That problem doesn't exist with the AMD's :)
-Larry
> >Well, I'm not an overclocker in the least (don't see the reason for it
any
> >more), so I generally don't compare on those terms.
> 1.8 is $275.00 CAD
> 2.4 is $659.00 CAD
> I think that's a good enough reason. :-)
> --
> Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes.
-Larry
> >You are, in fact, correct.
> >-Larry
> He is correct if you beleive the AMD legal speak.
> --
> Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes.
I'm sorry, but AMD is still a better price/performance purchase.
I'm happy that you like Intel. I like AMD while the current situation
exists.
Both can be purchase, so we're both happy :)
-Larry
> > Because prices is just a _little_ bit important. Especially when the
gap
> is
> > so large.
> > 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
> Yet you still ignore that fact that the 2.26 P4 is a match for the 2200xp
&
> is competitively priced.
PC2700 DDR will do just fine for a 533fsb P4 and it's still be competitive
as well as on a price parity for boards.
True but it's nowhere near as bad as it used to be.
Sorry to surprise you but I have an Athlon XP1800+ system, I just cant stand
these blinkered people who wont admit that their big nemesis Intel has
dropped prices and improved performance to compete with AMD.
Happyish with my AMD system it's nice and fast but I'm concerned that Intel
has maybe slipped into a higher gear now and is going to accelerate away
with continual cpu & fsb speed improvements, what with AMD stating it has no
intention of upping the fsb of the Athlon and the fact that there's no
2500xp to compete with the 2.53 P4 is a little concerning.
Also anyone who thinks that Intel's thermal performance is the same as
AMD's is just kidding themselves nobody else. The fact that you can still
kill any AMD chip if the cooler fails is a source of much critisism from all
the major hardware review sites & they all bring up the fact that even with
the new Tbred .13 design it's still very hot as it requires higher voltages
to reach lower clockpseeds than it's Intel equvalent.
Cheers
Mark
> >look at a 1.4Ghz Tbird against a 1600+ (1.4Ghz Palomino) and you'll
notice
> >something, the Palomino is quicker :)
> Where's the benchmarks? And I expect those nemchmarks to show the
> 1600+ being 200mhz faster (or better) as the numbering implies in
> *all* benchmarks. If that can't be proven as true then the numbering
> is a false claim. Unless it really means it is comared to a P4.
There's a link for these delusional people that shows that the naming
convention is bunk. It clearly shows the Tbird 1.4 constantly outperforming
the 1500XP and snapping at the heels (even beating on occasion) of the
1600XP, showing that the 1600XP is nowhere near 200mhz faster in performance
terms.
.
Yes it does. it's just not as pronounced as Intels
1800XP 92 No availability problems.
2200XP 216 Long lead time expected.
P4 1.8A 165 No availability problems.
P4 2.26B 239 No availability problems.
P4 2.4B 392 No availability problems.
Or you could say it doesnt exist as AMD doesnt have a true 2.4 equivalent &
the 2200XP is virutally unobtainable from the Uk's largest computer
components dealer, whereas all of Intel's chips are available and the direct
competitor to the 2200XP is very closely matched on price.
> -Larry
> > >Well, I'm not an overclocker in the least (don't see the reason for it
> any
> > >more), so I generally don't compare on those terms.
> > 1.8 is $275.00 CAD
> > 2.4 is $659.00 CAD
> > I think that's a good enough reason. :-)
> > --
> > Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes.
> >There's a link for these delusional people that shows that the naming
> >convention is bunk. It clearly shows the Tbird 1.4 constantly
outperforming
> >the 1500XP and snapping at the heels (even beating on occasion) of the
> >1600XP, showing that the 1600XP is nowhere near 200mhz faster in
performance
> >terms.
> >.
> P.S. And here I was thinking about buying a new mb and cpu so I could
> run an XP 2100+. Going by those benchmarks it looks like my T-Bird
> waste money on a 2100+. The only reason to buy a new mb and cpu at
> this point in time would be if I wanted to switch back to Intel. Which
> I might still do.
?
tests where a 1.4Ghz Palomino is slower than a 1.4Ghz Tbird?
where?
-JB
Enjoy both of your floating point calculations per second :p
Right now the Athlon is squeezed rather heavily at the top end because it's
simply starved of bandwidth...
And for someone who absolutely must have "THE FASTEST" then a 2.53Ghz P4 is
fine unless they want to run something x87 fp heavy.
Either way, a 2200+ or a 2.26Ghz P4 are fast as hell :) *thinks of first
proper computer, with 7Mhz Motorola 68000*
-JB
The problem with saying it lines up with a P4 is that.. well, it doesn't.
an 1800+ will quite comfortably outrun a 1.8Ghz Willamette quite a lot of the
time.
Go dig around for yourself, the Palomino is around 10% faster that an equally
clocked Tbird, on average.
-JB
Correct and it isnt about to be relieved of this bottleneck either, AMD has
stated that it has no intention of increasing fsb for Athlon processors.
True but as you cant actually buy a retail Willamette now unless you want a
S423 chip thats irrelivant as you Northwoods are now the primary P4 chips
and are significantly faster than the Willamettes.
Performance difference is negligeble in most cases only on the odd occasion
is it 10% faster, mostly it's between 2-5% faster.
But when the AthlonXP Quantispeed system was implemented, the Willamette
available P4...
the fact that the AthlonXP ratings don't line up with the Willamette _OR_ the
Northwood would kinda indicate that they aren't scaled against the P4 :)
You'd be surprised what hardware prefetch can do.
(and don't forget about the SSE execution hardware :))
-JB
FYI, most new boards hitting the market support the Thermal diode on the
Palomino/Tbred properly and shut the chip down if it overheats..
Still only brings parity with the P3 in that department, but it's certainly a
step in the right direction.
-JB
