FPS... what should we expect?

[Dragoon412]

AMD started using that naming scheme to show their performance relative to the clock-speed-crazed populace. Yes, AMDs are faster than Intel chips at the same clock speed, but AMD's architecture isn't capable of the same type of clock speeds the Pentium is. The Athlon really is a more efficient design than the P4, but the P4 still has more balls, now.

Think of it this way: AMD is to Intel what Porsche is to Jaguar -- both make excellent products, but while Porsche favors a smaller, more efficient turbo-charged design (Athlon), Jag tends towards big, gutsy engines (Intel). It's just that right now, AMD's kinda dropped the ball - they aren't even trying to compete with Intel for the high-performance desktop market anymore. And with the P4 reaching higher and higher clock speeds, plus the inclusion of hyperthreading :drool: Intel really is the leader right now.

I don't mean to bash AMD -- they make an excellent product, and I *do* like their chips a lot, and I'm very sad to see them taking leave of the high-performance market, but I feel that what you save in money on the processor itself, you loose in extra cooling, a larger power supply, and the increased power bills said power supply contributes to. That's to say nothing of the loudness of most cooling systems sufficient for an Athlon XP.

As for the FX vs. 9700P, it's doubtful the 9700P will be equal to the FX, but it looks like it's going to be very close, and once ATi releases the revised R300 on a .13u process, it's back to obsolescense for nVidia.

[trickstyle]

im picking up the athlon 2800+ which apparently clocks in at about 2.4 gig

[Sputty]

It's equal to that of a P4 2.8 Ghz though. It's clock speed is about 2.4 though.

[Sputty]

Intel has weaker processor than alot, Apple's G4 is way more powerful but they have even lower clock speeds and cna't get it higher. AMD is competing well though.

[Zatrais]

intels are weaker because?

Whit HT (basicly lets intel do the same as AMD, letting the cpu do more operations pr cycle) , 533FSB's, 0.13-micron, 512 KB full Speed L2 Advanced Transfer Cache (.13 micron)...

Atleast state why intel is worse if you're gonna say it.

As for the GF FX vs 9700... Remember the 9700 wasn't surposed to compete against the FX, the 9700 just performs way better than Nvidia expected. Yes the FX will be able to pump out more polygons and creating a faster framerate due to it's faster clock speed.. however the FX suffers from poor bandwith, only 16gb and thats not enough to handle everything once you go past 2x AA. When more than 2x AA and FA comes into play the FX will "choke" and not be able to get info out fast enough. The 9700 dosn't have the problem because well it has 19.6gb bandwith.

Look at the current technical specs of the FX if you need proof hehe.


Me, i prefer better AA and FA over framerates. I take better images over some extra frames thats not that noticeable =)

[Sputty]

Intel's P4 depends entirely on it's clock speed. It's CPU would be easily overpowered if AMD and the G4 were the smae clockspeed.

[Dragoon412]

Atleast state why intel is worse if you're gonna say it.

In case it isn't fairly obvious, Sputty's opinions seem largely based on fifth-hand information, like what the friend of a friend of some guy who was on this one message board heard from his brother who works as a tech at Best Buy told him. I seriously doubt you'll get any logical responses.

Remember the 9700 wasn't surposed to compete against the FX...

That's the sad part -- the 9700 and FX were supposed to be competitors, but nVidia dropped the ball and now the FX is like 4 or 5 months late. Had they been able to get it out the door on time, it probably would've been a serious contender to the 9700.

[Sputty]

Flame on....where's Hamma with his

[Hamma]

[Sputty]

And my response made sense. Weaker may ahve been a bad word but what other words are there?.../me brings up thesaurus, looks at it and all the words seem as inprecise. But the only reason intel can compete is their tweaking to get really high clockspeeds. The AMD (not sure the exact numbers) had a higher FPS in most games,UT2003, comparing the 2800 and P4 3.06 Ghz on the Radeon 9700.

[Sputty]

BTW, thanks for the Hamma

[Dragoon412]

Originally posted by Sputty
And my response made sense. Weaker may ahve been a bad word but what other words are there?.../me brings up thesaurus, looks at it and all the words seem as inprecise. But the only reason intel can compete is their tweaking to get really high clockspeeds. The AMD (not sure the exact numbers) had a higher FPS in most games,UT2003, comparing the 2800 and P4 3.06 Ghz on the Radeon 9700.

What you're failing to realize is that without giving the rest of the information in the benchmarking setup, what you're saying is completely and utterly useless. You don't even provide a link to anything that may be able to back up your views. Without that kind of information, you may as well be saying "I like cheese," because it's just as useful -- which is to say it's useless -- to anyone that's trying to decide between AMD and Intel.

[CDaws]

I thought about going with the AMD a few years ago during the processor wars but since I've seen the architecture of the P4 3gig chip that's what I'm going with. It's more for the multitasking and from what I've read it kinda makes itself read as if it were two processers instead of one the more apps you have open and are running. I multitask like crazy. Outside of this, that is my only reason.

[Sputty]

I need to get something a little cheaper...That's why I go with AMD.