Will CM run on my 1.3Ghz P4?

[Echo]

BREW HA HAR HAR!

Just kidding. Actualy, I'm wondering how many games it'll fire up simultaneously.

Now I can kill all you bastards more efficiently.

[Jeff Heidman]

The depressing part is that your 1.3 GHz P4 is slower than a 1.2 GHz Athlon, especially at CM when it comes time to run a big turn.

Anandtech just did a comparison and concluded that a 1.7P4 is only about as fast as 1.33 Athlon!

Heck, your 1.3 GHz P4 probably isn't any faster than a 1.3GHz P3 for anything you have sitting in your software library!

Why do people keep buying Intel?

Jeff Heidman

[Stixx]

I'd have to agree with you there Jeff.

I was using a Celeron 300 but upgraded too a PIII 600. I haven't seen one little bit of difference.

I got a greater boost in performance when i went to a 7600rpm HDD.

[Pak40]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

The depressing part is that your 1.3 GHz P4 is slower than a 1.2 GHz Athlon, especially at CM when it comes time to run a big turn.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not exactly correct Jeff. Check out this article on ZDNET

http://www.zdnet.com/special/stories/sc/desktops/reviews/0,12492,2655741,00.html

Here's a paragraph from the article:

"Here's the lowdown: On everyday applications -- office productivity applications, Web browsing and e-mail, and utilities such as anti-virus programs -- systems based on the P4 offer no real performance advantage over

high-end Athlon systems. Similarly, on 2-D graphics, the Athlon-based systems actually outperformed the faster P4-based systems. However, the P4 systems had an advantage on 3-D applications such as games, and really

shined on video encoding tests - two areas where Intel promised performance gains."

I don't know about you, Jeff, but I'd rather my games run faster than MS Word and Explorer.

[André]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Echo:

BREW HA HAR HAR!

Just kidding. Actualy, I'm wondering how many games it'll fire up simultaneously.

Now I can kill all you bastards more efficiently.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am afraid it wont do you any good. Your new P4 machine will overheat and burn up at the sight of my tanks pounding on your helpless troops! Burn baby, burn!!!

Heinz

[Gyrene]

<snif snif> I smell something burning...

Gyrene

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pak40:

Not exactly correct Jeff. Check out this article on ZDNET

http://www.zdnet.com/special/stories/sc/desktops/reviews/0,12492,2655741,00.html

Here's a paragraph from the article:

"Here's the lowdown: On everyday applications -- office productivity applications, Web browsing and e-mail, and utilities such as anti-virus programs -- systems based on the P4 offer no real performance advantage over

high-end Athlon systems. Similarly, on 2-D graphics, the Athlon-based systems actually outperformed the faster P4-based systems. However, the P4 systems had an advantage on 3-D applications such as games, and really

shined on video encoding tests - two areas where Intel promised performance gains."

I don't know about you, Jeff, but I'd rather my games run faster than MS Word and Explorer.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That article compared a 1.1GHz Athlon to a 1.5GHz P4. So I guess it does not really refute my assertation that a 1.3GHz P4 is not faster than a 1.2GHz Athlon.

Further, even with the 1.1-1.5 comparison, the P4 was only slightly faster, while costing nearly twice as much. Even more when you factor in the P4s need for the very expensive RDRAM.

Finally, the comparison was not really fair anyway, since they compared P4s running RDRAM to Athlons using SDRAM. Some of that difference in speed is due to the increased memory bandwidth of RDRAM, and would dissapear if they used a DDRAM based motherboard for the Athlon system.

Go to anandtech for a better, and more current, comparison of systems (they comapre a 1.7GHz P4 to a 1.33GHz Athlon, and conclude that the Athlon is equivalent in performance, while being half the cost).

Jeff Heidman

[ 05-03-2001: Message edited by: Jeff Heidman ]

[Panzer Leader]

Anyone been to Deadhorse, Alaska?

[rlh1138]

Just a comment - somebody writes in with that great feeling you get when you finally get that fast, new computer you've been wanting - just feeling good and kind of kidding around - and within 3-4 posts we've got a mildly negative little pissy match going. '...you're not right', '... I didn't say exactly that..', etc. etc. How about this - maybe I like this guy's choice of CPU or video card, or maybe I don't. But I actually keep my opinion of that to myself and write back something along the lines of, '.. hey, sounds like you are ready for some bigtime fun, have a ball..' or whatever. What's with some of us???

Regards to all

rlh1138

[s_e_avenger]

Will the last person out of this thread please shut off the lights?

[Stacheldraht]

Well, the AMD v. Intel debate is just like the PC v. Apple debate: too hard to resist for us computer geeks

In terms of useful power for the price, AMD certainly does have a lot going for it. When you can buy or build a stable, blazing fast system with a Tbird, why bother with overpriced Intel products? (Not that those are bad, just far from reasonable buys.)

Btw, Echo, congrats on the new rig!

[ 05-03-2001: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]

[GriffinCheng+]

Even after consider the fact that Intel has recently cut the price of P4 die for over 30%, AMD "quietly" follows, the latest "Type C" TBird (with speed in 1.2 and 1.33 GHz) finally unlock the FSB clock and let you run at 266MHz.

For the problem with RAMBUS chips, I read somewhere that it is some contract problems which P4 Mobos must use RAMBUS and again from what I have read, it is going to change towards the 2nd half of this year and P4 mobo can use regular SDRAM which is dirt cheap. But in long run, the mem bandwidth of P4+RAMBUS is going to do P4 systems good, but my educated guess is: it will shine when P4 goes to the 10GHz quantum but it is not that worth the price right now.

OTOH, if you find DDR RAM not good in price/performance, you may with to try a dual TBird Mobo w/ RAID. It still costs less than an avg P4 system.

Griffin.

[ 05-03-2001: Message edited by: GriffinCheng+ ]

[mike8g]

Just to mention it (before the inevitable -click- sound):

Hi Mom!

[ 05-03-2001: Message edited by: mike8g ]

[KMHPaladin]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

The depressing part is that your 1.3 GHz P4 is slower than a 1.2 GHz Athlon, especially at CM when it comes time to run a big turn.

Anandtech just did a comparison and concluded that a 1.7P4 is only about as fast as 1.33 Athlon!

Heck, your 1.3 GHz P4 probably isn't any faster than a 1.3GHz P3 for anything you have sitting in your software library!

Why do people keep buying Intel?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's real classy, Jeff. "Now that you've just spent a lot of money on an expensive computer, I'm going to do my very best to induce a case of buyer's regret! Why should you be happy about your brand-new top-of-the-line computer when I can nitpick it into the ground!" Why don't you hold your tongue and perhaps offer that opinion to someone who is looking to buy instead of trying to make someone feel horrible about the computer they just spent a lot of money on? If you want to tell them that perhaps next time there'd be a better place to spend their money, for god's sake don't do it in such a gleefully malicious manner.

And for the record, if I was building a computer at this time I would almost undoubtedly go with an Athlon.

[Terence]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KMHPaladin:

That's real classy, Jeff. "Now that you've just spent a lot of money on an expensive computer, I'm going to do my very best to induce a case of buyer's regret! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd just like to say that Im so incredibly rich that it doesn't matter how much money my computer costs.

I'll just use it for a couple months and throw it away and buy a new one. I just like to buy computers.

Also, I'm too dumb to know the difference between any of these chips, so I just buy the one with the biggest number.

Who cares anyway, I'm just going to throw it out as soon as a better one comes along....

[Doug Williams]

Jeff,

I always by Intel, mainly for compatibility reasons. Say what you want, I've been building my own PCs since the 80386 days and I have come to the conclusion that Intel makes the best "Intel compatible" chips on the market.

My 2 cents...

[KMHPaladin]

That wasn't my point at all, Terence. Like I said, I wouldn't buy a P4 right now, I feel that the Athlon is a better value. That said, however, what is to be accomplished by lambasting someone after they've pulled the trigger on a brand new expensive computer? Let them enjoy their new and fast machine. Unless you get your jollies making other people feel bad - I thought that kind of got old when I graduated elementary school, though...

[Soddball]

Fair point, Paladin. I'm glad to hear you are happy with your new box of doom. I am upgrading (tomorrow) my CPU from 600 Duron to 850 Thunderbird. It's almost like having a new computer

I can see everyone's point about Intel being more expensive. Even so, they're not bad processors. They are still the processor of choice for every major server supplier (that I know of) and I think you'd be hard pressed to find a fair-sized corporation which would entrust its servers to anything other than Intel.

[Pak40]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

That article compared a 1.1GHz Athlon to a 1.5GHz P4. So I guess it does not really refute my assertation that a 1.3GHz P4 is not faster than a 1.2GHz Athlon.

Further, even with the 1.1-1.5 comparison, the P4 was only slightly faster, while costing nearly twice as much. Even more when you factor in the P4s need for the very expensive RDRAM.

[ 05-03-2001: Message edited by: Jeff Heidman ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was simply stating that your statement wasn't exacly correct and that article does prove that. Im not saying that P4 is better overall or more bang for the buck, just stating that your statement wasn't entirely correct.

The article, BTW, compares 1.2 Athlon to a 1.4 P4. I agree that the Athlon will beat the P4 on buisness applications, there's no question there. But, in applications that use floating point calculations and multimedia you will see an even if not better performance in the P4(equal speeds processors). And, if you re-read that qoute above, these are the areas of performance increase that Intel said would be better over the PIII.

Sure, I'm skeptacle of Intel's Rambus Ram, but then again there hasn't been much software to take advantage of it, to my knowlede. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Why do people keep buying Intel? I think for a couple of reasons: Intel has been with us from the start. It's a name people can trust. They're like Ford in that way. Ford doesn't exactly make the best cars on the market but people still buy them because they've been around. We've all grown up with Fords.

Also, Intel developed a lot of this technology. They did most of the R and D. And a private company with a lot of R and D has to charge higher prices to make a profit.

respectfully,

Jeff

[Terence]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KMHPaladin:

That wasn't my point at all, Terence. Like I said, I wouldn't buy a P4 right now, I feel that the Athlon is a better value. That said, however, what is to be accomplished by lambasting someone after they've pulled the trigger on a brand new expensive computer? Let them enjoy their new and fast machine. Unless you get your jollies making other people feel bad - I thought that kind of got old when I graduated elementary school, though...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do agree with you, actually. If somebody buys a new computer -- and anyone on this forum probably takes computers pretty darn seriously (computers are like cars for the wired generation) --- it was probably a big deal for them.

Nobody should try to make them feel bad. OTOH, im just not sure anyone was trying to make anyone else feel bad. As I said, people here take computers pretty seriously, and have a lot to say about the issues. I think that's what is going on here. Most of the folks here are pretty cool and don't try to crush eachoter into smithereens outside the PBEM sphere, anyway.

Most of us work on computers, play on them, communicate on them... I probably spend 8-10 hours a day in front of one. This is not a decision to take lightly.

For the record, I'm not really rich. I'd dearly love to ditch my ****box Compaq and buy a real computer, but I just don't have the cash right now.

[KMHPaladin]

Good point, Soddball, I agree completely that Intel has the reputation and that their server CPUs are virtually unchallenged. That is the reason that a lot of people won't buy Athlons - the Intel brand name is very well respected and people are reluctant to trust anything else. I think it's great, however, to finally see someone competing with Intel and helping to keep prices reasonable.

I guess my point is, I don't think that people should just blindly buy a CPU based on name, it's just that I got ticked when I saw someone going after someone who'd bought a computer with what seemed to be the intention of making him feel bad about his purchase. There's nothing wrong with telling people enough to allow them to make an informed decision, I'm all for it in fact. However, when someone's already made the decision, it's beside the point, isn't it?

BTW... I don't have a new "box of doom" . My current machine is an IBM TP A20p with a PIII 750 - I have to have a laptop because RPI said so. I'm planning to build a desktop next summer and I'll evaluate the CPU situation at that point.

[Cubbies Phan]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Williams:

Jeff,

I always by Intel, mainly for compatibility reasons. Say what you want, I've been building my own PCs since the 80386 days and I have come to the conclusion that Intel makes the best "Intel compatible" chips on the market.

My 2 cents...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh yeah, AMD makes the best "AMD compatible" chips on the market.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GriffenCheng+:

Even after consider the fact that Intel has recently cut the price of P4 die for over 30%, AMD "quietly" follows, the latest "Type C" TBird (with speed in 1.2 and 1.33 GHz) finally unlock the FSB clock and let you run at 266MHz.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah I agree. I recently went from a Celeron 433 66FSB to a 1.2 GHz Atlon. The shop was just getting in both 266 FSB boards and chips. I made sure to get both.

[Chupacabra]

Something which may be of interest: Leaked Nvidia drivers boost Pentium 4 performance. From The Register.

[KMHPaladin]

Uh... isn't quoting yourself in your signature kind of poor?

[Soddball]

LOL

Soz Paladin - I am in Monkey Brain mode atm.

I think it's a bit odd to quote yourself, too.

--------------------------------------------

Soddball: I think it's a bit odd to quote yourself, too.