[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]No offense, but you're an idiot. Look at the benchmarks of the Pentium 4 at 1.5 GHz versus the Pentium III at 1 GHz. Pentium 4 easily wins, and that's the speed it was released at. It also grew to 2 GHz, Pentium III got to 1.1 GHz on that same technology.[/citation]
You appear foolish for calling me idiot right off the bat. Perhaps there is a matter of opinion or incorrect information as its been 12 years since intel pooped out the P4. AMD had won the 1Ghz CPU title and Intel designed the P4 for SPEED to race for 2Ghz, which didn’t matter since it was still slower than AMD in general.
Netburst was always crap, and until they moved off Socket 423 (a screw the customer socket) and new chips – the priceperformance of the P4 was crap. Intel themselves pushed the P4 telling people to buy it today as it will get better in the future, never mind ZERO upgrade path.
For general work and gaming with Windows98 (the dominate OS at that time), the PIII was as fast or faster for a much lower price in many areas. Yes, the P4 killed anything when encoding MP3, raytracing… that’s it.
[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]RDRAM was faster than DDR, and costed the same by the time Intel moved away from RDRAM. Simple as that. It didn't really go away.By the time RDRAM went away, DDR was not cheaper. They were very close in price. RDRAM was faster, though. [/citation]
It should have been faster, but the latency of RD-RAM killed the performance (just like the latency of Netburst and AMD’s Bulldozer) By the time RD-RAM reached acceptable pricing, it was already dead and faster DDR was on the market. But I did something YOU did not, I went back in time as THIS website and Anandtech has a long history of articles.
I checked reviews comparing RD-RAM/etc. First thou – Lets remember that 512MB of RD-RAM costs about $300~400 more than 512MB of SDR/DDR memory.
Content creation: (P4 1.5Ghz)
58.2 = RD-RAM
58.0 = DDR (VIA Chipset)
52.7 = SDR-RAM (i845) {because of latency, it was suspected that intel has crippled the i845 so its not competitive against the i850/RD-RAM}
Office Productivity: (P4 1.5Ghz)
140 = RD-RAM
134 = DDR (VIA Chipset)
131 = SDR-RAM (i845)
Office Bench 2001 (P4 1.5Ghz / Time in Seconds – lower = better)
23.07 = RD-RAM
23.24 = DDR (VIA Chipset) {again, slightly slower that cant be noticed by a human}
33.07 = SDR-RAM (i845)
3D Studio MAX R4.02 {time in minutes / lower = better}
22.22 = RD-RAM
22.75 = DDR (VIA Chipset)
23.15 = SDR-RAM (i845)
3DAquaMark (640x480)
39.2 = RD-RAM
40.7 = DDR (VIA Chipset)
34.0 = SDR-RAM (i845)
Lets compare games : UT99 (640x480) FPS (higher is better)
110 = AMD Athlon 1.2GHz
100 = P4 1.5 GHz (i850 board w/RD-RAM)
100 = AMD 1.0 GHz
098 = P3 1.0 GHz (i815 board)
098 = P4 1.4 GHz (i850 board w/RD-RAM)
094 = P3 1.0 GHz (i820 board w/SD-RAM)
Expendable (640x480) in FPS
124 = AMD Athlon 1.2GHz
111 = AMD 1.0 GHz
101 = P3 1.0 GHz (i840 board w/RD-RAM)
098 = P3 1.0 GHz (i815 board)
097 = P3 1.0 GHz (i820 board w/SD-RAM)
094 = P4 1.5 GHz (i850 board w/RD-RAM)
088 = P4 1.4 GHz (i850 board w/RD-RAM)
SYSMark 2000 benchmark
245 = AMD Athlon 1.2GHz
233 = P3 1.0 GHz (i815 board)
221 = AMD 1.0 GHz
213 = P4 1.5 GHz
204 = P3 1.0 GHz (i820 board w/RS-RAM)
203 = P4 1.4 GHz
These numbers show (A) the P4 sucked coming out of the gate. It was a VERY expensive chip with VERY expensive memory that did NOT blow the much cheaper P3 or AMD out of the water… in many cases; it was at the bottom of the pack. Yeah, once the P4 hit 2.0Ghz, it was faster than any P3… (B) Gaming/bottom benchmarks: The AMD and P3 (815) came with SD-RAM, the P4’s with RD-RAM PC800. Which SHOWS that the P4 with RD-RAM was slower than the SD-RAM systems in many cases, especially with AMDs.
Yes, RD-RAM has 2-4x the memory bandwidth over any of the P3/AMD SD-RAM systems, but in the real world, the latency built into RD-RAM and Netburst negated all the gains.
[citation][nom]TA152H[/nom]i815 was a great chipset? Do you know anything? It was slower than the BX, and constrained to 512MB. It was decent, but not great. It was outperformed by the i840 ~~ You're also wrong in a later post about the i840 and i820. The MTH could be used on both chipsets, and the i820 was not an i840 with it. Please, stop being an ignorant expert.[/citation]
Yes, the 815 was a great Chipset, intel made 6 versions of that set. It completely outsold their 820/840 chipsets. It’s the only they had that competed against the VIA chipsets.
Again, I use data and experience for my opinions. Look at this old Tom’s article:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/beefed-bx,207.html (I’ve been coming to this sight since before it became TomsHardware as it started out as a Voodoo/Graphics site)
The wonderful BX chipset was quite old and not designed for the newer PIII CPUs, the board makers manage to OC the chipsets and pushed them to the limits. BX lacked AGP 4X. BX lacked native USB and 133Mhz memory. OC the AGP bus on the BX was problematic.
BX was on par with the 815, 1-2% faster or slower depending on the game/application.
Wow, 512MB was a problem? What year are we talking about? Oh yeah, 2000! The main OS sold at that time was Windows98se. Anything more than 512MB on Win9X was a waste. Typical systems had 128mb, maybe 256 if they were a power user. Cost of 128mb back then was about $100.
WinXP didn’t start to take hold until 2002 (released NOV 2001) and 256mb was the minimal a WinXP should have, but 512MB was fine for many users. By 2002, AMD and P4 support for DDR2 was standard with boards that supported 2GB (i845x)… by the 815 memory limitations was NOT an issue since it was an Win9x tech released in 2000. As I showed above, the 815 was is faster than the 820(SD-RAM) and sometimes faster than the 840 – but overall, minor.
So again, only an idiot would buy RD-RAM for the Pentium 3 platform. RD-RAM deserved to die and RAMBUS as a company deserves to be out of business. RD-RAM = fail and they deserved it because it was crap technology.