Early Tests Show Athlon XP 2000 Better than New P4

[Strawbs]

Better Business App performance,Better Graphics Apps performance, Better MP3 encoding and lower price point. there doesn't seem to be anything else that matters much. Except maybe Advertising.
Is that the grim reaper I see standing behind Intels shoulder :)

[Ranma]

Glorious, festering ignorance.

I'd trust the collaborative benchmarks of Tom's Hardware, Anandtech, and Sharky Extreme. Let's see what they have to say about benchmarks:

In Business Performance Benchmarks:

At Tom's:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q1/020107/p42200-15.html

Intel loses by .09%. There's a tangible difference.

At Anandtech:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1574&p=6

Intel wins.

At Sharky's:

http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article.php/3261_951181__5

Intel ties.


In Media Encoding Benchmarks:

At Tom's:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/02q1/020107/p42200-13.html

Intel wins.

At Anandtech's:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1574&p=11

Intel wins.

Sharky's did not include a media encoding benchmark.

I love the biased **** I read on SysOpt each day. It gives me that "special feeling," especially when people (and news sources) are blantly wrong.

Strawbs, you might want to take into account that Intel is roughly five times the size of AMD before you talk about "grim reapers" or other such trash.

P.S. Anyone who wants to reply to this message might want to save their breath, as I won't be visiting this worthless thread again. Of course, I'm sure the kids will reply anyway.

Have fun!

[Strawbs]

Size isn't important, it's how you use what you have that matters.
and I guess your happy to believe that Intel has the best processors.

[Bogg]

Well, it may be that the overall performance is almost equaled between the three (XP 2000+, P4 2 and 2.2)...but there's one big thing most Intel fantatics (if there's someone left).

If you take a Xp 2000+ (1.67GHz) and a 1.66GHz P4 (if there's any), the XP will kick it's ***.

If Amd would make a xp 2.2Ghz (real Ghz), it would be what, an XP 2600+? and the P4 2.2 ghz wouldn't even be able to see, because of the cloud of dust the AMD would leave behind...

Pure GHz isn't the way to go, but compare them between the two of them and Amd gives more per Mhz than Intel, in any case!

If a XP 2000+ (1.67Ghz) is as fast as an P4 2GHz, that be something like; 1 Intel Mhz = 1.2 Amd ones :)...


Don't know about the last, but think about it :)