R
Reznor007
Guest
An Athlon will perform better clock for clock than a P4. Hence the naming convention on the AthlonXP. The 2000+ really runs at 1.67GHz, but performs on the same level as a P4 2GHz. And is usually cheaper.
- Status
S
Sephiroth 3D
Guest
(See above post.)
Sephiroth 3D
"I don't understand..." "You don't have to understand." - Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within
Sephiroth 3D.com
[email protected]
Sephiroth 3D
"I don't understand..." "You don't have to understand." - Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within
Sephiroth 3D.com
[email protected]
T
Threesixty
Guest
Athlon what against P4 what?
Athlon Rev-C with what motherboard and what Gigahert, against P4 what gig. with same components?
Get whatever you want.....
And I don't think they have a 2000xp yet, the 1.6 is rated at 1900xp.
Athlon Rev-C with what motherboard and what Gigahert, against P4 what gig. with same components?
Get whatever you want.....
And I don't think they have a 2000xp yet, the 1.6 is rated at 1900xp.
S
Sephiroth 3D
Guest
Let's see...
Athlon T-Bird 1.2Ghz w/ 256megs RAM (non-DDR) & 2 45gig HDs VS P4 1.5Ghz w/ 512megs Mushkin (DDR?) RAM & 36gig SCSI HD. Otherwise identical...
(Lightwave Loading & Rendering test)
P4 loaded scene in about 10 seconds. Athlon took about a minute to load identical scene. In rendering time, Athlon rendered identical scene in 6:37 while P4 took 7:10. (minutes:seconds)
Even taking into consideration the differences between these two systems, this is why I say Athlons are good for rendering, a bit of gaming, and not much else. That's my opinion based upon evidence I have personally collected. You can never really trust what companies say about their clocking, cause they tend to distort the truth. Get other opinions, and give it a try yourselves. A field test of the chips is always better than "clocking" the chips. Keep that in mind...
Sephiroth 3D
"I don't understand..." "You don't have to understand." - Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within
Sephiroth 3D.com
[email protected]
Athlon T-Bird 1.2Ghz w/ 256megs RAM (non-DDR) & 2 45gig HDs VS P4 1.5Ghz w/ 512megs Mushkin (DDR?) RAM & 36gig SCSI HD. Otherwise identical...
(Lightwave Loading & Rendering test)
P4 loaded scene in about 10 seconds. Athlon took about a minute to load identical scene. In rendering time, Athlon rendered identical scene in 6:37 while P4 took 7:10. (minutes:seconds)
Even taking into consideration the differences between these two systems, this is why I say Athlons are good for rendering, a bit of gaming, and not much else. That's my opinion based upon evidence I have personally collected. You can never really trust what companies say about their clocking, cause they tend to distort the truth. Get other opinions, and give it a try yourselves. A field test of the chips is always better than "clocking" the chips. Keep that in mind...
Sephiroth 3D
"I don't understand..." "You don't have to understand." - Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within
Sephiroth 3D.com
[email protected]
F
ficedula
Guest
Seph3d: The loading time difference there is quite possibly due to the hard disk. For a fair test they should be the same; but the P4 disk is SCSI (faster) and smaller (faster) than the Athlon's.
And also the RAM! If the scene involves calculating 200MB of associated data, or something, the P4 gonna do that in RAM while the Athlon's swapping...
In impartial benchmarks (I tend to go by PC Plus and Toms Hardware) the *only* things P4's have proved faster in is running programs designed specifically for the P4. That's all, and I'd hardly call that an achievement...
And yes, the PC Plus benchmarks are carried out on real world user tasks: gaming, 3d rendering, database searching, audio/video compression/decompression...and of course, they try to use as near-as-possible identical hardware to make it fair.
The *only* valid reason to buy a P4 would be a) if you did a LOT of stuff which involved a program heavily optimised ONLY for the P4. I don't think anyone does, though... or b) For it's better thermal protection, if you can't wait for Athlon mobo's with proper thermal protection to come out. P4 is still better in that sense.
For the rest of us - which is most users! - the Athlon kicks much ass compared to the P4.
[edited] 68 2002-01-02 19:26
And also the RAM! If the scene involves calculating 200MB of associated data, or something, the P4 gonna do that in RAM while the Athlon's swapping...
In impartial benchmarks (I tend to go by PC Plus and Toms Hardware) the *only* things P4's have proved faster in is running programs designed specifically for the P4. That's all, and I'd hardly call that an achievement...
And yes, the PC Plus benchmarks are carried out on real world user tasks: gaming, 3d rendering, database searching, audio/video compression/decompression...and of course, they try to use as near-as-possible identical hardware to make it fair.
The *only* valid reason to buy a P4 would be a) if you did a LOT of stuff which involved a program heavily optimised ONLY for the P4. I don't think anyone does, though... or b) For it's better thermal protection, if you can't wait for Athlon mobo's with proper thermal protection to come out. P4 is still better in that sense.
For the rest of us - which is most users! - the Athlon kicks much ass compared to the P4.
[edited] 68 2002-01-02 19:26
T
Threesixty
Guest
Yeah....double the Ram would make a difference.
And a slow harddrive can make all the difference in the world....The biggest bottleneck on a PC is the Harddrive. They make me use a P3 866 at work....The guy in charge of all the PC's, there, just slapped it together with components laying around the office (we are talking very old stuff...It has a Dimond Media 8meg video card...gee-whiz, Wally.), the only thing new was the motherboard and the CPU. The computer I had before was a P3 500mhz with a TNT2 card. I'm a draftsman, and do a lot of work in Autocad. Guess which one was faster.....the 500mhz. It had a better harddrive, and loads files a good 50 seconds faster on huge drawings....the 866mhz is quicker on those small drawings. I don't know what the Harddrives are....but I do know that the old 500mhz one had a very quiet harddrive and the 866's is very, very noisy. So I'm going to guess that the 500mhz has a 7200rpm U66 (drive index = 17000). It may be a u100 7200rpm (Drive index = 24000), but I doubt it, the place I work at is kinda cheap. The 866mhz probably has a 5400rpm U33 (drive index = 8000). A slow harddrive will kill performance....That's why I use two U100's in Raid 0 mode (drive index = 36860).
And the 1.2 Athlon's came in Rev C and Rev B. Rev C is the 133 bus, Rev B is the 100 bus....that, too, would make a difference.
Tell me one more difference....what's the 'price' between the two computers.
[edited] 65 2002-01-03 00:17
And a slow harddrive can make all the difference in the world....The biggest bottleneck on a PC is the Harddrive. They make me use a P3 866 at work....The guy in charge of all the PC's, there, just slapped it together with components laying around the office (we are talking very old stuff...It has a Dimond Media 8meg video card...gee-whiz, Wally.), the only thing new was the motherboard and the CPU. The computer I had before was a P3 500mhz with a TNT2 card. I'm a draftsman, and do a lot of work in Autocad. Guess which one was faster.....the 500mhz. It had a better harddrive, and loads files a good 50 seconds faster on huge drawings....the 866mhz is quicker on those small drawings. I don't know what the Harddrives are....but I do know that the old 500mhz one had a very quiet harddrive and the 866's is very, very noisy. So I'm going to guess that the 500mhz has a 7200rpm U66 (drive index = 17000). It may be a u100 7200rpm (Drive index = 24000), but I doubt it, the place I work at is kinda cheap. The 866mhz probably has a 5400rpm U33 (drive index = 8000). A slow harddrive will kill performance....That's why I use two U100's in Raid 0 mode (drive index = 36860).
And the 1.2 Athlon's came in Rev C and Rev B. Rev C is the 133 bus, Rev B is the 100 bus....that, too, would make a difference.
Tell me one more difference....what's the 'price' between the two computers.
[edited] 65 2002-01-03 00:17
G
Goku7
Guest
Wouldn't the bottleneck in any new system be the CD-ROM drive? I mean, unless you're running a game or program completely off the hard disk, then the cd-rom would be the "weakest link".
I just got a shiny new 52x cd-rom drive, and the box says its sustained transfer rate is 7megs per second. I don't know if that's using DMA or not, though. However, it's still WAY slower in terms of data throughput compared to today's hard disks.
I just got a shiny new 52x cd-rom drive, and the box says its sustained transfer rate is 7megs per second. I don't know if that's using DMA or not, though. However, it's still WAY slower in terms of data throughput compared to today's hard disks.
J
J*** H*******
Guest
Message.
G
Goku7
Guest
Ok. Mine comes with a speed-adjust utility.
But, what's up with XA audio decoding?! While the new 52x drive claims to support the XA audio format, the hard drive is still running like crazy when it plays it! I can't play MegaMan X5 anymore on bleem! or ePSXe because its XA audio was practically the entire soundtrack, so the hard drive's heads were in use for a good solid hour or however long I played the game. My old 6gig drive (a Quantum Fireball model) completely failed after prolonged use of that game. Why can't it simply use just the cd-rom, like when it plays a normal cd-audio track?
But, what's up with XA audio decoding?! While the new 52x drive claims to support the XA audio format, the hard drive is still running like crazy when it plays it! I can't play MegaMan X5 anymore on bleem! or ePSXe because its XA audio was practically the entire soundtrack, so the hard drive's heads were in use for a good solid hour or however long I played the game. My old 6gig drive (a Quantum Fireball model) completely failed after prolonged use of that game. Why can't it simply use just the cd-rom, like when it plays a normal cd-audio track?
R
Reznor007
Guest
The XP2000+ just recently came out 
- Status