What's faster: P4 2.4 Vs. XP 2800+

[LemonHead]

OK, this may be a stupid question, but it's hard sometimes to compare Intel processers to AMD in a straight "apples to apples" comparison. So what's the performance difference between a P4 2.4 800FSB Vs. an XP 2800+ Barton? Also, is there any site, chart, etc. that really shows the side by side comparison? I know that there are other issues as to overclocking and what the best one is for gaming vs. business, but I'm looking for basic ballpark here.

Thanks!

 

[Vette73]

Each will have its pros and cons. So its hard to compare them 1 to 1

BUT of those 2 I would say AMD for office/internet and gaming, while intel encoding/video editing etc...

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Marlin1975
Each will have its pros and cons. So its hard to compare them 1 to 1

BUT of those 2 I would say AMD for office/internet and gaming, while intel encoding/video editing etc...

Exactly, BUT only one of them will overclock, and it will overclock like crazy. The XP2800 isn't going to hit higher than about 180mhz fsb, while 2.4C's are known for going as high as 300fsb (3.6ghz).

 

[formulav8]

If they stay stock. Get the XP. It will be faster in everything. The P4 may win in encoding though.


Jason

 

[Vette73]

If you throw in overclocking then get a 2500+ Mobile chip. Cheaper and lots of head room with a Abit NF7-S

 

[RussianSensation]

Ok lets consider the pricing:

XP2800+ => $102
P4 2.4 => $154

but if you already decided to compare 2 processors with unequal speed and one having 50% higher price, why not pay extra $13 for a P4 2.8 then? => $167 2.8 @ 3.5ghz is amazing on stock voltage.

If no overclocking get XP2800+ hands down.
If overclocking and want best bang for the buck get Mobile XP-M 2400/2500
If overclocking and you can draw on advantages of HT like encoding, SETI, etc. and its important for you get 2.8 800FSB

 

[Soulkeeper]

the Athlon chip would be cheaper and just as fast if not faster in most everything

i second the idea of getting a 2500+ mobile chip (they have them at newegg) for the same price as the 2800+ desktop chip
the 2500+ mobile bartons are unlocked, run on lower voltages, and overclock very well

the strong point for the P4, besides what was mentioned above would have to be HT imho

good luck

 

[RussianSensation]

Hey Soul u gonna spring for a new vid card soon? lol You and I are lagging in that department....unreal 2004, far cry, then in april doom 3 i dunno how long i can hold out .... the enemy is gonna break through..ahhhhhhhh...

 

[Soulkeeper]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Hey Soul u gonna spring for a new vid card soon? lol You and I are lagging in that department....unreal 2004, far cry, then in april doom 3 i dunno how long i can hold out .... the enemy is gonna break through..ahhhhhhhh...

yeah i just want something that makes the Geforce FX and radeon's look like rolled pennies

maybe i'll wait and try to get one of the better of the last AGP cards
this next round of cards is looking to be quite competitive and could raise the bar a bit

i'm in no rush
although i could use more than 30 fps in the original UT at 1600x1200
it seems to play everything even tho not at the fastest

when i game comes out that i must have maybe i'll upgrade for that later this year

 

[MichaelZ]

u and me both. I've held out on buying a video card for a whole generation. Hopefully the next gen cards proves to be less dissapointing. Bring on UT2004 1280x1024 8xAA 8xAF @ 80FPS!!! booyeh. It'll be well worth the wait :beer:

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: formulav8
If they stay stock. Get the XP. It will be faster in everything. The P4 may win in encoding though.


Jason

Actually my stock 2.4c beat my 2500+@3200+ in quite a few things...encoding with apps using HT...Tmpgenc
w/ HT on by 9%....ray tracing CAD applications it was tight but would have definitely beat the 2800+....in distributed computing with 2 instances....

Basically bottom line is in most HT enabled appliations the 2.4 can match or beat the 2800+ Barton....What is so shocking about this??? nothing...It has been widely known in these same apps a 2.8c is equal to a 3200+ on average.....Gaming ofcourse is not HT enabled so the 2800+ will be better. Office depends on the applications again...Internet??? Just about anything these days can handle that....

 

[Zebo]

Not enough difference you'll notice. I'd prolly get the 2.4C if you're going to OC and the barton if you want to bank $50. Hey it's half a raptor Here are the benches you looking for

 

[AEnigmaWI]

woah, that article is out of date!!

Here is a quote from the March 2004 Midrance System buying guide (Anandtech front page article)

"Ever since the introduction of 800MHz FSB and HT (Hyper Threading) processors, Intel has been trouncing AMD with their mid-range and high end CPU offerings in terms of performance. While you might initially think the Athlon XP 2800+ (512K L2 cache) is just as fast as a Pentium 4 2.8C (512K L2 cache), the fact is that they're not the performance equivalents of each other. While the 2.8C isn't quite as fast as AMD's Athlon 64 offerings in most applications, they are certainly faster than AMD's Athlon XP offerings. In games, content creation, and encoding, there's about a 20%-30% or so performance gain in going from an Athlon XP 2800+ (512K L2 cache) to a Pentium 4 2.8C (512K L2 cache) processor. Most of that performance is quite noticeable too, though at the same time, some of it will not be noticeable at all in the real world. In office programs, you're not going to notice much difference between the 2.8C and 2800+, if any difference at all."

I think that should answer your question... There are many benchmarks to back this up.. plus if you OC a 2.4 it's gonna trounce all over the XP.. now Athlon 64 is a diff story.

 

[DarkMadMax]

Originally posted by: AEnigmaWI
woah, that article is out of date!!

Here is a quote from the March 2004 Midrance System buying guide (Anandtech front page article)
In games, content creation, and encoding, there's about a 20%-30% or so performance gain in going from an Athlon XP 2800+ (512K L2 cache) to a Pentium 4 2.8C (512K L2 cache) processor. Most of that performance is quite noticeable too, though at the same time, some of it will not be noticeable at all in the real world. In office programs, you're not going to notice much difference between the 2.8C and 2800+, if any difference at all."

.

Wow really? Sounds likea pile of bullshit ,epsecially considering


this article AMD xp 2800 beats crap out of p4 2.8 Ghz. It shows p4 2.4 ghz there too . Yeha it really is 20-30% performance gain OVER P4 2.4 GHz . And not vice versa.

You can safely bet on AMD rating - it will be faster or same speed for time critical appilcations (vidoe encoding is not time critical as you start it up and dont worry about it) .

While personllay I wouldnt take XP now - AMD 64 is a much better core.

 

[AEnigmaWI]

hrm.. since both comments / articles are from Anandtech, you would think they would have their ducks in a row right???

Did you notice the date on the article you linked to? Did you notice that those P4 chips weren't P4 systems with 875 P chipsets, hyperthreading, or 800 MHZ FSB ?

Try again, the Athlon XP with 400 MHZ FSB is not as fast as a well put together P4 2.x C system with a 875 or SIS chipset..

Check out this article (link before you go saying things are a pile of bullshit. AMD XP processors are NOT as fast as P4 C. Athlon 64 is faster in most cases, but some P4 C chips are roughly equivalent. Athlon 64 is better price / performance if you want to blow a lot of money, but for the mid price upper end performance slot, P4 wins.

 

[pr497]

Originally posted by: DarkMadMax

Originally posted by: AEnigmaWI
woah, that article is out of date!!

Here is a quote from the March 2004 Midrance System buying guide (Anandtech front page article)
In games, content creation, and encoding, there's about a 20%-30% or so performance gain in going from an Athlon XP 2800+ (512K L2 cache) to a Pentium 4 2.8C (512K L2 cache) processor. Most of that performance is quite noticeable too, though at the same time, some of it will not be noticeable at all in the real world. In office programs, you're not going to notice much difference between the 2.8C and 2800+, if any difference at all."

.

Wow really? Sounds likea pile of bullshit ,epsecially considering


this article AMD xp 2800 beats crap out of p4 2.8 Ghz. It shows p4 2.4 ghz there too . Yeha it really is 20-30% performance gain OVER P4 2.4 GHz . And not vice versa.

You can safely bet on AMD rating - it will be faster or same speed for time critical appilcations (vidoe encoding is not time critical as you start it up and dont worry about it) .

While personllay I wouldnt take XP now - AMD 64 is a much better core.

umm...that article put the AXP against the older 533bus P4's (P4B's). people here are talking about the 800 bus P4's (P4C's).
check the following articles and you will see that a P4 2.4c will beat a AXP 2800+ in many tests.

Anandtech
THG

the AXP ratings were only accurate with the 533 bus P4's.
my 2 cents.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: pr497

Originally posted by: DarkMadMax

Originally posted by: AEnigmaWI
woah, that article is out of date!!

Here is a quote from the March 2004 Midrance System buying guide (Anandtech front page article)
In games, content creation, and encoding, there's about a 20%-30% or so performance gain in going from an Athlon XP 2800+ (512K L2 cache) to a Pentium 4 2.8C (512K L2 cache) processor. Most of that performance is quite noticeable too, though at the same time, some of it will not be noticeable at all in the real world. In office programs, you're not going to notice much difference between the 2.8C and 2800+, if any difference at all."

.

Wow really? Sounds likea pile of bullshit ,epsecially considering


this article AMD xp 2800 beats crap out of p4 2.8 Ghz. It shows p4 2.4 ghz there too . Yeha it really is 20-30% performance gain OVER P4 2.4 GHz . And not vice versa.

You can safely bet on AMD rating - it will be faster or same speed for time critical appilcations (vidoe encoding is not time critical as you start it up and dont worry about it) .

While personllay I wouldnt take XP now - AMD 64 is a much better core.

umm...that article put the AXP against the older 533bus P4's (P4B's). people here are talking about the 800 bus P4's (P4C's).
check the following articles and you will see that a P4 2.4c will beat a AXP 2800+ in many tests.

Anandtech
THG

the AXP ratings were only accurate with the 533 bus P4's.
my 2 cents.

Plus if you actually paid attention to anything you read you would have realised that was a NON-BARTON 2800+...what does that mean since you likely never have paid attention to the cpus of the past year or so??? The non barton XP 2800+ is actually clocked higher in mhz and has a 333mhz fsb...Actual reviews showed it beat the Barton 3000+ in many many apps and give the barton 3200+ a few loses as well...


Bottom line....

A = Bartons are generally slower then their equal pr rated T-Bred bretheren.

B = 800mhz dual channel w/ HT setups are from my testing when I went form a 2.4b@3.2ghz to a 2.6c@3.2ghz was 5-10% due to the dual channel mobo and another 10-25% with Ht enabled apps and higher fsb...


GOOD START JUNIOR!!!!

 

[rogue1979]

originally posted by Duvie:

B = 800mhz dual channel w/ HT setups are from my testing when I went form a 2.4b@3.2ghz to a 2.6c@3.2ghz was 5-10% due to the dual channel mobo and another 10-25% with Ht enabled apps and higher fsb...

You are targeting specific HT enabled apps (again), gaming and normal office/desktop tasks do not show anywhere near that big of a performance boost with HT. I put together a 2.6C@3.2GHz HT on an 865P motherboard. I was not impressed at all. One thing that is never mentioned is that a Nforce2 or Via KT600 feels more responsive in normal use, benchmarks aside. I think people spend more time using their systems than benchmarking them.

I sold the P4 system two weeks later. I bought my 12 year old daughter a P4 2.8GHz notebook. On a 533MHz fsb it benchmarks pretty good, but it doesn't feel as fast as my wife's 333MHz fsb Barton notebook. Oh well, it was relatively cheap and plays games reasonably well with a Radeon 7500 chipset. Averages 80fps in the original UT all details on high at the native resolution of 1024 x 768 and she is happy, which means I am happy!

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: rogue1979
originally posted by Duvie:

B = 800mhz dual channel w/ HT setups are from my testing when I went form a 2.4b@3.2ghz to a 2.6c@3.2ghz was 5-10% due to the dual channel mobo and another 10-25% with Ht enabled apps and higher fsb...

You are targeting specific HT enabled apps (again), gaming and normal office/desktop tasks do not show anywhere near that big of a performance boost with HT. I put together a 2.6C@3.2GHz HT on an 865P motherboard. I was not impressed at all. One thing that is never mentioned is that a Nforce2 or Via KT600 feels more responsive in normal use, benchmarks aside. I think people spend more time using their systems than benchmarking them.

I sold the P4 system two weeks later. I bought my 12 year old daughter a P4 2.8GHz notebook. On a 533MHz fsb it benchmarks pretty good, but it doesn't feel as fast as my wife's 333MHz fsb Barton notebook. Oh well, it was relatively cheap and plays games reasonably well with a Radeon 7500 chipset. Averages 80fps in the original UT all details on high at the native resolution of 1024 x 768 and she is happy, which means I am happy!

"feels fast"

. . . benching may not be "ideal", but I'll trust benchmarks before "feelings"

 

[rogue1979]

When I say "feels fast" this is not just an emotional response to the hardware. I haven't seen any benchmarks lately measuring the time it takes to open a page or an application. If a P4 with HT is faster running some benchmarks that I do less than 5% of the time, but opens apps and pages a tick slower that I use 95% of the time, uhmmm... which one should I use?

The old sports car analogy.
Sports car (A) costs more and is faster on the racetrack.
Sports car (B) costs less and "feels" faster on public roads.

Sports car (B) is actually as fast on public roads because of a more compliant (less sophisticated) suspension with a more forgiving balance.
Sports car (A) is still faster on a racetrack no matter what.

I am going to use the car as a daily driver, gee... which one should I choose?

Duvie goes to the racetrack everyday, his decision would obviously be different.
In this analogy he represents the small amount of power users that benefit from the HT P4 and could justify the extra expense.
I represent most of the people needing a recommendation for a daily machine.

Going back to the original post, under these circumstances the XP 2800+ would be faster than the 2.4GHz P4.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: rogue1979

I represent most of the people needing a recommendation for a daily machine.

in your own mind.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

feels fast"



. . . benching may not be "ideal", but I'll trust benchmarks before "feelings"

<Yoda> Hrmmm! much to learn you have!,<Yoda> <Obi-Wan> Trust your feelings Luke<Obi-Wan> <Vader>click me</Vader> What did this have to do with the thread? Nothing really

 

[rogue1979]

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: rogue1979

I represent most of the people needing a recommendation for a daily machine.

in your own mind.

Unwrap yourself from the Anandtech universe! While this is a great place to gather information and express ideas, it absolutely does not represent the mainstream computer user. I own a computer repair store, we also sell sytems. 99.9% of my customers have no inkling of the stuff we discuss here. They are mainstream users and they judge a computer by how it "feels" and how much it costs. A few are interested in playing games fast, and those just need it to play their favorite game without any hesitation, benchmarks are not even considered.

I absolutely disagree with shops that tell people they "need" a million dollar machine when the customer doesn't even know what it can do. We are different on Anandtech, we know what these machines are capable of and actually use it.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: rogue1979

Originally posted by: apoppin

Originally posted by: rogue1979

I represent most of the people needing a recommendation for a daily machine.

in your own mind.

Unwrap yourself from the Anandtech universe! While this is a great place to gather information and express ideas, it absolutely does not represent the mainstream computer user. I own a computer repair store, we also sell sytems. 99.9% of my customers have no inkling of the stuff we discuss here. They are mainstream users and they judge a computer by how it "feels" and how much it costs. A few are interested in playing games fast, and those just need it to play their favorite game without any hesitation, benchmarks are not even considered.

I absolutely disagree with shops that tell people they "need" a million dollar machine when the customer doesn't even know what it can do. We are different on Anandtech, we know what these machines are capable of and actually use it.

I just can't agree with your reasoning.

Your sport car analogy doesn't fit nor does it answer Duvie's post.

The notebook comparison is poor also; I seriously doubt performance is more dependant on the CPU than the HD (for example).

"Feels" regarding a computer is just silly (to single out the CPU when so many OTHER variables are present) - not to mention the "feeler's" prejudice.

At (the very least) least benchmarks can give a more "scientific" comparison without relying on a believer's 'testimony' on how it "feels".

 

[hytek369]

save your cash and get the barton