Pentium 4 6xx @ 5.2GHz barely beat FX55 in games!

TheRod

Distinguished
Aug 2, 2002
2,031
0
19,780
<A HREF="http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1787/" target="_new">http://www.hardwareanalysis.com/content/article/1787/</A>

Wow! I tought a Pentium 4 6xx at 5.2GHz would clearly beat an Athlon FX-55, but NO. In most games it barely beats it. The only clear win is in Lame MP3 encoding.

Well, this probably means that my A64 3000+ that I will receive next week, will be ok for gaming for quite a long time with some overclocking! :smile:

ARTICLE CONCLUSION :

<i>So we hope our findings put an end to all of the discussion about who’s got the fastest processor on the market, that processor is none other than AMD’s Athlon 64 FX55. Due to diminishing returns the Pentium 4 processor needs a whopping 5.2GHz clock speed to keep up with AMD’s flagship processor. So was it a good decision on Intel’s part to announce it will not be shipping a 4GHz processor? We think so, as the Pentium 4 was just never going to best AMD’s Athlon 64. Craig Barret clearly had guts and vision when making that decision, or, and that’s just as likely, he knew the 4GHz Pentium 4 needed another 1.2GHz to soundly beat AMD’s fastest, and that just wasn’t feasible.</i>

-
A7N8X / <font color=green><b>Athlon XP 1800+</font color=green> o/c to <font color=green>Sempron 2800+</b></font color=green>
Kingston DDR333 2x256Megs
<font color=red>Radeon 8500 128Megs</font color=red> @ C:275/M:290 <- <i>It's enough for WoW!</i>
 

Cybercraig

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,058
0
19,780
Like Romey says, "SCOREBOARD"! A win is a win! Now we'll have to see how they do when the new 64bit apps hit. Hey, my new Clawhammer barely beats my P4 in Aquamark3. I guess I'll just pitch it in the river.

Abit IS7 - 3.0C @ 3.6ghz - Mushkin PC4000 (2 X 512) - Sapphire 9800Pro - TT 420 watt Pure Power
Samsung 120gb ATA-100 - Maxtor 40gb ATA - 100
Sony DRU-510A - Yellowtail Merlot
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Former Staff
Actually clock for clock the Pentium M matches or beats the A64 in many games. But Intel keeps pushing inefficient P4's at the desktop.

<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>
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Former Staff
Hey, that would mean the Pentium-M at 2.6GHz would be a good match for a P4 at TWICE the speed!

<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>
 

silverpig

Splendid
Dec 31, 2007
5,068
0
25,780
Except the P-M does well against the A64 in many apps (just a little slower clock for clock on average I think) but there are a few instances when it just blows goats like in large compiling projects.

s signature has been formatted to fit your scr
 

P4Man

Distinguished
Feb 6, 2004
2,305
0
19,780
>Actually clock for clock the Pentium M matches or beats the
>A64 in many games.

PM isn't ready for the (highend) desktop yet. It lacks 64 bit support, and its more than doubtfull it could keep pace with A64 in a clockrace. Yes its (amazingly) cool, and yes, its an excellent performer per watt and per GHz. But its just not a racehorse. An excellent mobile chip, a decent midrange desktop chip (if it where more affordable), just not a high end one.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
 

arnold873

Distinguished
Feb 18, 2005
757
0
18,980
hey thats great i`m glad to see the little guys are finally showing great promise, i`ve been feeling for a long time that amd had a better chip than intel. it seems intel has finally hit a roadblock and dual core i don`t think will help much either will all the heat issues ....

hear me now, believe me later, trust me in between
i`m a cop you idiot
i`ll be back
 

mozzartusm

Splendid
Sep 17, 2004
4,693
0
22,780
I dont have one of the new 600 series CPU's so I am not sure if the settings; voltages, timmings etc... are similiar but if they are then this was one piss poor review. I would expect more from a reviewer especially more details. After reading this, I repeated multiple benchmarks with my P4 550[3.4] and based on some of the scores that they were coming up with my rig will smoke theirs at least up to 4.2 because I dont have the cooling to get me farther than that. I wish that they would have included some SiSandra benchmarks especially the memory bandwith. I consistently have scored above 116% of estimated bandwidth. From the limited info that they did give, I picked out two major settings that they didnt come close to optimizing. Now it seems to me that if someone as new to OC'ing as I am can find faults in a reviewers test then something just doesnt add up. Makes me wonder if they just didnt take the time to figure out how to squeeze the most out of this setup or if they were just more interested in bashing Intel.

Before anyone jumps to the conclusion that I am in any way trying to say that AMD is not the fastest and all around best CPU at this point, let me assure you that I beleive that AMD is the King of the Hill at this point. This review is a joke however and IMO was done for one reason, and that was simply to take another shot at Intel. Reviews are great and comparing hardware is a must, however the whole industry suffers when reivews that are as biased as this one are able to make an impact. I realize that for the most part I am alone in this Forum especially when it comes to the 775 platform so I dont expect for you guys to be able to totally trust what one person claims. Im going to make an offer, and I am being totally serious about this. If some of the members here that have the faster AMD rigs want to do some benchmarks and post the scores I would be more than happy to do the same. In fact, I stayed up all night benchmarking and taking screen shots with my digital cam so I have quite a few already. Im not trying to beat anyone or start a war, I fully expect that some of your AMD rigs will outperform this Intel setup, I just would like to see how much of a difference that there would be. I dont beleive for a minute that it will be as large of a gap as the one that this article claims.

READ THE STICKY AND WIN A PRIZE! ALL PRIZES CAN BE CLAIMED IN THE SECTION TITLED "THE OTHER"
 
Yes it is pretty obvios that something is amiss. Ram timings on first page
Intel 4/4/4/11
AMD 2/2/2/5

The intel system is running the worst memory timings possible while the AND is running the best possible timings.

Makes you wonder if they are just stupid or biased.

I aint signing nothing!!!
 

markgun

Distinguished
Jul 5, 2002
483
0
18,780
Yes it is pretty obvios that something is amiss. Ram timings on first page
Intel 4/4/4/11
AMD 2/2/2/5

The intel system is running the worst memory timings possible while the AND is running the best possible timings.

Makes you wonder if they are just stupid or biased.
DDR2 cannot run with tight timings.
 

ytoledano

Distinguished
Jan 16, 2003
974
0
18,980
Actually clock for clock the Pentium M matches or beats the A64 in many games. But Intel keeps pushing inefficient P4's at the desktop.
And admit that all those years of developing and "perfecting" (Prescott) Netburst were for nothing? Heads will roll at Intel when that day comes!

<b>Behold, Mine anger and My fury shall be poured out upon this place upon man and upon beast and upon the trees of the field and upon the fruit of the land and it shall burn and shall not be quenched
 

phial

Splendid
Oct 29, 2002
6,757
0
25,780
Yes it is pretty obvios that something is amiss. Ram timings on first page
Intel 4/4/4/11
AMD 2/2/2/5

The intel system is running the worst memory timings possible while the AND is running the best possible timings.

Makes you wonder if they are just stupid or biased.


P4 was running PC4300.
A64 was running PC3200.


significant increase in clock speed for the P4 over the A64. You could argue the bias the other way as well.


DDR2 clocks higher that regular DDR, and the sacrifice is timings. the higher clocks are supposed to make up for it.. perhaps the only bias is that your an intel fanboy?

-------
<A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>
 

mozzartusm

Splendid
Sep 17, 2004
4,693
0
22,780
Actually the newer stuff can run much tighter timmings. Not as low as DDR1 but getting close. I can run 3-3-3-8 on slot of apps. The 8 doesnt really effect anything thats the T-ras setting. It has an impact though it is minimal. Most of the Benchmarks that I have run are 4-3-3-13 Im about to post some pics of my scores. I will be leaving a link shortly.

READ THE STICKY AND WIN A PRIZE! ALL PRIZES CAN BE CLAIMED IN THE SECTION TITLED "THE OTHER"
 

TheRod

Distinguished
Aug 2, 2002
2,031
0
19,780
The intel system is running the worst memory timings possible while the AND is running the best possible timings.

Makes you wonder if they are just stupid or biased.
The problem is that both platform use different memory architecture and the P4 probably needed that DDR2 timing to be stable at 5.2GHz... But I'm not sure, I didn't made the test! :smile:

The big problem here is how to compare DDR vs DDR2 systems, does DDR400 2.5-3-3-7 is aquivalent to DDR2-3-4-4-11??? Comparing systems will always be a bit biased. It's impossible to bo 100% unbiased... Personnaly, I think that using tight timing on both DDR and DDR2 is misleading for consumer, because only the enthousiasts buys high-end memory stick.

It's my opinion and I respect it!!! :smile:

-
A7N8X / <font color=green><b>Athlon XP 1800+</font color=green> o/c to <font color=green>Sempron 2800+</b></font color=green>
Kingston DDR333 2x256Megs
<font color=red>Radeon 8500 128Megs</font color=red> @ C:275/M:290 <- <i>It's enough for WoW!</i>
 

RichPLS

Champion
Yeah, but you already have told us you just skim read anyway...SoD can splain it much better...

<pre><font color=red>°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°`°¤o \\// o¤°`°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°
And the sign says "You got to have a membership card to get inside" Huh
So I got me a pen and paper And I made up my own little sign</pre><p></font color=red>
 

mozzartusm

Splendid
Sep 17, 2004
4,693
0
22,780
Actually I dont suppose that it would be as obvious if you didnt own a 775 platform. What sticks out like a sore thumb to me is that the few settings that they listed are not optimized or at least they arent in comparison with my rig. Mine has a 550 and not one of the 600 Series CPU's but from what I understand most of the OC settings are basically the same. My point is that I have serious doubts as to how much they actually tried to tweak the system. Mine at just over 4 will smoke theirs in some of the test. I cant really compare mine in the graphics area because I am using an X700 Pro which holds me back big time. Ive got the X800XL on the way so that will change.

READ THE STICKY AND WIN A PRIZE! ALL PRIZES CAN BE CLAIMED IN THE SECTION TITLED "THE OTHER"
 

mozzartusm

Splendid
Sep 17, 2004
4,693
0
22,780
Rod

I dont want you to think that my comments were aimed at you in any way. They arent aimed at anyone. I think that ultimately the AMD is the winner, but not by this margin.

READ THE STICKY AND WIN A PRIZE! ALL PRIZES CAN BE CLAIMED IN THE SECTION TITLED "THE OTHER"
 

coylter

Distinguished
Sep 12, 2003
1,322
0
19,280
Look like someone is trying to defend his wrong purchase. Oh noes!!!!!

Signature (up to 200 characters). You may use <font color=blue><b>Markup</b></font color=blue> in your signature
 

coylter

Distinguished
Sep 12, 2003
1,322
0
19,280
Re: Pentium 4 6xx @ 5.2GHz barely beat FX55 in gam <i><b>[re: mozzartusm]</b></i>

Signature (up to 200 characters). You may use <font color=blue><b>Markup</b></font color=blue> in your signature