AMD's Athlon FX beats Intel's Pentium 4 3.2 GHz
Posted by Daniel Fleshbourne on 02 September 2003 - 19:23 · 78 comments & 2107 views
About the Author
Full name: Daniel Fleshbourne
Forum name: Daniel
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Daniel Fleshbourne
Forum name: Daniel
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
#1 Posted by syscrash2k on 02 Sep 2003 - 19:30
- Nice
-
#2 Posted by sodapop on 02 Sep 2003 - 19:30
- Yeah but I still bought an Intel last month. Guess I really don't care that much for performance.
-
#3 Posted by
Dazzla on 02 Sep 2003 - 19:37
- Competition is good and I can only hope that the Prescotts don't wipe the floor with these. I'd love to see the FX-51 competing against the prescotts.
-
#4 Posted by RangerLG on 02 Sep 2003 - 19:40
- So is there really an FX chip or not? I've heard conflicting reports.
-
(4 replies)
#5 Posted by DigitalFreedom on 02 Sep 2003 - 19:45
- just wait for the prescott's come, they will wipe to floor with the amd fx's, that is untill 64 bit optimised applications com around, but by then, intel's x86/64bit chip will be out, wiping the floor again (Teja)
-
#5.1 Posted by Dazzla on 02 Sep 2003 - 19:59
- Fancy posting a link to the Intel press release stating Tejas will be x86-64?
-
#5.2 Posted by slapnuts_ox on 02 Sep 2003 - 20:01
- yea gotta love those prescotts....those suckers are so hot you won't ever need to heat your room....103 watts dissipation? ha....and Intel used to make fun of AMD for heat problems. I know im gonna be buying an A64 and not a prescott.
-
#5.3 Posted by xStainDx on 02 Sep 2003 - 20:02
- yeah the only x86-64chip that intel has rumored is yamhill.
-
#6 Posted by phen!x on 02 Sep 2003 - 19:47
- w00t, amd pwnz.
-
(2 replies)
#7 Posted by ripgut on 02 Sep 2003 - 19:51
- there both good cpus whether u go amd or intel (and not a dumb newb) youll get a good chip either way
-
#7.1 Posted by King Mustard on 02 Sep 2003 - 20:00
- Yeah, they're both good CPUs, but the AMD a bit faster and cheaper too
-
#7.2 Posted by Mav Phoenix on 02 Sep 2003 - 20:05
- The way AMD works, it wont be that way for long.
-
(4 replies)
#8 Posted by Beast_4thHM on 02 Sep 2003 - 20:04
- What??? PCmark2003?? whats that??? geez this is a bogus story.... the Inq really outdone themself :
why the hell would the AthlonFX have better memory performance?? does is run on higher FSB??
-
#8.1 Posted by slapnuts_ox on 02 Sep 2003 - 20:06
- lower latency from the ondie memory controller
-
#8.2 Posted by mAcOdIn on 02 Sep 2003 - 20:06
- The memory controller is integrated(built into the processor itself) so the meory runs faster on the Athlon64's and Opterons.
PCMARK2003 is a real benchmark made by the same people who do 3dmark. -
#8.3 Posted by insurektion on 02 Sep 2003 - 20:07
- It is PCMARK not 3DMark
-
#8.4 Posted by divertom15 on 02 Sep 2003 - 20:19
- 800 mhz fsb if im not mistaken
-
#9 Posted by kairon on 02 Sep 2003 - 20:09
- Haha! Eat that <you know who>
-
#10 Posted by Beast_4thHM on 02 Sep 2003 - 20:11
- People dont believe everything right away... they didn't even bother to show us pictures...
-
#11 Posted by net-cruizer on 02 Sep 2003 - 20:18
- Sweet. Sometimes I wonder why Intel can't ever stay ahead of AMD, weird.
Oh well, at least Intel does make some other gadgets and stuff, so they'll always have something to fall back on while AMD "ownz" them, lol.
-
#12 Posted by divertom15 on 02 Sep 2003 - 20:20
- you know its kinda nice to see all these "pro" amd ppl come out when amd makes something worthwile
-
#13 Posted by DJ Prem on 02 Sep 2003 - 20:21
- Just wait till the Prescott comes out it's gonna make the FX run to catch up...
-
#14 Posted by elliot on 02 Sep 2003 - 20:31
- OmG!1 64BIt does nOTHING!!!11 iM using a 2bYT CPu because IT DOES EGGSactly TEh Same!!1
-
(8 replies)
#15 Posted by William on 02 Sep 2003 - 20:34
- Need I remind you that Intel has yet to even hint at a working 64-bit proc. From what I've read they're having trouble producing a stable one. If these Athlons can beat the 3.2's with HT in 32-bit apps just imagine with 64-bit.
From what I know HT was supposed to be exclusively for the Prescotts, Intel released it early to compete with the Bartons. Now we can see their cards, and nothing up their sleeve. Clear skies ahead for AMD if this report is accurate. -
#15.1 Posted by Beast_4thHM on 02 Sep 2003 - 20:39
- dude u another fanboy... do u see pictures??? do u see proof??? no... u see a bunch of words and the use of the non existent PCmark2003
-
#15.2 Posted by William on 02 Sep 2003 - 21:09
- Dude? Listen, don't call people dudes. U? "u" is not a word, is it that difficult to put a "yo" before it and make yourself at least literate? "dude u another fanboy" is not a complete sentence. Nothing needs three periods after it, nor does anything need three question marks. Someone who types three question marks must be pretty confused.
Now, I've translated your post into English so I'll try to respond. For starters, pictures of what, the processor? If so, what would that do anyways? I've seen numerous articles on very respectable websites about how Intel is having trouble with 64-bit stability. The mere fact that Intel has said nothing about a 64-bit processor in the near future doesn't help either. What are you talking about "PCmark2003"? Althought not yet freely available it's been used quite a few times for reviews. Just use a Google search, come on even you could have thought of that.
You should really think before you post, you waste space and bandwidth. Not to mention time for everyone who reads your post and is now dumber because of it.
Last edited by 27110 on 02 Sep 2003 - 21:16 -
#15.3 Posted by Jason on 02 Sep 2003 - 22:13
- Intel has had 64bit processors for quite a while now, they may be IA64 architecture but they are still 64bit.
-
#15.4 Posted by BoondockSaint on 03 Sep 2003 - 01:34
- Intels 64bit performance when running 32bit code (the majority of all software) is abysmal. Any 32bit program is run on the CPU using software emulation, guaranteeing that it will run like *crap*. Plus the price of the Itanium is ridiculous.
The real advantage of A64 architecture won't be seen until MS released XP64 for AMD.... apparently Q1 2004... -
#15.5 Posted by Beast_4thHM on 03 Sep 2003 - 10:03
QUOTE (#15.2) hat are you talking about "PCmark2003"? Althought not yet freely available it's been used quite a few times for reviews
go find me a download link, lets see it
Better yet, lets email Futuremark and ask them???
fool
Intel has been running 64bit for years now.... Itanium ever heard of that???-
#15.6 Posted by Knight' on 03 Sep 2003 - 11:31
- Itanium is a server CPU and costs a stack load of money. It can run 32bit instructions, at about the speed of a Pentium Pro. And for your information Intel was not the first to produce a 64bit CPU.
-
#15.7 Posted by kronix2 on 03 Sep 2003 - 13:43
- Who came out with 64bit first is irrelevant; it was Sun with a 450mhz Ultrasparc back in 1995 and had nothing to do with Intel or AMD.
The Itanium was just an experiment. Microsoft was just testing the waters; the Itanium 2 is Intel's real 64bit chip. However seeing as how the Itanium runs 32bit code faster in software emulation than using the hardware, I wouldn't be too cocky about Intel's 64bit expertise.
And as for the Intel fanboys...did you forget that the Athlons and Athlon XPs ruled the performance charts from the release of the P4 all the way to the 2.4ghz P4? AMD have done it before, and perhaps they can do it again.
However it does look like the Prescott will tilt the charts in Intel's favour if they can cool it to below 60 degrees celsius...
And by the way, PCmark 2003 is heavily optimised for the Pentium 4 and shouldn't be taken as an objective benchmark. -
#15.8 Posted by William on 03 Sep 2003 - 22:15
- Beast_4thHM, Christ you can't even quote properly; "hat are you talking about". As I JUST EXPLAINED PCMark 2003 is not available for public download. Did you even bother reading my post before embarking upon your next poorly thought out reply?
Yes the Itanium is 64-bit however I was reffering to a Workstation or Desktop CPU, I thought that was obvious but aparantly not to all of you. Even if it were cheaper and thus having the possibility of being a desktop CPU it simply wouldn't cut it, because as kronix2 just explained it runs 32-bit code very poorly.
The mentioned tests were performed using 32-bit code on a 64-bit CPU.
-
(3 replies)
#16 Posted by Coolme on 02 Sep 2003 - 20:34
QUOTE The Athlon FX on Windows XP 32 bit beats Intel's latest release 3.2 GHz but that's still the Northwood core, of course.
I just want to remind everyone that a 64 bit processor is slower when running 32 bit apps. (Wait for the 64 bit benchmarks)-
#16.1 Posted by mAcOdIn on 02 Sep 2003 - 20:39
- No, they were slower because they used an entirely new architecture and had to do x86 in emulation mode. The Athlon 64 and Opteron were designed as an extension to the x86 line so they run all 32bit apps just fine.
And if they did run 32bit apps slower what would it matter that there are no 64bit benchmarks out yet? If these 64bit processors did 32bit slower than the benchmarks out now should have supported your argument. -
#16.2 Posted by timdorr on 03 Sep 2003 - 03:03
- .....
64-bit means memory copies of a single integer now take twice as long! Luckily, in-line caching kind of reduces this effect, but it still remains that 64-bit numbers are twice as large and take up twice teh bandwidth. Also, extra number space doesn't equate to faster speed, it just means you can count higher without overflow...
-
(2 replies)
#17 Posted by kairon on 02 Sep 2003 - 20:54
- Look at all you fanboys acting as if you work for Intel. If AMD had a better chip then Intel I'm sure you would be on the other side of the fence faster then you can say "Fanboy".
-
#17.2 Posted by Mav Phoenix on 02 Sep 2003 - 21:05
- HAHA, pwned™.
-
#18 Posted by VII on 02 Sep 2003 - 21:07
- A long time ago a few minutes from now, In a galaxy far far away..
GEEK WARS
-
(10 replies)
#19 Posted by ANova on 02 Sep 2003 - 21:56
- Oh god. Why is it AMD fans are so ignorant. Cheaper and faster my ass. I don't think AMD sucks, quite the contrary, but there is no reason to inflate the performance of their chips and claim Intel's are crap. That's just a blatant disregard for the facts.
And just because Intel hasn't released any info on their next processors doesn't mean they are up the creak without a paddle. -
#19.1 Posted by nonick on 02 Sep 2003 - 22:41
- you are the one who's ignorant. AMD cpus are cheaper, much cheaper than Intel p4 and they surely give hell of a performance vs p4. You still buy Intel even though they rip you off with their prices that doesn't justify the performance. wake up.
-
#19.2 Posted by ANova on 02 Sep 2003 - 22:58
- Yes they are cheaper (for the lower end chips), but they are definitely not faster (no matter what chip you compare). And guess what, the Athlon 64 is going to cost around $500, not much less than a P4 3.2 ghz. In fact you can get a P4 3.0 at 800 fsb for $350, quite a bit less than the athlon and just about as fast. For about $50 more than a 2500-2600 you can get a 2.4C at 800 fsb and overclock to 3.0 ghz at 1000 mhz fsb. Wake up and smell the roses.
-
#19.3 Posted by slapnuts_ox on 02 Sep 2003 - 23:18
- Yea the top end A64 will be $500 not the other models. AMD does also have cpus which are cheeper too. Don't be so ignorant and think before you post an argument. As for performance up till about the 2400+ AMD cpus are faster then their p4 counterparts....read benchmarks. Above that AMD did inflate the PR to boost sales. Now the A64 is out and the top end chip will be cheeper then the top end Intel chip and will give a lot more bang for the **** so im definantly looking forward to getting an A64.
-
#19.4 Posted by snippet1 on 03 Sep 2003 - 00:50
- AMD don't market enough. If their cpus are better, why are there more intel chips around?
-
#19.5 Posted by ANova on 03 Sep 2003 - 01:14
- Rather than start bashing me because i'm threatening your precious AMD name brand, why don't you go look up some benchmarks. AMD cpus are never faster or even as fast as the P4 counterparts they were made to compete against. And thus they are cheaper. They are still good chips yes.
I was trying to convey a message here that obviously blew right by you or was simply ignored entirely. There is a price scheme for both AMD and Intel that follows a path. And at this point in time Intel actually has the better deal at higher speeds while AMD has better deals at lower speeds. However, for an additional $50-$60 over a 2600 you can get a 2.4C which gives you much more bang for the buck because it can be overclocked tremendously and thus near equal or even outperform the 3200 for a fraction of the cost. The 2400, 2500 and 2600 simply cannot compare performance wise to that of the 2.4C overclocked. Must I spell everything out for you.
Let's get one thing straight here; i'm not an Intel fanboy. I just hate seeing people jump to conclusions and bash Intel simply because they're well known and a little more expensive. That's just ludicrous.
Last edited by 21154 on 03 Sep 2003 - 01:25 -
#19.6 Posted by timdorr on 03 Sep 2003 - 03:09
- A price comparison:
$437 - Athlon XP 3200 $615 - Pentium 4 3.2GHz
$268 - Athlon XP 3000 $380 - Pentium 4 3.0GHz
$184 - Athlon XP 2800 $257 - Pentium 4 2.8GHz
$126 - Athlon XP 2700 $198 - Pentium 4 2.6GHz
Just something to add to the mix
I'd still buy an AMD simply based on price to performance ratio. I don't need the fastest processor out there, because they drop in price pretty quickly anyhow. I'd rather get something just under the overpriced level of the top-of-the-line processors out there -
#19.7 Posted by Miran on 03 Sep 2003 - 07:14
- But all those AMD chips are slower than the Intel chips or am I wrong? I don't care about Intel or AMD - they are just companies who want our money, NOTHING MORE. Plus the Intel chips you listed also have HT right? And 800MHz FSB?
-
#19.8 Posted by krzystealth on 03 Sep 2003 - 08:10
QUOTE $437 - Athlon XP 3200 $615 - Pentium 4 3.2GHz
$268 - Athlon XP 3000 $380 - Pentium 4 3.0GHz
$184 - Athlon XP 2800 $257 - Pentium 4 2.8GHz
$126 - Athlon XP 2700 $198 - Pentium 4 2.6GHz
forgot this one:
$171 - Pentium 4 2.4 GHz overclocked to 3.2Ghz on AIR
Get that overclock out of your athlon and i'll be impressed...
The stability of the athlons depends greatly on the chipset support. They're coming along but I'm afraid it'll still be too little too late over the next year or so. When 64-bit support is available across hardware and software, I think it will be a whole new ball game.-
#19.9 Posted by nonick on 03 Sep 2003 - 12:41
- and oh you forgot this one:
AthlonXP 2500+ (Barton Core) overclocked to 3200+ on AIR
ALSO 2500+ is half the price of 2.4GHz P4.
Last edited by 12306 on 03 Sep 2003 - 12:53 -
#19.10 Posted by nonick on 03 Sep 2003 - 12:57
- The main problem is with AMD CPUs performance is that Intel removed ALL 133MHZ FSB CPUs and replaced them with 200Mhz FSB CPUs. and because of the memory bandwidth increase, the P4 performance has been improved. The PR rating must have been changed when Intel released those ones, because those PR ratings are vs 133mhz P4 and not 200Mhz P4.. that is why the "new" p4 are better than AthlonXP.
EDIT: This quote system is faulty as hell, someone gotta fix it... anyway this explination was for 19.7
-
#20 Posted by Wing on 02 Sep 2003 - 22:09
- All of you intel fanboys shut up, right now. When it was the athlon xp vs. intel wars you were all "lol still amd will never catch up." and now that AMD has a great product out into the open you are all "lol just wait intel has something up their sleeve."
-
(5 replies)
#21 Posted by mealbundy on 02 Sep 2003 - 22:59
- If you believe this, then you believe that my 286 will smoke an opteron.
Saying that this CPU beats that CPU is pretty childish. Each one has its advantages and disadvantages in certain applications. Personally, I prefer intel processors for their top video rendering rates that AMD cannot achieve. Rendering Divx and Mpeg2 files is more important to me than getting 500fps in a game that will become lame in a month or two. -
#21.1 Posted by slapnuts_ox on 02 Sep 2003 - 23:20
- The Athlon 64 now also has SSE2 and if you've looked at any bencharks for the opteron they beat the p4 in rendering and thats only for the 2Ghz Opteron....the A64 will be clocked higher.
-
#21.2 Posted by Zombie9920 on 03 Sep 2003 - 00:14
- I wonder where AMD got the idea of SSE2? Sheesh, why don't they stop implementing extensions that Intel made and make thier own extensions. Intel never copied 3DNow!. Nope, Intel countered 3DNow with a more powerful instruction set called SSE. AMD doesn't innovate anything anymore. The last unique innovation that AMD ever had was 3DNow! back in the days of the K6. Intel's next generation CPU will probably have some new instruction sets(for AMD to eventually copy).
BTW, I wonder if those Operons will be a whole 5-8% faster(wow...a whole couple extra framerates!!!!! As if the game isn't running fast enough for you to tell a difference in a few frames) than the 4ghz+ P4's w/1.2ghz FSB's that we are likely to see in the near future? I bet that 3.2ghz P4 they used for the test can be overclocked to at least 3.6ghz with air cooling and it would be neck to neck with that Athlon FX(maybe even faster in some of those benchmarks).
Computers are so freaking fast right now that you can't see a noticable difference in performance increases(other than in benchmarks) w/the exception of encoding video, applying filters to large imaged and converting large images.
I just had a look over at pricewatch.....a Opteron 246 is a whopping $818(thats not even including the motherboard for it). Who in thier right mind would pay that kind of a price for something that is slightly faster than what you can get for $169(a 2.4c ghz P4 that can be overclocked to 3.2ghz easily).
Yeah, AMD is really cheaper.
Last edited by 8464 on 03 Sep 2003 - 00:42 -
#21.3 Posted by slapnuts_ox on 03 Sep 2003 - 00:55
- They are impementing something new....its called x86-64. Also Opteron is a SERVER chip not a workstation.....have you checked the prices of the Intel chips that it is meant to compete with? The Itanium is way more expensive then the Opteron is. I do however agree with you that computers are so fast right now there isn't really a noticable difference. Also though AMD can play the lets improve the core too game by switching the A64 to a 400Mhz vs the current 333Mhz. Also they are planning on raming up the clock speed as well. Its not like AMD is just going to release these processors and say well thats good enough for the next 30 years....they are also going to do a die shrink like Intel is working on and make other various improvements to the core.
Now that thats out of the way we should all stop arguing which cpu is better. We should all instead be happy we can choose between processors and keep things getting better and better. Both CPUs are good and both companies have good products. End of flame war. -
#21.4 Posted by ANova on 03 Sep 2003 - 01:23
- Finally an intelligent post that looks at both sides equally instead of jumping on the bandwagon in favor of one certain brand.
Both companys make good products, it just depends on what the consumer will be using them for. -
#21.5 Posted by Zombie9920 on 03 Sep 2003 - 01:44
- slapnuts,
The Opteron is for the Server and Workstation according to this.
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Weblets/0,,7832_8366,00.html
For some reason I doubt the Athlon 64 is going to be reasonably priced. The Athlon 64 is nothing more than a consumer version of the Opteron isn't it?
I don't really consider x86-64 much of an innovation. What it means is it is x86(a far from new architecture) that can run in 64bit. What is so innovative about x86 and 64 bit? Both are far from new technologies.
And yes, bot sides have good, fast products. As I already said, faster stuff from both sides will make hardley any difference in noticable performance compared to what we already have. Well, AMD getting a better Dual DDR Memory controller will make a noticable difference compared to the joke memory controller on the NForce 2, but as far as CPU speed goes the performance difference is pretty much null unless you are a someone who works extensivley with graphics or if you encode alot.
I know that I'm going to be happy with my current P4 2.4c@3.1+ghz for a long time.
Last edited by 8464 on 03 Sep 2003 - 01:53
-
#22 Posted by Minotaur on 02 Sep 2003 - 23:18
- Seems that neither Intel nor AMD wants to encourage the "cheap SMP" market though. Hyperthreading is all very nice, but it doesn't come close to a proper SMP implementation. That was the beauty of the AthlonXP chips - you could pick up a couple for sub-£50 each, get a dually board for £150 and for things like encoding MPEG video there wasn't a single processor system that came close.
-
(4 replies)
#23 Posted by spookshow on 02 Sep 2003 - 23:55
- i ran sisoft sanda cpu benchmarks against a bunch of users on my website, and my amd 2500+ (barton core) oc'd to 2GHz outperformed a couple of the 3.06 intels with hyperthreading
and i only paid just less 100 CDN for my chip
amd = more bang for your buck
side note: i reallllly want a pentium m laptop, they are freaking amazing, my friend picked one up a while ago -
#23.1 Posted by Zombie9920 on 03 Sep 2003 - 00:26
- Do you wish to post links to images of those results?
My P4 2.4c o/ced to to 3.12ghz beats the heck out of even the Athlon XP 3200+
http://zombie9920.homestead.com/files/cpuarithmatic.jpg
http://zombie9920.homestead.com/files/cpumultimedia.jpg
http://zombie9920.homestead.com/files/cpumultimedia.jpg
http://zombie9920.homestead.com/files/memorybandwidth.jpg
Keep in mind the 2.4c only costs around $170. It is simply outperforming, runs cooler than is is more reliable than an Athlon XP 3200+ that costs $438. It costs less for a 2.4c w/quiet but capable stock fan, a good motherboard(like the Asus P4P800 Deluxe) and 2 256MB sticks of quality(Crucial, Corsair, etc.) PC-3200 DDR Ram than an Athlon XP 3200+ CPU alone. AMD = better bang for the buck my @ss.
Last edited by 8464 on 03 Sep 2003 - 03:25 -
#23.3 Posted by antally on 03 Sep 2003 - 03:59
- Why are you guys comparing overclocked chips to non-overclocked chips? It is NOT a fair comparison. Both AMD and Intel make good chips, an overclocked P4 system (2.4c, 2.6C) will beat an overclocked AMD system (1700+, 2500+), but the P4 system will be much more expensive and requires higher quality, more expensive ram.
(an amd2500+nforce2+pc3200 can be had pretty cheap these days)
-I1 -
#23.4 Posted by =NickJ= on 03 Sep 2003 - 16:20
QUOTE (#23.3) Why are you guys comparing overclocked chips to non-overclocked chips? It is NOT a fair comparison. Both AMD and Intel make good chips, an overclocked P4 system (2.4c, 2.6C) will beat an overclocked AMD system (1700+, 2500+), but the P4 system will be much more expensive and requires higher quality, more expensive ram.
(an amd2500+nforce2+pc3200 can be had pretty cheap these days)
-I1
my thoughts exactly
-
(6 replies)
#24 Posted by Krome on 03 Sep 2003 - 05:21
- AMD people, I want to know this... Have you ever replace your CPU because it was overheated? I have many AMD friends. ALL of them had to replace their CPU because it's burned out due to insufficient coolant apparatus. The average number of times they had to get a new CPU is about 3 CPU in 1 year time. You spent 3 CPUs just to replace the burned out one. Compare that to Intel CPU, we should know what quality means and we should know which one cost less. I had not see an Intel gone deep fry in the same period of time. Now whatever you pay for AMD times that by 3, does it equal to Intel CPU? Which CPU is far less cheaper in terms of price? Come on fanboy; blow it this way...
-
#24.2 Posted by Miran on 03 Sep 2003 - 07:21
- If you are saying that really, the average number of times the cpus needed to be replaced is THREE, then something is really messed up. That most likely means tehre were friends who needed to replace it 4, 5, or 6 times in order to counter those replacing it once or twice. I wouldn't mind seeing your distribution.
-
#24.3 Posted by rezza on 03 Sep 2003 - 09:19
- I am not a fanboy, but I have purchased more AMD chips than Intel. I have never had to replace an AMD chip because of overheating, even though i overclock all my AMD chips a little, using just stock cooling. I have owned AMD chips for over 5 years now. I think you are exaggerating somewhat?
-
#24.4 Posted by =NickJ= on 03 Sep 2003 - 16:15
- jesus Krome you have a lot of retarded friends
Paid for: 1x Athlon T-Bird 1.4Ghz, 1x AthlonXP 1900+
Currently running: 1x Athlon T-Bird, 1x AthlonXP 1900+
So thats 1 + 1 paid for, still owning 1 + 1 means that i paid for....please someone help me out with this....
your post reeks
-
#24.5 Posted by V_F on 03 Sep 2003 - 16:51
- either that or his friends didnt properly fit HSF correctly or used proper paste and sometimes heard so much of, slaggering the chip with to much paste...
Quite possibly does not have motherboard with COP or Thermal Guard setup to save CPU's life.
Or worse yet ive heard so many people stick their pc's inside desk compartments that the computer cant breathe. -
#24.6 Posted by William on 03 Sep 2003 - 22:25
- Krome, from now on have people perform a few simple tasks before accepting them as friends. Ask them to recite the Alphabet, count down from 10 and walk a straight line. After that they should be fine with AMD CPU's.
For starters, the rumors of AMD CPU's being hotter than Intel are true up until the Barton core. However they are in no way hot enough (with a heatsink and fan properly installed) to burn out. One would think after the first or even the second CPU burnt out they would bother to find out how to install a heatsink properly or finally finish elementary school whichever they feel is more important.
Another point is that AMD has a 3 year warranty on all retail CPUs and 1 year on OEM, so why the hell would they keep buying new ones? Don't answer that, if they're dumb enough to fry 3 CPUs in a row, not RMAing a CPU is not suprising.
-
(1 reply)
#25 Posted by N_B on 03 Sep 2003 - 10:05
- This whole discussion is plain stupid.
I'm not a dedicated fan of either brand, but I buy AMD because they in my opinion have the best lower-priced chips (concidering I'm not overclocking, and don't want to. Yes, there are quite a few of us too, you know). As someone mentioned here, who really cares about the top-of-the-line cpu's? They're overpriced and not that much better than a cpu that costs (at the most) half as much..
Competition is good, innovation is good.
I hope AMD get's a bigger marcetshare only for the sake of competition. Noone should be happy if Intel wins this "war", it just means less(none, basically) competition, and that they can do much more like they want to (=make more money), which is not a good thing for us, the consumers.
So, everybody should really hope this cpu is good.
-
(2 replies)
#26 Posted by RaWShadow on 03 Sep 2003 - 12:38
- I expected much better performance than this from there next generation CPU. Prescott is gonna blow it away.
-
#26.1 Posted by nonick on 03 Sep 2003 - 15:02
- i bet you expected the same when p4 first got out.. it was a total joke, but look at it now... heh, first impression means NOTHING.
-
#27 Posted by tripleXit on 03 Sep 2003 - 23:26
- I always knew that AMD was better than Intel. (I'm talking about performance AND price.)
In the Sandra memory test, Athlon FX delivers 5600 MB/s while an Intel Pentium 4 3.2 on Canterwood 875 with DDR 400 of course only delivers 5000MB/s. In Quake 3 , which was always considered Intel's playground and patch, the Athlon FX is slightly under nine per cent faster on AMD's processor rather than Intel's "brain of a PC".In Unreal 1024x768, it's close to 18 per cent advantage in AMD's favour.
3Dmark03 at 1024x768 shows that the FX is two per cent slower than on Intel. Pcmark03 is faster on Intel by five per cent since this is an Intel heavily optimized application while the memory score is 18 per cent faster on Athlon FX due to its integrated memory controller. Still, it's not all roses, roses as Intel still holds the crown in all SSE 2 optimized application and the ones that use HyperThreading. I am mainly talking about rendering applications, where Intel still holds the crown but the gap that used to be huge between Intel's 3.2 and Athlon XP 3200+ is now significantly smaller.
NVIDIA's major rival in the PC space, ATI, recently won the contract to create the graphics chipset for the successor to Microsoft's Xbox - no surprise to those who have been following the internal tensions in the relationship between Microsoft and NVIDIA over the current Xbox contract, but rumours suggest that the final stumbling block may have been a refusal by NVIDIA to hand over manufacturing permissions for the chipset to Microsoft rather than creating and supplying all of the components itself. Given Sony's track record, it seems highly unlikely that it would accept anything less than this from a technology partner - so even ignoring the technology hurdles, a deal seems highly unlikely.
However, our source could not rule out the possibility of discussions between Sony and NVIDIA. "I'd expect that Sony talk to a lot of people," he commented. "In a business like that you always explore all the options, but it would take a hell of a pitch to change minds at Sony about internally developing the GPU, and NVIDIA just don't have that pitch. People hear a whisper that someone from NVIDIA is talking to someone from Sony and bang, you have a massive rumour, but it really doesn't mean anything - people from these companies talk all the time."