AOA Forums

AOA Forums (http://www.aoaforums.com/forum/)
-   AMD Motherboards & CPUs (http://www.aoaforums.com/forum/4-amd-motherboards-and-cpus/)
-   -   Benchmarking comparison (http://www.aoaforums.com/forum/amd-motherboards-and-cpus/22760-benchmarking-comparison.html)

warp1 29th January, 2004 03:06 PM

Benchmarking comparison
 
Now that I finally have my gaming box about where I want it, I have a quick (maybe) question.

Just wondering where a moderately overclocked Barton stacks up against the top (stock) intel or 64's. For example I'm running 200 FSB with a 12.5 multi, giving me 2.5 Ghz. This is much faster than the 3200+ chip (the standard for AMD prior to the 64fx), how would it hang with the new leaders, given the same componants. I can't really test myself cause I haven't upgraded to new video card yet, so my benchies wouldn't equal a 9800 or 5950.

Interested in any opinions or experience.

Allan 29th January, 2004 06:56 PM

Your 2.5 GHz Barton will do fine, it is indeed a very fast computer. I would stick with it if I were you. Especially if you consider what it would cost you to upgrade to say a 3 GHz P4 and OC it. It wouldn't be worth the money over what you have now, IMHO.

Gizmo 29th January, 2004 07:09 PM

Remember that AMD and Intel, although compatible at the binary level (they run the same software), have radically different internal architectures. Because of that, you can't make a valid comparison on a clock level basis. AMD tries to do quite a bit more work per clock cycle than Intel does. This means that AMD runs at a lower clock frequency than Intel does, even at the high end of the AMD cpus. Generally speaking, the AMD PR figure (such as 3200+) gives you a fair idea of how the AMD stacks up against a P4 with a clock speed that is equivalent to the AMD PR figure. However, it really depends on what you are trying to do, as AMD will outperform Intel on some tasks, and Intel will outperform AMD on other tasks.

warp1 29th January, 2004 09:12 PM

Don't worry Allan, no intention on upgrading :) (2500 bartons gotta stick together, lol). I know the 3200+ Athalon ran very close to the Pentium 4 3+ gig. Since then, several versions of AMD 64 came out and Intel has its hyperthreading and EE versions.

I guess what I was wondering... How much advanced is the 64 or high end pentiums improved over the XP 3200+. I notice the 3200+ is still very expensive so would assume it's performance is close to those in its price range.

I know I should outperform a 3200+ due to the same FSB and greater CPU clock speed and also the same cache (512). Just curious how far off I would be from the current "leading edge" STOCK processors.

Gizmo 29th January, 2004 10:46 PM

The benchies I've seen seem to indicate that the A64 3200+ is slightly better than the XP3200+. Given that most people who do benches will agree that the 3200+ rating for the XP was a bit.....generous.........to start with, this makes the A64 3200+ a more serious competitor to the P4.........on 32-bit software.......on a 32-bit OS. Once support for A64 really hits, expect to gain another 20% or so. As for EE and Hyperthreading........well, EE seems to gain you MAYBE 2-3%, unless you get something that will fit wholely in the EEs cache that won't fit in a normal P4s cache. Hyperthreading though, can really give the P4 an advantage (upwards of 20%) in multithreaded applications, or when you have several apps running concurrently. One of my machines at work has a dual cpu setup, and another one has a P4 2.8C. The dual cpu machine handles multiple tasks a bit better than the P4 machine, but the P4C is definitely better than a machine that doesn't have HT. Note, however, that I frequently run multiple apps at the same time.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:23 AM.


Copyright ©2001 - 2010, AOA Forums


Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0