Real-world impressions of going from P4 to AMD64 3200+...**UPDATE** Up and Running...FINALLY :)

[vailr]

How about: SiSoft Sandra: Memory & Multimedia benchmarks?
Thanks!

 

[NFS4]

Athlon64 3200+
Radeon 9600 Pro 425.25 core/325.00 mem

3DMark2003 -- 3617; CPU Score -- 720
3DMark2001SE -- 13062

 

[NFS4]

Sandra Standard Max3

CPU
7379 MIPS
3025/4181 MFLOPS

Multimedia
Int: 11213 it/s
Float: 12319 it/s



Sandra 2004

CPU
8308 MIPS
3152/4085 MFLOPS

Multimedia
Int: 14914 it/s
Float: 19670 it/s

 

[Nebor]

I thought the AMD64 was faster than the P4? Those sandra scores are... lacking.

 

[cqcc]

WOW!
..........

Originally posted by: NFS4
Sandra Standard Max3

CPU
7379 MIPS
3025/4181 MFLOPS

Multimedia
Int: 11213 it/s
Float: 12319 it/s



Sandra 2004

CPU
8308 MIPS
3152/4085 MFLOPS

Multimedia
Int: 14914 it/s
Float: 19670 it/s

:Q

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: Nebor
I thought the AMD64 was faster than the P4? Those sandra scores are... lacking.

Sweet! I am in your sig! I feel the :heart:.

 

[Antisocial Virge]

Originally posted by: Nebor
I thought the AMD64 was faster than the P4? Those sandra scores are... lacking.

I just ran a test on my P4 to see where it stands.

results

I'm actually kinda surprised by the amd 64 benchies.

 

[NFS4]

Originally posted by: Antisocial-Virge

Originally posted by: Nebor
I thought the AMD64 was faster than the P4? Those sandra scores are... lacking.

I just ran a test on my P4 to see where it stands.

results

I'm actually kinda surprised by the amd 64 benchies.

My numbers are right in line with what GamePC got:

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=amd64platforms&page=6

Sandra is worthless anyway

 

[InlineFive]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: Antisocial-Virge

Originally posted by: Nebor
I thought the AMD64 was faster than the P4? Those sandra scores are... lacking.

I just ran a test on my P4 to see where it stands.

results

I'm actually kinda surprised by the amd 64 benchies.

My numbers are right in line with what GamePC got:

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=amd64platforms&page=6

Sandra is worthless anyway

Your just covering up. From the looks of this though I think my next high-performance system might yet be another (now cheap) super-charged K7.

-Por

 

[oldfart]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: Antisocial-Virge

Originally posted by: Nebor
I thought the AMD64 was faster than the P4? Those sandra scores are... lacking.

I just ran a test on my P4 to see where it stands.

results

I'm actually kinda surprised by the amd 64 benchies.

My numbers are right in line with what GamePC got:

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=amd64platforms&page=6

Sandra is worthless anyway

Congrats on the new rig. Glad to see you got it runniing well. :beer:

Yes, SiSoft is worthless.

How to benches (real world suff) compare to the P4 rig?

 

[Excelsior]

Originally posted by: PorBleemo

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: Antisocial-Virge

Originally posted by: Nebor
I thought the AMD64 was faster than the P4? Those sandra scores are... lacking.

I just ran a test on my P4 to see where it stands.

results

I'm actually kinda surprised by the amd 64 benchies.

My numbers are right in line with what GamePC got:

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=amd64platforms&page=6

Sandra is worthless anyway

Your just covering up. From the looks of this though I think my next high-performance system might yet be another (now cheap) super-charged K7.

-Por

From the looks of this? You are judging your next system based on the Sandra benchmark? Have you not seen any other reviews of the A64?

 

[Markfw]

NFS4, what about your impressions ? Does it seem noticably faster than your P4 3.0 ? That is what I am most interested in (the original thread title)

 

[sellmen]

The Unreal Tournament 2003 downloadable demo, as well as the commanche 4 downlodable demo have built in benchmarking tools, if you want to do some real world gaming benchmarks.

I'd like to see 3dmark2001se, as well as UT2003, and mechBgons zip benchmarks. Lame Mp3 encoding would be nice too...

 

[Accord99]

Benchmark request for PAR2 parity file generation using QuickPar.
http://www.pbclements.co.uk/QuickPar/
With the full 133MB XP SP1 executable. Thanks

 

[flexy]

I'd REALLY like to see a comparison to a Barton XP3200+, because then we could see the real life difference from a Barton XP with the same PR rating to a A64/2ghz !!!

edit: i am glad that A64 are sold now everywhere - means soon prices will go down, A64 will (hopefully) get some more mhz more etc..etc....

I also think that one major factor that people WILL go A64 is the price.....why do you think is Intel cutting prices ???? Even if some future Intel P4 EE or whatever CPU is, say, 10% or 15% faster.....uhrm....ok.....i would rather go with the cheaper solution and get AMD, because i don't give a rat's *** because of +/- 10% performance gain/whatever in *some* benchies...i mean that's just common sense

 

[Regs]

Man, you need to update your video card for that system! But that is pretty damn good with a oc'ed 9600.

 

[eGAK]

A few million digits of Super_PI please

 

[Jumpem]

Originally posted by: flexy
I'd REALLY like to see a comparison to a Barton XP3200+, because then we could see the real life difference from a Barton XP with the same PR rating to a A64/2ghz !!!

edit: i am glad that A64 are sold now everywhere - means soon prices will go down, A64 will (hopefully) get some more mhz more etc..etc....

I also think that one major factor that people WILL go A64 is the price.....why do you think is Intel cutting prices ???? Even if some future Intel P4 EE or whatever CPU is, say, 10% or 15% faster.....uhrm....ok.....i would rather go with the cheaper solution and get AMD, because i don't give a rat's *** because of +/- 10% performance gain/whatever in *some* benchies...i mean that's just common sense

Intel is lowering prices because they are following the schedule that was published six months ago. And Intel is actually becoming cheaper now. a 3.2GHz P4 is ~$620.. an A64 FX-51 is ~$750.

 

[menads]

Originally posted by: Jumpem

Originally posted by: flexy
I'd REALLY like to see a comparison to a Barton XP3200+, because then we could see the real life difference from a Barton XP with the same PR rating to a A64/2ghz !!!

edit: i am glad that A64 are sold now everywhere - means soon prices will go down, A64 will (hopefully) get some more mhz more etc..etc....

I also think that one major factor that people WILL go A64 is the price.....why do you think is Intel cutting prices ???? Even if some future Intel P4 EE or whatever CPU is, say, 10% or 15% faster.....uhrm....ok.....i would rather go with the cheaper solution and get AMD, because i don't give a rat's *** because of +/- 10% performance gain/whatever in *some* benchies...i mean that's just common sense

Intel is lowering prices because they are following the schedule that was published six months ago. And Intel is actually becoming cheaper now. a 3.2GHz P4 is ~$620.. an A64 FX-51 is ~$750.

You are incorectly comparing 3.2GHz P4C with A64 FX 51, A64 3200+ is faster than 3.2GHz P4 and cost just $430.
3.2GHz P4 EE will be (if ever released) $800 and offer slightly lower performance than $750 A64 FX51

 

[menads]

Sorry for the double post.

 

[hurrikaane]

That 13k 3dmark score probably has a lot to do with him usin a 9600pro.

 

[LexxLuthor]

Congratulations NFS4 !! We are right behind you.

They say AMD's 64 will boot MSDOS 6.22, which I still have a use for.

Funny, I will be running a 32bit DOS extender (Fortran compiler) on a 16bit OS with a 64bit processor.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: NFS4

Originally posted by: JBTele

Originally posted by: NFS4
What do you guys want me to bench?

I did the SETI thing, but I don't see any results???

are you using the command line verison or the windows GUI?

the GUI is much slower but there should be an average WU display and if you are using the command line one you can see your average WU also using "SETI Driver"

I was using the command line. All I saw was a bunch of jibberish.

NFS4, did you use my SETIBench setup? If so, check the line in the result.sah file that indicates how many seconds it took to complete the standard work unit.

 

[TerryMathews]

Originally posted by: NFS4
So I said "f*ck" it and took out the WinXP CD when I rebooted the last time. Low and behold, it booted and started going through the splash screen and starting the rest of setup. I quickly put the CD back in so that it could read from it and continue setup.

I've NEVER had that problem before. I always just leave the CD in the whole way through setup and I must have installed XP at least a hundred times on machines

Believe it or not, I've seen that once or twice before. I think, emphasis on think, it has to do with early BIOSes not policing their memory well, as I've only seen it occur with early BIOSes and it almost always goes away with the next BIOS update.

Basically, it seems to me like the El Torito or whatever they're using for images these days loads a bit into memory, and you don't choose to boot off CD. Which, at that point, the BIOS should reclaim all the RAM the El Torito claimed, as the next program loading may assume that the RAM is cleared and ready. Except it's not.

 

[Adul]

PICS!!!!