PDA

View Full Version : 2.2, 2.4 GHz Athlon64 FX has arrived, also, first benchmarks for 3.2, 3.4 GHz P4EE


Cubeboy
Sep 23, 2003, 12:35 PM
Ace's and Tech Report have already published benchmarks comparing all three processors (Athlon64 FX, Athlon 64, Pentium 4EE) along with several older cpus. I have to admit, I am very impressed with these new processors as they make very impressive showings.

http://www.aceshardware.com/read.jsp?id=60000253

http://techreport.com/reviews/2003q3/athlon64/index.x?pg=1

tomf87
Sep 23, 2003, 12:56 PM
So did Tom's Hardware

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030923/index.html

:o Same old thing...

hvfsl
Sep 23, 2003, 01:31 PM
They basically show that the top of the range AMD FX642.4Ghz is basically the same speed as a 3.6Ghz P4 Xeon (or Extreme Edition as Intel now calls some of them).

There have also been some spec benchmarks comparing the chips to the G5. They show the single AMD or P4 chip easily beating the G5. The link, http://www.go-l.com/desktops/machl38/features/index.htm
And yes I know, the site is a copy of Apple's.

Falleron
Sep 23, 2003, 01:50 PM
Wow, look at those prices!! You could buy 2-3 Powermacs 2Ghz for one of those.

GUSTO
Sep 23, 2003, 02:00 PM
Well we got to see what the speed test results are against the G5, and the rumor of no G5 powerbooks til 2004 (end of) is no great :(

Looks like AMD have a monster of a chip family.

Lancetx
Sep 23, 2003, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by hvfsl
They basically show that the top of the range AMD FX642.4Ghz is basically the same speed as a 3.6Ghz P4 Xeon (or Extreme Edition as Intel now calls some of them).

There have also been some spec benchmarks comparing the chips to the G5. They show the single AMD or P4 chip easily beating the G5. The link, http://www.go-l.com/desktops/machl38/features/index.htm
And yes I know, the site is a copy of Apple's.

Everything on that Liebermann site is bogus so I wouldn't believe those. I seriously doubt that's even a real company, the entire site looks like an elaborate hoax...

hvfsl
Sep 23, 2003, 05:02 PM
Does anyone know if there are any UT2003 benchmark results on the G5, I would like to compare them to the AMD 64 and P4 EE results.

For me the UT2003 benchmark will be the deciding factor of which chip is fastest.

bousozoku
Sep 23, 2003, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by hvfsl
Does anyone know if there are any UT2003 benchmark results on the G5, I would like to compare them to the AMD 64 and P4 EE results.

For me the UT2003 benchmark will be the deciding factor of which chip is fastest.

There are a couple in the games area here.

The prices look really high on these processors but early adopters usually pay big money to be first.

ZildjianKX
Sep 23, 2003, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by bousozoku
There are a couple in the games area here.

The prices look really high on these processors but early adopters usually pay big money to be first.

And Apple doesn't charge out the butt for G5 processors? I'm curious how much they pay IBM for them.

evolu
Sep 23, 2003, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by hvfsl
They basically show that the top of the range AMD FX642.4Ghz is basically the same speed as a 3.6Ghz P4 Xeon (or Extreme Edition as Intel now calls some of them).

There have also been some spec benchmarks comparing the chips to the G5. They show the single AMD or P4 chip easily beating the G5. The link, http://www.go-l.com/desktops/machl38/features/index.htm
And yes I know, the site is a copy of Apple's.

Just to reiterate - this site is FAKE.

Independence
Sep 23, 2003, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by evolu
Just to reiterate - this site is FAKE.
http://www.hothardware.com/hh_files/CCAM/a64fx_51_launch.shtml
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030923/index.html
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2003q3/athlon64/index.x?pg=1
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9488,00.html

solvs
Sep 23, 2003, 06:45 PM
Uh...

I think he meant http://www.go-l.com is fake, which it must be.

He didn't say anything about the AMD chip being fake.

bousozoku
Sep 23, 2003, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by ZildjianKX
And Apple doesn't charge out the butt for G5 processors? I'm curious how much they pay IBM for them.

You mean to compare what IBM charges for 64-bit processors against what AMD charges, not what Apple charges, since Apple is the integrator, not the manufacturer of the processors.

The 1.8 GHz and dual 2.0 GHz machines have a lot of value, even if they seem expensive to you. This is even more apparent when you contrast them to the prior set of PowerMacs.

Are cheap machines really the deal they seem to be?

Cubeboy
Sep 23, 2003, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by hvfsl
Does anyone know if there are any UT2003 benchmark results on the G5, I would like to compare them to the AMD 64 and P4 EE results.

For me the UT2003 benchmark will be the deciding factor of which chip is fastest.

Games like UT2003 are poorly optimized for the G5, Barefeat's results has a Dual 2 GHz G5 pumping out roughly half the fps of a 3.0 GHz P4 in UT2003 Botmatch, Quake III results are much better although the 3.0 GHz P4 is still the winner. This should change when developers start putting some G5-specific optimisations into their code. I'm expecting the G5 with it's excellent fp performance and memory subsystems to be at least the equivalent of a 3 GHz P4 in any of these 3d games.