Let's see when Prescott comes out.
i have always been an MAD person but really P4's are amazing, amd have to go to 64bit to get close... you cant beat pure HorsePower... with P4 Extreme coming soon, and then Prescott ohhh... power will be here! Its just a shame that the price of P4's put it out of reach of the average Joe Blow.
The good thing from all of this, is the value market will be flooded with topend P4's and AMD 400's.
I guess time will tell... but what would be a better upgrade? Go for latest chips atm or wait for bottom range AMD64's or Prescott's ??
--- 0wN3D by 3gG ---
Last edited by lynchknot; October 31st, 2003 at 04:38 AM.
to get close??? are you reading the same reviews ? the AMD 64 is more than close! its ahead!! and its still running less MHZ than Intel!! ever since the 1.4 T-Bird mhz to mhz AMD has been the king and has never lost the crown to Intel in that area, AMD just never came up with the extra 1000+mhz that Intel has.....Originally posted by cash_site
i have always been an MAD person but really P4's are amazing, amd have to go to 64bit to get close...
Oh P4's are amazing alright...its amazing what Intel had to do to beat a lowly $75 AMD XP 2500 barton, hmm 1000+ more mhz, hyper-threading and quad pumped 800fsb! yep amazing...lolOriginally posted by cash_site
but really P4's are amazing
Ok you Intel guys go easy on me naw let me have it
Good job lynch, way to chase um away before the jump me...hehe
Always lookin' out for ya bro.
Even though the Intel Pentium 4 3.2C was out paced by the Athlon64 3200+ in almost all benchmarks it's still an extremely fast performing processor. http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.c...id=1068&page=7
Last edited by lynchknot; October 31st, 2003 at 05:02 AM.
OK here are some benchmarks from 2 systems.One is running an Intel 3.2Ghz Processor and the other is the Athlon 64 FX-51(like zipp51) The Intel is using a i875 based mobo and the AMD is using the Asus SK8N.The same video cards,sound cards,hard drives,memory and case ps,etc were used in both.The benchmarks were 3DMark2001SE and 3DMark03.Video-256mb DDR2 Radeon 9800 Pro,Sound-Audigy2,Memory-512mb PC3200(2),Hard drive-WD 36GB Raptor(2).
The results;AMD64 FX-51 3DMark2001SE-20,362 and 6187 in 3DMak03.
Intel 3.2Ghz P4 3DMark2001-18253 and 5781 in 3DMark03.
Remember that the Athlon is running only 2.2GHz, and it is not even running in it's true element which is 64 bit.Wow I think I want one don't you guys?Even all you P4 nuts!
The source of this info is from PC upgrade Mag which I subscribe to.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
What do you mean D? It says basically the same thing:Originally posted by Dehcbad25
Lynch you read the Intel based review. now go ahead and read the other review
I coincide with FG in the MHz. Unfortunately AMD is always launching less Mhz. If you had 2 CPUs with same Mhz (one Intel one AMD) and I am talking real Mhz the story would be different
There's no question, the Athlon64 3200+ simply owns the competition. Those are the highest UT2003 benchmarks I have ever seen!