Pentium 4 2.2 GHz & Athlon XP 2000+ Shootout - PAGE 2

- Monday, March 18th, 2002 Like Share



Article Index

1.Intel vs AMD, the Battle Continues
2.Cost Comparison, Test Setup
3.Benchmarks & Conclusion



Get updates when we publish new articles

Comments

Sort by date: ascending descending
0 thumbs!
^
MoC Mar 18, 02
You would think you would use a good board when benchmarking the athlon
0 thumbs!
^
Krakn3Dfx Mar 18, 02
ECS K7S5A is a rockin' AMD board, +/- 5% within the performance of the top performing KK266A boards out there. However, this review is very suspicious, the numbers don't completely jive with other reviewers I've seen and the entire message comes across as very pro-Intel. The graphs are set up to indicate that Intel is light years ahead if you're not paying attention, although the differences in the performance between both chips is very minimal in most cases. The reviewer should have in all honesty recommended AMD over Intel, but all too often we see reviewers take the "wait-and-see" approach to avoid recommending AMD due to past problems that were caused largely due to problems with Via chipsets. As an AthlonXP 1600+ user on a K7S5A, I can tell you that the numbers posted in this review are not indicative of the actual numbers a user should be obtaining from this setup. I am greatly disappointed, although not suprised, that the author has so much positive to say about Intel's "future-proof" CPU while AMD, in his eyes, shows no promise. To quote "The most visible differences between the two are that Intel is better suited for the future. AMD has already used the 0.18 micron process to its fullest and the only thing for them to do is to go to 0.13 micron." Since AMD has announced their transition to 0.13 micron as of late last week, this is no longer a sufficient argument and the review should be altered to show this. I'm not sure in what way Intel is more "future-proof", and the author doesn't seem to indicate this either. The CPU market is in a constant state of flux, both companies constantly improving things on their chips, and to point out pretty much only Intel's innovations makes this review fairly flawed on all fronts. Whether this is all unintentional or just a way to taunt the power of Intel I have no idea. To me, this article just seems to say, "If you're going to buy, buy Intel, or wait and see and then buy Intel anyway".
0 thumbs!
^
Redemption Mar 18, 02
quote Krakn3Dfx
However, this review is very suspicious, the numbers don't completely jive with other reviewers I've seen and the entire message comes across as very pro-Intel.
Although some sites in the past have been known to be biased towards Intel, I just wanted to point out that Neumann runs an AMD rig himself, and that nearly every person here at Neoseeker has an AMD system (I have an Athlon 850 atr work, a 1.2 at home). Entity has an 1800XP at home. DEViATE has a 1.4 at work. I love AMD. The site itself is run nearly entirely on AMD CPUs (currenty a 1.2MP system paired with an 1800XP system, with a backup server being a PIII800 and all accessing an 1800MP database server) As you can see, we are very much open to AMD - Any conclusions drawn in this review by Neumannn are purely based on the merits of the processors.

Besides.

quote Neumann
The New Pentium 4 Has A Slight Lead over Athlon XP despite the 533 MHz difference!
quote Neumann
Technically both AMD and Intel have advantages over one another, the Palomino core of the AMD Athlon XP can to process more commands at the same time, while Intel's Pentium 4 has a much higher clock speed.
This is biased towards Intel?

This message was edited by Redemption on Mar 18 2002.
0 thumbs!
^
Bloodwolf Mar 18, 02
If you're going to do a comparison, please try and keep the contestants closer to 'equal level'. Ie. Athlon XP 2000+ is supposed to be on par with ~2 GHz, not 2.2Ghz. It's pointed enough that AMDs are clocked 16-17% less with about equal performance without you trying to skew it even more. You're approaching oranges/tangerines level. Close, but oh so subtlely different.

== Bloodwolf ==
0 thumbs!
^
step-dad Mar 19, 02
Who uses 3DMARK in 1280x1024 or 1600x1200?
0 thumbs!
^
Phireant Mar 19, 02
This discusses me . give me a break amd is awesome. nothing can beat amd. SO HA!
0 thumbs!
^
step-dad Mar 19, 02
I have a K7S5A MB and a 1900. That MB is just OK. The guy who said it's in the top 5 percent must be dreaming. Remember, it's not just CPU's. It's CPU+MB+RAM+VIDEO that makes a fast system. This review shows the MOST difference in the two CPU's that I have read.
0 thumbs!
^
Gxcad Away Mar 19, 02
I think this 200mhz difference was appropriate. Why? Because that (was) the flagship processors for both companies at the time of the review. If the numbers are accurate, intel can claim they have the worlds fastest desktop cpu and that would be true. I have to agree though that the numbers don't seem to add up. Oh and did anyone notice AMD have already announced the XP2100+? I'm thinking that will be their last chip on the .18 micron process. I can't wait for the ~$50 .13 durons! (I've never spent more than $55 on a processor since they lose value oh so quickly:D). Been living on a duron 750 now for a year and I only lost about $20 on it! w00t!

-Gxcad
0 thumbs!
^
step-dad Mar 20, 02
quote Gxcad Away
(I've never spent more than $55 on a processor since they lose value oh so quickly:D). Been living on a duron 750 now for a year and I only lost about $20 on it! w00t!

-Gxcad
I'm suprised you don't still have a 386. Computers and parts are the worst investment in the world. BUT, I love to waste money on them. You can't take it with you, don;t be such a cheapskate.
0 thumbs!
^
Gxcad Mar 20, 02
ahhh quite the critic you are step dad;). I'm cheap coz I don't have the money, and the 750 is doing fine for me and my apps for the moment. Actually I think I spend too much on my computer but I believe I choose components wisely and can confidently say I have a machine quite a few enthusiats could appreciate for quite a bit less than those top of the line systems. Also, I try to run my processors as cool as possible so I can run my fans slow and have little noise, hence my only worthy upgrade is if a processor dissapates less heat for the same performance. The only 2 ways that I know of for this to happen is either:

-less vcore
-smaller die process

thus my excitement for .13 micron durons. Just out of curiousity, what do you own, step dad? I have a duron 750 running at 933 on 1.64vcore (sometimes I run it at 800 w/ 1.47 or 1066 w/ 1.92...just depends on my mood and ambient:D).

-Gxcad
0 thumbs!
^
aschez Mar 20, 02
Did anyone notice the Intel reference board? I have read that most production boards don't run quite as well as the reference boards. As for the SIS chipset used in this evaluation. If I remember correctly, the memory performance is the problem. Also, the boards that use the Kt266a chipset have a high speed bus that runs between the northbridge and southbridge as well as a deeper memory que.
As for the .13 micron process, I would have to commend AMD for waiting to "get it right" before introducing any new chips. We have seen it in the past, where the big two have rushed products to market that had problems. Let's see if AMD can really drop the Hammer.
0 thumbs!
^
Keef Mar 21, 02
One thing that really annoys me about these types of reviews with graphs is that on the first look at the comparison graphs it appears that each CPU outpaces the other CPU by about 100% but upon closer examination you find that the difference can be something as small as 1/80th of the total.

Showing graphs with a "x-start" position close to the actual value just to exagerate the difference is just wrong.

If you're going to do this, make sure that the bars are clearly labled with values such as (+7% higher than AMD).
0 thumbs!
^
Gxcad Mar 21, 02
Heheh, although not as annoyed, I totally feel you keef. Once I got totally fooled when they said on one site that motherboard X was (what looked like) twice as fast as motherboard Y. I was amazed and skeptical at the same time:D. I think the only way out of it is to just train yourself to note the labeled axis, as such I do not believe it makes a bad review to have misleading graphs, so long as in the end they are accurate.

-Gxcad
0 thumbs!
^
Grady Miller Mar 22, 02
quote step-dad
I have a K7S5A MB and a 1900. That MB is just OK. The guy who said it's in the top 5 percent must be dreaming. Remember, it's not just CPU's. It's CPU+MB+RAM+VIDEO that makes a fast system. This review shows the MOST difference in the two CPU's that I have read.
Check out this review of the ECS K7S5A. It clearly obliterates everything up to an including boards based on the KT266 chipset. Sure, it's a little behind NForce and KT266A boards, but rarely more than a few percent.
http://www6.tomshardware.com/mainboard/01q3/010924/index.html
^
Sponsored
Sort by date: ascending descending
Add your comment:
Name *:  Members, please LOGIN
Email:  We use this to display your Gravatar.

Sign in with
Comment *:
(0.2712/d/web2)