Pentium820 D more bang for the $$$$

[Intelia]

http://www.driverheaven.net/reviews/dualcoreintel/photoshop.htm

 

[biostud]

nothing new, except the obvious lack of gaming benchmarks.

 

[Bona Fide]

One test...and you draw such a huge conclusion from it.

ecnarongi

 

[Vegitto]

Okay, so the 820D wins in this test. Go to the next page (here), and see the X2 win, yet again. Zip? X2 wins. WMV Playback? X2 wins. Conclusion? You're biased, we're right.

 

[ZobarStyl]

How nice of you to ignore their other results, like the fact that the dual core P-D is actually slower in their encoding (Intel's strong suit) suite than the single core 3800+. A single PhotoShop test does not constitute more bang for your buck. In other news, that review is one of the silliest I've seen in a long while. If they can't even be bothered to find apps that actually utilize dual core, I'm not seeing much point, and if they are only comparing single threaded speed, where's the game benches? Don't say they don't have any to do, it's driverheaven.

 

[Zebo]

Too bad nobody agrees with them X2 beats pentium dullies big time in photoshop.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-fx57_11.html
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410
etc etc etc

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Odd, Anandtech shows opposite domination

From article: "Even when comparing the £180 Pentium D 820 to the £750 X2 4800+ we see that the Intel chip just blows the AMD chip away. Percentage wise the 820 comes out 19% faster in total time taken to complete this hugely demanding test."

19% faster? This is very suspicious. Every other review site including the link above has the 4800+ walking all over the 820D in Photoshop (well everything else too) so I think I will acknowledge 99% of review sites (including Tom's) in believing that this review is not reflective of reality.

The 4800+ matches the 840EE (quicker in some cases, slower in others) in every review I have seen so I have to question a 820D being 19% faster. It doesn't make logical sense.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Too bad nobody agrees with them X2 beats pentium dullies big time in photoshop.
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64-fx57_11.html
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2410
etc etc etc

LOL, we posted the same article. This review is so opposite of every other one I wonder if they did it on purpose to generate flame wars and controversy and hits for their site.

 

[PoopyPants]

If they can't even be bothered to find apps that actually utilize dual core

im not any fan of intel but can you, for my own curiosity list some applications that are dual core friendly ?

now what about the Dual Core HT chips. Task Manager shows 4 cpu's. Does that make the chip better ? slightly but in general no. One would think games would automatically eat up dual core or HT cpu's but they dont. and HT has been around for what ? 4 years ? and yet games stilla rent utilizing it ? why wouldn't they utilize dual cores ? its a nice thought by amd and intel but the state of software currently isnt showing that its worth getting either dual core cpu's ? and will it in the future ? i doubt it. not anytime soon atleast. i point the finger back at the rediculous move by the industry into the PCI-E market. the only benefit is SLI. and even then you still have to mess with it to make it work for everything.

 

[fierydemise]

What I find very funny is, they test no gaming apps but still put in their conclution "If you use your computer for hardcore gaming the decision becomes less clear. Certainly the Pentium D is no slouch in this department however it will almost always perform in the same way as a 2.8ghz 800fsb P4."
Huh? How can you make a conclution on something you never tested? That alone leads me to say that this review is total BS

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: PoopyPants

If they can't even be bothered to find apps that actually utilize dual core

im not any fan of intel but can you, for my own curiosity list some applications that are dual core friendly ?

now what about the Dual Core HT chips. Task Manager shows 4 cpu's. Does that make the chip better ? slightly but in general no. One would think games would automatically eat up dual core or HT cpu's but they dont. and HT has been around for what ? 4 years ? and yet games stilla rent utilizing it ? why would they utilise dual cores ? its a nice thought by amd and intel but the state of software currently isnt showing that its worth getting either dual core cpu's ? and will it in the future ? i doubt it. not anytime soon atleast.

The reason they are moving to dualcore (and forcing software developers to multi-thread (the chicken and the egg reasoning) is because a ceiling is being reached on clock speeds on current technology. If they can't scale clockspeed (as Intel has discovered) than you begin to create multiple lower speed processors and run them in parallel so we are getting the first generation of that.

Would you rather have a 6ghrtz FX-99 or a X2 6000+ with 2 4000 (actual megahertz processors?)? I would take the X2 myself.

 

[Zebo]

More beating or tying XE let alone 820...this is why you read multiple reviews

http://www.ixbt.com/cpu/amd-athlon-64-x2-4800-details.shtml#photoshop

 

[PoopyPants]

Originally posted by: fierydemise
What I find very funny is, they test no gaming apps but still put in their conclution "If you use your computer for hardcore gaming the decision becomes less clear. Certainly the Pentium D is no slouch in this department however it will almost always perform in the same way as a 2.8ghz 800fsb P4."
Huh? How can you make a conclution on something you never tested? That alone leads me to say that this review is total BS

yeah thats funny too.

performs as good as a single 2.8 HT wow thats some seriously poopy performance.
seriously you go game with a stock 2.8 and your gunna be struggling . even with an x800 series or 6800 series GPU under the hood performance will suffer becuase of the cpu bottleneck.

intel is really screwing themselves over with their entire dual core line and many of the 775 chips themselves arent all that great considering Intels bloody high price point.

 

[Intelia]

I made no conclusions its the testers conclusions not mine

If you want a pure gaming machine. The pentium M mobile cpu is almost as fast as the FX 57 . Even though the PM is running @ 2.26 it is a better value for the $$$$.
If you O/C the pentium M to 2.8 it completely destroys the AMD 64 FX57 product at the same clock . The Pentium M is also cheaper than the FX57 so it is also a better value. Pentium M 2.26 well also clock higher than 2.8GHz .

 

[freethrowtommy]

Originally posted by: Intelia
I made no conclusions its the testers conclusions not mine

If you want a pure gaming machine. The pentium M mobile cpu is almost as fast as the FX 57 . Even though the PM is running @ 2.26 it is a better value for the $$$$.
If you O/C the pentium M to 2.8 it completely destroys the AMD 64 FX57 product at the same clock . The Pentium M is also cheaper than the FX57 so it is also a better value. Pentium M 2.26 well also clock higher than 2.8GHz .

got any proof of this? besides you can ramp up a FX57 to higher than 3 ghz to pass up the PM... you can also ramp up a 3000+ to 2.8 Ghz and that is MUCH cheaper than a PM... your case is flawed there pal.

 

[Zebo]

If you O/C the pentium M to 2.8 it completely destroys the AMD 64 FX57 product at the same clock .

Liar.

I don't know where you get this stuff?

 

[Nanobaud]

Perhaps they got a version of Photoshop that was compiled on the Intel compiler. The raw capabilites of each CPU to crank through some basic image processing (one of the few things to show up on these boards that I actually know something about) isn't different enough to show that much disparity.

Edit: I'm not sure how shared cache might impact this, but I wouldn't expect that to 'help' the 5ium-D

 

[Aenslead]

Originally posted by: Intelia
I made no conclusions its the testers conclusions not mine

If you want a pure gaming machine. The pentium M mobile cpu is almost as fast as the FX 57 . Even though the PM is running @ 2.26 it is a better value for the $$$$.
If you O/C the pentium M to 2.8 it completely destroys the AMD 64 FX57 product at the same clock . The Pentium M is also cheaper than the FX57 so it is also a better value. Pentium M 2.26 well also clock higher than 2.8GHz .

So you make no conclusions. So that means you can hardly see the facts as they are, so you need someone else to do it. So that explains your most ridiculous posts, such as this.

Cut the crap, PAL! Pentium M is not even an official desktop processor; its an alternative that's tweaked to simulate a desktop processor.

But I guess you can't see that, so we'll have to wait for some webpage to write it for you, since you can't make conclusions, right?

 

[AkumaX]

i bet the CPU somehow started skipping frames on the test to give it a lower score

Originally posted by: Intelia
I made no conclusions its the testers conclusions not mine

If you want a pure gaming machine. The pentium M mobile cpu is almost as fast as the FX 57 . Even though the PM is running @ 2.26 it is a better value for the $$$$.
If you O/C the pentium M to 2.8 it completely destroys the AMD 64 FX57 product at the same clock . The Pentium M is also cheaper than the FX57 so it is also a better value. Pentium M 2.26 well also clock higher than 2.8GHz .

now you're talking about a completely different subject + cpu. if we're talking about o/cing and cheaper CPUs, why don't you suggest something comparable to the like a similar priced Venice or San Diego that are overclocked to the Pentium M, instead of pitting the Pentium M to the obviously high end FX57. according to your argument, that's the same as pitting a 3200+ venice against the 670. it's cheaper and it'll destroy it once overclocked. what is your problem and bias?

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: Intelia
I made no conclusions its the testers conclusions not mine

If you want a pure gaming machine. The pentium M mobile cpu is almost as fast as the FX 57 . Even though the PM is running @ 2.26 it is a better value for the $$$$.
If you O/C the pentium M to 2.8 it completely destroys the AMD 64 FX57 product at the same clock . The Pentium M is also cheaper than the FX57 so it is also a better value. Pentium M 2.26 well also clock higher than 2.8GHz .

If you want a pure gaming machine you can't have SLI with the Pentium-M, automatically forcing it out of the picture simply because its platform is 2nd class at best. Yes, the CPU is good for gaming, but you're missing the rest of the system.

Then there's the painful lack of motherboards that have even PCI-e slots for a 7800GTX card or better. The only "official" s479 (PM) motherboard I know of that also comes with PCI-e is going to cost you a good $300.

No, the argument that the P-M makes for the ideal gaming CPU simply doesn't hold any value anymore - and it all goes back to Intel for not encouraging desktop development for the chip sooner than they have or will.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Intelia
I made no conclusions its the testers conclusions not mine

If you want a pure gaming machine. The pentium M mobile cpu is almost as fast as the FX 57 . Even though the PM is running @ 2.26 it is a better value for the $$$$.
If you O/C the pentium M to 2.8 it completely destroys the AMD 64 FX57 product at the same clock . The Pentium M is also cheaper than the FX57 so it is also a better value. Pentium M 2.26 well also clock higher than 2.8GHz .

Intelia, what are you doing? It's getting embarrassing. The Pentium M is a mobile chip that only works on a select few mobos half of which need an adapter from ASUS. And the Pentium M only dominates A64's in gaming clock for clock. Intel is sucking wind right now. Your almost sounding as desperate as ATI fans right now.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
And the Pentium M only dominates A64's in gaming clock for clock. Intel is sucking wind right now.

Dominate is rather strong a word. Performance edge when clock for clock sounds more like it, but then we've got to make the CPU seem worthwile consider it gets dominated in FPU intenstive situations. :roll:

Your almost sounding as desperate as ATI fans right now.

At least ATI has something coming out that should compete and they're doing what they can to make sure it does, and they're telling us they are.

This Intel/AMD situation is different. nVidia is more like intel in your senario, and the major difference is that nVidia doesn't seem to be a lethargic cow - they've offered not only core improvements for greater speed, but "dualcore" as well. Whereas intel slapped two old cores together and are trying to force it down our throats. The situation for intel fans is far worse than the situation for ATI fans, at least that's what I think.

 

[angryswede]

Originally posted by: Intelia
I made no conclusions its the testers conclusions not mine

If you want a pure gaming machine. The pentium M mobile cpu is almost as fast as the FX 57 . Even though the PM is running @ 2.26 it is a better value for the $$$$.
If you O/C the pentium M to 2.8 it completely destroys the AMD 64 FX57 product at the same clock . The Pentium M is also cheaper than the FX57 so it is also a better value. Pentium M 2.26 well also clock higher than 2.8GHz .

why are you still here??

 

[Technonut]

according to your argument, that's the same as pitting a 3200+ venice against the 670. it's cheaper and it'll destroy it once overclocked

The 670 is a 3.8GHz processor correct? Are you saying that 3200+ Venice OC'ed will destroy the 670 when it is OC'ed? I would imagine the 670 should be good for at least 4.1, maybe 4.2GHz on good air-cooling...

I would like to see a benchmark fest (Both synthetic & real-world) with the P4 630 ($223.99) 0r 640 ($270.99) against the A64 3200+ ($193.00) 0r 3500+ ($249.00) with each @ maximum stable air or watercooled OC.

I know that most of the 630 / 640 processors will go as high as 4.1GHz+ on good air or watercooling without throttling from what I have been seeing. I just read a review of a 630 that topped-out @ 4.5GHz on water....

I am actually curious about this.... If anyone would care to set up a series of benchmarks that are easily accessible, I would be game to reduce my OC to 4.1- 4.2GHz and run against an OC'ed A64... Just for piss n' giggles of course....

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
And the Pentium M only dominates A64's in gaming clock for clock. Intel is sucking wind right now.

Dominate is rather strong a word. Performance edge when clock for clock sounds more like it, but then we've got to make the CPU seem worthwile consider it gets dominated in FPU intenstive situations. :roll:

Your almost sounding as desperate as ATI fans right now.

At least ATI has something coming out that should compete and they're doing what they can to make sure it does, and they're telling us they are.

This Intel/AMD situation is different. nVidia is more like intel in your senario, and the major difference is that nVidia doesn't seem to be a lethargic cow - they've offered not only core improvements for greater speed, but "dualcore" as well. Whereas intel slapped two old cores together and are trying to force it down our throats. The situation for intel fans is far worse than the situation for ATI fans, at least that's what I think.

Since the retard won't provide proof... here it is at three resolutions with lots of tests 2.6 M vs. 2.6 A64
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=133&type=expert&pid=10

Hardy "dominate" when it's well within 2% in game tests clock for clock. That's within margin of error, actually 5% is, but we are much less than that.


And since when do we compare processors clock for clock? A super cheap duron is better than any P4 if we did that. Idiots.