Hi All,
Not sure if Tom will delete this factual post..but here goes.
The great Heatsink review some time back was for me the last straw for toms hardware. It was obviously aimed as an attack on the AMD. I mean heatsinks fall off all the time ;|..don't they..?
My biggest concern about the P4s throttle back feature is it allows OEMs to fit the most abysmal heatsinks to P4 machines as it "doesn't matter". result the P4 just slows down. But hey it can be sold as 2GHz cause it says that on the label.
Now for the subject of laptops with P4 processors, this is a blessing of course as when u fork out ure 1000's of dollars/pounds for a 2 GHz P4 laptop, it doesnt need to have a decent heatsink and fan which laptop manufacturers will love no doubt as it will reduce their costs.
Of course your 2 GHz laptop could drop back to a 1 GHz or less laptop after 10 mins when it heats up ..
now to the latest CPU XP/P4 review. I got to see this as a colleague brought it to my attention.
A few quotes sum it up for me >
1) At the low resolution of 640 x 480, the Pentium 4/2000 is in the lead, while the AMD Athlon XP 1800+, boosted by the enhanced Nvidia driver, takes the lead at the high resolution.
surely the Nvidia driver is the same for both Intel and AMD, is the Intel lacking something to make it inferior then?. Why use this hack journo way of trying to cheapen the better part?
2) The picture shows both mobos Intel and AMD, both have different video cards (why not use the same one).
The intel has four RAM Devices fitted, the AMD has one. (much faster memory bandwidth on the Intel due to interleaving oddly enough).
3) The Lame MP3 Encoder under Windows XP is used to convert a 178 MB sound file from a WAV format to a "MPEG-1 Layer 3" format. In this discipline, the Intel Pentium 4/2000 makes a clean sweep of the competition. Nonetheless, the new Athlon XP CPUs don't cut a bad figure, either.
There was one second between the 1800+ XP and the P4 2GHz, where is the "clean sweep"?? come on please..
4) The new Divx 4.02 codec, used together with Flask Mpeg 0.6, caused quite a stir - the AMD Athlon XP 1800+ beats the Intel Pentium 4/2000, knocking the ex-gold medallist out of its top position.
When was the P4 the "gold medallist"?.. this is hack journalism. just say the XP made a "clean sweep" instead aye
5) This category of benchmarks is subject to change. Tom's Hardware has knowledge that the new DivX codec 4.5 is almost ready for release and Flask Mpeg is also working diligently on a new version of its code.
Does this mean there will be a more Intel favourable or AMD unfavourable Flask/divx codec?, surely not sponsored?
6)The sisfot memory benchmark shows clearly the four Dimm interleaving over a single dimm. this of course will colour all memory intensive benchmarks and make them worthless. (see mpeg2 video encoding etc..)
7) Why show a benchmark if as it states the makers of the benchmark utility had NOT implemented SSE detection for media encoding as it looked for "genuine intel".
If the XP couldnt be recognised as having SSE then the benchmark should not of been included at sll. very unprofessional.
8) Another one of the reasons is Windows XP, being forced as the successor to Windows 98/ME and Windows 2000 by Microsoft. In comparison to the past, the Athlon XP can profit from Windows XP, probably more than Intel CPUs. It seems that AMD helped Microsoft get the optimum out of its new CPUs.
So is tom saying that AMD have better relations with Microsoft? or the Intel isn't up to it. there is NO link between the XP operating system and the AMD XP, no link should be implied (even to try and cover up poor intel performance). XP is after all Win2k with a "fisher price" interface added.
A TOM quote on the first page: "Windows XP is becoming increasingly important. Windows XP comes with some SSE optmizations, which benefits both Pentium 4 and Athlon XP"
nuff said there then.
9) We were in for a surprise with the new MPEG-4-Codec DivX 4.02.1: when used together with Flask Mpeg 0.6, the Athlon XP 1800+ (clocked at 1533 MHZ) knocked the stuffing out of the Pentium 4, clocked at 2000 MHz. This is a watershed in CPU comparisons between AMD and Intel. Although the benchmarks favor AMD over Intel presently things can, and will change.
Why will they change, the P4 is a P4 and an XP is an XP unless of course you get somebody to hack the codecs and flask (sponsored?) to favour your processor.?
10) Performance = Clock Speed x Operations/Cycle
This equation helps explain the theory behind why the AMD Athlon XP, although clocked at a lower speed, is able to reach the same performance than a faster-clocked Intel Pentium 4. But one thing should be made clear here - since Intel introduced its 0.13-micron processor, the Northwood Pentium 4, it can turn the MHz dial up higher than AMD can. High clock speeds are a real burr under AMD's saddle, as has been shown by the developments of the past several months. While Intel has already cleared the 2000 MHz hurdle, AMD has barely scraped over the 1533 MHZ one from 1400 MHz.
Why is clock speed such an "anal" thing.. Intel can wind up the clock speed as fast as they like, they have the Speed fall back with temperature "feature" so stability isnt an issue.
the XP speed rating has some crying about the Cyrix PR rating which of course claimed faster than intel for the same clock. We know of course that the Cyrix had great integer performance but useless maths copro).
However the XP had to have something to show it was in fact faster than the equivalently clocked P4, clock speed is not everything, if it was then we would have 2 GHz 486's now.
And remember higher clock speeds DO equal more heat (if of course that is the real core speed in practice)
11 )Another factor is the stability and product quality of a system: while all Athlon processors suffered from occasional instability in our tests, the Pentium 4 platform ran without a glitch. Reasons for this behaviour might not lie in the processor itself, but rather in the motherboard design and the chipset used. Future driver updates might not just improve performance but also stability of a platform. And of course, every user knows that the lightweight price tags on Athlon XP processors may have a downside compared to their more expensive Pentium 4 rivals.
Ha, lightweight price tags, surely Tom meant to say the P4 is still a much more expensive part than the outperforming XP.
And ALL Athlon cpus (not just XP) had stability issues?, this is just another pro intelism to put an element of doubt in a buyers mind. Our athlon systems here are as stable as our Pentium 2/3/Celeron ones.
12) . Today's crop of 3D games are no problem for either the Athlon XP or the Pentium 4. They run very smoothly at high resolutions and refresh rates. In this case, it was up to game developers to tailor the 3D engines to work better with new technologies such as SSE and SSE2.
Anybody with sense knows that game developers will no alienate users of one CPU over another and they will NOT write their code so it favours the P4 in that SSE "Genuine intel" kind of way. I suspect most gamers use AMD for its performance per buck advantage.
Anyway i could no doubt find a load more biased statements and doubt inducing hints.
I'll check back to see if this gets posted "unedited" and welcome any comments from tom or other forum users.
P.S. i did email tom over the "heatsink" hack article but received no response so am trying the forum this time.
Cheers
Bill Lewis
Managing Director
Kijoma Solutions Ltd
Electronic Product Design and Consultancy
Bill.Lewis@kijoma.com
Opinions stated here are my own and not neccesarily of Kijoma Solutions Ltd.
"The ferrari is faster then the mini but then this will no doubt change with new drivers"
Not sure if Tom will delete this factual post..but here goes.
The great Heatsink review some time back was for me the last straw for toms hardware. It was obviously aimed as an attack on the AMD. I mean heatsinks fall off all the time ;|..don't they..?
My biggest concern about the P4s throttle back feature is it allows OEMs to fit the most abysmal heatsinks to P4 machines as it "doesn't matter". result the P4 just slows down. But hey it can be sold as 2GHz cause it says that on the label.
Now for the subject of laptops with P4 processors, this is a blessing of course as when u fork out ure 1000's of dollars/pounds for a 2 GHz P4 laptop, it doesnt need to have a decent heatsink and fan which laptop manufacturers will love no doubt as it will reduce their costs.
Of course your 2 GHz laptop could drop back to a 1 GHz or less laptop after 10 mins when it heats up ..
now to the latest CPU XP/P4 review. I got to see this as a colleague brought it to my attention.
A few quotes sum it up for me >
1) At the low resolution of 640 x 480, the Pentium 4/2000 is in the lead, while the AMD Athlon XP 1800+, boosted by the enhanced Nvidia driver, takes the lead at the high resolution.
surely the Nvidia driver is the same for both Intel and AMD, is the Intel lacking something to make it inferior then?. Why use this hack journo way of trying to cheapen the better part?
2) The picture shows both mobos Intel and AMD, both have different video cards (why not use the same one).
The intel has four RAM Devices fitted, the AMD has one. (much faster memory bandwidth on the Intel due to interleaving oddly enough).
3) The Lame MP3 Encoder under Windows XP is used to convert a 178 MB sound file from a WAV format to a "MPEG-1 Layer 3" format. In this discipline, the Intel Pentium 4/2000 makes a clean sweep of the competition. Nonetheless, the new Athlon XP CPUs don't cut a bad figure, either.
There was one second between the 1800+ XP and the P4 2GHz, where is the "clean sweep"?? come on please..
4) The new Divx 4.02 codec, used together with Flask Mpeg 0.6, caused quite a stir - the AMD Athlon XP 1800+ beats the Intel Pentium 4/2000, knocking the ex-gold medallist out of its top position.
When was the P4 the "gold medallist"?.. this is hack journalism. just say the XP made a "clean sweep" instead aye
5) This category of benchmarks is subject to change. Tom's Hardware has knowledge that the new DivX codec 4.5 is almost ready for release and Flask Mpeg is also working diligently on a new version of its code.
Does this mean there will be a more Intel favourable or AMD unfavourable Flask/divx codec?, surely not sponsored?
6)The sisfot memory benchmark shows clearly the four Dimm interleaving over a single dimm. this of course will colour all memory intensive benchmarks and make them worthless. (see mpeg2 video encoding etc..)
7) Why show a benchmark if as it states the makers of the benchmark utility had NOT implemented SSE detection for media encoding as it looked for "genuine intel".
If the XP couldnt be recognised as having SSE then the benchmark should not of been included at sll. very unprofessional.
8) Another one of the reasons is Windows XP, being forced as the successor to Windows 98/ME and Windows 2000 by Microsoft. In comparison to the past, the Athlon XP can profit from Windows XP, probably more than Intel CPUs. It seems that AMD helped Microsoft get the optimum out of its new CPUs.
So is tom saying that AMD have better relations with Microsoft? or the Intel isn't up to it. there is NO link between the XP operating system and the AMD XP, no link should be implied (even to try and cover up poor intel performance). XP is after all Win2k with a "fisher price" interface added.
A TOM quote on the first page: "Windows XP is becoming increasingly important. Windows XP comes with some SSE optmizations, which benefits both Pentium 4 and Athlon XP"
nuff said there then.
9) We were in for a surprise with the new MPEG-4-Codec DivX 4.02.1: when used together with Flask Mpeg 0.6, the Athlon XP 1800+ (clocked at 1533 MHZ) knocked the stuffing out of the Pentium 4, clocked at 2000 MHz. This is a watershed in CPU comparisons between AMD and Intel. Although the benchmarks favor AMD over Intel presently things can, and will change.
Why will they change, the P4 is a P4 and an XP is an XP unless of course you get somebody to hack the codecs and flask (sponsored?) to favour your processor.?
10) Performance = Clock Speed x Operations/Cycle
This equation helps explain the theory behind why the AMD Athlon XP, although clocked at a lower speed, is able to reach the same performance than a faster-clocked Intel Pentium 4. But one thing should be made clear here - since Intel introduced its 0.13-micron processor, the Northwood Pentium 4, it can turn the MHz dial up higher than AMD can. High clock speeds are a real burr under AMD's saddle, as has been shown by the developments of the past several months. While Intel has already cleared the 2000 MHz hurdle, AMD has barely scraped over the 1533 MHZ one from 1400 MHz.
Why is clock speed such an "anal" thing.. Intel can wind up the clock speed as fast as they like, they have the Speed fall back with temperature "feature" so stability isnt an issue.
the XP speed rating has some crying about the Cyrix PR rating which of course claimed faster than intel for the same clock. We know of course that the Cyrix had great integer performance but useless maths copro).
However the XP had to have something to show it was in fact faster than the equivalently clocked P4, clock speed is not everything, if it was then we would have 2 GHz 486's now.
And remember higher clock speeds DO equal more heat (if of course that is the real core speed in practice)
11 )Another factor is the stability and product quality of a system: while all Athlon processors suffered from occasional instability in our tests, the Pentium 4 platform ran without a glitch. Reasons for this behaviour might not lie in the processor itself, but rather in the motherboard design and the chipset used. Future driver updates might not just improve performance but also stability of a platform. And of course, every user knows that the lightweight price tags on Athlon XP processors may have a downside compared to their more expensive Pentium 4 rivals.
Ha, lightweight price tags, surely Tom meant to say the P4 is still a much more expensive part than the outperforming XP.
And ALL Athlon cpus (not just XP) had stability issues?, this is just another pro intelism to put an element of doubt in a buyers mind. Our athlon systems here are as stable as our Pentium 2/3/Celeron ones.
12) . Today's crop of 3D games are no problem for either the Athlon XP or the Pentium 4. They run very smoothly at high resolutions and refresh rates. In this case, it was up to game developers to tailor the 3D engines to work better with new technologies such as SSE and SSE2.
Anybody with sense knows that game developers will no alienate users of one CPU over another and they will NOT write their code so it favours the P4 in that SSE "Genuine intel" kind of way. I suspect most gamers use AMD for its performance per buck advantage.
Anyway i could no doubt find a load more biased statements and doubt inducing hints.
I'll check back to see if this gets posted "unedited" and welcome any comments from tom or other forum users.
P.S. i did email tom over the "heatsink" hack article but received no response so am trying the forum this time.
Cheers
Bill Lewis
Managing Director
Kijoma Solutions Ltd
Electronic Product Design and Consultancy
Bill.Lewis@kijoma.com
Opinions stated here are my own and not neccesarily of Kijoma Solutions Ltd.
"The ferrari is faster then the mini but then this will no doubt change with new drivers"
, i was of course referring to the "gold medalist" comment, is the P4 1.4GHz faster than the Athlon 1.4Ghz then?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram