Warming up to the new iMac (or my computer's cooler than your computer).

[Asher]

Originally posted by SpencerH
Even though I think the P4 are faster at this moment, I still wont buy one. I've had too many conflicts with video cards and ram and intel processors and chips.

That sounds extremely odd, and ambiguous...

[Akka]

Aaah, I see that Mr InsincerityIntelandMSaremypals is back to add some more propaganda in our minds
I know I should finish my work rather than answering to this, but it's just too funny, I have to keep our buffoon trolling

Originally posted by Asher
Oh boy, another kid who thinks he knows something...


IA-64 is far, far more than a simple 64-bit processor. It is radically different than x86-64. x86-64 is s cheap kludge to add 64-bit registers to x86 and corresponding instructions. That is insanely easy to do. The reason why Intel didn't want to go there is because most developers want x86 dead. It's old, it's obsolete, it's kludgey, it's got a stack-based FPU which is simply horrible to work with, it spends about 30% of its clocktime overcoming inherent shortcomings of x86.

Too bad that most CONSUMERS wants the x86 alive to not have to throw all the programs they had accumulated for more than ten years to the garbage.

And it's still a little too soon to talk about performance (hopefully for Intel, as their Merced was nothing but inimpressive, and Itanium was such a flop that is seems they will bypass it entirely to go directly to Preyscott).

IA-64 was a radically new instruction set and architecture based upon 20 years of University research.

Saying that AMD was able to build a 64-bit processor in far less time than Intel is an absolute joke, you're implying that AMD is more skilled than Intel.

It's like this: If you take someone else's 30-page essay and add on 1 paragraph to it and change some spelling, you can do it far faster than the kid who had to research, think about, and then write his own 30-page essay from scratch.

Too bad, AMD did not used anything from Intel to make their own 64-bit processor. They used their own technology. Nice try

The 2.53GHz is the undisputed speed king.

Of course, as it compensate its ridiculous MHz by MHz performance by simply reaching higher frequency. It's called brute force and it's nothing impressive
At the same frequency, any P4 take a beating even with the best RAM and the best MB.
At the same price, the performance difference is even more ridiculous

Twice as much? Where did you take math?
512MB RDRAM: $124
512MB PC2700 DDR: $113
The price different is staggering! (From PriceWatch)

What a pile of insincerity
124$ is for PC600 RDRAM, not PC800. If you want to compare equivalent memory, you have then to compare to the PC2100 DDR, which is at 75$ and not 113.
For PC800, it's 154$ (according to PriceWatch too).

So it's now :
512 Mo PC2100 : 75$
512 Mo PC800 : 154$
Ooooh, how surprising

And you do know that the P4 supports SDRAM, DDR, and RDRAM, right? Not just RDRAM?

And you know that using anything else than RDRAM shot down the performance of P4, which rely on huge bandwith memory ?

And about motherboards:
KT333 chipset: $72
i850: $65
How do you figure P4 motherboards are more expensive? Is 65 > 72 now?

You're comparing the i850 chipset (which has a 100 MHz frequency) to the KT333 one (which has a frequency of 166 MHz).
How insincere again
Let's talk about comparable chipsets :
i850 : 65$
KT266A : 55$
KT266 : 16$

Is 16 > 65 now ?

Of course.
Your benchmark is from an obsolete program that was made before the Pentium 4 came out, obviously optimized towards P3/Athlon cores rather than all three.

Yours is from a program that is SEE2 optimized. At least, I have said loudly that I was selecting the bench that favourized AMD, while you were trying to say that yours was representative of the overall performances.

That doesn't matter, AMD intentionally made the PR ratings conservative so people like you can say "Hey! Match at the PR ratings the Athlon is faster! GO AMD! WOO!".

I can get rid of the PR-Rating :
Athlon 1700+ runs at 1,466 GHz and cost 79$.
P4 1,7 runs at 1,7 GHz and cost 130 $.
So, a P4 1,7 GHz cost nearly twice as much as an Athlon 1,466 GHz while being slightly less powerful. But you'll be saying that Intel's chips are better, of course

The 2.53GHz P4, even with PC800 RDRAM (Performance hits 5-10% higher with PC1066), is the undisputed speed king.

If you don't look at the price, sure (P4 2,4 GHz : 499$, the P4 2,533 is of course much more expensive).
Now if you don't look at the price, a Cray supercalculator is even more powerful, so it's stupid.
For the price of a single P4 2,4 GHz, I can buy a dual-processor motherboard and two Athlon 2000+. But I suppose you'll tell that a P4 2,4 is able to beat two Athlon 2000+ easily ?

I'm not even talking about the RDRAM PC1066 price either

Don't try to spin it another way, facts are facts.
To quote Anand:

Intel was creeping ahead of AMD in the performance tests when they released the 2.4GHz Pentium 4, but now with 533MHz FSB parts and bumping the clock speed up to 2.53GHz the performance crown is undeniably Intel's. Intel will claim the right to the highest performing desktop microprocessor.

Also note that this was with PC800, not PC1066 RDRAM which should be available shortly.

Don't try to spin it another way, facts are facts.
To quote Anand (yes, yes, the exact same article that your used).

Although the 2.53GHz Pentium 4 trounces the Athlon XP 2100+, the chip is well over twice as expensive as the Athlon XP. AMD's Athlon line has almost always offered a significantly better value than Intel's competing solutions;

(bold NOT mine)

And when he says "well over twice as expensive", he's saying understatement

Well, it was funny to shoot each of your biased argument one after another
Please more, you're entertaining

[Asher]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Too bad that most CONSUMERS wants the x86 alive to not have to throw all the programs they had accumulated for more than ten years to the garbage.

Gee, I wish IA-64 processors could still run x86 code. Oh, wait! THEY CAN!

And it's still a little too soon to talk about performance (hopefully for Intel, as their Merced was nothing but inimpressive, and Itanium was such a flop that is seems they will bypass it entirely to go directly to Preyscott).

I'm not sure what you're saying here.
McKinley is the next IA-64 processor, due out in June. Prescott is the next IA-32 processor, based on the Pentium 4.

Too bad, AMD did not used anything from Intel to make their own 64-bit processor. They used their own technology. Nice try

You do know that x86 was made by Intel, right?
You do know that the core of the Athlon (of which the Hammer is based on), is remarkably similar to Intel's P6 core, with some changes?

Of course, as it compensate its ridiculous MHz by MHz performance by simply reaching higher frequency. It's called brute force and it's nothing impressive
At the same frequency, any P4 take a beating even with the best RAM and the best MB.
At the same price, the performance difference is even more ridiculous

It's not brute force. The P4 has high MHz not because of brute force (actually, theoretically it's half as fast as the Athlon at the same clock -- but it's more like 70% as fast at the same clock). It has a high MHz rating because the Intel bigwigs like MHz ratings (that's what sells most computers), but also because SMT on the Pentium 4s benefit greatly from a long pipeline with 20-stages, which is what the Pentium 4 offers.

What a pile of insincerity
124$ is for PC600 RDRAM, not PC800. If you want to compare equivalent memory, you have then to compare to the PC2100 DDR, which is at 75$ and not 113.
For PC800, it's 154$ (according to PriceWatch too).

So it's now :
512 Mo PC2100 : 75$
512 Mo PC800 : 154$
Ooooh, how surprising

Why is PC2100 equivalent? 2.1GB/s vs 3.2GB/s?
PC2700 is 2.7GB/s, which is what I just put in my new computer, so it's fair to use that price.
Also: VERY nice try. Click on the "buy online" link for the $124 RDRAM: It clearly says PC800. $124 for PC800. Stop trying to trick me, you're too slow for that.

And you know that using anything else than RDRAM shot down the performance of P4, which rely on huge bandwith memory ?

Actually PC2700 DDR worked extremely well on the P4.

You're comparing the i850 chipset (which has a 100 MHz frequency) to the KT333 one (which has a frequency of 166 MHz).
How insincere again
Let's talk about comparable chipsets :
i850 : 65$
KT266A : 55$
KT266 : 16$

Is 16 > 65 now ?

It's $16 because it's discontinued and they're obsolete, don't play that game.
i850 is the fastest Intel chipset, KT333 is the fastest Athlon chipset -- how is that not fair? You're comparing the fastest Intel to the discontinued and slower Via one. Wow, you're not trying to trick me or anything...

Yours is from a program that is SEE2 optimized. At least, I have said loudly that I was selecting the bench that favourized AMD, while you were trying to say that yours was representative of the overall performances.

That's right: SSE2 is something AMD can't do right now. It's one of the major benefits of the P4, and more and more programs are using it. It's a real world performance boost in SSE2 applications.

I can get rid of the PR-Rating :
Athlon 1700+ runs at 1,466 GHz and cost 79$.
P4 1,7 runs at 1,7 GHz and cost 130 $.
So, a P4 1,7 GHz cost nearly twice as much as an Athlon 1,466 GHz while being slightly less powerful. But you'll be saying that Intel's chips are better, of course

I'm not saying anything about price (I bought an Athlon XP 2100+ just this week because of price, actually).
I also think it's INCREDIBLY stupid to compare P4s and Athlons on a clock-for-clock basis like you're trying to do. The P4 intentionally does less per clock than the Athlon, go figure it's slower per clock. But the P4 can also hit higher clockrates than the Athlon. What I do is I compare the fastest P4 to the fastest Athlon, and make my judgement about what's best from there. A chip that does a lot per clock but can't scale very well (like Motorolla's G4) doesn't impress me much. All performance factors need to be considered: Clock ceiling, instructions per clock. In this case, the P4 wins. It also wins in benchmarks. It does NOT win in the price/performance area: AMD does there.

If you don't look at the price, sure (P4 2,4 GHz : 499$, the P4 2,533 is of course much more expensive).
Now if you don't look at the price, a Cray supercalculator is even more powerful, so it's stupid.
For the price of a single P4 2,4 GHz, I can buy a dual-processor motherboard and two Athlon 2000+. But I suppose you'll tell that a P4 2,4 is able to beat two Athlon 2000+ easily ?

I'm not even talking about the RDRAM PC1066 price either

You're trying to divert this to a discussion about cost -- which it never was about. It was about raw performance and design. Stick with it.

I know that the Athlons are a far better deal, price-wise, but that doesn't change the fact that the P4 is the better chip.

Drop it with the price ****, I never once argued that and that's ALL you're arguing now. It's called a strawman.

[monolith94]

The base of the arm has 180º movement from left to right, and a 95º movement vertically. The top of the arm, connecting it to monitor has "only" a 15º movement, but anything more than that would be totally unnessecary...

And Ecth: I believe that mleonard's position is purely cermonial now...

[Akka]

Originally posted by Asher
Gee, I wish IA-64 processors could still run x86 code. Oh, wait! THEY CAN!

Yes, and for that they take a HUGE BLAST in performance, as they do have to EMULATE the 32 bits mode. While Hammer can do it natively.
For someone who is so hungry of performance, I'm surprised that you consider ok to emulate anything...

[QUOTE]
I'm not sure what you're saying here.
McKinley is the next IA-64 processor, due out in June. Prescott is the next IA-32 processor, based on the Pentium 4.|/QUOTE]

My bad, I just mixed the name Prescott with the name McKinley.

You do know that x86 was made by Intel, right?
You do know that the core of the Athlon (of which the Hammer is based on), is remarkably similar to Intel's P6 core, with some changes?

You do know that all these chips are 32-bits, right ?
You do know that we are talking about 64-bits processors, right ?

It's not brute force. The P4 has high MHz not because of brute force (actually, theoretically it's half as fast as the Athlon at the same clock -- but it's more like 70% as fast at the same clock). It has a high MHz rating because the Intel bigwigs like MHz ratings (that's what sells most computers), but also because SMT on the Pentium 4s benefit greatly from a long pipeline with 20-stages, which is what the Pentium 4 offers.

?
If bunch of MHz is not raw brute strenght, then WHAT is raw brute strenght ?

Why is PC2100 equivalent? 2.1GB/s vs 3.2GB/s?
PC2700 is 2.7GB/s, which is what I just put in my new computer, so it's fair to use that price.

PC2700 is useless if you run at 133 MHz, it's only used for 166 MHz. And most PC2100 can still be used at 166 MHz, practically making them PC2700 anyway.

Also: VERY nice try. Click on the "buy online" link for the $124 RDRAM: It clearly says PC800. $124 for PC800. Stop trying to trick me, you're too slow for that.

Very nice try for you too. But here is what shows when you click on the link :

See the "PC600" ?

Actually PC2700 DDR worked extremely well on the P4.

The P4's architecture needs a LOT of bandwidth, which the RDRAM can do better. Any attempt to use DDR for a P4 shows a drop of about 10% in performance.

It's $16 because it's discontinued and they're obsolete, don't play that game.
i850 is the fastest Intel chipset, KT333 is the fastest Athlon chipset -- how is that not fair? You're comparing the fastest Intel to the discontinued and slower Via one. Wow, you're not trying to trick me or anything...

The fastest chipset is NOT i850 (FSB : 100 MHz), it's i850E (FSB : 133 MHz), which is the whole thing making the new P4 2,533 MHz possible. The i850 is the SECOND fastest chipset for P4. So you have to compare it to the SECOND fastest chipset for Athlon - which is the 266 one, while the 333 is the brand new.

That's right: SSE2 is something AMD can't do right now. It's one of the major benefits of the P4, and more and more programs are using it. It's a real world performance boost in SSE2 applications.

The AMD has their own path of optimisation, the 3DNow! serie. And they can use the SSE instruction too. A fair comparison would involve a program that has been either optimized for both, either for none.

I'm not saying anything about price (I bought an Athlon XP 2100+ just this week because of price, actually).
I also think it's INCREDIBLY stupid to compare P4s and Athlons on a clock-for-clock basis like you're trying to do. The P4 intentionally does less per clock than the Athlon, go figure it's slower per clock. But the P4 can also hit higher clockrates than the Athlon. What I do is I compare the fastest P4 to the fastest Athlon, and make my judgement about what's best from there. A chip that does a lot per clock but can't scale very well (like Motorolla's G4) doesn't impress me much. All performance factors need to be considered: Clock ceiling, instructions per clock. In this case, the P4 wins. It also wins in benchmarks. It does NOT win in the price/performance area: AMD does there.

You're trying to divert this to a discussion about cost -- which it never was about. It was about raw performance and design. Stick with it.

I know that the Athlons are a far better deal, price-wise, but that doesn't change the fact that the P4 is the better chip.

Drop it with the price ****, I never once argued that and that's ALL you're arguing now. It's called a strawman.

Well, as I said before, if you don't count the price, then I can come with a Cray supercomputer and say "Intel sucks big time compared to this". Or I can use Deeper Blue or anything else. It's useless to compare things that are not at the same price.
Of course, if you only seek to get the processor that has actually the highest raw power, it's the P4 2,533 GHz. But then I don't see the point. What a consumer want is the best he can have for the money he will put in.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Yes, and for that they take a HUGE BLAST in performance, as they do have to EMULATE the 32 bits mode. While Hammer can do it natively.
For someone who is so hungry of performance, I'm surprised that you consider ok to emulate anything...

That's right, but it takes the cake in that the IA-64 significantly outperforms x86-64 in 64-bit applications. x86-64 is, in effect, "emulating" 64-bit. It's pretty fast in 32-bit, but it doesn't do anything special for 64-bit.

And I intend to use a 32-bit processor to do 32-bit gaming, and a 64-bit processor to do 64-bit gaming anyway. I don't like the half-assed approach to 64-bit computing that Hammer represents really. It's time to ditch x86 and move on.

I've heard that McKinley greatly improves x86 performance, though. You can rest assured that by the time IA-64 is aimed to the desktop (2004-2005), it'll have excellent 32-bit performance in x86. Otherwise no one would buy it.

You do know that all these chips are 32-bits, right ?
You do know that we are talking about 64-bits processors, right ?

I'm not sure you're aware about the hammer.
Hammer is a slightly modified Athlon, which in turn is a modified P6. It's not an all-new 64-bit core, it's a kludged 32-bit core using a couple decades-old instruction set with many known shortcomings. It's a cheap design that AMD could afford to do, and it looks great on paper but people are already whining about keeping x86 alive...

?
If bunch of MHz is not raw brute strenght, then WHAT is raw brute strenght ?

MHz is not the only determinant of "strength" in a processor. You could argue that the G4 is strong in "brute strength" because it's a "fat" processor that does a lot per clock.
"brute strength" is the IBM Power4. Huge, hot, but very powerful.

PC2700 is useless if you run at 133 MHz, it's only used for 166 MHz. And most PC2100 can still be used at 166 MHz, practically making them PC2700 anyway.

Hey, no kidding?
Most PC2100 can't, actually. Most PC2100 that can is now packaged and sold as PC2700. And the KT333 runs the memory bus at 166MHz, so does the latest SiS chip.

The P4's architecture needs a LOT of bandwidth, which the RDRAM can do better. Any attempt to use DDR for a P4 shows a drop of about 10% in performance.

DDR333 and DDR400 show about a 5-10% drop, but if you're so paranoid about pricing...
Going to an Athlon also drops performance, what's your point?

The fastest chipset is NOT i850 (FSB : 100 MHz), it's i850E (FSB : 133 MHz), which is the whole thing making the new P4 2,533 MHz possible. The i850 is the SECOND fastest chipset for P4. So you have to compare it to the SECOND fastest chipset for Athlon - which is the 266 one, while the 333 is the brand new.

The i850 is exactly identical to the i850E, actually. The only difference is the i850E has a sticker on the box that says it can go at a 133MHz system bus (effectively 533MHz). I'm not joking, the steppings and everything are exactly identical.

The AMD has their own path of optimisation, the 3DNow! serie. And they can use the SSE instruction too. A fair comparison would involve a program that has been either optimized for both, either for none.

AMD is ditching 3DNow. Hammer will support SSE and SSE2 instead. 3DNow just isn't cutting it: it hijacked the FPU to do the calculations which hurt performance for switching between x87 and 3DNow. Intel's got dedicated SSE/SSE2 units onboard, and the Athlon XP has SSE now. Hammer will have SSE2.

Well, as I said before, if you don't count the price, then I can come with a Cray supercomputer and say "Intel sucks big time compared to this". Or I can use Deeper Blue or anything else. It's useless to compare things that are not at the same price.

Those aren't desktop computers.
They won't play my games, so what use are they?

[Ecthy]

Asher reminds me of all those tiny-minded 14 year old Counter Strike players on German boards

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ecthelion
Asher reminds me of all those tiny-minded 14 year old Counter Strike players on German boards

Should you really be in any position to talk about other people, taking into account your "look at me!" thread about drinking by yourself because you're such a loser?

[Ecthy]

You shouldn't be so hard on yourself, Asher. You know people here are only playing with your feelings.

[Ari Rahikkala]

You know, this case of Asher and people reminds me of schoolyard bullying... A few people keep on doing it all the time, some are yes-men who just follow the bullies all the time, most are indifferent. And, as in the case of schoolyards, Asher's pretty much all alone...

[Akka]

Originally posted by LightEning
You know, this case of Asher and people reminds me of schoolyard bullying... A few people keep on doing it all the time, some are yes-men who just follow the bullies all the time, most are indifferent. And, as in the case of schoolyards, Asher's pretty much all alone...

Normally, it's the bullies that do insult and agress the poor victim, right ?
It sometimes happen that you're alone because others just have sounder opinions...

[Asher]

Ah, the problem here is you're expressing opinions and I'm expressing facts.

It's okay, you can continue using strawmen arguments and twisting facts to try to make it look in your favor. Just don't think that gives you a sounder opinion, because it's one of the stupidest things I've heard in a long time.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Asher
Ah, the problem here is you're expressing opinions and I'm expressing facts.

It's okay, you can continue using strawmen arguments and twisting facts to try to make it look in your favor. Just don't think that gives you a sounder opinion, because it's one of the stupidest things I've heard in a long time.

See what I mean, LightEning ?
No matter how many of his "proofs" I destroyed, this guy is still stubborn in his Iknowall dream

Well, never mind, I had a good laugh today

[Asher]

You didn't destroy a single thing. In fact, you've astonished me with your inaccuracies and I'm beginning to wonder if someone could really think that or if you just enjoy trolling.

You aren't even replying to the topic anymore, just like UR does when he starts to falter. It's pathetic, really.

[Sava]

Macs suck...