Athlon 64 vs Pentium 4

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 19:17:28 -0400, "Moderately Confused"
<moderatelyconfused@Y@hoo.com> wrote:

>
>"Stephen Gordon" <s4054252@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
>news:cfc8rh$mb7$1@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
>> Hi,
>>
>> I had a look at those benchmarks and it seems as soon as you put the
>> resolution up the Athlon 64s drop nearly 20fps while the Intel ones seem
>> to drop a much smaller amount.
>>
>> This seems to indicate that the Athlon 64s don't perform very well when
>> you put them under any real pressure.
>>
>> -Steve
>
>Bingo, I said that in another post. He ended up disputing something else I
>said...


AS much as I hate to agree with JK, it is true that this is an
indication of video card bottlenecks, not CPU performance.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 19:14:23 -0400, "Moderately Confused"
<moderatelyconfused@Y@hoo.com> wrote:


>> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=1
>
>Stop comparing apples to oranges. You can't compare a 64 bit processor to a
>32 bit processor. It's like comparing the gas mileage in an electric hybrid
>car and a regular combustion engine. When Intel comes out with their own 64
>bit processor, than you can start with the whole benchmark thing.

Reread the linked article, 64 bit is irrelevant as it wasn't
doing anything 64 bit. It is true that eventually Intel will
also have higher performance CPUs, but then so will AMD... world
keeps spinning...

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

> be compared that way? Of course 64 bit is going to be better than 32 bit.

For what? -Dave

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"~misfit~" <misfit61nz@yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote in message
news:IJySc.12148$N77.533897@news.xtra.co.nz...
> JK wrote:
> > kony wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 22:18:12 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Overclocking is not recommended if you want a stable system.
> >>
> >> Nonsense
> >> There are instable o'c systems but instable non-o'c systems too.
> >>
> >> If someone is ignorant of how to o'c, then of course they
> >> shouldn't... same goes for driving a car but it's not an argument
> >> against someone else driving a car.
> >
> > It is an argument for not driving a car above the speed limit.
>
> Your analogy is flawed. OCing a CPU, if being compared to a car, isn't
like
> breaking the speed limit, it's like hotting it up. You know, big bore
> exhaust, high compression heads, Nox (NO2) kit, increase bore/stroke,
> turbocharging, balance the crankshaft/pistons/con rods. That sort of
thing.

No. OCing a CPU is like taking a STOCK car and never running the engine
BELOW redline. You are doing something with the car that it was not
designed to do. And yes, it will be fast, until the engine and all other
mechanical components give out on you. THAT is what OCing a CPU is,
exactly. -Dave

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

<BIG SNIP>
Lol dude I just bought a P4 2.8E. I could have forked out the extra cash
for the 3.2, the only difference? They are actually the same EXACT
processor die. The only difference is that when they are manufactured at
the factory, whatever part of the CPU that does the reporting to the board
is different so it reports it to set as a 3.2. So OC'ing a 2.8e to a 3.2 is
actually only setting the chip to what it was originally set to do in the
first place! I don't have to up my core voltage, just my FSB settings.
Funny how that works huh? Like my video card as well, an ATI X800 Pro ViVO
Sapphire. It is actually the same chip that is in the X800XT, they just
didn't connect the extra 4 pipelines. They are there, they just didn't
connect them in the manufacturering process. So I get the card, pop off the
Heatsink, using a conductive pen I connect the extra 4 pipelinesand
suddenly, BAM I have gone from a X800 Pro to an X800XT. 12 pipelines to 16.
Running at what the chip WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED TO DO! Most lower end
hardware these days is just higher end hardware that has not had the "extra"
stuff that makes it so, connected. So OC'ing my stuff actually on got it to
run at what it was originally designed for. Funny how that works isn't it?

-Chris

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 04:40:11 -0400, "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net>
wrote:


>> Your analogy is flawed. OCing a CPU, if being compared to a car, isn't
>like
>> breaking the speed limit, it's like hotting it up. You know, big bore
>> exhaust, high compression heads, Nox (NO2) kit, increase bore/stroke,
>> turbocharging, balance the crankshaft/pistons/con rods. That sort of
>thing.
>
>No. OCing a CPU is like taking a STOCK car and never running the engine
>BELOW redline.


Who said anything about running it THAT far at the borderline?
Sure if you're a masochist you can destroy anything, but it would
have to either be a goal or be done quite recklessly, just like
anything else.

It is more similar to a german shipping over a Corvette for
driving on the autobahn, then finding there is a governor
restricting it to 80MPH, so they alter the artifical limiter to
reach it's full potential.

>You are doing something with the car that it was not
>designed to do.

>And yes, it will be fast, until the engine and all other
>mechanical components give out on you. THAT is what OCing a CPU is,
>exactly. -Dave

Grand theory, but where are those stacks of dead CPUs?
There MUST be stacks and stacks of 'em, because quite a few
people o'c and have CPU that've ran that way for years. How many
years should we wait to see if the CPU died? In a previous post
I mentioned an example of Celeron 300 o'c to 450... those are
about 8 years old now, do we need to get 10-20 years out of a
Celeron 300? Possibly on a space station that would be
important, but back on the mother planet that Celeron 300 is not
going to die before the motherboard, power supply, video card,
etc, to the extent that odds are very high the rest of the system
will be dead before CPU died, so it was abandoned due to no
platform to run it. Running a celeron @ 450 can't be argued as a
significant cause of motherboard or power supply failure since it
wasn't as much of power or heat problem as it's predecessors
running at stock speed on same platform(s).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

kony wrote:

> On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 04:40:11 -0400, "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>>Your analogy is flawed. OCing a CPU, if being compared to a car, isn't
>>
>>like
>>
>>>breaking the speed limit, it's like hotting it up. You know, big bore
>>>exhaust, high compression heads, Nox (NO2) kit, increase bore/stroke,
>>>turbocharging, balance the crankshaft/pistons/con rods. That sort of
>>
>>thing.
>>
>>No. OCing a CPU is like taking a STOCK car and never running the engine
>>BELOW redline.
>
>
>
> Who said anything about running it THAT far at the borderline?
> Sure if you're a masochist you can destroy anything, but it would
> have to either be a goal or be done quite recklessly, just like
> anything else.
>
> It is more similar to a german shipping over a Corvette for
> driving on the autobahn, then finding there is a governor
> restricting it to 80MPH, so they alter the artifical limiter to
> reach it's full potential.
>
>
>>You are doing something with the car that it was not
>>designed to do.
>
>
>>And yes, it will be fast, until the engine and all other
>>mechanical components give out on you. THAT is what OCing a CPU is,
>>exactly. -Dave
>
>
> Grand theory, but where are those stacks of dead CPUs?
> There MUST be stacks and stacks of 'em, because quite a few
> people o'c and have CPU that've ran that way for years. How many
> years should we wait to see if the CPU died? In a previous post
> I mentioned an example of Celeron 300 o'c to 450... those are
> about 8 years old now, do we need to get 10-20 years out of a
> Celeron 300? Possibly on a space station that would be
> important, but back on the mother planet that Celeron 300 is not
> going to die before the motherboard, power supply, video card,
> etc, to the extent that odds are very high the rest of the system
> will be dead before CPU died, so it was abandoned due to no
> platform to run it. Running a celeron @ 450 can't be argued as a
> significant cause of motherboard or power supply failure since it
> wasn't as much of power or heat problem as it's predecessors
> running at stock speed on same platform(s).

Yes. My BP6, running dual 300As overclocked to 495, began life with NT4
server but is still going strong today as my 24/7 internet/LAN server
running Win2000.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

> > That is not true. The Athlon 64 3200+ will beat the P4 3ghz Prescott
> > in most benchmarks.
> >
> > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=1
>
> Stop comparing apples to oranges. You can't compare a 64 bit processor to
a
> 32 bit processor. It's like comparing the gas mileage in an electric
hybrid
> car and a regular combustion engine. When Intel comes out with their own
64
> bit processor, than you can start with the whole benchmark thing.

A processor is a processor... If a 64bit CPU can beat a 32bit CPU and cost
the same as the 32bit then it's obviously better and the one to choose (as
long as the rest of the platform doesn't drive up the price - final cost is
the main issue)

When comparing anything, it's price to performance that counts, regardless
of technology. (Performance here also includes durability/quality as well).
The biggest/fastest/etc isn't always the winner if a cheaper solution will
still get the job done.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

> > Also, why can't you compare gas mileage in the Civic gas to the Civic
> > hybrid, or any other comparable car?
>
> Ok, maybe that was a bad example, but why compare something that shouldn't
> be compared that way? Of course 64 bit is going to be better than 32 bit.
> Maybe it's like comparing a screwdriver to a cordless drill?

Because they both do the same job. If the 64bit works better and costs the
same, why would you get the 32bit?

....and have you ever had a cordless drill, dead battery and noplace to plug
in? That 49 cent screwdriver is sure worth a lot more at that point!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

"Dave C." wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
> No. OCing a CPU is like taking a STOCK car and never running the
> engine BELOW redline. You are doing something with the car that
> it was not designed to do. And yes, it will be fast, until the
> engine and all other mechanical components give out on you. THAT
> is what OCing a CPU is, exactly. -Dave

It depends on your objectives. Mine is reliability and data
integrity, with a loud and instantaneous complaint when any error
occurs. For people who don't care about that, and really just
want to play games, overclocking may be a fairly cheap way of
improving performance. Meanwhile I recommend none of it, ECC,
languages with strong typing and error detection, open-source
programs, etc.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

kony wrote:
>
>
> AS much as I hate to agree with JK, it is true that this is an
> indication of video card bottlenecks, not CPU performance.
>

As I;ve already pointed out elsewhere in the thread in that case what's
the point of spending so much on a fast CPU if you can't possibly get a
GFX card to match it?

-Steve

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Stephen Gordon wrote:

> kony wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> AS much as I hate to agree with JK, it is true that this is an
>> indication of video card bottlenecks, not CPU performance.
>
>
> As I;ve already pointed out elsewhere in the thread in that case what's
> the point of spending so much on a fast CPU if you can't possibly get a
> GFX card to match it?
>
> -Steve

I suspect there may be uses for PCs other than playing games.