1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

People still talking MHZ

Discussion in 'AMD Overclocking' started by BF, Dec 9, 2003.

  1. BF

    BF Guest

    I still hear people talking about Intel (MHZ) and
    AMD (+) ratings. The bottom line is AMD processors
    run faster (get more work done) at a given MHZ
    than Intel and that is a advantage. Especially
    when it costs less.
    I have a 5.0L '87 Mustang. Back then I use to beat
    the crap out of 5.0L Camaros and did pretty well
    against the 5.7L Camaros. Why? I don't know my
    Mustang was just faster. It must have been doing
    something better than the Camaro with the same
    size engine and it cost less too. I know, not an
    exact comparison. I am sure there was an
    engineering explanation for why but I really don't
    care.
    It is called "Bang for the Buck". AMD has the best
    "Bang for the Buck."
     
    BF, Dec 9, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. BF

    Courseyauto Guest

    I still hear people talking about Intel (MHZ) and
    AMD (+) ratings. The bottom line is AMD processors
    run faster (get more work done) at a given MHZ
    than Intel and that is a advantage. Especially
    when it costs less.
    I have a 5.0L '87 Mustang. Back then I use to beat
    the crap out of 5.0L Camaros and did pretty well
    against the 5.7L Camaros. Why? I don't know my
    Mustang was just faster. It must have been doing
    something better than the Camaro with the same
    size engine and it cost less too. I know, not an
    exact comparison. I am sure there was an
    engineering explanation for why but I really don't
    care.
    It is called "Bang for the Buck". AMD has the best
    "Bang for the Buck."
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>.........................>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


    Actualy the new P4 2.4 800 FSB has the most bang for the buck,it will
    overclock to 2.8 or 3.0 fairly easy on the stock HS and fan. But then you
    wouldn't know that screwing with AMD. Plus it has twice the memory bandwidth
    as AMD.
    P4 2.4 the new bang for the buck king..............
     
    Courseyauto, Dec 9, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. BF

    rstlne Guest

    > Actualy the new P4 2.4 800 FSB has the most bang for the buck,it will
    > overclock to 2.8 or 3.0 fairly easy on the stock HS and fan. But then

    you
    > wouldn't know that screwing with AMD. Plus it has twice the memory

    bandwidth
    > as AMD.
    > P4 2.4 the new bang for the buck king..............


    that chip cost 120£
    for that you could buy 2 AMD 2500+'s..
     
    rstlne, Dec 9, 2003
    #3
  4. >have a 5.0L '87 Mustang. Back then I use to beat
    the crap out of 5.0L Camaros and did pretty well
    against the 5.7L Camaros. Why? I don't know my
    Mustang was just faster. It must have been doing
    something better than the Camaro with the same
    size engine and it cost less too.

    power 2 weight ratio, engine torque, vehicle weight are the main issues.
    then things like aerodynamics, fuel quality, tyre drag etc

    tim
     
    \(\) |\\/| 3 G /-\\, Dec 9, 2003
    #4
  5. BF

    Courseyauto Guest

    > Actualy the new P4 2.4 800 FSB has the most bang for the buck,it will
    > overclock to 2.8 or 3.0 fairly easy on the stock HS and fan. But then

    you
    > wouldn't know that screwing with AMD. Plus it has twice the memory

    bandwidth
    > as AMD.
    > P4 2.4 the new bang for the buck king..............


    that chip cost 120£
    for that you could buy 2 AMD 2500+'s..
    <<<<<<<<<<<<<................................<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    It would take 2 to equal the P4 2.4 in performance.
     
    Courseyauto, Dec 9, 2003
    #5
  6. Courseyauto wrote:
    >> Actualy the new P4 2.4 800 FSB has the most bang for the buck,it
    >> will overclock to 2.8 or 3.0 fairly easy on the stock HS and fan.
    >> But then you wouldn't know that screwing with AMD. Plus it has
    >> twice the memory bandwidth as AMD.
    >> P4 2.4 the new bang for the buck king..............

    >
    > that chip cost 120£
    > for that you could buy 2 AMD 2500+'s..
    > <<<<<<<<<<<<<................................<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
    >
    > It would take 2 to equal the P4 2.4 in performance.


    OK, how about your overclocked 2.4C against my (OC'd) XP2500 duallie in
    POVRay :) Lessee, 14:42 (min:sec) for me, and 27:48 for a 3340 MHz P4 ...

    Seriously though, as usual, that the P4 2.4 (OC'd to 3.2 GHz, say) and the
    XP2500 (OC'd to XP3200, as most can) are about equal performance wise. The
    P4 will win some, the XP will win others. If you need computational grunt
    (eg: 3D rendering), the XP is what you want. If you need loads of memory
    bandwidth (eg: video encoding) the P4 is what you want. All speaking
    bang-for-the-buck wise of course.

    --
    Michael Brown
    www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
    Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open
     
    Michael Brown, Dec 9, 2003
    #6
  7. BF

    Wes Newell Guest

    On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 19:05:32 +0000, Courseyauto wrote:

    > Actualy the new P4 2.4 800 FSB has the most bang for the buck,it will
    > overclock to 2.8 or 3.0 fairly easy on the stock HS and fan. But then
    > you wouldn't know that screwing with AMD. Plus it has twice the
    > memory bandwidth as AMD.
    > P4 2.4 the new bang for the buck king..............


    Hmmm...
    P4 2.4 clocked to 3.0Ghz cost $163.
    AMD 2500+ clocked to 3200+ cost $83.

    The amd is half the price and beats the P4 in more test at these speeds.
    Now I'd like to know how you came up with your conclusion.

    --
    Abit KT7-Raid (KT133) Tbred B core CPU @2400MHz (24x100FSB)
    http://mysite.verizon.net/res0exft/cpu.html
     
    Wes Newell, Dec 9, 2003
    #7
  8. BF

    Bruin Guest

    "Courseyauto" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > > Actualy the new P4 2.4 800 FSB has the most bang for the buck,it will
    > > overclock to 2.8 or 3.0 fairly easy on the stock HS and fan. But then

    > you
    > > wouldn't know that screwing with AMD. Plus it has twice the memory

    > bandwidth
    > > as AMD.
    > > P4 2.4 the new bang for the buck king..............

    >
    > that chip cost 120£
    > for that you could buy 2 AMD 2500+'s..
    > <<<<<<<<<<<<<................................<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
    >
    > It would take 2 to equal the P4 2.4 in performance.


    That statement is totally untrue, mr troll.
    If you could get that 2.4 to 3.2, then there might be some competition
    against a 2500+ running as a 3200+. But can you get it there? At 2.8 or
    even 3.0, the P4 is the loser at nearly twice the cost.

    2500+ is currently the "bang for the buck king" & you helped to prove it.
     
    Bruin, Dec 9, 2003
    #8
  9. BF

    Ed Guest

    On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 20:11:18 +0000 (UTC), "\(\) |\\/| 3 G /-\\"
    <> wrote:

    > >have a 5.0L '87 Mustang. Back then I use to beat

    >the crap out of 5.0L Camaros and did pretty well
    >against the 5.7L Camaros. Why? I don't know my
    >Mustang was just faster. It must have been doing
    >something better than the Camaro with the same
    >size engine and it cost less too.
    >
    >power 2 weight ratio, engine torque, vehicle weight are the main issues.
    >then things like aerodynamics, fuel quality, tyre drag etc
    >
    >tim
    >


    And drivers who don't know how/when to shift gears.

    Cheers,
    Ed
    --
    Red 1995 Mustang Cobra SVT
     
    Ed, Dec 10, 2003
    #9
  10. BF

    tHatDudeUK Guest

    "Courseyauto" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > that chip cost 120£
    > for that you could buy 2 AMD 2500+'s..
    > <<<<<<<<<<<<<................................<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
    >
    > It would take 2 to equal the P4 2.4 in performance.


    You can overclock unlocked 2500+'s to 3200+ which outperforms the p4 2.4 in
    every respect and puts it to shame...
     
    tHatDudeUK, Dec 10, 2003
    #10
  11. BF

    Courseyauto Guest

    Courseyauto" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > that chip cost 120£
    > for that you could buy 2 AMD 2500+'s..
    > <<<<<<<<<<<<<................................<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
    >
    > It would take 2 to equal the P4 2.4 in performance.


    You can overclock unlocked 2500+'s to 3200+ which outperforms the p4 2.4 in
    every respect and puts it to shame...
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


    Really,how about with the 2,4 oc to 3.0 and adobe permier with Hyper
    Threading enabled and twice the memory bandwidth.
     
    Courseyauto, Dec 10, 2003
    #11
  12. Courseyauto wrote:
    > Courseyauto" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> that chip cost 120£
    >> for that you could buy 2 AMD 2500+'s..
    >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<................................<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
    >>
    >> It would take 2 to equal the P4 2.4 in performance.

    >
    > You can overclock unlocked 2500+'s to 3200+ which outperforms the p4
    > 2.4 in every respect and puts it to shame...
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    >
    > Really,how about with the 2,4 oc to 3.0 and adobe permier with Hyper
    > Threading enabled and twice the memory bandwidth.


    Like I said before ... you can pick benchmarks that the P4 wins at
    (bandwidth-hungry stuff). Other people can pick benchmarks that the XP wins
    at (most gaming and scientific stuff). Which one is a better or faster chip?
    Depends what you use it for.

    --
    Michael Brown
    www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
    Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open
     
    Michael Brown, Dec 10, 2003
    #12
  13. BF

    Courseyauto Guest

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >
    > Really,how about with the 2,4 oc to 3.0 and adobe permier with Hyper
    > Threading enabled and twice the memory bandwidth.


    Like I said before ... you can pick benchmarks that the P4 wins at
    (bandwidth-hungry stuff). Other people can pick benchmarks that the XP wins
    at (most gaming and scientific stuff). Which one is a better or faster chip?
    Depends what you use it for.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


    Im talking a program that uses Hyper Threading not a benchmark.

    Pentium4 3.2GHz Review:
    For those of you looking at the Pentium4 3.2GHz C as an upgrade option, this
    review from IntelForums might be of some help. They compare the high end P4
    against Athlon 3200+ and even sneak in a little overclocking in this quick and
    dirty one page review.


    Overall, we were very impressed with the P4C 3.2Ghz processor. At stock
    settings it was able to defeat the AthlonXP 3200+ at the majority of tests we
    ran. We were easily able to get an additional 400MHz out of it through
    overclocking with only a slight voltage increase, making it the fastest
    processor we've yet tested.
     
    Courseyauto, Dec 10, 2003
    #13
  14. Courseyauto wrote:
    > I still hear people talking about Intel (MHZ) and
    > AMD (+) ratings. The bottom line is AMD processors
    > run faster (get more work done) at a given MHZ
    > than Intel and that is a advantage. Especially
    > when it costs less.
    > I have a 5.0L '87 Mustang. Back then I use to beat
    > the crap out of 5.0L Camaros and did pretty well
    > against the 5.7L Camaros. Why? I don't know my
    > Mustang was just faster. It must have been doing
    > something better than the Camaro with the same
    > size engine and it cost less too. I know, not an
    > exact comparison. I am sure there was an
    > engineering explanation for why but I really don't
    > care.
    > It is called "Bang for the Buck". AMD has the best
    > "Bang for the Buck."
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> .........................>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    >
    > Actualy the new P4 2.4 800 FSB has the most bang for the buck,it
    > will overclock to 2.8 or 3.0 fairly easy on the stock HS and fan.
    > But then you wouldn't know that screwing with AMD. Plus it has
    > twice the memory bandwidth as AMD.
    > P4 2.4 the new bang for the buck king..............


    I will attest to that. I have a P4 2.4GHz running at a nice and sweet
    2.85GHz, thank you very much - with stock standard fan and heatsink. It's
    been running at that speed for a year +/- a few months with nary a hiccup.
    Stuck a GB of 333MHz DDR in it and clocked it at 317MHz and KOWABUNGA DUDE!
     
    Rosanne Anwar, Dec 10, 2003
    #14
  15. Courseyauto wrote:
    >> Really,how about with the 2,4 oc to 3.0 and adobe permier with
    >> Hyper Threading enabled and twice the memory bandwidth.

    >
    > Like I said before ... you can pick benchmarks that the P4 wins at
    > (bandwidth-hungry stuff). Other people can pick benchmarks that the
    > XP wins at (most gaming and scientific stuff). Which one is a better
    > or faster chip? Depends what you use it for.
    >
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    >
    > Im talking a program that uses Hyper Threading not a benchmark.


    "Benchmark" as in a measuring stick as to the speed of the CPU. The program
    you choose thrives on bandwidth, so makes the XP look terrible (due to its
    lack of bandwidth). Throw a program like POVRay at a P4/XP comparison and
    the P4 will look terrible (due to its lack of FPU power). Exactly as I said
    before: depends on how you use it as to which is faster.

    > Pentium4 3.2GHz Review:
    > For those of you looking at the Pentium4 3.2GHz C as an upgrade
    > option, this review from IntelForums might be of some help. They
    > compare the high end P4 against Athlon 3200+ and even sneak in a
    > little overclocking in this quick and dirty one page review.


    Completely irrelevant to the topic at hand (OC'd P42.4 vs OC'd XP2500
    price/performance). Unless, of course, you want to debate price/performance
    of a P43.2 (local price $NZ789) vs a XP2500 (local price $165).

    [...]


    --
    Michael Brown
    www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
    Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open
     
    Michael Brown, Dec 10, 2003
    #15
  16. "() |\/| 3 G /-\" <> wrote in message
    news:br5a96$is0$...
    | >have a 5.0L '87 Mustang. Back then I use to beat
    | the crap out of 5.0L Camaros and did pretty well
    | against the 5.7L Camaros. Why? I don't know my
    | Mustang was just faster. It must have been doing
    | something better than the Camaro with the same
    | size engine and it cost less too.
    |
    | power 2 weight ratio, engine torque, vehicle weight are the main issues.
    | then things like aerodynamics, fuel quality, tyre drag etc
    |
    | tim
    |

    Actually the biggest difference between those two particular cars making the
    performance difference is still the engine itself. The 5.0 in the Mustang
    had a 4" bore, short stroke = good get up and go. The GM 5.0 was a tiny 3.75
    inch bore, long stroke = great torque, but no ponies to do anything with the
    torque ;-). Cubis inches doesn't tell the whole story there.
     
    Jason Cothran, Dec 10, 2003
    #16
  17. BF

    LBJGH Guest

    Actually now that the Athlon64/fx are release the AthlonXP is intended to
    compete with the Celeron... the Athlon64 with the P4 and the AthlonFX with
    the P4ee. In all cases the AMD solution is superior.


    "Michael Brown" <> wrote in message
    news:B0FBb.25055$...
    > Courseyauto wrote:
    > >> Really,how about with the 2,4 oc to 3.0 and adobe permier with
    > >> Hyper Threading enabled and twice the memory bandwidth.

    > >
    > > Like I said before ... you can pick benchmarks that the P4 wins at
    > > (bandwidth-hungry stuff). Other people can pick benchmarks that the
    > > XP wins at (most gaming and scientific stuff). Which one is a better
    > > or faster chip? Depends what you use it for.
    > >
    > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    > >
    > > Im talking a program that uses Hyper Threading not a benchmark.

    >
    > "Benchmark" as in a measuring stick as to the speed of the CPU. The

    program
    > you choose thrives on bandwidth, so makes the XP look terrible (due to its
    > lack of bandwidth). Throw a program like POVRay at a P4/XP comparison and
    > the P4 will look terrible (due to its lack of FPU power). Exactly as I

    said
    > before: depends on how you use it as to which is faster.
    >
    > > Pentium4 3.2GHz Review:
    > > For those of you looking at the Pentium4 3.2GHz C as an upgrade
    > > option, this review from IntelForums might be of some help. They
    > > compare the high end P4 against Athlon 3200+ and even sneak in a
    > > little overclocking in this quick and dirty one page review.

    >
    > Completely irrelevant to the topic at hand (OC'd P42.4 vs OC'd XP2500
    > price/performance). Unless, of course, you want to debate

    price/performance
    > of a P43.2 (local price $NZ789) vs a XP2500 (local price $165).
    >
    > [...]
    >
    >
    > --
    > Michael Brown
    > www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
    > Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open
    >
    >



    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
    Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.550 / Virus Database: 342 - Release Date: 12/09/2003
     
    LBJGH, Dec 10, 2003
    #17
  18. BF

    Ed Guest

    On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 20:26:34 GMT, "LBJGH" <>
    wrote:

    >Actually now that the Athlon64/fx are release the AthlonXP is intended to
    >compete with the Celeron... the Athlon64 with the P4 and the AthlonFX with
    >the P4ee. In all cases the AMD solution is superior.


    Na, you don't need a AXP to compete with a Celeron, even the Duron
    1.6GHz easily beats a Celeron 2.6GHz in 99.9% of the benchmarks.

    Ed
     
    Ed, Dec 10, 2003
    #18
  19. Michael Brown wrote:
    [...]
    > Unless, of course, you want to debate
    > price/performance of a P43.2 (local price $NZ789) vs a XP2500 (local
    > price $165).


    Errm, oops, I slightly stuffed up here :) According to earlier in the
    thread, the comparison is between an 2.4C@3.0 vs a XP2500@200x11. So as long
    as the P4 numbers in the above review were scaled back linearly and a bit,
    it'd be a reasonably fair comparison. And reasonably close, too. Most (non
    Intel- or AMD-biased) reviews place the XP3200 slightly above a 3GHz P4 and
    below a 3.2GHz P4.

    --
    Michael Brown
    www.emboss.co.nz : OOS/RSI software and more :)
    Add michael@ to emboss.co.nz - My inbox is always open
     
    Michael Brown, Dec 10, 2003
    #19
  20. BF

    Bruin Guest

    "Courseyauto" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Courseyauto" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > that chip cost 120£
    > > for that you could buy 2 AMD 2500+'s..
    > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<................................<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
    > >
    > > It would take 2 to equal the P4 2.4 in performance.

    >
    > You can overclock unlocked 2500+'s to 3200+ which outperforms the p4 2.4

    in
    > every respect and puts it to shame...
    > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    >
    > Really,how about with the 2,4 oc to 3.0 and adobe permier with Hyper
    > Threading enabled and twice the memory bandwidth.


    It's twice as much money, how is that the most "bank for the buck?" At
    double the money shouldn't it be at least 25% faster? Ohh & thats only if
    you are able to hit the 3 GHz mark with the 2.4.

    The debate here is what gives the most bank for the buck.

    Also looking at the subject line:
    Intel pulled a SCAM. They reduced the amount of processing done per clock
    cycle by a large amount so that they could ramp up the clock speed. A
    P3-1.2MHz is much faster than a P4-1.2MHz. They cheated, lied, & of course
    the public eats it up. Then they strong arm in proprietary instructions
    (hyperthreading), forcing developers to include code that takes advantage of
    it.

    I stuck by Intel until the P4 fiasco. I won't be a sucker anymore.
     
    Bruin, Dec 11, 2003
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Lurking Rat in 'Da Hood®
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    600
    Lurking Rat in 'Da Hood®
    Dec 4, 2005
  2. ed sharpe
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    426
  3. Adam Kumpf

    talking to an RFID chip via wire.

    Adam Kumpf, Jul 23, 2004, in forum: Embedded
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    376
  4. George Fleagle
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    255
    Ben Pope
    Jul 6, 2004
  5. Allan Adler

    talking to CTK 571 synthesizer

    Allan Adler, Oct 31, 2007, in forum: PC Hardware
    Replies:
    48
    Views:
    2,155
    Allan Adler
    Dec 4, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page