Author: Aaron Gordon
Date: 20:13:39 12/01/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 01, 2002 at 22:19:16, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 01, 2002 at 12:57:51, Aaron Gordon wrote: > >>On December 01, 2002 at 12:28:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On December 01, 2002 at 05:03:00, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>> >>>>Also a comparison of the new AMD XP 2600+ Vs Intel P4 2.53 Ghz ! >>>> >>>>http://www17.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q3/020821/athlonxp-04.html >>> >>> >>>That just highlights what others have said before. AMD has a memory >>>bottleneck that is hurting them significantly in the war with Intel... >> >>Hyatt, it's not nearly as bad as you think. It happens I have a KT333 chipset on >>an Epox 8K5A2. I'm running "Turbo" settings in the bios (but running CL2.5 >>instead of CL2(cl2=faster)) and I'm getting 2.5gb/s. > >So? That is about 1/4 what the PIV xeon can do. Go to tom's hardware page >and you'll find some interesting comparisons... I have been going to Tomshardware for years now, watching the stuff he's been saying, stuff he's posting and etc. I haven't seen anything interesting in years as well. You say the P4 Xeon can do 10gb/s? (2.5x4). I think not. The efficiency on P4's is less than desirable. The 133fsb(533QDR) PC1066 RDRAM P4's can supposedly do something like 8.5gb/s. Actual bandwidth = 3.2gb/s. Not too impressive. Around 37% efficiency. As as said in the previous message an Nforce2 can manage over 3gb/s at over 95% efficiency & with much lower latencies. If you bothered to do any testing yourself you'll find out the P4 isn't what it's cracked up to be. It's odd to me that you have such a blind confidence in the P4. You haven't bothered doing any extensive testing on one and you haven't messed with an Athlon yet you 'feel' the P4 is faster. Why is that? I can try to believe a Pinto is faster than a Ferrari but it's just not going happen. :) >>This just proves once again Tom is a bad reviewer. There's already proof out he >>faked a Pentium4 review and I have proof he hinders Athlons (by setting their >>bios settings to the absolute lowest setting). The KT333 set to "turbo" has an >>efficiency of 94%, this means out of 2.7GB/s max theoretical bandwidth at >>166fsb(333DDR) it does 2538MB/s. Since mine is CL2.5 I'm only running 90% >>efficiency (2430mb/s). With Nforce2 boards and running 200+ fsb you can get over >>3gb/s on an Athlon easily. Same with the Epox 8K9A2. > > >Again, that is _still_ slow compared to the PIV xeon numbers with (say) the >E7501 chipset... > > > >> >>Tom however is managing a horrible 74%. You can do better than this even setting >>the settings to 'normal'. He has disabled other options to get the benchmarks >>THAT low. 26% below regular 166fsb(333DDR) scores is pretty bad. >>Even your average KT266a/333/400 board at 133fsb gets about 2gb/s. >> >>About the faked review he did.. it's the "Hot contraband P4-3.6GHz". He used a >>Pentium4 2GHz CPU and cut&pasted some of the 3's to make it look like a 3.3GHz >>P4. The picture is STILL on his page. Just go look at that article and save the >>large P4 picture. Go into an image editing program and go near the bottom where >>it says "80531PC3.3G0K". Drag a selection box around the second three in that >>line and copy it, invert the colors and then drag that over the other three. You >>will see a black box where the colors match EXACTLY. This was a cut & paste job. >> >>Tom isn't the only corrupt reviewer, either. > > >I'm not going to debate that. Tom's hardware isn't the only place that is >doing these measurements. There are some well-known academics that are >interested in various benchmarks like streams, linpack, etc...
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.