2GHz clawhammer a64 crushes 2.6GHz barton!

600MHz more and 24fsb higher and the barton still cant touch the a64! 3dmark 2001 demostrates the a64's cpu powers since we all know 3dmark is very cpu intensive as are games for the matter! when I went a64, at stock, its crushing tbreds and bartons left and right!

Consider this, the Bartons are older generation CPU's that can be upgraded to Athlon 64 3200+ perfomance levels. That's pretty good news for overclockers to know.

For gaming the minimum bottleneck for CPU's is 3.0 Ghz Pentium 4, meaning any higher isn't going to make a significant difference than increasing the GPU (Video Card). The latter is where the effort/$$$ is needed.

Why get an A64 wheny you get equivalent gaming results with the older Barton CPU's?

I guess you can just be preparing for the future.

Nice Threat though.

yep, thats pretty much exactly what happend for me when I got my A64.

a 2.5 ghz A64 air cooled, was beating my 4 ghz P4 like crazy.
the A64's are just too damn fast.

I just finished building a 3000+ clawhammer for a client who is an architect. He'll be running CAD which is very processor intensive, so I was gratified when I ran the Sandra benches. My machine in the sig was solidly trounced by the A64 system running stock @ 2.0GHZ. At 2.2GHZ, the comparison became ludicrous due to the gross performance discrepancy.

I'll be ordering all of the parts for a newcastle 3200+ this evening for another client and should be able to build it late next week. I've recorded all of the benchmarks from the clawhammer at 2.0 and 2.2; it will be interesting to compare the two. A64s definitely rock; I'm very enthusiastic about Nforce4SLI and the ability to run up to 4 monitors on high-performance pci-express video cards. Multi-tasking, anyone?

Kunaak said:

yep, thats pretty much exactly what happend for me when I got my A64.

a 2.5 ghz A64 air cooled, was beating my 4 ghz P4 like crazy.
the A64's are just too damn fast.

Click to expand...

I am not supprised. heck, even a 2.3GHz a64 will crush a 4GHz p4

Wow. That is not bad at all. Do you think a 2.6GHz Athlon 64, either a Newcastle or Winchester could in general out-perform a 4.2GHz Prescott with hyper threading?

Thanks for posting this OC550. I had absolutly no clue the A64's were THIS fast.

EDIT: nevermind...you answered my question while I was typing

It certainly is a ripe time to go A64, isn't it?

I will be completely done with Socket A within the next six months, most likely migrating to a S754 based system afterwards.

But right now I'm still having quite a bit of fun overclocking my Socket A system, and feel that I still have quite a bit of overclocking/benchmarking headroom to fill up with my current hardware.

I also couldn't honestly say that I've ever been dissapointed with the performance of my current setup when it comes to gaming, or any other use. This complete satisfaction with what I'm running now has been the main motivation for me to procrastinate on going A64.

600MHz more and 24fsb higher and the barton still cant touch the a64!

Click to expand...

There's a measly little 40 point difference from what I'm seeing, which could be filled quite easily. I wouldn't say "the Overclocked Barton can't touch the Stock A64" with such a small difference in play - the two are basic equals, at least in the example that you've given.

I think a career in newspaper journalism awaits you! Especially as you think that a difference of 0.2% (small enough to suggest no difference) can be regarded as a crushing!!! You even repeated the statement with the P4, which had an even smaller percentage difference! I think the term comparable (and only in 3DM!) is better than the term crushes! Still keep up the threads - they give me a laugh anyway.

I made my comments in the other thread, I do not intend to continue to argue with these shenanigans.

That thread title is inconsequential. A lot will be misled into thinking that its based on a wide-ranging suite of real-world benchmarks. At least that's what I thought. Its only for 3DMark??? Not everybody spends their whole day staring at their PC's running 3dMark benchmark. I built my rig so I can encode video and audio, render 3d, play games, photoshop...you get the idea. And I'm sure a lot of us use our pc's solely for these real-world applications on a daily basis. With all due respect, it would have been more sensible if the thread title was kept very specific, ie. "...in 3dmark benchies"... Granted, the results are hardly surprising.

saying a 2.6 ghz AMD Xp against a 2.0 ghz A64 is a easy difference to make up...

well yeah, you can probably squeeze 50-100 mhz more outta that system with some luck, but once you start overclocking the A64, you don't stand a chance.
the A64 in this case definatly beats the hell outta the Xp.
theres a huge difference between the potential of a already highly overclocked PC, and a PC at stock.

Overclocked A64! Faster than a Pentium 4.2 Ghz? Holy!!

Hopefully by next year the prices shoudl fall quite a bit.. then it's time for upgrade.
Right now I just have to get my XP 2200+ to reach 2.7 Ghz speeds

hehehe...

OC Detective said:

I think a career in newspaper journalism awaits you! Especially as you think that a difference of 0.2% (small enough to suggest no difference) can be regarded as a crushing!!! You even repeated the statement with the P4, which had an even smaller percentage difference! I think the term comparable (and only in 3DM!) is better than the term crushes! Still keep up the threads - they give me a laugh anyway.

Click to expand...

I totally agree with you, not only is the difference so tiny that you'd never notice running the benchmarks on the different computers but it's only with 1 benchmark, nice to see a good fair comparison there!

*edited due to flaming*

-larva
Forum Moderator

Oc550, there are many fundamental problems with this "comparison." Fortunately for you, you are about to take a crash course in drawing reasonable and logical conclusions. Hopefully the following examples that I point out at least teach you that if you choose to make such wild accusations.

1. What operating system(s) were used in these benchmarks? Let us keep in mind that Win 2K tends to outscore XP in comparable benchmarks. With this in mind, we have no knowledge of the OS on either on these computers.

2. What version of Directx was used? It is common knowledge that running dx 8.1 will provide a higher 3D Mark score. Having said this, there is nothing to refute suspicion that one computer could be running dx8.1 while the other benching on dx 9.0.

3. Are these benchmarks taking place on stock or tweaked systems? Tweaking settings such as Virtual Memory and disabling services can often net positive benchmark results. Once again, there is no indication as to whether or not these benchmarks were made on level playing fields.

4. It is very foolish of you to draw such a radical conclusion based on 3D Mark 2001SE scores alone. It is in fact a very old benchmark and is no longer a good indicator of performance. Instead, you should try to provide real-world performance figures over a soon-to-be 5 year old synthetic benchmark. I really don't think I need to go into exactly why such differences in 3D Mark can be misleading, but the fact of the matter is that there are other means of creating more accurate comparisons. You should really learn that you need to provide logical, relevant, objective, and pertinent information before you go making any more claims such as these.

deception``

Thanks for posting OC550, and I apreciate the screenshot to back up your results. I guess the term "crushing" would be a more accurate description of these two CPU's running clock for clock?

I agree that 3dmark 2k1 SE is not the newest benchmark and it would be more accurate to compare with at least a newer benchmark.

I personally do not care for benchmarks and I go by real world performance, but this is quite helpful to people who compete in benchmarking scores such as 3dmark01

@md0Cer said:

Thanks for posting OC550, and I apreciate the screenshot to back up your results. I guess the term "crushing" would be a more accurate description of these two CPU's running clock for clock?

I agree that 3dmark 2k1 SE is not the newest benchmark and it would be more accurate to compare with at least a newer benchmark.

I personally do not care for benchmarks and I go by real world performance, but this is quite helpful to people who compete in benchmarking scores such as 3dmark01

Click to expand...

The purpose of my post was to prove that there were too many uncertainties to draw conclusions from the benchmarks. And last I checked, there is nothing crushing about a 6 point difference.

deception``

deception`` said:

The purpose of my post was to prove that there were too many uncertainties to draw conclusions from the benchmarks. And last I checked, there is nothing crushing about a 6 point difference.

deception``

Click to expand...

Oh yes, I agree with you. Maybe OC550 though meant that there is a crushing difference between the Clawhammer and the Barton.

Maybe not a crushing difference between the stock Clawhammer and an OVERCLOCKED Barton IN 3DMARK '01, in fact, only a 6 point difference as you said, but I think what he meant was there is a difference between the two CPU's. I agree, it could have been worded better, but I think too many people are too harsh on Overclocker550. If he wants to show us the difference between these CPU's in 3dmark, I have no problems with it. I have no real use for it as I judge CPUs that I buy by overclocked performance in an assortment of real world applications THAT I USE, and the price.

Now, just because I or sevral others have no use for this information at all, that does not mean there are not any 3Dmark or benchmark oriented people out there that it may interest. I suggest we all lighten up on OC550 and if you are not interested in his threads, just ignore it instead of picking apart his word usage!

Don't get me wrong, I benchmark and enjoy such figures as much as the next person. Furthermore, I do not have a problem with him or anybody else that wants to show the differences between cpus, video cards, etc. However, the problem with this information is that it can often be misleading. If he wishes to present his claim with supporting information that is reasonable, then that's fine. But for him to base his entire claim on one or two orb comparisons is absolutely ridiculous. In no way am I some AXP/P4 fanatic that wants to get people to think the A64 is not powerful; on the contrary, I think it offers a number of benefits compared to its competition. Nonetheless, Oc550 needs to provide more benchmarks as well as proof that such comparisons were made on a level playing field. Then and only then will people such as myself take him seriously.

deception``

old news ... ?

I wouldn't call any of those scores "crushing" by any means. 1-2fps is definately not crushing.