration the P4 1.5 is still very much able to outperform 1.2 Athlon under certain apps, since they are the highest speeds available from both manufacturers. The P4 1.5, and 1.4 was able to outperform an o/c Athlon 1.4 w/DDR/133FSB. But since you agree that Anands review is in need of an update I don?t know how you can suggest that so confidently. >>

Please don't tell me you believe clock rating equals speed on a one to one basis...

And yes, I visit other sites. I thought Tom's was one of the worst reviews out there, simply because he jumped from one conclusion to the next over the course of several days, tested on software I never use (minus Q3), and even went so far as to use a compiled version of a MPEG encoder that the public cannot get their hands upon. Perhaps if you stopped calling people AMD zealots and uninformed long enough to read what people are saying you might learn something. I've read those articles (Anand, Tom, Ace's, I wish Ars would do one) and have come to a conclusion: the P4 is not a good buy at this time. It just costs too much for the performance it gives. In the future this stance could change, but as of right now that's my opinion. I also do not see the rest of the public rushing out to get one. This situation is similar to the introduction of Rambus and the i820, people don't want to pay a price premium for a product if there is little or no performance gain (and yes, I realize that the P4 outperforms the Athlon in certain apps, but it does get shelled in others). Finally, I would consider getting a PIII before a P4 as well, but I guess in your book I'm still an AMD zealot.

 

[TravisBickle]

I don't believe the good doctor did a bad review. he simply used a benchmark without fully understanding the programming of it. now, who does? very few people. it was Intel themselves, mindful of Tom's stature and influence, who attempted to skew the results for the P4. Tom, with his integrity, allowed the benchmark to be redone, and also allowed AMD supporters to tweak the benchmark the same.
the design of a processor, particularly the p4, is absorbing stuff. unfortunately intel have chosen to force different programming techniques on programmers to avoid results that typically compare very poorly.

 

[Mobiusx]

Why would I compare Gateway to Gateway instead of Gateway to Dell? For accurate comparison purposes of course! You cannot buy a similarly configured Dell and Gateway system period. The price difference alone between a Geforce 2 Ultra and a 32 MB Radeon is quite large- ($382.00 vs. $110.00) just check Pricewatch. My point is standardization of price comparison methods. I have no preference between a Dell or Gateway- I wouldn't buy either. But the idea is, different manufacturers use different vendors to supply their parts, they buy in different quantities, and usually, like the videocard, they offer different peripheral configurations, and software bundles.

Again, is even (just) a $200 difference between the 1300 deluxe vs. the 1200 deluxe comparison you made worth it to say you have Intel Inside? Is that machine any faster in meaningful terms- very doubtful. Is $200.00 enough to cause a potential buyer pause? Yes it is in my experience.

I buy based upon cost/performance ratios. I configure systems based upon the best bang for the buck with a minimum of downtime for the end-user. I don't buy on name alone. My cost/ performance analysis tells me in terms of wide-scale configuration for users I build for that at this time, a P4 rig at any price is not as cost effective as an Athlon rig.

Only hard-core gamers care about that last scintilla of frag-rate obtained with (stated) higher processor speeds. Only posers or newbies care whether it says Intel Inside, Dell, or Gateway on the box. The best-case scenario (I think) is to buy the most machine you can afford within reason to guard against obsolescense. In my mind, a P4 does this no better than an Athlon. Therefore, once again, I build with Athlons. Now when competitive pressure forces Intel to the lower their PLATFORM prices, then I'll reconsider, and not until then. Their simply is no advantage to buying a P4 at this time as far as I can tell.

 

[NOX]

<< Please don't tell me you believe clock rating equals speed on a one to one basis... >>

So you feel it?s far to compare a 700MHz Cyrix to a 1.2gig Athlon?

<< I've read those articles (Anand, Tom, Ace's, I wish Ars would do one) and have come to a conclusion: the P4 is not a good buy at this time. >>

At this time, that?s the keyword.

<< I thought Tom's was one of the worst reviews out there, simply because he jumped from one conclusion to the next over the course of several days, tested on software I never use (minus Q3), and even went so far as to use a compiled version of a MPEG encoder that the public cannot get their hands upon. Perhaps if you stopped calling people AMD zealots and uninformed long enough to read what people are saying you might learn something. >>

You just confirmed AMD people (or AMD Zombies) are hypocrites! First, everyone blast Anands DDR Killer review because it basically shows DDR getting killed on Anands AMD 760 platform. Then you guys phrase Tom?s review or the MSI K7 Master because it wins hands down against the KT133A. Now your attacking Tom because his review showed the P4 could in fact performed as well as the Athlon.

 

[MadRat]

Lets put ONE 256mb stick of RAM into each machine and rerun the benchmarks. I don't think Intel would approve of this showdown. The morale of the story is that the P4 memory upgrade usually requires 4 stick purchases at a time while the Athlon upgrade requires a single purchase. So after upgrading the Athlon now has its old and new memory combined while the P4 simply replaced the old and now you're stuck with the old as surplus. Joy.

From an IT perspective this is a valid comparison. Cost and practicality are relevant in systems that are billed as upgradeable. You have to look at these when you make a business case for the purchase.

 

[Sunner]

MadRat, why would it require a 4 stick purchase?
The i850 is a dual channel solution, remember?

 

[etech]

Nox, that was a nice price comparison that you posted re. the Gateways but I like to run 256Meg. Try another config comparison from Gateway using 256meg.

 

[KarlHungus]

<< So you feel it?s far to compare a 700MHz Cyrix to a 1.2gig Athlon? >>

No, because they are in different classes of processors. Athlon is a performace type processor, Cyrix is most definitely value class. If you chose to compare the 700 MHz Cyrix (I think this speed is their highest) to a 800 MHz Celeron and a 850MHz Duron I would have no problems. Now, again looking at the P4, what should we compare it to? It's a performance processor, so it should be going up against the Athlon. It should also be compared versus Intel's last performance processor, the PIII, to see what gains it gives. There are cases when the 1.5 GHz P4 blows every other consumer x86 processor out of the water. There are other cases where the P4 gets killed by the PIII, the chip it is intended to replace, and the Athlon. As such, it is only fair to compare the highest speed grade of each processor - 1.0 GHz PIII, 1.2 GHz Athlon, and 1.5 GHz P4. How about the following price comparison: a 1 GHz Athlon system vs. a 1.5 GHz P4? It shows about as much loaded logic as yours, after all I'm sure we could drag up a benchmark in which the 1 GHz Athlon beats the 1.5 GHz P4.

<< You just confirmed AMD people (or AMD Zombies) are hypocrites! First, everyone blast Anands DDR Killer review because it basically shows DDR getting killed on Anands AMD 760 platform. Then you guys phrase Tom?s review or the MSI K7 Master because it wins hands down against the KT133A. Now your attacking Tom because his review showed the P4 could in fact performed as well as the Athlon. >>

Wow, more name calling. No wonder so many people are leaving the boards. Please name one thing that I've said that's hypocritical. Or do you think we &quot;AMD Zombies&quot; post en masse? For the record I am not an AMD Zombie, Zealot, Freak, etc. You get the point. I have no problems with almost every Anand article that ever came out (minus that Rambus PR piece he did - you know, the 1st part, but where they didn't mention in the article that there was a second part coming out later). Anand puts up very informative reviews using software that I feel is representative of most every market segement. Which brings me to Tom's review and why I don't like it (again). Tom primarily used obscure/unobtainable software packages (minus Q3 - though if you look at the number of hardcore gamers maybe not), and drew conclusions based upon those packages. Had he done the same with an Athlon I would not liked the article either.

 

[Mobiusx]

BTW, &quot;at this time&quot; is &quot;always&quot; the key word in this industry.

 

[Mobiusx]

A good point which echoes my &quot;platform price&quot; argument. That's where Intel is sucking air right now.