which is faster, P4 2.8C, or A64 3800+?

[VirtualLarry]

2.8Ghz P4 or 2.4Ghz A64? Is the A64 really and truely equivalent to a 3.8Ghz P4? Or is that mainly marketing?

 

[SolMiester]

At the clock speeds you show, I believe AMD had the better IPC than the P4, so the A64 would be faster

 

[lyssword]

In gaming, yes a64 would probably match same p4 @3.8, but would probably be slower in some other areas.

 

[dguy6789]

For the most part, the Athlon 64 ratings are relatively accurate when compared to a Pentium 4 of said Ghz.

 

[myocardia]

Here are gaming benchmarks with a single-core 3800 vs quite a few P4's. On earlier pages, it shows how it does in other types of apps, if that interests you.

 

[Denithor]

I can tell you from personal experience, when I went from a P4 2.4GHz (800fsb, 512k cache, HT) to an A64 3000+ (s939) I could definitely tell a difference. In gaming there was no comparison, the AMD chip was hands down faster and ran everything smoother. In general use for single applications, the AMD was somewhat faster (not hugely, but a bit). Now, when multitasking, the P4 with HT won out easily (to my perception, anyway).

 

[Chosonman]

Man that P4 is a dinosaur.

 

[Nemesis 1]

OK . But I didn't think the op was talking about the P4ee . HE said AMD 64 not x2 .

So for all those with busy fingers find P4c and AMD 64 reviews. NO FX models P4c against AMD 64. And show more than gaming marks . And please HIGH RES ONLY .

THe RES. changed only after the ass kicking AMD got from C2D. than and only than did the review sights show who they favored . It was a good bad type deal . AS it revealed the reviewers who may take bribes. YOU know the type high res only because its real world LOL!

For shits and giggles I added this. It pretty much covers why AMD is sucking now. NO forsight.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...ts/showdoc.aspx?i=2387

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
OK . But I didn't think the op was talking about the P4ee . HE said AMD 64 not x2 .

So for all those with busy fingers find P4c and AMD 64 reviews. NO FX models P4c against AMD 64. And show more than gaming marks . And please HIGH RES ONLY .

THe RES. changed only after the ass kicking AMD got from C2D. than and only than did the review sights show who they favored . It was a good bad type deal . AS it revealed the reviewers who may take bribes. YOU know the type high res only because its real world LOL!

For shits and giggles I added this. It pretty much covers why AMD is sucking now. NO forsight.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...ts/showdoc.aspx?i=2387

 

[Jax Omen]

It's ok, I have no idea what the hell he's saying either. It's like a weird language that looks like english.

 

[TuxDave]

Originally posted by: Jax Omen
It's ok, I have no idea what the hell he's saying either. It's like a weird language that looks like english.

If I had to translate it goes along the lines of:

Nemesis1: "CPU benchmarks in the past were always run at low resolutions for gaming to make framerates limited by CPU performance and not GPU performance. This allowed us to see performance differences between processors and that revealed how much slower the P4 was compared to the A64. It wasn't only until recently when the C2D out performed the AMDX2 did people start to argue that low-resolution gaming doesn't model realistic performance and we should bench using high resolution only. This in turn revealed due to GPU limitation, the performance difference between the AMDX2 and C2D wasn't that big. This double standard revealed which reviewers favored which companies"

Or something like that.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: Jax Omen
It's ok, I have no idea what the hell he's saying either. It's like a weird language that looks like english.

Alright thats enough. Show me what you don't understand . Its plainly and simply written so any moron can read it . Or you just trolling?

Thanks Tux dave . See dave got it . If your not aware of the past. I can see were you might have trouble with the post. But I think you knew exactly what you were posting .

So lets have some P4C AMD 64 benchmarks. From the same production time. You will see AMD 64 owned nothing. So AMDs real step ahead of intel came with X2 and not AMD 64 . I just love the 64bit part. Kinda like DX10.1 Its in hardware but no games use it . The one that did was removed for unknown reasons (NO debate on this please offtopic) .

Nemesis 1. You have been warned in the past about attacks on other members. Your posts are hard to read, since English may be a second language to you, so please don't attack members when they can't read your posts.

Markfw900 Anandtech Moderator.

 

[A554SS1N]

From when I used to look at every CPU review going, I remember that a A64 3800+ would pretty much be faster than a P4 of around 3Ghz everywhere, faster than a P4 around 3.2Ghz-3.4Ghz in a significant % of apps, and faster than the 3.8ghz P4 in gaming. So basically it's easily better than a 2.8Ghz P4. I'd say a truer rating would have been 3600+ though considering the average performance, but AMD probably based the rating off gaming performance more.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: TuxDave

Originally posted by: Jax Omen
It's ok, I have no idea what the hell he's saying either. It's like a weird language that looks like english.

If I had to translate it goes along the lines of:

Nemesis1: "CPU benchmarks in the past were always run at low resolutions for gaming to make framerates limited by CPU performance and not GPU performance. This allowed us to see performance differences between processors and that revealed how much slower the P4 was compared to the A64. It wasn't only until recently when the C2D out performed the AMDX2 did people start to argue that low-resolution gaming doesn't model realistic performance and we should bench using high resolution only. This in turn revealed due to GPU limitation, the performance difference between the AMDX2 and C2D wasn't that big. This double standard revealed which reviewers favored which companies"

Or something like that.

I think it's ebonics or spanglish.

@ A554SS1N I think that's pretty accurate. The scary thing now is that intel STILL can clock to 4 ghz but they now kick the crap out of amd clock/clock. I think that a 1.1 ghz quad core nehalem with smt might be better than a phenom 9850 in 50% of apps...

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: Jax Omen
It's ok, I have no idea what the hell he's saying either. It's like a weird language that looks like english.

Alright thats enough. Show me what you don't understand . Its plainly and simply written so any moron can read it . Or you just trolling?

Thanks Tux dave . See dave got it . If your not aware of the past. I can see were you might have trouble with the post. But I think you knew exactly what you were posting .

So lets have some P4C AMD 64 benchmarks. From the same production time. You will see AMD 64 owned nothing. So AMDs real step ahead of intel came with X2 and not AMD 64 . I just love the 64bit part. Kinda like DX10.1 Its in hardware but no games use it . The one that did was removed for unknown reasons (NO debate on this please offtopic) .

http://www.tomshardware.com/re...arts-2005,1175-24.html

It starts there and goes on. Notice they used 1280x1024, the most commonly used resolution for that time, so the gaming benches are relevant, thus I don't want to hear any crying about CPU limited resolutions.

A quick tally of my own came up with 22 - 4 in heavy favor of the 2.4GHz A64 vs. 2.8GHz P4C. The P4 managed to barely squeak by in 3 synthetic benches leaving its only real victory to be one that it also barely won thanks to its HT being able to make up for its inefficiencies. Oh and the A64 swept the gaming benches (where it really is as good if not better than a 3.8GHz P4).

As for answering the question as to whether or not 3800+ is fair... well maybe, but I'd put it more in league with a 3400-3600MHz P4 at which point you'd have to choose based on each processor's strengths/weaknesses. But considering we're comparing a 2.8C P4 and a 2.4 A64, the 2.4 A64 is pretty much the obvious, no-brainer choice. Outside of trolling, I'm not sure why Nemesis brought up any point of contention in this particular thread. A 2.4GHz A64 does own a 2.8GHz P4...

 

[VirtualLarry]

Thanks for all of the feedback. The reason that I was asking is that I have this NV6150-based microatx board (with a S939 3800+) in a system, that I want to turn into a HTPC, but the motherboard is having severe DPC latency issues - the mouse freezes every few seconds, and of course, so does YouTube and any other AV process. So movies are unwatchable, a bad thing for a HTPC.

I have another few P4 mobos, and some 2.8C chips, and I was wondering how much of a step backwards I would be taking. I guess it would be significant.

So it looks like I'll be looking into a 780G board and one of those 45W X2 chips. Gigabyte motherboards are excluded though, because I'm boycotting them for crippling their X38-DS4 and X48-DS4 boards. Anyone have any other brand suggestions?

 

[TC91]

I would recommend Asus as a good motherboard manufacturer.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1

Originally posted by: Jax Omen
It's ok, I have no idea what the hell he's saying either. It's like a weird language that looks like english.

Alright thats enough. Show me what you don't understand . Its plainly and simply written so any moron can read it . Or you just trolling?

Thanks Tux dave . See dave got it . If your not aware of the past. I can see were you might have trouble with the post. But I think you knew exactly what you were posting .

So lets have some P4C AMD 64 benchmarks. From the same production time. You will see AMD 64 owned nothing. So AMDs real step ahead of intel came with X2 and not AMD 64 . I just love the 64bit part. Kinda like DX10.1 Its in hardware but no games use it . The one that did was removed for unknown reasons (NO debate on this please offtopic) .

http://www.tomshardware.com/re...arts-2005,1175-24.html

It starts there and goes on. Notice they used 1280x1024, the most commonly used resolution for that time, so the gaming benches are relevant, thus I don't want to hear any crying about CPU limited resolutions.

A quick tally of my own came up with 22 - 4 in heavy favor of the 2.4GHz A64 vs. 2.8GHz P4C. The P4 managed to barely squeak by in 3 synthetic benches leaving its only real victory to be one that it also barely won thanks to its HT being able to make up for its inefficiencies. Oh and the A64 swept the gaming benches (where it really is as good if not better than a 3.8GHz P4).

As for answering the question as to whether or not 3800+ is fair... well maybe, but I'd put it more in league with a 3400-3600MHz P4 at which point you'd have to choose based on each processor's strengths/weaknesses. But considering we're comparing a 2.8C P4 and a 2.4 A64, the 2.4 A64 is pretty much the obvious, no-brainer choice. Outside of trolling, I'm not sure why Nemesis brought up any point of contention in this particular thread. A 2.4GHz A64 does own a 2.8GHz P4...

Very well said.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Nemesis, I think you are missing some of the differences between the A64 vs. P4 battles of yesterday vs. the Phenom vs. Core2 of today. One of the key differences is that the Phenom is at least priced pretty close to where it should be based on performance. Intel wanted $1k for an 'EE' version of the Pentium 4 that could barely (if at all) keep up with an A64 that cost a fraction of the EE's price. If a Phenom 9850 Black Edition cost $1000 today, when it can barely touch a Q6600's performance most of the time, then I think everyone would think buying the Phenom would be about as stupid of a move as you can make.

Also, I can't find it today, and I did search quite a bit, but I remember a site that did a P4 vs. A64 review and they did something that I wish more sites would do today... they included minimum frame rates, they didn't just post average frame rates and call it a day. I very specifically remember their graphs that would show the P4's dipping into single digit frame rates while the A64's would keep the frame rates in the same place about twice what the P4's could. I know I don't have the link to back this up, but I'll keep searching as I have time and see if I can find it. I don't belive the A64's/Phenoms suffer from this, at least not that I've seen. Obviously the C2D's will be pretty much faster in every situation, but I think today's games are so much more GPU dependent that your processor matters less now days... obviously all of your hardware plays some role and is important, but I think these days your GPU is far and away your most important component when it comes to gaming.

Another anti-P4 thing I remember quite clearly is how people would post, and how hardware sites would run stories about how many P4's would throttle due to heat right out of the box. To me this is a big deal, this was an issue that didn't limit itself to the enthusiast community. Joe Average Computer User who just bought a new Compaq may get a processor that usually can't run at it's advertised speed. I don't know about you, but if I bought a processor I want it to be able to run at it's advertised speed in acceptable conditions (read: not 90F ambient temps) and the P4's didn't always do that. I don't think I've heard of a Pheonom/A64 ever having that problem. I'd be pretty pissed if my brand new xx GHz processor couldn't run at that speed because it ran too hot without me ever touching the votage or overclocking. While the Phenoms certainly aren't the fastest, with the exception of the 125 watt versions they run at about what you'd expect as far at temp/power. I think AMD even has a 65 watt quad core, and they have some pretty popular 45 watt dual cores.

So, I don't think that it's exactly apples to apples when you talk about the P4/A64 days vs. the C2D/Pheonom days. A lot of the negatives that apply to the P4's don't directly apply to the Phenom... the Phenom certainly has it's short comings, but I don't think they are as severe as those of the P4. Just my $.02.

 

[Elias824]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Another anti-P4 thing I remember quite clearly is how people would post, and how hardware sites would run stories about how many P4's would throttle due to heat right out of the box. To me this is a big deal, this was an issue that didn't limit itself to the enthusiast community. Joe Average Computer User who just bought a new Compaq may get a processor that usually can't run at it's advertised speed. I don't know about you, but if I bought a processor I want it to be able to run at it's advertised speed in acceptable conditions (read: not 90F ambient temps) and the P4's didn't always do that. I don't think I've heard of a Pheonom/A64 ever having that problem. I'd be pretty pissed if my brand new xx GHz processor couldn't run at that speed because it ran too hot without me ever touching the votage or overclocking.

Ive seen this problem first hand, happened to a 3.2 P4 in a pretty nice gaming case, could never get that thing to run at full speed. If you plan on Ocing, youll have more head room with the athlon, and it will run cooler.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
OK . But I didn't think the op was talking about the P4ee . HE said AMD 64 not x2 .

Noone has mentioned a P4EE but you. And the link I posted has no dual cores of any type, from any company.

And please HIGH RES ONLY .

CPU gaming benchmarks have always been done in low-res, to take the video card out of the equation. Any other way would be ignorant beyond belief.

 

[unr3al]

The P4 had its day. The AMD64 had its day, for that matter. But vs the P4, the AMD64 is definitely the hands-down winner. If only for power consumption and operating temps then, let alone raw clock-for-clock performance. They even beat the Core2's in the temp arena.

 

[Nemesis 1]

First off . Let me say I am sorry for the poor choice of words . (Moron) that is not my posting manner.

OK we seem to have a problem with the op's orginal question .

First he ask for a compare of the 2.8c and the 3800 . These 2 are not from the same time period . Its not apples to apples .

Here is a bench from the period of time I thought we were discussing. I can get lots of these bench marks their all over the net . Am I being selective . NO . At the time of release the P4c 3.2 was the fastest cpu . Even tho it was short lived . The AMD 64 never dominated the P4C . X2 is another story along with the P4P. I love gaming but its not what the rest of the world does with their PCs. As A side note I would have loved to seen the P4C at 90nm . at 65nm or45nm I bet it would hit 10ghz O/C.

http://www.motherboards.org/re...s/hardware/1256_4.html

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: myocardia

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
OK . But I didn't think the op was talking about the P4ee . HE said AMD 64 not x2 .

Noone has mentioned a P4EE but you. And the link I posted has no dual cores of any type, from any company.

And please HIGH RES ONLY .

CPU gaming benchmarks have always been done in low-res, to take the video card out of the equation. Any other way would be ignorant beyond belief.

Well we agree on the high low res. anyway. I always thought low res was correct for showing cpu power . But today that seems not to be the case . If one were to use low res only today in bench marks . AMDs offerings look pittyful compared to intels in gaming . By using High res. It makes the the playing field look more intersting . I think we all know for fact . No cpu has ever shown the domination that C2D has none.

Let make make this perfectly clear . In no manner do I think Intels P4P was a good processor . I never bought one ever. Not for customer machines either . Even if they insisted . I tell them to buy a dell . If thats what they wanted .

Now the P4c was a very good cool running CPU very good.

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
http://www.motherboards.org/re...s/hardware/1256_4.html

The OP never asked for a comparison of P4C's and Athlon XP's, so why would you be providing something he never asked for? He asked for a comparison of an Athlon 64 3800 vs 2.8 Ghz P4, which was provided to him more than 24 hours ago.