THE SUM OF ALL AMD FEARS!!!

[AmdMELTDOWN]

well, there's no question about it, but imho (out of the gate) Intel's 13µ process is much better than AMD's.

can you point out a reason why I would be wrong?

"<b>AMD/VIA!</b>...you are <i>still</i> the weakest link, good bye!"

 

[paulmartin]

have you some detail specifications for this new processor?

 

[texas_techie]

Sure, I could point to the yields and crappy performance of the first P4s. Which means that Intel sucked at the .13 micron process for a while. Perhaps AMD will get better at it, just like Intel did

Benchmarks are like sex, everybody loves doing it, everybody thinks they are good at it.

 

[paulmartin]

i think this will be certainly the case.

 

[cellbiogeek]

Well, if you were to say that Intel's mature .13 process is performing better than AMD's not so mature process you might be closer to saying something true, maybe. However, you're comparing to very different cores so this would further muddle the statement.

 

[FUGGER]

My first 2.0A that was purchased on Northwood release was able to reach 2.8Ghz, 800Mhz overclock is not "sucking" at launch.

The first available 1.6a reached 170FSB, that sucks too?

You are limited to what your mind can perceive.

 

[texas_techie]

Again, I shall restate that since when is a chips overclockability a metric of its quality. All it means is Intel are morons and didnt label the chip at the correct speed. If they had better Q/A, they would have known the 1.6 would reach 2.8 gigs. And then sold it for a much healthier profit. All they did was lose money.
So let us explore if the original Northwood was better than the Williamette:

First link:
http://www.digit-life.com/articles/northwood22ghz/

** doesnt look that much better to me ***

This site got 400mhz out of their first P4, not bad:

http://www.overclockersonline.com/index.php?page=articles&num=132&pnum=2


Another link showing the 2.0A wasnt much better than the Williamette:
http://www.ocprices.com/index.php?command=view&ID=1172&TextPage=3&PHPSESSID=fca0c5671b2a4171030d7db4480dc51b
** If you look at the later benchmarks in the above link, you will see the athlon 1.6 beating the Intel 2.0A.. ***

Link:
http://www.active-hardware.com/english/reviews/processor/pentium4-2ghz-2a-6.htm

*** not a whole lot of difference there, course I need new glasses though ***

My point is the Northwood didnt have a stunning release. It was a little better in the benches than Williamette. Sure it overclocked pretty good. But see my first statement. Which proves my point that the .13 micron process for Intel didnt go too well either. If it went well, how did a athlon 1.6 beat it?







Benchmarks are like sex, everybody loves doing it, everybody thinks they are good at it.

 

[jacque808]

well I am a very avid AMD fan.. Though AMD cannot beat intel in speed.. right now.. they offer a cpu with a better cost/MHz ratio.. witch will help them capture more market share.. Personally.. AMD is kickin Butt.. they have so much less money than Intel but can keep up with them as they are...

 

[juin]

Last bech show that 2.2 pc 1066 is equal to a XP 2200 so maybe the last speed of t-bred.

cheap, cheap. Think cheap, and you'll always be cheap.AMD version of semi conducteur industrie

 

[juin]

I dont were you get that hardware.fr as been the 1 to test a early test sample and been able to break the 3 GHZ bar with a arir cooling

cheap, cheap. Think cheap, and you'll always be cheap.AMD version of semi conducteur industrie

 

[lhgpoobaa]

a question...
Wasnt the Northwood initially meant to be the 'first' P4 out of the gate?
i thought that intel had to bolt the gate considerably to keep in touch with the XP at the time.


<font color=blue>Pants Down! Turn Around! Bend Over! You're about to Experience Telstra broadband! :lol:

 

[juin]

The 1 P4 was featuring 128kb L2

northwood is a upgrade

cheap, cheap. Think cheap, and you'll always be cheap.AMD version of semi conducteur industrie

 

[lhgpoobaa]

indeed, which means they had a very long time to perfect it

<font color=blue>Pants Down! Turn Around! Bend Over! You're about to Experience Telstra broadband! :lol:

 

[Sojourn]

meltdown: I should hope Intel's 0.13µ processing is better than AMD's, they've only had an extra year to work all the kinks out.

-= This is our wading pool.
Stop pissing in it. =-

 

[Phelk]

At the high end everyone should agree that the P4 with a 533FSB is overall the more powerful processor and will be almost certainly be so through the next 6 months. Kudos to Intel for making a strong comeback after the disappointment of the willy core.

However on the lower end a system built around a new Tbred XP1700+ compared to a NWood P4 1700Ghz will probably provide a much better bang for the buck.

I am pretty happy with this current state of affairs. Intel is still feeling the heat at the top end with the potential impact of hammer and there is a heathly price war at the low end.

This all leads to me (the consumer) being the winner, and I love it!

<font color=blue> The Opteration was a success... I'm now a full-wit</font color=blue>

 

[Sojourn]

My first 2.0A that was purchased on Northwood release was able to reach 2.8Ghz, 800Mhz overclock is not "sucking" at launch.

The first available 1.6a reached 170FSB, that sucks too?

Keep in mind that Intel was able to work most of the kinks out of their 0.13mu fab process with the Tualatin, who's 1.26GHz release did not see such incredible overclocks, either. It did do better than AMD's dismal 5% OC, which shows AMD is probably having start-up problems with the new fab process, but it wasn't the 50% OCing we saw with the NW. This is AMD's first shot at 0.13 and so should not be compared to Intel's second.

Likewise, you're talking about a 2.0A, which was not the top-of-the-line model at the time and therefor a better OCer. Lower rated tbred XPs will likely see much higher OCing results than the 2200+.

 

[Oni]

This is AMD's first shot at 0.13 and so should not be compared to Intel's second.

Very good point

Gosh I'm such a nerd sometimes, but then again arn't we all.

 

[LED]

"However on the lower end a system built around a new Tbred XP1700+ compared to a NWood P4 1700Ghz will probably provide a much better bang for the buck."

There is no Northwood 1.7. Theres a 1.6ghz, and when OC'd that chip out performs all AXP processors. I would say the 1.6A is more bang for the buck.

I sold my sig for $50.

 

[Matisaro]

There is no Northwood 1.7. Theres a 1.6ghz, and when OC'd that chip out performs all AXP processors. I would say the 1.6A is more bang for the buck.

If given the choice between a 1.6a or a 1700+ tbred I would go with the tbred, the 1700+@1.9ghz@166fsb will outperform the p4@2.4ghz which is above average for that chips overclocks.



The Cash Left In My Pocket,The BEST Benchmark

 

[FatBurger]

You seem to be getting better with your thread titles, and worse with your logic. Have you been doing drugs?

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>

 

[eden]

At least we hope to, we do want to see the chip in action first. I am pretty confident, though... It's another stepping and not a downbinned from what I read.

--
Meow

 

[jeffg007]

"If given the choice between a 1.6a or a 1700+ tbred I would go with the tbred, the 1700+@1.9ghz@166fsb will outperform the p4@2.4ghz which is above average for that chips overclocks."

Can I see some benches for that or is this anther I know the future statement?

Jeff

 

[eden]

Go see the THG OC test of a 1.9GHZ XP vs 2.4GHZ P4.

--
Meow

 

[FatBurger]

You mean you actually trust THG's benchmarks?

<font color=blue>Hi mom!</font color=blue>

 

[jeffg007]

Let me rephrase that where can I buy a 1700 t bred that will over clock to 1900?

Jeff