Pentium 4 1.5GHz benchmark results

[AndreRIO]

WinXP OS

** Old System **

ATHLON TBIRD 1.3GHZ (200MHZ BUS)
3DMARK 2001:
1024X768X32BIT=5658
SISOFT SANDRA:
CPU=3626 & 1756
MULTIMEDIA=7024 & 8090

New System :c)
INTEL PENTIUM 4 1.5GHZ (400MHZ BUS)
3DMARK 2001:
1024X768X32BIT=5469
SISOFT SANDRA:
CPU=2935 & 1863
MULTIMEDIA=5968 & 7334

The P4 scores lower, but for some reason I think it's faster than before.

[NDD]

I wonder what reason is that ?

Best Regards ...

[AndreRIO]

lol

i just mean it's not slower than my old system, it's plus or less the same feeling, i plan on buying a faster p4 cpu later.

[mrmingler]

I've noticed one thing and I think it has a LOT to do with the power difference between the Athlon and the P4. The Athlon uses a 200-266Mhz bus and so does the ram. The P4's ram runs at 400Mhz, but the bus speed is still only 100Mhz. I really think the opened up bottleneck is what's boosting the amd. Who cares if the ram runs at 400 mhz if the cpu can't communicate with it as fast!

[NDD]

AndreRIO didn't specify what RAM he has in his P4, PC800 RDRAM or PC133 SDRAM, so your assumption, mrmingler, is only correct when it's about PC133. In case of PC800 RDRAM with it's 3.2GB/s of bandwidth - it's more than enough for P4.

Best Regards ...

[AndreRIO]

pc133. :c)

[mrmingler]

No, what I'm saying is that the P4 only uses a 100Mhz bus - even with the 400Mhz ram!

Think of a highway... if one lane at 100MPH suddenly opens up to 4 lanes at 100MPH, the 1 lane section can't allow any more cars on it. Same with the processor. It can't allow any more information on the "road" from the processor to the mobo.

However, an AMD with a 200 mhz bus and DDR2100 RAM is a constant "2 lane highway" at 100MPh all the way from the processor to the motherboard to the ram...

[x51out]

Just to jump in: the IPC (instructions per cycle) of the P4 are much lower than in the P3 and Athlon. The P4 can not outdistance the other processors without the neccessary clock speed, say, 2000MHz and above, that's where the P4 will begin to shine. Personally, I'd never consider a P4 under 2000MHz, if for no other reason than cost/performance ratio. To all those with a P4: I'm not bad-mouthing your processor. I did consider goind from P3 to P4, but couldn't afford it. So I went with Athlon DDR and I haven't looked back.

[spidey_joe80@hotmail.com]

100mhz quad pumped effectively 400mhz.
not that im on intels side, but should be fair.

[x51out]

True enough, and although I believe many have been slightly disappointed by DDR, they were unfortunate victims of the HYPE. DDR was never intended to out-perform RAMBUS and the i850. It was more of an evolutionary step from PC133. We sell P4/Rambus systems and I didn't like any of them very much. To me (aside from any numbers, just personal impression) those systems felt "unresponsive", maybe due to rambus' latency, I also noticed many, many freezez and hangz, what an agitation. Although the "quad-pumped bus" sounds good, kinda like huge boobs or nice ***. Real life experience usually uncovers some untold secrets the spin-machine will never reveal. The T-Bird is kinda like a V8 and the P4 is kinda like a 4cyl/16valve. The P4 needs the rpm. That analogy is pretty stupid, never mind.

[wallie_x]

Dude, I think part of your analogy is correct. Buzz words hype us all into thinking with our emotions instead of our logic. Big boobs may look nice when supported by a Victoria's Secret wonder bra, but take it off and they may look like a sagging mess. The P4's asset has been the rambus memory, but take that away and the P4 becomes a somewhat dismal performer when compared to the Athlon. Both CPU's have their liabilities, but Intel has shot itself in the foot more than once eg. sticking to the loser 66mhz FSB for years. AMD was on the ropes and Intel could have knocked them out. All AMD did was increase the FSB speed of their 6x86 to 100mhz while Intel stuck with 66mhz. Intel allowed AMD new life when they needed it most. Good for us however, I'm married with children which translates into AMD CPU's all the way because of their superior cost to performance ratio.

[$1500-P4 gamer]

The p4 is effectively 400mhz fsb when running rdram.I have thourally checked into it.There are 4 simultaneously run 100mhz pipelines.This is a stacking method much like all processors are made up of.For instance a p2 400 is 4(multiplyer)x100fsb resulting in a internal speed of 400mhz.Intel uses the method of quad pumped bus to enable stability at such high speeds.A processor talking at a streight out 400mhz fsb would be very glitchy at this time with current technology.100mhz fsb has proven to be very stable fsb speed in the past though it is rumered that intel is now seeking to run a qued pumped 133mhz unit next.I'll be ready as my asus p4t-e supports this and I cant wait if it is true.Oh and just for the record intel has the very first dual memmory channel.AMD can only talk through one at a time while intel can use both simultaneously.This makes up for the 200mhz fsb throughput of the amd compared to intels 100.This will be interesting to see how it developes in the next few months as the p4 trend pushes the envolope for the new high speed chip.Dont get me wrong I have owned amd machines in the psat and I do really support them and intel both as without one the other would reak havoc on the price range in the market if anything I hope they both make great performance leaps as it will only benifit us all by haveing two great solutions to choose from and not to be forced to pay overwhelming prices.Ever since the intro duction of AMD there has been a price war beetween them and AMD for the best performance/value chip and I hope the trend continues for ever.

Just one mans opinion

[wallie_x]

And this is my point: Your machine cost $1500. My Machine cost $680.
Beat this benchmark:
SuperPI: 1M = 01min19sec a P4 at equal clock speed can't.
Despite the fact that the P4 2ghz runs at over 450mhz faster than an Athlon XP 1800 @ 1.53ghz The P4 still loses in almost all benchmarks except those that require greater memory bandwidth and SSE2 instructions, losing in 9 out of 11 tests. The P4 just can't compete with the Athlon in many benchmarks. I would declare the Athlon clearly superior in architecture for a much lesser price. And until recently the arrogant Intel forced people into buying only their chipsets and Rambus memory.

Athlon XP 1600 @ 1.397ghz
ECS K7S5A rev. 4
393MB DDR 2100 Apacer @ Ultra, CAS 2
Quantum Fireball 20GB ATA 100 7200 RPM HD
Sony 12X8X32CD-RW w/2nd CD-ROM
Nvidia Vanta 16MB X4 AGP
Windows XP

[x51out]

Ah yes, a word of truth: arrogant. And the Intel Pentium 4 commercial on t.v. is just ridiculous, as they try to play the average fellow for a fool with their chuckle-inducing (blue)"greys"... "... aahhh, pentiummm..." what a joke. No offense, pentium-lovers, but AMD would never talk to us on a kindergarden level. Just goes to show, for a quick buck, Intel will give you the mind-f**k.

[mrmingler]

hehe, I've been an intel fan since the 386 days - infact the only AMD I own is an old K6 cpu as a paperweight! However, Intel really !#$%@% up bad with the P4. I love the celerons and P3's, but my next CPU will be AMD!