@Spectacle

EDIT and I just notoced he is comparing a 3.4Ghz CPU to a 2.2Ghz AMD ...And it's still losing!! 1,200Mhz faster, and it still can't keep up!

That my friend, definitely SUCKS!...lol.

This only further illustrates my point, they are indeed horrible, (Pentium's that is.....)

 

Yup same here, went from p4's>a64>and now core 2 duo.

Personally I am not a fan on both sides. When I first owned the pentium d, I think it was the 3.0 if I aint mistaken, It ran so hot at idle that even my E6600 at 3.81ghz lil load on it with 1.6V ran cooler*using thermalright ultra-120 wi/120mm panaflo fan. Pentium d that I was using at the time had this cooling: AS5, thermalright XP-120 w/120 mm 12v fan along with it. Plain and simple the pentium d's deserves a high quality watercooling in order to keep the temps reasonable. And if you look at the performance with an a64 2.4 vs an p4 3.73 ee edition, the 2.4 is maybe a lil faster. but look at the speed differences. 2.4 vs 3.73. and now the conroe's. I heard that intel made the whole p4,etc line all oboselte cause of the conroe's. I was looking at a certain benchmark that even an fx-55 cpu is faster then a 4.8ghz p4 cpu or maybe more. Cant remember the site it was on. But I belive it.

 

pentium 4's do indeed suck. my athlon 64 at stock (1.8ghz) kills my friends pentium 4 which is a 2.8 ghz model. and overclocked it kills the 3.4 ghz model.
they were a pretty bad line of procs but with the conroes intel seems to have gotten back on track.

 

I also heard from someone that this is intels desperation move. If this wasnt going to work for them, intel would fall. But like some say: If anyone is going to beat amd its intel, if anyone is going to beat intel its amd. Not unless someone comes out of the blue and whipes the floor clean. Someone at work told me this cpu that had 128mb of l2 cache. Standard clock speed for theses cpu are 8ghz+ I Think thats what he told me at work. I checked out on google and I found something on it but couldnt read the language. If the company that he told me at work refreshes my mind I will post it later.

 

What are you talking about? 128mb L2 cache? 8Ghz?

Your friend is blowing smoke up your @ss. One of the main reasons we are moving to a multi core architecture is because after about 4Ghz the heat becomes too much and the energy wasted is ridiculous, not to mention the cooling needed. Adding more cores was the only other logical thing to do to increase processing power. 8Ghz? I think not....

At least check the world record for an OC'd processor was about 7Ghz And that was a suicide run (meaning that processor was destroyed in the process) with ln2 and it was cooled to lower than -200C.

 

Well considering IBM has tested silicon to its maximum @ 500 ghz. Someone also told me this at work and I never belived it till searched it on google and wow. But Still heard to belive. Link to it:http://news.com.com/Chip+breaks+speed+record+in+deep+freeze/2100-1006_3-6085568.html?tag=nefd.top

 

I've seen that two but that is not a desktop processor, and that is want I was referring to.....should have clarified.

 

So much for up my @ss LOL. I hope your not gay man. But try to google about that 8ghz cpu. And NO I didnt belive the guy at work when he told me, I wanted to google it for myself and took awhile to find it. I found something about the 8ghz,etc cpu but it was all in a different language.back to intels topic: Do you really think this was intels last move in order to get back on the top if not it they would fail?

 

I believe that Intel had to do something to regain their #1 status. Do I think it was a desperation move? No, even when they were being beaten by much lesser clocked AMD CPU's, they still managed to out sell AMD by a huge margin.

And google returns nothing about an 8ghz CPU, in any language....

 

I think we can all agree that the pentiums are not the best solution for gaming. Especially at certain times during a game when things get rough on a cpu, your fps will drop to unplayable vs. not dropping at all with an oc'ed conroe. But the thing I think bigpipe was saying was that they can still be 'passable' in alot of situations.

I would still recommend anybody running a pent system to upgrade cause I'm pretty sure 07 is going to be the year cpu's(especially dual and quad-core) become VERY important to gaming. Who knows though, it could all be hype.

 

Well even the computer store around my way even said we sell a64's 100/1 for gaming. Of course. Ask any hardcore pc gamer when a64's and p4s were around and all will say the samething, a64's. Vast majority uses a64's for gaming at that time and thats no exception.

 

True, A64's are superior gaming chips vs. pent 4.

 

You're speaking about a niche group. People with highend gaming rigs or gaming rigs in general are not the majority. For every gaming rig that was sold, there were 1000 Dell, or gateway systems sold to the average consumer with a pentium as the CPU. Intel definitely was not on the way out

 

Not only that,fars my experience all together they run cooler as well and performs so much better. But Like I said: If your the type of gamer playing at sick resolution, gpu is going to the main key ingriedent. I did several testing at sick quality settings,etc and cpu speed that I owned during testing had no effect, Depending on the game though. You guys prob heard my fear testing at 1600X1200, with sick quality settings on with an amd 64, and the other testing with an intel conroe or the oblivion one. Its in the forum.

 

Although Spec and I disagree on overclocking, i have to back him up on this one. The P4, although alright for general apps, just doesn't stack up to the competition of its time. The P4 architecture is crap and even at high clock speeds, doesn't perform very well.

The benchmarks dont lie.....the P4 is like stale swiss cheese. Hey, its not a pop shot at a P4 owner, I can admit a C2D smokes my Athlon X2. Im still satisfied with my processor though.

 

See? We can get along :cheers:

 

Thank you Pappi, you seem to be the only one who got it.:mad2: Spot on. I would not reccomend a P4 to anyone either.

 

"Passable"? I and many others apparently don't see "passable" as a 3.4Ghz CPU being beaten by a 2.2Ghz one. That's a 1200Mhz difference! And is most certainly not "passable"

Sorry Bigpipe, no hard feelings, but the P4's suck for gaming when you compare what you can get from the competition at a much lower clock speed and cooler temps

 

Games with smp patches like for quake4 shows quite of bit peformance increase IF the resolution is like 1024X768. if its like 1600X1200 = barely any gain. I hope this isnt the case for next year vista games. I want to see performance increase by quite a bit when using a dual core cpus in theses upcoming vista games when set at high resolution,sick quality settings. I just have to wait and see till it arrives. next year is going to be a fun year for technology.

 

Does anyone know if/when cell processors will be out? i would like to see how having pretty much unlimited # of cores would be in games.

but I hope AMD quad cores are better than intels. I would hate to have to go back to them