ATHLON 64 2.8 GHZ reviewed

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Yeah only thing is that it would be a A64-FX65 or whatever.
I aint saying THG did the right thing by putting the 3.6 but 400mhz higher for a P4 aint that much compared to 800mhz for the A64. Ims ure we wont see 2.8A64 b4 a good while.
Im sure you would find a way to make Intel cpu not look as good pooopy gj
 
Theres a small problem with your math, poopy.

3.6 GHz / 3.2 GHz = 1.125, a 12.5% overclock.

2.8 GHz / 2.2 GHz = 1.273, a 27.3% overclock.

I hope you realize the stupidity of comparing a sky-high overclocked A64 to a moderately overclocked P4EE? A more accurate comparision to the 3.6 P4EE would be a 2.4-2.5 GHz A64 FX.
 
Here's your biggest problem: The conclusion was P4 3.2EE wins 32 benchmarks, FX-51 wins 15 benchmarks. No mention of the 3.6EE in the conclusion. So the inclusion of non-existing processors had no effect on the outcome.

Of course you'll lie and say otherwise to protect your closed viewpoint.

As to why they put the 3.6EE and 3.4EE benchmarks in there, your guess is as good as mine. Wait, no it insn't, you see conspiracies everywhere.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
 
Still, it makes reading the graphs a little bit harder to include the overclocked processors. It psychologically makes one think that the P4EE has a 20% adavantage when that's not the case. I would prefer if THG did a separate review comparing Overclocking performance.

I'm also wondering which of these Processors or going ot offer the best bang for buck. There's no doubt in my mind for those who already have an i865 board that the 3.2 GHz P4EE edition would offer the best value for your money. But in reality, none of the processors can be considered "value" processors yet.

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!
 
Do they ever agree? Tom's couldn't get the Abit IS7 or IC7 to perform with the best 865/875 boards, but everyone else did. I think it boils down to specific configurations, including software. I've looked at various sites, and the P4 3.2EE wins more benches overall then it looses to the FX-51, but the difference isn't as large as seen at Tom's. Some sites show the FX-51 leading by a narrow margin, others show the P4 3.2EE leading by a narrow margin. Most of these sites have bought into the "new launch hype" and a small lead for the FX becomes a "slaughter", while a minor loss becomes a "tie", giving consideration towards future 64-bit programming.

Personally, I wouldn't buy either. Too expensive. And I haven't seen the A64-3200+ truely prove itself, so if I were interested, I'd wait a few weeks for the thing to mature.

As it is, I'm not in a rush to buy, been waiting 1.5 years. Since the early Prescott will be using mature platforms, I'll probably wait until at least that is released, and see how the A64 compares. Then I'll wait a bit longer for prices to drop. And then, I MIGHT make my purchasing decision.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
 
I agree completely with your asessment. I think the layout was completely wrong and the overclocked processors would have been folly for a separate article. Unless Intel is claiming the 3.4EE and 3.6EE are imediately forthcomming.

There were far too many configurations in this article. They should have only had 4 configurations, FX-51 using DDR400 (forget that registered DDR400 isn't on the market yet), the A64-3200+, the XP3200+, a P4 3.2C, and a P4 3.2EE.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
 
From what I understand the 940 pin A64 FX can only use Registered ECC RAM, the 939 pin version will be able to use plain DDR400...
 
Captain Obvious says crashman is right on the ball!

<b><font color=red>Captain Obvious To The Rescue!!!</font color=red></b>
 
Yes, I don't understand why THG posts just about every CPU made since the Barton 2500+ in that review. These reviews with 30 CPUs benchmarking each and every one are becoming completely nuts. I realize that they might be trying to show individual scaling analysis of CPUs but its not neccessary when the purpose of the benchmark at hand is to evaluate bleeding-edge technology. What would make more sense to me is to include like 1 or 2 popular models of each major core revisions. Like have 1 Pentium3, an Athlon Classic 800MHz, a TB 1333, a Williamette, a Northwood 1.6A, NW 2.4c, the previous flagship model from each company, and then the new stuff. The differences would be a broader representation of a larger range of currently owned CPUS rather then redundantly demonstrating the minute incremental increases in preformance from Xp 2500+, 2600+, 2800+. So many benchmarks to be run on all these, why test older CPUs that practicaly have nearly the same performance?

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!
 
That's what I've heard as well.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
 
I agree crashman. These darn cpu's are getting outrageously expensive for the performance they have, and as in the case of the a64 fx, the importance of conserving sockets is being lost by amd, further increasing future costs for consumers. ( i'm referring to the fact that the 940 socket will be replaced by a 939 pin model in a little while). Back to the subject though, I wonder how much the intel boys had to pay tom's this time to get their their paper launched chips into the comparison, I mean 3.6 ghz c'mon!

antec 350w psu
xp 2000
asus a7n8x deluxe
512mb pc2100
ati radeon 9500 pro
wd 80gb caviar special edition
16x dvd
creative megaworks 550
nec fe991sb-bk
 
I'm hoping the 939 pin processors will work in the 940 pin boards, for AMD's sake.

As for Tom's getting "paid off" to review a paper launched P4, I'll give you a choice: You're either paranoid or stupid. Since you seem to make sense, I'm guessing paranoid. You see, Tom's reviews whatever a manufacturer gives them. I can't defend the 3.6GHz overclocked test either, unless they can proove information that Intel plans on releasing such a monster in the retail channel within the next few weeks.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom