|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
Amd 2300 Ownz P4 3ghz
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: Doctor_X
That's quite sad how the amd 2300 is running a smidge slower then the p4 3ghz.
http://news.hwupgrade.it/immagini/i...4_overclock.gif http://news.hwupgrade.it/5479.html
Posted by: Kdr Kane
One test does not a benchmark make.
Posted by: uh...ok
Especially at that low a res.
-uh...ok
Posted by: uh...ok
It also goes to show that no matter how fast a processor you make, performance reaches a roof at a certain level of use. Meaning if you're planning to just do things at 1024x768x16, buying a 3 GHz and a 1.something GHz computer will make no difference.
Maximize your money's worth - buy only what you need and what you can use.
-uh...ok
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
The top AMD is 230$ cheaper than the top Intel desktop processor. I can live with a 1% less of performance for 230$. That leaves a lot more leftover for a good video card. Which is where most of your high end gaming performance is determined anyway.
Posted by: tkron
The results of that test are not based on actual CPUs but on overclocked existing CPUs here is the whole recap on that article that can be seen in English in its entirety here:
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/02...ctitans-19.html
Conclusion: Pentium 4/3000 Hindered By DDR Memory - Athlon XP 2300+ Is The Stronger Performer
Our test of the world's fastest CPUs shows that a Pentium 4/3000 based on DDR SDRAM cannot utilize its full potential. This fact is reflected in our benchmarks, where we use a Pentium 4/2600 based on RDRAM (Intel 850) as a basis for comparison. In a few of the benchmark categories, even the Pentium 4/2600 system, in combination with RDRAM, was able to outperform the Pentium 4/3000 with DDR memory. The limiting factor with the Pentium 4 at high clock speeds clearly lies in the limited bandwidth of DDR SDRAM. This influence was not seen in the RDRAM system.
In the end, it is worth waiting for DDR400 and DDR II/533, as well as RDRAM with 533 MHz. The test perpetuates the impression that Intel's previous strategy regarding RDRAM made sense - at least with higher clock speeds of 2.5 GHz, which the manufacturer will introduce this year. At this point, the question arises: will Intel return to RDRAM and change its strategy once more? Otherwise, the chipmaker may still opt to go for DDR memory, such as DDR333, DDR400 and DDR II/533.
We broke a further record in speed with the Athlon XP 2300+, which is based on an overclocked Athlon XP 2000+. The limit was reached at 1866 MHz, at which completely stable operation was possible. However, to cool the CPU, we used an efficient watercooling system, as we had already done with the Pentium 4/3000. Otherwise, such a high speed for the Athlon processor would not be possible.
In the benchmark results, the Athlon XP 2300+ cannot quite keep pace with the Intel Pentium 4/3000, but the values that we measured are very impressive. In order to outperform the Intel Pentium 4/3000, AMD must switch over to 0.13 Micron in order to enable higher clock speeds. According to our laboratory results, with a speed of 1933 MHz, AMD can reach the performance of a Pentium 4/3000 based on DDR SDRAM. This clock speed can only be achieved by the new Athlon XP with the Thoroughbred core, which is expected soon.
Posted by: uh...ok
Makes ya wonder what'll happen if the industry'll choose to switch over to RDRAM.
Not that that's gonna happen...
-uh...ok
Posted by: tkron
I is too bad there were no MBs produced that took advantage of the real power that Rambus memory had.
They basically set up the mother boards to use the faster speed of the Rambus memory and not the better architecture of Rambus.
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
Rambus had good bandwidth but that''s it. The latency was horrible, and it was way overpriced.
The only reason why the P4 performs better with it is because it was designed with Rambus in mind. If it had been designed with DDR in mind, it would probably differ in a lot of ways and it would have performed better.
Rambus bombed because it had bad latency, terrible yields, and high prices. I'm glad to see that crap go.
Posted by: tkron
You are correct about them being over priced
But as I understand it, the latency problem was due to the motherboards manufacturers not wanting to redo their MBs to take full advantage of the the Rambus capabilities.
Posted by: Ion Silverbolt
Motherboards contributed very little to Rambus latencies. The fact that data travels trough Rambus RIMMS's serially is where most of your latencies come from.
More bandwidth is needed for the future, but so is more memory. The more Rambus memory you have, the higher the latecy becomes. The small handful of applications that the extra bandwidth helps with just isn't worth it when it comes to overall system performance. And the price certianly doesn't help it any either.
It's no accident that the industry shunned Rambus. Even Intel was slamming them for not delivering what they promised.
Posted by: Sarc
Well, when you consider that the P4 @ 3000MHz is a whopping 1134MHz (1.13GHz) faster than the Athlon XP, 9 Marks is um, ... nothing.
Or should I say that is took the P4 1134MHz more to get a measly 9 Marks ahead of the Athlon XP.
I used to be a Intel guy myself, but when it came time for me to upgrade from my 1GHz PIII, I just couldn't see spending $300+ for a P4 when I could get a equaly performing Athlon XP for $150+/-.
(Though, in all fair-ness, there very easily may of been, in fact probably was some other performance limiting factor.)
|
|
|
|
|
