XP3200 < P4 2.8?

[cmdrmoocow]

When I did processor research a while ago, the XP3200 was the newest thing out there, and it was on par with the P4 3.2.

Since I'm researching now to make a new system, not necessarily for myself, I've been checking performance numbers and it now seems that the XP3200 can't beat out the P4 2.8, even in games, with all the other XP+ processors trailing far, far behind. I can't find an explanation somewhere, so I have to ask: has Intel been doing things to their processors with the same naming convention (FSB magic, maybe?)? Is it maybe that Intel-based chipsets have drastically improved? Or did I just find a few fudged numbers in reviews in the first place?

The system I'm on right now is an XP2100+ @2100mhz on a Soyo KT600 Dragon Ultra (Stupid DIP switches...), 768 Kingston Value DDR400(cl2.5), MSI GF4TI4800SE, and a 120 gig from the flawed IBM Deskstar120GXP series. I'm not expecting to upgrade to run Doom3, but people ask me for advice when building gaming machines, and I'm finding myself in a bind because what I thought was, isn't.

Anyone have any light to shed on this?

edit: since I posted this, I found a review at bit-tech where an overclocked 2500+ completely beat a Prescott 3.2 at the same tests that other sites use.... ::more confusion:: chipsets?

 

[LTC8K6]

The XP3200+ was never on a par with the P4 3.2 as far as I know.

The A64 3200+ is faster than the P4 3.2.

There are several p42.8's with varying bus speeds, cache sizes, and with and without hyperthreading.

The latest being the 2.8E 800mhz fsb/1MB cache/HT.

Got a link to that XP2500+ beating the P4 3.2?

 

[cmdrmoocow]

http://www.bit-tech.net/review/309/6

 

[LTC8K6]

Yeah, but the overclocked mobile Barton also beat the FX-53 in some of those benches. You can also overclock the FX-53 and the P4 to get back ahead of the Barton, but you would have paid more.

That is a pretty selective bench, though. Overall, the FX-53 and the P4 are going to be faster as the rest of the benches in that article show.

There are faster P4's and A64's now and of course the P4EE as well.

 

[justly]

When the XP 3200+ came out Intel did not have the 3.2GHz P4, so your memory is a bit flawed. The XP 3200+ came out while Intel was still on the 533MHz FSB at a speed of 3.06GHz and the XP was still the top performer in many benchmarks. Once the 800MHz P4c, duel channel DDR motherboards and HT came into play a few months later the XP just could not keep up (except in rare and very FPU intensive games/benchmarks).

Right now the Athlon 64 is better or on par with the 800MHz FSB P4c in most benchmarks. So what it comes down to is mainly manufacturer preference. Intel is still dominant in encoding but not by that much and it has HT (Hyper Threading) a feature that is considered to be helpful in multitasking situations (while in some situations HT can be proven quite beneficial in other situations it could just be subjective). AMD with its Athlon 64 has the benefit of its strong processor design coupled to an integrated memory controller that allows it to take better advantage of its power through lower memory latency, it also has the capability of being run in 64 bit mode on a 64 bit OS (still waiting on Microsoft for their 64 bit windows but the Linux world already has some available).

Another thing is that you may hear the word ?future proof? thrown around about the 64 bit capabilities of the Athlon 64 you still need to realize that multithreaded apps and HT could make the P4 future proof to some extent but in the end even Intel cant ignore 64 bit completely (as they have plans to support it in the future). I wouldn?t put to much weight in trying to be future proof but if you do then the Athlon 64 does seem to be a better choice since software has already had nearly two years to code for Intels HT and the Athlon 64 is still on par or better in most cases.

I hope this helped or will at least get your thread a little more attention

 

[dennisjai215]

intel doesnt dominate in encoding no more
the new s939 boards with any s939 a64 chips will beat out any intel in encoding

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: dennisjai215
intel doesnt dominate in encoding no more
the new s939 boards with any s939 a64 chips will beat out any intel in encoding

yep!

 

[justly]

The Anandtech socket 939 article showing encoding being won by an Athlon FX53 is also using a new benchmark standard.

?The performance of the Socket 939 boards in the new AuotGK 2-pass Media Encoding benchmark was also a mild surprise. We expected Intel to retain their lead in media encoding due to our logical choice of DivX 5.1.1 as the encoding codec. This codec fully exploits some of the features of the Intel chipset and generally favors the Intel processors. The DVD2AVI engine at the heart of AutoGK, on the other hand, generally favors AMD processors. It appears that you can really show whatever you wish in encoding these days depending on the Encoding program and codec used. Anand did extensive research on media encoding and chose the new AutoGK/DivX 5.1.1. as our new standard due to the fair, balanced and respected results obtained with this combination.?

So yes I did see this, but that one article does not shift ALL encoding apps to favor the Athlon 64 nor does it prove that ALL Athlon 64s are dominant in encoding.

One other thing look at my choice of wording, I said dominant NOT dominate.

Maybe you could look it up and see that although they are similar they are not the same

 

[justly]

Just to show that this quote ?the new s939 boards with any s939 a64 chips will beat out any intel in encoding? is not entirely true just go back to another Anandtech article that is less than a month old.

In this article it shows an Athlon 64 3800+ socket 939 just edging out a P4 Prescott at 3.2GHz by 0.1 FPS and an Athlon 64 3500+ socket 939 getting beat by a P4 Northwood at 3.0GHz.

If anything this just shows that there is no clear cut winner when it comes to encoding, and considering that HT seems to have the most benefit during lengthy encoding sessions can you really say that Intel is not the perfered choice for encoding? Don't get me wrong the Athlon 64 has made great strides in this area but I would still call the P4 the dominant choice for people that do massive amounts of encoding.

I don?t mind if anyone has a different opinion than me, or can correct an error on my part, just don?t spew half-truths.

 

[clarkey01]

well, back to the point of the thread, XP3200 < P4 2.8, yeah xp's towards the end fell badly, when Intel came out with 800 FSB it all went to sh*t for AMD, they were neck and neck with the 533 FSB and falling behind in some benchmarks, also AMD didn?t scale any where as high as I thought they might, Barton was a crap core with little head room for clock speed. Back when i got my 2000 + palomino the number system worked fine, my 2000+ even beat a 2.2 Northwood in most tests, I didn?t think back in 02 that AMD wouldn?t get past 2.2 Ghz with AXP, I thought they hit 2.4 at least. Maybe the lack of pipelines or the 0.13 micron process was to blame, although fx-53 has 2 more pipelines and is able to get to 2.4 GHz easy on a 0.13 micron process.

When they released the 3200+ and upped the FSB it didn?t help as much as one would think, a boost in FSB for a p4 is more beneficial, I think it was anandtech or another site which showed this.

Go with a P4 2.8C or an A64 2800+, or AXP-M ?2500? ( I hear so much about overclocking this chip im sick too the teeth)

 

[DreamInBlue]

up untill the c editions the pentium 4 chips couldnt perform to their potential because they have such a long pipeline, that is why they were beat by the athlon xp's. When the c edition and 800mhz fsb was introduced the bandwith starved P4 started to shine because that long pipeline was negated by the large bandwidth and outperformed the athlon xp's. So basically the 800mhz fsb is what made the difference, although amd is definitely back on track with the a64.

 

[Zebo]

the C was the Athlon killer... the A64 was the C killer... but these differences are hard to tell without dwelling over mainly contrived benchmarks.

Always buy on price to performance and there NOTHING can touch a A-XP.

 

[Zebo]

Wait a minute... you asked about gaming.....just looking over some old gaming benchmarks

The 3200 A-XP wins
------------
Serious Sam
RTCW
Jedi Knight
Unreal 2003

The 2.8C wins
-------------
Quake III
Comanche


That's 4:2 in A-xps favor so at least in games XP3200 > P4 2.8.

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article.php/3261_2218651__7

 

[Zebo]

"intel doesnt dominate in encoding no more"
--------------------------------------
they never did... Only a couple test suites which reviewers favored. The picture get a lot more even if you know where to look.