Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Archive > Archives of Old Posts > Macintosh Computers

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Sep 23, 2003, 12:35 PM   #1
Cubeboy
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Bridgewater NJ
2.2, 2.4 GHz Athlon64 FX has arrived, also, first benchmarks for 3.2, 3.4 GHz P4EE

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...4/index.x?pg=1

Last edited by Cubeboy; Sep 23, 2003 at 12:48 PM.
Cubeboy is offline   0
Old Sep 23, 2003, 12:56 PM   #2
tomf87
Guest
 
tomf87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
So did Tom's Hardware

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

Same old thing...
tomf87 is offline   0
Old Sep 23, 2003, 01:31 PM   #3
hvfsl
macrumors 68000
 
hvfsl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London, UK
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.
hvfsl is offline   0
Old Sep 23, 2003, 01:50 PM   #4
Falleron
macrumors 68000
 
Falleron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Wow, look at those prices!! You could buy 2-3 Powermacs 2Ghz for one of those.
Falleron is offline   0
Old Sep 23, 2003, 02:00 PM   #5
GUSTO
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Scotland
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.
GUSTO is offline   0
Old Sep 23, 2003, 02:40 PM   #6
Lancetx
macrumors 68000
 
Lancetx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Texas
Quote:
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...
Lancetx is offline   0
Old Sep 23, 2003, 05:02 PM   #7
hvfsl
macrumors 68000
 
hvfsl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: London, UK
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.
hvfsl is offline   0
Old Sep 23, 2003, 05:09 PM   #8
bousozoku
Moderator emeritus
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gone but not forgotten.
Quote:
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.
bousozoku is offline   0
Old Sep 23, 2003, 05:54 PM   #9
ZildjianKX
Guest
 
ZildjianKX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Quote:
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.
ZildjianKX is offline   0
Old Sep 23, 2003, 06:22 PM   #10
evolu
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: LA la land...
Quote:
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.
evolu is offline   0
Old Sep 23, 2003, 06:24 PM   #11
Independence
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: United States
Quote:
Originally posted by evolu
Just to reiterate - this site is FAKE.
http://www.hothardware.com/hh_files/...1_launch.shtml
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030923/index.html
http://www.techreport.com/reviews/20...4/index.x?pg=1
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/...5_9488,00.html
__________________
Timedancer: Intel Pentium III 1.0 GHz, 2 GB Ram, 3DFX Voodoo5 5500 AGP
Dragon: Intel Core 2 Duo (3.0 GHz), 4 GB RAM, ATI Radeon X800XT
Independence is offline   0
Old Sep 23, 2003, 06:45 PM   #12
solvs
macrumors 601
 
solvs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: LaLaLand, CA
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.
__________________
True love never dies
The only thing more dangerous than a woman scorned, is a man with nothing left to lose...
solvs is offline   0
Old Sep 23, 2003, 07:05 PM   #13
bousozoku
Moderator emeritus
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gone but not forgotten.
Quote:
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?
bousozoku is offline   0
Old Sep 23, 2003, 07:47 PM   #14
Cubeboy
Thread Starter
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Bridgewater NJ
Quote:
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.

Last edited by Cubeboy; Sep 23, 2003 at 07:51 PM.
Cubeboy is offline   0


 
MacRumors Forums > Archive > Archives of Old Posts > Macintosh Computers

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
15" rMBP, worth $180 to upgrade 2.3 GHz to 2.6 GHz? The New iPad MacBook Pro 20 Oct 25, 2013 02:01 PM
2.6 GHz vs 2.7 GHz Retina Macbook Pro Real World Difference dpnguye2 Buying Tips and Advice 40 Nov 15, 2012 02:21 PM
Mac Mini 2.3 GHz vs upgraded, more expensive MM Server 2.0 Ghz HAM2012 Buying Tips and Advice 0 Nov 13, 2012 09:47 AM
2.6 GHZ i7 mobile (Mini) CPU Vs Imac 2.9 ghz desktop i5?? Pie Chips Salad iMac 1 Nov 11, 2012 12:39 PM
2.3 ghz i7 Mac Mini Geek Benchmarks jack92029 Mac mini 0 Oct 26, 2012 03:22 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:02 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC