AMD FX-8150 Multi-GPU Gameplay Performance Review @ [H]

Bulldozer/Piledriver Single Thread/core performance is laughable though...
 
With that said if I could score a good chip/8350 and one of the very few boards actually able to really run the hell out of one/oced like hell...for a good deal then maybe....
 
Last edited:
Maybe but why bother when you would get performance of i5 with box cooler on H81 mobo ;)
 
H81 is laughable like seriously.... your gonna get an i5 and get/use a crappy mobo....Z87/97 all the way or your doing it wrong rofl
 
From what I understand H81 is fine if you're not aiming for any crazy overclocks or anything.
 
What exactly is "laughable" about the h81? If you know what to expect when you buy it it's perfectly fine. Some people just want a solution not a 5ghz OC.
 
Just saying if I upgraded spent money on it sure others feel the same way, I would want the option to be able to readily overclock heavily if need be etc, not about to drop $200+ on one of those Cpu's and not have a board good enough to be able to really run hefty OC....

but that's fine I guess if you don't want to OC.
 
Last edited:
Same thing with Bulldozer/piledriver kinda rather limited options on mobo's to really have a stable high OC... and if anything they damn well need the OCing a lot more...
 
The architecture really does need an overhaul or complete redesign because of the single core performance seems a little below standard
 
I don't know why they didn't try to apply the steamroller to the FX line to give it another tweak or even refuse to update them at all like they just put R&D to the side and said "we really screwed up with FX" so they completely shift towards APU's which i think leaves many Hardcore Gamers to lay down on dust until 2016 or whenever they will gives us new High end processors
 
I don't know why they didn't try to apply the steamroller to the FX line to give it another tweak or even refuse to update them at all like they just put R&D to the side and said "we really screwed up with FX" so they completely shift towards APU's which i think leaves many Hardcore Gamers to lay down on dust until 2016 or whenever they will gives us new High end processors

They are going 100% into APU's. AMD doesn't have the R&D money Intel has access to. So they had a hard choice to make. Invest heavily into APU's or not invest into APU's as they need everything on the same pipeline as far as development goes. This allows advances to benefit all of the chip lines at once.

This was not an easy choice, but in the long run it seems that it will be the smart one to make. Intel had a hand in making this possible by releasing the same chip with a little more power savings over and over again. So Vishera is only a little behind most of Intel's chips when it comes to things like gaming because the GPU makes all of the difference nowadays.

I have had the same Asus Sabertooth 990FX motherboard since June 2011. No reason to upgrade so far!
 
Zarathustra[H];1037972600 said:
AMD's showing is a result of the company being less than a tenth the size of Intel and simply not having enough money to develop a CPU that's competitive with Intel.

During the Athlon, K7, K8 days they had their chance. Intel royally screwed up with the Pentium 4, which allowed AMD to catch up (and actually beat them for a little while)

They were - however - never able to take advantage of this performance advantage that fell into their laps as much as they should have, because Intel made secretive illegal deals with the major OEM's to keep AMD chips out of their machines.

As a result of this AMD made less revenue off of those generations of chips than they should have.

Intel eventually settled with AMD out of court for about $1 billion. AMD only accepted this because they were desperate for cash. A real court settlement would likely have been closer to $10 billion.

Anyway, long story not, fair or not, AMD simply did not have the cash to develop a good competitor to current Intel chips.

This was exacerbated by the acquisition of ATI, which took even more cash and attention away from CPU development.

AMD's CPU's were always inferior to Intel's up until '99 when the Athlon was released. it was a solid design, able to keep up with Pentium III clock for clock (and even beat it) but it was nothing earth shattering. Then Intel screwed the pooch with Pentium 4 and allowed AMD to overtake them in the performance race.

AMD could have taken advantage of this to become a real competitor to intel by making huge revenues off of their performance advantage and reinvesting them in the business, but because they were cheated to be kept out of the OEMs, the cash simply was not there to keep up and do a repeat performance, which led to the disappointing K10 Phenom and Phenom II's and now Bulldozer.

Unless Intel screws up again as badly as they did with Pentium 4, I don't see AMD ever being able to catch back up, and I think they realize this, which is why they are trying to branch out with integrated graphics instead...

Yea right unless you overclocked the Athlon XP the processor was slow because it had half the bandwidth of the Pentium 4. Intel's only down fall with the Pentium 4 was that it took them so long to adopt 64-bit technology as soon as AMD did with the Athlon 64. Keep in mind though that intel had 64-bit processors with the Itanium long before AMD, but they were not suitable for mainstream use at their price or for there intended purpose. AMD was full of gimmicks with it's PR (performance rating) because my Pentium 4 3.06 Ghz processor had a 4.1 GHz PR compared to AMD 3500+ or so. Also keep in mind that Hardforum reached 5 GHz on the Pentium 4 with liquid nitrogen long before anyone achieved higher recorded results, although this may not be saying much. However, higher bandwidth and faster compression and video conversion do despite the fact that AMD may have always had better Floating-Point performance. I never did like how AMD decided to support 64-bit processing anyway and buyers only went for AMD because it was cheaper for the most part not because it had that significant of advantage. Not to mention the boards for the Athon XP where junk compared to boards for the Pentium 4, like the Gigabyte 8KNXP-Ultra Series specifically the Ultra-64 and Supermicro's P4SCT+ series specifically the P4SCT+II if you wanted to really get some work done on a desktop PC instead of on a workstation. Still though AMD competition against Intel is healthly though. Now if only Cyrix would get closer to AMD's and Intel's level. Let's not forget that AMD Thunderbird only had a 64-bit bus on the L2 cache compared the the Pentium III's 256-bit L2 cache bus, which may not be relevant to the Athlon XP and just for future architectures. I may be repeating myself, but one final thing is the bandwidth only being half or two-thirds of Intel's even now for the Phenom and FX series when compared to Intel's socket 1366, 1356, and 2011 series.
 
Last edited:
Hahahah are you kidding? The Pentium 4 was a garbage CPU. Clock for clock it was slower and when they finally managed to work some of the initial issues out they suffered from serious leakage, which lead to the whole Prescott fiasco. They scrapped the entire design and the Core2 series was based off of the Pentium Pro architecture. The AMD designs at the time were a lot better than Intel's.
 
Hahahah are you kidding? The Pentium 4 was a garbage CPU. Clock for clock it was slower and when they finally managed to work some of the initial issues out they suffered from serious leakage, which lead to the whole Prescott fiasco. They scrapped the entire design and the Core2 series was based off of the Pentium Pro architecture. The AMD designs at the time were a lot better than Intel's.

No I'm not kidding I've seen and compared both. I never owned Prescott because I knew it ran hot and I'm referriing to Northwood which I did own because it works great. I've even maxed out a few Dell GX270's and 280's using Pentium 4 Northwood's @ 3.4GHz and they performed well for preassembled systems using Intel P4's. The only problem I every had with the Pentium 4 socket 478 was that the heatsink would pull the CPU out of the socket and bend or break off pins, which is the reason I killed my first P4 3.06 GHz. Now I have P4's that are 3.06GHz, 3.33GHz, and 3.4GHz of which all I originally wanted to overclock to insanely high clockspeeds that probably aren't possible without some extreme cooling say liquid nitrogen and I don't have a safe work enviroment inside my home for that.

Not only that but the memory I needed to even think about achieving this the Patriot PC5000 or so DDR clocked at 700 MHz is no longer available. Even the P4 system's supported twice as much memory as the Athlon 64 system that only supported 2GB, which make owning a 64-bit computer almost pointless because Most 64-bit OSes require at least 2GB just to run. Intel had a similar problems transitioning from Rambus to DDR though when supporting SDRAM instead of DDR because I maxed out a system at 1GB RAM for a Dell Optiplex GX240, which I installed Windows 7 Ultimate 32-bit that happens to require a minimum of 1 GB Ram. The Optiplex 240 worked fine, but I would try doing anything user intense on it and the same goes for the Athlon 64 system's I'm refering to with 2GB RAM limits unless you want to see how painful working with those limits can be especially when the system slows down or crashes. I'm definitely not joking about the board's being junk either because I can't name one good board you could actually do anything meaning full on that had decent specs and not be miserable.

The AMD boards may have been fine for gaming with Windows XP, but as I said if you would try doing anything with a more modern operating system that pushed it to the limit's it would be horribly unbearable as even a Pentium 4 with 4 GB RAM would hardly be tolerable. The bad thing about the Optiplex's though was that I couldn't pair them with a video card much better than an ATI Radeon 4350 because of the Power Supplies that wer e capable of being installed as well, so the Dell's probably aren't the best example of good P4 system's except when stating that even those with 3.4 Ghz socket 478 for the GX270 and socket 775 for the GX280 worked fine for what they were used for. My system built off the P4SCT+II has an ATI Radeon 3850, which is a rare Direct X 10 video card for 32-bit AGP systems and it still runs great although slow compared to my former Core i7 build and now Xeon 1650 v2 series build's as well as my mid 2012 Mac Pro. Intel may have went slightly wrong with the Prescott, but not that bad or as bad as they did by starting the P4 socket 478's off with SDRAM support instead of DDR.

I never had the experience of owning a working P4 socket 423 with RAMBUS support, but I did see my brother's friends Emachine with it and it was ok. The long response time of the RAMBUS may have been noticeable though and not meaingful benchmarks were conducted on it though. Clock for clock it was not slower either according to Tomshardware, which did an article about all CPU's from the first Pentium to the Pentium 4 3.06GHz socket 478. However I'm probably not allowed to mention that here am I. You can say all you want about them being receiving royalties as well, but their reviews are or were very thorough at the time compared to Hard Forum, which is as well if not as much.

The Athlon XP only out performed the P4 mostly in Floating Point according to Toms Hardware. Even to this day with ATI under AMD's control those video card's are full of gimicks, because of all the stupid rumors that you can flash the card's to different BIOS to make them better when they completely ignore bus width and memory clockspeeds causing people to ruin there video cards with unnecessary overclocking when the user just needs to use them as is first before instantly overclocking them when the computers are fast enough and the real bottlenecks are not eliminated specifically the hard drive. Believe me I know because I ruined an ATI Radeon 9500 by following all the stupid BIOS flashing rumors, although not instantly the damage was obvious due to screen artifacts and OMEGA drivers didn't make it much better. I bought an ATI Radeon 9800SE because of the rumors, but after all the hassle with the 9500 I learned my lesson when it came to BIOS flashing.

I even bought my friends Athlon 64 system off of him and it was ok considering I didn't know as much as I do now about computers, although I've had a computer since at least 1997 after graduating from consoles. Intel switch to Socket 775 solved conduction problem's as well as the problem I stated with the heatsink pulling the CPU from the socket and damaging the processor. Now you have have to worry about bending the pins on the motherboard or else you have to junk the whole board if you do becasue it's almost impossible to bend them back perfectlly, so the system will work again and this problem has not been solved by Intel or AMD. The Core 2 Duo was not based off the Pentium Pro either it was based off the Pentium III Katmai, Coppermine, or Tualatin from what I heard take you pick though because it was basically a multicore Pentium 4 without hyper-threading.
 
Last edited:
Yea right unless you overclocked the Athlon XP the processor was slow because it had half the bandwidth of the Pentium 4. Intel's only down fall with the Pentium 4 was that it took them so long to adopt 64-bit technology as soon as AMD did with the Athlon 64. Keep in mind though that intel had 64-bit processors with the Itanium long before AMD, but they were not suitable for mainstream use at their price or for there intended purpose. AMD was full of gimmicks with it's PR (performance rating) because my Pentium 4 3.06 Ghz processor had a 4.1 GHz PR compared to AMD 3500+ or so. Also keep in mind that Hardforum reached 5 GHz on the Pentium 4 with liquid nitrogen long before anyone achieved higher recorded results, although this may not be saying much. However, higher bandwidth and faster compression and video conversion do despite the fact that AMD may have always had better Floating-Point performance. I never did like how AMD decided to support 64-bit processing anyway and buyers only went for AMD because it was cheaper for the most part not because it had that significant of advantage. Not to mention the boards for the Athon XP where junk compared to boards for the Pentium 4, like the Gigabyte 8KNXP-Ultra Series specifically the Ultra-64 and Supermicro's P4SCT+ series specifically the P4SCT+II if you wanted to really get some work done on a desktop PC instead of on a workstation. Still though AMD competition against Intel is healthly though. Now if only Cyrix would get closer to AMD's and Intel's level. Let's not forget that AMD Thunderbird only had a 64-bit bus on the L2 cache compared the the Pentium III's 256-bit L2 cache bus, which may not be relevant to the Athlon XP and just for future architectures. I may be repeating myself, but one final thing is the bandwidth only being half or two-thirds of Intel's even now for the Phenom and FX series when compared to Intel's socket 1366, 1356, and 2011 series.

I meant Toms Hardware reached 5 GHz on Liquid Nitrogen not Hard Forum, if I can even say that here.
 
Intel's only down fall with the Pentium 4 was that it took them so long to adopt 64-bit technology as soon as AMD did with the Athlon 64. Keep in mind though that intel had 64-bit processors with the Itanium long before AMD, but they were not suitable for mainstream use at their price or for there intended purpose.

Not to mention x86 instructions had to be run through emulation on the Itaniums, which was terribly slow. Speaking from direct experience supporting software that needed native Itanium binaries. AMD's approach was much easier on the businesses and the consumer.
 
I'm not reading that until you insert line breaks.

There I tried to split it into paragraph's, but don't expect indentation because I can't tab the beginning of the lines and I don't feel like pressing space to give it the illusion of being indented.
 
Dat wall of text. The P4 was a joke from intel. It was their bulldozer.

The P4 was not even close to the disaster that the bulldozer is. Keep in mind too that no one really needed 64-bit computing for mainstream use when using less than 4GB of RAM because that's what 64-bit memory extensions were supposed to add, support for more than 4GB RAM. This is what AMD failed to initially do with the Athlon 64 motherboard, but yet they hyped 64-bit computing when their was no support for it, mainstream users didn't need it yet, and it was all gimicks. Basically AMD forced 64-bit down everyones throught and people like you thought it was better because it still supported the x86 instruction set that has been extended many times to keep backward compatibility and desparately needs replaced. After all name one original copy of some old software you can still run even on the latest processors without dos box or virtualization and not have difficulty. According to the Instructor I had for UNIX/Linux neither Intel or AMD have good designs for their processors and they hint that Sun now Oracle Sparc processors are designed better. One final thing is that it appear that these companies use whatever duct tape approach they can to be easy on the consumer and to keep old technology alive for backwards compatibility.
 
Last edited:
Not to mention x86 instructions had to be run through emulation on the Itaniums, which was terribly slow. Speaking from direct experience supporting software that needed native Itanium binaries. AMD's approach was much easier on the businesses and the consumer.

By looking at the current Itaniums I get the feeling Intel never intended the Itanium to be for Mainstream use anyway, but instead for server and mainframe use. Something you might have thought was dead at least main frame use, but apparently not. Even if Intel had plans to bring similar architecture to the mainstream it was because some believe the x86 instruction set needed a complete overhaul.
 
Last edited:
Dat wall of text. The P4 was a joke from intel. It was their bulldozer.

No if intel had a bull dozer or critical mistake it was with the original Pentium arithmetic errors that were commonly hyped. The problem with the Pentium 4 that I had was with the 845 chipset because it never should have existed, since single channel DDR and SDRAM support were bottlenecks for the processor. Once the 720, 865, and 875 chipsets were released I was satisfied with Intel's answer to AMD's solutions. Whatever, Intel reasoning for allowing the 845 chipset to be released when all it did was allow bottom feeders to extend the life of their outdated hardware to get on the Pentium 4 bandwagon, which I didn't care for. It was a terrible solution for their RAMBUS replacement, which also had its issues with long response times of 40 to 45 nanoseconds and no DMA. RAMBUS with these terrible response times was probably like reliving the awful days of EDO memory, which were painfully slow. The 845 was a terrrible answer to everyones demand for an 850 and 850E chipset replacement as well in order to eliminate RAMBUS support.
 
Last edited:
I never had the experience of owning a working P4 socket 423 with RAMBUS support, but I did see my brother's friends Emachine with it and it was ok. The long response time of the RAMBUS may have been noticeable though and not meaingful benchmarks were conducted on it though. Clock for clock it was not slower either according to Tomshardware, which did an article about all CPU's from the first Pentium to the Pentium 4 3.06GHz socket 478.

If you've never even owned one, then how could you possibly know it was "ok"?
Intel went with the NetBurst architecture and Pentium 4 CPUs because they could clock them much higher than the previous architecture, despite being far inferior clock-for-clock.

They did this to sell processors on the assumption that the general public would look to higher speeds, rather than realistic processing power (yes, they screwed us).
This is why the last generation of Pentium III CPUs were actually much faster than the first generation of Pentium 4 CPUs.

I've owned quite a few Pentium 4 and P4-era Xeons with RDRAM, and they were absolutely horrible.
DDR1, even in its early days, pre-dual-channel, ran circles around RDRAM at its fastest.

Intel had a contract with RAMBUS which lasted from around 2000-2002, and as soon as that contract was up, they dropped RDRAM like the turd that it was, and immediately went with DDR1, which was a huge improvement in data transfer rates and latency, not to mention lower power consumption and far reduced heat output.
 
Yea right unless you overclocked the Athlon XP the processor was slow because it had half the bandwidth of the Pentium 4. Intel's only down fall with the Pentium 4 was that it took them so long to adopt 64-bit technology as soon as AMD did with the Athlon 64. Keep in mind though that intel had 64-bit processors with the Itanium long before AMD, but they were not suitable for mainstream use at their price or for there intended purpose. AMD was full of gimmicks with it's PR (performance rating) because my Pentium 4 3.06 Ghz processor had a 4.1 GHz PR compared to AMD 3500+ or so. Also keep in mind that Hardforum reached 5 GHz on the Pentium 4 with liquid nitrogen long before anyone achieved higher recorded results, although this may not be saying much. However, higher bandwidth and faster compression and video conversion do despite the fact that AMD may have always had better Floating-Point performance. I never did like how AMD decided to support 64-bit processing anyway and buyers only went for AMD because it was cheaper for the most part not because it had that significant of advantage. Not to mention the boards for the Athon XP where junk compared to boards for the Pentium 4, like the Gigabyte 8KNXP-Ultra Series specifically the Ultra-64 and Supermicro's P4SCT+ series specifically the P4SCT+II if you wanted to really get some work done on a desktop PC instead of on a workstation. Still though AMD competition against Intel is healthly though. Now if only Cyrix would get closer to AMD's and Intel's level. Let's not forget that AMD Thunderbird only had a 64-bit bus on the L2 cache compared the the Pentium III's 256-bit L2 cache bus, which may not be relevant to the Athlon XP and just for future architectures. I may be repeating myself, but one final thing is the bandwidth only being half or two-thirds of Intel's even now for the Phenom and FX series when compared to Intel's socket 1366, 1356, and 2011 series.

1) Nice necrores there, jack.
2) AMD Athlon CPUs during the 754/939 era were vastly superior, despite being clocked slower.
3) You clearly do not realize that all CPU clock cycles are not equal; Pentium 4 and Athlon clock speeds are apples to oranges.
4) Obvious troll is obvious.
 
This guy's trolling is both amusing and sad. Amusing because he thinks he's right but sad because he's delusional.
 
1) Nice necrores there, jack.
2) AMD Athlon CPUs during the 754/939 era were vastly superior, despite being clocked slower.
3) You clearly do not realize that all CPU clock cycles are not equal; Pentium 4 and Athlon clock speeds are apples to oranges.
4) Obvious troll is obvious.

I highly doubt AMD Athlon CPU's were vastly superior during the 754/939 era despite being clocked lower, but I only ever own a 754 system to actually compare the two and by that time Intel had the Pentium D if I'm not mistaken and that's whole different story with whole set of new problems probably.Besides that were AMD does not excel Intel does and the other way around.

Yes I realize that all CPU clock cycles are not equal because AMD went by performance rating and intel didn't, but as I said in the Athlon XP and Non-EMT 64 era the Pentium 4 had a higher performance rating according to Sisoft Sandra, which was the only way I know that allowed you to see this comparison. As stated again the Pentium 4 had a higher bandwidth and excelled their while the Athlon excelled mostly at Floating-Point, which I could care less about because that is what the Graphic's card is for except when CPU floating-point performance matter and is needed. AMD mostly copies Intel and maybe the same goes for Intel partially.

Once Intel added EMT64 they were almost hitting 4.0 GHz, which is not the a way judge a good CPU though. However, it is a start and your saying AMD was better because your a gamer and use only the highest quality parts and overclocked it, which I did as well minus the overclock hence the reason my Pentium 4 is still working and most overclocked AMD systems probably aren't especially all of my friends. Try going to use someones preassembled Athlon XP system, which won't be overclocked and see for yourself why without treaking or overclocking clockspeed matters as well as some other factors too probably. Preassembled makes AMD look even worse than what you were familiar with and remember.

Oh if an if I trolling why an I the only one that's not trash talking either side and stating the facts based on my experience and not some review, which most of you may be doing.
The Athlon 64 is where AMD really started to get up to par with Intel after the Thunderbird days were Intel had the higher L2 cache bus width of 256-bits versus AMD's 64-bit L2 cache bus width and 128-bit L1 bus width compared to Intel's 32-bit if I'm not mistaken, which I would look up but that information is no longer conveniently available. Your judging Intel Based on the Prescott when the Northwood was fine and Willamette wasn't too terrible compared to prescott's high temps and whatever else. Oh and should I throw in that the Athlon XP had no thermal diode, so if the CPU heatsink fan failed the processor got fried and rendered useless. I would show my comparison of the two, but I gave the Athlon 64 system away years ago and I no longer have anything AMD based. This doesn't mean I don't like AMD I just have a preference for Intel. I've got my sights set on the possibility of building an Opteron system though. I'm telling my experience based on memory and not by documentation, which I don't have with my at the moment and in fact I don't think I have it anymore because it got wiped out, but I can show you 3dmark results if you like and perhaps you can show me yours. As I stated I never owned prescott and wouldn't go near it after I read the reviews because I know how hard it is to cool the Northwood. Oh and I guess I forgot I do have a thunderbird system that I'm going to place a missing computer add for because it was abandoned according to the friend who gave it to me because the mother died and the kid is still living.
 
Last edited:
I highly doubt AMD Athlon CPU's were vastly superior during the 754/939 era despite being clocked lower, but I only ever own a 754 system to actually compare the two...
You are entitled to your opinion. If you and the other numbskulls here want to continue arguing the adjectives you use to quantify how superior one product is to another, fine. Whatever. But that discussion is so wildly offtopic and should be moved to a different thread. This thread is about the AMD FX 8150 and how it handles multiple GPU's while gaming. About the only other point of discussion relevant here are later AMD FX CPU's such as the 8350 and 9xxx and how they handle multi-GPU gaming.

scharfshutze009 said:
Oh if an if I trolling why an I the only one that's not trash talking either side and stating the facts based on my experience and not some review, which most of you may be doing.
Statements based on your individual experience don't make it a fact. That is precisely why people say you are trolling. Your viewpoint can be biased. Statements made by reviewers combined with a consensus in those same results from a majority of the populace lend credibility to that view and from then on define it as fact. Coincidentally, many of your view points on this hijacked discussion fly in the face of reality.

To settle this stupid discussion once and for all...

Fact:
AMD socket 754 and socket 939 CPU's were better clock for clock, core for core when compared to their Intel Pentium 4 rivals.

Whether one setup was better than another due to high clock speeds compensating, feature set, hyperthreading, core count etc. etc. is up for debate...but NO ONE FUCKING CARES BECAUSE IT IS OFF TOPIC.
 
I highly doubt AMD Athlon CPU's were vastly superior during the 754/939 era despite being clocked lower

Dude, you should be banned for even saying that.
That is such an anti-[H] statement, it isn't even funny.

Seriously, your credibility is now zero.

but I only ever own a 754 system to actually compare the two and by that time Intel had the Pentium D if I'm not mistaken and that's whole different story with whole set of new problems probably.Besides that were AMD does not excel Intel does and the other way around.
So you never even owned/used most of these systems, yet you know so much. :rolleyes:
Also, the Socket 754 did not compete against the Pentium D, it competed against second generation Pentium 4 CPUs, so again, apples to oranges in terms of era.

Unlike you, I've actually owned and worked on all of these systems extensively throughout the 2000s.
 
No if intel had a bull dozer or critical mistake it was with the original Pentium arithmetic errors that were commonly hyped.
You're talking about the x87 floating point errors? You might like to know that AMD fixed those in the 64 bit spec. Also you start by saying the P4 was great and list a number of reasons why it wasn't.
Also Socket 754/939 chips were fucking epic for the day. The beat out a p4 in damn near everything at the time.
 
Dude, you should be banned for even saying that.
That is such an anti-[H] statement, it isn't even funny.

Seriously, your credibility is now zero.


So you never even owned/used most of these systems, yet you know so much. :rolleyes:
Also, the Socket 754 did not compete against the Pentium D, it competed against second generation Pentium 4 CPUs, so again, apples to oranges in terms of era.

Unlike you, I've actually owned and worked on all of these systems extensively throughout the 2000s.

My crediblity is not zero although it's not as extensive as loyal AMD fans, such as your self and I wasn't saying it competed against the Pentium D. I was saying that Intel went multicore first although the Pentium D actually had sub cores instead of true seperate cores, which maybe off topic.

You come off more biased than I am despite that your not calling me that because I've owned both AMD and Intel, but I've been more loyal to Intel. When my friend refused to pay him back for the Duron system I help him build I reacquired it and I bought the Athlon 64 system off my other friend and used it for quite a while before building a Pentium 4 system using the Northwood 3.06 GHz.

Now I have an Athlon Thunderbird system I acquired from my friend who got it from an abandoned house that his sister moved into and the former owner a mother died and the son where about's are unknown to me, so I can't contact him. I'm not saying AMD was terrible, but the Athlon XP that was mentioned to be better than the Pentium 4 had distinct disadvantages and was not as great as the comment hyped it was when compared to the Pentium 4 Northwood. Maybe Willamette, but not the Northwood and yes the problems of the Prescott were worth noting by whoever said it here.

Also my family first computer was an IBM Aptiva with the AMD K6 processor, which is all I'll say about that preassembled hell from CompUSA.

I know the Athlon 64 socket 754 and 939 competed against the Socket LGA775 version of the Pentium 4 with EMT64 and later the socket AM2 did as well and AM3 if there was one. None of you have or will convince me that the Athlon XP with no diode, half the bandwidth, lower clockspeeds, and no SSE2 and eventually SSE3 was better than the Pentium 4, which I'm convinced is a better quality product based on ownership and experience.
 
Last edited:
You're talking about the x87 floating point errors? You might like to know that AMD fixed those in the 64 bit spec. Also you start by saying the P4 was great and list a number of reasons why it wasn't.
Also Socket 754/939 chips were fucking epic for the day. The beat out a p4 in damn near everything at the time.

If your referring to the Socket 478 version then perhaps, but was it superior to the Socket LGA775 version by that much if at all when they should be on par with each other except the motherboards because of the memory limit I mentioned in a previous response. In the case of the Pentium 4 LGA775 with EMT64 the motherboards continued support well into the end of the Core 2's life where as I don't believe AMD can say that after going from socket 754, 939, AM2, AM3, AM3+ and so on, which intel is no better with their core i socket 1100 series for doing almost the same thing.

It's things like all that socket change that make me not want to own an Athlon 64 system or anything beyond that and the same goes for Intel 1100 socket series processors. I was not stating the disadvantages of the Pentium 4 specifically either. I was addressing all the motherboard problems that went along with the Pentium 4's bad reputation. An that is all I'm saying because your clearly being biased about Intel past record when they had to do what they did to win customers if they did and I'm guessing they did even if it was you because people bought into it were as I tried, witnessed, and researched both for years before upgrading from my Pentium III Coppermine system. It's worth noting that even the Pentium III Tualatin 1.4 GHz outperformed the Pentium 4 with the 400 MHz FSB almost all the way up to 2.0 GHz in one of the tests according to Toms hardware if it makes you feel better. If you didn't know much about computers though would you take an Athlon XP preassembled system with a CPU that has no diode to throttle down the CPU to prevent the core from melting if the heatsink fan fails instead of a Pentium 4 system with a processor that does.
 
Dude, I'm blocking you.
You are just regurgitating what I, and many others, have already written above, but in your own words.

Hope you get banned soon, troll.
 
Sharfschutze009 is right in respect to his comments about the Pentium IV vs Athlon XP.

In this era there were two main chips for enthusiasts, both iterative successors to an existing architecture.

This is of course referring to the Pentium IV "Northwood" (succeeding the atrocious Willamette). The Northwood variant in question here that everybody bought back in the day was the Pentium IV 2.4C with Hyperthreading.

On AMD's end they had the Barton cores (the last in quite a few Athlon XP revisions), in particular the 2500+ was very popular.

Both chips were considered excellent for overclocking. The Barton was about half the price or so if I recall, and the Pentium IV generally edged out the Athlon in most benchmarks, but they were usually pretty close.

Prescott on the other hand was horrible and sounded the death knell for Pentium IV, so Intel looked back to revamping previous architecture where AMD moved forward with some very solid designs into what became the Athlon 64 and such.

So yeah while it's a little strange to resurrect this old thread about pretty much irrelevant stuff, technically he wasn't wrong about the PIV vs its current competitor in that 2002-2003 era.
 
Both chips were considered excellent for overclocking. The Barton was about half the price or so if I recall, and the Pentium IV generally edged out the Athlon in most benchmarks, but they were usually pretty close.



As I recall (but it has been a while) late Pentium 3's were competitive clock for clock with Athlons, but Intel failed to keep up with the clock speed race much north of a 1ghz, and ceded the performance crown to AMD for a while.

The follow on to Pentium 3, the Willamette P4's were a freaking disaster. High clock speeds, heat and power use, but not much in the performance department. it was more expensive than Athlons (especially considering the need for expensive RDRAM) and lost in the performance race even to low cost Durons in many benchmarks.

The respun Northwood improved things chips and edged out their Athlon rivals at stock clocks for a period, but it was by a tiny margin. Intel launched a new chipset allowing DDR SDRAM instead of RDRAM, but as I recall to get the best performance out of them, you still needed the expensive RDRAM. Both overclocked well, but from memory the Northwoods had some serious reliability problems when overclocked, and many didn't last more than a couple of months. In other words, Athlons were still the preferred enthusiast chip here.

By the time prescott came around, I had taken a hiatus from our hobby, so I am not familiar with them. I had built a socket 754 Athlon 64 system in late 2003, and uncharacteristically used that for 7 years before building a new rig (core i7-920) in 2010.
 
Back
Top