Athlon @ 2.485 at HardOCP

[MadRat]

Anand posts benchmarks as averages. Kyle posts benchmarks as the highest score seen on the tests. Makes a slight difference from time to time.

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: bdog231

Originally posted by: imgod2u
I'm reading that review right now and the benchmarks disturbs me. That can't be right. The P4 at 2.53 stays within roughly 5% of the Athlon with the same 9700 Pro vid card. Hell, it even won a Q3A bench. Something has to be wrong. I don't care how much you optimize, a P4 with less than 100MHz advantage beating an Athlon? WTF.

Dont forget its on a 133mhz fsb, alot of the reviews of OC'd Athys you see have a higher FSB which adds a good deal of mem bandwidth to the picture.

Nope, its a 166FSB XP. 15x166.

 

[Markfw]

OK. Everybody wait a minute. We are talking about a site that does not have the kind of fair and exacting comparisons that Anand has, and we are only seeing video comparisons, not the full range. Just as with the bad 9700 reviews, wait until we see comething more concrete and reliable before we judge. We got burned once by bad benchmarks, and I for one am not going to buy into this set, at least yet. My best guess would be however, that the benchmarks were skewed by video limitations. There were several areas where the Athlon 2.5 kicked a$$, and also the 1.53 was almost too good in some.

Just wait and see. Patience is a virture.

 

[RagingGuardian]

At 165fsb the pci would be at 33mhz and the agp at 66mhz since the Epox board features the 1/5th pci divider so Kyle may be wrong about his pci and agp speeds.

Also I read an article a while back which stated that the R9700 was performing better on Intel systems in comparison to Amd systems so the close benchmarks between the Intel and Amd 2.5ghz cpus could be attributed to that factor.

Anyway I'd prefer to wait and hear what Anand has to say about this when he reviews the 2400+ and 2600+ cpus.

 

[BFG10K]

A 2 GHz Thoroughbred running at 2.48 GHz is quite an impressive overclock. Perhaps AMD's new stepping is very overclocker-friendly.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: icecool83
what's the point of jumping back to AMD if you have a Northwood @ 2.4 GHz or better?

Why do you assume that everyone has "Northwood @ 2.4GHz or better"? I myself have a 832MHz Duron.

 

[Rectalfier]

Originally posted by: RagingGuardian
At 165fsb the pci would be at 33mhz and the agp at 66mhz since the Epox board features the 1/5th pci divider so Kyle may be wrong about his pci and agp speeds.

Also I read an article a while back which stated that the R9700 was performing better on Intel systems in comparison to Amd systems so the close benchmarks between the Intel and Amd 2.5ghz cpus could be attributed to that factor.

Anyway I'd prefer to wait and hear what Anand has to say about this when he reviews the 2400+ and 2600+ cpus.

Yes, I heard that the R9700 favours the Intel chip. Looks like they could use some optimisation for the AMD platform. I would like to see the same review with a geforce4.

 

[Dulanic]

Kyle is right about the PCI/AGP speeds, the 1/5th divider on the 8K3A doesnt kick in till 166... he had it at 165.

 

[formulav8]

Looks like a new ThrBred will be my next upgrade. Easier to unlock and a 400mhz+ overclock would fit quite nicely. These are supposed to be easier to unlock campared to the Palomino's? Right?Wrong?



Jason

 

[NOX]

If you ask me the (unofficial) AMD 2.5, and Intel 2.5 ran those benchmarks about the same (give or take a few fps). Not sure how much more you?ll be able to push that CPU since it is already running at 165FSB.

It?s impressive that AMD maybe getting better yields then most have expected, maybe they can do away with that PR rating if that?s the case. But thus far from whatever Kyle is running the numbers seem uniform with Intel?s 2.5 (I?m sure a little more because of the higher PCI and AGP bus).

Like someone else mentioned, if you have an Intel 2.2, 2.4, 2.5 etc? you?re already in the same neighborhood.

I?ll be waiting for Anands review (hopefully soon).

 

[dexvx]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
OK. Everybody wait a minute. We are talking about a site that does not have the kind of fair and exacting comparisons that Anand has, and we are only seeing video comparisons, not the full range. Just as with the bad 9700 reviews, wait until we see comething more concrete and reliable before we judge. We got burned once by bad benchmarks, and I for one am not going to buy into this set, at least yet. My best guess would be however, that the benchmarks were skewed by video limitations. There were several areas where the Athlon 2.5 kicked a$$, and also the 1.53 was almost too good in some.

Just wait and see. Patience is a virture.

HardOCP is generally more Pro-AMD than pro-Intel. Theres nothing wrong with Kyle's 9700 review, its one of the best ones out there. And FYI, HardOCP is one of the most respected sites out there. And you have to remember this is a VIDEO review, not a CPU review. To test VIDEO cards, they generally run at high res with AA and AF where the video card, not the CPU is a bottleneck.

The CPU review is supposedly coming this week.

 

[dukdukgoos]

This is a weird result, and pretty much means the death of the PR system if it's accurate. An Athlon should be farther ahead in a clock for clock compare...

 

[Markfw]

Ok, I don't want to start a flame, but as I previously suggested to wait for real benchmarks EVEN FOR VIDEO, Toms hardware just came out with the 2600+ review, and I think it shows a different light than this thread. Please read it. You will find it at the top of the category or go straight there (www.tomshardware.com). I would love to see a redo, using this same bench and the 9700 instead of the GF3 TI 500.

Patience is a virtue. (maybe I should change my sig...)

 

[NOX]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
Ok, I don't want to start a flame, but as I previously suggested to wait for real benchmarks EVEN FOR VIDEO, Toms hardware just came out with the 2600+ review, and I think it shows a different light than this thread. Please read it. You will find it at the top of the category or go straight there (www.tomshardware.com). I would love to see a redo, using this same bench and the 9700 instead of the GF3 TI 500.

Patience is a virtue. (maybe I should change my sig...)

WOW! Must be early hardware... yes I'll wait for Anands review. But AMD did look competitive in the benchmarks (3000+), but I expected more from the 2600+, the price is also competitive, even for those that don't overclock.