|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,228
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
OP
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,228 |
Originally posted by chemguru:
Originally posted by Toadster:
what apps do you run? i can show more benchmarks 
Hmm... Evolution, Opera, gaim, xmms, mplayer, postfix, and about 20 aterms. 
hmm - pick a slide 
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 777
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 777 |
40.781s
P4 Prescott 2.8Ghz @ 3.6Ghz
1.0GB DDR PC3200 Ram
44.5s
P4 Prescott 2.8Ghz @ 3.36Ghz
1.0GB DDR PC3200 Ram
51.4s
2.8Ghz @ 2.8ghz
(same computer, differnt OC settings)
PS, ran slower in safemode!
Last edited by NO 4 EVR; 08/31/06 06:23 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117 |
Originally posted by NO 4 EVR:
If it is a prescott P4,...
I don't even know, but it likely is. Our IS dpt sucks butt. They buy Gateway or Dell Intel machines only. HP printers & scanners only. MS software only. They also seem to take any/all suggestions from salesmen as far as what the Town "really needs".
It's disgusting from my point of view, but if I was a salesman, I'd have a field day with these drones.
Must be that jumbly-wumbly thing happening again.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,445
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,445 |
Originally posted by Pete D:
Originally posted by Toadster:
so many of you think AMD is still in the game... 
The core 2 duo is certainly putting the ball in Intel's court. Too bad that many people jumped ship to AMD long ago when it became apparent that like the American auto industry they were selling overpriced underperforming products and had been doing so for years. For the longest time any gamers or power users have looked only to AMD for their procs.
I have no plans to switch back to Intel (in a desktop anyway) in the near future and I know many other "power users" (the people that buy the high margin products when they first come out) that feel the same way. Only time will tell if Intel can come back or not.
Or in my case, by the time I buy again, the performance holy grail will be back in the hands of AMD.
AMD has proven that they are a worthy competitor to Intel and frankly, AMD is the only thing keeping Intel honest.
2000 Contour SE Sport
Originator of the Beowulf Headlight Mod and the Beowulf CAI
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117 |
Originally posted by Beowulf:
Or in my case, by the time I buy again, the performance holy grail will be back in the hands of AMD.
AMD has proven that they are a worthy competitor to Intel and frankly, AMD is the only thing keeping Intel honest.
Who builds the fastest processor of the moment has little to do with my buying choices as the shopping price range is typically near the bottom of the scale. I don't ever recally purchasing a machine or MB/CPU combo with the latest & greatest from either manufacturer. When it comes to older processors, AMD generally wholesales their stock at a much lower price point than Intel for comparable performance.
I love AMD for keeping in the game, for no other reason than they are helping to drive progress & innovation in the technology. Also gives poor bastids like myself opportunities to pick up a powerful machine for a relatively low dollar investment. I just wish somebody would give MS a realistic run for their money. So far Linux has been a dissappointment.
Must be that jumbly-wumbly thing happening again.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,978
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,978 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,882
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,882 |
Is this the 32M you're calculating? I really expected more from my comp.  36m 56.157s P4 641 Prescot @ 3.2 ghz w/ 1 gig DDR2 mem. SuperPI says only 268 meg mem is allocated though. Might try running it again later on a fresh reboot. I had multiple windows open and was still browsing and working while it ran.
BrApple-its all in the way it is presented...but everythign on my resume is all me
TexasRealtor-I hope you spelling improves on your resume.
MxRacer-ladies and gentlemen, welcome to ironyville. population, texasrelator.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,228
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,228 |
Originally posted by IRingTwyce:
Is this the 32M you're calculating?
I really expected more from my comp.
36m 56.157s
P4 641 Prescot @ 3.2 ghz w/ 1 gig DDR2 mem.
SuperPI says only 268 meg mem is allocated though. Might try running it again later on a fresh reboot. I had multiple windows open and was still browsing and working while it ran.
32M? nope - just run the 1M test, that's usually quick (well, most folks here are around a minute) - 17 seconds is pretty darned fast
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,816
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,816 |
First of all, it is not fair to compare my two systems. The AMD was a mid-speed computer in 2000/2001, however, you can compare them to similar systems.
First up, my laptop with the following important specs:
1.6GHz Pentium M w/2MB L2 cache overclocked to 2.13GHz via pinmod
2,048MB (2GB) of PC4200 DDR2 RAM
533MHz FSB
Now my desktop:
1.4GHz Athlon Thunderbird (last of the non PR rated CPUs)
1,024MB (1GB) of PC3200 DDR RAM
266MHz FSB
You can compare the results of each to the following setups:
Laptop:
Supposedly a ~2.0GHz Pentium M is faster than a 3.2GHz Pentium 4 with HT disabled. So you could compare this to an Athlon that is PR rated at "3200" I suppose.
Desktop:
The first PR rated Athlons was the Athlon XP "1800" 1.5GHz. So I suppose you could compare my 1.4GHz T-bird to a 1.7GHz Pentium 4.
Oh, and I forgot to mention, supposedly Pentium Ms are horrible with floating point calculations, so I had better see some Athlon "3200"s beating my laptop!
Last edited by Big Daddy Kane; 08/31/06 10:43 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,228
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,228 |
Originally posted by Big Daddy Kane:
First of all, it is not fair to compare my two systems. The AMD was a mid-speed computer in 2000/2001, however, you can compare them to similar systems.
First up, my laptop with the following important specs:
1.6GHz Pentium M w/2MB L2 cache overclocked to 2.13GHz via pinmod
2,048MB (2GB) of PC4200 DDR2 RAM
533MHz FSB
Now my desktop:
1.4GHz Athlon Thunderbird (last of the non PR rated CPUs)
1,024MB (1GB) of PC3200 DDR RAM
266MHz FSB
You can compare the results of each to the following setups:
Laptop:
Supposedly a ~2.0GHz Pentium M is faster than a 3.2GHz Pentium 4 with HT disabled. So you could compare this to an Athlon that is PR rated at "3200" I suppose.
Desktop:
The first PR rated Athlons was the Athlon XP "1800" 1.5GHz. So I suppose you could compare my 1.4GHz T-bird to a 1.7GHz Pentium 4.
Oh, and I forgot to mention, supposedly Pentium Ms are horrible with floating point calculations, so I had better see some Athlon "3200"s beating my laptop!
no need to run the 32M test (unless you want to wait for it) - just try the 1M test, that's usually the standard size
you can also try PiFAST - it's much MUCH faster - i can calculate 1,000,000 iterations in 1.43seconds
|
|
|
|
|
