THG sings Prescott's execution warrant

[clarkey01]

"Way to increase your post count... "

cheers

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: THUGSROOK

Originally posted by: Soulkeeper
Technology rocks !!, i'm enjoying the ride either way.

the (free) ride is over ~ please step out of the car.

Nice! :laugh: or buy a ticket

 

[Soulkeeper]

if anything the ride ran outta gas and can't afford more at $2+ a gallon

 

[BlvdKing]

I am having a hard time deciding between the 3.0C and 3.0E. I know the Prescott runs hot but the 1 MB cache and SSE3 might come in handy later. Whatcha think?

EDIT: sorry for the thread jack but the thread was ripe for one anyways...

 

[MDE]

I love this quote:

We used two conventional 3.2-GHz processors that can be bought at retail channels for this test. They thus reflect performance results that can be achieved with commercially available processors.

They used Engineering Sample chips, and the Northwood clearly shows up as 3.4 GHz in their CPU-Z screenshot.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: MDE
I love this quote:

We used two conventional 3.2-GHz processors that can be bought at retail channels for this test. They thus reflect performance results that can be achieved with commercially available processors.

They used Engineering Sample chips, and the Northwood clearly shows up as 3.4 GHz in their CPU-Z screenshot.

That could be a misrepresentation on WCPUID's part... Notice that the multiplier is 16.

 

[orion7144]

I hope they do something, I wasted some cash on this A64 chip that just sits in a corrner folding away. Nothing like a 2.4 @ 3.5...

 

[CraigRT]

Originally posted by: Big Lar
Quote
"You know its a waste of silicon when THG slag it off, being the NO.1 Intel fan boy sight, followed in 2nd place by overclockers.com lol"

I don't know about THG, but Overclockers.com is anything but a "fanboy" type place for Intel. Get your facts straight Junior.

THG is definitely Intel fan-based... they even did a video, de-sinking a bunch of CPU's, and showing how the athlon burns up immediately, and the P4 doesn't... for those instances when we're in our PC's and we just like to unclip the HSF's for no particular reason.. that's why AMD's suck you know. :roll:

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: CraigRT

Originally posted by: Big Lar
Quote
"You know its a waste of silicon when THG slag it off, being the NO.1 Intel fan boy sight, followed in 2nd place by overclockers.com lol"

I don't know about THG, but Overclockers.com is anything but a "fanboy" type place for Intel. Get your facts straight Junior.

THG is definitely Intel fan-based... they even did a video, de-sinking a bunch of CPU's, and showing how the athlon burns up immediately, and the P4 doesn't... for those instances when we're in our PC's and we just like to unclip the HSF's for no particular reason.. that's why AMD's suck you know. :roll:

That little experiment doesn't prove bias. You didn't find it interesting in the least?

Sure it's not "real world", as heatsinks don't just fall off... But you have to admit that it was quite impressive that the P4 kept running.

Imho, "real world" is not a prerequisite for an interesting demonstration.

 

[orion7144]

THG is not an Intel fanboy site... If anything they give AMD the nodd. If they really had an Intel Bias they would only show their benchmarks with OC'd P4's. Instead they do them at stock speeds so the performace looks closer. If they did do them at OC'd speeds that (in my opinion) would show an Intel bias since that is were the P4's shine.

I will say that THG used to be biased towards Intel but that was many years ago.

 

[joe2004]

THG is not an Intel fanboy site...

You are very wrong. THG is very Intel biased. I still remember some real bad and even derogatory comments on AMD. I use both types of processors but as far as comparison between AMD and Intel on THG is NOT the place for unbiased reviews.

 

[Wingznut]

Originally posted by: joe2004

THG is not an Intel fanboy site...

You are very wrong. THG is very Intel biased. I still remember some real bad and even derogatory comments on AMD. I use both types of processors but as far as comparison between AMD and Intel on THG is NOT the place for unbiased reviews.

Happen to have an example of a biased review. (No, editorials do not count.)

 

[Soulkeeper]

i've never had issues with THG, I just like the fact that he is the only reviewer that goes through such extents to test the limits of new hardware.

how many other people have 4ghz+ p4 overclock comparisons
2.9ghz athlonfx benchies (which beat a 4ghz p4 in most everything btw)
or 5ghz monster P4 overclocks

maybe sometimes he won't have the right test system setup or reasoning in his explanations of certain things to seem fully fair, but i feel he gives a good effort and for that reason anandtech and toms are my two favorite review sites for new hardware and such.

 

[clarkey01]

Well in some reviews they just seem harsh on AMD, they said like the A64 3400+ doesnt stand up to its name, slagged off the xp 3200+ saying the same thing, said that the P4 EE is faster then the FX-51, perhaps the 3200 xp doesnt deserve its name, but the A64 3400+ does.

I still think toms reviews have a lot of effort put into them, even though they always seem to lean towards the P4, I have more of a problem with overclockers.com, they just put up two more stories about AMD, one about not beating Intel at desktop sales, and one saying the company has no real direction and doesnt know whats its doing. Maybe to an extent some of the things said are half true, but its not like the topping off of FAB 36 effects the overclocking community or the need to slag off sales.


Tom's are a good read, I may not agree with everything they say in thier conclusions but doesnt stop me from reading thier reviews, and anyway, if i was to buy my next CPU just off online reviews I would vist a few more places, amdzone ( lol no, they wont be biased), here, xbitlabs, hot hardware, the inquire etc.


Prescott was promised to to be the new speed king, much like when the northwood took over, it took till the thing hit 2.2Ghz and upwards untill the northwood started to shine and put some distance from the Xp range. Everyone was saying Prescott would take off at 3.6Ghz and upwards, but seeing the it @ 4GHZ and not seeing that much improvment, questions need to be asked, the heat problem straight away turns me off.

Even if Tom's is really biased, they cant lie or lean too far and in this case they put their hands up and say the prescott isnt all its cracked up to be.

 

[AndyHui]

Intel biased?

Tom slammed the original Klamath Pentium II back in 1997. The reaction from Intel was what brought Tom to the front of the hardware scene. What about their discovery of the problems with the first Coppermine 1.13GHz Pentium III? If anything they hit Intel harder than AMD.

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: Soulkeeper
very nice articles over at tom's
i could prob cool my prescott nearly that well with my 2 120watt pelts, but i doubt it would hit 4ghz
my only hope is for programs to become optimized for the prescott in ways that yeild atleast 10% performance/resource utilization improvements/speed increases/etc.

The newest ATI chipset for Pentium 4 - designed for Prescott - brings a definite performance improvement.

Calin

 

[Calin]

Originally posted by: clarkey01
back to the POINT of this thread

will duel core pentiums be a huge step up in terms of performance or is it all hype, isnt Itanium coming to the desktop in 2007 ?

Dual core processors will be as fast as single core processors in the "single program" activities like games. There are not many games with speed improvements from using dual processors, and the dual core is nothing more than a dual processor.

Calin

 

[eastvillager]

Actually, it will be faster, even playing that game that isn't multi-core aware.

When you're playing a game, your processor is doing a lot more work than just playing the game.

you do have an OS running underneath that game, you know, doing IO and what not...


The only way it wouldn't be faster is if the OS requires so much horsepower to manage multiple cores that it chews up one core doing just that.

 

[Soulkeeper]

Originally posted by: Calin

Originally posted by: Soulkeeper
very nice articles over at tom's
i could prob cool my prescott nearly that well with my 2 120watt pelts, but i doubt it would hit 4ghz
my only hope is for programs to become optimized for the prescott in ways that yeild atleast 10% performance/resource utilization improvements/speed increases/etc.

The newest ATI chipset for Pentium 4 - designed for Prescott - brings a definite performance improvement.

Calin

yeah that was a pretty cool chipset
thumbs up to ati on that one

 

[Sahakiel]

Originally posted by: eastvillager
Actually, it will be faster, even playing that game that isn't multi-core aware.

When you're playing a game, your processor is doing a lot more work than just playing the game.

you do have an OS running underneath that game, you know, doing IO and what not...


The only way it wouldn't be faster is if the OS requires so much horsepower to manage multiple cores that it chews up one core doing just that.

I think both cores use a shared cache architecture. If so, single-CPU performance is gonna take a major hit even if the cache is doubled in size.
If it's actually a shared bus design, think Xeon. Single threaded performance will be decreased by a few percentage points.

 

[Soulkeeper]

what interests me is two cores on one cpu, both having their own integrated memory controller
if we can make L2 cache fast then we can make any kinda cpu interconnect between the cores and their cache extremely fast.

two cores on one peice of silicon is what i'm thinking
just a cpu with two of everything it would normally have one of, and sharing whatever else it can or don't need two of.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: orion7144
I hope they do something, I wasted some cash on this A64 chip that just sits in a corrner folding away. Nothing like a 2.4 @ 3.5...

No sh*t? A A64@2ghz notebook with a 4200rpm HDD is nothing like a P4C desktop@3.5ghz? :roll:

 

[orion7144]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Originally posted by: orion7144
I hope they do something, I wasted some cash on this A64 chip that just sits in a corrner folding away. Nothing like a 2.4 @ 3.5...

No sh*t? A A64@2ghz notebook with a 4200rpm HDD is nothing like a P4C desktop@3.5ghz? :roll:

I'm not talking about my notebook. I have another A64 in a desktop machine that I just picked up a couple of weeks ago.

 

[mechBgon]

Athlon64 3000+
1GB PC3200
K8V Deluxe
Cheetah 15k.3
LSI Logic U160 HBA
Win2000SP4 (edit, thanks LTC8K6! )

Xeon 2.4B with HT enabled
1GB DC PC2700
OEM dual-ready Serverworks-equipped board
Dual 10k U320 SCSI drives, RAID1
64-bit LSI Logic U320 RAID card with 32MB cache
WinServer2003, no services/AD/etc, pure Workgroup mode

AthlonXP 1800+
256MB PC2100 (one module)
Shuttle AN35N Ultra (nF2)
Cheetah X15-36LP
Adaptec 19160
Win2000SP4


In a timed antivirus scan of a certain set of files that total about 940MB, some of them rather "chewy," the A64 outperformed the HT-enabled Xeon by a factor of nearly 2 to 1. The AthlonXP 1800+ outperformed the Xeon by a factor of 20%, despite being handicapped with 1/4 of the RAM.

Pretty interesting results, and they're relevant too... those files will be scanned every day, and also in real-time whenever they're accessed, by whatever computer is serving them on our LAN. Currently that job falls to the AthlonXP 1800+ system. Seeing this result, I think I'll just pull this file-serving task back onto my A64 once I've got my nF3 250Gb board... looks like it's going to be the best tool for this particular task.

 

[LTC8K6]

Win2K is not HT compatible, is it?