So I have the P4 1.6, 512 megs of DDR, geforce 4600ti, what more for gaming?

Ancra wrote:

> On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 00:51:52 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Lets see something recent that claims a 3200 AMD chips outperforms a
>>3.0-800 P4 much less deserves it's inflated rating..
>
> Some standard winmark benchmark will do that nicely, I think. 6%
> faster, actually.
> Unreal Tournament also runs faster, faster than the 3.2-800 as well,
> FYI.

Guess it depends on who tested it?

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1834&p=8

> But that is beside the point, as the 3.06 and 3.2 really does
> have the edge on many modern apps and most modern benchmarks. Not much
> of an edge, but the P4 _IS_ faster. ...on that.
> Now for the $64000 question: How many P4-code-optimized apps do you
> have, and rely on heavily? How many do you intend to buy before
> replacing your current computer?

Yep and for people who don't use modern apps that are P4 coded I always
sugest using an AMD. What jerks my chain is when people like JK contsantly
proclaim AMD are the best at everything no matter what.


>
>>http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1834
>>
>>"The review community unanimously agreed that the processor was not
>>deserving of its 3200+ rating, but none were as infuriated by AMD's model
>>number than the folks at Intel.
>
> That citation is part of an argumentative article that doesn't offer
> any testresults that actually support the expressed opinions.

Guess you missed the pages of benchmarks? :-)

> Some
> claims, in the article, are also quite off mark as well. Such as the
> statement that the 'Northwood' core has meant that the P4 is more
> competitive. That's largely nonsens. Northwood is only slightly more
> efficient than the Willamette.

IMHO what changed was the chipsets, especially the DDR solutions. The early
845 boards were pathetic and that's what most people bought.


>
> What has happened since the Northwood release, is that the benchmark
> collections, used in comparisions, have changed. Changed to emphasize
> streaming instructions, and have also been recompiled for P4 code
> optimisation.

So has the software being sold?



>
> I have been fooled twice. I have acquired two P4's. Both have been
> dissapointments (I have Athlons to compare with).


They sure arn't the right choice for some people and for some people they
are, see above.



>
> I don't believe in HT, I don't believe in 800FSB, I
> don't believe in extremetech, I don't believe in the P4 anymore. No
> matter what some testers cook up.

I've been burned before as well. I just don't think being totally "Push one
brand on people" is being honest to the people asking for advice.

--

Stacey

JK wrote:

>
>
> Stacey wrote:
>
>>
>> But is rated at 3200. Like I said this rating in inflated compared to
>> what it can actually do. Even your links prove this point. Thanx!
>
> It depends on what software is being run.

So when an intel chip is twice as fast in certain apps, Intel should make up
a 2X number for theirs?
--

Stacey

On Mon, 07 Jul 2003 02:44:55 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Ancra wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 04 Jul 2003 00:51:52 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Lets see something recent that claims a 3200 AMD chips outperforms a
>>>3.0-800 P4 much less deserves it's inflated rating..
>>
>> Some standard winmark benchmark will do that nicely, I think. 6%
>> faster, actually.
>> Unreal Tournament also runs faster, faster than the 3.2-800 as well,
>> FYI.
>
>Guess it depends on who tested it?
>
>http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1834&p=8

You know, that could reflect very poorly on 'anandtech'.

>> Some
>> claims, in the article, are also quite off mark as well. Such as the
>> statement that the 'Northwood' core has meant that the P4 is more
>> competitive. That's largely nonsens. Northwood is only slightly more
>> efficient than the Willamette.
>
>IMHO what changed was the chipsets, especially the DDR solutions. The early
>845 boards were pathetic and that's what most people bought.

Well, I think I too, actually did mention that.

>> What has happened since the Northwood release, is that the benchmark
>> collections, used in comparisions, have changed. Changed to emphasize
>> streaming instructions, and have also been recompiled for P4 code
>> optimisation.
>
>So has the software being sold?

Oh yes, and that is the justification offered. That is still possible
to question, because not all apps can take any advantage of P4 code.
Code that contains lots of conditional instructions or DP FP for
example. But never mind, because my point wasn't to question that.
My point was that it was this, rather than the Northwood core that
made the P4 start to show up better.

>I've been burned before as well. I just don't think being totally "Push one
>brand on people" is being honest to the people asking for advice.

True, I should perhaps not have expressed my break with the P4 so
emphatically. Actually I think both Strontium and I may have had a
similar experience: Moving up to a radically faster machine, while
also changing brand. Even if we went totally different ways.


ancra

Ancra wrote:


>>
>>So has the software being sold?
>
> Oh yes, and that is the justification offered. That is still possible
> to question, because not all apps can take any advantage of P4 code.

Sure and if you're not able to use it, there is no reason at all to buy a
P4.

> Code that contains lots of conditional instructions or DP FP for
> example. But never mind, because my point wasn't to question that.
> My point was that it was this, rather than the Northwood core that
> made the P4 start to show up better.

Same thing is going to be true of the AMD64. When code starts being written
for it, it will probably pull ahead. Until then it's probably not going to
be a big deal.

>
>>I've been burned before as well. I just don't think being totally "Push
>>one brand on people" is being honest to the people asking for advice.
>
> True, I should perhaps not have expressed my break with the P4 so
> emphatically. Actually I think both Strontium and I may have had a
> similar experience: Moving up to a radically faster machine, while
> also changing brand. Even if we went totally different ways.
>


Yep. :-) Not saying your experience isn't real and since it sounds like
you were using a low memory bandwidth board I bet it was a disappointment.
A good chip on a bad board can equal disappointment. I sure was bummed by a
few Via/AMD systems which had nothing to do with the processor.

--

Stacey

JK wrote:

>
>
> Stacey wrote:
>
>>
>> Yep and for people who don't use modern apps that are P4 coded I always
>> sugest using an AMD. What jerks my chain is when people like JK
>> contsantly proclaim AMD are the best at everything no matter what.
>
> They usually provide the best performance at each price point for most
> applications.

What a shock you'd post that...


> I notice that you tend to dwell on the exceptions of the
> exceptions, namely the applications that Athlon XP has the weakest
> relative performance,

Sure I "dwell" on it when someone specifically asks for a system to mainly
run that type of software. You on the other hand argue that they should
instead buy an AMD (what a shock!@) even though they specifically said they
want to run software which even you know runs MUCH faster on a P4. So
instead of getting an optimal system, you PUSH them to buy another AMD chip
which you have previously stated is your reason for posting here.

http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=shill&r=67

--

Stacey

On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 00:17:43 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Sure and if you're not able to use it, there is no reason at all to buy a
>P4.

- Hrmmpf, ehum. Actually I think my case is defensible. There's all
kinds of reasons when you put together a system:

First you need to understand that I buy cheap systems, below the
cutting edge. But more frequent. That way I get 2 PC's for the price
of one. And the second, of those, is going to at least as fast as the
first one would have been.
I need several computers so that strategy makes lots of sense. There
won't be a big differense between my PC's. (My 3000+ is closer to the
high end than I've ever been before.)

Today I'm quite happy with my 700Athlon. It's been my best PC
investmment to date. It's performance was mindblowing at the start,
and has hanged in there for a very long time. (actually, I'm typing
this on it)
But when I got it, It was my first non Intel system, and I was in
panic about it's heat and noise. It was terrible.

That was the big reason for choosing a P4 next time.

My second P4 had a bigger L2 cache, just like the 700Ath, ran almost
1GHz faster than the 1.5GHz, and there was all this Northwood hype
going around, that offered me an explanation for the poor showing of
my 1.5GHz. And it looked good in benchmarks.
(and it does games and video well, in fairness)

At this time there had emerged a lot of concerns about Athlons cooling
and noiselevels, in newsgroups and articles. So naturally, I was still
scared of Athlons.


ancra

Ancra wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Jul 2003 00:17:43 -0400, Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Sure and if you're not able to use it, there is no reason at all to buy a
>>P4.
>
> - Hrmmpf, ehum. Actually I think my case is defensible. There's all
> kinds of reasons when you put together a system:

If you're not using P4's code, an AMD is faster for the same money..


>
> My second P4 had a bigger L2 cache, just like the 700Ath, ran almost
> 1GHz faster than the 1.5GHz, and there was all this Northwood hype
> going around, that offered me an explanation for the poor showing of
> my 1.5GHz. And it looked good in benchmarks.
>

Bet those good benchmarks weren't using a low memory bandwidth mobo...


--

Stacey