Looking back, IPC, Intel Pentium 4 vs AMD Athlon XP

[humbug]

Most of know about these two chips and their story, but just how much faster than Intel was AMD's god chip.

Have a guess....... nope, it was a lot more than that.

Part 2, Intel's Core 2, Intel takes the lead back.

 

[humbug]

Struggling with the comparisons - not exactly like for like in terms of what was available at the time

Athlon X2 6000+ (3Ghz) was Feb 2007 release date
Athlon X2 5000+ was Sept 2006

Pentium D 930 was Jan 2006
Pentium D 830 was May 2005

He did explain and show the 930 and 830 are the same chip, as are the 5000+ and the 6000+

 

[humbug]

He did explain and show the 930 and 830 are the same chip, as are the 5000+ and the 6000+

Actually i will agree he has over complicated it by testing how much the difference in the amount of cache levels makes to performance, i mean really this is unrelated and confuses it, he is one of those tech reviewers who completely over thinks things and then spends 20 minutes explaining his unnecessary and needlessly complicated reasoning.

He should have just picked the D 930 and the 5000+ and be done with it in 4 minutes instead of 20.

 

[humbug]

Yep or the comparable 2005 Athlon 64 X2 4400+ (Toledo) vs the Pentium D830.

At this point AMD still had the performance advantage, however by July 2006 the first Core2Duo chips (E6300/E6400/E6600/E6700) were released (which are the chips the X2 5000+ should be compared against), and by Jan 2007 the Core2Quad Q6600 was released which would have competed with the X2 6000+

I think that's what's coming next, he's making a series of these.

 

[humbug]

I don't think we ever really understood the real IPC difference between these CPU's ^^^^

Only proof tjat AMD is crap at selling any product.
Now they got another and possibly LAST chance to outplay Intel that messed up with 10nm process prediction.

3000 series will be Epic win if they dont mess up. All it needs is mainstream chip that will do 4.4-4.5 on all 8 cores and they have intel by balls in gaming and productivity.

If they go 12 cpre mainstream sacryficing core clock tjat is ONLY thing that zen+ is lacking. Will be like shoting themselfes in foot.

Thwy got mpst on theirs aide many would jump from intel if zen2 had more Mhz.

You are right AMD have never been good at marketing, tho i would argue they are getting better these days, still in regards to this there is so much more to it, to stop AMD making any headway with their architecture lead and benefiting from it Intel not only gave away thier CPU's to the likes of Dell but on top of that also paid them $800m a year not to use AMD's CPU's at all, thats the most extreme example but Intel were doing this with all OEM's that matter.

Now when you have your vastly larger rival with endlessly deep pockets giving away their CPU's and paying 'where it matters' not to use yours you're not selling enough of your own CPU's or making any money.

I think this did far more damage to AMD than most people realise, i do think its a direct reason as to where we are at now.

 

[humbug]

@Zeed please watch this to understand the history

 

[humbug]

The problem AMD had back in the early days of P4 was that 1.8A Northwood overclocked to 2.7ghz+ and the 2.4A to 3.3ghz+ and AMD just couldn't compete, they were the cheap alternative. They also relied a lot on crap VIA chipsets which I imagine is what put industry off (on top of anti-competitive behaviour by Intel). Athlon64 and x2 is about the time their CPU's were really attractive to top end users again.

It really didn't matter Athlon XP IPC was 2x that of the P4, the P4 was clocked that high to try and compete with Athlon but still fell well short. watch the video.

 

[humbug]

What ever it is called its what we are talking about here.

 

[humbug]

My absolute favourite overclocking CPU of 2003. I bought three of them purely for overclocking. Using Abit NF7-S mobo, pin modded socket and Thermalright copper heatsink.

All the AMD XP Tbred / Barton variants could OC a decent amount with good cooling and a decent bios (Abit). The 1700+ filled a niche where it was possible for a cheap CPU to exceed or match the top of the range processor when overclocked, 50-80% was entirely possible but I did destroy one of them through too high a voltage. Pin modding allowed higher or lower multipliers to be used.

£40 :O

 

[humbug]

Would buy you a dual core G4600 today give or take. Nothing quite in the AM4 socket yet

G4600 is $60 but for Youtube browser or a personal server for Arma III and / or Insurgency ecte... yes actually its a good chip for that price.

For an entry level Gaming CPU? no, its iGPU is useless in that sense so one would have to get a discrete GPU like a GT 1030, a GDDR5 GT 1030 mind you as the DDR4 GT 1030 is also useless for gaming, that's another £70 ontop of the £60 G4600.

So for an entry level Gaming rig the Ryzen G2200 with its 4 real overclockable cores is better than the G4600 and its iGPU is just as good as the GDDR5 GT 1030, its £100

 

[humbug]

I was noting the exceptional value of the Tbread 1700+ back in the day, £40 then ~ £60 now. An overclockable low end chip able to mix with the top end parts. No mentioned gaming graphics etc... Sometimes it feels like the CPU/GPU sections are full of chat bots

Sorry, without context i made up my own.

Beep Bop....

 

[humbug]

Intel's Core 2 added to the OP