Intel's Pentium 4 600 series

[Zebo]

LOL what is wrong with you? You're comparing to an chip that costs 80% less money! Start comparing to 3400 and 3500, K. watch the domination... especially with a $190 3400... I know intel fan boys would love to ignore " all the green bars near the top" and just "check out the chips at the bottom" but you can't do that. Many people here will buy the 630 or 3000 and clock them to 3.8 and FX levels respectivly. "Green" wins again. And it's signifigantly cheaper.

People act like the general public is getting ripped off by intel

They are.

 

[LTC8K6]

I am amazed at how people can see benchmarks whatever way they want to....... even opposite of what they are.

To each his own, Carlosd! :beer:

 

[ribbon13]

Hey Zebo , should do some dollar for dollar benchmark: P4+HT vs Abit + 244x2

I smell Serious pwnage!

 

[RZaakir]

Originally posted by: ribbon13
page 10...
My my my...

I thought Premiere was supposed to be Intel optimized

Why in the hell are sites still using Premiere 6.5? Premiere is two versions down the road now and I know that Premiere Pro doesn't even run without SSE so that might be the Intel optimization. 6.5 sucks compared to the newer versions (though the newer versions require WinXP with almost counteracts the suckage of 6.5 in comparison).

 

[ribbon13]

I'm willing to bet that later versions would be even more in AMD's favor.

 

[Zebo]

I doubt it ribbon.. That board will cost $300 which sorta does away with anything remotly close to bang for the buck.... You can get 865 boards for $80 and 775 boards for $90....

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: RZaakir

Originally posted by: ribbon13
page 10...
My my my...

I thought Premiere was supposed to be Intel optimized

Why in the hell are sites still using Premiere 6.5? Premiere is two versions down the road now and I know that Premiere Pro doesn't even run without SSE so that might be the Intel optimization. 6.5 sucks compared to the newer versions (though the newer versions require WinXP with almost counteracts the suckage of 6.5 in comparison).

Actually the A64 has SSE and SSE2 so Intel should have no advantage on those fronts...It wis just a matter if whether the pro version in HT optimized or SMP aware....By the way it is not that old!! Most companies are 1-2 versions behind cause it cost so much to upgarde multiple licenses as well as some of the changes were cosmetic and so frequent it doesn't outweigh the cost yet.....

I have the pro version so I will look into it some more...I dont have the p4 anymore so if you want to test versus my cpu let me know and send me some sort of file we can do similar things to....

 

[christoph83]

Originally posted by: Zebo
LOL what is wrong with you? You're comparing to an chip that costs 80% less money! Start comparing to 3400 and 3500, K. watch the domination... especially with a $190 3400... I know intel fan boys would love to ignore " all the green bars near the top" and just "check out the chips at the bottom" but you can't do that. Many people here will buy the 630 or 3000 and clock them to 3.8 and FX levels respectivly. "Green" wins again. And it's signifigantly cheaper.

People act like the general public is getting ripped off by intel

They are.

I think you missed the whole point of my post. I'm saying at the low end, these chips aren't as bad as everyone here says. Like I said for a gamer AMD is the clear choice, and in general overclockers.

The 630/530 perform very close with eachother, and the 530 can be had retail, for inbetween 3000 and 3200 prices. Guess what, if you look at the benches it performs pretty much on average between a 3000 and 3200, except in gaming. Not to mention there are cleary intel dominated tests. There is no reason to call me an intel fanboy. I own an a64 system currently.

Overclocking is another thing, but still check out anand's benches. Compare a 3800 to a 3.8ghz p4 or a 4ghz p4 to a 4000. The 3.8ghz and 3800 are pretty close in everything except gaming. Everything else is a mixed bag and mixture of amd/intel dominations.

I think this chip gets an unnecessarily bad rap here. With a forum full of gamers, and performance tweakers it's going to happen. But if some unknowing person walks into a best buy and wants to encode video/audio, where this chip is strongest, and picks up a 530 system or 630 system. Then how are they getting ripped off? Not everyone is you Zebo. People act like things are so black and white but their not.

I'll agree with you that these 630's are too exspensive right now over the 530 companions. But since the chip just launched I bet you'll see a drop in price over the next month or two.

 

[PetNorth]

Originally posted by: christoph83Compare a 3800 to a 3.8ghz p4 or a 4ghz p4 to a 4000. The 3.8ghz and 3800 are pretty close in everything except gaming. Everything else is a mixed bag and mixture of amd/intel dominations.

That comparation is wrong. In perfomance terms, you have to compare top model Vs top model and go down:

4000+ Vs. 570
3800+ Vs. 560
3500+ Vs. 550
3200+ Vs. 540
3000+ Vs. 530

Or with 6xx serie, perfomance comparation is, right now:

4000+ Vs. 660
3800+ Vs. 650
3500+ Vs. 640
3200+ Vs. 630


Forget mhz.

Of course, the other sense comparation is price

 

[christoph83]

Originally posted by: PetNorth

Originally posted by: christoph83Compare a 3800 to a 3.8ghz p4 or a 4ghz p4 to a 4000. The 3.8ghz and 3800 are pretty close in everything except gaming. Everything else is a mixed bag and mixture of amd/intel dominations.

That comparation is wrong. In perfomance terms, you have to compare top model Vs top model and go down:

4000+ Vs. 570
3800+ Vs. 560
3500+ Vs. 550
3200+ Vs. 540
3000+ Vs. 530

Or with 6xx serie, perfomance comparation is, right now:

4000+ Vs. 660
3800+ Vs. 650
3500+ Vs. 640
3200+ Vs. 630


Forget mhz.

Of course, the other sense comparation is price

I was talking about overclocking. A safe bet for a 3000 AMD is to hit 2.4ghz, and around 3.8 on an intel. So compare the 3.8ghz to the 3800 AMD chip. For the sake of price use a 530 vs 3000 for now. Once again let me say, im not saying the intel chip is better, I just think it needs to get a little more credit. The tone on these forums makes it sound like intel is just getting demolished and losing every test, which is not the case at all.

 

[PetNorth]

Prices (retail) in Newegg, right now:

4000+ $649 Vs. 570J $699
3800+ $429 Vs. 560J $439
3500+ $281 Vs. 550J $282
3200+ $196 Vs. 540J $230
3000+ $155 Vs. 530J $184


4000+ $649 Vs. 660 $624
3800+ $429 Vs. 650 $419
3500+ $281 Vs. 640 $289
3200+ $196 Vs. 630 $245

And now, compare perfomance/price ratio ;-)

 

[christoph83]

Originally posted by: PetNorth
Prices (retail) in Newegg, right now:

4000+ $649 Vs. 570J $699
3800+ $429 Vs. 560J $439
3500+ $281 Vs. 550J $282
3200+ $196 Vs. 540J $230
3000+ $155 Vs. 530J $184 <--- this chip performs basically where its priced according to benchmarks, EXCEPT in gaming.


4000+ $649 Vs. 660 $624
3800+ $429 Vs. 650 $419
3500+ $281 Vs. 640 $289
3200+ $196 Vs. 630 $245 <--- this chip once in drops in price is a pretty close comparison speed wise to the 3200, EXCEPT in gaming. If your a non-gamer, this chip could be a valid option once it drops to the 200 level where it should be.

And now, compare perfomance/price ratio ;-)

Cool, this will help me explain what im trying to say. An intel chip could be valuable to a non gamer, which is about 90% of the population. And even more valuable in tests that are intel optimzed. It atleast deserves that much credit, and that's all im trying to say.

 

[PetNorth]

4000+ $649 Vs. 660 $624
3800+ $429 Vs. 650 $419
3500+ $281 Vs. 640 $289
3200+ $196 Vs. 630 $245 <--- this chip once in drops in price is a pretty close comparison speed wise to the 3200, EXCEPT in gaming. If your a non-gamer, this chip could be a valid option once it drops to the 200 level where it should be.


hehe when Intel drops price, AMD drops too or viceversa ;-)

 

[christoph83]

Originally posted by: PetNorth
4000+ $649 Vs. 660 $624
3800+ $429 Vs. 650 $419
3500+ $281 Vs. 640 $289
3200+ $196 Vs. 630 $245 <--- this chip once in drops in price is a pretty close comparison speed wise to the 3200, EXCEPT in gaming. If your a non-gamer, this chip could be a valid option once it drops to the 200 level where it should be.


hehe when Intel drops price, AMD drops too or viceversa ;-)

Very true, but theres not much left to drop. But hey im all for it You drop the 3200 too much and it will be too close in price to the 3000. They will probably do what they did on the 2800 754 vs 3000 754 and keep them 25-30 dollars apart. We'll see though.

 

[PetNorth]

And from Anand test (37 benches, only 3 games):

3200+ 23 wins ; 630 14 wins

 

[PetNorth]

Originally posted by: christoph83

Originally posted by: PetNorth
4000+ $649 Vs. 660 $624
3800+ $429 Vs. 650 $419
3500+ $281 Vs. 640 $289
3200+ $196 Vs. 630 $245 <--- this chip once in drops in price is a pretty close comparison speed wise to the 3200, EXCEPT in gaming. If your a non-gamer, this chip could be a valid option once it drops to the 200 level where it should be.


hehe when Intel drops price, AMD drops too or viceversa ;-)

Very true, but theres not much left to drop. But hey im all for it You drop the 3200 too much and it will be too close in price to the 3000. They will probably do what they did on the 2800 754 vs 3000 754 and keep them 25-30 dollars apart. We'll see though.

hehehe obviously, 3000+ will drop too

 

[Duvie]

No the tone is (at least from me) is how Intel has not improved much period...

Proof!!

Look at the p4 3.46 EE...based on the same core as northwood but with added cache and it still the top dog in most all apps...even ones Intel is strong in....

That is what is sad!!! INtels whole prescott line was a step backwards and now with 333mhz more speed with the 570 and and 233mzh with the 660 they still dont beat the 3.46 EE....Heck even the 3.73ghz EE version loses in majority of test to the 3.46 EE...

I predict that it will take closer to 3.9mhz of the 6xx models to beat the 3.46 EE model and that is pathetic....

If you cant see that then you are blind!!!


The series is not a failure cause as I have said above...power consumption is lower and 64bit code was introduced...Now the jury is out how good the 64bit code is versus AMd or is it even a factor at this point absent of any final 64bit windows OS.....

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: PetNorth
And from Anand test (37 benches, only 3 games):

3200+ 23 wins ; 630 14 wins

Actually that kind of goes against what you were saying Christoph83....It appears that it is more then just gaming.....My 2.65ghz would put me in the range of 4200+ according to many ppl so that would mean I need likely a 690 to be comparable...I bet you it would take more!!!

 

[christoph83]

Originally posted by: Duvie
No the tone is (at least from me) is how Intel has not improved much period...

Proof!!

Look at the p4 3.46 EE...based on the same core as northwood but with added cache and it still the top dog in most all apps...even ones Intel is strong in....

That is what is sad!!! INtels whole prescott line was a step backwards and now with 333mhz more speed with the 570 and and 233mzh with the 660 they still dont beat the 3.46 EE....Heck even the 3.73ghz EE version loses in majority of test to the 3.46 EE...

I predict that it will take closer to 3.9mhz of the 6xx models to beat the 3.46 EE model and that is pathetic....

If you cant see that then you are blind!!!


The series is not a failure cause as I have said above...power consumption is lower and 64bit code was introduced...Now the jury is out how good the 64bit code is versus AMd or is it even a factor at this point absent of any final 64bit windows OS.....

The EE models are without question dogs. Thats why I was pointing out the low end version chips. And actually the 3.7EE beats the 3.46EE 25 out of the 37 tests. So I don't know where your saying the 3.46EE is winning a majority. I do however get your point. Intel obviously thought by extending the pipeline they could clock prescott higher but couldn't. Otherwise they probably would have enhanced the northwood core, since a 3.7ghz northwood would do better than that 3.7EE more than likely.

 

[christoph83]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: PetNorth
And from Anand test (37 benches, only 3 games):

3200+ 23 wins ; 630 14 wins

Actually that kind of goes against what you were saying Christoph83....It appears that it is more then just gaming.....My 2.65ghz would put me in the range of 4200+ according to many ppl so that would mean I need likely a 690 to be comparable...I bet you it would take more!!!

Not if you take out the gaming tests. 20 vs 14. Not to mention in a lot of those tests, the chips are with 5% of eachother, which isn't going to be noticable. What you end up with is 25 or so tests where amd and p4 low end offerings perform very similar, and the rest a mixed bag of amd dominating and intel dominating tests. And then you have gaming, which obviously is amd's domain.

I'll copy what I said from another post : An intel chip could be valuable to a non gamer, which is about 90% of the population. And even more valuable in tests that are intel optimzed. It atleast deserves that much credit, and that's all im trying to say.

 

[Duvie]

considering most p4 series chips are only 5% apart what does that say???

Spin the numbers how you see fit.....a win is a win.....to some in some apps even 5% of a whole helluva long time is a lot...


I do agree the 3200+ is better then the 630 but worse then 640...something like a 635 would do ...3.3ghz vs 2.2ghz....almost similar to their IPC.....

 

[PetNorth]

Originally posted by: christoph83
And actually the 3.7EE beats the 3.46EE 25 out of the 37 tests.

WOW A P4 with 270MHz more than other, and loss 12 of 37 tests yet. This is horrible and inconceivable, a truly failure, Prescott failure.

 

[carlosd]

Originally posted by: christoph83

Originally posted by: carlosd

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
Carlos, are you the only one who doesn't know that AMD and Intel have cross licensing agreements and willingly share and use each other's technology? They copy from each other by agreement.

Where is your outrage over AMD "copying" SSE2 & 3?

HT still isn't useless, btw.

At least , AMD is not pricing their CPUs so high only for adding intel features.

And if HT is not useless so why in multitasking tetst made by anandtech P4 CPUs are still beaten by A64 Cpus wich doesn't have HT. Will the P4 perform worse with HT disabled. ohh!! so poor, so HT is needed to barely compete against A64 CPU`S ohh so useless.

You make it sound like intel's chip loses every test, when it won 3 out of 5. Quite honestly I don't understand all the negativity in general. For gamers and performance nuts like us AMD is a clear choice right now. But for certain apps, intel still dominates.

Instead of looking at all the green bars near the top, check out the chips at the bottom. The 630 beats the 3000 a64 in EVERY audio/video encoding test, and even beats the 3400 and 3200 in some.

The 630 wins in photoshop over the 3000 and beats the 3200 in roxio. The 630 is above the 3200 in EVERY multitasking test except the first one where its within 3%.

In the General usage tests the 630 beats the 3200 3 out of 10 times, it beats the 3000 in 2 and is within 5% of the 3000 on 2 tests.

Im Rendering the 630 beats the 3200 1 out of 3 and the 3000 on another.

In workstation the 630 beats the 3000 5 out of 8 and beats the 3400 sometimes.

And where the chip is most obviously lacking, gaming, the 630 stays within 5-10% of the 3000.

I know the 630 costs more but im betting we'll see a price drop, and the 530 is pretty similiar to the 630. For 30 bucks more than the 3000. Now for gaming, its clear go amd, but for 30 bucks extra, the 630/530 are winning many other tests AND most importantly, in some that it loses, keeping close. To say this chip sucks is really uncalled for. Now on the otherhand, their EE offerings and higher end chips, those are not worth it, just like going after an FX or even 3800.

People act like the general public is getting ripped off by intel when most of their volume in desktops is more than likely in the 2.8ghz - 3.2ghz range, where these chips, according to anandtech's test, hold up a lot better than their high end offerings.

The general consensus here seems to be that these chips suck, while in gaming it does lag behind, in everything else...it does NOT. And I'm not trying to say these chips rule and you should go buy intel now. I'm just giving a well needed different perspective.

Isn't intel supossed to win all the Multitasking benchmarks because of HT, it seems like this optimization gives very little advantage over AMD.

Intel wins in certains APPS, but these certain apps are the 10% of the total APPS, and that is the point. And as you said the differences are 5% in favor of amd , but also are 5% by the intel side. So AMD wins more 5%s than intel and NOT ONLY IN GAMING. Which makes athlon a better overall CPU, also cooler and more features for less price. You have to take in account ALL the factors to define a valuable CPU.

And try to compare the perfromance of CPUs in the same price range P4 630($245 on newegg) costs 70% more than 3000+ (US$146 on newegg), try comparing it with the still cheaper 3400+($US190) the 630 has NOTHING to do, and you have to take in account another very important factor: HEAT!! 530 costs 185 but loses in ALMOST everything against the 3400+ which also runs MUCH cooler and has all the other features that intel offers for a much higher price in the 630 version.

So for encoding the 3400+ would be a much better deal than 630 and 530, accordding to AT benchmarks the in audio/video encoding tests 3400+ beats the 630 in 4 o 5 test (for US$55 less), and in 4 of 5 (for only $5 dollars more). And whips both intel CPUs in mostl the other test.

http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview...&STARTPAGE=5&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear


Conclusion: 3400+ is a MUCH better CPU overall than 530 and 630, and a better CPU in encoding and other tests like sysmark and MULTITASKING where intel is "stronger".All this for only $5 more than 530 and $55 less than 630. I really don't see the 530 or 630 being a more valuable CPU for non-gamers than a 3400+.

 

[PetNorth]

OK. Inside this thread we were talking about 0.09 Opteron's heat and power consumition.

Here we have some power consumition tests of new Opteron 252 2.6GHz Rev. E.

Looking at them, it consumes much less power than 0.13 Opteron (two Opteron 252 rev E 2,6GHz about 55W less power than Two Opteron 250 2,4GHz 0.13). Not to mention Xeon Nocona: in load Opteron 0.09 a full 100W less than Nocona 3.6).

http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=x36o252&page=4


Like I said, it is obvious that in it's 93W TDP, dual core is included.