Navigate: Advice Beginners BIOS Guide CPUs Links Mainboards Memory Network Storage Video/Sound Cards Contact Forum SiteMap Sponsors WebNews Home	.	.
Prices: Mainboards ABIT ASUS Chaintech Shuttle Soyo Tyan CPU Intel P4 2.4C-800 P4 2.6C-800 P4 2.8C-800 P4 3.0-800 P4 3.2-800 AMD AthlonXP XP 1700+ XP 2000+ XP 2400+ XP 2500+ XP 2700+ XP 3000+ XP 3200+ Athlon64 Athlon64 3200+ Athlon64 FX-51 Opteron Opteron 240 Opteron 242 Opteron 244 Opteron 246 Memory Corsair Crucial Kingston Mushkin OCZ Search Prices:

Conclusion

Testing Procedures

I understand that there are several questions not only about the performance of the Athlon XP but also about the methodology used here, that is, different video drivers, different platforms etc. It is probably unavoidable that the one or the other hole in the results occurred, that is, that there might have been another driver that would harmonize better with one of the boards in a given application but it is simply impossible to run 20 different drivers on each platform to determine the optimum configuration for each application. All I can say is that I have tried to get the best performance out of every system with the best drivers. This caveat only applies for the gaming benchmarks anyway but it is self-understood that there could be an additional margin towards even better performance. As it stands, I feel that the results are adequate but if anyone gets higher scores, take them and be happy.

Benchmark Selection

The next issue concerns the selection of benchmarks. Anything can be shown with benchmarks and instead of following Glen Henry who "grudgingly accepts" some and "does not accept others", we say, "what the hell" we do what WE think is appropriate. There is no perfect solution, however, and relying on commercial benchmarks that have been in the crossfire for being biased towards Intel or AMD, and need to be patched here and there to give better performance not only with the targeted CPU but also possibly with the "Other CPU" is becoming somewhat paradox. Therefore, why not use standard programs that everyone is using. The target here is also to provide scores for the users of these programs that can be compared against their own numbers when performing real workload.

As it turns out, most benchmarks come out in favor of the Athlon XP, so the next question is whether the selection of tasks favors AMD versus Intel. The answer is quite simple. I have used the same benchmarks over the past few months in a variety of reviews which were not AMD vs. Intel because of their suitability and the quality of the programs. If they turn out to yield better scores with the Athlon than with the P4, then this is neither coincidence nor done on purpose. It's just life.

In reality, the picture is not quite as lopsided as it might appear. It would be if it weren't for SIS and the 645 chipset that saves the P4 the crown at least in Quake3 Arena and Caligari 4.2 D3D animation, even if the margin is getting rather small.

AMD 761 vs. VIA KT266A

One justified question after reading this review should be why AMD sent out their samples together with the AMD 761-based Gigabyte GA-7DX mainboard instead of using a VIA KT266A-based board. If the purpose of the review samples was to justify the QuantiSpeed Architecture, one should assume that brand loyalty-based interests in their own chipset should be neglected in favor for what really makes the CPU look better. There is, however, a simple explanation, at the time when samples were sent out, there were no production boards with the KT266A chipset available. It is understandable that, instead of taking a risk with a last minute shipment or, even worse, pushing out the introduction of the new CPU, the configuration shipped was the most appropriate compromise.

QuantiSpeed: Exaggeration or Selling Short?

Based on raw performance, it is clear that the performance of an Athlon XP 1800+, in most cases is more than a match for the Intel P4 at 2GHz. At the QuantiSpeed rating of 1800+ MHz, even in Quake3 Arena, the Athlon XP almost pulls even with the Pentium4 on the i850 chipset and with overclocking to 1656 MHz which would be the equivalent of roughly a 1950+ CPU, the Athlon XP clearly surpasses the P4 2 GHz in performance. That is, with the exception of the SIS 645 chipset which is the only factor holding up the crown for Intel at this point, at least in some benchmarks.

When it comes down to FPU intensive applications like raytracing in Caligari TrueSpace 5.1, there are no more questions, though. Even a standard Thunderbird 1200 outruns a 2 GHz P4, not to mention the lower speedgrades. This is an important issue. The benchmark scene is really the bare minimum of what professional designers would use as a warm-up. Most electronic artwork is orders of magnitude more complex than the scene shown and rendering can take hours. Even though it is clear that a dual CPU solution is the way to go in this environment, the XP 1800+ comes dangerously close to the Tiger MP scores and at this point, there is no telling what the MP1800+ would be able to achieve.

The other increasingly popular hobby with high demand is video editing and again, the Athlon XP, regardless of chipset, is plain and simple in a different league. This doesn't mean that the Pentium4 is slow, it certainly is not but the Athlon XP is faster even using the QuantiSpeed rating and not by just a few percent but by about 28 % if the theoretical value of 1950+ is compared to the fastest P4 score achieved on the SIS 645 reference board. The benchmark file is only 50 MB with a run time of 2:30 min. For most users, video editing is a matter of hours of rendering and, again, the performance advantage of the Athlon XP can be translated not into seconds or minutes but into hours of time saving.

Overall, the verdict is that the IPC factor is probably set too conservative but frankly, it doesn't matter what value is the basis, the main criticism remains, it can be criticized and disputed. With the legacy of the Cyrix PR rating it is a matter of time until however unfounded comparisons with Cyrix will be used against AMD. The approach is honest as far as honesty exists in this business but it can be discredited too easily. I am sure we will all enjoy the circus of the different PR departments over the next few months.

next page:    => More =>