Slowest Athlon 64 humbles fastest P4 in gaming

~~Crash Override~~ · Dec 17, 2003, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Optimummind
One more time, Crash, here is what I originally said. Don't forget, ok?

BTW, I'm not going to trust any benchmarks run by individuals like you. I'm gonna trust sources like Maximum PC, Computer Power User, etc. These guys know the complexities of running benchmarks by carefully factoring in all the variables and statistics. I don't think YOU or most people who run benchmarks at home are fully aware of the big picture.

Whoa, excuse me?

I happen to know exactly what I am doing when I run benchmarks and how to compare those benchmarks against others

However since you seem to have a vendetta against me how would you like me to have some chats with the crew about your attitude with me?

Now to answer your post:

Benchmarks arent that complex when you are running a standard baseline like Sandra.

Also wanna talk about stability? Other than reboots for updating drivers occasionally and windows updates this system has been up and running for the last six months with no breaks.

AMD Athlon XP2200+, which is supposedly the worst overclocker of them all, is sitting with a 166FSB with no issues at stock voltages. Air cooling my temps are at 23*C.

My Radeon 9700NP is O/C'ed using the TT cooling solution at 351/351.

Add to that the fact that I am doing this all on a 300W PC Power and Cooling PSU and you have a minor miracle.

Now if you wanna keep up this battle between you and me that you seem so desperate to have then tell me this with figures and proof that Intel is more stable than AMD and that nVidia is more stable than ATi.

If you can give me hard proof then I will say I was wrong.

Also I dont just own AMD systems. Im building myself an Intel rig as we speak for use as a secondary machine and for bandwidth combining and throttling.

~~Optimummind~~ · Dec 17, 2003, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Crash Override
Whoa, excuse me?

I happen to know exactly what I am doing when I run benchmarks and how to compare those benchmarks against others

I'm sure that you know what you're doing but the thing is you don't have any credibility. And, it's not just you but pretty much everyone else who conducts benchmarks at home and posts them online.

The fact is, written literature with a professional staff of editors, writers, technicians, and artists have more creditability in this world than online literature. Of course, there are some online resources that are extensions of their written counterpart and have credibility.

Quote:

However since you seem to have a vendetta against me how would you like me to have some chats with the crew about your attitude with me?

No, Crash, I don't have a vendetta against you. I was simply pointing out that you did not read my post carefully and consequently made wrong assumptions. That's what I pointed out. If I offended you by my "tone" of writing, that's too bad. Just be careful next time you read others' posts because some people will lash back at you.

Quote:

Now to answer your post:

Benchmarks arent that complex when you are running a standard baseline like Sandra.

Also wanna talk about stability? Other than reboots for updating drivers occasionally and windows updates this system has been up and running for the last six months with no breaks.

AMD Athlon XP2200+, which is supposedly the worst overclocker of them all, is sitting with a 166FSB with no issues at stock voltages. Air cooling my temps are at 23*C.

My Radeon 9700NP is O/C'ed using the TT cooling solution at 351/351.

Add to that the fact that I am doing this all on a 300W PC Power and Cooling PSU and you have a minor miracle.

My statement regarding stability was in a general sense. Just like some CPU's from the same family line can overclock much higher than others, chip stability will differ on an individual basis.

I'm not talking about individual cases because doing so would introduce statistical errors.

In order to conduct any survey, it's important to choose a sample size as large as possible. Then, one must conduct statistical tests (e.g. t-test) in order to compare the significance of data.

I said that Intel chipsets are more stable generally than AMD because that is the general consensus of the computer industry--not the consensus from me, Intel, or whoever.

I hope that cleared up things for you.

Peace, buddy.

Necrosis · Dec 17, 2003, 03:16 AM

Hmm..Intel...AMD...I've owned both...prefer AMD.

I have a question though are the newer Intel chipsets frequency locked..PCI bus..etc???

Half the cache..what is the point?

~~Crash Override~~ · Dec 17, 2003, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Optimummind
I'm sure that you know what you're doing but the thing is you don't have any credibility. And, it's not just you but pretty much everyone else who conducts benchmarks at home and posts them online.

The fact is, written literature with a professional staff of editors, writers, technicians, and artists have more creditability in this world than online literature. Of course, there are some online resources that are extensions of their written counterpart and have credibility.

No, Crash, I don't have a vendetta against you. I was simply pointing out that you did not read my post carefully and consequently made wrong assumptions. That's what I pointed out. If I offended you by my "tone" of writing, that's too bad. Just be careful next time you read others' posts because some people will lash back at you.

My statement regarding stability was in a general sense. Just like some CPU's from the same family line can overclock much higher than others, chip stability will differ on an individual basis.

I'm not talking about individual cases because doing so would introduce statistical errors.

In order to conduct any survey, it's important to choose a sample size as large as possible. Then, one must conduct statistical tests (e.g. t-test) in order to compare the significance of data.

I said that Intel chipsets are more stable generally than AMD because that is the general consensus of the computer industry--not the consensus from me, Intel, or whoever.

I hope that cleared up things for you.

Peace, buddy.

I helped start this site and had alot of major exclusives and insider information and I have no credibility?

What does it take to have credibility these days? A corporate buyout perhaps?

The_Neon_Cowboy · Dec 17, 2003, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by -={420}=-
Yeah I was thinking since Longhorn is gonna be 2006+ by then they'll probably only make it for 64-bit processors...I doubt they're gonna waste that time to make a 32-bit version.

yea bit thier is a 64 bit windows xp
allready 64 bit cards
already 64 bit drivers

Dec 17, 2003, 03:16 AM	#33
Necrosis HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Ohio Posts: 8,838 Rep Power: 129 System Specs	Hmm..Intel...AMD...I've owned both...prefer AMD. I have a question though are the newer Intel chipsets frequency locked..PCI bus..etc??? Half the cache..what is the point?