Warp2Search.net » News » November 2002 » AMD Athlon XP 2800+ And Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz In 3DS Max 5
AMD Athlon XP 2800+ And Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz In 3DS Max 5
Posted by: Newsfactory on: 11/05/2002 01:51 AM [ Print | 6 comment(s) ] · 4033 views
Today Xbitlabs.com are going to compare the performance in 3DS Max 5 package of the two newest processors representing the top products in two constantly competing families. Both have new weapons ready: Athlon XP 2800+ is the first CPU with 166MHz bus, while Intel Pentium 4 features a twice as large cache and works at about 25% higher core clock frequency. Ready for a race?
AMD Athlon XP 2800+ And Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz In 3DS Max 5
AMD Athlon XP 2800+ And Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz In 3DS Max 5
« NV30 Details And The Engine Room Movie · AMD Athlon XP 2800+ And Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz In 3DS Max 5
· WarCraft III v1.04 Patch »
Comment
|
Sage Unregistered |
#39014 Posted on: 11/05/2002 04:58 AM
Even though the Ahtlon XP is slightly under all the benchmarks.. its half the money.. and with slower FSB and RAM it's still only just under. AMD Forever. 
btw i might add that id like to see those same benchmarks once both PC's are Overclocked  |
Comment
|
Amin Unregistered Posts: 1 Joined: 2002-12-30 |
#39015 Posted on: 11/05/2002 05:17 AM
Go AMD !!!! |
Comment
|
Denniss Unregistered Posts: 44 Joined: 2002-08-13 |
#39017 Posted on: 11/05/2002 08:41 AM
Hmmm - they used the crappy A7V8x with it's known slow FSB166 performance . > No information about used Bios . They had better used a better performing FSB166 mainboard from MSI or Epox . But performance was not bad - imagine what might be the results with a good FSB166 mainboard ! |
Comment
|
madcap Unregistered |
#39020 Posted on: 11/05/2002 03:18 PM
Look at the test results below the first diagram. The times to complete the benchmarks is lower for athlon in all but one test (of the ones displayed). AMD simply RULEZ! |
Comment
|
Ziggyrama Unregistered |
#39021 Posted on: 11/05/2002 03:23 PM
This review is sort of comparing apples and oranges. The Intel system is running with PC800 where as the AMD rig has DDR PC3200 RAM. I'd like to see the performance of both processors with DDR RAM. Not sure if DDR400 might be giving AMD a slight edge over Intel's chip with PC800 RAM in this review, as far as memory bandwidth, but then who knows since KT400 chipset plays dirty tricks by increasing memory latencies when memory runs at 200MHz, and that's why that board sux with DDR400, and actually any board will with that chipset, if you run in asynch mode. Did they run it that way? One can only wonder if they ran memory and the bus in synch at 166MHz or if it was 166Mhz for the bus and 200MHz for the memory. Not a very useful review. I need more details!!! |
Comment
|
Ziggyrama Unregistered |
#39022 Posted on: 11/05/2002 03:25 PM
This review is sort of comparing apples and oranges. The Intel system is running with PC800 where as the AMD rig has DDR PC3200 RAM. I'd like to see the performance of both processors with DDR RAM. Not sure if DDR400 might be giving AMD a slight edge over Intel's chip with PC800 RAM in this review, as far as memory bandwidth, but then who knows since KT400 chipset plays dirty tricks by increasing memory latencies when memory runs at 200MHz, and that's why that board sux with DDR400, and actually any board will with that chipset, if you run in asynch mode. Did they run it that way? One can only wonder if they ran memory and the bus in synch at 166MHz or if it was 166Mhz for the bus and 200MHz for the memory. Not a very useful review. I need more details!!! |
