CHe ne dite dell'Olidata ??
- Autore discussione mirkob
- Data d'inizio
demotivato
New member
sicuro...
...che sia in ventita a quel prezzo?!?!? è l'olidata ilaro L? non so come vada (in rete ho letto solo che è rumoroso) ma a quel prezzo mi sembra regalato! hai verificato che si tratta effettivamente della configurazione "originale" (MD Athlon 64 3200+Windows MCE+ram 512MB+128MB ATI Radeon 9550+Sintonizzatore TV+HD250GB 7200RPM+DVD Dual Layer+audio 5.1 OnBoard+Mouse ottico e tastiera Wireless+Telecomando etc.)?
ciao,
Livio.
...che sia in ventita a quel prezzo?!?!? è l'olidata ilaro L? non so come vada (in rete ho letto solo che è rumoroso) ma a quel prezzo mi sembra regalato! hai verificato che si tratta effettivamente della configurazione "originale" (MD Athlon 64 3200+Windows MCE+ram 512MB+128MB ATI Radeon 9550+Sintonizzatore TV+HD250GB 7200RPM+DVD Dual Layer+audio 5.1 OnBoard+Mouse ottico e tastiera Wireless+Telecomando etc.)?
ciao,
Livio.
demotivato
New member
stasera ci passo...
... ho parlato per telefono e mi hanno confermato la storia della vendita sottoprezzo per esaurirli: certo brutto è brutto, ma il prezzo mi sembra (quasi) un affare!
... ho parlato per telefono e mi hanno confermato la storia della vendita sottoprezzo per esaurirli: certo brutto è brutto, ma il prezzo mi sembra (quasi) un affare!
Lo hai preso ?? Come va ??
Io potrei andarci in 2 minuti da casa, ma non sono sicuro proprio della soluzione HTPC .. cioè sarà il TOP x la visione (anche e soprattutto HD), ma in generale non mi convince .. penso che prenderò un DVDRecorder "buono" ..
Boh chi mi fa cambiare idea ??
P.S.
Io l'ho visto non mi sembrava così brutto
Io potrei andarci in 2 minuti da casa, ma non sono sicuro proprio della soluzione HTPC .. cioè sarà il TOP x la visione (anche e soprattutto HD), ma in generale non mi convince .. penso che prenderò un DVDRecorder "buono" ..
Boh chi mi fa cambiare idea ??
P.S.
Io l'ho visto non mi sembrava così brutto
demotivato
New member
oggi lo prendo ma...
... solo per il prezzo: non mi convince del tutto ma ho bisogno di un pc economico per sostituire il mio che giace competamente smontato ormai da troppo tempo - lo userò principalmente per la musica ed internet, poi magari con calma proverò a vedere cosa succede ad attaccarlo al vpr, ma non sarà il suo uso principale!
una piccola recensione con molte foto la trovi qui
ciao,
Livio.
... solo per il prezzo: non mi convince del tutto ma ho bisogno di un pc economico per sostituire il mio che giace competamente smontato ormai da troppo tempo - lo userò principalmente per la musica ed internet, poi magari con calma proverò a vedere cosa succede ad attaccarlo al vpr, ma non sarà il suo uso principale!
una piccola recensione con molte foto la trovi qui
ciao,
Livio.
lightobject
New member
Re: stasera ci passo...
Livio,
grazie del suggerimento. L'ho preso e non mi sembra così brutto. L'unica cosa che confermo nelle recensioni è il pulsante di espulsione del DVD un po' duro.
Ho pure lasciato un acconto per un amico; se ci ripenso ci sentiamo; la ricevuta dell'acconto la ho ancora in ufficio
Lightobject
Livio,
grazie del suggerimento. L'ho preso e non mi sembra così brutto. L'unica cosa che confermo nelle recensioni è il pulsante di espulsione del DVD un po' duro.
Ho pure lasciato un acconto per un amico; se ci ripenso ci sentiamo; la ricevuta dell'acconto la ho ancora in ufficio
Lightobject
Olidata
Io ho comprato il MediaCenter Olidata Reglo™ M.
Cambiato la scheda audio in una + seria (digitale e ottico), e levato il modem.....(a che server ormai?)
Prossimo change scheda video (5200 nvidia non proprio top gamma)
Ottimo sino a 1080x720p (stasera provo a 1080p) e nessun problema.
Forse solo un po rumoroso ma se abbassi la velocità della ventola a 60% + che accettabile.
P.S. consiglio un Gb di ram e Meglio Pentium Hypertrade che AMD (almeno per i film)
Saluti
Io ho comprato il MediaCenter Olidata Reglo™ M.
Cambiato la scheda audio in una + seria (digitale e ottico), e levato il modem.....(a che server ormai?)
Prossimo change scheda video (5200 nvidia non proprio top gamma)
Ottimo sino a 1080x720p (stasera provo a 1080p) e nessun problema.
Forse solo un po rumoroso ma se abbassi la velocità della ventola a 60% + che accettabile.
P.S. consiglio un Gb di ram e Meglio Pentium Hypertrade che AMD (almeno per i film)
Saluti
P4 Vs AMD
Siccome ritengo tempo perso disquisire con te, in quanto HAI SEMPRE RAGIONE, ti lascio un articolo in cui si parla di P4 e AMD.
Certo che poi + si sale di CPU + i valori dovrebbero avvicinarsi.
La verità assoluta non l'ha nessuno neppure l'articolo sottoriportato , ECCETTO TU.
Comunque a te....e buona serata.
PRIMA PARTE
AMD Athlon XP 2600+ vs. Intel Pentium 4 2.8 GHz
The today's comparison holds on to the typical tests of this kind carried out in our lab. A top processor of one manufacturer is compared with that of another, and they are coupled with the fastest for them chipsets. Apart from the new processors the chipsets are also of great interest.
Athlon XP 2600+ processor
Although the lately released Athlon XP 2200+ and the latest Athlon XP 2400+/2600+ are based on a bit different Thoroughbred cores. The previous core revision used in the 2200+ had the Stepping 0, and turned to be a little raw, that is why the frequency couldn't be lifted over 1800 MHz. Therefore, the redesigning of the Thoroughbred which brought us the stepping 1 is a forced step made to reach just the planned capabilities instead of new summits. This case reminds me of the VIA Apollo KT266A, whose elder brother KT266 came with a memory controller that couldn't provide the potential stated in the specs.
The core of the new stepping has a greater surface (did they try to eliminate problems of heat removal from a small surface?), a greater number of transistors (by 400,000) and the maximum consumed power. AMD has changed a policy of ratings. The 2400+ had actually to be clocked at 1800+2*66=1933 MHz ( 2000 MHz in fact), and the 2600+ at 1933+2*66=2066 MHz (2133 MHz in fact). But it's known that at the fixed FSB frequency the performance gain gets smaller as the multiplier (i.e. the core's frequency) grows up. AMD proves that it takes very seriously its rating as an indicator of processor's performance, and is not going to turn it into a meaningless figure.
The rumor has it that soon the Thoroughbred of Stepping 0 will be taken out of production, and even the lowest model based on this core (2000+) will be coupled with the Stepping 1. Well, taking into account the more reliable core of the new stepping, this step of VIA is obvious, as the KT266 was also gotten rid of when the KT266A appeared.
Siccome ritengo tempo perso disquisire con te, in quanto HAI SEMPRE RAGIONE, ti lascio un articolo in cui si parla di P4 e AMD.
Certo che poi + si sale di CPU + i valori dovrebbero avvicinarsi.
La verità assoluta non l'ha nessuno neppure l'articolo sottoriportato , ECCETTO TU.
Comunque a te....e buona serata.
PRIMA PARTE
AMD Athlon XP 2600+ vs. Intel Pentium 4 2.8 GHz
The today's comparison holds on to the typical tests of this kind carried out in our lab. A top processor of one manufacturer is compared with that of another, and they are coupled with the fastest for them chipsets. Apart from the new processors the chipsets are also of great interest.
Athlon XP 2600+ processor
Although the lately released Athlon XP 2200+ and the latest Athlon XP 2400+/2600+ are based on a bit different Thoroughbred cores. The previous core revision used in the 2200+ had the Stepping 0, and turned to be a little raw, that is why the frequency couldn't be lifted over 1800 MHz. Therefore, the redesigning of the Thoroughbred which brought us the stepping 1 is a forced step made to reach just the planned capabilities instead of new summits. This case reminds me of the VIA Apollo KT266A, whose elder brother KT266 came with a memory controller that couldn't provide the potential stated in the specs.
The core of the new stepping has a greater surface (did they try to eliminate problems of heat removal from a small surface?), a greater number of transistors (by 400,000) and the maximum consumed power. AMD has changed a policy of ratings. The 2400+ had actually to be clocked at 1800+2*66=1933 MHz ( 2000 MHz in fact), and the 2600+ at 1933+2*66=2066 MHz (2133 MHz in fact). But it's known that at the fixed FSB frequency the performance gain gets smaller as the multiplier (i.e. the core's frequency) grows up. AMD proves that it takes very seriously its rating as an indicator of processor's performance, and is not going to turn it into a meaningless figure.
The rumor has it that soon the Thoroughbred of Stepping 0 will be taken out of production, and even the lowest model based on this core (2000+) will be coupled with the Stepping 1. Well, taking into account the more reliable core of the new stepping, this step of VIA is obvious, as the KT266 was also gotten rid of when the KT266A appeared.
2a parte
Intel Pentium 4 2.8 GHz processor
Actually, this is the Northwood itself as it uses a 0.13-micron process, 512 KB L2 cache, the FSB's speed is identical to 533 MHz in its bandwidth (Quad Pumped Bus 133x4). This core lacks for an official support of the Hyper-Threading technology, though the Northwood has it unofficially... In the Pentium 4 2.8 GHz it's only the performance that will make interest for us as it has nothing more to boast of as compared with the P4 2.53 GHz.
VIA Apollo KT400 chipset
There is a good principle: one should speak (write) about something as much as a given thing is worth of. We will describe the new chipset from VIA Technologies given to three aspects:
1. Those who want to keep abreast of all latest solutions of the computer market have already downloaded all available information from the VIA's site. Such readers may omit this section as they will hardly find anything new here.
2. Those who prefer getting news from our site have probably read about the VIA Apollo KT333, and in this case they can read just about the differences between the KT400 and KT333.
3. Those who are not very interested in such things as support of certain specs and memory types, frequencies and bandwidths of internal buses and other highly specialized information on the KT333 chipset will hardly read this section as well.
So, what's the difference between the KT400 and KT333? Strange though it may seem but we failed to find any official information that it supports DDR of the same frequency as shown in the chipset's name. On the other hand, this is a normal situation when the standard is not officially confirmed by JEDEC and no one is sure it will be. But I think that the support of the respective memory bus speed and even necessary divisors to make normal PCI and AGP frequencies is provided in the KT400. But it's just an assumption as the official information is lacking. But if it's true the BIOS of most boards will let us enable the unsupported DDR 200 MHz, even without increasing frequencies of other buses, as, for example, it was possible on the ASUS's solution included into our test stand.
Another important innovation is a new 8X V-Link bus between the north and south bridges providing 533 MB/s. Many expected the 8X V-Link yet in the KT333, but it seems that VIA decided to combine two "8X" in one chipset. VIA Technologies thus caught up with Intel (the latest chips of this company also use a bus in the chipset of the same throughput), and both are behind SiS with its 1.2 GB/s MuTIOL developed a long time ago and boasting of its fastest bus in the whole x86 kingdom.
The second "8X" is 8X AGP (AGP 3.0). Video cards and video chips supporting this mode are already coming onto the scene, and soon they will let us estimate its efficiency. However, nobody expects wonders: we just don't want new bugs. By the way, VIA works excellently in this respect - it has its won program of certification of AGP8X compatible 3D accelerators.
Intel Pentium 4 2.8 GHz processor
Actually, this is the Northwood itself as it uses a 0.13-micron process, 512 KB L2 cache, the FSB's speed is identical to 533 MHz in its bandwidth (Quad Pumped Bus 133x4). This core lacks for an official support of the Hyper-Threading technology, though the Northwood has it unofficially...
In the Pentium 4 2.8 GHz it's only the performance that will make interest for us as it has nothing more to boast of as compared with the P4 2.53 GHz. VIA Apollo KT400 chipset
There is a good principle: one should speak (write) about something as much as a given thing is worth of. We will describe the new chipset from VIA Technologies given to three aspects:
1. Those who want to keep abreast of all latest solutions of the computer market have already downloaded all available information from the VIA's site. Such readers may omit this section as they will hardly find anything new here.
2. Those who prefer getting news from our site have probably read about the VIA Apollo KT333, and in this case they can read just about the differences between the KT400 and KT333.
3. Those who are not very interested in such things as support of certain specs and memory types, frequencies and bandwidths of internal buses and other highly specialized information on the KT333 chipset will hardly read this section as well
. So, what's the difference between the KT400 and KT333? Strange though it may seem but we failed to find any official information that it supports DDR of the same frequency as shown in the chipset's name. On the other hand, this is a normal situation when the standard is not officially confirmed by JEDEC and no one is sure it will be. But I think that the support of the respective memory bus speed and even necessary divisors to make normal PCI and AGP frequencies is provided in the KT400. But it's just an assumption as the official information is lacking. But if it's true the BIOS of most boards will let us enable the unsupported DDR 200 MHz, even without increasing frequencies of other buses, as, for example, it was possible on the ASUS's solution included into our test stand.
Another important innovation is a new 8X V-Link bus between the north and south bridges providing 533 MB/s. Many expected the 8X V-Link yet in the KT333, but it seems that VIA decided to combine two "8X" in one chipset
. VIA Technologies thus caught up with Intel (the latest chips of this company also use a bus in the chipset of the same throughput), and both are behind SiS with its 1.2 GB/s MuTIOL developed a long time ago and boasting of its fastest bus in the whole x86 kingdom. The second "8X" is 8X AGP (AGP 3.0). Video cards and video chips supporting this mode are already coming onto the scene, and soon they will let us estimate its efficiency. However, nobody expects wonders: we just don't want new bugs. By the way, VIA works excellently in this respect - it has its won program of certification of AGP8X compatible 3D accelerators.
3a parte
Other innovations are related with the south bridge, and they are quite obvious: ATA133 was yet in the VT8233A south bridge; the current VT8235 also supports the USB 2.0.
The attention of experts can also be drawn by the "Future Pin Compatible Upgrades with Serial-ATA and 802.11b", i.e. future south bridges supporting these functions will be entirely pin compatible with the current VT8235 (and the whole line starting from the VT8233), which must cut expenses for redesigning of the boards.
I must admit that the chipset is quite modern; it's the best choice for today for Socket A based computers.
It should also be noted that the hypothesis of the 166 (333) MHz FSB supported in the KT400 is not proven yet. Like in case of the DDR400 SDRAM, probably the FSB333 IS supported in this chipset. But we will make it clear only when such processors become available.
Test conditions
Testbed:
* Processors:
o AMD Athlon XP 2100+ (1733 MHz, 13x133 MHz), Socket 462(Socket A)
o AMD Athlon XP 2600+ (2133 MHz, 16x133 MHz), Socket 462(Socket A)
o Intel Pentium 4 2.53 GHz (19x133 MHz), Socket 478
o Intel Pentium 4 2.8 GHz (21x133 MHz), Socket 478
* Mainboards:
o ASUS A7V8X (BIOS 1004) on VIA KT400
o ASUS P4T533-C (BIOS 1007 beta 002) on i850E
* Memory:
o 2x256 MB PC3200(DDR400) DDR SDRAM DIMM Winbond, parameters by SPD
o 2x256 MB PC1066 RDRAM RIMM Kingston
* Video card: Palit Daytona GeForce4 Ti4600
* Hard drive: IBM IC35L040AVER07-0, 7200 rpm
Software:
* Windows XP Professional
* DirectX 8.1a
* VIA 4-in-1 4.42v(a)p2
* Intel Inf 4.00.1013
* Intel Application Accelerator 2.2.2
* NVIDIA Detonator XP 29.42 (VSync=Off)
* Cachemem 2.4MMX
* Wstream
* CPU RightMark 1.01
* Discreet 3ds max 4.26
* RazorLame 1.1.5.1342 + Lame codec 3.92
* VirtualDub 1.4.10 + DivX codec 5.02 Pro
* WinAce 2.2
* WinRAR 3.0
* BAPCo & MadOnion SYSmark 2002 Internet Content Creation
* BAPCo & MadOnion SYSmark 2002 Office Productivity
* SPECviewperf 7.0
* MadOnion 3DMark 2001 SE build 330
* Gray Matter Studios & Nerve Software Return To Castle Wolfenstein v1.1
* Croteam/GodGames Serious Sam: The Second Encounter v1.07
Test results
Cachemem and Wstream
We already mentioned that comparison of Pentium 4 and Athlon XP based systems with low-level tests of the memory bandwidth is a sadistic occupation for the fans of Pentium 4 and a masochistic one for the fans of the Athlon XP. The fastest processor bus in the x86 architecture and the fastest memory accompany the Pentium 4, while the Athlon XP lacks for them. The test results directly depend on the specs of processors, chipsets and memory, and the diagrams can be drawn with a pencil. But it doesn't mean that the benefit of the Pentium 4 disappears. It is real, obvious and expected! The low-level memory tests prove that.
CPU RightMark 1.01
The classic FPU of the Athlon XP is noticeably more powerful than that of the Pentium 4, and the results given in the diagrams (MMX/FPU) prove that clearly. But with the SSE (SSE/FPU) the rendering brings new results: the Pentium 4 2.53 GHz goes on a par with the lower Athlon XP.
The SSE2 support makes the Pentium 4 jump forward. As we said a lot of times, the Pentium 4 provides a higher performance only in those programs which are able to derive benefit from the architecture of this processor, in particular, from its extended instructions. I must admit, the number of such programs is growing up.
3ds max 4.26 (Pentium 4 Optimized Version)
According to the diagram, the performance of the Athlon XP 2100+ is lower than that of the Pentium 4 2.53 GHz; besides, the Athlon XP 2600+ and Pentium 4 2.8 GHz are on the same level. Taking into account that the frequency gap between the 2100+ and P4 2.53 GHz is much greater than between 2600+ and P4 2.8 GHz, the Athlon XP shows better scores in the 3ds max, and in all other cases one must account for a core's speed of a certain model.
It turned out that 2800 MHz from Intel is approximately equal to 2133 MHz from AMD. It's known that the AMD's processors have often problems not with the "specific" performance but with the "absolute" one, exactly because the company is not able to handle the frequency race properly. But at present the parity is again achieved: the flagships of both companies score the same results.
WAV -> MP3 (Lame codec 3.92, RazorLame Front-end)
The situation is identical to the 3ds max 4.26 test. I don't see a considerable difference in the efficiency between these tests.
VideoCD -> MPEG4 (VirtualDub 1.4.10 + DivX codec v. 5.02 Pro)
The situation is close to the two previous tests, but the advantage of the Pentium 4 is much brighter. Apart from the shining performance of this processor (with the SSE2 instructions used) the memory throughput has a decent effect on the final results, and the P4+PC1066 tandem becomes unconquerable.
WinAce 2.2 archiving
This is one more sample of the MPEG4-like behavior. There are no severe changes in the layout, only the results are more dependent on the CPU's speed.
WinRAR 3.0 archiving
This is one more archiver of relatively slow compression and with a large library. The Pentium 4 thrives, but the difference between the respective pairs of the Intel's and AMD's solutions is petty and makes me think that in both cases the performance is limited by the memory subsystem. The WinRAR is able to enable entirely the fastest PC1066 RDRAM and the 533 MHz FSB. Well, it seems to be a very good test for estimating the RAM's performance.
SYSmark 2002
The results of the Internet Content Creation show why AMD tears the SYSmark 2002 to pieces. It would be wrong to omit this fact, but it's wrong twice to speak about an internal structure of the SYSmark subtests without complete information on the test (or better, its source). AMD doesn't like the new scripts of this version of the benchmark - it thinks that the functions and filters used are oriented to those which work better with the Pentium 4. Frankly speaking, we do not have an answer.
On the other hand, we must discuss not whether the scripts of the SYSmark 2002 are correct regarding certain processors, but whether they are correct from a standpoint of operation of an average user. If they repeat the most frequently used instructions, the "optimization for processor" turns into the "optimization for real usage of software", and in this case the results become more objective.
That is why from a standpoint of the programmers from SYSmark, the Pentium 4 is really much better than the Athlon XP in programs processing multimedia contents. Time will show whether this assumption is objective.
SPECviewperf 7.0
Well, if one processor wins from the other by a small margin in several subtests but loses to it considerably in one test, which one should be acknowledged a leader? I think the first prize should be awarded to the programmers developing the IBM Data Explorer code the DX-07 is based on. It's clear that one can make a program which will work too slowly on one processor and quite promptly on another; and it's possible to make such a program not purposely. But if it takes place, and it started a long time ago, we should clarify why the IBM Data Explorer doesn't like the Pentium 4 so much.
Nevertheless, at present we have no choice but to establish the fact that there are applications which do not like the Intel's processor. Moreover, they don't like exactly the Northwood core with its L2 512KB cache. That is why the second prize is given to the AMD Athlon XP for the best compatibility with one of the SPECviewperf's components.
3DMark 2001
The gaming applications will remain in the grip of Intel, to all appearances (at least, if the Hammer makes no revolution).
The first thought that crosses my mind when looking at the diagrams is a clear victory of the Pentium 4. Even the 2.53 GHz, which ceased to be on the top with the release of the 2.8 GHz model, outscores the latest Athlon XP 2600+. So, with the equal growth rate of frequencies (which are even lower in case of AMD), the Athlon XP seems to be a hopeless loser.
Return to Castle Wolfenstein è Serious Sam: The Second Encounter
The conclusion will be drawn from the most revealing test conditions - as the graphic quality level increases the situation doesn't change - it just becomes more and more "blurry" as the resolution gets higher.
Well, there is nothing more to say after the 3DMark 2001 test. Even the fastest Athlon XP is not able to catch up with the aging Pentium 4 2.53 GHz, not to mention 2.8 GHz. It proves again the assumption that in games the palm belongs to the Pentium 4.
The Serious Sam: The Second Encounter changes the situation a little. Almost identical performance of the junior and senior processors from Intel and AMD doesn't allow saying that the Pentium 4 has a sure benefit in all games, just in the most of popular game engines. Therefore, the Pentium 4 provides a higher performance only in those games which derive benefits from its architecture, in particular, from its extended instructions. Unfortunately for the AMD's fans, the number of such games grows very rapidly...
Conclusion
Before the release of the Athlon XP 2600+ we could state that AMD lost the performance race. At present, when we have Pentium 4 2.8 GHz and Athlon XP 2600+ the situation is more complicated, but taking into account the overall scores AMD still loses. If the Athlon XP 2600+ had coexisted with the Pentium 4 2.53 GHz for a decent period of time the parity could have been noticed. But at present, from the standpoint of a pure performance, i.e. without considering frequency and price differences, Intel with its Pentium 4 2.8 GHz takes the lead.
But it's too early to bury the Athlon XP: given the slashing results of Pentium 4 2.53 GHz vs. Athlon XP 2000+/2100+ and the today's scores we can see that AMD managed to make a strong jump ahead narrowing the gap. Well, new changes can be expected only with new, faster models from both companies.
Other innovations are related with the south bridge, and they are quite obvious: ATA133 was yet in the VT8233A south bridge; the current VT8235 also supports the USB 2.0.
The attention of experts can also be drawn by the "Future Pin Compatible Upgrades with Serial-ATA and 802.11b", i.e. future south bridges supporting these functions will be entirely pin compatible with the current VT8235 (and the whole line starting from the VT8233), which must cut expenses for redesigning of the boards.
I must admit that the chipset is quite modern; it's the best choice for today for Socket A based computers.
It should also be noted that the hypothesis of the 166 (333) MHz FSB supported in the KT400 is not proven yet. Like in case of the DDR400 SDRAM, probably the FSB333 IS supported in this chipset. But we will make it clear only when such processors become available.
Test conditions
Testbed:
* Processors:
o AMD Athlon XP 2100+ (1733 MHz, 13x133 MHz), Socket 462(Socket A)
o AMD Athlon XP 2600+ (2133 MHz, 16x133 MHz), Socket 462(Socket A)
o Intel Pentium 4 2.53 GHz (19x133 MHz), Socket 478
o Intel Pentium 4 2.8 GHz (21x133 MHz), Socket 478
* Mainboards:
o ASUS A7V8X (BIOS 1004) on VIA KT400
o ASUS P4T533-C (BIOS 1007 beta 002) on i850E
* Memory:
o 2x256 MB PC3200(DDR400) DDR SDRAM DIMM Winbond, parameters by SPD
o 2x256 MB PC1066 RDRAM RIMM Kingston
* Video card: Palit Daytona GeForce4 Ti4600
* Hard drive: IBM IC35L040AVER07-0, 7200 rpm
Software:
* Windows XP Professional
* DirectX 8.1a
* VIA 4-in-1 4.42v(a)p2
* Intel Inf 4.00.1013
* Intel Application Accelerator 2.2.2
* NVIDIA Detonator XP 29.42 (VSync=Off)
* Cachemem 2.4MMX
* Wstream
* CPU RightMark 1.01
* Discreet 3ds max 4.26
* RazorLame 1.1.5.1342 + Lame codec 3.92
* VirtualDub 1.4.10 + DivX codec 5.02 Pro
* WinAce 2.2
* WinRAR 3.0
* BAPCo & MadOnion SYSmark 2002 Internet Content Creation
* BAPCo & MadOnion SYSmark 2002 Office Productivity
* SPECviewperf 7.0
* MadOnion 3DMark 2001 SE build 330
* Gray Matter Studios & Nerve Software Return To Castle Wolfenstein v1.1
* Croteam/GodGames Serious Sam: The Second Encounter v1.07
Test results
Cachemem and Wstream
We already mentioned that comparison of Pentium 4 and Athlon XP based systems with low-level tests of the memory bandwidth is a sadistic occupation for the fans of Pentium 4 and a masochistic one for the fans of the Athlon XP
. The fastest processor bus in the x86 architecture and the fastest memory accompany the Pentium 4, while the Athlon XP lacks for them. The test results directly depend on the specs of processors, chipsets and memory, and the diagrams can be drawn with a pencil. But it doesn't mean that the benefit of the Pentium 4 disappears. It is real, obvious and expected! The low-level memory tests prove that. CPU RightMark 1.01
The classic FPU of the Athlon XP is noticeably more powerful than that of the Pentium 4, and the results given in the diagrams (MMX/FPU) prove that clearly. But with the SSE (SSE/FPU) the rendering brings new results: the Pentium 4 2.53 GHz goes on a par with the lower Athlon XP.
The SSE2 support makes the Pentium 4 jump forward. As we said a lot of times, the Pentium 4 provides a higher performance only in those programs which are able to derive benefit from the architecture of this processor, in particular, from its extended instructions. I must admit, the number of such programs is growing up.
3ds max 4.26 (Pentium 4 Optimized Version)
According to the diagram, the performance of the Athlon XP 2100+ is lower than that of the Pentium 4 2.53 GHz; besides, the Athlon XP 2600+ and Pentium 4 2.8 GHz are on the same level. Taking into account that the frequency gap between the 2100+ and P4 2.53 GHz is much greater than between 2600+ and P4 2.8 GHz, the Athlon XP shows better scores in the 3ds max, and in all other cases one must account for a core's speed of a certain model.
It turned out that 2800 MHz from Intel is approximately equal to 2133 MHz from AMD. It's known that the AMD's processors have often problems not with the "specific" performance but with the "absolute" one, exactly because the company is not able to handle the frequency race properly. But at present the parity is again achieved: the flagships of both companies score the same results.
WAV -> MP3 (Lame codec 3.92, RazorLame Front-end)
The situation is identical to the 3ds max 4.26 test. I don't see a considerable difference in the efficiency between these tests.
VideoCD -> MPEG4 (VirtualDub 1.4.10 + DivX codec v. 5.02 Pro)
The situation is close to the two previous tests, but the advantage of the Pentium 4 is much brighter. Apart from the shining performance of this processor (with the SSE2 instructions used) the memory throughput has a decent effect on the final results, and the P4+PC1066 tandem becomes unconquerable.
WinAce 2.2 archiving
This is one more sample of the MPEG4-like behavior. There are no severe changes in the layout, only the results are more dependent on the CPU's speed.
WinRAR 3.0 archiving
This is one more archiver of relatively slow compression and with a large library. The Pentium 4 thrives, but the difference between the respective pairs of the Intel's and AMD's solutions is petty and makes me think that in both cases the performance is limited by the memory subsystem. The WinRAR is able to enable entirely the fastest PC1066 RDRAM and the 533 MHz FSB. Well, it seems to be a very good test for estimating the RAM's performance.
SYSmark 2002
The results of the Internet Content Creation show why AMD tears the SYSmark 2002 to pieces
. It would be wrong to omit this fact, but it's wrong twice to speak about an internal structure of the SYSmark subtests without complete information on the test (or better, its source). AMD doesn't like the new scripts of this version of the benchmark - it thinks that the functions and filters used are oriented to those which work better with the Pentium 4. Frankly speaking, we do not have an answer. On the other hand, we must discuss not whether the scripts of the SYSmark 2002 are correct regarding certain processors, but whether they are correct from a standpoint of operation of an average user. If they repeat the most frequently used instructions, the "optimization for processor" turns into the "optimization for real usage of software", and in this case the results become more objective.
That is why from a standpoint of the programmers from SYSmark, the Pentium 4 is really much better than the Athlon XP in programs processing multimedia contents. Time will show whether this assumption is objective.
SPECviewperf 7.0
Well, if one processor wins from the other by a small margin in several subtests but loses to it considerably in one test, which one should be acknowledged a leader? I think the first prize should be awarded to the programmers developing the IBM Data Explorer code the DX-07 is based on
. It's clear that one can make a program which will work too slowly on one processor and quite promptly on another; and it's possible to make such a program not purposely. But if it takes place, and it started a long time ago, we should clarify why the IBM Data Explorer doesn't like the Pentium 4 so much. Nevertheless, at present we have no choice but to establish the fact that there are applications which do not like the Intel's processor. Moreover, they don't like exactly the Northwood core with its L2 512KB cache. That is why the second prize is given to the AMD Athlon XP for the best compatibility with one of the SPECviewperf's components.
3DMark 2001
The gaming applications will remain in the grip of Intel, to all appearances (at least, if the Hammer makes no revolution).
The first thought that crosses my mind when looking at the diagrams is a clear victory of the Pentium 4. Even the 2.53 GHz, which ceased to be on the top with the release of the 2.8 GHz model, outscores the latest Athlon XP 2600+. So, with the equal growth rate of frequencies (which are even lower in case of AMD), the Athlon XP seems to be a hopeless loser.
Return to Castle Wolfenstein è Serious Sam: The Second Encounter
The conclusion will be drawn from the most revealing test conditions - as the graphic quality level increases the situation doesn't change - it just becomes more and more "blurry" as the resolution gets higher.
Well, there is nothing more to say after the 3DMark 2001 test. Even the fastest Athlon XP is not able to catch up with the aging Pentium 4 2.53 GHz, not to mention 2.8 GHz. It proves again the assumption that in games the palm belongs to the Pentium 4.
The Serious Sam: The Second Encounter changes the situation a little
. Almost identical performance of the junior and senior processors from Intel and AMD doesn't allow saying that the Pentium 4 has a sure benefit in all games, just in the most of popular game engines. Therefore, the Pentium 4 provides a higher performance only in those games which derive benefits from its architecture, in particular, from its extended instructions. Unfortunately for the AMD's fans, the number of such games grows very rapidly... Conclusion
Before the release of the Athlon XP 2600+ we could state that AMD lost the performance race. At present, when we have Pentium 4 2.8 GHz and Athlon XP 2600+ the situation is more complicated, but taking into account the overall scores AMD still loses. If the Athlon XP 2600+ had coexisted with the Pentium 4 2.53 GHz for a decent period of time the parity could have been noticed. But at present, from the standpoint of a pure performance, i.e. without considering frequency and price differences, Intel with its Pentium 4 2.8 GHz takes the lead.
But it's too early to bury the Athlon XP: given the slashing results of Pentium 4 2.53 GHz vs. Athlon XP 2000+/2100+ and the today's scores we can see that AMD managed to make a strong jump ahead narrowing the gap. Well, new changes can be expected only with new, faster models from both companies.
Invece io non ritengo tempo perso parlare con uno che prende 3 cantonate in 10 minuti, parlando di Pentium vs AMD, di Hypertrade e confrontando gli Athlon XP (ormai in via di dismissione) con i Pentium 4. Dovresti prendere in considerazione gli Athlon 64 su socket 939 ed i Pentium 4 Prescott.
Gli Athlon 64 sono complessivamente migliori dei Pentium 4 Prescott a parità di PR/frequenza, restano dietro nell'editing audio/video (che non vuole dire necessariamente HTPC).
A parità di costo, tuttavia gli Athlon 64 sono avanti anche nell'editing A/V. Se invece non ti fai problemi di prezzo e consideri le CPU top di gamma, tra le CPU single core l'Athlon 64 FX-57 non teme rivali. Stessa cosa succede tra i processori dual core, dove gli Athlon 64 X2 surclassano i Pentium D Intel. Se vuoi altre motivazioni per smontare le tue balzane teorie chiedi pure.
Quando non si sanno le cose, è meglio star zitti per evitare di disinformare gli altri utenti.
Ciao
Gli Athlon 64 sono complessivamente migliori dei Pentium 4 Prescott a parità di PR/frequenza, restano dietro nell'editing audio/video (che non vuole dire necessariamente HTPC).
A parità di costo, tuttavia gli Athlon 64 sono avanti anche nell'editing A/V. Se invece non ti fai problemi di prezzo e consideri le CPU top di gamma, tra le CPU single core l'Athlon 64 FX-57 non teme rivali. Stessa cosa succede tra i processori dual core, dove gli Athlon 64 X2 surclassano i Pentium D Intel. Se vuoi altre motivazioni per smontare le tue balzane teorie chiedi pure.
Quando non si sanno le cose, è meglio star zitti per evitare di disinformare gli altri utenti.
Ciao
Ultima modifica:
Ragione da uno che parla di Hypertrade, di Pentium vs AMD e ritiene implicitamente gli Athlon XP i migliori processori di AMD?!?
Vedi, io invece ho perso parte del mio tempo per farti capire che ti sbagli e probabilmente non sei molto aggiornato sulle CPU...
P.S. Cos'è l'Hypertrade?!?
P.P.S. Ti dedico una canzone: "Sorry seems to be the hardest word"...
Ultima modifica:
Hyper Threading
Mi scuso per l'errore ortografico.
Hyper Threading
Comunque il tempo darà ragione a uno dei 2.
Presumo che +- si equivalgono.....poi ad ognuno il suo o quello che ritiene meglio.
P.S. Io ho un vecchio amd 2200 e un p4 2.8Gh
Entrambi vanno bene e mai avuto problemi.
Personalmente rimango della mia idea (a livello professionale si usa + tecnologia intel ....forse c'è un motivo...)
Comunque non voglio disquisire con una persona che si ritiene sempre dalla parte della ragione (senza compromessi o paragoni) e permettimi un po eccessiva nel linguaggio.
Buona serata e mi permetto ancora di darti in "pasto" un articolo che non parla di chi è meglio ma di dove si stà andando.
I forum non sono fatti per primeggiare ma per confrontare le proprie opinioni non dando dei cretini.
Saluti ancora, buona serata e non scaldarti come AMD.
http://www.vnunet.it/pcmagazine/detalle.asp?ids=/Articoli/Anteprima//20050523019
Mi scuso per l'errore ortografico.
Hyper Threading
Comunque il tempo darà ragione a uno dei 2.
Presumo che +- si equivalgono.....poi ad ognuno il suo o quello che ritiene meglio.
P.S. Io ho un vecchio amd 2200 e un p4 2.8Gh
Entrambi vanno bene e mai avuto problemi.
Personalmente rimango della mia idea (a livello professionale si usa + tecnologia intel ....forse c'è un motivo...)
Comunque non voglio disquisire con una persona che si ritiene sempre dalla parte della ragione (senza compromessi o paragoni) e permettimi un po eccessiva nel linguaggio.
Buona serata e mi permetto ancora di darti in "pasto" un articolo che non parla di chi è meglio ma di dove si stà andando.
I forum non sono fatti per primeggiare ma per confrontare le proprie opinioni non dando dei cretini.
Saluti ancora, buona serata e non scaldarti come AMD.
http://www.vnunet.it/pcmagazine/detalle.asp?ids=/Articoli/Anteprima//20050523019
Re: Hyper Threading
Eccessivo nel linguaggio?Insulti?Parolacce?Io non ne vedo...
Senza compromessi o paragoni?Se cerchi nei miei post passati ho riportato tanto di quel materiale per motivare le mie affermazioni...
Sei tu che hai riportato dati vecchi ed hai detto che tanto ho sempre ragione...
Seriamente, sono le CPU Intel (Prescott single core e Smithfield dual core), che dissipano dai 60 ai 100 W in più della controparte AMD. Ancora una volta dimostri di non essere aggiornato.
Dual Core, è un po' che se ne parla: ecco un confronto tra il mostruoso Pentium EE 840 e l'Athlon 64 X2 4800+...
http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium-840.html
I should say that Pentium Extreme Edition 840 from Intel made a twofold impression today. On the one hand, this CPU is a true new step in the evolution of Intel processors on NetBurst architecture. In most contemporary tasks supporting multi-threading, this processor does improve the system performance. Among these multi-threaded applications are the same ones we have already mentioned in our AMD Athlon 64 X2 CPU Review last week. I would like to specifically mention that Pentium Extreme Edition 840 proves highly efficient compared with the single-core Pentium 4 when we have a few resource-hungry applications running simultaneously.
However, the same CPU looks very unconvincing in quite a number of tasks. The main problem with Pentium Extreme Edition 840 is its low clock frequency, which makes its price absolutely incomparable with the actual performance you get in single-thread environment or under multi-threaded workload, which doesn’t eat up a lot of processor resources.
But even if we disregard all these cases, Pentium Extreme Edition 840 still doesn’t make the desired impression after we have once seen what AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ is capable of. Intel’s dual-core solution cannot compete successfully with the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ although they belong to the same price group. In other words, if we compare these two rivals side by side, Pentium Extreme Edition 840 will almost always fall behind.
Moreover, Pentium Extreme Edition 840 has a few other issues. This CPU has dramatic power consumption which sets additional requirements to the voltage regulators designed for the mainboards supporting it as well as to the system PSUs. As a result, Pentium Extreme Edition 840 requires special cooling solutions. Besides, this processor will not work in old LGA775 mainboards and is compatible only with the limited number of solutions based on i955X and NVIDIA nForce4 SLI (Intel Edition).
So, Pentium Extreme Edition 840 has pretty vague chances to become a popular being an expensive solution for high-performance PCs. From all viewpoints it so far yields to the competitor from Athlon 64 X2 family.
Buona serata
Eccessivo nel linguaggio?Insulti?Parolacce?Io non ne vedo...
Senza compromessi o paragoni?Se cerchi nei miei post passati ho riportato tanto di quel materiale per motivare le mie affermazioni...
Sei tu che hai riportato dati vecchi ed hai detto che tanto ho sempre ragione...
mangusta ha scritto:
Saluti ancora, buona serata e non scaldarti come AMD.
http://www.vnunet.it/pcmagazine/detalle.asp?ids=/Articoli/Anteprima//20050523019
Seriamente, sono le CPU Intel (Prescott single core e Smithfield dual core), che dissipano dai 60 ai 100 W in più della controparte AMD. Ancora una volta dimostri di non essere aggiornato.
Dual Core, è un po' che se ne parla: ecco un confronto tra il mostruoso
Pentium EE 840 e l'Athlon 64 X2 4800+...http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium-840.html
I should say that Pentium Extreme Edition 840 from Intel made a twofold impression today. On the one hand, this CPU is a true new step in the evolution of Intel processors on NetBurst architecture. In most contemporary tasks supporting multi-threading, this processor does improve the system performance. Among these multi-threaded applications are the same ones we have already mentioned in our AMD Athlon 64 X2 CPU Review last week. I would like to specifically mention that Pentium Extreme Edition 840 proves highly efficient compared with the single-core Pentium 4 when we have a few resource-hungry applications running simultaneously.
However, the same CPU looks very unconvincing in quite a number of tasks. The main problem with Pentium Extreme Edition 840 is its low clock frequency, which makes its price absolutely incomparable with the actual performance you get in single-thread environment or under multi-threaded workload, which doesn’t eat up a lot of processor resources.
But even if we disregard all these cases, Pentium Extreme Edition 840 still doesn’t make the desired impression after we have once seen what AMD Athlon 64 X2 4800+ is capable of. Intel’s dual-core solution cannot compete successfully with the Athlon 64 X2 4800+ although they belong to the same price group. In other words, if we compare these two rivals side by side, Pentium Extreme Edition 840 will almost always fall behind.
Moreover, Pentium Extreme Edition 840 has a few other issues. This CPU has dramatic power consumption which sets additional requirements to the voltage regulators designed for the mainboards supporting it as well as to the system PSUs. As a result, Pentium Extreme Edition 840 requires special cooling solutions. Besides, this processor will not work in old LGA775 mainboards and is compatible only with the limited number of solutions based on i955X and NVIDIA nForce4 SLI (Intel Edition).
So, Pentium Extreme Edition 840 has pretty vague chances to become a popular being an expensive solution for high-performance PCs. From all viewpoints it so far yields to the competitor from Athlon 64 X2 family.
Buona serata
Re: Hyper Threading
Visto che i consumi sono pari al calore dissipato, con gli Athlon 64 si possono utilizzare sistemi di raffreddamento più silenziosi (e meno costosi). Senza contare che i maggiori consumi costano €.
Se devi fare la battuta, almeno scrivi: "Non scaldarti come Intel"
Attualmente le migliori CPU, per HTPC e non solo, sono AMD64 (ma non perchè lo dico io e voglio avere sempre ragione). I dati di vendita complessivi esulano spesso da questi parametri.
mangusta ha scritto:
Saluti ancora, buona serata e non scaldarti come AMD.
Visto che i consumi sono pari al calore dissipato, con gli Athlon 64 si possono utilizzare sistemi di raffreddamento più silenziosi (e meno costosi). Senza contare che i maggiori consumi costano €.
Se devi fare la battuta, almeno scrivi: "Non scaldarti come Intel"
Attualmente le migliori CPU, per HTPC e non solo, sono AMD64 (ma non perchè lo dico io e voglio avere sempre ragione). I dati di vendita complessivi esulano spesso da questi parametri.
Ultima modifica: