Information

Dear forum members,
We are delighted to inform you that our forums are back online. Every single topic and post are now on their places and everything works just as before, only better. Welcome back!



Discussion

Discussion on Article:
Massive Attack: Performance Tests of 14 Processors Priced at $200+

Started by: NexusPlexus | Date 02/01/04 01:26:21 PM
Comments: 26 | Last Comment:  01/20/08 04:47:23 PM

[1-1]

1. 
To be fair, this test should have included the FX-53 or the 3.2E should NOT have been overclocked to 3.4 Gig. If Intel can't deliver the real chip, and from any number of sources they can NOT, then it's not really right to O/C the 3.2 Gig. via a 212 MHz FSB and show it in this review. A 212 MHz FSB quad pumped 3.2E is gonna be faster than the real 3.4E @ 200 MHz FSB quad pumped.

Certainly the FX-51 could have had the FSB increased to run close to 2.4 Gig. clockspeed and it would easily surpass the 3.4E's performance. The O/C'd 3.4E is really not a 3.4E, so it should not have been included, IMNHO.

From the review:

"Since Intel is now experiencing some problems with the supplies of the new Prescott based processors with 3.4GHz core clock, we didn’t manage to get this processor for our test session. That is why we used Pentium 4 (Prescott) 3.2E GHz overclocked to 3.4GHz by increasing the bus frequency to 212MHz in order to obtain the performance numbers for the analysis. This way, all the results for Pentium 4 3.4E on the diagrams correspond to 16x212 work mode. The memory in this case worked at 424MHz, however, the timings were reduced to 2.5-3-3-7.

In all other cases the memory (unbuffered and registered) worked in the same mode with the timings set to 2-3-2-6."



As far as best bang for the buck, INMHO the A64 3000+ is the clear winner UNLESS you want the absolute fastest system on the planet in which case you'd want the FX-51 or FX-53 to be released VERY soon...
0 0 [Posted by:  | Date: 02/01/04 06:49:53 PM]
Reply

[1-1]

Back to the Article

Add your Comment