• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Extreme Edition Users: Read Here

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Redefined

Gawd
Joined
Jan 29, 2005
Messages
562
ok this is official that the FX-55 gets beaten by the 3.4EE OC'd at 3.8GHz, while the FX-55 is at 2.99GHz. the link im going to give you, you cant read the whole arcticle but i will take pictures later of it from my magizine. so Intel users if you want to beat AMD once again just overclock your EE to 3.8GHz on water then you will have the fastest chip to date! I kinda feel bad for AMD :( , they get beat once again!

http://www.computerpoweruser.com/ed...r01.asp&guid=EB8D182ADDC5445583019EF9C857936F

PS: No Flaming, this is just a fact.

Mod Edit - .....enough.

First off, the rule is one thread per subject, please. Here's a link to the other thread you started on the same subject.

I'm going to ask you all to take a look at this post. You guys can disagree all you want, but flaming and trolling won't be well received. Enough is enough.

Thanks - B.B.S.
 
"To view the full text of any article published in Smart Computing, PC Today, or Computer Power User magazine, you must be a paid subscriber to one of these publications. Subscribers to any one of these publications also have access to all articles published in CE Lifestyles magazine (CE Lifestyles subscribers have access only to CE Lifestyles content)."

Only someone who would waste money on an EE would waste money on this.

Your sig is pretty funny.
 
I did see that the 3.74EE did beat the FX55 in a couple things in some benchmarks. In many cases it was damn close. When overclocked it would be one hell of a chip. I've been thinking about getting one. However, by no means is it a Athlon FX55 killer. It is merely a competative product. Nothing more.

Sorry dude, the 3.46EE doesn't quite get the job done. Niether does the 3.4EE. Of course if you can overclock those chips they would do the same thing, however as I understand it the Northwood/Gallatin based Pentium 4EE's aren't that great at overclocking. I don't care what some half ass pay site says on the subject. There are too many benchmarks out there showing otherwise.
 
Sir-Fragalot said:
I did see that the 3.74EE did beat the FX55 in a couple things in some benchmarks. In many cases it was damn close. When overclocked it would be one hell of a chip. I've been thinking about getting one. However, by no means is it a Athlon FX55 killer. It is merely a competative product. Nothing more.

Sorry dude, the 3.46EE doesn't quite get the job done. Niether does the 3.4EE. Of course if you can overclock those chips they would do the same thing, however as I understand it the Northwood/Gallatin based Pentium 4EE's aren't that great at overclocking. I don't care what some half ass pay site says on the subject. There are too many benchmarks out there showing otherwise.
Click to expand...

agreed. man i dot think im even going to take pics. People just buy what you want, and dont complain
 
So let me get this straight:

You claim that an overlocked 3.4 EE is faster than an overclocked FX-55, but your "proof" is a worthless link that doesn't have any benchmarks.

:rolleyes:

Show me the benchmarks.
 
Redefined said:
so Intel users if you want to beat AMD once again just overclock your EE to 3.8GHz on water then you will have the fastest chip to date! I kinda feel bad for AMD :( , they get beat once again!
Click to expand...

have you ever touched a gurl (Mom doesn't count)?
 
Every review and benchmark I've seen on the new P4's tells the same old story. The P4's outstrip the A64's in video encoding and similar functions, and the A64 outperforms the P4 in games.
 
xonik said:
So let me get this straight:

You claim that an overlocked 3.4 EE is faster than an overclocked FX-55, but your "proof" is a worthless link that doesn't have any benchmarks.

:rolleyes:

Show me the benchmarks.
Click to expand...

uhhh, dident you read my other thread? do you want me to take picks of my magizine? and show you that Intel recieved the gold trophy for the fastest cpu to date. becasue ill gladly take picks.
 
Yeah, take "picks." Your other thread has no benchmarks in it either.
 
No offense, but I knew this kid was new before I even looked at his reg. date. :p You really are going about this in poor form.

CPU magazine isn't that bad though from what I recall (I've only got a few copies). I'll have to check out this months issue...
 
isp said:
No offense, but I knew this kid was new before I even looked at his reg. date. :p You really are going about this in poor form.

CPU magazine isn't that bad though from what I recall (I've only got a few copies). I'll have to check out this months issue...
Click to expand...


I agree, but reg dates don't necessarily mean anything. Some of us were here in the old days and let our ID's get deleted due to inactivity because real life drew us away ;)
 
ok i did, the bench marks came out a little blurrry though but ill read off what exactly they say

AMD Athlon FX-55 @ 2.99Ghz

PCmark04 Memory 6231
PCMark04 Graphics 6461
PCmark04 HDD 4566
3DMARK05 5900
Doom 3 800x600 used a X800XT PE 54.5fps

P4 3.4EE @ 3.8GHz

PCmark04 Memory 5341
PCmark04 Graphics 6867
PCmark04 HDD 4177
3DMARK05 6150
Doom 3 same video card 56.1fps

Now theres no you cannot say that the FX-55 is the winner, Intel Clearly take the Performance Crown/Victory by very little.

http://img120.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img120&image=picture0766nn.jpg
http://img210.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img210&image=picture0781ti.jpg

Plus here it says this

If you have a budget for your new heavy duty system you'll find that the P4 EE is the performance leader, it carries a leaders price tag of about 1,075. The FX-55 on the other hand, will only set you back to about 880. The Intel-Based ASUS P5AD2-E Premium also outweighs the ASUS AV8 Deluxe by double the price at about 260. All Told, you can expect to pay about 325 more with Intels setups extra performance. Or about 1.30 per extra point in 3DMARK05. Despite losing every benchmark to the P4 EE, we cant say that we're dissapointed in the FX-55 they're both drool-worthy processors that will boost your Pc's performance to new heights.

See i told ya :)

PS: if i take a picture of that i just wrote from my magizine, its to blurry.
 
a) Those benchmarks don't show a clear winner. The A64 is better in some tests, the P4 in others.

b) Those are just two samples. Others have overclocked FX's higher than that. Here would be a good test: clock them to the same speed (3ghz) and see who wins ;)

What about stock? The A64 still wins in most tests.
 
ThomasE66 said:
a) Those benchmarks don't show a clear winner. The A64 is better in some tests, the P4 in others.

b) Those are just two samples. Others have overclocked FX's higher than that. Here would be a good test: clock them to the same speed (3ghz) and see who wins ;)

What about stock? The A64 still wins in most tests.
Click to expand...

i agree, but my point is im trying to tell you people im not lying. this is true. maybe if you OC the Fx-55 higher it will beat the 3.4EE, but it doesent beat it at 3.8GHz and the FX-55 at 2.99GHz.
 
ThomasE66 said:
a) Those benchmarks don't show a clear winner. The A64 is better in some tests, the P4 in others.

b) Those are just two samples. Others have overclocked FX's higher than that. Here would be a good test: clock them to the same speed (3ghz) and see who wins ;)

What about stock? The A64 still wins in most tests.
Click to expand...
Q F T

same speed, 3ghz, fx-55 kicks it all over the place...you dont even need benchs to tell you that, becuase the AMD chips do a TON more per clock than the intels. Which is why intel needs high clocks.

stock speed

still getting beat...

fx overclocked 399mhz (2.99ghz as you stated)
3.4EE oced 400mhz (3.8ghz as you stated) it will be the same verdict because they're scaling up together...

your post didnt prove anything. You typed in some numbers. Congrats. Lets see screenshots.
 
Redefined said:
i agree, but my point is im trying to tell you people im not lying. this is true. maybe if you OC the Fx-55 higher it will beat the 3.4EE, but it doesent beat it at 3.8GHz and the FX-55 at 2.99GHz.
Click to expand...

Ok, fair enough, but I still fail to see it as a useful comparison?

Don't get me wrong. I have more P4's in this house than I do Athlons. I'm by no means a diehard fan of either CPU as I just use whatever works for me. I just don't see that comparison as being especially useful.
 
ThomasE66 said:
Ok, fair enough, but I still fail to see it as a useful comparison?

Don't get me wrong. I have more P4's in this house than I do Athlons. I'm by no means a diehard fan of either CPU as I just use whatever works for me. I just don't see that comparison as being especially useful.
Click to expand...

me ither, i just wanted to prove everyone wrong, because they dident belive me. well maybe ( hopefully ) AMD can win next time.

well nice talkin to you people. im all done with this thread.
 
ThomasE66 said:
Ok, fair enough, but I still fail to see it as a useful comparison?

Don't get me wrong. I have more P4's in this house than I do Athlons. I'm by no means a diehard fan of either CPU as I just use whatever works for me. I just don't see that comparison as being especially useful.
Click to expand...

i actually have 4 intels and 1 athlon

2 p2 266mhz cpus
1 p3 500mhz cpu
1 p3 800mhz cpu

i dont have p4s because there a waste of money for me...because to get the same performance of an athlon at stock speeds id have to spend maybe TWICE as much
 
ThomasE66 said:
I agree, but reg dates don't necessarily mean anything. Some of us were here in the old days and let our ID's get deleted due to inactivity because real life drew us away ;)
Click to expand...
Yeah I wouldn't even of thought of it, but after I read some of his posts it was pretty easy to put 2 and 2 together. ;) :p
 
Redefined said:
me ither, i just wanted to prove everyone wrong, because they dident belive me. well maybe ( hopefully ) AMD can win next time.

well nice talkin to you people. im all done with this thread.
Click to expand...
The thread's not over because you didn't prove anything.

What I see is a bunch of numbers--which you could have very well made up--and some horrible pictures/scans that don't show anything.

I would even trust Tom's Hardware over the "proof" that you've submitted in this thread,

http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040419/index.html

and even Tom's concludes that there is no clear winner, and that's with a superior Gallatin-core EE clocked 200 MHz higher than the one allegedly from CPU Mag.
 
Redefined said:
ok i did, the bench marks came out a little blurrry though but ill read off what exactly they say

AMD Athlon FX-55 @ 2.99Ghz

PCmark04 Memory 6231
PCMark04 Graphics 6461
PCmark04 HDD 4566
3DMARK05 5900
Doom 3 800x600 used a X800XT PE 54.5fps

P4 3.4EE @ 3.8GHz

PCmark04 Memory 5341
PCmark04 Graphics 6867
PCmark04 HDD 4177
3DMARK05 6150
Doom 3 same video card 56.1fps

Now theres no you cannot say that the FX-55 is the winner, Intel Clearly take the Performance Crown/Victory by very little.
Click to expand...

Those benchmarks are worthless. Which of those benchmarks that arn't bottlenecked by another component. 3dmark05 and doom3 are graphics benchmarks. I don't know much about PCmark04, but it doesn't seem like the memory, graphics, and HDD versions of the test would properly test a CPU.
Those tests are like benching a 6800 Ultra and X800XTPE with 3dmark01 with the resolution set to 640 x 480, useless for anything but proof for those that don't want to see the truth.
 
Jonsey said:
Those benchmarks are worthless. Which of those benchmarks that arn't bottlenecked by another component. 3dmark05 and doom3 are graphics benchmarks. I don't know much about PCmark04, but it doesn't seem like the memory, graphics, and HDD versions of the test would properly test a CPU.
Those tests are like benching a 6800 Ultra and X800XTPE with 3dmark01 with the resolution set to 640 x 480, useless for anything but proof for those that don't want to see the truth.
Click to expand...
QFT...thats what i was thinking..but went to watch a movie instead of posting


plus [H] seemed to go down for a while for me..couldnt connect (couldnt even ping it.. :confused: )

anyway....i see no proof whatsoever...

whats the matter....can't stand behind what you say? is that why you keep leaving your own threads when ppl prove you wrong? are you really that big of a troll?
 
Redefined said:
Doom 3 800x600 used a X800XT PE 54.5fps
Click to expand...
something is messed up with those results.
with the system in my sig, i get 58.5fps at 800x600 w/ high quality.
thinking that since nvidia is better for doom3, i kicked up the quality to ultra
58.4fps...
so you're trying to tell me that a cpu 700mhz faster, 2x the bandwidth and a x800xt pe got beaten by about 7% by my sub $1000 system? i think not.
 
(cf)Eclipse said:
something is messed up with those results.
with the system in my sig, i get 58.5fps at 800x600 w/ high quality.
thinking that since nvidia is better for doom3, i kicked up the quality to ultra
58.4fps...
so you're trying to tell me that a cpu 700mhz faster, 2x the bandwidth and a x800xt pe got beaten by about 7% by my sub $1000 system? i think not.
Click to expand...
At 1600x1200, the X800XT-PE with a pentium 4 3.4EE got 55.6FPS in Doom3. Yes, something is very wrong with that test system that Redefined referenced.
http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=Njk3LDM=

Redefined just needs to get his facts straight or quit being dishonest. I know he's young and all, but maybe, just maybe, he'll eventually learn to be a more critical thinker.
 
or be less of a fan-boy and learn to accept the fact that AMD is walking all over intel right now...
 
So if you OC the EE to 3.8 it will beat a FX55 at stock? (that link in first post is bad) Maybe I'm missing the point but, why buy the more expensive chip (depends where you buy, lot of price gouging on the fx lately) and sink money into water cooling when you could have a chip that runs cooler and beats the first chip out of the box?

I think you just need to realize that the FX55 beats the 3.46EE in most places. (Not all)
 
I wouldn't quite say 'stomping', but AMD still has a clear lead in gaming performance.
 
Naw, the Pentium 4s still have the edge on the media encoding front, and the Pentium M covers the P4's weaker performance in games, so I don't think AMD's desktop processors are necessarily "stomping" Intel's.
 
xonik said:
Naw, the Pentium 4s still have the edge on the media encoding front, and the Pentium M covers the P4's weaker performance in games, so I don't think AMD's desktop processors are necessarily "stomping" Intel's.
Click to expand...

The penitum M is rather impractical right now (motherboard and chipset-wise, I absolutely adore the P-M though.) I would rather see intel push the technology behind the mobile instead of sticking more L2 cache on an outdated processor and calling it extreme. I could understand the fan boyism if he was raving over the new 2.13GHz P-M, but he's posting thread after thread about the extreme edition for chrissakes.
 
xonik said:
Naw, the Pentium 4s still have the edge on the media encoding front, and the Pentium M covers the P4's weaker performance in games, so I don't think AMD's desktop processors are necessarily "stomping" Intel's.
Click to expand...

Right on! nj on the comeback!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top