Pentium820 D more bang for the $$$$

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Pabster
<sigh>

Another flame shoot. Intelia, go back to your hole and quit posting crap like this. We don't need any more flame shoots. The Intel vs AMD thing has been played and replayed TO DEATH.

Quit speculating about Yonah, Merom, or Conroe. Speculation = crap.

Pentium D is a fine value choice for dual-core computing. It does indeed best the X2, but only in a couple areas. In everything else the X2 is faster. Whether you value absolute speed or the quality and stability of Intel boards and chipsets is your own decision. Personally, I'd go with the X2 if I were building a new dual-core machine right now.

Pentium M (Dothan) does indeed best Athlon 64 in gaming. This has been proven, and hashed and rehased time and time again. QUIT DEBATING IT. Clock-for-clock Dothan is faster (but only slightly) than Athlon64; A major feat for a mobile chip nonetheless.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Sunbird
http://www.tbreak.com/reviews/article.php?cat=cpu&id=391&pagenumber=5
How you like them apples Intelia?

But I admit at the multi tasking,
http://www.tbreak.com/reviews/article.php?cat=cpu&id=391&pagenumber=6

Note: Above review is benching some processors fitting into a certain price range.

How can this site have 4800 missing from half the review? Never seen a review like this. Some processors in one chart, others in another.. usually most review sites try and keep a static set thoughout.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

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


But you were all too eager to post it here on a predominately AMD forum

you should change your handle to Flamebait or Kickme

 

[Leper Messiah]

Scary. Even Pabster is calling a Intelia a troll.

keysplayer, I don't see any of your posts Stickied up right now. I see two of Zebo's. Enuff said.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Doh!

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: GuitarDaddy

Originally posted by: Pabster
<sigh>

Another flame shoot. Intelia, go back to your hole and quit posting crap like this.

I love it! Who took the rock off the "Troll Hole"

Makes me think of that arcade game where the mole pops up and you smack it with a rubber mallet

 

[imported_g33k]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The Turion is a good effort, but really needs a clock speed advantage to be competitive with the Pentium M in performance.

Have you seen a turion review to qualify this? I miss anand's laptop reviews..has'nt done one in like 6 months. Anyway they supposed to use 30W and have huge cache and all the 90nm core refinments could be interesting.

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/print_content.asp?id=turion64

The Turion64 MT does come close to P-M. The P-M still has lower power consumption and does better in games. The MT would be a good compitetor if it came in at a lower price tag. The only problem is, I have yet to find a laptop manufacturer that equips their mobile systems with the T64 MT version. To date, they are all of the ML version. MT is vaporware, so it seems.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Who the hell buys CPU's for games

GPU=games
CPU=work

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: g33k

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The Turion is a good effort, but really needs a clock speed advantage to be competitive with the Pentium M in performance.

Have you seen a turion review to qualify this? I miss anand's laptop reviews..has'nt done one in like 6 months. Anyway they supposed to use 30W and have huge cache and all the 90nm core refinments could be interesting.

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/print_content.asp?id=turion64

The Turion64 MT does come close to P-M. The P-M still has lower power consumption and does better in games. The MT would be a good compitetor if it came in at a lower price tag. The only problem is, I have yet to find a laptop manufacturer that equips their mobile systems with the T64 MT version. To date, they are all of the ML version. MT is vaporware, so it seems.

The BIG problem with that test is that it's comparing platforms and not chips...
With so few watts difference, it's most likely that there is more of a margin of error on the mobo than there is on the chips themselves...
What we really need to see is a direct comparison of the chips, or a wider sampling of AMD mobos.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: L3p3rM355i4h
Scary. Even Pabster is calling a Intelia a troll.

keysplayer, I don't see any of your posts Stickied up right now. I see two of Zebo's. Enuff said.

OMG, I had no idea. What was I thinking? Please.

This quote below is from a post of mine that set him off:

(Keysplayr2003) "And the Pentium M only dominates A64's in gaming clock for clock. Intel is sucking wind right now."

The word dominate pissed him off. He's f'ing weird man. Sure, I used the improper word, but this is the post he made in return:

(Zebo) "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:

(Zebo) "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

(Zebo) "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."


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

So, for using the word "dominate", I got called a retard and an idiot. Still think his two stickies is a good enough excuse for this kind of crap?

HE STARTED IN WITH ME. Now that should be "Enuff Said".

 

[Gamingphreek]

Turion is not a processor. It is a group of chips similiar to the Centrino technology.

THe processor is merely a lower voltage version of the A64-M.

<sigh>

Another flame shoot. Intelia, go back to your hole and quit posting crap like this. We don't need any more flame shoots. The Intel vs AMD thing has been played and replayed TO DEATH.

Quit speculating about Yonah, Merom, or Conroe. Speculation = crap.

Pentium D is a fine value choice for dual-core computing. It does indeed best the X2, but only in a couple areas. In everything else the X2 is faster. Whether you value absolute speed or the quality and stability of Intel boards and chipsets is your own decision. Personally, I'd go with the X2 if I were building a new dual-core machine right now.

Pentium M (Dothan) does indeed best Athlon 64 in gaming. This has been proven, and hashed and rehased time and time again. QUIT DEBATING IT. Clock-for-clock Dothan is faster (but only slightly) than Athlon64; A major feat for a mobile chip nonetheless.

QFT

-Kevin

 

[imported_g33k]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: g33k

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: jpeyton
The Turion is a good effort, but really needs a clock speed advantage to be competitive with the Pentium M in performance.

Have you seen a turion review to qualify this? I miss anand's laptop reviews..has'nt done one in like 6 months. Anyway they supposed to use 30W and have huge cache and all the 90nm core refinments could be interesting.

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/print_content.asp?id=turion64

The Turion64 MT does come close to P-M. The P-M still has lower power consumption and does better in games. The MT would be a good compitetor if it came in at a lower price tag. The only problem is, I have yet to find a laptop manufacturer that equips their mobile systems with the T64 MT version. To date, they are all of the ML version. MT is vaporware, so it seems.

The BIG problem with that test is that it's comparing platforms and not chips...
With so few watts difference, it's most likely that there is more of a margin of error on the mobo than there is on the chips themselves...
What we really need to see is a direct comparison of the chips, or a wider sampling of AMD mobos.

How do you test just the chip without memory and mobo? When I buy a laptop, I'm not buying just the chip, Im buying the whole system. It would be nice to see more reviews, but with T64-MT nowhere to be found, I doubt we will see any until there is availabilty.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: g33k


How do you test just the chip without memory and mobo? When I buy a laptop, I'm not buying just the chip, Im buying the whole system. It would be nice to see more reviews, but with T64-MT nowhere to be found, I doubt we will see any until there is availabilty.

Lost Circuits has done an excellent job of just that...though it wasn't easy.
Lost Circuits Venice article

It is, however, fairly simple to isolate the power going to the CPU since all modern mainboards have the power circuitry for the processor isolated from the rest of the mainboard power. That is, the 4- or 8- pin dedicated auxiliary connector is the sole source of power for the CPU and tapping into it will show the power drawn by the CPU only. Needless to say that there is also a coefficient for the VRM, that is, the energy cycle efficiency or ratio between power-in and power-out at the MOSFETs. It is possible to measure the current output directly at the Vcore output, however, the high switching frequency of the VRM makes the hookup somewhat hazardous for the VRM itself since phaseshifts induced by extra capacitance can easily blow up the entire circuitry ? as we found out the hard way. Not a pretty sight

My point was that the tests I've seen (with the exception of the LC test) have less to do with the P-M or Turion than they do with the laptop they're plugged in to. Hopefully with H-P now adopting the Turion line, we will see a lot more of them.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Gamingphreek
Turion is not a processor. It is a group of chips similiar to the Centrino technology.

THe processor is merely a lower voltage version of the A64-M.

<sigh>

Another flame shoot. Intelia, go back to your hole and quit posting crap like this. We don't need any more flame shoots. The Intel vs AMD thing has been played and replayed TO DEATH.

Quit speculating about Yonah, Merom, or Conroe. Speculation = crap.

Pentium D is a fine value choice for dual-core computing. It does indeed best the X2, but only in a couple areas. In everything else the X2 is faster. Whether you value absolute speed or the quality and stability of Intel boards and chipsets is your own decision. Personally, I'd go with the X2 if I were building a new dual-core machine right now.

Pentium M (Dothan) does indeed best Athlon 64 in gaming. This has been proven, and hashed and rehased time and time again. QUIT DEBATING IT. Clock-for-clock Dothan is faster (but only slightly) than Athlon64; A major feat for a mobile chip nonetheless.

QFT

-Kevin

Turion is a line of processors, but Centrino is not! Centrino is a whole platform that includes the Pentium M line of processors...

 

[stratman]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003

Originally posted by: L3p3rM355i4h
Scary. Even Pabster is calling a Intelia a troll.

keysplayer, I don't see any of your posts Stickied up right now. I see two of Zebo's. Enuff said.

OMG, I had no idea. What was I thinking? Please.

This quote below is from a post of mine that set him off:

(Keysplayr2003) "And the Pentium M only dominates A64's in gaming clock for clock. Intel is sucking wind right now."

The word dominate pissed him off. He's f'ing weird man. Sure, I used the improper word, but this is the post he made in return:

(Zebo) "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:

(Zebo) "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

(Zebo) "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."


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

So, for using the word "dominate", I got called a retard and an idiot. Still think his two stickies is a good enough excuse for this kind of crap?

HE STARTED IN WITH ME. Now that should be "Enuff Said".

You guys both deserve a lot of respect, you being an intelligent, rational intel user in amd dominated forums, and zebo putting hours and hours into helping people here.

Neither of you should've called each other names ('retard' or patronizing him with 'kid').

Come on guys

 

[Duvie]

Hahahahahahahahaha...

This was some funny sh^t!!!!!


Keys...dont pull that senior and everyone else is a junior stuff...He earned the elite status, so let the jealousy go man!!!!

Unintelia....Exactly what I expected from a worthless troll such as yourself.....

 

[Zebo]

keys I was not even talking to you with the retard and idiot comment. I appologise we let it get this far.

See my post right before that one and it may make some sense.

You know who said:

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

To which I responded with a question.

"Liar.
I don't know where you get this stuff?"


No answer came then I said: 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.

------------------------------

I can totally understand the confusion 1) I quoted Bunny since you know who was no where to quote 2) I used your "dominate" word instead you know whos "destorys" accidently.

Who do you think I was talking to later when I said "you state something outlandish be prepared to back it up. I did it for you and showed you wrong, as usual"

Take it for what it's worth.. I agreed with your post to you know who.. we said practically the same thing to the same quote. Anyway I have no hard feelings about any of that condesending stuff..I deserve it for not quoteing right and seemingly attacking you.

Peace and love.

 

[Zebo]

Unintelia....Exactly what I expected from a worthless troll such as yourself.....

Yup really just need to stay out of her garbage threads started as blanet "1 test" troll with no comment. Don't know why I even responded.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
I'll admit, dominate is a strong word, but 2% is 2% anyway you look at it.

Yes it is faster, but all the diehard intel fans who cling to the P-M so dearly fail to realize how it is an incomplete desktop CPU - because it isn't one. The one major area it happens to shine in is gaming, and when it isn't a dominating lead like A64/X2 has over the P4/PD, is it really worth its weight? Certainly not. The value of such a system is more of a fun thing because it isn't meant to be. And the official motherboards are outrageously too expensive to even consider. Then there's the lack of platform. PCI-e being extremely rare for the P-M (say bye bye to the 7800GTX, SLI and thus any claim to gaming superiority because even if the CPU is good at gaming, when its platform is being held back that fact means jack squat.)

Again this all comes back to being Intel's fault. While we could have had something pretty incredible, we don't, because they didn't even drop the ball, they never really decided to pick it up - not yet at least.

And what do you mean "Since when do we compare processors clock for clock?" Why not?
All AMD bed partners tout what a A64 would do to an P4 clock for clock don't they.

Because he's probably less pro AMD than you are pro intel. Only IDIOTS cling to clock for clock arguments. It is nice to speculate "what ifs", but the fact of the matter is that netburst was Intel's evil plan to make the CPU look better than it actually is - the developed the CPU to market itself. The P4s needed to look extremely fast but be fast enough not to be a complete joke - ie as fast or faster than whatever similar Athlon or even updated Pentium 3 came to be.

The Pentium 4 needs to have a very high clockrate to be even an average performing part. You simply flat out ignore the clock speed, and you then clock the CPUs as high as they'll go (stable, on reasonable air cooling and safe voltage levels - ie retail specs) and then you compare them because the CPUs are then going to be computing as fast as they were built to go, not run clocks.

You don't compare the P-M and A64 clock for clock because the A64 can run high stock speeds simply because it was built for it, its a desktop chip meant for desktop cooling and voltages. Then when we consider overclocking, we overclock both chips as high as they'll go (again with the requirements that they're stable, and air cooling being reasonable as its most practical/affordable) and then we compare them. If you can then get that much more performance per $ with the Athlon solution then the P-M has yet again lost much value, sinking lower into a niche meant for those who like to add unorthodox components and systems to their already heatlhy collection.

Again, we seem to be arguing about whether or not the P-M is truly worth consideration for powering a desktop system for practical purposes - and at the current point in time most all the arrows are point towards NO.

Originally posted by: keysplayr2003
Absolutely right! But Zebo doesn't want to hear this. It hurts him. The word Yonah terrifies him. Forget about Merom/Conroe, that send yellow shivers down his spine.

Its not uncommon to be afraid of the unknown, because that is what those products are because they do not exist in the current market and thus we do not know what they are capable of.

But then that also means they are not even yet here to even pose a threat. Again, intel's fault.

J/K.. As if I really care.

you're posting a lot about it, it seems you do.

I am actually pricing out a 3500+ NF4 rig. not SLI. So, I guess I'm supporting the AMD "cause". barf. Just want to see what it can do compared to my P4 rig and my Soon to be P-M desktop. Yes, I game a lot.

Right, ditch the P-M and sell teh P4 rig, then you could could be more than a self proclaimed game enthusiast with and SLI setup, or at least fork over $300 for a PCI-e P-M motherboard and grab a 7800GTX while you're at it. Oh but then you could have a 3000+ Venice and a PCI-e nF4 Ultra board all for less than the total cost of the P-M PCI-e motherboard not including the CPU, the savings on the CPU would then go towards the 7800, making it worth it over an AGP X8xx or 6800...buying a P-M with the sole intent for it to be a gaming machine really does seem silly to me. Either you fork over big bucks which would go better towards an SLI AMD rig, or you sacrifice for AGP and a socket adapter and last generation's top end video cards for best possible performance...yippee.

Like I said before, the P-M is more of a fun toy to add to a collection. It is functional and performs well in certain areas. But, thanks to intel, we can't yet use the technology to power our own ultimate gaming rigs as right now they're still sub par and far more "messy" of a solution. When it come to gaming, the P-M more than does its job, its the platform (or lack there of) and the pricing that kill any practical value the chip could have.

 

[Sixtyfour]

Intelia is Porkster.

If Porkster is banned why Intelia isn't ?

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Zebo
keys I was not even talking to you with the retard and idiot comment. I appologise we let it get this far.

See my post right before that one and it may make some sense.

You know who said:

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

To which I responded with a question.

"Liar.
I don't know where you get this stuff?"


No answer came then I said: 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.

------------------------------

I can totally understand the confusion 1) I quoted Bunny since you know who was no where to quote 2) I used your "dominate" word instead you know whos "destorys" accidently.

Who do you think I was talking to later when I said "you state something outlandish be prepared to back it up. I did it for you and showed you wrong, as usual"

Take it for what it's worth.. I agreed with your post to you know who.. we said practically the same thing to the same quote. Anyway I have no hard feelings about any of that condesending stuff..I deserve it for not quoteing right and seemingly attacking you.

Peace and love.

Thank you for clearing it up. Communication in here can get out of sync.
Peace Brudda.

Now, about that 3500+
I was going to go P 830 with a 945 mobo, but I'm open to trying the A64. I'm sure I would be quite happy with it as I game 50% of the time I'm on the puter. I usually come home, work for a while, then kick back with some CoD, C&C Generals, or HL2.
I do however use Pinnacle Studio 8 to capture vid cam video or VCR tapes and convert them to DVD. Would I still be better off with the P 830? I'm on the fence.

 

[Pabster]

The D 830 will be faster, if you are going to capture/encode video AND game at the same time.

Otherwise, the 3500+ is faster in either single task.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: Pabster
The D 830 will be faster, if you are going to capture/encode video AND game at the same time.

Otherwise, the 3500+ is faster in either single task.

That is definitely the advantage of dualcore. Sometimes however, I thought the Intel dualcore at 2.8 was actually slower than the 3.8 single core with hyperthreading in many instances even when doing both tasks.

I am not critcising or impugning the integrity of the post. I am just posting an awareness/question. LOL

 

[Zebo]

Keys I would'nt buy anything prescott based on principle. You have potential to throttle which bugs me. Not always, maybe never, but the potential is there.. Yes even stock, I've seen it, there have been intel posters about it. You have lots of power use.. You have a chip worse than last chip, northwood all in name of marketing Mhz getting/going higher. These P4s are first CPU's in history put out by any company that have gotten less effcient per Mhz than thier predecessors and Prescott is just a continuation of that. It's just an engineering thing.

Anyway dual cores are the future, The 820D (you can make a 830 for free so why spend the xtra?) is prolly your best bet between those two, based on application. It's a shame you can't wait for a $340 X2 3800+, it will be faster then an 840 too.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Keys I would'nt buy anything prescott based on principle. You have potential to throttle which bugs me. Not always, maybe never, but the potential is there.. Yes even stock, I've seen it, there have been intel posters about it. You have lots of power use.. You have a chip worse than last chip, northwood all in name of marketing Mhz getting/going higher. These P4s are first CPU's in history put out by any company that have gotten less effcient per Mhz than thier predecessors and Prescott is just a continuation of that. It's just an engineering thing.

Anyway dual cores are the future, The 820D (you can make a 830 for free so why spend the xtra?) is prolly your best bet between those two, based on application. It's a shame you can't wait for a $340 X2 3800+, it will be faster then an 840 too.

I could wait for the 3800+ no doubt, but the cost? Dunno what it will debut at. Cause I have to buy the whole package. Mobo, RAM, CPU.