SoDNighthawk
Splendid
- Nov 6, 2003
- 3,542
- 0
- 22,780
Vapor you have just finished this post there is no more to be said. He has put into words exactly what I wanted to see posted. He has hit the preverbal nail on the head and is completely accurate in his response. Lets call this one a draw until we see I should say HAVE in our hands the new hardware.
P.S thanks to all who chastised me I do need to be told
I thought I simply posted to the originator of the post Soccerdude90 that it would be all right for him to install a Barton 2800+ to run his applications with. I would be a sad thing if he never comes back to read how his post generated such feedback and folly 
Con Grats!! to Vapor for ending the post I will not search out any more truths as he has answered correctly the rest of you are the weakest link good bye
P.S thanks to all who chastised me I do need to be told
I thought I simply posted to the originator of the post Soccerdude90 that it would be all right for him to install a Barton 2800+ to run his applications with. I would be a sad thing if he never comes back to read how his post generated such feedback and folly Con Grats!! to Vapor for ending the post I will not search out any more truths as he has answered correctly the rest of you are the weakest link good bye
Wow now you are a true dumbass...
You fail to realise that the athlon xp is a good cpu for people on a budget however a barton 2800+ compared to a 2.6c is no competition, the better cpu is the 2.6c hands down. It is slightly more expensive, but still a better performing cpu so the extra money is waranted
If it isn't a P6 then it isn't a procesor
110% BX fanboy
Nighthawk whats the title of this thread?
The intel 2.6c will outperform the 2800+ even at stock speeds.
Intel beats amd in ALL media encoding and almost all gamming benchmarks, how is this not real world performance?
The athlon xp is no longer one of these leaps, it is old technology and any level headed person you will talk to will tell you the p4 outperforms it. Face it, the roots of the AXP go back to the original athlon the AXP is no longer cutting edge technology (but still a damn good cpu).
You fail to realise that the athlon xp is a good cpu for people on a budget however a barton 2800+ compared to a 2.6c is no competition, the better cpu is the 2.6c hands down. It is slightly more expensive, but still a better performing cpu so the extra money is waranted
If it isn't a P6 then it isn't a procesor
110% BX fanboy
SoDNighthawk, maybe for the past year you've smoking crack instead of building computers. The link I provided puts the processors head-to-head at STOCK SPEEDS. Even the 2.4C ripps the 2800+ appart both at STOCK SPEED. I never mentioned anything about overclocked Intels beating stock athlons, of course they would. I talked about overclocking since the original poster inquired about it at the end of my post. I feel sorry for those "H@rDc0r3 gAm3rZ" that come to your store and get screwed when you sell them a 2800+ instead of a 2.4C or 2.6C.
Frozen_Fallout
Distinguished
- Jan 8, 2003
- 433
- 0
- 18,780
Well after taking a look around and checking up on things I would have to chang what I said before. I would go for the P4 2.6c as long as you can utilize the 200(800) FSB. I said what I said before because when I bought my own computer I did check up on things and sided with AMD because of their price to proformace ratio. But that was almost a year ago. I have been keeping up with things but only on the highend CPU's like the 3.2 the EE and the FX and Athlon 64. I didn't know that the 2.4 and 2.6 and the like got such a big big boost from the boosted FSB hell I didn't even really know that the 2.4 and 2.6 had 200 FSB.
But yeah I would go with a 2.6c or a 2.4c but only if you get the C's and nothing less.
-------------------------------------------------
Remember what your fighting for, Remember why you even started fighting, and Remember who you are
But yeah I would go with a 2.6c or a 2.4c but only if you get the C's and nothing less.
-------------------------------------------------
Remember what your fighting for, Remember why you even started fighting, and Remember who you are
Here you have some tips out of this war:
- Compare XP2500+ and 2.4C P4, as they are know to be the BEST option if you plan to overclock. As others have said, usually the first one can go to 3200+ and the second to 3.2Ghz
- I suppose you will buy a new mobo, because you can choose between Intel and AMD. In order to achieve high overclocks, you need a reliable mobo. Asus nForce2 is my option for AMD. For Intel I don't have enough knowledge to give you advice, others here can supply it.
- Whatever is your decision, you will need good brand memory in pairs. Depends on your goal, you will need at least over 200DDR memory. And remember better timings = higher performance. Anandtech has some good recent reviews of several high end memories.
- Finally, Socket A way ends is quite reduced (3200+), while P4 can have a larger path (not too long, but better). Some people are interested in upgrade path, just in case you are one of those.
Hope this helps.
Still looking for a <b>good online retailer</b> in Spain :frown:
- Compare XP2500+ and 2.4C P4, as they are know to be the BEST option if you plan to overclock. As others have said, usually the first one can go to 3200+ and the second to 3.2Ghz
- I suppose you will buy a new mobo, because you can choose between Intel and AMD. In order to achieve high overclocks, you need a reliable mobo. Asus nForce2 is my option for AMD. For Intel I don't have enough knowledge to give you advice, others here can supply it.
- Whatever is your decision, you will need good brand memory in pairs. Depends on your goal, you will need at least over 200DDR memory. And remember better timings = higher performance. Anandtech has some good recent reviews of several high end memories.
- Finally, Socket A way ends is quite reduced (3200+), while P4 can have a larger path (not too long, but better). Some people are interested in upgrade path, just in case you are one of those.
Hope this helps.
Still looking for a <b>good online retailer</b> in Spain :frown:
shadus
Distinguished
- Apr 16, 2003
- 2,067
- 0
- 19,790
> Son I don't know where you get your facts from on
> CPU power and performance unless you read to many
> online benchmarks.
Since I build computers for a living, read at least 5-6 different publications online and off, and also am a hardcore gamer, well, I kinda assume I know what the hell I'm talking about...
> I could care less what AMD says about their
> speeds or what Intel claims they can produce
> for benchmarks.
To true, both companies are going to spin their own pcs in the best light they can. Only a moron would believe what intel or amd say that goes beyond raw technical specs.
> The fact is the AMD CPU's out perform any Intel
> Crap there is ever was or will be.
Prove it or stand down as a lamer fanboy. The p4 c variet outperform the comparative amd chips hands down all the way up the line quite frequently beating comparatively higher rated chips from amd. From 2.4ghz all the way up (without ANY overclocking.) If you want to dispute this, I challenge you-- provide proof otherwise on similar hardware.
> A thing to note son is that the hyper threading
> technologies in the new Intel chips sucks ass
> simple and the new Nvidia FX 5900 Ultra GPU
> sucks ass as well.
Yah the FX isn't peachy that's for sure. The HT is only functionally useful in a few situations but it adds a couple % of performance and that never hurts. It *seems* to add a bit to desktop performance in opening times and such, but that's purely a personal evaluation of non-ht vs ht chips at the same speed. The significant difference was the increase to 800mhz fsb (which is really only 200 quad pumped). Not to mention amd's increasingly inaccurate pr rating. If they had rated their chips as slightly less (about 200pr on everything about 2400+ or higher) it wouldn't be nearly as inaccurate. I'm not debating price vs performance here, I'm debating flat out performance. AMD definetly has a better price vs performance ratio at the lower end and the further down you go the more of a difference it makes. Right now however, this is not the case with the bartons and the c varient p4 chips.
> As you seem to know very little about real world
> use of CPU's I will cut you the slack you deserve
> until you have enough experience in computers.
Since I've been building pcs since the mid/late 80s, have worked non-stop as a unix/nt admin for the last 7 years, and as a programmer since 1990, and have done hardware repair/replacement work for major pc vendors in the past... I probally know computers quite a bit better than a fanboy like you (You'll find most people who KNOW computers are performance fanatics, not fanboys. I think I can safely assume based on the fact that you are a complete troll or fanboy that you are fairly new to computers.)
> It is people like you that read and believe
> whatever they are fed like sheep on a cliff
> edge that keep the brand names going full
> strength when in fact they are selling you
> the same crap they sold you last month with
> a different label on it.
When I get the same results time after time as a site I read, I eventually get the general notion that the site is probally usually accurate and the data they are putting out is correct. If my results are significantly different than the site I'm reading, I discount the site as something I can't rely on to provide accurate results.
> Wake up little sheep time to realize that in
> the real world there are things that work and
> things that don't and AMD does more then they
> ever claimed and Intel does much less then
> they do claim. And that is the utter bullshit
> as you put it so mildly.
Yah, I'll agree to that, pretty much everything you've spewed is utter bullsh!t.
Shadus
> CPU power and performance unless you read to many
> online benchmarks.
Since I build computers for a living, read at least 5-6 different publications online and off, and also am a hardcore gamer, well, I kinda assume I know what the hell I'm talking about...
> I could care less what AMD says about their
> speeds or what Intel claims they can produce
> for benchmarks.
To true, both companies are going to spin their own pcs in the best light they can. Only a moron would believe what intel or amd say that goes beyond raw technical specs.
> The fact is the AMD CPU's out perform any Intel
> Crap there is ever was or will be.
Prove it or stand down as a lamer fanboy. The p4 c variet outperform the comparative amd chips hands down all the way up the line quite frequently beating comparatively higher rated chips from amd. From 2.4ghz all the way up (without ANY overclocking.) If you want to dispute this, I challenge you-- provide proof otherwise on similar hardware.
> A thing to note son is that the hyper threading
> technologies in the new Intel chips sucks ass
> simple and the new Nvidia FX 5900 Ultra GPU
> sucks ass as well.
Yah the FX isn't peachy that's for sure. The HT is only functionally useful in a few situations but it adds a couple % of performance and that never hurts. It *seems* to add a bit to desktop performance in opening times and such, but that's purely a personal evaluation of non-ht vs ht chips at the same speed. The significant difference was the increase to 800mhz fsb (which is really only 200 quad pumped). Not to mention amd's increasingly inaccurate pr rating. If they had rated their chips as slightly less (about 200pr on everything about 2400+ or higher) it wouldn't be nearly as inaccurate. I'm not debating price vs performance here, I'm debating flat out performance. AMD definetly has a better price vs performance ratio at the lower end and the further down you go the more of a difference it makes. Right now however, this is not the case with the bartons and the c varient p4 chips.
> As you seem to know very little about real world
> use of CPU's I will cut you the slack you deserve
> until you have enough experience in computers.
Since I've been building pcs since the mid/late 80s, have worked non-stop as a unix/nt admin for the last 7 years, and as a programmer since 1990, and have done hardware repair/replacement work for major pc vendors in the past... I probally know computers quite a bit better than a fanboy like you (You'll find most people who KNOW computers are performance fanatics, not fanboys. I think I can safely assume based on the fact that you are a complete troll or fanboy that you are fairly new to computers.)
> It is people like you that read and believe
> whatever they are fed like sheep on a cliff
> edge that keep the brand names going full
> strength when in fact they are selling you
> the same crap they sold you last month with
> a different label on it.
When I get the same results time after time as a site I read, I eventually get the general notion that the site is probally usually accurate and the data they are putting out is correct. If my results are significantly different than the site I'm reading, I discount the site as something I can't rely on to provide accurate results.
> Wake up little sheep time to realize that in
> the real world there are things that work and
> things that don't and AMD does more then they
> ever claimed and Intel does much less then
> they do claim. And that is the utter bullshit
> as you put it so mildly.
Yah, I'll agree to that, pretty much everything you've spewed is utter bullsh!t.
Shadus
shadus
Distinguished
- Apr 16, 2003
- 2,067
- 0
- 19,790
Let me rephrase this for you since you don't get it:
PIII_Man said: an INTEL P4 2.4 C Varient chip will beats a AMD 2800+ chip WITHOUT overlclocking. He also notes that the AMD barton/tbb chips overclock very well but on the other hand so does the p4 2.4c and since the 2.4c will frequently go all the way to 3.2, it will eat the amd chips alive.
Learning to read is a good prerequisete to participating in the computer industry.
Shadus
PIII_Man said: an INTEL P4 2.4 C Varient chip will beats a AMD 2800+ chip WITHOUT overlclocking. He also notes that the AMD barton/tbb chips overclock very well but on the other hand so does the p4 2.4c and since the 2.4c will frequently go all the way to 3.2, it will eat the amd chips alive.
Learning to read is a good prerequisete to participating in the computer industry.
Shadus
HardWareBoss
Splendid
- Feb 9, 2003
- 8,248
- 0
- 30,780
SoDNighthawk
Splendid
- Nov 6, 2003
- 3,542
- 0
- 22,780
Ok guys... Here is a real world test for you. All I had available to mess with in an Intel CPU and Chipset was a 3.2GHz CPU and a Intel 875P Chipset.
Below are the 2 systems I ran head to head in a real world experiment. They are supposedly by the numbers not equal machines but as you will see some surprising things occur.
SYSTEM ONE:
Asus Mother Board/ Intel
800 FSB/4GB Dual-DDR400 Memory
intel 875P Chipset
800 MHz FSB
Dual=Channel DDR400 Memory
Intel Pat
Multi-Raid for ATA133 & Serial ATA
AGP 8X (AAGP 3.0) Bandwidth up to 2.12GB/s
Processor Installed: Intel Pentium 4 3.2GHz
SYSTEM TWO:
Asus Mother Board/AMD
A7V8X-X Mother Board
Docketed for AMD Barton/Thoroughbred/Athlon XP/Athlon/Duron 2.25+ Ghz CPU
Northbridge: VIA KT400/Southbridge: VIA VT8235 Chipsets.
200/266/333 MHz (FSB)
AGP 8X and 6 PCI slots.
Processor Installed: AMD XP ready Barton 2800+
The 2 Systems are running Windows XP Pro/Fully updated.
The 2 Systems had Norton Utilities Integrator installed to clean up background clutter after complete hard drive install of Win XP.
MSN Messenger was removed completely from both Systems.
Both systems are using a Enermax Power Supply that supports both P4 & AMD XP and K8 CPU's
Both Systems are running a XFX Ti 4200 8X AGP DDR 128 MB Graphics card with Nvidia Drivers latest version.
Both Systems got a 30 Gig Maxtor Hard drive running at 7200 and at boot up both systems show the drive running in DMA 6 mode.
The BIOS for each system is stock right out of the Box the Graphics cards are stock speeds right out of the Box and both CPU's are set to the factory settings in each mother board BIOS.
Two 1.00 GB RAM sticks of Kinston DDR memory was used one that supports DDR333MHz on the AMD mother board and 1 that supports the DDR400MHz Intel mother board.
2 Identical SONY CD ROMS drives were installed and 2 Identical Floppy Disc drives were used.
Aside from the Ghz difference between the Intel chip at 3.2GHZ and the AMD Barton 2800+ processors and system buss/memory speeds different on the mother boards the systems are identical.
Two games were installed onto these 2 machines both notorious for causing graphics lag and performance issues.
The first game was GHOST RECON and the second game was Splintercell.
We played both games on each system at different desktop resolutions 800x600 and 1024x768 Correspondingly the desktops were set to the same values.
The Intel System showed both delayed mouse control in both Ghost Recon and Splintercell at 800x600 with full effects turned on in game.
The AMD system ran Ghost Recon and Splintercell without any apparent lag at all at 800x600 with full effects turned on in the game.
Already we had problems with game curser and tracking mouse control in both games with the intel system. The AMD system to this point shows no apparent problems.
Now with both games set to 1024x768 the Intel system seems to perk up a bit perhaps it only wanted to be turned loose to play well it all looked great until you tell the Splinter Cell Hero Sam Fisher to use his Heat Vision goggles then it gets bad real bad the frame rates drop to nothing and the Intel system at one point even dropped out into debug mode at the desktop.
Apparently the Intel system could not generate the graphics textures fast enough in fact the games were laggy in 800x600 graphics settings but in 1024x768 game play got better but was totally useless using heat vision in Splinter Cell. In Ghost Recon the Intel system seem to run fine in 800x600 resolution but there was way to much game lag at 1024x768 made the game unpleasant to play.
The AMD Barton XP ready 2800+ system ran both game with very few problems. This is a real world test that explains why people in the know that want to use a Personnel computer to game off of and play multy player games get an AMD processor.
I do not personally believe in any benchmarks posted by the numbers on either CPU, they are misleading and not accurate to the end user.
If I wanted to give my nephew 1 of these two computer systems to take home to game with I am going to give him the AMD computer I mean who wants to play game on an Intel system that lags so badly.
THIS IS THE LAST POST I WILL MAKE OR REPLY TO!! on this topic. If you want to use a personnel computer to game with get AMD CPU's it's not a contest at all.
Below are the 2 systems I ran head to head in a real world experiment. They are supposedly by the numbers not equal machines but as you will see some surprising things occur.
SYSTEM ONE:
Asus Mother Board/ Intel
800 FSB/4GB Dual-DDR400 Memory
intel 875P Chipset
800 MHz FSB
Dual=Channel DDR400 Memory
Intel Pat
Multi-Raid for ATA133 & Serial ATA
AGP 8X (AAGP 3.0) Bandwidth up to 2.12GB/s
Processor Installed: Intel Pentium 4 3.2GHz
SYSTEM TWO:
Asus Mother Board/AMD
A7V8X-X Mother Board
Docketed for AMD Barton/Thoroughbred/Athlon XP/Athlon/Duron 2.25+ Ghz CPU
Northbridge: VIA KT400/Southbridge: VIA VT8235 Chipsets.
200/266/333 MHz (FSB)
AGP 8X and 6 PCI slots.
Processor Installed: AMD XP ready Barton 2800+
The 2 Systems are running Windows XP Pro/Fully updated.
The 2 Systems had Norton Utilities Integrator installed to clean up background clutter after complete hard drive install of Win XP.
MSN Messenger was removed completely from both Systems.
Both systems are using a Enermax Power Supply that supports both P4 & AMD XP and K8 CPU's
Both Systems are running a XFX Ti 4200 8X AGP DDR 128 MB Graphics card with Nvidia Drivers latest version.
Both Systems got a 30 Gig Maxtor Hard drive running at 7200 and at boot up both systems show the drive running in DMA 6 mode.
The BIOS for each system is stock right out of the Box the Graphics cards are stock speeds right out of the Box and both CPU's are set to the factory settings in each mother board BIOS.
Two 1.00 GB RAM sticks of Kinston DDR memory was used one that supports DDR333MHz on the AMD mother board and 1 that supports the DDR400MHz Intel mother board.
2 Identical SONY CD ROMS drives were installed and 2 Identical Floppy Disc drives were used.
Aside from the Ghz difference between the Intel chip at 3.2GHZ and the AMD Barton 2800+ processors and system buss/memory speeds different on the mother boards the systems are identical.
Two games were installed onto these 2 machines both notorious for causing graphics lag and performance issues.
The first game was GHOST RECON and the second game was Splintercell.
We played both games on each system at different desktop resolutions 800x600 and 1024x768 Correspondingly the desktops were set to the same values.
The Intel System showed both delayed mouse control in both Ghost Recon and Splintercell at 800x600 with full effects turned on in game.
The AMD system ran Ghost Recon and Splintercell without any apparent lag at all at 800x600 with full effects turned on in the game.
Already we had problems with game curser and tracking mouse control in both games with the intel system. The AMD system to this point shows no apparent problems.
Now with both games set to 1024x768 the Intel system seems to perk up a bit perhaps it only wanted to be turned loose to play well it all looked great until you tell the Splinter Cell Hero Sam Fisher to use his Heat Vision goggles then it gets bad real bad the frame rates drop to nothing and the Intel system at one point even dropped out into debug mode at the desktop.
Apparently the Intel system could not generate the graphics textures fast enough in fact the games were laggy in 800x600 graphics settings but in 1024x768 game play got better but was totally useless using heat vision in Splinter Cell. In Ghost Recon the Intel system seem to run fine in 800x600 resolution but there was way to much game lag at 1024x768 made the game unpleasant to play.
The AMD Barton XP ready 2800+ system ran both game with very few problems. This is a real world test that explains why people in the know that want to use a Personnel computer to game off of and play multy player games get an AMD processor.
I do not personally believe in any benchmarks posted by the numbers on either CPU, they are misleading and not accurate to the end user.
If I wanted to give my nephew 1 of these two computer systems to take home to game with I am going to give him the AMD computer I mean who wants to play game on an Intel system that lags so badly.
THIS IS THE LAST POST I WILL MAKE OR REPLY TO!! on this topic. If you want to use a personnel computer to game with get AMD CPU's it's not a contest at all.
If you install some decent motherboard drivers it might help.
If you looked at more than two games it might help too. This is what benchmarks are for.. they give you a <b>balanced</b> picture. Most things have a purpose, although you seem to have not <i>quite</i> figured out the purpose of that mushy grey thing between your ears.
My Athlon XP system gives mouse lag problems in Halo, but because it's fine in loads of others, I blame Halo, and it's crappy console origins, I don't blame the processor.
Splinter cell sucks anyway, so I personally don't give a crap how it runs.
How about also chucking in some Quake3 benchies (old game, but the engine is used in soooo many current games it's still relevant for TODAY'S GAMING)
Or even better - some DoomIII benchies!
And besides, VIA chipsets are awful, and sticking a XP2800+ in one is akin to torturing the poor thing.
---
<font color=red>The preceding text is assembled from information stored in an unreliable organic storage medium. As such it may be innacurate, incomplete, or completely wrong</font color=red>
If you looked at more than two games it might help too. This is what benchmarks are for.. they give you a <b>balanced</b> picture. Most things have a purpose, although you seem to have not <i>quite</i> figured out the purpose of that mushy grey thing between your ears.
My Athlon XP system gives mouse lag problems in Halo, but because it's fine in loads of others, I blame Halo, and it's crappy console origins, I don't blame the processor.
Splinter cell sucks anyway, so I personally don't give a crap how it runs.
How about also chucking in some Quake3 benchies (old game, but the engine is used in soooo many current games it's still relevant for TODAY'S GAMING)
Or even better - some DoomIII benchies!
And besides, VIA chipsets are awful, and sticking a XP2800+ in one is akin to torturing the poor thing.
---
<font color=red>The preceding text is assembled from information stored in an unreliable organic storage medium. As such it may be innacurate, incomplete, or completely wrong</font color=red>
SoDNighthawk
Splendid
- Nov 6, 2003
- 3,542
- 0
- 22,780
Chipdeath your cute Read the whole post the AMD chip won. And they had the latest chip drivers installed and HEY!! I was not going to reply again to this thread but your so CUTE!! What other mother board would you have us stick AMD chips into ASUS makes a good board. AND I used an ASUS board for both CPU's. AND we chose both Ghost Recon and Splinter Cell becuase they have bad game engines and Net codes that was the point why run great games like you asked for that would be silly. Damn you are CUTE
Read the whole post the AMD chip won. And they had the latest chip drivers installed and HEY!! I was not going to reply again to this thread but your so CUTE!! What other mother board would you have us stick AMD chips into ASUS makes a good board. AND I used an ASUS board for both CPU's. AND we chose both Ghost Recon and Splinter Cell becuase they have bad game engines and Net codes that was the point why run great games like you asked for that would be silly. Damn you are CUTE
shadus
Distinguished
- Apr 16, 2003
- 2,067
- 0
- 19,790
What were the framerates? Did you try to correct the issues the intel system was having? Did you install the motherboard drivers? Did you update to the latest bios? Were the latency settings for the ram the same? Did you turn on any opts for either system? What were the default bios values on both systems? Why the hell were you using a ti4200 in either of those systems?
One thing I can guarentee, you had the intel system pooched (accidently) in some manor. Neither of those systems had *any* reason to be lagging in either of those games for any reason. I can vouch for that because my 2.2/1g ram sitting on my desk here doesn't lag in either of those games with all the settings turned up.
The intel may have been showing the effects of one of two bugs additionally, 1) The LL ram issue (which is usually a stability issue not base speed) 2) >1 GB Ram issue (its a lack of knowledge on configuration more than the ammount of ram.)
Frankly if you didn't take the time to try to figure out what was causing the discrepancy was or if you base all of your results off of one test in a single build, you are not a competant benchmarker.
As part of my standard build I generally run PCMark and 3DMark01/03. Honestly if I ever saw a result that far off what everyone else was observing or had a result that indicated anything even similar to that, I would be telling the buyer that I would need an extra day or two to verify everything was functioning correctly in the system. Then I'd be tearing the system apart and rebuilding it and doing some reading online to see if anyone else is experiencing similar problems. I've had to do it 3 times now when the numbers came up *very* wrong. I had an intel system that was benching about 40% under what it should have been with the hardware in it, turned out to be a bad ram chip. I had 2 amd machines that was benching funny which was resolved by updating to the newest drivers for the board (asus nforce2 chipset) for one and I never did figure out what caused the other one, after replacing each and every component it was still doing it. I reformated and it went poof and everything was normal.
I've built 15+ P4 C varient computers so far since they were released from the 2.4 all the way up to a 3.2 (wish it was mine). I've built at least 25+ amd computers since then also and the benchmarks remain very consistant for the most part, a few points here and there.
Consistantly, I'm seeing higher framerates in Q3A, UT2K3, RTCW, AC2, and SWG on the intel based systems (I only know those programs because I see them frequently installed on both intel and amd-- the group of people most of my sales come from are roleplayers and computer geeks for the most part. My numbers and framerates seem pretty on par with most every other person on this forum and with all of the review sites on the web that don't have "amd" or "intel" in the title.
The fact of the matter is simple, your results are extremely off kilter with most other peoples. Most people in this forum, most review sites, and mine. Does it mean you are absolutely positively wrong? No. We could potentially all be misconfiguring our amd systems and you just got the magic touch or an insider piece of info no one else knows. However, at the minimum it should make you sit back and really seriously check everything out on the intel and do some benchies on the games you play again.
In the end, I state again what my base opinion of that is-- neither of those systems should have lagged at all for any reason with that hardware (even though the vid card was a bit on the low end for high end systems.)
Edit: Oh yah, and my 2.2ghz ain't running any game but DS/Diablo at less than 1024x768 and generally 1280x1024. Any modern computer that is lagging at 800x600 is having *serious* issues that probally aren't related to the brand of the processor.
Shadus<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by shadus on 11/07/03 01:17 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
One thing I can guarentee, you had the intel system pooched (accidently) in some manor. Neither of those systems had *any* reason to be lagging in either of those games for any reason. I can vouch for that because my 2.2/1g ram sitting on my desk here doesn't lag in either of those games with all the settings turned up.
The intel may have been showing the effects of one of two bugs additionally, 1) The LL ram issue (which is usually a stability issue not base speed) 2) >1 GB Ram issue (its a lack of knowledge on configuration more than the ammount of ram.)
Frankly if you didn't take the time to try to figure out what was causing the discrepancy was or if you base all of your results off of one test in a single build, you are not a competant benchmarker.
As part of my standard build I generally run PCMark and 3DMark01/03. Honestly if I ever saw a result that far off what everyone else was observing or had a result that indicated anything even similar to that, I would be telling the buyer that I would need an extra day or two to verify everything was functioning correctly in the system. Then I'd be tearing the system apart and rebuilding it and doing some reading online to see if anyone else is experiencing similar problems. I've had to do it 3 times now when the numbers came up *very* wrong. I had an intel system that was benching about 40% under what it should have been with the hardware in it, turned out to be a bad ram chip. I had 2 amd machines that was benching funny which was resolved by updating to the newest drivers for the board (asus nforce2 chipset) for one and I never did figure out what caused the other one, after replacing each and every component it was still doing it. I reformated and it went poof and everything was normal.
I've built 15+ P4 C varient computers so far since they were released from the 2.4 all the way up to a 3.2 (wish it was mine). I've built at least 25+ amd computers since then also and the benchmarks remain very consistant for the most part, a few points here and there.
Consistantly, I'm seeing higher framerates in Q3A, UT2K3, RTCW, AC2, and SWG on the intel based systems (I only know those programs because I see them frequently installed on both intel and amd-- the group of people most of my sales come from are roleplayers and computer geeks for the most part. My numbers and framerates seem pretty on par with most every other person on this forum and with all of the review sites on the web that don't have "amd" or "intel" in the title.
The fact of the matter is simple, your results are extremely off kilter with most other peoples. Most people in this forum, most review sites, and mine. Does it mean you are absolutely positively wrong? No. We could potentially all be misconfiguring our amd systems and you just got the magic touch or an insider piece of info no one else knows. However, at the minimum it should make you sit back and really seriously check everything out on the intel and do some benchies on the games you play again.
In the end, I state again what my base opinion of that is-- neither of those systems should have lagged at all for any reason with that hardware (even though the vid card was a bit on the low end for high end systems.)
Edit: Oh yah, and my 2.2ghz ain't running any game but DS/Diablo at less than 1024x768 and generally 1280x1024. Any modern computer that is lagging at 800x600 is having *serious* issues that probally aren't related to the brand of the processor.
Shadus<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by shadus on 11/07/03 01:17 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
shadus
Distinguished
- Apr 16, 2003
- 2,067
- 0
- 19,790
> THIS IS THE LAST POST I WILL MAKE OR REPLY TO!!
> on this topic. If you want to use a personnel
> computer to game with get AMD CPU's it's not a
> contest at all.
Which proves that you don't actually want to have to stand behind anything you've said. Nice try. Unfortunetly for you the vast number of people on the boards here are very computer literate and your results are NOT what any of us are seeing who build our own pcs and build pcs for others.
Shadus
> on this topic. If you want to use a personnel
> computer to game with get AMD CPU's it's not a
> contest at all.
Which proves that you don't actually want to have to stand behind anything you've said. Nice try. Unfortunetly for you the vast number of people on the boards here are very computer literate and your results are NOT what any of us are seeing who build our own pcs and build pcs for others.
Shadus
SoDNighthawk
Splendid
- Nov 6, 2003
- 3,542
- 0
- 22,780
Sigh** Shad both systems had all of the latest drivers installed they were both run stock out of the box, the point I am trying to make and you answered it your self is if a person goes into a retail store like Staples Business Depot or any other retailer an buys a computer system.
They get exactly what was used to run the tests.
You keep arguing about updates and drivers and overclocking etc.
NONE of that applies to what was being explained.
The Intel CPU performs poorly even after all its software drivers were updated.
Both systems were debugged fully and both systems were set to run the test games equally. Both games were chosen because they run the same game engines that both have proved difficult for home users to run. We did not use games that were easy on systems what would be the point.
The fact that the Intel chip failed in so many ways is the example we are trying to show. You your self know all the problems with the Intel chips so why in retrospect talk about them.
I used an Intel Chip that was a higher rating out of the box then the Barton chip because its all we had on the shelf we did not have a 2.6c and the AMD chip still functioned and out performed the Intel system.
What more can be said... the Intel chips do not perform for games they are designed as everyone knows for Business applications.
Just as a little upset to your folly here Shad I built personally over 50 computer systems for people for Christmas alone last year so they would be under the tree. I do not build systems every day because I own the place.
Do not argue with people in the business we know all the pros and cons of the industry or we would go broke.
Here is another thing I need you to think about Shad the Public released Intel chips handle comfortably around 20 to 30 Peripheral devices such as printers USB accessories Digital cards etc.
It would amaze you to know that Intel chips used by the Military can handle hundreds, just imagine a modern day jet fighter now imagine the hundreds of hardware devices that detect damage to the air frame over 100's of various locations on the plane.
Do you think they fly 500 CPU's up in that bird no they don't either. Intel chips if certain traces are added or removed during the manufacturing stages of the wafers can handle 100's of extra hardware devices imputed through them.
In various examples the AMD chips can too but they build primarily for the Public's computers. Since AMD is dedicated solely to the public and not a military role you will get great performance from those chips.
The Intel chips you dream about you will never see because those go to a military function.
They get exactly what was used to run the tests.
You keep arguing about updates and drivers and overclocking etc.
NONE of that applies to what was being explained.
The Intel CPU performs poorly even after all its software drivers were updated.
Both systems were debugged fully and both systems were set to run the test games equally. Both games were chosen because they run the same game engines that both have proved difficult for home users to run. We did not use games that were easy on systems what would be the point.
The fact that the Intel chip failed in so many ways is the example we are trying to show. You your self know all the problems with the Intel chips so why in retrospect talk about them.
I used an Intel Chip that was a higher rating out of the box then the Barton chip because its all we had on the shelf we did not have a 2.6c and the AMD chip still functioned and out performed the Intel system.
What more can be said... the Intel chips do not perform for games they are designed as everyone knows for Business applications.
Just as a little upset to your folly here Shad I built personally over 50 computer systems for people for Christmas alone last year so they would be under the tree. I do not build systems every day because I own the place.
Do not argue with people in the business we know all the pros and cons of the industry or we would go broke.
Here is another thing I need you to think about Shad the Public released Intel chips handle comfortably around 20 to 30 Peripheral devices such as printers USB accessories Digital cards etc.
It would amaze you to know that Intel chips used by the Military can handle hundreds, just imagine a modern day jet fighter now imagine the hundreds of hardware devices that detect damage to the air frame over 100's of various locations on the plane.
Do you think they fly 500 CPU's up in that bird no they don't either. Intel chips if certain traces are added or removed during the manufacturing stages of the wafers can handle 100's of extra hardware devices imputed through them.
In various examples the AMD chips can too but they build primarily for the Public's computers. Since AMD is dedicated solely to the public and not a military role you will get great performance from those chips.
The Intel chips you dream about you will never see because those go to a military function.
shadus
Distinguished
- Apr 16, 2003
- 2,067
- 0
- 19,790
> They get exactly what was used to run the tests.
Wrong. They don't get a system setup by a non-professional who doesn't know how to fix what was most likely a minor issue. Compaq, HP, Dell, Gateway, hell even E-Machine, puts *ALOT* of time into testing and verifying that the hardware is all fuctioning at the levels it should be. Regardless of who made the processor for the machine. Fact is, any competent computer person who builds pcs for a living puts alot of time into either testing each individual configuration they sell or each individual pc and preferably both.
Where did I mention overclocking again (Other than to exclude it)? Do you or can you read?
Yawn. Like I said, provide proof, show me benchmarks, show me exact numbers give me bios settings and configurations, show me collaborating evidence anywhere else other than that one single test you claim to have done which NO SITE EVER has had results even similar to (even the sites with "amd" in the title.)
The fact is, Intel chips are designed to perform in all applications just like amd chips. Due to differences in philo and monetary issues they have some design differences like amd having better ipc and much lower mhz. Intel tends to even the ground by applying more monetary solutions like increasing mhz, cache, and raising fsb. In the case of the recent bartons, and I doubt there are many people other than you who would dispute it, amd pr rating is overdone. They're at LEAST 200pr off of what they should be listed at to compare with intel chips (which amd says isn't what the pr rating is supposed to mean.) A 2800+ is beaten almost always by a p4 2.4c, a 3000+ is beaten almost always by a 2.6c, a 3200+ is beaten almost always by a 2.8c, and the 3.0c and 3.2c aren't matched by anything in the current barton line (however the AMD64 does nicely beat them in many cases). Like I said, unless you are magic and pretty much every single site across the entire net is dead wrong about it, you misconfigured your intel machine. I've seen it done to intel and I've seen it done to amd. It doesn't matter, misconfigured is misconfigured. Even claiming to be a computer tech and accepting a result like that as "normal" is ignorant.
I am in the business moron, what part of "I build pc's for a living" don't you understand? I keep current with the technology by building the pcs myself (which it appears you may need to spend some time doing-- because your concepts and ideas are current to about a year or two ago, nothing real world high end today), working with technology is part of almost everything I do, being a programmer, being an admin, being a gamer. My actual day job is all contract work. I've been moving to living just off my pc sales now for over 2 years and my business is growing everyday becuase the people who come to me either A) Know exactly what they want and I build it to perform as best the hardware can regardless of how I feel about the particular parts (like a fx5200) B) I recommend things if I think something might work better, but if they don't want it I do what they asked for, C) I stay up to date on pretty much everything happening in the computer industry, I do that by reading forums, reading sites, benchmarking pc's as I build them, and testing the newest hardware I can find, people know I won't try to sell them a system that does a massive ammount more than what they need and I won't try to convince them something inadaquete will do more than it can. People rely on my judgement because I'm honest, very good at what I do, and my prices are reasonable.
Based on what you've said and shown here I don't believe you've ever honestly put togeather more than 5 systems in your entire life.
As for the rest, there is so much bullshit there I refuse to even try to figure out what is a half truth, quarter truth, and what is just flat out made up. What you posted is a perfect example of showing how little of a concept you have about even what individual compoents do. You know absolutely nothing and that crap you spouted is just the conclusive proof.
Shadus<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by shadus on 11/07/03 02:53 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
Wrong. They don't get a system setup by a non-professional who doesn't know how to fix what was most likely a minor issue. Compaq, HP, Dell, Gateway, hell even E-Machine, puts *ALOT* of time into testing and verifying that the hardware is all fuctioning at the levels it should be. Regardless of who made the processor for the machine. Fact is, any competent computer person who builds pcs for a living puts alot of time into either testing each individual configuration they sell or each individual pc and preferably both.
Where did I mention overclocking again (Other than to exclude it)? Do you or can you read?
Yawn. Like I said, provide proof, show me benchmarks, show me exact numbers give me bios settings and configurations, show me collaborating evidence anywhere else other than that one single test you claim to have done which NO SITE EVER has had results even similar to (even the sites with "amd" in the title.)
The fact is, Intel chips are designed to perform in all applications just like amd chips. Due to differences in philo and monetary issues they have some design differences like amd having better ipc and much lower mhz. Intel tends to even the ground by applying more monetary solutions like increasing mhz, cache, and raising fsb. In the case of the recent bartons, and I doubt there are many people other than you who would dispute it, amd pr rating is overdone. They're at LEAST 200pr off of what they should be listed at to compare with intel chips (which amd says isn't what the pr rating is supposed to mean.) A 2800+ is beaten almost always by a p4 2.4c, a 3000+ is beaten almost always by a 2.6c, a 3200+ is beaten almost always by a 2.8c, and the 3.0c and 3.2c aren't matched by anything in the current barton line (however the AMD64 does nicely beat them in many cases). Like I said, unless you are magic and pretty much every single site across the entire net is dead wrong about it, you misconfigured your intel machine. I've seen it done to intel and I've seen it done to amd. It doesn't matter, misconfigured is misconfigured. Even claiming to be a computer tech and accepting a result like that as "normal" is ignorant.
I am in the business moron, what part of "I build pc's for a living" don't you understand? I keep current with the technology by building the pcs myself (which it appears you may need to spend some time doing-- because your concepts and ideas are current to about a year or two ago, nothing real world high end today), working with technology is part of almost everything I do, being a programmer, being an admin, being a gamer. My actual day job is all contract work. I've been moving to living just off my pc sales now for over 2 years and my business is growing everyday becuase the people who come to me either A) Know exactly what they want and I build it to perform as best the hardware can regardless of how I feel about the particular parts (like a fx5200) B) I recommend things if I think something might work better, but if they don't want it I do what they asked for, C) I stay up to date on pretty much everything happening in the computer industry, I do that by reading forums, reading sites, benchmarking pc's as I build them, and testing the newest hardware I can find, people know I won't try to sell them a system that does a massive ammount more than what they need and I won't try to convince them something inadaquete will do more than it can. People rely on my judgement because I'm honest, very good at what I do, and my prices are reasonable.
Based on what you've said and shown here I don't believe you've ever honestly put togeather more than 5 systems in your entire life.
As for the rest, there is so much bullshit there I refuse to even try to figure out what is a half truth, quarter truth, and what is just flat out made up. What you posted is a perfect example of showing how little of a concept you have about even what individual compoents do. You know absolutely nothing and that crap you spouted is just the conclusive proof.
Shadus<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by shadus on 11/07/03 02:53 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
SoDNighthawk
Splendid
- Nov 6, 2003
- 3,542
- 0
- 22,780
As in reply in retrospect to your problem with Ti 4200 Graphics cards used. They have proven them selves as very stable platforms and out of the box provide robust in game performance. The FX 5900 Ultra we have been having problems with. I generally sell to the public Raidion Cards but that is because the plant is a 2 hour drive from where I live in Canada and I have walked the plant floor.
I worked for 17 years in the electronic industry from JDS to Nortel Networks there is very little I have not done in Electronics or fibre Optics.
You also claim that you have no problems running any or most of your games at 1024x768 and any computer lagging at 800x600 has serious problems. Well that is not true as we all have read that you have had to tweak bang clone and overclock your system.
Again the idea of the testing was to prove that out of the box the AMD chips will provide a better game platform then the Intel chips.
I will not sell the Intel system we built to a gamer and it will be sold as a business computer.
The AMD system will go to my nephew because it will be a Christmas present and he plays MechWarrior online.
I am going to tweak the heck out of the AMD system so it performs even better then it did in the test but the Intel System goes on the shelf as a stable and insurable computer for a business applications.
I worked for 17 years in the electronic industry from JDS to Nortel Networks there is very little I have not done in Electronics or fibre Optics.
You also claim that you have no problems running any or most of your games at 1024x768 and any computer lagging at 800x600 has serious problems. Well that is not true as we all have read that you have had to tweak bang clone and overclock your system.
Again the idea of the testing was to prove that out of the box the AMD chips will provide a better game platform then the Intel chips.
I will not sell the Intel system we built to a gamer and it will be sold as a business computer.
The AMD system will go to my nephew because it will be a Christmas present and he plays MechWarrior online.
I am going to tweak the heck out of the AMD system so it performs even better then it did in the test but the Intel System goes on the shelf as a stable and insurable computer for a business applications.
shadus
Distinguished
- Apr 16, 2003
- 2,067
- 0
- 19,790
> tweak bang clone and overclock your system.
What the fsck is tweak bang clone and overclock your system?
Tweak my system? Oh yes. Every computer I have ever built, amd or intel. Anyone who isn't tweaking their system isn't getting even part of the performance. Tweaking != overclocking and if you think it does, it further demostrates your incompetance. I think perhaps you are g5_inside. You both spout the same style of bullshit and avoid any real issue you bring up by trying to walk out on a side unrelated item. Idiots. Fanboys. Trolls.
Mmmm Only 1h 15m till I can go home and do something entertaining, I had hoped by your early posts you were someone with a clue who would be interesting to debate with instead of someone who was just going to make up crap that everyone knows is bullshit.
Edit: See what I get for having unrealistic expectations? *sigh*
Shadus<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by shadus on 11/07/03 03:16 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
What the fsck is tweak bang clone and overclock your system?
Tweak my system? Oh yes. Every computer I have ever built, amd or intel. Anyone who isn't tweaking their system isn't getting even part of the performance. Tweaking != overclocking and if you think it does, it further demostrates your incompetance. I think perhaps you are g5_inside. You both spout the same style of bullshit and avoid any real issue you bring up by trying to walk out on a side unrelated item. Idiots. Fanboys. Trolls.
Mmmm Only 1h 15m till I can go home and do something entertaining, I had hoped by your early posts you were someone with a clue who would be interesting to debate with instead of someone who was just going to make up crap that everyone knows is bullshit.
Edit: See what I get for having unrealistic expectations? *sigh*
Shadus<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by shadus on 11/07/03 03:16 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
SoDNighthawk
Splendid
- Nov 6, 2003
- 3,542
- 0
- 22,780
Who is G_5 Inside and here is the problem apparent I just signed into the Tom's Hardware Guide a few days ago.
You seem to keep missing the point, you still talk about overclocking your system it would surprise you to know that 90% of the population are simply users they don't have a clue how to do what you do or what we know.
The test was simply to show what a home user gets when he gets his new box home.
On the whole without any alterations to an operating system a person that proly doesn't even know what CPU they purchased will be provided better performance on a computer using an AMD CPU.
As far as this G-5 guy goes he has obviously stepped on your toe's so I will clarify my Identity for you and you can apply that to whom ever G_5 is if you know anything relevant about him.
I live in Ottawa Canada slightly outside of it in Kanata. You know where the Ottawa Senators Hockey club has its hockey rink the Palladium. Pink and ugly it fills up a whole field that used to be farm land..........Also where 25% of Canada's high tech industry is.
You seem to keep missing the point, you still talk about overclocking your system it would surprise you to know that 90% of the population are simply users they don't have a clue how to do what you do or what we know.
The test was simply to show what a home user gets when he gets his new box home.
On the whole without any alterations to an operating system a person that proly doesn't even know what CPU they purchased will be provided better performance on a computer using an AMD CPU.
As far as this G-5 guy goes he has obviously stepped on your toe's so I will clarify my Identity for you and you can apply that to whom ever G_5 is if you know anything relevant about him.
I live in Ottawa Canada slightly outside of it in Kanata. You know where the Ottawa Senators Hockey club has its hockey rink the Palladium. Pink and ugly it fills up a whole field that used to be farm land..........Also where 25% of Canada's high tech industry is.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Question I’m going to build a budget pc these are the specs open to advice the budget is £500
- Started by NotSure25
- Replies: 4
-
Question should i put the new 3050 lp in a sff hp g3?- Started by jordanbuilds1
- Replies: 12
-
-
News Chinese may be evading Nvidia GPU sanctions with Dell, Gigabyte, and Supermicro servers: Report- Started by Admin
- Replies: 4
-
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 3K
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram