• Hey there, Guest! Share your idea for a new trophy in the forums and win bragging rights and a $100 Amazon gift card! Check out the New Community Trophy Contest here!
  • Pardon our dust as we work on some regularly scheduled forum maintenance. You may notice some missing features during this time. Thank you for your patience!

P4 2800Mhz! Intel just loves it!

grassapa

Distinguished
Jun 16, 2002
807
0
18,980
0
jeez.... Intel loves waiting for the right times dont they... They knew...they knew 2600+ XP was coming out. They can afford to wait since they have the fastest chip out there. But not AMD, AMD needs to get out his chips to be a bit more competitive. and just as we thought AMD got the throne... BAM! INTEL STRIKES BACK! Although we knew the new intel's were coming out soon, it was obviously not coincidence that it came out just a few days after AMD's flagship cpu's...Intel saw, came, and conquered. But some of the AMD overclocked chips didnt do bad...but I feel bad for AMD for having such a hard time...It happens every time.
But after all, price/performance crown goes to AMD... but still.... Its gonna be very hard for AMD. IMO, the only way that AMD can take over is as soon as Intel delays something or makes a mistake...that will be the AMD's chance to truly take the crown (at least for a few months) OR AMD comes out with something UBER COOL. We will see

Comments? Feelings? Let it all out here brother...

real philosophy of life: "do onto others what you dont want them do onto you"
 

castle

Distinguished
Apr 2, 2002
102
0
18,680
0
Maybe this is a little harsh, but: it was well known that Intel would announce 2.8G around or before Sept 1, but T-Bred 2600+ was a real surprise to everyone. It is therefore pretty clear that AMD tried to steal some thunder from Intel, not the other way around. It is also obvious to me that AMD paper launched 2600+ 5 days before a real announment of P4 2.8G so as not to be embarassed by Intel's 1G lead ahead itself: P4 2800- AXP 2200+ (1800M) =1G.
 

grassapa

Distinguished
Jun 16, 2002
807
0
18,980
0
you are right on the customer (which is most of us) side point of view. but you gotta know that sometimes release dates can change quickly. intel's chip was scheduled around or before sept 1. thats true, but they didnt specify EXACTly what day. that gives intel a little room to work for. Intel is not dumb, so they had their ways to know what day the 2600+ XP was going to released. IMO, i dont think AMD would dare steal thunder from intel b/c AMD knows that Intel can just beat them (in this case, 2800mhz). AMD has no other option but to release earlier. Remember, All this is my opinion so im not trying to start an argument. but because I have seen this (AMD vs Intel) (ATI vs NVIDIA) this kind of stuff happens a lot (where the powerful waits for the weak to release first) I concluded that Intel did the same again. Again, i might be wrong but you gotta admit that intel has done it before, and IT could be a possiblity that he did it again. We will never know what intel and amd knows about each company and "REAL" release dates. I dont think matisaro appreciated your retirement from his thread because his is the "ORIGINAL ARTICLE THREAD" but you made the right choice.

real philosophy of life: "do onto others what you dont want them do onto you"
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Editor
It's a shame. And it's not that AMD CAN'T compete at the top, but that they WON'T. That's what they said in a press release several months ago. They said they were aiming at the much larger midrange market.

<font color=blue>You're posting in a forum with class. It may be third class, but it's still class!</font color=blue>
 

shallowbaby

Distinguished
Apr 5, 2002
204
0
18,680
0
is it me or did the 'tom's blirp' thread disappeared.

<font color=green> there's more to life than increasing its speed -Ghandi</font color=green>
 

tersagun

Distinguished
Jul 18, 2001
268
0
18,780
0
Great news for you, huh?! You are very happy with it, right?
Probably you wanna AMD out of the race. I wanna see your face if AMD goes out of the market, and your lovely Intel doubles the prices. This is exatly what will happen if Intel stays alone.

<b>Before getting angry to the (d)evil, just think about who CREATED it!</b> :mad:
 

BananaSkin

Distinguished
Aug 26, 2002
11
0
18,510
0
Just read the article on the 2.8GHz P4 now while i really like THG for its impartial testing...and i do agree with the results that come out. Howvever I disagree with the way the data is obtained and presented. First of let me say I'm neither for or against Intel or AMD i just want the 'best' chip i can get for my (limited) budget.

Right now to my point...the 2.8GHz 133FSB P4 is the fastest CPU out at present, the results speak for themselves. What i disagree with is the way you compare P4s to Athlons. Granted the point of the article is to show which CPU is the fastest using the best kit each has to offer in a series of tests, however it the comparison part which i think is flawed.

My understanding in comparison tests is to compare similar products under similar conditions i.e. use the lowest common denominator. In yours P4 are tested with RD-RAM which is acknowledged to be 'superior' to DDR. Wouldn't a fairer test be to compare using the same memory type to maintain system parity during testing and then use RD-RAM to show what the optimum results would be for P4s. The way your article reads its skewed towards P4 by the way the tests are done. Let me just say again its not the results that bother me its the way then tests are done and presented.

Let me put it another way, compare the P4 with and without RD-RAM with the Athlon XP otherwise you are, whether you intend or not, presenting a biased view of P4s vs AXP.

Lets compare apples with apples and not apples and fruit salad.

Of a personal note, what i would like to see is an article which addresses the CPU clock speed issue. Would it be possible to re-rank your charts to compare similar speed CPUs from AMD and Intel so as to give comparison of clock speed vs performance. This would provide a more direct comparison of CPUs for even novices to understand.

All in all you website is still my favorite for PC news and Mr Pabst re: Tom's Blurb, don't let the b@$tards grind you down.

BananaSkin
 

grassapa

Distinguished
Jun 16, 2002
807
0
18,980
0
tersagun, you obviously didnt understand my article fully. Au contraire monsieur, i want amd so both companies can offer competitive chips at competitive prices. i even said that i felt bad for amd. please read my post carefully.

real philosophy of life: "do onto others what you dont want them do onto you"
 

tersagun

Distinguished
Jul 18, 2001
268
0
18,780
0
Sorry then, my English isn't so well. But i still feel you are soo happy that Intel is far in the lead now.

<b>Before getting angry to the (d)evil, just think about who CREATED it!</b> :mad:
 

grassapa

Distinguished
Jun 16, 2002
807
0
18,980
0
"but I feel bad for AMD for having such a hard time"

thats what i said.

real philosophy of life: "do onto others what you dont want them do onto you"
 

slvr_phoenix

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
6,223
0
25,780
0
BananaSkin, your logic is flawed for at <i>least</i> two reasons:

1) AMD and Intel are <i>already</i> apples and oranges. Each chip's actual arcitecture is extremely different. As I understand it, even the manner in which they process x86 instructions differs. The <i>only</i> similarity is that they both process the same generic instruction set. (Though the detailed instruction sets (SSE2, 3D Now!, do differ.) So there basically is no true good way to compare them as 'better' or 'worse' because each performs very differently per individual application.

2) How can you declair one processor 'the best' when it's competition is <i>intentionally</i> being handicapped by slower RAM?

It isn't Intel's fault that AMD refuses to embrace superior bandwidth. Instead of trying to run Intel's CPU with DDR to match the Athlon, why don't you ask why you can't run the Athlon with RDRAM to match the Intel system?

If anything, it is a flaw in AMD's CPUs. Hence, it should be AMD's problem, not Intel's, and thus AMD's benchmarks that suffer, not Intel's.

P.S. It's technically DRAM, so if you put the dash anywhere, it would be R-DRAM and (DDR) S-DRAM.

<pre><A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/comic/186.htm" target="_new"><font color=red>It's all relative...</font color=red></A></pre><p>
 

slvr_phoenix

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
6,223
0
25,780
0
Probably you wanna AMD out of the race. I wanna see your face if AMD goes out of the market, and your lovely Intel doubles the prices. This is exatly what will happen if Intel stays alone.
You say that as though it were a <i>bad</i> thing. ;) Heh heh.

Seriously though... <i>If</i> AMD were to get knocked back down to the status of VIA, it would not be all bad.

First of all, Intel would stop ramping up CPU speed so much. So then the $2000 you spend on a P4 2.8GHz would in two years time only be like $1500 for a P4 2.8GHz, or $2000 for a 3.2GHz. Thus, your system would remain state-of-the-art for considerably longer and computers would no longer be such a considerably waste of an investment. (From a financial point of view.)

Secondly, if computer <i>hardware</i> technology growth were to stagnate, then <i>software</i> would finally have to compensate. Programmers would start to actually optimize to make the absolute most out of what is available in hardware. This would both require the general computer programmer to improve in skill dramatically, but also result in plain old better software that <i>doesn't</i> waste your resources like a spend-thrift wife.

Third, how many hazardous-material PC parts get tossed into landfills around the world instead of being processed properly to protect our environment? A slowdown in PC technology would actually improve this pollution as less and less PCs would be thrown away.

There are other benefits as well. But my point is that were Intel to suddenly be the only CPU manufacturer worth a darn (or even were AMD to take that place) there would be a great number of benefits that would offset the immediate downfall of an increase in price.

In the end, neither way is explicitely 'good' or 'bad'.

<pre><A HREF="http://www.nuklearpower.com/comic/186.htm" target="_new"><font color=red>It's all relative...</font color=red></A></pre><p>
 

bront

Distinguished
Oct 16, 2001
2,122
0
19,780
0
An interesting look at things.

Also, with that race slowing down though, you would slow down the consumption of new other parts of hardware. Hard Drives, CD/DVD drives, Sound Cards, Video cards, Motherboards, Memory, and basicly, it would stall a large and lucrative industry beyond the CPU market.

That, in turn, could cause a major decline in the market both in the US and worldwide. It wouldn't be the Dot Com crash, especialy because you would get far fewer overpaid people demanding too much money for their next job (One of the dumber problems of the Dot Com crash, Medeocre web designers unwilling to accept sup $100,000 a year jobs because that was what they were used to)

Cometition is good for the consumer, but it is also good for the market, because it creates jobs.

The Boogie Knights: Saving beautiful monsters from ravoning princesses since 1983.
 

BananaSkin

Distinguished
Aug 26, 2002
11
0
18,510
0
Errmm...if AMD and Intel were indeed apples and oranges, then why compare? Yes, both CPU are architecturally different, process differently but thats not the point, they both do the same job so they can be compared i.e. the end result matters.

If the test was about whole systems then by all means compare Intel with DRAM and AMD with DDR. But this article was titled P4 2.8GHz vs Athlon 2600+ so comparisons should be done on a level playing field so to speak.

And so for the same reason i can say the P4 2.8GHz is currently better than the AXP 2600+ with the best associated parts because it provides a faster perfomance.

I'm not arguing the results i'm just querying the testing procedure. Granted Intel's use of DRAM gives its a significant perfomance boost but thats not my point, why compare CPUs when you intentionally introduce a non-static variable like different memory. If you get my drift...its not good scientific testing procedure.

The test should have been a comparison of the P4 vs AXP perfomance with the same memory and then compare those results with P4 with DRAM. The results still would stand with P4 with DRAM being the fastest combination out there but the P4 vs AXP comparison would then make more sense in relative terms.

Sorry if i didn't make myself clear the first time.

BananaSkin
 

imgod2u

Distinguished
Jul 1, 2002
890
0
18,980
0
You all seem to be forgetting the most basic and important thing. Benchmarks were not created so you fanboys can bicker. They were created so that users would know how they'd get the best performance. If the P4 is capable of reaching a better performance level with RDRAM, then the P4 setup with RDRAM is the choice for the performance-crazed. End of story. There is no fair or leveled playing field. Such concepts are rediculous in something that was meant to educate the consumer on which setup would be better performing. The fact that you people have turned it into a war of the processors doesn't mean the reviews have to abide by your betty need for something to bicker with.
If you want to know which setup would perform better with a certain type of memory. Look up the results for that. There are plenty of reviewers (such as Ace) who used DDR 333 with the P4. However, if you want the absolute best performance, you'll have to use a P4/RDRAM combo. It's not about fair, it's not what you feel should be leveled so you can feel some pride in a particular piece of silicon, it's about facts and end results for the people who BUY this stuff.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
 

grassapa

Distinguished
Jun 16, 2002
807
0
18,980
0
It all comes down to: How much money you got to spend in your wallet? That will be THE decisive factor on what you are going to buy.

I.E, if someone asks me "what parts should I buy for my computer?" I wouldnt ask them "do you want AMD or INTEL? do you want ATI or NVIDIA?" I would ask them "How much you got to spend on the rig?"

real philosophy of life: "do onto others what you dont want them do onto you"
 

shallowbaby

Distinguished
Apr 5, 2002
204
0
18,680
0
crash, i think we're the only one that realize this! lol!

<font color=green> there's more to life than increasing its speed -Ghandi</font color=green>
 

CacheMoney

Distinguished
Aug 27, 2002
1
0
18,510
0
Agreed with Grassapa. But if you want for the best "bang for your buck" go with AMD... look at those benchmarks all most ALL of them show that the AXP with sometimes LOWER Mhz than the INTEL counterpart is a lot higher, in all most ALL, this AXP2600+ is trying to compete with a CPU that has a mhz running way out of it's range, it's amazing it can even be questioned to compare.
 

wolverinero79

Distinguished
Jul 11, 2001
1,127
0
19,280
0
Well, that's not true though. When gamers and people who use computers for cpu/gpu intensive activities (ie "enthusiasts") buy computers, it's going to be either out and right the best thing ever, or it's going to be some combination based mainly on a constrained budget.

Sure, it's not so different among the average computer purchaser, but there are differences. When the average person buys a car, they want either something that does 0-60 in under 5 seconds, or they want something that looks good and doesn't break easily (you want a car that runs above most everything else, right?). When buying computers, i'm sure a lot of people buy Intel, because the number of AMD complaints heavily outnumbers Intel complaints. It's the same reason people don't want celerons as often as something from the pentium line. And since Intel advertises the p4 chip as really great internet and gaming chip for everyone (I can't really tell what AMD tries to market the Athlon as...), people are drawn in. Hondas and Toyotas sell better than Cheverolets and Fords. Even though i personally think a camaro looks better and is more fun to drive than my 2002 toyota camry sedan, i know that I won't have to pay for much on my camry pre-100,000 miles, regarding maintance. Likewise, I know my 1.7 P4 can take the beating I give it with ease, while still lasting until i wish to replace it (and then long after as an extra chip for possibly a server or linux box).

Marketing and track records signficantly help companies. Likewise, personal experience is important. If someone buys their first honda civic and the transmission goes dead after a year, the owner is not going to be too fond of civics, even though they have an incredible track record.

So I don't think it can be said that it's just a price thing. I'm still willing to pay extra to know my parts are going to last. If Moore's Law gets bent and chips start doubling the # of transistors in 6 months, maybe then I'll change my purchasing strategy :)

Athlons and Pentiums are just melted rock. Who’s rock is better? Who cares, let’s play some games
 

AMDChris

Distinguished
Aug 27, 2002
2
0
18,510
0
Well, I would have to say that spending $1000 (canadian) on a 2.8 ghz P4 when I could have an XP2600 for about 1/3 of that, I know what I would get. Also, when is Intel going to learn that cache is good??? All they do is play to the marketers, while AMD has been for the Geek.
 

grassapa

Distinguished
Jun 16, 2002
807
0
18,980
0
AMDchris i dont have an idea of what u are talking about, but if you have money you buy INTEL, if you dont have much money you buy AMD, its simple like that.
intel offers more performance for more money
amd offers very competitive performance for less money

real philosophy of life: "do onto others what you dont want them do onto you"
 

kusek

Distinguished
Jul 15, 2001
246
0
18,680
0
There are other benefits as well. But my point is that were Intel to suddenly be the only CPU manufacturer worth a darn (or even were AMD to take that place) there would be a great number of benefits that would offset the immediate downfall of an increase in price.
I hope your "communist" (one-world) views never come to pass. If you were in charge for the last 15 years we would still be working and playing games in DOS and PC's would be limited to the very few. The garbage produced by obsolete electronics may very well be a problem but slowing down the development of technology is not the answer komrade.



<font color=green>Tbred or Northwood?? Anybody have a quarter?</font color=green>
 

imgod2u

Distinguished
Jul 1, 2002
890
0
18,980
0
AMDchris i dont have an idea of what u are talking about, but if you have money you buy INTEL, if you dont have much money you buy AMD, its simple like that.
intel offers more performance for more money
amd offers very competitive performance for less money
The 2.53 P4 is $249 on pricewatch and is offering comparable performance to the 2.13 Athlon which isn't even out yet and will probably come out at about $250. It's not longer a clear win as far as price/performance. Although at the lower budget range, the Athlons are still cheaper compared to P4's in its performance range but the price difference is somewhere around $50 maximum.

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.
 

lhgpoobaa

Illustrious
Dec 31, 2007
14,462
0
40,780
0
thats nice... But over here in Auzzie land the price of high end P4's <b>DO NOT</b> reflect newegg or pricewatch prices.

current prices from a popular online auzzie store: (prices include cooler)

XP1800+ = $198
XP1900+ = $225
XP2000+ = $247
XP2100+ = $308
XP2200+ = $396

P4 1.8A = $385
P4 2.26B = $544
P4 2.4B = $874

P3T 512k 1.4 = $660.

price equity my tush! :frown:

<b>Due to Customer Complaints, this sig has been witdrawn from public use. Thankyou. :lol: </b>
 

Similar threads