• Welcome to Overclockers Forums! Join us to reply in threads, receive reduced ads, and to customize your site experience!

I need an original 2.4 GHZ P4 owner

Overclockers is supported by our readers. When you click a link to make a purchase, we may earn a commission. Learn More.
Maxvla said:

microsoft has the patent on the calc program. good luck :(

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
ah crap, im not going to mess with M$

I guess i'll have to program my own calculator and put it on download.com and include the awesome 20000! benchmark tool;)
perhaps then i'll get rich off the people of OCers;)

AZN
 
AZN said:

ah crap, im not going to mess with M$

I guess i'll have to program my own calculator and put it on download.com and include the awesome 20000! benchmark tool;)
perhaps then i'll get rich off the people of OCers;)

AZN
Click to expand...
already done. i did it 3 minutes ago.

already getting creditcard orders.

i'm in the money... i'm in the money...
 
Maxvla said:

already done. i did it 3 minutes ago.

already getting creditcard orders.

i'm in the money... i'm in the money...
Click to expand...
well then i'll make skins and plugins for it... we both will be rich ;)

AZN
 
AZN said:

well then i'll make skins and plugins for it... we both will be rich ;)

AZN
Click to expand...
skins are free dude. wtf are you smokin? :D

get your own money tree. :p
 
Maxvla said:

skins are free dude. wtf are you smokin? :D

get your own money tree. :p
Click to expand...
what are u talking about??? the new calculator is state of the art and my skins are so cool u will pay for these... im not talking about lame XP and winamp skins... these rock! better then 3D... they are 30D... u need a Radeon 9700 to the 3rd power just to view my skins;) and dont get me started on the plugins...

AZN
 
Afshin_BMW said:
Oh man , take it easy AZN ,i didn mean that.
Here is my implication:
You can use pcmark to estimate your cpu's multimedia power.
to rate your overall performance, you know pcmark tests are not all cpu dependent tests. there are other factors that can interfere in the result of pcmark.suck as ram,graphic card,mobo....
But i believe 20000! is only cpu dependent.
You may ask why this test? the answer is i prefer this ,cause it gives you the result so fast and there is no need to install any program.
And i didn wan to bother the overclockers .
now i think you got me man....

But if you have pcmark 2000 or sandra 2000 results of your pc please send it too
it would be so worthy for me

thanks
Click to expand...

Afshin, your assumptions are only partially correct.

- the idea that benchmarks do not test only cpu power is only correct for a specific class of those, such as PCMark. There are plenty of benchmarks that do test the CPU almost exclusively like SuperPI, Prime95 and Sandra CPU bench.

- the idea that it is somehow of great interest to isolate CPU power is a delusion. A cpu is dependent on at least the chipset -the system bus, the ram speed etc- for its calculations. Not taking that into account is almost impossible and certainly not very relevant for user performance measurements.

- the test you proposed is an integer test as you claim. It is well known that integer calculations are *not* what 3D rendering requires- those programs (like games) use mainly floating point calculations. In this aspect you test would be a very poor predictor of performance.

- the idea that your test is somehow clean is also false; the OS and background tasks can take up cycles unnoticed and your timing method (the stopwatch) is hardly accurate enough to detect subtle differences between runs as well as between cpu's/pc's.
 
well max,i i think i cant convince you even if i send you my results in pictures and photos,
so you better take a look at tomshardware.com Cpu guide and read benchmarks of the issue titled AMD travels through time

I also want to notify that 3dmark 2002 se is strongly optimized for p4, when most games are not optimized yet.
By the Way do you know 8 creepy problems in p4 design?
This is why intel wants the code writers to re-write their code for P4, do you think there would be a day that all programs become optimized?
 
Afshin_BMW said:
well max,i i think i cant convince you even if i send you my results in pictures and photos,
so you better take a look at tomshardware.com Cpu guide and read benchmarks of the issue titled AMD travels through time

I also want to notify that 3dmark 2002 se is strongly optimized for p4, when most games are not optimized yet.
By the Way do you know 8 creepy problems in p4 design?
This is why intel wants the code writers to re-write their code for P4, do you think there would be a day that all programs become optimized?
Click to expand...
you cant talk about tomshardware.com in Intel land... he is owned by AMD ;)
BTW have u seen the XP3800 that tom reviewed last week? ;) tom get all the cool AMD stuff :rolleyes: I also heard tom did a review on the 10lbs hammer

AZN
 
Afshin_BMW said:
well max,i i think i cant convince you even if i send you my results in pictures and photos,
so you better take a look at tomshardware.com Cpu guide and read benchmarks of the issue titled AMD travels through time

I also want to notify that 3dmark 2002 se is strongly optimized for p4, when most games are not optimized yet.
By the Way do you know 8 creepy problems in p4 design?
This is why intel wants the code writers to re-write their code for P4, do you think there would be a day that all programs become optimized?
Click to expand...
you seriously believe tomshardware? really?


you sure?

you get all your info from there right? cause the xp2400 runs at 1900 right? you might want to check out amd's site that has a pdf document specifically saying the 2400+ is a 2ghz processor.

3dmark2001se is the current madonion video graphics tester. there hasn't been a 2002 to have a second edition written for it.

it is safe to say 75% of games in the last year is optimized for p4's.

i'd like to hear these 8 (cut and paste from tomshardware article) things you investigated as part of the intel team. worth a chuckle at least. complete optimization is not impossible, don't count it out.

your pictures are either doctored or taken of improperly configured systems because there is no way an 1800+ is faster than a p4 2.0a in a "COMPLETE" system test not a math test.

next?
 
What the hell is this place, are you taunting?
i chose 20000! test just not to bother you to do the test for me.

If you believe in sandra ,deliver your results i'm sure you all will fail.

Or i have tell you a secret?
 
Afshin_BMW said:
What the hell is this place, are you taunting?
i chose 20000! test just not to bother you to do the test for me.

If you believe in sandra ,deliver your results i'm sure you all will fail.

Or i have tell you a secret?
Click to expand...
which results would you like? btw i'm using sandra 2002. you might wanna upgrade yours.

well you took too long. i'm off to bed.

feel free to continue this conversation tomorrow however.
 
Last edited:
No no no,tomshardware is not my info center.
And dont take me wrong here.I'm not amd guy.since amd ruined it's processors k5 and k6, i 've entirely turned back from it.

I myslef has built up these :AMD 950,1400,1600+,1700+,1800+,1900+,2000+
intel 1100,1200,1400, 1.6a ,1.7 ,1.8 ,2.0a
But i have to notify i used sandra 2000 and pcmark 2000 not yours to test them.
But if you want me to reveal 8 problems, you should give me 1 day long time to put the documents together, and give you a compelete one.
But i remember some of them:
1.P4 uses too small L1 cache only 8 kb just like the traditional 486
when L1 cache is the most vital thing for cpu.
2.Cpu uses more clock cycles to calculate a machine language..........
Just give me sometime , i'll offer you all informatoins
 
Afshin_BMW said:
What the hell is this place, are you taunting?
i chose 20000! test just not to bother you to do the test for me.

If you believe in sandra ,deliver your results i'm sure you all will fail.

Or i have tell you a secret?
Click to expand...
so what are u saying? I will fail how? my p4 can't beat a XP1800 is that what u are saying? if so im game... what benchmark can we compare? here is pcmark and sandra just for kicks ;)

pcmark.jpg

mem.jpg

s1.jpg

s2.jpg


AZN
 
Last edited:
Hey man, this is unfair ,your's 2.55 GHZ
where the hell on earth can amd 1.8 reach yours?!!
But i wish i had an amd 2400XP by my side to compete.
BTW how do you compare amd to intel according to their prices?
Some one said amd guys are penny wising.


Bybye!
 
Afshin_BMW said:
Hey man, this is unfair ,your's 2.55 GHZ
where the hell on earth can amd 1.8 reach yours?!!
But i wish i had an amd 2400XP by my side to compete.
BTW how do you compare amd to intel according to their prices?
Some one said amd guys are penny wising.


Bybye!
Click to expand...
if u want to go dollar for dollar then a X2400 should be compared to a 2.4ghz p4... they are about equal in price... sorry i dont have that chip to compare it to. I would like to see how both those chips do stock and OCed...
well... u said the xp1800 beat me in the 20000! test... so y is this not fair? i thought u said amd was better... im kidding with u... i know this aint a fair test... but neither is ur 20000! benchmark to decide the better CPU.

AZN
 
Oh ,thank god ,my browser just loaded all your benchmars pics.
now you can obviously confirm my depiction of competition btween amd 1800+ and p4 2000.in 3 of 4 cpu benchmarks 1.8XP beats p4 2000,plus amd run 20000! faster.
So Max are you still awake? do you see what i said about 1.8+
What you say now?
I will give further infomation about p4 flaws in coming days.

Any idea?
 
Afshin_BMW said:
No no no,tomshardware is not my info center.
And dont take me wrong here.I'm not amd guy.since amd ruined it's processors k5 and k6, i 've entirely turned back from it.

I myslef has built up these :AMD 950,1400,1600+,1700+,1800+,1900+,2000+
intel 1100,1200,1400, 1.6a ,1.7 ,1.8 ,2.0a
But i have to notify i used sandra 2000 and pcmark 2000 not yours to test them.
But if you want me to reveal 8 problems, you should give me 1 day long time to put the documents together, and give you a compelete one.
But i remember some of them:
1.P4 uses too small L1 cache only 8 kb just like the traditional 486
when L1 cache is the most vital thing for cpu.
2.Cpu uses more clock cycles to calculate a machine language..........
Just give me sometime , i'll offer you all informatoins
Click to expand...

Sadly you have ignored my post to you above... in any case you continue to proclaim false beliefs. The Pentium 4 does NOT use 8Kbytes of level 1 cache. The P4's L1 cache is measured in micro-ops of which it has 12. Furthermore, the comparison to the 486's cache structure is completely invalid. The 486 depended on motherboard based L2 cache running at a fraction of the CPU's speed in many cases. The P4 has 512Kb of L2 cache that runs at CPU speed- this means it can be accessed virtually without penalty. Ergo: there is no "too small cache" problem.

As for your second point that the cpu takes more cycles to process "machine language"... this is an empty statement at best. It depends on the type and order of the instructions how much any given cpu can calculate. The P4 is no exception. If you mean that an AMD XP can do more FPU calculations in a single clock cycle, then that is true. The P4 has double-pumped integer units on the other hand... it's all in *what* is going on at the time. Also, a clock cycle's work isn't the greatest way to compare performance if the P4 architecture runs a full 50% more cycles than a XP does.
 
Afshin_BMW said:
well max,i i think i cant convince you even if i send you my results in pictures and photos,
so you better take a look at tomshardware.com Cpu guide and read benchmarks of the issue titled AMD travels through time

I also want to notify that 3dmark 2002 se is strongly optimized for p4, when most games are not optimized yet.
By the Way do you know 8 creepy problems in p4 design?
This is why intel wants the code writers to re-write their code for P4, do you think there would be a day that all programs become optimized?
Click to expand...

well I know you mean 3dmark2k1se....

and yes, 3dmark2k1se also has optimisations for AMD.

and I'll say it again, most games are "optimized" for the P4( yet maybe many do not contain sse2 crap if it helps at all)......and latest games are also optimised for amd's 3dnow stuff as well.

I'll say this simply.....one test shows nothing.

I'll also say this......once OCed the intel cpu will kick an OCed AMD cpu (both being about the same "ghz" before OC)

the top spots on seti are all intel.....
same with 3dmark2k1....

do I have to continue???

mica
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

mackerel
HT perf and power scaling on 12100F
Replies
0
Views
69
mackerel
mackerel
N
Poor memory clocks caused by TG contact frame?
Replies
9
Views
728
nstgc
N
T
New config. advice
2
Replies
30
Views
717
shalena20
S
B
Ethernet Cables and Best Cat Rating. Some Thoughts
Replies
3
Views
187
Railgun
Railgun
Vger70
AMD 7950X overclock help
2
Replies
29
Views
4K
Zerileous
Zerileous
Back