your thoughts on the p4 extreme

[Platinum321]

From my observations reading this forum, asking a CPU question is like going to AMD and asking them which processor should you get. It is true that I have been an Intel user for some time, but I am so with reason. AMD may work great if set up correctly, but relatively speaking, you need to be concerned about compatible components more so than Intel.

I have a 3.4EE and I will tell you that I am very pleased with it. The question whether it is worth the money is another issue. But I could say with certainty that I know no other system (AMD or Intel) that I can subjectively be see faster than mine. In other words, EE is without question a top of the line CPU and you will not be concerned about drooling over someone else's machine as far as processing is concerned. Hope this helps.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Platinum321
From my observations reading this forum, asking a CPU question is like going to AMD and asking them which processor should you get. It is true that I have been an Intel user for some time, but I am so with reason. AMD may work great if set up correctly, but relatively speaking, you need to be concerned about compatible components more so than Intel.

I have a 3.4EE and I will tell you that I am very pleased with it. The question whether it is worth the money is another issue. But I could say with certainty that I know no other system (AMD or Intel) that I can subjectively be see faster than mine. In other words, EE is without question a top of the line CPU and you will not be concerned about drooling over someone else's machine as far as processing is concerned. Hope this helps.

And what do you say about all the benchmarks posted above from reputable sites that disagree with you ? And the setup/compatabilty thing is way in the past. It may be good, but not the fastest, and way too exspensive for 2nd place.

 

[Platinum321]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: Platinum321
From my observations reading this forum, asking a CPU question is like going to AMD and asking them which processor should you get. It is true that I have been an Intel user for some time, but I am so with reason. AMD may work great if set up correctly, but relatively speaking, you need to be concerned about compatible components more so than Intel.

I have a 3.4EE and I will tell you that I am very pleased with it. The question whether it is worth the money is another issue. But I could say with certainty that I know no other system (AMD or Intel) that I can subjectively be see faster than mine. In other words, EE is without question a top of the line CPU and you will not be concerned about drooling over someone else's machine as far as processing is concerned. Hope this helps.

And what do you say about all the benchmarks posted above from reputable sites that disagree with you ? And the setup/compatabilty thing is way in the past. It may be good, but not the fastest, and way too exspensive for 2nd place.

If you go to google and search for EE reviews vs AMD offerings, you see will from various sites that there is no clear cut winner. Although it appears in the multimedia department the EE outperforms. Personally, I do a lot of multitasking, multimedia, encoding/decoding music/videos/pictures, so it works out great for me. For games, I don't think you can tell the differences between 200 and 220 fps. Although for games, gfx cards are the difference.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Platinum321

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: Platinum321
From my observations reading this forum, asking a CPU question is like going to AMD and asking them which processor should you get. It is true that I have been an Intel user for some time, but I am so with reason. AMD may work great if set up correctly, but relatively speaking, you need to be concerned about compatible components more so than Intel.

I have a 3.4EE and I will tell you that I am very pleased with it. The question whether it is worth the money is another issue. But I could say with certainty that I know no other system (AMD or Intel) that I can subjectively be see faster than mine. In other words, EE is without question a top of the line CPU and you will not be concerned about drooling over someone else's machine as far as processing is concerned. Hope this helps.

And what do you say about all the benchmarks posted above from reputable sites that disagree with you ? And the setup/compatabilty thing is way in the past. It may be good, but not the fastest, and way too exspensive for 2nd place.

If you go to google and search for EE reviews vs AMD offerings, you see will from various sites that there is no clear cut winner. Although it appears in the multimedia department the EE outperforms. Personally, I do a lot of multitasking, multimedia, encoding/decoding music/videos/pictures, so it works out great for me. For games, I don't think you can tell the differences between 200 and 220 fps. Although for games, gfx cards are the difference.

Ok, you are looking at different reviews, but even in your own words, they are tied, and the 3.4EE is hundreds more. And the compatability/setup is virtually the same, so, again, how is it better ?

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: Platinum321
From my observations reading this forum, asking a CPU question is like going to AMD and asking them which processor should you get. It is true that I have been an Intel user for some time, but I am so with reason. AMD may work great if set up correctly, but relatively speaking, you need to be concerned about compatible components more so than Intel.

I have a 3.4EE and I will tell you that I am very pleased with it. The question whether it is worth the money is another issue. But I could say with certainty that I know no other system (AMD or Intel) that I can subjectively be see faster than mine. In other words, EE is without question a top of the line CPU and you will not be concerned about drooling over someone else's machine as far as processing is concerned. Hope this helps.

personal observations dont scratch the fact that reviews and benchies prove that the athlon fx-53 is a superior cpu vs the 3.4EE. also, and you be more specific on compatability for intel taht amd doesnt have? since we are talking about recent generation technology, pls dont wander off to 10 yrs ago. i have no doubt that the EE is a powerful cpu, but saying that it's a better cpu is naive. 90% of people cant afford either the P4EE or the FX. 90% of people (who knows the facts) who can afford it still prefer the fx over the EE.

 

[EightySix Four]

GIVE IT UP PEOPLE!

By this time we've given this guy enough reviews for him to make a decision. It's gotten to the point where we're fighting each other and that helps no one but our own egos, can we give this thread a rest please...

 

[FelixDeCat]

Originally posted by: crazySOB297
GIVE IT UP PEOPLE!

By this time we've given this guy enough reviews for him to make a decision. It's gotten to the point where we're fighting each other and that helps no one but our own egos, can we give this thread a rest please...

:thumbsup:

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: crazySOB297
GIVE IT UP PEOPLE!

By this time we've given this guy enough reviews for him to make a decision. It's gotten to the point where we're fighting each other and that helps no one but our own egos, can we give this thread a rest please...

I don't know about that. We keep giving more valid information every time more FUD comes in. I don't think we are fighting each other.When it dies, I will be happy though.

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: crazySOB297
GIVE IT UP PEOPLE!

By this time we've given this guy enough reviews for him to make a decision. It's gotten to the point where we're fighting each other and that helps no one but our own egos, can we give this thread a rest please...

I don't know about that. We keep giving more valid information every time more FUD comes in. I don't think we are fighting each other.When it dies, I will be happy though.

amen to that

 

[DrMrLordX]

In the spirit of sticking to the topic at hand, I observed some mention being made of the recent 925XE review on Tom's Hardware.

Dispense, for a moment, with any notions you might have about Tom's Hardware being pro-Intel(I don't think they are, but that's just my opinion).

One thing that really jumped out at me is that they had the P4EE 3.4 ghz on i875p/400 mhz FSB beating out the FX-51 in Quake 3 Team Arena. However, in a past article, they had the opposite result(using the same timedemo, even). Links:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cp...012/p4ee_925xe-13.html

vs

http://www.tomshardware.com/cp...rescott-10.html#opengl

Interesting, don't you think? The base platforms for the two CPUs(3.4 ghz EE and FX-51) aren't significantly different between the two reviews. The only main difference I can isolate is that the common video card being used in the earlier benchmark was a 9800XT, while the latest benchmark had a 6800 GT.

Secondly, another thing that really jumped out at me was that, for the first time ever, the P4EE was actually shown to perform well in Doom 3. Link:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cp...012/p4ee_925xe-07.html

Here, we see even the old EE 3.4 ghz/400 FSB on i875P beating every FX reviewed. It's hard to compare this benchmark with previous EE vs FX Doom 3 benchmarks on Tom's(I can't find another like it), but take a look at Anandtech's own comparison. Link:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...oc.aspx?i=2149&p=7

In Anand's review, the old P4EE 3.4 ghz, on the i gets beaten soundly by every FX, and every Athlon 64 from 3400+ on up.

I think something is . . . odd about the review on Tom's, but I can't say for certain how it is that such divergient results are possible. I guess you'll just have to judge for yourself. Considering the depth of the Anandtech article as compared to the Tom's Hardware article which, in its conclusion, fails to note the remarkable(and somewhat astonishing) Doom 3 and Quake 3 Team Arena benchmark results, and then goes on to note that the P4EE 3.46 ghz fails to significantly outperform the FX-55(which wasn't even benchmarked, or emulated), I have to say that I'll side with Anandtech on this one. Anandtech isn't the only site to have shown all Netburst architecture CPUs to be weaker in Doom 3 than Athlon 64s.

As an aside, I was also surprised to see the EE cleaning up in Lame, which contradicts Lame performance I've seen in other benchmarks.

If the value of the EE is still in question, let me restate my opinion that the current P4 560, as well as the future P4 600 series CPUs, are all better buys than the EE. If you want to maximize your video/audio encoding power in a 32-bit environment, go for Xeons. Even the pre-Nocona Xeons. You will probably not wind up spending much more on a Xeon rig than you would for an EE. In fact, here's a free plug for Newegg:

http://www.newegg.com/app/View...=19-116-169&depa=1

478 EE 3.4 ghz

http://www.newegg.com/app/View...=19-116-187&depa=1

LGA775 EE 3.4 ghz

http://www.newegg.com/app/View...=19-116-166&depa=1

478 EE 3.2 ghz(out of stock, but here for comparison's sake)

http://www.newegg.com/app/View...=19-117-026&depa=1

Nocona Xeon 3.0 ghz

http://www.newegg.com/app/View...=19-117-027&depa=1

Nocona Xeon 3.2 ghz

As you can see, you can get two 3.2 ghz Xeons for less than the cost on one 3.4 ghz EE, and nearly the same cost as the 3.2 ghz EE. The 3.0 ghz Xeons, being no slouches themselves, cost significantly less than either EE.

If it was my money on the line, I'd rather have the Xeons. No foolin.

 

[Zebo]

All I know, is I could have built a whole computer with a 6800GT, 160GB HD, 1gig ram, etc, etc, etc for the price of a EE alone and it would run it into the gound.

value and EE don't belong in the same question EE's a purely emotional choice.

 

[Platinum321]

I don't belive I mentioned anywhere that EE is an absolute better CPU. I did mention that it is a top of the line CPU without question. What I also do mention is that I am happy with it's performance and that benchmarks do not show a clear cut performance leader. In the area of games (which I do play as well), I have a high end gfx card so if anything, most will not be able to realize any differences if the CPU was swapped w/ top of the line AMD on my system.

Now on to the discussion of compatibility and value. The measure of reliability of a CPU is very difficuilt to ascertain (far too many variables: psu/mobo/pci card/mem/gfx/etc,etc). I can only go by my experiences to understand that Intel processors give me less headaches throughout the build process (component integration to software setup). Be it that, I am able to acknowledge intangible value towards Intel and as such, the additional price is worth it for me. I'll also mention I have limited actual building experience of recent top of the line AMD procs so I will digress for now.

Hope this helps.

One additional note: IMO, Anandtech cpu reviews tend of favor AMD (is it the underdog spirit in him?) so I generally disregard them.

 

[CaiNaM]

One thing that really jumped out at me is that they had the P4EE 3.4 ghz on i875p/400 mhz FSB beating out the FX-51 in Quake 3 Team Arena. However, in a past article, they had the opposite result(using the same timedemo, even). Links:

nothing strange about that, as it's 2 different platforms. i you read the article, the first refers to the 925XE w/ 1066 FSB; the second chart is with an 800 FSB. the fx cpu's were also different; socket 940 & 939. also, they were taken at diffent times, with different peripherals.

the rest is also nonsensical, comparing different resolutions, different accompanying hardware, etc.

FS also showed the EE slightly faster.

much ado about nothing...

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: Platinum321
I don't belive I mentioned anywhere that EE is an absolute better CPU. I did mention that it is a top of the line CPU without question. What I also do mention is that I am happy with it's performance and that benchmarks do not show a clear cut performance leader. In the area of games (which I do play as well), I have a high end gfx card so if anything, most will not be able to realize any differences if the CPU was swapped w/ top of the line AMD on my system.

Now on to the discussion of compatibility and value. The measure of reliability of a CPU is very difficuilt to ascertain (far too many variables: psu/mobo/pci card/mem/gfx/etc,etc). I can only go by my experiences to understand that Intel processors give me less headaches throughout the build process (component integration to software setup). Be it that, I am able to acknowledge intangible value towards Intel and as such, the additional price is worth it for me. I'll also mention I have limited actual building experience of recent top of the line AMD procs so I will digress for now.

Hope this helps.

One additional note: IMO, Anandtech cpu reviews tend of favor AMD (is it the underdog spirit in him?) so I generally disregard them.

variables like psu, mobo, memory, gfx, and etc? ya right. atx is atx. we all know taht. for mobo, how is there incompatibility? memory? um no. gfx? also no. pci card? only one i know of is the matrox video editing card is incompatible with the older amd chipset motherboards. not anymore. your question of compatibility is wrong. i understand that you have limited experience with amd and that means more limited knowledge of up to date amd stuff. anandtech favors amd, including the majority of tech sites, because amd is currently the better overall performer for less $. anandtech is also not very biased at all. i assure you taht everyone would like intel better if they had better price to performance, but since their price AND performance is 2nd to amd, its no wonder why amd is the better choice. i agree taht teh intel cpu's are fast and very powerful, but because amd beats out in most benchies, including some encoding, its not right to say taht amd is better for games, and intel is better for encoding/decoding anymore.

this is all technology. as it progresses, it is only a matter of time until the current underdog shows its light, and vice versa. intel was ahead for several years, and now its amd's turn. even thought intel has 85% of the market, it does not mean amd cannot surpass intel.

 

[Shenkoa]

AMD IS NOT A BETTER CHOICE, ALL YOU FANBOYS CUT THE CRAP. STUPID STUPID ARGUING.

Its to my attention based on supplyed benchmarks of the redicoul FANBOYS OF THIS FORUM that they are neck to neck all together. It does not FU!@ING matter if one gets a FPS higher or if one can encode 5 minutes faster. THEY ARE BOTH SO CLOSE THAT IT WOULD NOT EVEN MATTER! SOME PEOPLE HAVE NEVER OWNED A GOOD P4 BUT YET THEY THROW ALL THIS BIASED CRAP AROUND LIKE THEY THINK THEY KNOW WHAT THEIR TALKING ABOUT.

In the honest truth, I have owned a crap load of AMD and Intel rigs and in my findings based on exprients (NOT BIASED OPINON)

For all you XP lovers, sorry the P4C is much better.
For all you P4 lovers, sorry but the AMD 64 is just as good
For all you Intel or AMD nerds, get a damn life!

To me them are cold hard facts, but unlike many people here, I would not cram them down your throat.

"this is all technology. as it progresses, it is only a matter of time until the current underdog shows its light, and vice versa. intel was ahead for several years, and now its amd's turn."

Mik3y? do you think this is about sales? or opinions. There is no opinion to the sales figures, Intel dominates the market in OEM. And I would say that AMD has a little more gound amongst PC builders and I honestly dont know why. I supose its these forums that are packed with people who have nothing else better to do besides count the clock cycles on die's efficiencty while in (reality) it does not matter whats more efficient but only whats more effective in the end. Price is not an issue for OEM and it seemes that prices are pretty much the same. The 2800+ Newcastle and 3000+ are like 5% slower then the 2.8C and 3.0C and they are a little cheaper, the 3200+ and 3400+ is about right on to the 3.2 and 3.4, not sure about them prices but I really dont care. The FX is sweet and I would much rather have it then a P4EE honestly for the price but if someone was to give me one or the other then I would pick the EE.

I also agree that Intel chipsets have better RAM compatiblity.

 

[Zebo]

"AMD IS NOT A BETTER CHOICE,"

It's the only choice if you want to run a 64bit OS

"1. Intel Better for video/audio encoding and decoding "

This is just false. Tell you what, for every app you show me where intel wins I show you one with AMD winning. Are you up for a challange or just screaming hoping that people think your serious and will believe you?

 

[Shenkoa]

64 bit is a nice addition but not benifitial for the user and you wonder why Intel owns the OEM market. Keep throwing the 64 Bit commercial arround and that may help AMD get on the OEM bandwagon.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cp...012/p4ee_925xe-08.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/cp...012/p4ee_925xe-09.html

http://www.tomshardware.com/cp...18/athlon-fx53-20.html - Had to OC the FX to beat the EE

http://www.tomshardware.com/cp...18/athlon-fx53-21.html

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...oc.aspx?i=2065&p=7 - FX wins exept notice how poorly the socket 754's do.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...c.aspx?i=2065&p=11

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjAyLDI= - pretty even here

What I mean is across the board, Yes the FX is neck to neck with the EE, BUT ALLTOGETHER INCLUDING ALL INTEL PROC's out and AMD proc's out, generally the case is well, you allready know.


FX Better then EE
P4C better then XP
P4C Better then socket 754 offerings.
Sempron better then Celery D


Cant stand to see a Nuetral? I will stand by my every word.

 

[Zebo]

Alright that's better than screaming, per your links, what you got there is Intel winning the following 6:

Lame MP3 Encoder 3.96
MS Windows Media Encoder 9
Auto Gordian Knot
Windows Media Encoder 9
Windows Movie Maker 2.0
dBpowerAMP Music Converter

I can match, AMD wins the following 6.

1. Per your HardOCP link DVD2AVI DivX encoder w/ codec 5.1.1
http://www.hardocp.com/images/...82713dbCdJgsnE_3_2.gif


2. dBpowerAMP Music Converter ...conflicting.hmm
http://www.hardocp.com/images/...82713dbCdJgsnE_3_1.gif

3. Oggenc audio encoding
http://www.digit-life.com/arti...bo/athlon-64-3400.html

4. Windows Media Video 9 VCM+
http://www.digit-life.com/arti...bo/athlon-64-3400.html

5. Conopus Procorder
http://www.digit-life.com/arti...bo/athlon-64-3400.html

6. VirtualDubMod
http://www.hardware.fr/medias/...s/00/07/IMG0007895.gif

As we all know the P4 wins only the applications whose codecs and containers are very well optimized for HT / SSE2 and 3. Otherwise it will lose.


This may help to understand the percieved Intel econding/decoding lead: Copied from another thread curtosey of ALEXRUIZ:

First, you have to answer the question of what application you are going to run (you already have), then, check what version you will be running..... The P4 will be unbeatable in the application in question, if ALL of the next happens:

- Application is very well optimized for SSE2
- Application is very well optimized for hyperthreading
- Codec (and/or container) is very well optimized for SSE2 / HT
- Decoder (if transcoding) is very well optimized for SSE2 / HT

In addition to those, in order to generate the big margin of victory seen in some programs, it is needed that those softwares don't recognize all the features of the AMD CPUs. I am pretty sure everyone remembers the WME ver 7 issue where SSE was not properly set in the Athlon XP.

If the application and/or codec is not very well optimized, the K7 will win (yes, it says K7). The K8 will win by a bigger margin.

As examples, take these:

AMD wins
Codecs: xVID
Consumer programs: Ulead VideoStudio 4,5,6 and 7. Roxio videowave 4,5,6 and 7. Pinnacle studio 7 and older.
Mid range video edition: Adobe Premiere 6.5 and older. Ulead MediaStudio Pro 5, 6, 6.5 and 7
MPEG2 Encoders: Canopus procoder, Ligos, bbMPEG.
DVD transcoding: DVD2AVI, VirtualDubMod
Freeware: VirtualDub.
Streaming: Quicktime.

Intel wins
Codecs: DivX 5.1.1
Consumer programs: Pinnacle Studio 9 and 8.
Mid range video edition: Adobe Premiere 7 and newer
MPEG2 encoders: TMPGEnc, mainconcept
DVD transcoding: XMPEG, FlaskMPEG
Streaming: Windows media 9.

Unknown
Codecs: On2 VP6, Nero digital
Consumer programs: Nero vision express.
MPEG2 encoders: Cinema craft encoder
DVD transcoding: Nero recode, DVD shrink
Streaming: Real video.


As you can see, it is basically a wash. For any application you give where the P4 wins, there will one where the K8 wins. Remember also that the setting used in some sites (retarded by the way) are not realistic.... Who converts a DivX resizing at fastest quality without sound? Those figures of 100 fps are cr@p. Quality is key. I am yet to break the realtime barrier encoding DivX and half real time encoding DVD compliant MPEG2......

Proffesional video applications are usually NOT heavily optimized for SSE2, but rather optimized in features. So, the fastest CPU for video encoding will be the one that fits your application best. Pick your application based on that.

Same goes for audio. A true professional application (cakewalk) runs in a celeron 300. This means it is not optimized for SSE2 / HT, so you know who wins "

Keep in mind that even among applications there is a lot of difference. Nobody encoding MPEG2 looking for speed will use TMPGEnc.... Would you dare to pit your northwood overclocked running TMPGEnc against my barton running CCE? Come on, say yes! You are the advocate of the HT, so you have nothing to lose.... or do you prefer my clawhammer as rival?

Most of the applications I wrote ARE not arcaic, but as I mentioned, many are optimized in features, not speed. The web reviews give the idea that the P4 is a monster because look at what they use: WM9, divx 5.11 with XMPEG...... Someone used them, then the rest of the field (sheeps) followed that site using the same.... Why not DVD2AVI, a better transcoder? Why not realvideo for streaming? Why not CCE for MPEG2, regarded as the fastest (I know, it's expensive)? Why not Ulead for transitions, also regarded as the fastest? Duvie, by the way, none of your programs are "industry standard". With the exception of windows media video that has a good chunk, the rest are virtually unknown. Corporations used ligos / CCE for MPEG2 encoding, and DivX is just gathering more support.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Shenkoa
AMD IS NOT A BETTER CHOICE, ALL YOU FANBOYS CUT THE CRAP. STUPID STUPID ARGUING. <snip>

funny post. didn't you know there HAS to be a best chip and here it HAS to be amd?

the better choice all depends on how you use your pc. i don't think it's unfair to say in many cases the amd is a better choice, but it's not always, and to stay on topic, the EE is an extremely poor value at it's pricepoint (and so is the FX imo, but not nearly the same degree as EE), regardless of whether you favor intel or amd.

but it's about as futile on this forum as trying to explain to the rage3d crowd that nvidia makes a decent gfx card this generation (and i even have an r420 and an a64, lol)...

Zebo, you're quite correct in your above post, however add another task or tow, and once again even in those apps the a64 drops behind p4. the reason for this is actually due to the ineferior efficiency of p4's longer pipe, however HT turns the p4's single task "downside" into a multi task "upside" by filling unused portions of 20 stage pipe with the second task. try it yourself. all you have to do is encode in the background while playing a game in the foreground (or anything else that's cpu intensive).

again, it all depends on how you use your pc.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: Shenkoa
AMD IS NOT A BETTER CHOICE, ALL YOU FANBOYS CUT THE CRAP. STUPID STUPID ARGUING. <snip>

funny post. didn't you know there HAS to be a best chip and here it HAS to be amd?

the better choice all depends on how you use your pc. i don't think it's unfair to say in many cases the amd is a better choice, but it's not always, and to stay on topic, the EE is an extremely poor value at it's pricepoint (and so is the FX imo, but not nearly the same degree as EE), regardless of whether you favor intel or amd.

but it's about as futile on this forum as trying to explain to the rage3d crowd that nvidia makes a decent gfx card this generation (and i even have an r420 and an a64, lol)...

I agree with Shenkoa pretty much. I mean what we got here is bascially even processors is most tasks.

All one needs to do is decide whats important to them.

p4c/e- I would still buy for encoding as heavy multitasking as you illustrated before

AMD64 simply dominates the fastest intels in games Lastest review and is nice feature having 64bit future or if you use 64 bit linux right now...

P4 has way better motherboards, and AMD64 is cooler requiring less power.

The bottom line, both choices are good, out there for everyone and none is perfect.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Zebo
<snip>

The bottom line, both choices are good, out there for everyone and none is perfect.

yea, i can't argue that... one thing i really do like about my a64 platform is the nf3 chipset and it's ability to run both sata/ata raid. very handy as i have a couple of large ata drives in raid for storage. bah.. everything is always a damn comprimise!

the EE is still a crappy value tho :laugh:

 

[Zebo]

Eh I meant "out there for everyone at reasonable prices"


You ever think faster than you type?

I don't know anything about raid...to rich and loud for my blood...but sounds Cool..i guess

 

[Shenkoa]

What do you think of the socket 754 Newcastles, in every benchmark I have seen, they arent impressive at all. I am talking about $150-$200 based processors that people can actually afford. The C's seem to win at most apps and even on games. I am not talking about the 3800+ vs. the upper model P4's cause thats unfair. But 2.8C - 3.2C vs the 754 Newcastle 2800+ - 3200+. I never take into consideration the upper models such as the FX. AMD 64's have SSE2 so any optimisations for that instruction set will fully benifit in the 64's

Whats your opinion Zebo?

Also I want to add the main reason I am not pro AMD like most others. P4's seem to run so much smoother when compared to same spec rigs Ram, Video, drives and so on. Even using a 2.4A compared to an XP 2800+, the OS performance seemed so much more smooth. Of course everything else goes to the 2800+. To be honest, I cant stand the XP from what I have seen out of em, cheap socket, no heatspreader, earlier versions were very hot, seen many fry out of no were and the memory performance with the OS seemed to chug when in comparrison to an Intel rig. Now this is not me saying a bunch of BS but rather telling you all what I have seen. I admit I am very skeptical of the 64's because of this, I just never seen that much good from em besides gaming.

Video encoding and decoding is better on the C's then it is on the cheap Newcastle is it not?

 

[Zebo]

I think they are the best bang for the buck.

You havnt seen a 754 newcastle review Have you? American sites and TOMS never reviewed one AFAIK but the 3000 which is dead even with 3.0c/e. And they reviewed the 2800 which is slower than the 2.8C/e.. Stands to reason 1.5:1 is the ratio for equating A64 NC 754 with P4C/E.

So A64 2800= 1800Mhz x 1.5 = 2700mhz P4
And A64 3000= 2000Mhz x 1.5 = 3000mhz P4
And A64 3200= 2200Mhz x 1.5 = 3300mhz P4
And A64 3400= 2400Mhz x 1.5 = 3600mhz P4

Lets take a look ...You'll see these pentium equivalent results beared out in the benchmarks

Here are reviewed every current AMD and Intel processor.
http://hardware.fr/articles/496/page1.html

A64 3200NC and A64 3400NC wins (oh, and the 3400 beats the 3500 in every benchmark BTW thanks to 200 more Mhz) LOL @ skt 939 fans (i know overclcoking will negate this)
---------------------
Maya 6 split
Mathematica 5
Matlab 6.5
WinRAR 3.3
Lame 3.93 split
VirtualDubMod ? DiVX 5.11
Unreal Tournament 2003
FarCry
Warcraft III
IL-2 Sturmovik : Forgotten Battles
Bascailly every single game as we already know

Pentium 3.2 C/E and Pentium 3.4 C/E wins repectivly
----------------------
3d Studio Max 6
Maya 6 split
Lame 3.93 split
TMPGEnc 3.0 Xpress
Adobe Premiere Pro 7.0



as far as, XP, bascailly not competitive...when the 533 quad pumped bus came on the scene and it really got dominated by the C's...

AXP3200 = 2.75C
AXP3200 = A64 2800

AXP's PR numbers are highly inflated.... stands to reason...it was scaled off p4A and they never changed it which embarresed them

 

[Zebo]

Another thing, any A64 user will tell you how smooth and fast everything feels. IMO faster than my p4c felt however I'm more Overclcoked now. I only got to 3.1 with my 2.4C while my A643000 is at 2560 (about a 3800 mhz P4 eqiv)... AXP did'nt have this smooth feeling I still have a 2700Mhz AXP mobile and it feels slower.. I talked about this feeling in a PM to Dapunisher before. "everything "feels faster" opening closing windows, exiting apps, switching between them etc." when comparing my 2560 A64 to 2700mhz AXP.


Here's a better discription from a real reviewer:

http://www.silentpcreview.com/article169-page2.html