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

CPU Prizefight

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

bLack0ut

Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2004
Wow, amd completely rocked Intel in every rl benchmark. I wonder if Cnet is biased in either way... you'd think it would be more favorable towards Intel since it is a bigger company. Funny how the 820 is close to the 3800 but NO ONE mentions it ever. :p
 
OP
Cowboy X

Cowboy X

Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2001
Location
Folding in Barbados
I guess because they were more focussing on the winners. Then the fact that the 3800 often beats the 820 by some wide margins and can even eat the 840Extreme in some tests means that those areas where the 820 got close were overlooked .
 

deathBOB

Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2003
I would still seriously consider the 820, just because its so cheap.

Anyways, throw in a Yonah...
 

3DFlyer

Banned
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Location
The Cockpit
That review is one of the stupidest I've seen in a long time. They put the Intel on a POS nf4 board. Nobody runs an Intel on a nf4 board. Intel has their own proprietary chipset, and owns the nf4. Anybody who runs Intel knows that.
 

Avg

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
But in this case where there was no overclocking involved the nf4 should be able to do the job just fine, and any performance difference would be minimal, and besides the problem with the pentium D isn't the chipset but the fsb and that Intel can't increase the clockspeed. But in my opinion they should have used a Intel chipset, just because they could, but there is no way that the chipset would cripple the chip bad enough to cause it to lose like that.
 

3DFlyer

Banned
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Location
The Cockpit
The nf4's are unstable, and they run hot. Just to show the difference in stability, you can run a 955x up to 300FSB all day long, and all that would do on a nf4 is let the smoke out...it would crash long before then though so getting it there for any length of time is really a moot point.

That's not to show how high they can OC, but how stable they are non-OC'd. If a 955x can run 300FSB stable, it is far more stable unclocked than the nf4 is.

They are pitiful on an Intel system. There are mnay threads about them. From what I have seen, they're not much better on the AMD systems either, but I guess that's the best you can get for an AMD system, as there are no other choices.

They shouldn't even be selling those things. They ought to recal them, but they are still puking them out to the masses who are buying on name only without doing any research on them.

The Intel forum is litered with posts where people have been totally disapointed with them. No serious Intel user runs a performance system unclocked. There is no need to. With the Intel chipsets, they are stable as a rock, and outperform every other chipset made. There is no question at all about that.

Also, a PD has no problem at all going to 5GHz. it's been done mnay times. You just have to know how to cool them. Most serious OC'ers should have a handle on cooling. If you can't cool one though, you can't clck one. That goes with any CPU. You can't clock one 'til it overheats, and it expect it to be stable. Alot of people complain about low clocks, but it's becasue they can't control the heat.
 

hafa

Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2003
Location
A tiny dot in the middle of the Pacific
3DFlyer said:
The nf4's are unstable...They ought to recal them, but they are still puking them out to the masses who are buying on name only without doing any research on them

Since we can only use apocryphal evidence to either substantiate or refute these claims, it may be better not to make them.

However, I'm not above rising to the bait, so that said, I would postulate that for every report of an unstable NF4 in an AMD system there are about 10,000 which are running just fine. (Man, I love throwing out pickled numbers :D )

My own apocryphal evidence shows that every one of the 32 overclocked AMD NF4 systems I have in the field runs perfectly, each of these customers loves their machine, has never reported a single problem, and continues to buy more machines and refer me to additional customers. These machines are serving 24/7 as workstations in the medical, legal, and architectural fields, running everything from file servers to CAD workstations.

The workstation on which I'm typing is an NF4-based workstation which has been running 24/7 for the past 8 months without a single hardware-related issue.

It's only common sense that an Intel chip would run better with an Intel chipset. AMD's on the other hand, shine on the NF4 and are perfectly stable, unless you happen to get a defective one (and I've yet to get a single defective NF4...).
 

Avg

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
3DFlyer said:
The nf4's are unstable, and they run hot. Just to show the difference in stability, you can run a 955x up to 300FSB all day long, and all that would do on a nf4 is let the smoke out...it would crash long before then though so getting it there for any length of time is really a moot point.

That's not to show how high they can OC, but how stable they are non-OC'd. If a 955x can run 300FSB stable, it is far more stable unclocked than the nf4 is.

They are pitiful on an Intel system. There are mnay threads about them. From what I have seen, they're not much better on the AMD systems either, but I guess that's the best you can get for an AMD system, as there are no other choices.

They shouldn't even be selling those things. They ought to recal them, but they are still puking them out to the masses who are buying on name only without doing any research on them.

The Intel forum is litered with posts where people have been totally disapointed with them. No serious Intel user runs a performance system unclocked. There is no need to. With the Intel chipsets, they are stable as a rock, and outperform every other chipset made. There is no question at all about that.

Also, a PD has no problem at all going to 5GHz. it's been done mnay times. You just have to know how to cool them. Most serious OC'ers should have a handle on cooling. If you can't cool one though, you can't clck one. That goes with any CPU. You can't clock one 'til it overheats, and it expect it to be stable. Alot of people complain about low clocks, but it's becasue they can't control the heat.

Just because the nf4 can't overclock as high doesn't mean it's unstable, if that was true then just because it was hard to oc the palomino or the willi that would mean that they were unstable at default clocks which obviously isn't true.

Seriously to overclock a pd to 5.0ghz your going to need some serious cooling, the p4 was made to achive higher clocks, the only thing holding them back is heat, therefore it is no surprise that given enough cooling that they will get high overclocks.

You could run those same tests with a Intel chipset and performance difference would be minimal, and would never have changed the outcome of the tests.
 

Dan0512

Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2004
Location
Switzerland
I run a NF4 ultra board, and it's not 100% junk like 3dflyer usually posts.... stable as rock @ 294 fsb all day long...

anyway in the benchmark it doesn't matter wheter it's more stable or not, but if the performance is equal...

I don't know about intel systems, but how do the NF4 motherboards compare performance wise with the current intel chipsets?

dan
 

Avg

Senior Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2003
Dan0512 said:
I run a NF4 ultra board, and it's not 100% junk like 3dflyer usually posts.... stable as rock @ 294 fsb all day long...

anyway in the benchmark it doesn't matter wheter it's more stable or not, but if the performance is equal...

I don't know about intel systems, but how do the NF4 motherboards compare performance wise with the current intel chipsets?

dan

You know the nVidia nForce 4 intel edition is actually faster then the Intel 955 chipset, I think the nforce chipset uses the nforce 2 mem controller modified to support pentiums and ddr2, read it somewhere don't know where though.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2394&p=1