Wow, the P4 2.4C is about as fast as a XP3000 AND can hold its own against the XP3200

[AthlonXP]

benchmarks (look at all the benches)

Plus the 2.4C runs for only $200, I guess I found my next cpu. With these new updated P4's I dunno how AMD's PR rating can hold up anymore.



Nice work intel!

 

[boyRacer]

<----

 

[dullard]

I think your thread name is a bit simplistic. It seems that the 2.4C has quite a few areas where it shines and is right up there with the 3000+ and 3200+, if not ahead of them. But there are just as many areas where it fits right in the 2500+ to 2600+ range.

Plus I doubt many users will be running the 875 chipset and will settle for the 865 chipset. From Anand's article, that means we should expect a 5% drop on average from what Tom shows. That puts the 2.4 C right at the 2800+ mark or the 2500+ mark depending on the benchmark.

Either way, the AMD XP ratings need to have a major readjustment...

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: dullard
I think your thread name is a bit simplistic. It seems that the 2.4C has quite a few areas where it shines and is right up there with the 3000+ and 3200+, if not ahead of them. But there are just as many areas where it fits right in the 2500+ to 2600+ range.

Plus I doubt many users will be running the 875 chipset and will settle for the 865 chipset. From Anand's article, that means we should expect a 5% drop on average from what Tom shows. That puts the 2.4 C right at the 2800+ mark or the 2500+ mark depending on the benchmark.

Either way, the AMD XP ratings need to have a major readjustment...

Included was a chipset benchmark. It appears that the Asus 875 is the fastest, and the Asus 865 can even beat many 875 solutions offered by different companies.

 

[Harabecw]

I think we already saw a flop with the 3200+, which was more like, 3050+ at best(from the techreport benches, anyway).

 

[DaveSimmons]

If you're spending the extra $20 for 875 (vs. 865) and $20 (512) or $40 (1GB) for DDR400 instead of DDR333 it seems a waste to pair them with just a 2.4C. The 2.6C at $260 looks sweet though, faster than the 2.8 at 533 FSB, and faster than the AMD 3200+ in all of the gaming benches except Splinter Cell.

To convincingly beat down the 3200+ you really need the 2.8C though at $313 (vs. $459 for 3200+). It beats the 3200+ in all games and is as fast or faster in AV encoding.

AMD definitely neds to update their PR ratings and reprice the Barton chips.

 

[AthlonXP]

Originally posted by: dullard
I think your thread name is a bit simplistic. It seems that the 2.4C has quite a few areas where it shines and is right up there with the 3000+ and 3200+, if not ahead of them. But there are just as many areas where it fits right in the 2500+ to 2600+ range.

Plus I doubt many users will be running the 875 chipset and will settle for the 865 chipset. From Anand's article, that means we should expect a 5% drop on average from what Tom shows. That puts the 2.4 C right at the 2800+ mark or the 2500+ mark depending on the benchmark.

Either way, the AMD XP ratings need to have a major readjustment...

A few areas? Its neck to neck or faster than the XP3000 in the majority of the benches. BTW where are the "many areas" where it fits with the XP2500-2600, you must looking at different benchmarks.

 

[MangoTBG]

these C chips are making me want to jump on the intel boat...the very second I have enough money! What's the cheapest, quality, motherboard (as in, best price vs. value) for the Cs?

 

[AthlonXP]

.this looks good

 

[mechBgon]

Business application performance, anyone...? AthlonXP 2400+ > P4 3.0C. The 3000+ is definitely underselling itself, it's more like a 3600+ in this area. Eh? Funny how Tom's Hardware forgot to run the Business Winstones...

This area doesn't appeal so much to the home enthusiast, I realize that... but I need another 15 to 20 new business systems for next fiscal year (July) and I know what I'm planning to buy

 

[gf4200isdabest]

I hope you're planning on buying a $50 CPU cause, if not, you're wasting your time. Why in god's name would you buy a 3200+ for your business?? If you're in a normal company, you don't need it. if you're in a tech company, it's not gonna be enough and you need multi processor. Either way, Business Winstones benchmark is a waste of time...

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: mechBgon
Business application performance, anyone...? AthlonXP 2400+ > P4 3.0C. The 3000+ is definitely underselling itself, it's more like a 3600+ in this area. Eh? Funny how Tom's Hardware forgot to run the Business Winstones...

This area doesn't appeal so much to the home enthusiast, I realize that... but I need another 15 to 20 new business systems for next fiscal year (July) and I know what I'm planning to buy

You're really going to spend $400+ per bare CPU (ed: AMD's 3200+ price) for business PCs? Even with MS larding up the Windows GUI a 1 GHz PC is more than sufficient for word processing and spreadsheets, and 2 GHz has the CPU twiddling its thumbs. So AMD benching better on business apps that don't need the speed is a fairly useless "victory" that isn't worth mentioning when considering a high-end machine.

p.s. For cheap business boxes I agree AMD is a good value, but that's a 2000+ not a 3200+.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: gf4200isdabest
I hope you're planning on buying a $50 CPU cause, if not, you're wasting your time. Why in god's name would you buy a 3200+ for your business?? If you're in a normal company, you don't need it. if you're in a tech company, it's not gonna be enough and you need multi processor. Either way, Business Winstones benchmark is a waste of time...

Our present 24 AthlonXP systems do mostly use 1800+'s, which are a $50 CPU now. I like them, but I definitely like mine better Mine has the slowest AthlonXP in the fleet (1700+), but it's the fastest computer in the fleet in actual usage, thanks to the wonders of 15000rpm SCSI.

Anyway, I'm sticking with the ~$100 price point for CPUs, so we'll probably build with 2400+'s for FY04. I have a couple of users who deserve extra responsiveness, and they're going to get Cheetah 15k.3's.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: mechBgon
Business application performance, anyone...? AthlonXP 2400+ > P4 3.0C. The 3000+ is definitely underselling itself, it's more like a 3600+ in this area. Eh? Funny how Tom's Hardware forgot to run the Business Winstones...

This area doesn't appeal so much to the home enthusiast, I realize that... but I need another 15 to 20 new business systems for next fiscal year (July) and I know what I'm planning to buy

You're really going to spend $400+ per bare CPU (ed: AMD's 3200+ price) for business PCs? Even with MS larding up the Windows GUI a 1 GHz PC is more than sufficient for word processing and spreadsheets, and 2 GHz has the CPU twiddling its thumbs. So AMD benching better on business apps that don't need the speed is a fairly useless "victory" that isn't worth mentioning when considering a high-end machine.

p.s. For cheap business boxes I agree AMD is a good value, but that's a 2000+ not a 3200+.

Dave, where did I say I was going to get 3200+'s for business uses? I pointed out that the AMDs perform very well in this area against their "target" Pentium4 competitors. No, we are not made of money and we will be sticking with the $100 pricepoint. Ok?

edit: by saying "I know what I'm planning to buy," I mean I'm planning on more AMD systems, not 3200+'s in particular.

edit #2: also, remember that we will still be using these systems in 2008. What seems like overkill today... ah so, grasshoppah.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Dave, where did I say I was going to get 3200+'s for business uses? I pointed out that the AMDs perform very well in this area against their "target" Pentium4 competitors. No, we are not made of money and we will be sticking with the $100 pricepoint. Ok?

edit: by saying "I know what I'm planning to buy," I mean I'm planning on more AMD systems, not 3200+'s in particular.

edit #2: also, remember that we will still be using these systems in 2008. What seems like overkill today... ah so, grasshoppah.

You didn't, but you seem to be arguing that the PR rating is somewhat justified because of AMD doing well on the one benchmark that doesn't really matter at this performance level.

If you were recommending a system to a gamer friend, would you tell them to get an AMD 3200+ instead of a P4 3.0 GHz 800 FSB because it's "faster"? How about instead of a P4 2.8 GHZ that's over $100 cheaper?

 

[imgod2u]

The minute someone accepts Sysmark's Internet Content Creation benchmark as "valid" as much as Business Whinstone is held (by the guy in this thread that claimed so), we'll count it as an actually useful benchmark. Until then, it's a synthetic benchmark just like Sysmark is and should be treated as such.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Dave, where did I say I was going to get 3200+'s for business uses? I pointed out that the AMDs perform very well in this area against their "target" Pentium4 competitors. No, we are not made of money and we will be sticking with the $100 pricepoint. Ok?

edit: by saying "I know what I'm planning to buy," I mean I'm planning on more AMD systems, not 3200+'s in particular.

edit #2: also, remember that we will still be using these systems in 2008. What seems like overkill today... ah so, grasshoppah.

You didn't, but you seem to be arguing that the PR rating is somewhat justified because of AMD doing well on the one benchmark that doesn't really matter at this performance level.

If you were recommending a system to a gamer friend, would you tell them to get an AMD 3200+ instead of a P4 3.0 GHz 800 FSB because it's "faster"? How about instead of a P4 2.8 GHZ that's over $100 cheaper?

I disagree that office performance "doesn't really matter." If I sat you down at my own workstation, let you use it for day-to-day stuff for a while, and then put you on one of our IDE-equipped systems, I guarantee you'd be able to percieve the loss of responsiveness. Which one would you rather use for the next two to four years? Hmmm?

And when the daily virus scan kicks off at 12:10PM while you're trying to wrap up a project for a 1:00PM meeting, you're going to be grinding your teeth until the scan is over (well, on the IDE-equipped system, anyway). Try corporate McAfee VirusScan with heuristics enabled sometime, and then come back and tell me how 1GHz is plenty and 2GHz is a waste Then there's voice recognition...

edit: I truncated my rebuttal after seeing how long-winded I got :Q Short version: remember that the video card is the #1 concern in a gaming system, and spending less on the CPU/mobo/audio leaves you more $ for the video card.

morning bonus addendum: to be fair, it IS nice that the P4s are now giving AMD a run for their money even in the price/performance area, and I finally saw an Intel-based motherboard that actually turned me on (Gigabyte 8KNXP Ultra with onboard U320 SCSI and six DIMM slots :cool. Sorry if I sounded like a mindless AMD fanboy

 

[Krk3561]

Originally posted by: dullard
I think your thread name is a bit simplistic. It seems that the 2.4C has quite a few areas where it shines and is right up there with the 3000+ and 3200+, if not ahead of them. But there are just as many areas where it fits right in the 2500+ to 2600+ range.

Plus I doubt many users will be running the 875 chipset and will settle for the 865 chipset. From Anand's article, that means we should expect a 5% drop on average from what Tom shows. That puts the 2.4 C right at the 2800+ mark or the 2500+ mark depending on the benchmark.

Either way, the AMD XP ratings need to have a major readjustment...

ABIT IC7 (Canterwood) is under $150 at some places.

 

[arcenite]

Originally posted by: AMDHardcoreFan
look at the clock speed difference....yay! wohoo! intel's 3.0 GHz is a little faster than a 2.3 GHz AMD...Way to go INTEL!!!

Sigh... It's people like you that make us AMDers look...well...nevermind. Even though I understand what you're saying , but if AMD is selling their lower clocked chips at a price competetive to the 3.0Ghz, then they better be just as fast, if not faster.

Bill

 

[Cadaver]

I think this is turning into a "forbidden" AMD vs. Intel fight...

Yes, the new P4C's are nice chips for the price. I think we all would agree. Some prefer AMD, and I think we all agree AMD has some nice chips, too.

There. Done. Post about how much you like your processor and not how much you dislike your neighbor's.

BTW: I'm more than happy with my new 2600+. Tastes great and less filling (to the credit card). Noticable improvement over my 2000+ for what I do on my computer. Nice boost for a mere $150.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: AthlonXP
A few areas? Its neck to neck or faster than the XP3000 in the majority of the benches. BTW where are the "many areas" where it fits with the XP2500-2600, you must looking at different benchmarks.

Here are the benchmarks where it wasn't in the 2800+ to 3200+ range on the website you linked:
Unreal Tournament 2003: closest to the 2700+
Pinnacle Studio 8.5: closest to the 2500+
3D Studio Max 5.1: closest to the 2500+
Xmpeg 5b3: closest to the 2500+
Sysmark 2002 Office performance: exactly between 2600+ and 2700+
PC Mark 2002 CPU bench: closest to the 2500+
Multitasking 3D Studio Max and Main Concept 1.3.1: closest to the 2500+

Those are the areas I was referring to. Note in all benchmarks it was faster than the 2500+ though.

 

[CraigRT]

Originally posted by: SE7ENGREEN
---Ill poop on my hand and eat it with my tongue before buying an Intel

That sig is hilarious!

haha, yeah it is!!

I feel the same way now after owning 3 AMD's in a row, then an Intel.. which I sold after a few months... the board died 2 days after I sold and I am glad I don't have that crap in my house anymore anyways.. I didn't have too much other than trouble at the start when I got my first P4 system... it ran fine for the most part but was not as fast as I would have hoped. now being on my XP2500+ 333FSB on my Soltek NF2 board... I am glad to be home with AMD again.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: mechBgon
Business application performance, anyone...? AthlonXP 2400+ > P4 3.0C. The 3000+ is definitely underselling itself, it's more like a 3600+ in this area. Eh? Funny how Tom's Hardware forgot to run the Business Winstones...

There are more than just one office benchmark. Try Sysmark 2002 Office where 2.8 GHz > 3200+ or PC Mark 2002 where again 2.8 GHz > 3200+. You are looking at just one synthetic office benchmark where the P4s do poorly, but ignoring all the other synthetic office benchmarks where the P4s do well. As a business man I hope you take in all the data into consideration before jumping to conclusions. (Note I too would buy a ~$100 XP for a business, but that isn't what you implied by your post...)

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: mechBgon
Business application performance, anyone...? AthlonXP 2400+ > P4 3.0C. The 3000+ is definitely underselling itself, it's more like a 3600+ in this area. Eh? Funny how Tom's Hardware forgot to run the Business Winstones...

There are more than just one office benchmark. Try Sysmark 2002 Office where 2.8 GHz > 3200+ or PC Mark 2002 where again 2.8 GHz > 3200+. You are looking at just one synthetic office benchmark where the P4s do poorly, but ignoring all the other synthetic office benchmarks where the P4s do well. As a business man I hope you take in all the data into consideration before jumping to conclusions. (Note I too would buy a ~$100 XP for a business, but that isn't what you implied by your post...)

Just so you know, I don't actually put tremendous faith in any benchmark that runs office or ICC apps at warp speed, because no one works that way in real life. The point is that THG left out a benchmark that typically shows the AthlonXP in a positive light, for some reason.

I think I've posted twice now that I intend to stay near the $100 area, which would buy me... none of the P4s listed at Newegg. $122 for a 1.8A with 400MHz fsb is the closest I could get, and I think we all know how that stacks up to a 2400+.

edit: we do have two Northwood-equipped laptops and I think one of them has a 1.6A and 512Mb of RAM, enough to do some cached-in-RAM antivirus time trials so as to eliminate the HDD variable. After I get off work, I'll see about doing some real-world benchies