Intel lost their mind?

No_Style · Sep 3, 2004, 03:29 PM

3DMark01 se thrives on a FSB. Which is why mine isn't rocking that high either on 01SE. I like this processor

It's quite sexy for the price.

pr0digal jenius · Sep 3, 2004, 04:00 PM

why are yall runnign 3dmark while discussing CPU?

go run crystalmark or pcmark.....i'm gunna go run PCMark 04 in a minute and post for ya and we'll see how i fair

No_Style · Sep 3, 2004, 04:09 PM

3DMark01 has been placed to an all around system performance benchmark. It was never that video card dependent as 3DMark03.

pr0digal jenius · Sep 3, 2004, 04:30 PM

hrmmm...may give ti a shot to then....i know it's very CPU limited, but i didn't think ti was THAT limited.

BTW, PCMark04 = 5924

No_Style · Sep 3, 2004, 05:01 PM

It's not that limited to anything in particular. That's why it's more of an all around system benchmark nowadays. I like 3DMark03 because it does what it's supposed to do.. I hope 3Dmark05 will do the same or better. Be more video card dependent.

tastyweat · Sep 3, 2004, 08:30 PM

Personally... I moved from AMD to Intel... I had a 2.4GHz Barton and upgraded to a 3.84GHz P4 - HUGE performance difference in the stuff I use it for... uncluding games like Doom 3 and Far Cry and I'm betting HL2 too...

I agree that AMD chips tend to have more bang per buck.... or at least they used to... their prices have gone up recently whereas intel prices are declining and the match is now very close.

Plus it all depends on what you use your computer system for... as Allan pointed out - if you are a pshop person/renderer/any real professional application then P4s are substantially the best - but for games AMD tend to win - especially when you get into the A64 area.

tastyweat · Sep 3, 2004, 08:32 PM

As for benchmarks... the p4 will get 25k in 01se... nearly 6k in pcmark 04 and over 13.5k in 3dmark03... the 2.4ghz barton struggled to break 20k and could only break it on win2k and 12.3k in 03... did not run pcmark04 on the barton

Vampyromaniac · Sep 3, 2004, 09:08 PM

PCMark tests a lot of things, which is good. But, it's still too limited and arbitrary for the final score to have any meaning. If you want something close to real info, look at the individual test numbers (assuming they are comparable to actual real-world test results.) I consider the "x PCMarks" scores for entertainment purposes only.

Btw, I just looked at newegg to see where some retail mid-high CPU's currently stand as far as price points.
For anyone wondering:
~$150 = A64-2800 or P4c-2400
~$175 = A64-3000 or P4c-2600
~$220 = P4c-3000 or A64-3200
~$290 = P4c-3200 or A64-3400

Sep 3, 2004, 03:29 PM	#31
No_Style Styleless Wonder Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Ottawa, Ontario Posts: 6,034 Rep Power: 0	3DMark01 se thrives on a FSB. Which is why mine isn't rocking that high either on 01SE. I like this processor It's quite sexy for the price. __________________ "The Best Style Is No Style" Specifications Here

Sep 3, 2004, 04:09 PM	#33
No_Style Styleless Wonder Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Ottawa, Ontario Posts: 6,034 Rep Power: 0	3DMark01 has been placed to an all around system performance benchmark. It was never that video card dependent as 3DMark03. __________________ "The Best Style Is No Style" Specifications Here

Sep 3, 2004, 05:01 PM	#35
No_Style Styleless Wonder Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Ottawa, Ontario Posts: 6,034 Rep Power: 0	It's not that limited to anything in particular. That's why it's more of an all around system benchmark nowadays. I like 3DMark03 because it does what it's supposed to do.. I hope 3Dmark05 will do the same or better. Be more video card dependent. __________________ "The Best Style Is No Style" Specifications Here

Sep 3, 2004, 08:30 PM	#36
tastyweat Lurking Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: The void Posts: 4,794 Rep Power: 75 System Specs	Personally... I moved from AMD to Intel... I had a 2.4GHz Barton and upgraded to a 3.84GHz P4 - HUGE performance difference in the stuff I use it for... uncluding games like Doom 3 and Far Cry and I'm betting HL2 too... I agree that AMD chips tend to have more bang per buck.... or at least they used to... their prices have gone up recently whereas intel prices are declining and the match is now very close. Plus it all depends on what you use your computer system for... as Allan pointed out - if you are a pshop person/renderer/any real professional application then P4s are substantially the best - but for games AMD tend to win - especially when you get into the A64 area. __________________

Sep 3, 2004, 08:32 PM	#37
tastyweat Lurking Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: The void Posts: 4,794 Rep Power: 75 System Specs	As for benchmarks... the p4 will get 25k in 01se... nearly 6k in pcmark 04 and over 13.5k in 3dmark03... the 2.4ghz barton struggled to break 20k and could only break it on win2k and 12.3k in 03... did not run pcmark04 on the barton __________________

Sep 3, 2004, 04:00 PM	#32
pr0digal jenius Delete Me Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 14,648 Rep Power: 0	why are yall runnign 3dmark while discussing CPU? go run crystalmark or pcmark.....i'm gunna go run PCMark 04 in a minute and post for ya and we'll see how i fair

Sep 3, 2004, 04:30 PM	#34
pr0digal jenius Delete Me Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 14,648 Rep Power: 0	hrmmm...may give ti a shot to then....i know it's very CPU limited, but i didn't think ti was THAT limited. BTW, PCMark04 = 5924

Sep 3, 2004, 09:08 PM	#38
Vampyromaniac confutatis maledictis Join Date: May 2002 Location: somewhere dark Posts: 5,974 Rep Power: 77 System Specs	PCMark tests a lot of things, which is good. But, it's still too limited and arbitrary for the final score to have any meaning. If you want something close to real info, look at the individual test numbers (assuming they are comparable to actual real-world test results.) I consider the "x PCMarks" scores for entertainment purposes only. Btw, I just looked at newegg to see where some retail mid-high CPU's currently stand as far as price points. For anyone wondering: ~$150 = A64-2800 or P4c-2400 ~$175 = A64-3000 or P4c-2600 ~$220 = P4c-3000 or A64-3200 ~$290 = P4c-3200 or A64-3400 __________________ *Digitalis 3.3* Athlon 64 3000 // ASUS K8V SE Deluxe // 1024MB PC3200 (2-2-2-10 1T) ATI All-In-Wonder 9700 Pro // 20" Dell 2005FPW (DVI) M-Audio Revo 7.1 + Philips Acoustic Edge // Klipsch ProMedia 2.1 320/16 Western Digital WD3200KS + 120/8 Seagate 7200.7 NEC ND-3550A 16x DVD±RW + Lite-On 52x24x CD-RW Antec Sonata case // 480W Antec TruePower personal bests \|\| Aq'3: 46796 \| 3D'01: 20461 \| 3D'03: 6336 \| 3D'05: 2677 \| PC'04: 4605 \| PC'02: 7691,9092,1250 Last edited by Vampyromaniac; Sep 3, 2004 at 09:31 PM.