P4EE vs FX-51

[burningrave101]

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NTc1

P4EE wins 6 out of 9 against the FX-51.

3.2GHz wins in 4 out of 9 against the A64's.

From an overclocking standpoint, the 3400+ was the worst Athlon64 CPU that we have had our hands on yet. Tweaking out a 100% stable core overclock of 150MHz was a task. Hopefully this is simply our single CPU, but it looks to us that the K8 architecture at 130nm has little headroom left to scale. Still, we think it is far too early on to pass OCing judgment on the 3400+ just yet. One could certainly argue that it was so fast at stock speeds that it would be hard to utilize any more Athlon64 power, although I am positive some of our readers could.

It could be the chipsets on the motherboards limiting the overclocks or it could just be these processors are reaching their limits on their current nanometer process.

Ither way from an overclockers standpoint i think you can see what the current processor of choice should be .

For a processor with older technology to be competeing so well against the new technology on the A64's it should say something.

I'm looking forward to Prescott and the new Intel and VIA chipsets to be released soon hopefully.

 

[Big Worm]

Interesting

 

[Wrench00]

Thats a credible source for a review.. *smirk

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

fx 51 = 990 CDN

P4 EE = 1500 CDN (If its not SSE2 Optimized the P4 is a glorified super blazingly fast CYRIX chip)

IR WINNAR

246 = 1000 CDN

I have Opteron 246 @ 2.3 (stock voltage) GHZ KICKS the snots out of P4 EE

 

[burningrave101]

Originally posted by Wrench00
Thats a credible source for a review.. *smirk

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

fx 51 = 990 CDN

P4 EE = 1500 CDN (If its not SSE2 Optimized the P4 is a glorified super blazingly fast CYRIX chip)

IR WINNAR

246 = 1000 CDN

I have Opteron 246 @ 2.3 (stock voltage) GHZ KICKS the snots out of P4 EE

And you have a P4EE? Because you would need one in order to compare to the performance of it against a P4EE at 3.6GHz.

Otherwise just saying it kicks the shit out of a P4EE is nothing but a fanboy comment.

This review on hardocp wasn't much different then the AMD vs Intel one on tomshardware. Hard even used the MSI mobo for the A64's just like toms did and everyone bitched that it was bias because they should of used the chaintech.

The only difference is in the toms version they showed overclocking results with the default results.

And for those of you still preaching how bias tomshardware is towards Intel i would urge you to look at the new 3400+ review posted.

http://www20.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040106/athlon64_3400-03.html

They also got a 2365MHz overclock out of the 3400+ and posted the benchmarks of it overclocked and default.

 

[chrisf6969]

It looks like 2300-2350Mhz is about the limit with the current process, unless they can tweak some new stepping.

Most OC'd A64 & FX's I've seen are around 2.3Ghz or with extreme cooling 2.4-2.6Ghz (Vapo, etc)

Almost exactly 50% slower than P4's standard OC's on air & vapo. but still matching benchmarks blow for blow.

Ex:
Air A64@ 2.3 vs P4 @ 3.45Ghz
Vapo A64@ 2.65 vs P4 @ 4 Ghz

Both need to go to .09 to speed up and are pushing their limits.

Whats amazing to me is how the A64 single channel DDR is keeping up with the FX & P4's dual channel DDR in most aspects

Who needs a P4EE when you can take a 2.4C and OC to 3.4Ghz++

and who needs an FX-51 when the A64 3000+ will probably OC to 2.2Ghz++ and do just as well as the FX-51.

 

[burningrave101]

Originally posted by chrisf6969
Whats amazing to me is how the A64 single channel DDR is keeping up with the FX & P4's dual channel DDR in most aspects

Who needs a P4EE when you can take a 2.4C and OC to 3.4Ghz++

and who needs an FX-51 when the A64 3000+ will probably OC to 2.2Ghz++ and do just as well as the FX-51. [/B]

Well i can tell you why the dual channel and single channel bit doesn't change performance much in games anyways and thats because games dont use hardly any bandwidth compared to what these chips are able to put out with dual channel enabled. The only time your going to see a big difference is in bandwidth benches like SiSoft Sandra.

Thats why i try to tell people how important timings are and that bandwidth isn't as important. Because the A64's have an on-die controller there is less latency than when the controller is on the northbridge. Timings affect gaming benches quite a bit and thats another reason why the A64's are better in that area.

For video editing and compression where raw bandwidth plays a more important role the Pentium 4's are the definite leaders.

I would say that the new Athlon 64 3400+'s are as good and possibly better then the FX-51's according to the way the benchmarks look. Being built on 130 nano process means there isn't much overclocking room without extreme cooling because it gets way to hot to run stable.

 

[mlbstar10]

Originally posted by burningrave101


For video editing and compression where raw bandwidth plays a more important role the Pentium 4's are the definite leaders.

In this article they have the 3000+ beating the 3.2EE, doesn't look like its better to me?

 

[burningrave101]

Different benchmarks respond to different types of architecture. That one benchmark doesn't mean anything.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1941&p=9

Thats the new review on Anandtech with the Athlon 64 3400+ included for the video encodeing benchmark.

Hyper-Threading along with other features of the NetBurst architecture give Intel the performance advantage in video encoding as you can see by our DivX results above. The Athlon 64 3400+ performs respectably but it isn't the CPU that's best for these sorts of tasks.

 

[burningrave101]

Heres more video encodeing benchmarks...

http://www.hardtecs4u.com/reviews/2004/amd_athlon64_3400/index7.php

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2004q1/athlon64-3400/index.x?pg=7

http://www.hothardware.com/hh_files/CCAM/amd_a64_3400+(4).shtml

http://www.neoseeker.com/Articles/Hardware/Reviews/amd64_3400/6.html