So Guys - Why Does The PIV Get A Slagging Off Sooo Much?

[Traz]

Am I missing something? What's wrong with Intel's PIV exactly? I don't see why there is so much critisism...

Are Intel slagged off for being Intel or is it the price of Intel? Maybe it is the fact that they are the leaders in this show... mmm, maybe that's it.

Q: Can an Intel chip be clocked as much as an AMD chip?
Q: Aren't Intel chips easier to cool?
Q: Don't AMD follow what Intel do?
Q: Didn't AMD steal a few top bods from Intel?

I need to get my hands on a PIV and have a play with it I think. Any help and suggestions as to which board to place it on [calm yourselves now, I said 'board' not 'bin' .

[CrystalMethod]

A: It all depends on the chip. (sometimes you get lucky, AMD's are the same way)

A: Intels normally run cooler than AMD's, but the HSF's, availble, the difference is nothing of any consequence, throw in water cooling, and the difference is nil.

A: AMD, doesn't exactly follow what Intel does, it's more of where the market is going and both companies tailor towards that.

A: AMD is slowly putting the squeeze on Intel, but for now Intel is still top dog in the CPU market. pretty soon now, it's going to come down to personal preference exclusively, not just price. Intel can't keep going the way they're going and expect to keep their clients. Look at the 1Ghz chips from both companies, The Intel goes for $300 or so and the AMD is less than half that price.

My thoughts: I prefer the Intels for now, because everyone is spending the money geared towards them, and everything that comes out for the Intels is a little bit more stable. But, it's only a matter of time before an equal amount of money is being developed for AMD stuff. Don't forget that Intel doesn't only make CPU's they make motherboards, net cards, etc...
Whereas AMD only makes chips (Someone correct me if I'm wrong here). Intel offers "complete solutions" to "X" preson's needs, or "X" company's needs. (jeez...I sound like a cheezy commercial...). Up untill recently Intel also had the server market cornered, and still does for a little bit. With the dual AMD's comming out, price and performance my swing the tide AMD's way. But like I said, I'm pro-Intel for now.

I hear the Asus P4T gets a good review, but I haven't actually seen the bench marks against other boards.

[Nex]

I feel the P4 is a potentially excellent chip.
It certainly has the best technology, but the problem is it doesn't optimally benefit current apps/games in the same way an upgrade to an equivalent TB would.
It has technology and a feature set every bit as good to CPU's as GF3's is to video cards, better some might say...
But it needs to be running under conditions that truly exploit it.
Then you'll see it at its best, and it'll be for those situations clearly the best choice.
For me, technologically, a P4 1.7, a P4T, 512 MB Rambus, and a GeForce 3 would provide the best solution.
But I'm not rich.
Current software dictates a TB is the best choice, but in 6 months who knows...
(Incidentally I'm not referring to pricing at all, TB wins there hands down)

[dugans]

Well, I'm not one to get the newest stuff anyway- I'm cheap!

But- from what I've been reading, the PIV is slower than the PIII in MOST realworld situations.
There is some cool tech involved with the chip that under ideal conditions (which rarely exist and include using software that is optimized for the PIV) there is a pretty good performance boost.
It may turn out that in the long run more apps support the PIV's special needs and make it a winning chip, but for now a PIII @ 1.5 is supposed to be faster than a PIV @ 1.7! And the AMD (1.4?) is faster than either.
Like I said, this is no personal experience, my pc's are a dual 400 and a K6-2@450!!!!!!!!! I have read a bunch of stuff on the net and in some of the rags about it though.

[Nex]

You're spot on with a lot of what you say Roger, but the one point you talk about is where the P4 has an advantage.
Yes, they might be 'ideal world' conditions, but that's the issue:
from what I hear, Intel are worker closer with the software companies than anyone, bar, parhaps nVIDIA, to get total support for their chips.
And I mean support that will give them a definite edge in the market.
The way I see it is that AMD are producing chips that are, for want of a more cogent descriptor, 'good all-rounders'.
That is they're pretty decent at most things you throw at them, being particularly good at some, and generally at least good with all. But not outstanding at anything.
Whereas P4 is slightly average with a lot of stuff, below average for some, but, occasionally, superb with some.
And that's a side side Intel are working on to even up in terms of ratio.
But it's just not a viable solution right now. Like any good technology it'll take time, and presently Intel's prices are too high. That's a side AMD have utterly mastered.
Though, admittedly AMD aren't really making any major headway into Intels financial muscle as yet. Intel still rule the corporate sector financially, and money talks louder than MHz.
(I should add that the last time I CHECKED, Intel were higher than AMD in Fortune 500, in fact AMD were nowhere to be seen)

[funnyperson1]

the only problem is that there is no 1.5ghz pIII, toms hardware had a 1.13 (tualatin, remember coppermines cant reach past 1.1, the core doesnt support it) that they oced to 1.5, and while it does get int the territory of the p4 and the athlon, it was nowhere close to better, and when the software comes out that is optimized, the p4 will whoop up
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q2/010612/tualatin-03.html
check that out, the p4 is actually in front...

[CrystalMethod]

I've also noticed that Intel's at their rated speed are far more stable than the AMD's. try to remember that neither company supports what WE do with them. Also Intel has had the market pretty much to themselves for the last ??? years. AMD will definately catch up to them in the comming years, but by then, it'll be a matter of personal preference, rather than speed, cost, or stability.

[DAppel]

Originally posted by Traz
Q: Don't AMD follow what Intel do?
Q: Didn't AMD steal a few top bods from Intel?


Actualy I don't agree with these "statements". There sure are cases where they speak the true, but not as a general rule.

Intel did a HUGE hype over the Pentium MMX. They launched their MMX chip before AMD's K6 MMX, but they didn't tell anyone that AMD developed the MMX instructions set and hardware implementation for it YEARS before. Being a small company, AMD couldn't afford the release a new chip for each new technology enhancement. Intel took advantage of it and took all the glory for itself.

Also, Intel did big marketing efforts to promote their SSE instructions (no, they DO NOT speed up your internet connection), while everyone knows that these instructions were created to catch up with the K6-2 3D-NOW Instruction Set. Only after glancing at the markets growing support for the K6-2 that Intel launched their P3 with the new SSE instructions.

There are other features that Intel "scanned" from AMD such as RISC-translated cores and exclusive L2 cache.

I am NOT SAYING THAT AMD DIDN'T DO THE SAME at ALL.
It's a competitive market and competition (doesn't matter who) is not supposed to play fair.

I'm not a AMD fan. Not Intel's either. I go with the one that is more cost/effective (or the most challenging to overclock). For the moment I have a Intel system, but just because I didn't have enough money to buy a AMD one (You see, here in Brasil things are "the other way around").
The reason I'd rather buy a AMD system is because it's faster than an Intel one on MOST conditions (same clock). The PIV is slower than a Athlon system on most cases, so I wouldn't pay that much of a difference to be faster in a few programs.

No one here is trashing the PIV. It just happens that it can't catch up with the Athlons. I would love to get hold of a PIV and, as you said, play with it. It might turn into a great machine, as well as an Athlon would.

[Crazy Jayhawk]

After reading through this, I'm convinced. I'm dropping a faster PIII into my comp instead of going with a P4. :p

[UnseenMenace]

Originally posted by funnyperson1
the only problem is that there is no 1.5ghz pIII, toms hardware had a 1.13 (tualatin, remember coppermines cant reach past 1.1, the core doesnt support it) that they oced to 1.5, and while it does get int the territory of the p4 and the athlon, it was nowhere close to better, and when the software comes out that is optimized, the p4 will whoop up
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/01q2/010612/tualatin-03.html
check that out, the p4 is actually in front...

If you look at the whole article the P4 is not in front in all benchmarks and despite having more mhz than the Athlon. The Althlon whoops the P4 in the Si-Sandra CPU benchmark and the Si-Sandra Multimedia benchmark not to mention the Sysmark Office productivity test. The benchmarks which the P4 does well on can be attributed as much to its Mhz advantage as anthing else, considering how close these benchmark scores are I doubt that a P4 of the same clock speed would even beat the others in these benchmarks. Toms hardware even quote in the conclusion "I don't have any doubts that its new design and process technology could enable Pentium III processors at clock speeds that put Pentium 4 to shame in a significant number of benchmarks. Intel doesn't want to jeopardize Pentium 4's sluggish and stony route to success"

When you consider ALL the benchmarks and the price the P4 is not in front

[batboy]

Ok, the problem with the current P-4 is that it's still a 0.18 micron core. It's also sort of castrated and doesn't have all the features that it was originally supposed to have. The reason Intel did a rush job and released it before it really was finished was that it was losing the CPU MHz speed race with AMD.

The new P-4 Northwood with 0.13 micron core is due to be released this winter. Now it's a different story and should be an excellent CPU. My advice (and this is what I'm doing) is to wait until it comes out. It will require a different motherboard so there will be NO direct upgrade path from the old P-4 setup.

Once the new P-4 is released, Intel will abandon the old crappy Willimette P-4 and everyone that has the old one will wish they hadn't of bought the overpriced and over-hyped thing. Initial indications show that the new P-4 will really kick hinny on benchmarks and should be a great overclocker. I can't wait... 2 gig here I come!

[DAppel]

One more reason to stick with AMD. Intel thinks we all have money trees planted on our backyards.

You see, I still have a mobo from the time of my K6 200. It's now running a K6-2 350, and I can upgrade it to a 550 with a few bucks. I could as well choose a K6-III or a K6-2+.
That's the kind of longevity that I'm looking for. Here in Brasil computers are really very expensive. I don't want to have a fast system today and throw it away tomorrow because Intel developed a new architecture that requires new motherboard and memory.

AMD usually allows you to keep your system for a much longer time and, even having a new primary machine, keep it somewhat updated. My K6 can last for some time still, I use it with linux as a office box so no need to be screaming fast.

I know that computer performance is not about clockspeed itself. My K6 can't match with a P3, Duron os PIV system, but it's nice to have OPTIONS to choose between, instead of going with some kind of imposition.

[funnyperson1]

Originally posted by DAppel
One more reason to stick with AMD. Intel thinks we all have money trees planted on our backyards.

You see, I still have a mobo from the time of my K6 200. It's now running a K6-2 350, and I can upgrade it to a 550 with a few bucks. I could as well choose a K6-III or a K6-2+.
That's the kind of longevity that I'm looking for. Here in Brasil computers are really very expensive. I don't want to have a fast system today and throw it away tomorrow because Intel developed a new architecture that requires new motherboard and memory.

AMD usually allows you to keep your system for a much longer time and, even having a new primary machine, keep it somewhat updated. My K6 can last for some time still, I use it with linux as a office box so no need to be screaming fast.

I know that computer performance is not about clockspeed itself. My K6 can't match with a P3, Duron os PIV system, but it's nice to have OPTIONS to choose between, instead of going with some kind of imposition.
well....it depends, intel's only being doing that recently and its because they need new technology to come out with these new chips (such as .13 micron).....for example my p3v4x can run a pII 233, a celeron 233(i dunno if these exist), and a pIII up to a gigahurtz, not bad at all......

[Traz]

Originally posted by UnseenMenace


If you look at the whole article the P4 is not in front in all benchmarks and despite having more mhz than the Athlon. The Althlon whoops the P4 in the Si-Sandra CPU benchmark and the Si-Sandra Multimedia benchmark not to mention the Sysmark Office productivity test. The benchmarks which the P4 does well on can be attributed as much to its Mhz advantage as anthing else, considering how close these benchmark scores are I doubt that a P4 of the same clock speed would even beat the others in these benchmarks. Toms hardware even quote in the conclusion "I don't have any doubts that its new design and process technology could enable Pentium III processors at clock speeds that put Pentium 4 to shame in a significant number of benchmarks. Intel doesn't want to jeopardize Pentium 4's sluggish and stony route to success"

When you consider ALL the benchmarks and the price the P4 is not in front

Mr Menace, I do believe that the PIV is still in front as the cost of a larger psu and severe cooling makes the AMD cost the same if not more than the Intel.

[DAppel]

Originally posted by funnyperson1

well....it depends, intel's only being doing that recently and its because they need new technology to come out with these new chips (such as .13 micron).....for example my p3v4x can run a pII 233, a celeron 233(i dunno if these exist), and a pIII up to a gigahurtz, not bad at all......

Yes I agree.
But I still take it with a grain of salt. Your P3V4X is a somewhat new board, and has good backward compatibility. Take a board one would have by the time of the PII 233 or celeron (there are 233 celerons, but they are the cache-less version)and try to run a PIII gig on it.
No forward compatibility, I mean. Intel launches new chips every few months and changes Vcore and BIOS support. BIOS is a easy fix, but VCore is not.

That is the point I´m trying to get to. If someone had a PII motherboard, this person had to sack this board and buy a new one in order to have backward compatibility.
The Pentium (classic and MMX) architecture is INTELs, and Amd was capable of prolonging its lifespan to the day. Just imagine what AMD will do with it´s proprietary Athlon architecture.


But relax, I know that AMD systems are not all wonders. Sure the Athlon had some chipsets issues and many people had to upgrade their motherboards.

What just ****es me is the fact that Intel released a "crippled" version of the Willy, knowing that it would be replaced (very soon, in fact) and that users would not even be able to reuse their motherboards. So you buy a brand-new high-end PIV and already know it it doomed with no upgrade options other than buying a whole new system (CPU+Mobo I mean).

[DAppel]

I know it is not always good to maintain an extremely old system with a somewhat new CPU. Technical improvements are very good and sometimes really worth the investment.

My primary system is up-to-date, with recent motherboard so I can get higher FSBs. I know that technical innovations come for good.


But, living in Brasil, I must think in the future of my system. I often can´t just go and buy a new one, things are really expensive here.

Hope you understand why I´m so concerned about this:(