Fastest PC in the World, and it's an INTEL

Typhoon · Post by **Typhoon** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:07 am

http://www.thinkcomputers.org/index.php ... cles&id=33

Now come on Bazz, bite :P

BAZZIL · Post by **BAZZIL** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:19 am

looks good =] a nice fridge.

It's always funny though how they go on about how they have the fastest PC and then they go and rate it on a silly thing like clock cycle just because it's a big number because of the rediculously large number of stages in the Intel pipeline.

I'm sure it is the fastest at present, but it would be nice to see some real numbers to show how good it really is instead of using the silly large number marketing dribble that the Intel buffs are so keen to lap up

BAZZIL · Post by **BAZZIL** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:20 am

you forgot to put 'One of' infront of your thread Title Typhewn :P

Mattly · Post by **Mattly** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 10:28 am

How many FPS will it get in rfactor?

Riven · Post by **Riven** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:37 am

Its been known for a long time that AMD's have a higher sucsess rate for its instructions, and so therefore they can effective do more per cycle than an Intel, which is why an AMD that is actual 2200MHz is close to a P4 3000MHz

Mattly · Post by **Mattly** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 11:45 am

Riven wrote:Its been known for a long time that AMD's have a higher sucsess rate for its instructions, and so therefore they can effective do more per cycle than an Intel, which is why an AMD that is actual 2200MHz is close to a P4 3000MHz

When you say 2200mhz you are talking about the clock cycles or the chip name. i.e a AMD 2200+ is no where near as fast as a p4 3.0, but a AMD64 3200+ is comparable.

Riven · Post by **Riven** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 12:39 pm

Mattly wrote:
Riven wrote:Its been known for a long time that AMD's have a higher sucsess rate for its instructions, and so therefore they can effective do more per cycle than an Intel, which is why an AMD that is actual 2200MHz is close to a P4 3000MHz
When you say 2200mhz you are talking about the clock cycles or the chip name. i.e a AMD 2200+ is no where near as fast as a p4 3.0, but a AMD64 3200+ is comparable.

Clock cycles
An AMD 2200MHz will do the same work approximatly as a P4 3000MHz
Hence why the AMD gets a 3000+ label, but is only 2200MHz

Noon416 · Post by **Noon416** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 1:18 pm

@ today's "debate"... time for some fun ...

If you take this article from Toms Hardware and scale out the graphing for say UT2004 (lets not get rid of any biases, just for fun):

Currently:
- the P4 660 Prescott @ 3.6GHz does 136.7 FPS
- the overclocked AMD FX-57 @ 3.0GHz does 195.7 FPS

Scaled out to 5.46GHz for each chip:
- the P4 660 Prescott @5.46GHz would do 207.32 FPS
- The AMD FX-57 @5.46GHz would do 356.17 FPS

I know which one I'd rather have....

*dig* Although I really would recommend senior citizens buy Intel's for the coming winter, it really will save them on heating bills.

Mattly · Post by **Mattly** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 2:00 pm

Nice one Noon416.

There isn't anyone really debating who makes the faster chip at the moment. At present it's AMD and good on them. There are all sorts of factors that should be factored into a debate about cpu's including cost,reliability and gaming performance. For every graph you show me I could pull out one arguing the other way. That is on a comparable chip comparision, AMD have the crown with there x2 series at the moment. Lets wait till Intel produces it's next gen chip shall we.

Oh and I will be setting up a benchmark thread tonight for us all to boast on!

BAZZIL · Post by **BAZZIL** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 2:12 pm

Mattly wrote:
Riven wrote:Its been known for a long time that AMD's have a higher sucsess rate for its instructions, and so therefore they can effective do more per cycle than an Intel, which is why an AMD that is actual 2200MHz is close to a P4 3000MHz
When you say 2200mhz you are talking about the clock cycles or the chip name. i.e a AMD 2200+ is no where near as fast as a p4 3.0, but a AMD64 3200+ is comparable.

indeed AMD moved to this shitbox naming scheme because intel refused to market their chips with a speed standard using Instructions Per Cycle - because they knew they would get eaten up.

As far as marketing goes, bigger numbers to the average consumer means better which is why AMD had to adopt a bollocks naming scheme so the consumers had a number to compare :P

BAZZIL · Post by **BAZZIL** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 2:13 pm

Noon416 wrote: *dig* Although I really would recommend senior citizens buy Intel's for the coming winter, it really will save them on heating bills.

yah or you could buy an Athlon 64 and get a seperate heater to run and still use the same amount of power

BAZZIL · Post by **BAZZIL** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 2:14 pm

Mattly wrote:Nice one Noon416.

There isn't anyone really debating who makes the faster chip at the moment. At present it's AMD and good on them. There are all sorts of factors that should be factored into a debate about cpu's including cost,reliability and gaming performance. For every graph you show me I could pull out one arguing the other way. That is on a comparable chip comparision, AMD have the crown with there x2 series at the moment. Lets wait till Intel produces it's next gen chip shall we.

Oh and I will be setting up a benchmark thread tonight for us all to boast on!

yus as you can see intel have to put their chips in refrigerators now to make them go fast

Mattly · Post by **Mattly** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 2:16 pm

Bazzil you might want to factor in that Intel were here first. For a new company to show and tell the original company what standard to use is far bigger a blox in my opinion.

I might also point out that even though the AMD 3200+ is a bigger number than P4 3.0, the P4 is a much grunter gaming chip.

Prometheus · Post by **Prometheus** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 2:33 pm

Mattly wrote:Oh and I will be setting up a benchmark thread tonight for us all to boast on!

Yikes. Don't think I'll be boasting in this thread

Just wish I had my old 286, while playing around onWindows 286

Riven · Post by **Riven** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 2:34 pm

Mattly wrote:I might also point out that even though the AMD 3200+ is a bigger number than P4 3.0, the P4 is a much grunter gaming chip.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/ ... age29.html

www.tomshardware.com wrote:We run a scripted scenario in the 3D game FarCry as a time demo. Again, AMD demonstrates its dominance in the gaming world.

You'll also note that the AMD 64 3200+ scores higher than the P4 EE 3.4 & 3.46 along with ALL other Intel P4 chips, and the AMD is only using DDR400, not DDRII533 like the P4

Mattly · Post by **Mattly** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 2:52 pm

Riven read the post properly first dear.

I said the AMD 3200+ , not the AMD64 3200+. The reason is obvious that it would be unfair to compair a 32bit processor with a 64bit processor.

Noon416 · Post by **Noon416** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 2:52 pm

Mattly wrote:.... For every graph you show me I could pull out one arguing the other way....

Exactly my point.

For all the numbers and such, the fight is basically even overall with ebbs and flows as new products come out.
But it's fun to "debate" and amusing to see what arguments and counter-arguments arise.

Oh, and AMD ftw! (wouldn't want to sound balanced in this thread...)

Riven · Post by **Riven** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 3:00 pm

Mattly wrote:Riven read the post properly first dear.

I said the AMD 3200+ , not the AMD64 3200+. The reason is obvious that it would be unfair to compair a 32bit processor with a 64bit processor.

That benchmark was run on windows x32 not x64, so its all using 32bit instructions... even the P4 D (dual core 32bit) is miles down the list.

Lol, maybe one day Intel will produce a 64bit processor for desktops that works, doesnt cost an arm and a leg, needs a nuclear reactor to power it, and the entire antarctic to cool it

Mattly · Post by **Mattly** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 3:13 pm

Ok the gloes come off.

The P4 3.4Ghz EE cpu beats the AMD64 3500+ in every gaming benchmark except Farcry. It also beats the 3500+ in 3dmark and in multitasking.

Liquid · Post by **Liquid** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 3:51 pm

and i bet its twice the price too.

Noon416 · Post by **Noon416** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 3:53 pm

Bzzzzt! Sorry Mattly, wrong answer!

The P4 3.40GHZ EE (as in "EEEEE!!!" when they see the price

) is beaten by the AMD 3500+ in:
- Doom3
- UT2004
- FarCry
- Wolfenstein 3D - Enemy Territory
- 3DMark05 (yes, there's more than one graph per application)

And with the P4 EEEEE!!! being $1500 more expensive than the AMD 3500+, you can certainly throw value for money out the window when buying the EEEEE!!! 3.4GHz edition (5 times the price for less performance.

Oh, and the AMD FX-57 completely trashes the pants of all of the P4 EEEEE!!!s in all of the gaming benchmarks (if you want to compare similarly priced products)

Mattly · Post by **Mattly** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 4:14 pm

Yeap know about Farcry noon as stated.

Doom3
www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=246&model2=218&chart=70

Quake3 Arena
www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=246&model2=218&chart=50

3dmark05 -graphics
www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=246&model2=218&chart=60

multitasking
www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=246&model2=218&chart=76

3dstudio-max
www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=246&model2=218&chart=74

I purchased mine for $680 though it hasn't shown up yet!

Post by **Inspector** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 4:19 pm

My Intelligence tells me I'll be dAMDed if I f I takes sides in this debate but you know I love a challenge.

I think the reasons behind why people in this forum are debating which is better is crap.

Intel are more reliable, AMD has a better benchmark blah, blah, blah, blah......

I buy what is currently performing well (not the most amzing benchmarks ever recorded), will last me the duration of my gaming PC (usually about a year or two at the most) does not crash from overheating all the time and is within my price range (often controlled by the amount I spend on a graphics card which in my opinion is way more important than the CPU).

Currently my gaming PC is an AMD. Why? - because it and the motherboard I bought to go with it performs well and is reliable, doesn't overheat and most importantly was affordable allowing me to buy a good graphics card and some fast HDD's. I have in my house currently 3 AMD's and 7 Intel CPU computers. When all is said and done they were purchased on a day to day basis, not because I believe one is better than the other at any particular point in time.

Mattly · Post by **Mattly** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 4:23 pm

True.

We are just debating this to help us get through the day and onto Nascar tonite!

Noon416 · Post by **Noon416** » Wed Mar 08, 2006 4:35 pm

He he, this is fun. I can pick selective examples too...

Mattly wrote:Doom3
www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=246&model2=218&chart=70

Lets look at the other Doom3 graph. AMD wins!

Mattly wrote:3dmark05 -graphics
www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=246&model2=218&chart=60

3dMark05 Graphics? What are we debating, video cards or CPU's? How about we look at the 3DMark05 CPU benchmark. AMD wins!

Mattly wrote:I purchased mine for $680 though it hasn't shown up yet!

I used the retail pricing from Ascent. I can only imagine that you are not getting your CPU through a normal retail channel, at that price, more likely "mates rates" or wholesale? If it is a retail price, who are you getting it through? (More out of interest than comparison)