Overclocker16 Posted January 28, 2004 Posted January 28, 2004 SMP or Symetrical Multi Processing is where you have 2 physical cpus (athlon MP, xeon, opteron). it DOES require NT, 2k, xp pro or some distro's of linux. You can also do the SMP trick on Athlon XP chips Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rein Posted January 28, 2004 Posted January 28, 2004 whats the smp trick Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigred Posted January 28, 2004 Posted January 28, 2004 all athlon xp chips prior to barton actually began thier lives as MP's. Amd just cut a few small traces to disable SMP. so in a similar fashion to unlocking the multiplier you can re-enable smp Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duff Man Posted January 28, 2004 Posted January 28, 2004 (edited) The p4 pretty much takes out every amd xp, but u cant compare a p4 to a 64fx cause the 64fx system cost more (excluding the EE). The 64fx is definetly better than the p4 EE, but i dont really want to spend money on 64 tech when nothing uses it and there is no OS for it. Â That doesnt mean if i was rich that i wouldnt blow mad amounts of cash on a 64fx rig though. No... they really dont... if you are talking about the p4 EE than yea, but aside from that they are prety equilivent... Edited January 28, 2004 by Duff Man Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adrenalinepcs Posted January 28, 2004 Posted January 28, 2004 The p4 pretty much takes out every amd xp, but u cant compare a p4 to a 64fx cause the 64fx system cost more (excluding the EE). The 64fx is definetly better than the p4 EE, but i dont really want to spend money on 64 tech when nothing uses it and there is no OS for it. Â That doesnt mean if i was rich that i wouldnt blow mad amounts of cash on a 64fx rig though. No... they really dont... if you are talking about the p4 EE than yea, but aside from that they are prety equilivent... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyberbeer Posted January 28, 2004 Posted January 28, 2004 This will turn into a long post. So I will get started now. Â First here are the two systems: Â My roommates AMD stystem: Â Asus A7N8X mobo AMD Athon 2600 XP+ 333FSB o/ced to 2.36GHz Onboard Audio Radeon 9200 Maxtor 80GB 7200RPM 8MB cache 4 Antec 80mm case fans Volcano 11 w/hs 400w Antec PSU 1.5 GB if DDR RAM, one gig in Dual channel 512MB not all Samsung PC2700 Â My Intel system: Â Asus P4P800 w/ Dual DDR Pentium 4 2.8GHz 800FSB and HT Tech o/ced to 3.5GHz Onboard Audio Radeon 9600 (had 9200) Seagate 120GB 7200RPM 8MB cache 2 Antec 120mm fans CoolerMaster Aero4 w/hs 400w Antec PSU with 2 fans 512MB Dual Channel DDR Kingston HyperX PC3000 (stupid me forgot to get 3200) Â According to PCMark04 my overall score was about 1700 higher then his with a max system score of 4794, and a max CPU score of 5287. His overall system score was 3416, and CPU was 3614 Â With Sandra CPU bench my score was 10245 Dhrystone and 4148/7063 Whetstone. His was 8415 Dhrystone and 3473 Whetstone. Â On one hand his computer opens Word/Outlook/Excel faster by maybe 1/4 of a second. While my system loads games and installs junk faster. With the HT I can also run more then one program much faster then he can. Â He would say he got a great deal for his computer and I would agree. He paid maybe $690 at CompUSA for case and all. While I paid $936 at newegg.com for everything(includes case), with overnight shipping. If I had gone to CompUSA to buy my computer I would have paid $1347. Bottom line is, and everyone knows this, it comes down to which would you rather have. Â Here is an interesting article from Forbes magizine. I only post this cause someone told me that AMD had plundered Intel in sales last year http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/15/cx_ah_0915mondaymatch.html Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NiTro^ Posted February 2, 2004 Posted February 2, 2004 (edited) always intel, i have never owned a amd (EVER), and its not because i cant stand them, i just simply never thought about getting one..i was even gonna buy a AMD until i saw how 3200+ only goes up to 2.2, yet a p4 has 3.2 ....if only amd clocked them (insert bad word here)s up higher they would make intel go outa business Edited February 2, 2004 by NiTro^ Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigred Posted February 2, 2004 Posted February 2, 2004 what the heck are you talking about? an athlon 64 clocked at 2ghz beats a P4 clocked at 3.2ghz... just proving mhz IS NOT ALL THAT MATTERS Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eva_Unit_0 Posted February 2, 2004 Posted February 2, 2004 Yeah, sheer clock speed means absolutely nothing. Mhz is a completely arbitrary measurement...it tells NOTHING about how much work the cpu is actually doing per second. For example, which card is faster, the 9700pro or the 9600xt? We all know that the 9700pro is faster...well, the 9700 has a core clock of 325, while the 9600xt has 500...why is the 9700 faster? Because it does more per clock. You intel guys can see this even within your own chips...Intel extended prescott's pipelines to 30 stages, so it does even less per clock than northwood did. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AYoKoNA Posted February 2, 2004 Posted February 2, 2004 Have to agree with you guys here... No one will even see Prescott's performance until it surpasses the 4ghz range... Thats why they EXTENDED the pipelines... so they could reach up to 5ghz with the cpu. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eva_Unit_0 Posted February 2, 2004 Posted February 2, 2004 But why does that matter? Why does Intel simply play the clock speed game? You're right that the only way they could get 4ghz+ was to extend the pipes...but we've already stated that clock speed isn't all that matters. The chip would be just as fast at lower clock speeds if they kept the pipes the same. I'll tell you why they did it: They know that the public will buy it, because the public thinks that clock speed is everything. They'll see the fact that it's running at 4ghz and instantly think it must be twice as fast as an A64 running at 2ghz...it's the uninformed ones who drive the world, right? That's the whole reason why AMD came out with the rating sytem in the first place. If they didn't, most people would never know how the processors truly compared to one another. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AYoKoNA Posted February 2, 2004 Posted February 2, 2004 Well you are going too far Eva..... Clock speed doesn't matter to an extent.... With the right FSB and High clock.... thats where ppl win with the Intel's... Thats where It shows in the marks.... (dont get me wrong when 64bit software comes out it will be a whole diff't story i have a dualie opteron server running DC just waiting for an OS...) Edit: On another note...i read somewhere they were interviewing some intel guy and he said when 64bit software comes out supposedly Intel has something for the Xeon's and P4's to become 32 and 64bit capable around the corner..I forgot the codename Im gonna search for it and post back...) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now