AMD Briefly Shows Off Zen “Summit Ridge” Silicon

[Mr.Scott]

Won't take all day. HWBot.org
Or I can just show you a few benches if you'd like. I have an extensive hardware library of both platforms.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

Won't take all day. HWBot.org

That's not a link to an actual bench. Are you lazy or just ignoring me?

 

[Mr.Scott]

Just an example but it proves the point.
Now shut your pie hole.

 

[cdawall]

Again, if you're talking same time frame, same price point single cores that are significantly faster at gaming as has been implied, post up benches from legit sites, and I'll eat my hat, but so far you're just tootin your horn.

All I've seen thus far is a link to a bench that admits AMD's answer was at best equal to it.

Oh hush, how about the single core non-hyperthreaded Athlon 64 3500+ beating the dual core Pentium D and P4 630 with hyperthreading?

 

[Frag_Maniac]

@ Mr Scott,
Those are syn benches, not actual game benches, and I won't even bother comparing price and time of release until you stick to that format. So I'm sorry, but shut YOUR pie hole until you can pony that up.

@cdawal,
None of those are P4 Northwood vs AMD single core benches, and again, the one already shown that fits that criteria was only equal to it. The P4 630 was Prescott, not Northwood.

Seems those defending AMD always cling to anything BUT the actual topic at hand. They seem to share the same kind of denial that has caused AMD themselves to decline.

 

[cdawall]

@cdawal,
None of those are P4 Northwood vs AMD single core benches, and again, the one already shown that fits that criteria was only equal to it.

No they are better performing P4 prescott vs AMD single core.

 

[Mr.Scott]

Oh please...............
Not even wasting my time. Points were proven and because you don't like it you'll find anything you can to cry about.
Don't waste my time.
Syn. bench or gaming won't make a bit of difference.
I even spotted the P4 a whole GHz. for the example.

 

[Dent1]

Again, if you're talking same time frame, same price point single cores that are significantly faster at gaming as has been implied, post up benches from legit sites, and I'll eat my hat, but so far you're just tootin your horn.

All I've seen thus far is a link to a bench that admits AMD's answer was at best equal to it.

Budget AMD Sempron 1.8GHz outperforming the "high end" Northwood 3.2C and Prescott P4 3.0E

Hmm so a expensive high end CPU cant outperform a low end CPU with 50% the clock

It takes a 3.2Ghz Prescott (P4E) to match a budget AMD Sempron 1.8Ghz by a 0.2 frames per second. hmm.

You mean the Northwood 3.2GHz (P4 3.2C) loses to a 1.8GHz Sempron. Hmmm

"Next we have all of the Pentium 4s that manage to offer middle of the road performance under Doom 3, although we do see the K8 based Sempron 3100+ (1.8Hz) wedged in between the Prescott 3.2 and Prescott 3.0GHz CPUs."
- Keep in mind Northwood is SLOWER than Prescott.

Link: http://www.anandtech.com/show/1419/7

 

[Frag_Maniac]

No they are better performing P4 prescott vs AMD single core.

Yeah, which shows you've not been following the discussion. I already acknowledged Prescott was weak, but stated P4 was not holistically, because the Northwoods performed quite well against AMD in the time prior to Prescott, and so far no one has been able to refute that.

- Keep in mind Northwood is SLOWER than

Only because it was released well BEFORE it dummy, and so far the only AMD chip bench shown here from that time frame and price point clearly shows it running equal to the AMD chip.

Pretty much every other bench shown here is regarding chips that were released well after the Northwood. Are you guys so dense that you don't know NO chip can remain dethroned? I mean my God, it's like you're oblivious that it's a constantly changing industry.

This only further proves those defending AMD will stoop to unfair comparisons out of their denial.

 

[cdawall]

Yeah, which shows you've not been following the discussion. I already acknowledged Prescott was weak, but stated P4 was not holistically, because the Northwoods performed quite well, and so far no one has been able to refute that.

Since we want to complain about not using the northwoods.

and the Athlon 64 smokes it....the prescott, northwood etc they all fucking suck.

 

[Dent1]

Since we want to complain about not using the northwoods.

and the Athlon 64 smokes it....the prescott, northwood etc they all fucking suck.

The Athlon XP 3000+ is only 2.1Ghz and still whooped the Northwood at 3.0GHz!

 

[Frag_Maniac]

The Athlon XP 3000+ is only 2.1Ghz and still whooped the Northwood at 3.0GHz!

OMG, the time warp and total disregard for apples to apples comparisons here is mind numbingly boring.

Let me clue you in cupcake, since you don't seem to know. When a chip runs faster on way lower frequency, guess what, it's more modern architecture.

THIS is the only relevant link to a bench that's been shown so far, because it pertains to the AMD chip that came out right after the Northwood. http://techreport.com/review/3289/pentium-4-northwood-2-2ghz-vs-athlon-xp-2000/11

Note that it's a 2000 model, and it's only equal to it. The 3000 was made WELL after.

I'm laughing and face palming at this point guys. It's unfair the Northood was even PUT in that bench, and the only reason it was is to give perspective on how the tech industry had evolved since Northood's fairly admirable run. So in a way, it even BEING in that bench is a sign if anything that is was a respected chip in it's time, not the rubbish you make it out to be.

I could do the same with Intels that came out well after the Athlon 3000s, but I'm not going to waste my time being silly.

 

[Mr.Scott]

Clock for clock then.
http://hwbot.org/compare/processors#1317_1,232_1-7,15

Both released in 2002
P4 2.0 Northwood price at release $365
AXP 2600+ price at release $297

All verifiable at CPU World

 

[NdMk2o1o]

I just walked into 2004.....

OMG, the time warp and total disregard for apples to apples comparisons here is mind numbingly boring.

Let me clue you in cupcake, since you don't seem to know. When a chip runs faster on way lower frequency, guess what, it's more modern architecture.

THIS is the only relevant link to a bench that's been shown so far, because it pertains to the AMD chip that came out right after the Northwood. http://techreport.com/review/3289/pentium-4-northwood-2-2ghz-vs-athlon-xp-2000/11

Note that it's a 2000 model, and it's only equal to it. The 3000 was made WELL after.

I'm laughing and face palming at this point guys. It's unfair the Northood was even PUT in that bench, and the only reason it was is to give perspective on how the tech industry had evolved since Northood's fairly admirable run. So in a way, it even BEING in that bench is a sign if anything that is was a respected chip in it's time, not the rubbish you make it out to be.

I could do the same with Intels that came out well after the Athlon 3000s, but I'm not going to waste my time being silly.

You asked for this, are you just trolling?

I could do the same with Intels that came out well after the Athlon 3000s, but I'm not going to waste my time being silly.

No, don't do that, you're happy enough wasting other peoples time being silly .

 

[RejZoR]

By that logic, no one should ever compare GTX 1080 to R9 Fury X. Ever. Because they aren't released the exact same month of the year. And yet everyone compares them and no one is bothered by that. They are still competing products...

 

[cdawall]

OMG, the time warp and total disregard for apples to apples comparisons here is mind numbingly boring.

Let me clue you in cupcake, since you don't seem to know. When a chip runs faster on way lower frequency, guess what, it's more modern architecture.

THIS is the only relevant link to a bench that's been shown so far, because it pertains to the AMD chip that came out right after the Northwood. http://techreport.com/review/3289/pentium-4-northwood-2-2ghz-vs-athlon-xp-2000/11

Note that it's a 2000 model, and it's only equal to it. The 3000 was made WELL after.

I'm laughing and face palming at this point guys. It's unfair the Northood was even PUT in that bench, and the only reason it was is to give perspective on how the tech industry had evolved since Northood's fairly admirable run. So in a way, it even BEING in that bench is a sign if anything that is was a respected chip in it's time, not the rubbish you make it out to be.

I could do the same with Intels that came out well after the Athlon 3000s, but I'm not going to waste my time being silly.

Ok so you want to compare literally the oldest P4's out or just northwood was acceptable?

There is the XP2100+ which was the last of the Palominos. That would be the generation of Athlon XP's released in 2001. Which predates the Northwood series released in 2002. The series you apparently forget is the Willamette's released in 2000. There were released on socket 423 and were aimed to beat the Athlon "thunderbirds"



Oh and the P4 Northwood 2.4/2.6/2.8 were released May 2003, almost a full year behind the October released Thoroughbred AXP 3100+. The 3.4ghz king of Northwoods was released in Feb of 2004 5 months after the Athlon XP 3200+ "Barton".

To spice it up a bit Clawhammer/Newcastle were both released in December of 2003. Even the cheapest of those chips beat the best of the Northwoods.

I would honestly suggest you look into the history of these chips before posting what years things were in.

 

[TheHunter]

In that leaked cinebench15 benchmark it showed 2x faster vs FX8370, I assume multi threaded part. And ~ 70-80% overall by single threaded (including that mentioned 40%),

Imo it should easely rival Ivy-Haswell or even Skylake by single threaded and i7 5960x multi threaded.

 

[Frag_Maniac]

Oh and the P4 Northwood 2.4/2.6/2.8 were released May 2003, almost a full year behind the October released Thoroughbred AXP 3100+.

LOL, delusional or from illegit source. Wikipedia states P4 Northwood as a Jan 02 release, and the Athlon XP 3000 shown in the prior benches as a May 03 release, which is accurate.

Like I said, the only credible comparison shown so far was the link to the Athlon 2000 vs P4 Northwood, which were close to same time of release, and equal in performance. Anything else is BS.

It's always going to be possible to find comparison benches with chips that didn't release in the same time frame, but it's pretty irresponsible to imply they're apples to apples comparisons.

 

[cdawall]

LOL, delusional or from illegit source. Wikipedia states P4 Northwood as a Jan 02 release, and the Athlon XP 3000 shown in the prior benches as a May 03 release, which is accurate.

Like I said, the only credible comparison shown so far was the link to the Athlon 2000 vs P4 Northwood, which were close to same time of release, and equal in performance. Anything else is BS.

It's always going to be possible to find comparison benches with chips that didn't release in the same time frame, but it's pretty irresponsible to imply they're apples to apples comparisons.

Wikipedia says what?

 

[Mr.Scott]

You think CPU World is an illegit source?
Come back and talk when you know WTF you're talking about.
Jesus.
You HAVE to be trolling.

 

[Grings]

Nothing netburst was ever anywhere near Thoroughbred-b or Barton in anything but synthetic benches and at 1ghz+ higher clockspeed

And it was a far larger performance gap than the one between amd and intels current offerings

 

[cdawall]

Lets look at the original P4's as well since those are being ignored

 

[Mr.Scott]

And let's make sure to ad insult to injury by showing PIII's beating P4's. lol

 

[Kanan]

Netburst is the greatest shit like ~ever - a succeding architecture which lost to his predecessor (in a way, because Core architecture is based somewhat on P3 architecture). Bulldozer was very bad, yeah, but Piledriver made it actually a "OK" architecture. Also it got better over the years with games utilizing more cores - P4 was worser every day and the Pentium D was useless, because games simply didn't use more than 1 core, exception maybe 1 or 2 games, for example F.E.A.R. Also games today are much more GPU limited than in P4 and Athlon times - but it is so, because both FX + Core architectures are actually strong enough to feed them. As to why P4 is crap and Piledriver is not, Piledriver can manage - P4 could not really manage (that good). It was simply inferior, a handicap, a bottleneck to the system, which Piledriver is not, if used properly and clocked high enough.

Coming from a (ex) owner of Athlon 700 / 1333 TB / 2000+ PM / Athlon 64 X2 3800+. I had my laughs at Intel over the years (expensive shit, I was a pupil in school and had better CPU than the 2000-3000 DM company machine of my dad with a P4 2000), and when I had to switch because my Phenom II couldn't do BF4, after nearly 5 years, I painfully switched to Intel, AMD's offering was simply not good enough and I dislike high power consumption.

 

[Dent1]

Clock for clock then.
http://hwbot.org/compare/processors#1317_1,232_1-7,15

Both released in 2002
P4 2.0 Northwood price at release $365
AXP 2600+ price at release $297

All verifiable at CPU World

Frag Maniac. You conveniently ignored this post by Mr. Scott