HardwareBanter

HardwareBanter (http://www.hardwarebanter.com/index.php)
-   Nvidia Videocards (http://www.hardwarebanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   WOW! $160 Athlon 64 3000+ beats $825 P4 3.2 EE in Doom 3! (http://www.hardwarebanter.com/showthread.php?t=54781)

JK August 8th 04 02:03 AM

WOW! $160 Athlon 64 3000+ beats $825 P4 3.2 EE in Doom 3!
 
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2149&p=7


Granulated August 8th 04 02:56 PM

On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 21:03:28 -0400 JK meeped :

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2149&p=7


how do they turn off the 60FPS cap ?
--


) ___ ______
(__/_____) /) (, / )
/ __ _ (/ _ /---( __ _/_ _
/ (_(_/ (_(__/ )_(_(_ ) / ____)(_(_/ (_(__/_)_
(______) (_/ (


Jeff B August 8th 04 05:38 PM



JK wrote:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2149&p=7


This is a bit misleading. While the AMDs are at the top
of the chart, it is only by a small margin at high resolution.


GTS August 8th 04 08:50 PM


"Jeff B" wrote in message
news:5GsRc.93905$8_6.87253@attbi_s04...


JK wrote:
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2149&p=7


This is a bit misleading. While the AMDs are at the top
of the chart, it is only by a small margin at high resolution.

I think you missed the point - there is only a small margin in performance,
but a huge difference in price. Even if the performance was slightly worse
with the AMD, at under 20% of the price of the Intel, it's a no-brainer as
to which gives the best bang for the buck...



Jeff B August 9th 04 12:06 AM


I think you missed the point - there is only a small margin in performance,
but a huge difference in price. Even if the performance was slightly worse
with the AMD, at under 20% of the price of the Intel, it's a no-brainer as
to which gives the best bang for the buck...


You're looking at the wrong comparison. I run a $140.00 P4 northy at
3.4Ghz. What competitive AMD chip is going for $28.00??

Jeff B





JK August 9th 04 12:16 AM

A $140 P4 at 3.4 ghz? How much did the water cooling setup cost? Even
with water cooling, many might not be able to reach that. Besides which,
one could also overclock an Athlon 64 if they are inclined to.

Jeff B wrote:

I think you missed the point - there is only a small margin in performance,
but a huge difference in price. Even if the performance was slightly worse
with the AMD, at under 20% of the price of the Intel, it's a no-brainer as
to which gives the best bang for the buck...


You're looking at the wrong comparison. I run a $140.00 P4 northy at
3.4Ghz. What competitive AMD chip is going for $28.00??

Jeff B





Jeff B August 9th 04 01:10 AM



JK wrote:
A $140 P4 at 3.4 ghz? How much did the water cooling setup cost?


$50.00, and it's air cooled.

Even
with water cooling, many might not be able to reach that.


Many can and do reach that with air cooling.


Besides which,
one could also overclock an Athlon 64 if they are inclined to.


Of course. I'm comparing an aircooled P4 to an Air cooled
AMD 64 bit. Both running at full speed, also known as 'overclocked'.
My point is, given the chart on Anands site, the numbers are pretty
close at hi res (1600x1200) for virually all 'Intel vs AMD' comparisons
one could make. The original poster singled out the freak atypical
example which of course doesn't count because nobody would
choose that one.

Jeff b


JK August 9th 04 01:16 AM

Many people run games at lower resolutions to get higher frame rates. That is
not
unreasonable.

Jeff B wrote:

JK wrote:
A $140 P4 at 3.4 ghz? How much did the water cooling setup cost?


$50.00, and it's air cooled.

Even
with water cooling, many might not be able to reach that.


Many can and do reach that with air cooling.

Besides which,
one could also overclock an Athlon 64 if they are inclined to.


Of course. I'm comparing an aircooled P4 to an Air cooled
AMD 64 bit. Both running at full speed, also known as 'overclocked'.
My point is, given the chart on Anands site, the numbers are pretty
close at hi res (1600x1200) for virually all 'Intel vs AMD' comparisons
one could make. The original poster singled out the freak atypical
example which of course doesn't count because nobody would
choose that one.

Jeff b



Jeff B August 9th 04 01:51 AM



JK wrote:
Many people run games at lower resolutions to get higher frame rates. That is
not
unreasonable.


And even more people want their games to look good.

Jeff B


JK August 9th 04 02:11 AM

That is even more of a reason to get a good cpu to use with a good
video card.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2149&p=1

Jeff B wrote:

JK wrote:
Many people run games at lower resolutions to get higher frame rates. That is
not
unreasonable.


And even more people want their games to look good.

Jeff B




All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:55 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HardwareBanter.com