[josh]

http://comment.zdnet.co.uk/other/0,3...2117508,00.htm

For example, the Athlon XP/2100+ at 1733MHz is not only faster than a 2.1GHz Pentium 4, but in some tests even outperforms the 2.4GHz part. In the ZDNet processor charts, the P4/2200 with RDRAM performed similarly to an Athlon XP/2100+ with Content Creation Winstone 2002. Using DDR-RAM instead, the P4/2200 slows down to the speed of an Athlon XP/1900+. So the P4 is hardly as powerful as the Intel benchmarks would lead you to believe, even if it's using RDRAM. If you use the popular Musicmatch Jukebox software in lieu of the relatively unknown Magix MP3-Maker Gold 2.0 to create MP3 files, the P4's performance -- even with 2.4GHz - takes a back seat to the Athlon XP/1900+.


this was the pre hyper-threading era.. you fellas think its true?
i did not stun you guys right..

Share|

for what i know when intel off the HT the performance nicer

Originally posted by josh
http://comment.zdnet.co.uk/other/0,3...2117508,00.htm

For example, the Athlon XP/2100+ at 1733MHz is not only faster than a 2.1GHz Pentium 4, but in some tests even outperforms the 2.4GHz part. In the ZDNet processor charts, the P4/2200 with RDRAM performed similarly to an Athlon XP/2100+ with Content Creation Winstone 2002. Using DDR-RAM instead, the P4/2200 slows down to the speed of an Athlon XP/1900+. So the P4 is hardly as powerful as the Intel benchmarks would lead you to believe, even if it's using RDRAM. If you use the popular Musicmatch Jukebox software in lieu of the relatively unknown Magix MP3-Maker Gold 2.0 to create MP3 files, the P4's performance -- even with 2.4GHz - takes a back seat to the Athlon XP/1900+.


this was the pre hyper-threading era.. you fellas think its true?
i did not stun you guys right..

Hi. Tell me what are you trying to say. That Intel Pentium 4 is worse than Athlon XP+. It is hard to prove witch one is better. I think if we compare Athlon XP+ like 2000XP and Pentium 4 2000Mhz but with Willamette core it is tru that Athlon XP+ is better. But with northwood their are equal. Sometimes P4 is better sometimes Athlon XP i better but it is realy rare for AXP. Even if the differences are not big.

Maby you have seen this. But if not, take a look. I leave you your own opinion and conclusion.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030217/index.html

It's not a reliable way of comparing, but roughly it goes like this :

With Williamette and Northwood A cores : The 2000+ would be faster than a 2000MHz P4.

With Northwood B cores : They would be about even.

With Northwood C cores : The AMD PR rating is very high, they don't stand a chance. A 3200+ is outperformed, severely some times, from a 2.8GHz P4.


So I guess that AMDs PR ratings were out to compare with the Northwood B cores at the time.

[josh]

i heard plans of revisions as lastime every 66mhz increase in speed increased in 100 pr.. also they must also take in consideration for the northwood "C" cores...

I had read somewhere, at some time, that the AMD XP ratings were only to compare against what the cpu performance would be compared to regular Athlons. Nothing to do with Pentium. Any truth to that?

[josh]

i heard that amd's pr is the would be performance of their intel counterpart... or so to speak...

well
... truthfully speaking ... we need a guage to use so that we know which intel cpu can be pinned against which amd cpu and not just dump everything together and try to decide which is better ...
It has to be a guage that heavily influence us ...
Therefore i would like to use PRICE ..
You can not compare a 3200+ with a 3.06c .. i dun think its right ..
if u compare a 2.4C cpu , then u would have to look at a 2800+ cpu since they are about the same price .

Price sounds like a winner.