Yeah....run Lightwave w/ SSE2 and see who rips who...hehe
Yeah....run Lightwave w/ SSE2 and see who rips who...hehe
Yes & I also stated that a 2.26 P4 is the equal of a 2200+ Tbred, there is
also very little difference in price between the too so maybe you should
compare apples with apples rather than trying to put down the 2.53 P4. The
reason it was listed was that it's intels best P4 chip & even though it runs
almost 700mhz faster & has way more transistors in it, it still runs cooler
than the the best AMD has to offer. As far as I remember this heat based
part of the thread never even mentioned price so why are you bringing it up
anyway
Mark
You have returned!
I thought you'd been eaten by wolves or something.
-JB
-Larry
Thanks for the data though!
-Larry
> >I didn't quite catch that :)
> >-Larry
> P4 1.8A cpu runs on a 100mhz bus by default. By getting a mb that can
> do both 100/133mhz FSB you can overclock the 1.8A to 2.4ghz by simply
> upping the FSB to 133mhz (so long as the cpu can take it, most 1.6A's
> and 1.8A's can). Doing this means no other peripherals will be
> overclocked as would happen if you bought a cpu rated for 133mhz FSB
> and tried to OC it. This means you will get comparable performance of
> an AMD 2200+ for a bit less money. P4 has a better upgrade path too.
> AMD is pretty much tapped out for speed right now.
> Disclaimer: I am currently an AMD user. I also don't take
> repsonsibility for any failed OC's anyone may try because of what I
> posted.
> --
> Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes.
Heat shouldn't be an issue for anyone. You build it right, and it works
fine. You build it wrong, and it overheats. Doesn't matter which processor
you have.
-Larry
> > Man, I HATE this holy war...
> > Define "comprehensively beats ".
> > The major hardware sites, i.e. Toms Hardware, indeed show the P4 2.53
> faster
> > than the XP2200+, but it ain't no landslide, and it sure as HELL ain't
> $400+
> > worth of difference.
> > The question isn't whether the 2.53Ghz Northwood is faster than the
> XP2200+.
> > We all KNOW it is. The question is whether you can justify such a small
> > gain for so, SO much money.
> > I sure can't.
> > I don't hate Intel. I'd love to be able to buy Intel. But until their
> > prices are at least remotely in line with the competition, I'm not
buying.
> > -Larry
> Yes & I also stated that a 2.26 P4 is the equal of a 2200+ Tbred, there is
> also very little difference in price between the too so maybe you should
> compare apples with apples rather than trying to put down the 2.53 P4.
The
> reason it was listed was that it's intels best P4 chip & even though it
runs
> almost 700mhz faster & has way more transistors in it, it still runs
cooler
> than the the best AMD has to offer. As far as I remember this heat based
> part of the thread never even mentioned price so why are you bringing it
up
> anyway
> Mark
They are afraid of the Alpha male....hehe
that's great...how did YOU survive?
lolololololoolollollllollollo.......I think he stepped into that one...
dave henrie
Yet you still ignore that fact that the 2.26 P4 is a match for the 2200xp &
is competitively priced.
Know?
If you believe otherwise than what AMD says, you're confused. Period.
> >If you believe otherwise than what AMD says, you're confused. Period.
> There is no way to prove AMD's claim because there never has been, or
> will be, a T-Bird faster than 1.4ghz. But I find it hard to beleive
> that an XP cpu is that much faster than a T-Bird. Intel doesn't
> believe what AMD says either and believe it to be a cloaked comparison
> to their P4's. I believe Intel is right on this and not AMD's
> marketing campaign. You can blelieve what you like though. But, there
> are review sites out there that will tell you exactly what I just told
> you too.
the hardware prefetch the Palomino has accounts for quite a bit...
look at a 1.4Ghz Tbird against a 1600+ (1.4Ghz Palomino) and you'll notice
something, the Palomino is quicker :)
-JB
Ever heard of a thing called "overclocking", man? ;-) Anyway, I'm fairly
certain AMD is quite capable of calculating the relative performance of
their own processors.
If you don't believe info when it comes straight from the horse's mouth, why
should you believe a third-party like Intel?
But if you're into *** theories and stuff, there's little chance I'd
be able to get through to you anyway, so why do I even bother? ;-)
And they are as confused as you are. The performance rating is tuned to AMDs
own processors, not Intel's.
That's all folks.
A little slow today, are we?
Hehe......
Of course....they are beaten on all fronts. Why would they admit it....hehe