Originally posted by: SSXeon5
As for Prescott, they said it will start at 3.2GHz, but im expecting 4Ghz easy, they have had a 4GHz prescott up for a wile now.
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
ClawHammer processors are supposed to debut at "at least 2GHz" according to former AMD CEO Jerry Sanders. Knowing that ClawHammer will be approximately 25% faster than .13-micron Athlon XP Thoroughbred processors at the same clock speed, initial ClawHammers should perform in the vicinity of a 2.5GHz Thoroughbred processor.
Anyway, you'll all have ClawHammer performance numbers soon enough, be patient!
Originally posted by: SSXeon5
As for Prescott, they said it will start at 3.2GHz, but im expecting 4Ghz easy, they have had a 4GHz prescott up for a wile now.
If you expect Prescott to debut at 4GHz, you'll be quite disappointed.
Originally posted by: SSXeon5
Originally posted by: mechBgon
I started to read this thread for amusement purposes and noticed a $500 CPU is being compared to a $200 CPU. The $300 would allow the AMD system to be upgraded from a 7200rpm, 8.5ms-seek IDE hard drive to a 15000rpm, 3.6ms-seek Seagate Cheetah X15-36LP, and an Adaptec or Tekram U160 card. I think you would see some startling jumps in the Content Creation performance of the AMD system as a result. This is the hidden part of the price/performance equation that no one ever seems to think of... "where could I spend that money to best improve the system? Which system would be faster given these improvements?"
Owning an X15-36LP myself, I can vouch for it being not only extremely quick, but surprisingly quiet (it uses fluid bearings, and seeks are audible but pleasant). And even with McAfee VirusScan doing its daily full scan of the hard drive's contents, the system maintains very good responsiveness, part of which should be credited to SCSI in general. Definitely an option for those who use their system for actual work and don't need a really large hard drive. I think I have about 3Mb in use, including hosting the install files for MS Office2000 Pro, McAfee 4.5.1, and a whole pile of MS patches that I use a lot.
Of course, if the buyer just wants to feel superior, he'll find a benchmark that makes him happy if he looks hard enough, no matter which system he's bought. I happen to know of one where the 2.53GHz P4 gets smacked down by... a 1300MHz Celeron. And not surprisingly, AMD smacks down all the Intel chips, but gets annihilated by the PowerMac G4. Benchmarks...Give me some render times on that SSE2-enabled Hammer and I'll say we have something real to judge the Hammer and the P4 by, no matter what their operating frequency is.
God damn it, THE PENTIUM 4 2.53GHz IS INTELS FLAGSHIP PROCESSOR, AS WITH THE AMD XP 2200+ does it matter how much they cost, did you see that mac computer benchmark, with the 2x MP 2100+/ p4 2.53GHz/ 2x G4 1GHz, the P4 came out alot and so did the MP so you better be sarcastic.
Originally posted by: mechBgon
Originally posted by: SSXeon5
Originally posted by: mechBgon
I started to read this thread for amusement purposes and noticed a $500 CPU is being compared to a $200 CPU. The $300 would allow the AMD system to be upgraded from a 7200rpm, 8.5ms-seek IDE hard drive to a 15000rpm, 3.6ms-seek Seagate Cheetah X15-36LP, and an Adaptec or Tekram U160 card. I think you would see some startling jumps in the Content Creation performance of the AMD system as a result. This is the hidden part of the price/performance equation that no one ever seems to think of... "where could I spend that money to best improve the system? Which system would be faster given these improvements?"
Owning an X15-36LP myself, I can vouch for it being not only extremely quick, but surprisingly quiet (it uses fluid bearings, and seeks are audible but pleasant). And even with McAfee VirusScan doing its daily full scan of the hard drive's contents, the system maintains very good responsiveness, part of which should be credited to SCSI in general. Definitely an option for those who use their system for actual work and don't need a really large hard drive. I think I have about 3Mb in use, including hosting the install files for MS Office2000 Pro, McAfee 4.5.1, and a whole pile of MS patches that I use a lot.
Of course, if the buyer just wants to feel superior, he'll find a benchmark that makes him happy if he looks hard enough, no matter which system he's bought. I happen to know of one where the 2.53GHz P4 gets smacked down by... a 1300MHz Celeron. And not surprisingly, AMD smacks down all the Intel chips, but gets annihilated by the PowerMac G4. Benchmarks...Give me some render times on that SSE2-enabled Hammer and I'll say we have something real to judge the Hammer and the P4 by, no matter what their operating frequency is.
God damn it, THE PENTIUM 4 2.53GHz IS INTELS FLAGSHIP PROCESSOR, AS WITH THE AMD XP 2200+ does it matter how much they cost, did you see that mac computer benchmark, with the 2x MP 2100+/ p4 2.53GHz/ 2x G4 1GHz, the P4 came out alot and so did the MP so you better be sarcastic.
I'm quite serious. RC5-64 is the name of the particular benchmark I'm referring to, and a dual-G4 will nuke any single, dual or quad AMD or Intel system in this benchmark. The point is that benchmarks are easy to cherry-pick to suit your tastes in computers. RC5-64 is not exactly relevant to most people's daily usage patterns, of course, but I noticed that the SPEC benchmarks which you mentioned earlier are not exactly relevant to most peoples' daily usage patterns, either. You'd be better off pointing out how well the P4 does in media encoding, which many people do use. Of course, SSE2 has something to do with that also, and Hammer will have SSE2.
As for the cost issue, it does matter to some of us. If I have $2000 to spend on a system, I've got to decide where to spend the money. If buying one system over another leaves me with $300 to play with, I can get more storage, or a faster video card, or more memory, or an insanely-fast SCSI hard drive, or a nice FireWire webcam, or whatever the heck gives me additional value for my $2000. If the resultant system is better than the other option, I've gotten more for my money. Does that compute?
You starting a thread about Hammer was kind of amusing. I ignored it for a while because your obvious motive was to use it as a soapbox for negative speculation (aka FUD), and when I finally began to read it (after it collected about 40 posts), I found that I was right. Give it a rest, and admit that you would not have the option to BUY a 2.53GHz P4 today, if it were not for AMD rocking the boat as well as they have up 'til this point. Eh?
Yes, the trouble with PR is that it may not live up to its rating, as the competition alters their designs in response. On the other hand, the CPU may vastly exceed its PR rating too, depending on the situation. A 1000MHz AthlonXP, if there were such a thing, would have a PR of 2500+ if we were looking at RC5-64 performance and comparing it to the 533-based Northwood.Its not "FUD" what i posted, it was how IMO the PR isnt living up to its hype. I gave a topic where the hammer could infact have to be at a higher clock rate to match its desired PR rating.
Originally posted by: SSXeon5
Originally posted by: mechBgon
Originally posted by: SSXeon5
Originally posted by: mechBgon
I started to read this thread for amusement purposes and noticed a $500 CPU is being compared to a $200 CPU. The $300 would allow the AMD system to be upgraded from a 7200rpm, 8.5ms-seek IDE hard drive to a 15000rpm, 3.6ms-seek Seagate Cheetah X15-36LP, and an Adaptec or Tekram U160 card. I think you would see some startling jumps in the Content Creation performance of the AMD system as a result. This is the hidden part of the price/performance equation that no one ever seems to think of... "where could I spend that money to best improve the system? Which system would be faster given these improvements?"
Owning an X15-36LP myself, I can vouch for it being not only extremely quick, but surprisingly quiet (it uses fluid bearings, and seeks are audible but pleasant). And even with McAfee VirusScan doing its daily full scan of the hard drive's contents, the system maintains very good responsiveness, part of which should be credited to SCSI in general. Definitely an option for those who use their system for actual work and don't need a really large hard drive. I think I have about 3Mb in use, including hosting the install files for MS Office2000 Pro, McAfee 4.5.1, and a whole pile of MS patches that I use a lot.
Of course, if the buyer just wants to feel superior, he'll find a benchmark that makes him happy if he looks hard enough, no matter which system he's bought. I happen to know of one where the 2.53GHz P4 gets smacked down by... a 1300MHz Celeron. And not surprisingly, AMD smacks down all the Intel chips, but gets annihilated by the PowerMac G4. Benchmarks...Give me some render times on that SSE2-enabled Hammer and I'll say we have something real to judge the Hammer and the P4 by, no matter what their operating frequency is.
God damn it, THE PENTIUM 4 2.53GHz IS INTELS FLAGSHIP PROCESSOR, AS WITH THE AMD XP 2200+ does it matter how much they cost, did you see that mac computer benchmark, with the 2x MP 2100+/ p4 2.53GHz/ 2x G4 1GHz, the P4 came out alot and so did the MP so you better be sarcastic.
I'm quite serious. RC5-64 is the name of the particular benchmark I'm referring to, and a dual-G4 will nuke any single, dual or quad AMD or Intel system in this benchmark. The point is that benchmarks are easy to cherry-pick to suit your tastes in computers. RC5-64 is not exactly relevant to most people's daily usage patterns, of course, but I noticed that the SPEC benchmarks which you mentioned earlier are not exactly relevant to most peoples' daily usage patterns, either. You'd be better off pointing out how well the P4 does in media encoding, which many people do use. Of course, SSE2 has something to do with that also, and Hammer will have SSE2.
As for the cost issue, it does matter to some of us. If I have $2000 to spend on a system, I've got to decide where to spend the money. If buying one system over another leaves me with $300 to play with, I can get more storage, or a faster video card, or more memory, or an insanely-fast SCSI hard drive, or a nice FireWire webcam, or whatever the heck gives me additional value for my $2000. If the resultant system is better than the other option, I've gotten more for my money. Does that compute?
You starting a thread about Hammer was kind of amusing. I ignored it for a while because your obvious motive was to use it as a soapbox for negative speculation (aka FUD), and when I finally began to read it (after it collected about 40 posts), I found that I was right. Give it a rest, and admit that you would not have the option to BUY a 2.53GHz P4 today, if it were not for AMD rocking the boat as well as they have up 'til this point. Eh?
Its not "FUD" what i posted, it was how IMO the PR isnt living up to its hype. I gave a topic where the hammer could infact have to be at a higher clock rate to match its desired PR rating. And btw yes Hammer will have SSE2, but prescott will benefit from SSE3 And like I have said I am planing to buy the 2.53GHz on aug 25th/sept 1st when it drops to $250, that is a weeks paycheck for me And I will post benchies and shut everyone up once and for all
SSXeon
Originally posted by: SSXeon5
Originally posted by: Kell
I'm with Rainsford on this one. SSXeon, you had every right to start this thread, but honestly, the thread was born to be crapped on. It's flamebait, plain and simple. I think you expected that going in, and if you didn't, well, you should have. So complaining about how it got crapped after the fact just ends up sounding like a desperate play for sympathy.
Why the hell did you post that reply, If you thought this thread was crap wooptie, cry me a river.
Originally posted by: Rainsford
I'll admit, the RP rating is hitting dimishing returns on the current Athlon XP, but who knows what Hammer will bring to the table. As far as SSE2/SSE3 goes, my personal feelings on "optimized" instructions like that are that most programs don't seem to be written for those instructions, so that they are a very minor part of my thought process on what CPU to buy. But maybe I'll be proved wrong, and that would be cool because the P4 gets a nice kick from SSE2 apps. If more apps start supporting optimized instructions like SSE2 and SSE3, that would be a big boon to Intel. But I don't see that happening as fast as it would need to. SSE2 is just starting to get adopted, by the time SSE3 support starts becoming mainstream, I would bet AMD supports it as well.
Have fun with that new chip, but don't count on it shutting everyone up Like I've said before, my price range is not $250 for a CPU, and in my ~$100 for the CPU price range, AMD is still the king.
Originally posted by: mechBgon
Yes, the trouble with PR is that it may not live up to its rating, as the competition alters their designs in response. On the other hand, the CPU may vastly exceed its PR rating too, depending on the situation. A 1000MHz AthlonXP, if there were such a thing, would have a PR of 2500+ if we were looking at RC5-64 performance and comparing it to the 533-based Northwood.Its not "FUD" what i posted, it was how IMO the PR isnt living up to its hype. I gave a topic where the hammer could infact have to be at a higher clock rate to match its desired PR rating.
I really don't see the PR as any more misleading than the devaluation of MHz by Intel, begun with the 20-stage pipeline and now taken a step further with Williamette-class Celerons. But I don't go out of my way to rant about it every chance I get, either!
Enjoy your new P4 2.53GHz. What cooling are you planning to use?
Originally posted by: Kell
Originally posted by: SSXeon5
Originally posted by: Kell
I'm with Rainsford on this one. SSXeon, you had every right to start this thread, but honestly, the thread was born to be crapped on. It's flamebait, plain and simple. I think you expected that going in, and if you didn't, well, you should have. So complaining about how it got crapped after the fact just ends up sounding like a desperate play for sympathy.
Why the hell did you post that reply, If you thought this thread was crap wooptie, cry me a river.
Even a crapped thread often has some entertainment value, and this one even has a little decent food for debate. Notice I'm not complaining because the thread got crapped; I'm merely pointing out why "crying us a river" over some AMD fans crapping it doesn't win you any support. At least two people have made that point as well, but you don't seem to be grasping it.
Originally posted by: SSXeon5
Originally posted by: Rainsford
I'll admit, the RP rating is hitting dimishing returns on the current Athlon XP, but who knows what Hammer will bring to the table. As far as SSE2/SSE3 goes, my personal feelings on "optimized" instructions like that are that most programs don't seem to be written for those instructions, so that they are a very minor part of my thought process on what CPU to buy. But maybe I'll be proved wrong, and that would be cool because the P4 gets a nice kick from SSE2 apps. If more apps start supporting optimized instructions like SSE2 and SSE3, that would be a big boon to Intel. But I don't see that happening as fast as it would need to. SSE2 is just starting to get adopted, by the time SSE3 support starts becoming mainstream, I would bet AMD supports it as well.
Have fun with that new chip, but don't count on it shutting everyone up Like I've said before, my price range is not $250 for a CPU, and in my ~$100 for the CPU price range, AMD is still the king.
Agreed, and with the $100 cpu range, i have to agree, we wont see $100 p4s till .09um, or if that
...
SSXeon
Originally posted by: SSXeon5
Originally posted by: CrazySaint
Hey, its me again! Ok, you start off buy coming down on AMD for their PR ratings by comparing a 2.53GHz P4 with a AXP 2200+ roll then base your points on price/performance (with future P4 prices ane current AMD prices, no less)? An AXP2200+ compares VERY favorably with a P4 2.2A, so I would say that a "2.2" rating is fair.
Having said that, I do agree that the XP line is pretty much dead in the water as far as any actual progress being made. While Intel keeps spitting out one speed increase after another, AMD has increased the speed on its processor line by what, 133 or 200MHz? I really hope AMD releases a Barton CPU soon that lives up to everyone's expectations (I'd actually be very happy with a 10-15% performance boost per clock and higher scaling), and that the Hammer does well against Prescott.
Hey man Agreed, But I pointed out even the 2.53Ghz specs scores vs the 1.8GHz so you guys can see the flagships at there work. But if you insist on 2200+ vs a equal Pentium 4 so i will post the 2.2GHz spec scores:
SPEC CPU2000
Pentium 4 2.26GHz i850E 256MB PC-800--------------------------BASE:818 PEAK: 830
Athlon XP 2200+ 1.8GHz Epox 8KHA+ 512MB PC2100 cas2---BASE:738 PEAK: 765
SPEC CFP2000
Pentium 4 2.26GHz i850E 256MB PC-800--------------------------BASE:815 PEAK: 829
Athlon XP 2200+ 1.8GHz Epox 8KHA+ 512MB PC2100 cas2---BASE:624 PEAK: 671
Still rocks it
Second, you keep going on about how the 2.53GHz is going to be so much cheaper on Sept. 1st than it is now (which I agree, it will be), yet, surely you don't think for one minute that AMD WON'T have a price cut of their own, do you? The TBreds may suck ("suck" as in, they really aren't any kind of improvement over the Palominos), but assuming they're getting any kind of decent yields, they are CHEAP (for pretty much the same reason they suck - that damn small die), which means that if AMD has to, they can cut prices a LOT to stay competetive, at least in the value market, even if the performance market abandonds them in favor of Intel.
No i just said WAIT for aug 25th/sept 1 (whenever it is . Thats all, and after that flame war with me and you, thats all ill say is just wait .... lol.
SSXeon
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Now that would be cool. If Intel can pull that off, I'll register as an official Intel fanboy
Originally posted by: CrazySaint
Eh, first off, spec is irrelevent to most people. Second, a P4 that's "equal" to a 2200+ would be a P4 2.2A, not a 2.26B. Third, in Anand's review of the 2200+, The P4 2.2A (or slower) beat the 2200+ in 5 out of a 11 benchmarks. The 2200+ (or slower) beat the P4 2.2A (or faster) P4 in 5 out of 11 benchmarks. The 2200+ and 2.2A essentially tied in the 11th (if you want to be technical, the 2.2A barely eeked ahead of the 2200+ by in insignificant margin). If you ask me, comparing an Athlon XP 2200+ with a P4 2.2A is pretty fair. And hardly enough to call the PR rating "crap".
[snippage]
lol Well, I'm guessing that BOTH CPU lines will be quite a bit cheaper on shortly after the 1st.
Originally posted by: drogue
i took the time to find some cars for ya:
Low end:
Lotus Elise (Inline 4, 109 cu in displacement) 0-60 time: 4.6, 0-100 12.6, price 33k
Ford Mustang SVT Cobra (V8, 280 cu in displacement) 0-60 time: 5.4, 0-100: 13.2, price 28.6K
High End
Chevrolet Corvette Z06 (V8, 347 cu in displacement) 0-60 time: 4.2, 0-100: 10.2, price: 48.5k
Porsche 911 GT2 (Flat 6, 219 cu in displacement) 0-60 time: 4.0, 0-100: 8.5, price: 179.9K
theres the raw data.....neither of you were really correct.......
displacement DOES give you more power.....displacement used inefficiently is just extra weight
Originally posted by: MadRat
Granite Bay won't be cheap. Comparing a Granite Bay chipset to the average Athlon chipset would be like comparing the Server Works VE chipset to the ALi Alladin chipset. Come on, these are two completely different classes of chipset!
The current AMD flagship processor, the XP 2200+, uses a factor of .81 in comparison to the Pentium 4. The earlier XPs used a factor of around .9 in comparison to the Pentium 4, making the XP operate faster in MHz per its PR rating. If AMD would have extrapolated the original XP to a factor of .81 we'd have little to be upset with, except that the PR ratings wouldn't line up exactly to Pentium 4 speed grades. Instead they'd probably want each PR number to end in nice "computeresque" numbers like -00's, -33's, -50's, and 66's.
Lets use a factor of .81 to match various 133fsb Athlon XP speed grades against current Pentium4/400 and Pentium4/533.
1633+ = roughly 1336MHz = 10 x 133fsb (1333) COMPARE TO P4-1.6/400 or P4-1.6A/400
1700+ = roughly 1390MHz = 10.5 x 133fsb (1400) COMPARE TO P4-1.7/400 or P4-1.6A/400
1800+ = roughly 1472MHz = 11 x 133fsb (1466) COMPARE TO P4-1.8/400 or P4-1.8A/400
1866+ = roughly 1526MHz = 11.5 x 133fsb (1533) COMPARE TO P4-1.8/400 or P4-1.8A/400
1966+ = roughly 1609MHz = 12 x 133fsb (1600) COMPARE TO P4-1.9/400 or P4-1.8A/400
2033+ = roughly 1663MHz = 12.5 x 133fsb (1666) COMPARE TO P4-2.0/400
2100+ = roughly 1718MHz = 13 x 133fsb (1733) COMPARE TO P4-2.0/400
2200+ = roughly 1800MHz = 13.5 x 133fsb (1800) COMPARE TO P4-2.2/400
AMD could have released them at lower speed grades, too:
1300+ = roughly 1064MHz = 8 x 133fsb (1066) COMPARE TO P4-1.3/400
1366+ = roughly 1118MHz = 8.5 x 133fsb (1133) COMPARE TO P4-1.3/400
1466+ = roughly 1200MHz = 9 x 133fsb (1200) COMPARE TO P4-1.4/400
1550+ = roughly 1268MHz = 9.5 x 133fsb (1266) COMPARE TO P4-1.5/400
Future speed grades would probably look like:
2266+ = roughly 1854MHz = 14 x 133fsb (1866) COMPARE TO P4-2.2/400 or P4-2.26/533
2366+ = roughly 1936MHz = 14.5 x 133fsb (1933) COMPARE TO P4-2.2/400 or P4-2.26/533
2433+ = roughly 1991MHz = 15 x 133fsb (2000) COMPARE TO P4-2.4/400 or P4-2.4A/533
2500+ = roughly 2045MHz = 15.5 x 133fsb (2066) COMPARE TO P4-2.4/400 or P4-2.4A/533
2600+ = roughly 2127MHz = 16 x 133fsb (2133) COMPARE TO P4-2.53/533
2700+ = roughly 2209MHz = 16.5 x 133fsb (2200) COMPARE TO P4-2.66/533
2766+ = roughly 2263MHz = 17 x 133fsb (2266) COMPARE TO P4-2.66/533
2850+ = roughly 2332MHz = 17.5 x 133fsb (2333) COMPARE TO P4-2.8/533
2933+ = roughly 2400MHz = 18 x 133fsb (2400) COMPARE TO P4-2.93/533
3000+ = roughly 2454MHz = 18.5 x 133fsb (2466) COMPARE TO P4-2.93/533
I doubt that Athlon XPs will ever scale beyond 2200MHz even on the Thoroughbred process, but you never know. Intel has already doubled their processor speeds after scaling to the .13 micron process. If AMD was able to do that then its not unrealistic to expect an XP 3000+ is possible...
Originally posted by: SaintGeorge
Most people that have high end PC's use them for gaming.
The XP2200+ is only 4 or 5% slower than a 2.53ghz P4 in most games. Don't go quoting Commache 4 now, because we all know P4's beat XP's very easily with that engine. Its the opposite however for serious sam with low end XP's beating the highest P4's for some reason.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1635&p=12
and
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1635&p=13
These pages show how the XP2200+ does in games. Also it does very well in the Unreal Performance test, which is meant to demonstrate how current Pc's will do in a couple of years time with lots of games using new engines.
A 2ghz T'bred should be able to beat a 2.53ghz P4 in a lot of situations, and deffinitely in games, which is what counts most for the majority of people.
Mark
Originally posted by: lRageATMl
Originally posted by: drogue
i took the time to find some cars for ya:
Low end:
Lotus Elise (Inline 4, 109 cu in displacement) 0-60 time: 4.6, 0-100 12.6, price 33k
Ford Mustang SVT Cobra (V8, 280 cu in displacement) 0-60 time: 5.4, 0-100: 13.2, price 28.6K
High End
Chevrolet Corvette Z06 (V8, 347 cu in displacement) 0-60 time: 4.2, 0-100: 10.2, price: 48.5k
Porsche 911 GT2 (Flat 6, 219 cu in displacement) 0-60 time: 4.0, 0-100: 8.5, price: 179.9K
theres the raw data.....neither of you were really correct.......
displacement DOES give you more power.....displacement used inefficiently is just extra weight
yeah ford...i'm kind of biased towards FORD if you don;t know already
btw, the 281cid in my Cobra is a lot more efficent the the the POS camaro's (thank god GM got a clue and putting them to their deaths...it's kind of funny when the 45K Vette's outsale the Camaro's and WS6's)...
Originally posted by: SSXeon5
Are you kidden me:
Ford Mustang GT Gets killed by the Camaro Z28
Ford Mustang Cobra Gets killed by the Camaro SS
Ford Mustang Cobra-R Gets killed by the Corvette Z06
So i dont know how you can think Chevy makes the POS engines, when its really ford haha
SSXeon
Originally posted by: lRageATMl
Originally posted by: SSXeon5
Are you kidden me:
Ford Mustang GT Gets killed by the Camaro Z28
Ford Mustang Cobra Gets killed by the Camaro SS
Ford Mustang Cobra-R Gets killed by the Corvette Z06
So i dont know how you can think Chevy makes the POS engines, when its really ford haha
SSXeon
Try again, look at the 2003 Cobra...get your details straight
and you talk about POS engines? are you kidding me...281cid and you get 320HP out of it (pre 2003 cobra's) and then you look at the Camaro's...347cid and how much HP??? 345 or something like that? Yeha...very efficient out of a 5.7L engine compared to a 4.6L.
Originally posted by: SSXeon5
dude the 347cui is heavier too, and its 325HP on the SS. And I have my details strait, the 2003 cobra is even slower:
2003 Mustang Cobra
Horsepower 390 @ 6,000 rpm
Torque 390 @ 3,500 rpm
0-60 4.6secs
1/4 mile 12.9@111MPH
2003 Corvette Z06
Horsepower 405 @ 6,000 rpm
Torque 400 @ 4,800 rpm
0-60 3.9secs
1/4 mile 12.4@116MPH
Looks clear to me what car is slower
SSXeon