Pentium 4 2.2 GHz & Athlon XP 2000+ Shootout - PAGE 1

- 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!
^
Gxcad Jan 30, 03
There are several possible reasons, but the most likely are human error related. Also there is no proof your info is true and accurate, you didn't even benchmark, you just compared with your eyes. Secondly, why bother telling us you are A+ certified computer repair tech, most of us don't even know what that is, and it seems to me like you are trying to boost your credibility with some buzz words. If you want credibility, keep posting and I'll be happy to keep you company in a discussion about AMD vs Intel, but as of now you seem pretty bias towards AMD (i.e. favoring intel). I am neither pro AMD nor pro Intel but I will say that at the moment I believe Intel makes better processors than AMD. 950mhz P3 vs 1ghz AMD should produce similar scores processor alone. Of course AMD will win in a cpu only benchmark due to the 50mhz advantage and slight advantage in clock per clock efficiency (unless the 1ghz processor used was a Athlon Classic Slot A processor). If you are serious about wanting someone to explain this to you, post some more specs about both computers such as HDD, mobo, ram ect. Last time I checked, a computer will not even POST WITHOUT A VIDEOCARD! and there is no way onboard video can outpace a geforce 4 64mb unless you got an MX and it is put up against the latest and greatest IGP's.

-Gxcad

This message was edited by Gxcad on Jan 29 2003.
0 thumbs!
^
Shadow_Wraith Jan 28, 03
As for all your cpu battles I have a simple argument. I am an A+ certified computer repair tech. I built a amd based comp. that has a clock speed of 1001 mhz as well as a GeForce 4 64mb video card and my friend has a intel based comp that runs at 976 mhz he does not have a graphics card. I have watched our comps at work and my comp falls way behind his. We will be playing the same game and our comps are matched but the thing is he is running about 3 other programs like kazaa (with about 10 downloads going at all times), Norton anti-virus and another random program of his choosing. So all you amd lovers explain that. By the way I run defrag every other night and norton every day. Oh and my mother board and every other piece of my comp is fully compatable with amd. Have a nice day.
0 thumbs!
^
Urlic Jul 20, 02
Who the hell ran this lopsided shootout. Sounds like a bunch of noobs. you cant comparie 2 different Manufacturing Process cores
0,13 µm
0,18 µm
against eachother. Like bloodwolf stated you should have used a pentium 2.0 with this. This was a waste of time. We all could of told you the outcome. sounds like you guys need to plan your testing out better and prepare/research better. specially if you want ppl to respect your studys. This wasnt even oranges and tangs. this was more like a compare between water and dirt, and together they both make MUD!!!! Try this one again and see what you get. hell now you can even try the AMD 2200 or if you can get your hands on the 2300 that would be better. still same core for AMD i bet it will do a lot better and its half the price of the 2.2 intel, at least for resellers like myself. Can we say MULAGAN.
0 thumbs!
^
Gxcad Mar 25, 02
Hahaha, thanx for remembering me;)

-Gxcad
0 thumbs!
^
Brad smith Mar 24, 02
Why in the world did they choose the slowest Athlon chipset for this shootout, unless they're paid off by Intel.
0 thumbs!
^
step-dad Mar 23, 02
quote step-dad
The good thing is it just keeps getting faster and better week by week. The bad thing is the video card and CPU that you bought this month is worth a whole bunch less next month.

I forgot,that is unless your Gxcad who only lost $20 in a years time on his duron 750.
0 thumbs!
^
step-dad Mar 23, 02

"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."

That review was from Sept. of last year. The CPU was the latest 1200. I can show you a 486 review that says it's the best. I have that K7S5A MB, it is OK. Check out Tom's review of the XP2100. The KT333A MB and PC2700 2.0 RAM really rocks.Using that combo a 1400 CPU scored 7981 on 3DMARK2001. Remember when that was a very good OC? The point is, NO MB that is 6 months old can keep up with the new ones. The good thing is it just keeps getting faster and better week by week. The bad thing is the video card and CPU that you bought this month is worth a whole bunch less next month.
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
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!
^
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!
^
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!
^
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!
^
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 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
^
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 *:
(0.3826/d/web2)