http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=1
Found the article today nosing around the anandtech site, and it puts a great perspective on the budget end of processors, with all the benchmarks they ran and tests they did.
Printable View
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1927&p=1
Found the article today nosing around the anandtech site, and it puts a great perspective on the budget end of processors, with all the benchmarks they ran and tests they did.
y is the stats comparing a athlon xp 2600 to a crappy p4 1.8 a? that's unfair and biased man
read up? BUDGET CPU SHOOTOUT
i know. but obviously the p4 1.8a is not gonna be able to compare to any athlon xps higher than 2000. y don't they just compare something in the same league?Quote:
Originally posted by DWk@5 December 2003 - 18:52
read up? BUDGET CPU SHOOTOUT
Because the Intel CPU of the same performance is way over the $100 barrier.
wow, xp2600 kicked ass on almost everything
i know. but obviously the p4 1.8a is not gonna be able to compare to any athlon xps higher than 2000. y don't they just compare something in the same league?[/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by abu_has_the_power+5 December 2003 - 23:54--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (abu_has_the_power @ 5 December 2003 - 23:54)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-DWk@5 December 2003 - 18:52
read up? BUDGET CPU SHOOTOUT
Because it's about what you get for your money... why on earth would you compare a budget priced AMD with the comparable but over-budget Intel equivalent?
If Intel priced their 2.5GHz processor a little nearer the Athlon then same-speed comparisons would become relevant; as it is, Intel don't and the comparisons aren't.
Also the 1700+ almost consistently outperforms the Pentium 4 - 1.8
And look at this one where the most expensive P4 is the least performing. (even overbudget in this test at $120.)
http://server4.uploadit.org/files/051203-chart.gif
Hee,hee,hee!
I knew my 2600+ was my ace in the hole....
Hehe, my 1700+ is quite merrily running at 1.84GHz (2200+ -ish) without getting too near 50degC under load.Quote:
Originally posted by Virtualbody1234@6 December 2003 - 00:17
Also the 1700+ almost consistently outperforms the Pentium 4 - 1.8
And look at this one where the most expensive P4 is the least performing. (even overbudget in this test at $120.)
I'm happy with that! :D
It says the 2400 runs at 2Ghz...I didnt know it was that fast! its faster then the 2500 ...that makes no since.
That's because the 2500 is a Barton chip and the 2400 a Thoroughbred.Quote:
Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@6 December 2003 - 00:28
It says the 2400 runs at 2Ghz...I didnt know it was that fast! its faster then the 2500 ...that makes no since.
Not a suprise that AMD is the clear winner.
Yeah but I thought the 2500 was supposed to be faster. The 2400 runs at almost 200Mhz faster... Would the Barton still be better though?
browsing over the benchmarks a general rule seems to be that the 2500+ is faster on games, but slower on applicationsQuote:
Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@5 December 2003 - 23:33
Yeah but I thought the 2500 was supposed to be faster. The 2400 runs at almost 200Mhz faster... Would the Barton still be better though?
Well, think of it this way, as well.Quote:
Originally posted by bigdawgfoxx@5 December 2003 - 19:28
It says the 2400 runs at 2Ghz...I didnt know it was that fast! its faster then the 2500 ...that makes no since.
The celeron runs at 2.6, but a 2Ghz Pentium 4 outperforms it.
Not the same thing, but just another way to point out that clock speed isnt the only thing that makes a chip.