• 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.

STARTLING: P4 as fast as A64 in Doom 3 real-world test

U

UzairH

Senior member
EDIT: I've just learned to edit. I wanted to add a poll previously so I foolishly started a new thread. Please post and vote there. Thanks!!!
---------------------------------


Ok people some of you, in fact quite a lot of you may have seen this benchmark before, but I haven't seen anyone comment on that here. On every review website when they review the CPU performance in Doom 3 they run the timedemo, with A64 always on top of equivilant P4. But the physics and maybe the AI engines do not run during the timedemo in Doom 3. Xbitlabs did a review some time ago which turned up very interesting results in real-world CPU power in Doom 3:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/print/doom3-cpu.html

In the initial tests they, like all the other reviews, run the timedemo benchmark which the A64's win. But in real game play runs the P4's actually come out on top. For instance, the P4 3.0 GHz is faster than both A64 3000+ and 3200+. However these Athlons are the older single-channel socket 754 ones. Maybe the newer s939 ones reach parity with the P4, but I don't think the 3% boost from dual-channel the A64 gets will let them cross the P4.

Now tell if you think I am wrong, but I believe this review's results. Interesting stuff eh? :shocked:

Anyone with access to two similar spec P4 and A64 systems care to verify this conclusion with your tests?

 
"It would be imprudent to claim that a particular CPU architecture suits better for playing Doom 3: the Athlon 64 FX-53 is about as fast as the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition and the Athlon 64 3800+ equals the Pentium 4 560. We could continue drawing parallels longer, though"
 
Yeah I linked this several months ago. I guess no one pays much attention to this because for this one test, they took a similar approach as to what HardOCP does for videocards -- looking at the level of playability and not average or maximum framerates.

That is why I continue to recommend ppl to keep upgrading their videocard first and foremost and not the CPU. That is why there is no point in upgrading from a P4 3.0 or above to any A64 system today just for gaming purposes only.
 
Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Yeah I linked this several months ago. I guess no one pays much attention to this because for this one test, they took a similar approach as to what HardOCP does for videocards -- looking at the level of playability and not average or maximum framerates.

That is why I continue to recommend ppl to keep upgrading their videocard first and foremost and not the CPU. That is why there is no point in upgrading from a P4 3.0 or above to any A64 system today just for gaming purposes only.
Click to expand...

The reason noone paid attention to it is because it puts a light on the fact that AMD arent best for EVERYTHING
 
Interesting...of course, since AMDs are cheaper at every performance point, AMD still wins. And run cooler to boot!
 
Heh, nVidia cards alor run Doom3 alot better. Must be an ID thing, because it isn't feeding anyone's EGO...or is it?
 
Actually its because Nvidia has much better opengl coding in their drivers than Ati does. Since Doom3 is based on opengl this is why nvidia cards run it better.
 
More proof that synthetic benchmarks are crap. There is a reason why Dell uses Intel, not because their stuff is as fast, but reliability.

A64 may win against a P4 in benches but overall it loses as its sales figures suggest
 
Originally posted by: slash196
Interesting...of course, since AMDs are cheaper at every performance point, AMD still wins. And run cooler to boot!
Click to expand...

Not against a 6xx. Ive had both a winchester an a 640 prescott. On both idle and load the N0 Prescott runs cooler. Ive seen it with my own eyes, howver once you crank up the volts the heat is back on. Although it isnt NEARLY as bad as people make it out to be
 
AMD costs less, no matter how you slice it. And it almost always runs cooler. So same performance or not, Pentiums still lose 😀

(Except in office apps. But who the heck cares how well a CPU runs MS Office?)
 
Originally posted by: Sentential
More proof that synthetic benchmarks are crap. There is a reason why Dell uses Intel, not because their stuff is as fast, but reliability.

A64 may win against a P4 in benches but overall it loses as its sales figures suggest
Click to expand...

The sales figure is a mere reflection of the fact that Intel advertises and AMD doesn't. In the bigger is better world of American Consumerism, Intel going for high Ghz speed without efficient performance is also a reflection of its marketing approach.
 
^^ interesting reply, thanks for your thoughtful contribution.

AMD definitely is more of a value item but please be aware that Intel has recently taken the WR in SP 1M and 3DMark03 single card (both on a 3.73ee). With the right cooling the differences arent that huge in all scenarios.
 
Sentential, What? The sales figures have NOTHING to do with AMD "losing..." what do you even mean? if AMD had even HALF the production capacity of Intel they would cease to exist (Intel that is). Can you imagine how cheap AMD could make their processors if they were pumping out the volumes that Intel can?
 
Originally posted by: Hyperlite
Sentential, What? The sales figures have NOTHING to do with AMD "losing..." what do you even mean? if AMD had even HALF the production capacity of Intel they would cease to exist (Intel that is). Can you imagine how cheap AMD could make their processors if they were pumping out the volumes that Intel can?
Click to expand...

Well whether you like it or not Intel is on top. They are there for a reason. You can call it bad buisness/aggressive practices. If AMD's own corporate heads werent so incompetant they would be rivaling intel (as they should).

Also I'd like to add that people like you... aka the "I want a cheap processor" at all costs, walmatr kinda folks are the reason why AMD is doing poorly finincially. You cant get something for nothing.

Even when they didnt have production issues they still couldnt outsell Intel
 
Haha, "walmart kinda folks?" What are you implying? There is a difference between "getting more bang for your buck" and "getting something for nothing." That processor cost me $95, thank you very much.

Furthermore, i hate walmart. AMD isn't doing poorly financially, they simply don't have the production capacity to match Intel.
 
Originally posted by: Hyperlite
Haha, "walmart kinda folks?" What are you implying? There is a difference between "getting more bang for your buck" and "getting something for nothing." That processor cost me $95, thank you very much.

Furthermore, i hate walmart. AMD isn't doing poorly financially, they simply don't have the production capacity to match Intel.
Click to expand...

I am saying bluntly that people like you. Who demand an $400 CPU @ $100 are driving AMD out of buisness much like Wallmart does.. $95 is laugable for a CPU. AMD cant stay profitable and pay its employees on that....

Getting more "bang for you buck" is raping AMD and its employees of its hard earned money.
 
Originally posted by: Sentential
Originally posted by: Hyperlite
Sentential, What? The sales figures have NOTHING to do with AMD "losing..." what do you even mean? if AMD had even HALF the production capacity of Intel they would cease to exist (Intel that is). Can you imagine how cheap AMD could make their processors if they were pumping out the volumes that Intel can?
Click to expand...

Well whether you like it or not Intel is on top. They are there for a reason. You can call it bad buisness/aggressive practices. If AMD's own corporate heads werent so incompetant they would be rivaling intel (as they should).

Also I'd like to add that people like you... aka the "I want a cheap processor" at all costs, walmatr kinda folks are the reason why AMD is doing poorly finincially. You cant get something for nothing.

Even when they didnt have production issues they still couldnt outsell Intel
Click to expand...


the business minds at AMD might suck, but the engineering minds are great. I thank AMD for competition, and creating the A64 chip that kick Intel @$$.
 
Money is the jack of all trades. Until AMD gets that squared away they will just be another piss-ant company. For their sake I certinaly hope they do but I feel they are focusing on the wrong end of technology. Like it or not the gaming sector is a very small percentage of PC users. Most people use a PC strictly for browsing etc. AMD needs to get a form of hyperthreading for their CPUs
 
Originally posted by: Sentential
Money is the jack of all trades. Until AMD gets that squared away they will just be another piss-ant company. For their sake I certinaly hope they do but I feel they are focusing on the wrong end of technology. Like it or not the gaming sector is a very small percentage of PC users. Most people use a PC strictly for browsing etc. AMD needs to get a form of hyperthreading for their CPUs
Click to expand...

I think hyperthreading is over-hyped. Let's wait for real multi-threading with multi-core. If mostly ppl use a PC strictly for browsing then all they need is a celery or a P2. Gaming is a big driving force for technology. If not for the gaming market then everyone would be set with onboard Intel Extreme(ly crappy) graphics.

There's nothing a P4 can do that an A64 can't, with each having advantage on different area. But P4 architeture sucks, have to run at way higher clock speed to match the processing power of A64 chip. Extreme Edition is a waste of money that only Intel fanboy would buy. Now A64 can run 64-bit OS while a P4 can't. Maybe Intel is negotiating with Microsoft to delay release of the 64-bit windows.

With that said, I don't think AMD will topple Intel over in any near future. Intel is the giant that controls the system retail channel (think Dell). I do hope AMD will do well finacially so it can keep challenging Intel. Competition is good for consumers.
 
I have to say, thats not entirly true moon....the 6xx series does supposedly have 64bit extensions (has anyone tested that yet, btw?)

I have to agree on the point that Gaming is a major driving force in technology progression. It is the most taxing application that most home users run.
 
Originally posted by: mooncancook
Originally posted by: Sentential
Money is the jack of all trades. Until AMD gets that squared away they will just be another piss-ant company. For their sake I certinaly hope they do but I feel they are focusing on the wrong end of technology. Like it or not the gaming sector is a very small percentage of PC users. Most people use a PC strictly for browsing etc. AMD needs to get a form of hyperthreading for their CPUs
Click to expand...

I think hyperthreading is over-hyped.
Click to expand...
Dont knock it till you try it 😉


Originally posted by: Hyperlite
I have to say, thats not entirly true moon....the 6xx series does supposedly have 64bit extensions (has anyone tested that yet, btw?)
Click to expand...
Yes they do indeed have EMT64. In addition to that many people have tested for 64bit support on the hybrid boards. No issues were noted
 
Originally posted by: mooncancook

If not for the gaming market then everyone would be set with onboard Intel Extreme(ly crappy) graphics.
Click to expand...

The thing is...Intel Extreme graphics still occupies largest % of market share (something like 70%) in the graphics market. Therefore, on the whole, gaming is a small priority for PCs. Since AMD excels in gaming, 70% of the market already does not care. Now that Intel has 64-bit processors ready, and its strong name backing it, unfortunately consumers will continue to buy whats "safe," "common" and "proven."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top