AMD Athlon64 benchmark released
 

http://www.tbreak.com/forums/showthread ... adid=19317

That's a damn good score

What a friggin' b00n this guy is. Intel released their Itanium-II 64-bit chips at least a year ago. They haven't been put in PCs because there isn't software to justify them yet and they're waiting on a 64-bit Windows OS. But they've been in business machines for months. Athlon hasn't scooped anyone, they're still - and always will be - behind Intel in the speed race. Hope they keep up their "But hey we're cheap" campaign while their chips keep melting down.

Didn't realize they were running it off of a Mickey Mouse setup, the motherboard is on the floor with water cooling tubes running into the GPU. Funny looking, that Quake III test was killer though.

24 frickin thousand?! Sweet bejebus, my super-d00per calculator just gets 16,000, and its a P4 3.06 533FSB, RADEON 9800 128MB, 1024MB PC333 DDR RAM, and WinXP!

Today's top of the line system with a P4 would probably get about 19,000 - 20,000. I'll agree thats a good score man.

PS: I thought all the Athlon+ chips were 64-bit chips with the extra cache memory? Dunno, I don't follow AMD that much.

Go AMD! Show 'dem muthafuckaz who be teh boss!!!11

(I smell a intel Fanboy).

ok

Opterons have been running as buisness solutions for the past 6 months. They literally rip the shit out of any xeon that tries to touch them. for the itaniums...........By the time release is set for home use AMD will be way farther ahead with the clawhammers (Athlon64). /AMD "was" at one time, the big dog over intel performance wise, but recently instead of wasting the funds and efforts to keep pumping out the fastest home use CPU they are instead looking at a budget market. Price vs Performance. as for your little Meltdown comment the new Barton cores run much cooler then the new 800fsb chips from intel. The heat was only an issue with the palamino core. I'm not saying go on ahead and buy AMD it all just depends on what you have and what you need. No need to be a fanboy and totaly excuse AMD from being in the picture at all. Both are Great. Both have their place. Period.

[quote="Short Hand":25bcd]AMD "was" at one time, the big dog over intel performance wise, but recently instead of wasting the funds and efforts to keep pumping out the fastest home use CPU[/quote:25bcd]

Nice try. GG, though.

Intel has always been ahead of AMD. It took them months longer than Intel to release a chip past the 2.0ghz mark. Itaniums have been out longer than the AMD64 AND outperform the AMD64. Like I said, Intel is just not releasing the chip until they have software to support it, UNLIKE Athlon. Athlon is making a desperate grab at trying to gain in the market. Intel is pummeling them, considering that Intel already has chips in pre-market testing that exceed 5.0ghz.

[quote=Noctis]Nice try. GG, though.

Intel has always been ahead of AMD. It took them months longer than Intel to release a chip past the 2.0ghz mark. Itaniums have been out longer than the AMD64 AND outperform the AMD64. Like I said, Intel is just not releasing the chip until they have software to support it, UNLIKE Athlon. Athlon is making a desperate grab at trying to gain in the market. Intel is pummeling them, considering that Intel already has chips in pre-market testing that exceed 5.0ghz.[/quote:312b9]


before the 2ghz mark.'

amd reached the 1ghz mark first. they were dominate for about 1 year until intel released the 2ghz chip. But even then almost ALL gaming magazines still preferred AMD for their top systems. Look at the january 2002 issue o f pc gamer if you need proof. I still prefer AMD over intel even though both are great. consider this. i can pick up "2" 2500+ barton cored athlons for 180 or I can spend 177 on "1" 2.4 p4 system. Now this is where the bang for the buck part comes in. If AMD offers these types of prices and most buisness's are building dual cpu servers then who do you think wins it out ? Now consider the home market. Most clients don't want a a 3ghz cpu they just want a computer to get there shit done, like email etc. Even though AMD is still not targetting the bleeding edge speed market of gamers they still hand out some pretty serious power like the 3200+ barton. Again I end this they both are great , but just because they are not targetting in the same places doesn't mean their worse. Itaniums stilll have no i repeat no formal benchmark scores by non funded intel organizations liek the hardocp.com. Remember all the fake scores and boasts put out by Nvidia for the 5800 ? This is the exact same thing. While on the other hand AMD A64 has been tested by non AMD such organizations so what we see from it is "real" . Also the Itanium is no wear near in the near future for release. while the Athlon 64 is less then a month away. sep23rd official. Both are great but AMD is just smarter. Done my rant.

just to add to the above^ the early bird gets the worm.

So much mis-information in this thread.

Dont confuse the 64 servers with 64 pc cpus.

I have also heard that intel has had their 64bit pc cpu ready for months, they just didnt want to have to drop the prices on thier lameduck p4 line before they really needed to. Now that amd is about ready, to release their 64bit cpu, expect the silence treatment from intel to end.

Intel has always been a bit better than amd performance wise. For a long while, they were marginally faster and substantially more expensive. Lately, they are widening the gap in performance and closing the gap in price. I hope amd can get a bit more competitive with the new chips. Just to keep intel honest.