New Ziff-Davis Benchmarks: New P4 2.4GHz BARELY edges Athlon 2100+

[mbigna]

Here is the article:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/zd/20020404/tc_zd/5105827&cid=73

 

[NeoMoses]

Yes, once again we see that MHz means nothing anymore. Most of us have known that all along. Now if only the general public would realize that.

Did anyone else think that article sounded biased towards AMD, though? Sure AthlonXPs are good, but that article sounded more like an advertisement than a comparison. (at least to me.)

 

[mbigna]

Well--I think they made the clarification about the cost of performance. I don't think there was much bias in any case. They WERE, however, touting their new benchmark that reflects "real-world" use--and the Athlon XP won that benchmark.

I just checked pricewatch.com:

Pentium 2.4 GHz: $584
Athlon XP 2100+: $236
----------------------
........Difference: $348

That extra money could easily buy you a motherboard and memory and a video card!

The Athlon XP 2100+ will probably always be less than half the price of the top-of-the-line P4. Intel will likely never catch AMD when it comes to price/performance ratio. When the Thoroughbreds come out, Intel will likely not even hold the raw performance crown--at least for a while.

...and then there's the HAMMER...

 

[Fiz]

Isn't comparing procs using MHZ kind of like using RPM's to compare car engines? It's a shame that the average "Chonzo" doesn't realize this, if they did AMD would really have it made. I mean hey, it only took the about 700 MHZ, but they are getting there. I guess you could say it like this, a 4 cylinder and an 8 cylinder gan both go up hill at 90MPH, which one is going to need more RPM's to do it? Athlon=8 cylinder, P4=4 cylinder.

Fiz

 

[Maximus Nickus]

Intel don't hold the crown.

Remember when AMD had a 200FSB and faster chips, not only that they were more efficient!!!!

Intel had 133FSB (before only 100FSB) they were more $$$ (over double) less efficient and slower.
So Intel released the Celeron.

Not a Debate BUT FACT.
M_N

 

[Dylruss]

I am not a Rambus fan in anyway, but what if a Athlon XP had Rambus, what then? Would Pentium 4 really shine as bright as they say? I for one am happy with DDR.

 

[OC-Master]

LOL!!!!

quote:

"LONDON--The performance of Intel's new 2.4GHz Pentium 4 desktop processor merely edges ahead of AMD's latest Athlon XP 2100+, running at 1.733MHz, despite the Intel processor's 667MHz lead over the Athlon, according to new ZDNet UKbenchmark tests."

Ok, am I seeing things or is that 1.7MHz? I think AMDs XP2100 runs alot faster than 1.73MHz, ZD should be ashamed!


AXIA

 

[Greg M]

Did anyone else think that article sounded biased towards AMD, though? Sure AthlonXPs are good, but that article sounded more like an advertisement than a comparison. (at least to me.)

With ZD, it's usually the other way around. It may appear more biased because the AMD processors are much more widely accepted in Europe. I just wish a major business machine mfr. would use them. I would push for our company to use them. AMD's kick butt on office applications and offer better price/performance.

 

[mbigna]

LOL!!!!

quote:

"LONDON--The performance of Intel's new 2.4GHz Pentium 4 desktop processor merely edges ahead of AMD's latest Athlon XP 2100+, running at 1.733MHz, despite the Intel processor's 667MHz lead over the Athlon, according to new ZDNet UKbenchmark tests."

Ok, am I seeing things or is that 1.7MHz? I think AMDs XP2100 runs alot faster than 1.73MHz, ZD should be ashamed!


AXIA

1.7 MHz -- That's slower than the original IBM PC 8086 running at 4.77 MHz!

(I missed that typo, myself)

 

[Gilgamesh]

The 533 bus might bring serious perfomance to P4, i've seen reviews in toms site and they look very fast, i wish t-bred was here.

However, on many other tests the Rambus-equipped Pentium 4 system shines. It beats the Athlon XP 2100+ on about half of the Internet performance tests, and on high-end application performance. It scores higher on all gaming tests. The chip will gain a further advantage as more applications arrive optimized for Pentium 4.

I find this interesting not all gamming benchs P4 wins, P4 just do well in Quake3 because its optimized but i find it stu*** because pentiums never needed optimized software to run fast.

 

[Maximus Nickus]

DDR is not that much slower than RD (just look at Sandra 2002) the downfall of RD is the cost, and its very high latencys.

Mhz isn't always the best, as the P4 shows!

 

[RoadWarrior]

RD RAM would be 'orrible on an Athlon I'm thinking, it only looks so good on a P4 because of that real long pipeline, makes up for the latency. Probably why "head to head" comparisons of DDR and RDRAM with a P4 make DDR look bad. Athlons deserve/need DDR, P4s deserve/need RD-RAM.

I'm going to be laughing, because I'll be running my XP-1800 @ 2100 speeds with nice fat 166/333, 175/350, or even 200/400 fsb speeds. . . . . . . fingers crossed.

The question I want to know though, is that if there's a multiplayer game where the Athlon and P4 get identical framerates, does the P4 get lagged in the gameplay by a frame or so?

Road Warrior