Massassi Forums Logo

This is the static archive of the Massassi Forums. The forums are closed indefinitely. Thanks for all the memories!

You can also download Super Old Archived Message Boards from when Massassi first started.

"View" counts are as of the day the forums were archived, and will no longer increase.

☖ Forums → Discussion Forum → Ye olde tech question.
Ye olde tech question.
2010-03-10, 3:18 PM #1
Or well, slightly-less-then-recent tech question, and a simple one at that.
General perfomance wise, is an AMD Athlon XP 2600+ better then a P4 3.0 Ghz?
2010-03-10, 3:20 PM #2
No.
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2010-03-10, 3:45 PM #3
An Athlon XP 3000+ would be better than a P4 3.0ghz :)
My favorite JKDF2 h4x:
EAH XMAS v2
MANIPULATOR GUN
EAH SMOOTH SNIPER
2010-03-10, 4:00 PM #4
Generally yes, though HyperThreading will make the P4 a bit more responsive.
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2010-03-10, 4:10 PM #5
The XP 2600+ was faster than the P4 3.0ghz, even with hyperthreading, for gaming situations.
2010-03-10, 4:12 PM #6
According to whom? I looked at one benchmark, probably synthetic that found the 2600 to be faster. The P4 is almost certainly better for general use, though.
Bassoon, n. A brazen instrument into which a fool blows out his brains.
2010-03-10, 4:32 PM #7
I actually had a P4 3GHz & an XP 2600+ at the same time. I don't know which was faster because I used them for entirely different purposes. However, the Intel processor has survived & the AMD processor croaked a long time ago. Oh & RAMBUS (RDRAM) FTW! Haha!
? :)
2010-03-10, 4:45 PM #8
Originally posted by Emon:
According to whom? I looked at one benchmark, probably synthetic that found the 2600 to be faster. The P4 is almost certainly better for general use, though.

If we want to get picky, I'm giving it to my brother who will probably use it for older games and.. general use.
P4 seems to be better.
2010-03-10, 5:33 PM #9
Originally posted by Emon:
According to whom? I looked at one benchmark, probably synthetic that found the 2600 to be faster. The P4 is almost certainly better for general use, though.


Not really. Do you forget that whole period, about how the P4 was actually a pretty god-awful chip? That was around the time that AMD realized it wasn't just MHZ that made a CPU fast. It wasn't until the Pentium M came out that Intel started putting pressure back on AMD.
2010-03-10, 6:01 PM #10
Originally posted by Emon:
Generally yes, though HyperThreading will make the P4 a bit more responsive.


Not all P4 3.0ghz chips feature HT. Some of the 90nm 775 Prescott's dont.
My favorite JKDF2 h4x:
EAH XMAS v2
MANIPULATOR GUN
EAH SMOOTH SNIPER
2010-03-10, 6:02 PM #11
This one does.
2010-03-11, 6:17 AM #12
P4 is also when they made the transition from 533MHz FSB to 800MHz FSB. The first P4s had 533 & the later ones had 800Mhz. I don't recall P4s not being that great. As a matter of fact, I built my system entirely off of the Ars Technica system guide & at that time & they recommended a P4 (3.06GHz) w/ RDRAM (PC1066) over AMD. However, P4s being used in laptops (e.g. Sony Vaio K-series) was incredibly stupid because of how much heat they generated. If I remember correctly, the AMDs were only recommended over the P4s after the first line of P4s won out.

Edit: It appears that my first P4 was actually 2.8GHz, not 3GHz. When I later upgraded to a 3GHz, I think AMD was winning the race.
? :)
2010-03-11, 9:06 AM #13
AMD was kicking their ass at the time because the XP chips were half the price of the P4 chips and performed better.

As for OT, I'd go with the AMD only because I had a 2500+ Barton chip and it was untouchable at the time.
Quote Originally Posted by FastGamerr
"hurr hairy guy said my backhair looks dumb hurr hairy guy smash"
2010-03-11, 9:20 AM #14
http://ixbtlabs.com/articles2/roundupcpu/pentium4-28-athlonxp-26-mx.html

Quote:
Conclusion
Before the release of the Athlon XP 2600+ we could state that AMD lost the performance race. At present, when we have Pentium 4 2.8 GHz and Athlon XP 2600+ the situation is more complicated, but taking into account the overall scores AMD still loses. If the Athlon XP 2600+ had coexisted with the Pentium 4 2.53 GHz for a decent period of time the parity could have been noticed. But at present, from the standpoint of a pure performance, i.e. without considering frequency and price differences, Intel with its Pentium 4 2.8 GHz takes the lead.
But it's too early to bury the Athlon XP: given the slashing results of Pentium 4 2.53 GHz vs. Athlon XP 2000+/2100+ and the today's scores we can see that AMD managed to make a strong jump ahead narrowing the gap. Well, new changes can be expected only with new, faster models from both companies.
? :)
2010-03-11, 9:38 AM #15
Originally posted by Cool Matty:
Not really. Do you forget that whole period, about how the P4 was actually a pretty god-awful chip? That was around the time that AMD realized it wasn't just MHZ that made a CPU fast. It wasn't until the Pentium M came out that Intel started putting pressure back on AMD.


Which is why AMD changed their processor marketing away from MHz and to....
numbering their processors by relative performance to the clock frequency of a Pentium 4.

An Athlon XP 2600+ will, in general, have similar performance to a Pentium 4 2.6 GHz.
2010-03-11, 9:55 AM #16
here's one for you...

the P4 can run Secret of Monkey Island SE, the AMD can't (last i checked no Athlon XP can)
eat right, exercise, die anyway

↑ Up to the top!