http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,120915,00.asp
:lol:
"The AMD machine [Clocked 800MHz slower] was the second-fastest we've ever tested, with a 116 mark on WorldBench 5, easily surpassing the 95 posted by the 3.2-GHz dual-core Pentium Extreme Edition 840 reference system that we looked at earlier." :lol: :lol:
"The unit showed its prowess on the multitasking portion of WorldBench 5. Its time of 6 minutes, 44 seconds was an impressive 3 minutes, 42 seconds faster than the average of two Athlon 64 FX-55 systems, and about 3 minutes faster than the dual-core Pentium EE 840 reference PC's time." :lol:
:lol:
Also in the news, iWill shows off 8 CPU (16 core) AMD Opteron system with 128GB of RAM at trade show. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Yet another AMD destroys Intel thread.
Yet another AMD destroys Intel thread.
Last edited by rep on Wed Jun 01, 2005 12:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
[img]http://members.cox.net/anticsensue/rep_june.gif[/img]
INTEL FOR LIFE!!!!!!
actually, whoever has better bang for the buck for life..
actually, whoever has better bang for the buck for life..
[size=75][i]I once had a glass of milk.
It curdled, and then I couldn't drink it. So I mixed it with some water, and it was alright again.
I am now sick.
[/i][/size]
[img]http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/3631/171164665735hk8.png[/img]
It curdled, and then I couldn't drink it. So I mixed it with some water, and it was alright again.
I am now sick.
[/i][/size]
[img]http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/3631/171164665735hk8.png[/img]
-
phantasmagoria
- Posts: 8525
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 7:00 am
2.4GHz times two = 4800+ Performance Rating.
AMD CPUs (as clearly proven by this test) typically perform the same as Intel systems that are clocked twice as fast.
When Opteron was still in prototype, an 800MHz (frequency locked) Opteron beat a 1.6GHz Pentium 4. :lol:
AMD CPUs (as clearly proven by this test) typically perform the same as Intel systems that are clocked twice as fast.
When Opteron was still in prototype, an 800MHz (frequency locked) Opteron beat a 1.6GHz Pentium 4. :lol:
[img]http://members.cox.net/anticsensue/rep_june.gif[/img]
:dork::dork:i know this, just wondering.. dont wanna read the whole thing to get a msrp..shadd_. wrote:like ALL new top end chips,
$$$
[size=75][i]I once had a glass of milk.
It curdled, and then I couldn't drink it. So I mixed it with some water, and it was alright again.
I am now sick.
[/i][/size]
[img]http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/3631/171164665735hk8.png[/img]
It curdled, and then I couldn't drink it. So I mixed it with some water, and it was alright again.
I am now sick.
[/i][/size]
[img]http://img162.imageshack.us/img162/3631/171164665735hk8.png[/img]
-
Turbanator
- Posts: 883
- Joined: Wed Jun 08, 1983 7:00 am
lemme demonstrate something...
lemme take the intel 840 EE, lemme clock it from its basic 3.2ghz to a good 4.16ghz using some crazy vapochill cooling.
lemme take a amd x2 "4800", lemme clock it from its basic 2.4ghz to a good 3.1ghz using the same cooling shit.
What are the superpi scores? well, the intel performs a respectable 32s, and the amd? well that performs an amazing 27s...
now take a intel pentium m, dothan chip, say a nice low end 1.7ghz "730", stick it in an old P4 board with a socket adapter using basic cooling supplied with the adapter. Clock it upto a reasonable 2.9ghz (they will go up as far as 3.4ghz) and end up beating both the other chips with a stonking 26s score. And incase you're wondering, if you bothered making the effort to go upto 3.4ghz... you get a score of 21s.
Now this is all in single threaded mode, so yes, the other chips will win in a multithreaded environment... only problem is the multithreaded environments they're designed for don't exist yet. Paired with the fact that the intel and amd "bad boys" are atleast 4 times the price of the dothan chip, and the dothan wins in every aspect other than video encoding and multithreading. As multithreading isn't main stream yet, why waste all this money on a chip which currently will be beaten day in day out by a chip which is much more powerful and much cheaper?
lemme take the intel 840 EE, lemme clock it from its basic 3.2ghz to a good 4.16ghz using some crazy vapochill cooling.
lemme take a amd x2 "4800", lemme clock it from its basic 2.4ghz to a good 3.1ghz using the same cooling shit.
What are the superpi scores? well, the intel performs a respectable 32s, and the amd? well that performs an amazing 27s...
now take a intel pentium m, dothan chip, say a nice low end 1.7ghz "730", stick it in an old P4 board with a socket adapter using basic cooling supplied with the adapter. Clock it upto a reasonable 2.9ghz (they will go up as far as 3.4ghz) and end up beating both the other chips with a stonking 26s score. And incase you're wondering, if you bothered making the effort to go upto 3.4ghz... you get a score of 21s.
Now this is all in single threaded mode, so yes, the other chips will win in a multithreaded environment... only problem is the multithreaded environments they're designed for don't exist yet. Paired with the fact that the intel and amd "bad boys" are atleast 4 times the price of the dothan chip, and the dothan wins in every aspect other than video encoding and multithreading. As multithreading isn't main stream yet, why waste all this money on a chip which currently will be beaten day in day out by a chip which is much more powerful and much cheaper?
-
Turbanator
- Posts: 883
- Joined: Wed Jun 08, 1983 7:00 am
i expect the 20s superpi record to be broken in the next few months, not by any p4 or fx55/57, but by a dothan.
the pentium m is THE most power processor on all tasks, bar some encoding.
Oh, and because these chips run so cool at such ultra low volts, the chips themselves aren't actually holding back, which is why the cheap 1.5ghz and 1.7ghz chips perform so amazingly. The current bottlenecks are there because either the dothan boards suck, or you use an old P4 board with an adapter (the better option), but unfortunately then, you're using a board with a dated memory architecture so the board and the memory hold the chip back. When a company releases a real board for the dothan, then things will become very interesting indeed.
the pentium m is THE most power processor on all tasks, bar some encoding.
Oh, and because these chips run so cool at such ultra low volts, the chips themselves aren't actually holding back, which is why the cheap 1.5ghz and 1.7ghz chips perform so amazingly. The current bottlenecks are there because either the dothan boards suck, or you use an old P4 board with an adapter (the better option), but unfortunately then, you're using a board with a dated memory architecture so the board and the memory hold the chip back. When a company releases a real board for the dothan, then things will become very interesting indeed.
You're forgetting one key ingredient, buddy.Turbanator wrote:lemme demonstrate something...
lemme take the intel 840 EE, lemme clock it from its basic 3.2ghz to a good 4.16ghz using some crazy vapochill cooling.
lemme take a amd x2 "4800", lemme clock it from its basic 2.4ghz to a good 3.1ghz using the same cooling shit.
What are the superpi scores? well, the intel performs a respectable 32s, and the amd? well that performs an amazing 27s...
now take a intel pentium m, dothan chip, say a nice low end 1.7ghz "730", stick it in an old P4 board with a socket adapter using basic cooling supplied with the adapter. Clock it upto a reasonable 2.9ghz (they will go up as far as 3.4ghz) and end up beating both the other chips with a stonking 26s score. And incase you're wondering, if you bothered making the effort to go upto 3.4ghz... you get a score of 21s.
Now this is all in single threaded mode, so yes, the other chips will win in a multithreaded environment... only problem is the multithreaded environments they're designed for don't exist yet. Paired with the fact that the intel and amd "bad boys" are atleast 4 times the price of the dothan chip, and the dothan wins in every aspect other than video encoding and multithreading. As multithreading isn't main stream yet, why waste all this money on a chip which currently will be beaten day in day out by a chip which is much more powerful and much cheaper?
Windows XP 64-bit Edition + 64-bit drivers on everything.
Whatever the case, these new AMD chips ($10 more than the Intel chips, and miles ahead in performance) are too much power for gamer nerds. The good thing is, hopefully this will bump single core FX-55s and 53s down to a decent $150-$250 range, so everyone can get them.
[img]http://members.cox.net/anticsensue/rep_june.gif[/img]
don't forget rep, he's a fucking idiot too.
rep:
The FX-55 is the only one made anymore. AMD just announced they have no futher plans for future single core Athlon 64s. So the FX-55 will always be the high end single core CPU from AMD.
I'd be surprised if you can ever buy a new one under $600, even if they do release the rumored FX-57.
And what's worse is that you actually expect a current speed increase from 64-bit? Right now as it stands, Windows XP 64-bit is the same speed or slower than the 32-bit version.
Christ, this is just a waste of time. You're an idiot and always will be. Forget I said anything, because I'm sure you won't mind it anyways.
rep:
The FX-55 is the only one made anymore. AMD just announced they have no futher plans for future single core Athlon 64s. So the FX-55 will always be the high end single core CPU from AMD.
I'd be surprised if you can ever buy a new one under $600, even if they do release the rumored FX-57.
And what's worse is that you actually expect a current speed increase from 64-bit? Right now as it stands, Windows XP 64-bit is the same speed or slower than the 32-bit version.
Christ, this is just a waste of time. You're an idiot and always will be. Forget I said anything, because I'm sure you won't mind it anyways.
no i actually don't expect a speed increase, maybe you should find out the significance of a 64 bit architecture before you talk about shit you don't understand.Psyche911 wrote:
And what's worse is that you actually expect a current speed increase from 64-bit? Right now as it stands, Windows XP 64-bit is the same speed or slower than the 32-bit version.
besides how does windows 64 being slower reflect on the speed of the processor?
What?
I wasn't even talking to you. I was referring to rep's post, as I indicated.
I wasn't even talking to you. I was referring to rep's post, as I indicated.
As if that somehow changes things. Maybe in a year, but right now there are more handicaps than benefits.rep wrote: You're forgetting one key ingredient, buddy.
Windows XP 64-bit Edition + 64-bit drivers on everything.
-
AmIdYfReAk
- Posts: 6926
- Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2000 8:00 am
i just finished formatting from windows XP pro X64, and i must say.. its come along way.. but the legasy 32bit support is not what it should. and yes, i was running all 64-bit drivers also.rep wrote:
You're forgetting one key ingredient, buddy.
Windows XP 64-bit Edition + 64-bit drivers on everything.
Last edited by AmIdYfReAk on Wed Jun 01, 2005 4:32 am, edited 1 time in total.
I'm not going to waste my time with you. I've read numerous reviews which I'm not going to spend time finding right now, that showed zero performance increase or a performance decrease in using XP 64-bit today.
Here's one that I hadn't read before, but illustrates my point:
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NzY1LDE=
I know anandtech or techreport or tomshardware did another with the same findings.
So, shut the fuck up about "my bullshit."
Here's one that I hadn't read before, but illustrates my point:
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NzY1LDE=
I know anandtech or techreport or tomshardware did another with the same findings.
So, shut the fuck up about "my bullshit."