Mobile XP2600+ : OCing tests finished

wvjohn · Post by **wvjohn** » Tue Mar 16, 2004 2:09 pm

hehe - tried 210 and lost my boot partition

VidmanII · Post by **VidmanII** » Tue Mar 16, 2004 2:26 pm

Originally posted by wvjohn
hehe - tried 210 and lost my boot partition

fresh install I hope. :laugh

you have the 12.5 multi?

eGoCeNTRoNiX · Post by **eGoCeNTRoNiX** » Tue Mar 16, 2004 2:40 pm

Originally posted by wvjohn
hehe - tried 210 and lost my boot partition

Well, at least you only lost your boot partition.. heh..

wvjohn · Post by **wvjohn** » Tue Mar 16, 2004 3:41 pm

fresh install = having to reload all those programs which i can't even find copies of any more

not likely

I'll see if I can get in one way or another and do a restore

smb · Post by **smb** » Tue Mar 16, 2004 8:02 pm

What are your Sandra scores for;
CPU Multimedia benchmark ?
CPU Arithmetic Benchmark ?
Memory Bandwidth benchmark ?

I'm curious . For comparison, I'm running
P4 2.6c at 3029 ( 233x13)
P4P800 DLX
1g 3700 DDR Memory (2.5,3,3,8)

CPU Multimedia benchmark = Integer iSSE2 11811 it/s .....Floating-Point iSSE2 15030 it/s

CPU Arithmetic Benchmark = Dhrystone ALU 7559 MIPS.....Whetstone FPUiSSE2 1705/3876 MFLOPS

Memory Bandwidth benchmark =
RAM Int Buffered iSSE2 Bandwidth 5066 MB/s.....RAM Float Buffered iSSE2 bandwidth 5192 MB/s

wvjohn · Post by **wvjohn** » Tue Mar 16, 2004 8:25 pm

here's some sandra off my dell 400sc
2.8c/512mb/200x4 fsb/9700 pro

arith
7320
2897/5311

mm
18299/26399

memory- go figure

2633/2639

VidmanII · Post by **VidmanII** » Tue Mar 16, 2004 11:26 pm

Originally posted by smb
What are your Sandra scores for;
CPU Multimedia benchmark ?
CPU Arithmetic Benchmark ?
Memory Bandwidth benchmark ?

I'm curious . For comparison, I'm running
P4 2.6c at 3029 ( 233x13)
P4P800 DLX
1g 3700 DDR Memory (2.5,3,3,8)

CPU Multimedia benchmark = Integer iSSE2 11811 it/s .....Floating-Point iSSE2 15030 it/s

CPU Arithmetic Benchmark = Dhrystone ALU 7559 MIPS.....Whetstone FPUiSSE2 1705/3876 MFLOPS

Memory Bandwidth benchmark =
RAM Int Buffered iSSE2 Bandwidth 5066 MB/s.....RAM Float Buffered iSSE2 bandwidth 5192 MB/s

These are w/ Sandra '03. What kind of vid card you running on that Intel rig? I'm curious to see what kind of 3dmark '01-SE scores you get with a similar vid card. I'm using a 9800pro.

smb · Post by **smb** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:18 am

I'm using a 9700 Pro. But later this week I will get my 9800 Pro so we will do some more comaprisons.

I'm gonna run my stuff again at 235 this time, so I will return with screenies shortly.

OK, so here goes;

smb · Post by **smb** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 12:36 am

I wonder if you get higher Arithmetic and Multimedia benchmarks because of the higher FSB. Does 9 mhz make that much of a difference ? I can say oen thing. Intel motherboards sure are optimized for memory. Of course I just noticed that HyperThreading is turned off on my motherboard.

VidmanII · Post by **VidmanII** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 8:04 am

Originally posted by smb
I wonder if you get higher Arithmetic and Multimedia benchmarks because of the higher FSB. Does 9 mhz make that much of a difference ? I can say oen thing. Intel motherboards sure are optimized for memory. Of course I just noticed that HyperThreading is turned off on my motherboard.

It's what's known as IPC or instructions per clock cycle. AMD chips are quite simply more efficient, using less MHz to get the same amount of computations done.

If you look at the PR or performance rating shown on Sandra, you'll see the AMD is showing 3700 and change, despite being at a 500 MHz diasadvantage. Whereas the Intel is at 3300 or so. This the case whether the AMD is running 244FSB or 166FSB. You'll see that if you look back in this thread to the benches I posted running the Mobile XP @ 2.6 GHz ( 15x173FSB) on VIA KT600 mobo. The PR is still thru the roof, checking in at 3778 or so.

As far the memory bench, you'll notice that Intel's FSB is 4x235 ( quad pumped 940MHz ) whereas the AMD platform is "only" 2x244 or DDR488. Taking that into consideration, and the higher Mmedia and CPU scores, it leaves me wondering just what the the heck these Intel chips are doing with all that "extra" bandwidth?? For example if you slice your mem #s in half you'd be looking at approx 2700/2700 @ DDR470.

If you really want to see the difference AMD's superior IPC makes, clock your chip back to default 2.6 GHz ( I'll spot you the extra 43 MHz

) and THEN run the CPU and Mmedia benches. You aren't gonna like what you see.

For my money, and that's a big consideration in that the AMD chips are substantially less expensive, Intel's P4 line has been a big disappointment. I haven't had the inclination to buy any Intel CPU since the 1gig P3. Now THAT was a kickass CPU !! Since then, I think they've relied more on their marketing department than their chip designers. AMD has not only closed the gap since the P3 days, but with the Barton cores and now the Clawhammers ( 64-bit thingys ), they've surpassed Intel with superior chip designs.

Take the present day 2.6 GHz Celerons for example. There's a design that is so pathetic that a 1.4 AMD Tbred, or even Duron, literally mops the floor with it in CPU and Mmedia benchmarks. To me that is nothing short of fraud since "Joe Blow" on the street is going to walk into Best Buy looking for a shelf bought, proprietary PC and say......"Gee Martha, there's a 2.6 GHz system we can get and it will do all this wonderful stuff like Intel's ads show on TV!" .......uh, no it ain't.

They'll probably never know the difference, but again, it's just another expamle of how Intel seems to be content with clever marketing ploys rather than using their HUGE resource advantage to design and produce excellent products like they did in the PIII days, at a price point that EVERYONE can afford.

That's what keeps me from buying anything of theirs at this point in time. After all, why pay more for 2nd best?

smb · Post by **smb** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 9:42 am

I do understand the IPC difference, and well, the longer pipeline of the P4 doesn't really help. I have a Barton 2500+ at 2365 (215x11).

I was just curoius and talking out loud when I asked the question. In any case, I'm off to newegg to buy some goodies

VidmanII · Post by **VidmanII** » Wed Mar 17, 2004 9:52 am

Originally posted by smb
I do understand the IPC difference, and well, the longer pipeline of the P4 doesn't really help. I have a Barton 2500+ at 2365 (215x11).

I was just curoius and talking out loud when I asked the question. In any case, I'm off to newegg to buy some goodies

I hear ya. If you have the Barton ( sweet OC on that btw. ) you know the score. It's not to say Intel chips stink or that they don't perform well in certain apps. It's more the ruse being perpetuated by them that clock speed is the "end-all", when it's clear that's it's not, that rubs me the wrong way.

Frankly, I wish AMD would get some CPU's out that MATCH Intel's current clock speeds and blow the lid right off the whole sitaution !!

This performance rating baloney can be confusing even to enthusiasts. let alone the general public.