DFI and 2.1ghz Dothan or FX-55 and Neo 2?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rippthrough

You know, I never understood this HT arguement.
I thought all that hyperthreading did was install a new instruction in a stalled pipeline, which happens pretty often in P4's because of the length of the pipelines. Now if that's right then hyperthreading is, effectively, enabled permently on an FX system because the pipelines are much shorter and, comparitively, hardly ever stall .
Am I missing something here or has the marketing man won again?

---

Ask anyone (anyone who is intellectually honest and isn't beholden to either platform) who has used both platforms. P4's multitask better. I'm not some tard who listens to "with HT technology!" on Dell commercials or QVC. Nor do I care about Intel (I do care about IBM and Apple, since my family owns lots of stock). ;)

Funny thing is, if you bench and game, FX is faster much of the time, but there actually are other things that people do with their PCs which Intel does as well or better. :p:

But in a lot of forums, there are some arrogant FX people (not referring to you) who think Intel users are dumb. Again, on both platforms, do some extensive video encoding, while doing 4 other things and playing a CD.

Some people actually use their PCs for things other than games or calculating pi! :lol:

Oh, and if I had the money, I'd run an FX (or maybe a Dothan, depending how the boards shake out) for gaming and benching and have a nice Pentium 4 for productivity - and stability. Not good to do work on bleeding-edge systems. :eek:

Well computerpro3 whats it gonna be??? :confused:

WTF? Dothan has some colossal performance flaws, A64 has the edge in most benchmarks I've seen and if you throw some science/engineering phys & math at them, the Dothan gets thoroughly trounced. I guess if you want to impress with superpi get a Dothan, if you want to do anything else and have full featured Mobo's get FX55

Thanks for everything guys, I've really been thinking about this.

It's tougher than you would think, since it's my money LOL.

With my mach1, I would hit around 3.1ghz with FX-55. I would probably be around 3 with a dothan, from what I can gather, considering the 2.1 hits around 2.7 boxed cooler. TAM got his up to 3.3ghz, but that was with dry ice i believe.

Obviously, the dothan would be faster at 3.1ghz than the AMD at 3.1ghz. Especially because it scales so well as it clocks. HOWEVER, the thing I just can't get past is the motherboard. If I had a hard press release about a full featured mobo from DFI or ASUS in my hands, I would go Dothan. But since I don't, I'm forced to go AMD. I'd rather go Dothan, but as of now, I'm leaning towards the fx-55.

I still have time to change my mind, however, up until the 15th, when I'm ordering no matter what. In case DFI is listening, REALEASE A GOOD DOTHAN FULL ATX BOARD THAT OVERCLOCKS WELL IN THE NEXT 7 DAYS!!!! :p:

Quote:

---

Obviously, the dothan would be faster at 3.1ghz than the AMD at 3.1ghz.

---

lol Faster at what? superpi like that matters.

Have a look at this dismal performance.

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/l...91256/5839.png

http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/l...91256/5861.png


Dude you don't even want to see things like CAD, Mathmatica, Winrar where Dothan would get it's ass handed to itself. There's a very good and embaressing reason Intel has'nt brought them to desktop. Get your self a Northwood if intel is your thing.. at least you get HT and better accross board performance.

first off, I don't run windos, and it is faster at gaming, which is what I do. SO I don't thihnk compiling a Linux kernel is relevant to my decision.

It is not faster in gaming. It's well with margin of error (5%) of these sites clock for clock when gaming. http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_cont...gaming&page=10

Considering it sucks at everything else, no 64 bit support and lame expensive mobos I think you'd have to be a fool to get into Dothan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zebo

It is not faster in gaming. It's well with margin of error (5%) of these sites clock for clock when gaming. http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_cont...gaming&page=10

Considering it sucks at everything else, no 64 bit support and lame expensive mobos I think you'd have to be a fool to get into Dothan.

---

LOL, nice objective opinion. Show these benches with some of the clocks people have gotten here with Dothans, like 2.8 or 2.9 on air, not to mention when the Aviso boards come out and they can go over 200 FSB. Smoke City.

You know what man. Wait for FX-57 with SSE3 instructions. FX-57 should be out as soon as Intel releases their Exreme Edition 3.73GHz 1066MHz Quad pumped bus with 2M L2 cache. My guess is that AMD will need the FX-57 to compete with that CPU. Intel should release that with the 6xx series in February as some of those CPU's have already been sampled. Both AMD and Intel are playing a cat and mouse game, so my guess is that AMD promise of FX-57 in the first half of 2005 will come sooner than later to fight off Intel's EE 3.73 with 2MB L2 cache.

With FX-57 you will have a fully loaded CPU, that will do 3.0GHz easy on air and anything above that(Vapo LS or MachII) will give you insane speeds coupled with all the instruction sets (MMX,3dNOW!+,SSE,SSE2,SSE3,x86-64) and on top of that fast transistors using SSDOI(Strained silicon directly on insulator) which are ~5% faster than normal transitors at the same clock speed. They are also highly overclockable and stable.

As for dothan, sorry 32-bit and with the pace of technology, most games will eventually take advantage of 64-bit( 16 registers compared to 8 in 32-bit) and you will be left in the dust.

As for P4, even with 64-bit, the HT(Hypertreading) is only meant for it's horrible branch mispredition penalty due to it's long pipeline. It's a hit or miss, for some application you get good performance, 5-35% maybe, for some you will get no gain. Couple of million transistors have to be included to implement the HT and the result you get is heat ala Prescot.

The 2-3 moths wait will get you a lifetime property that you will always be happy to see. AMD shock 'n' awe is a beefy FX-57 with SSDOI and SSE3.

Zebo I think your mising the point somewhat with the Dothan. Its basically a souped up P3 thats able to hold its own against chip designs two generations more advanced when playing games/certain benchmarks. It was never designed to be "the next big thing" and certainly we shouldnt expect it to blow the competition away. I must confess I for some reason didnt pick up on the fact that computerpro3 had already bought a mach1. In light of this I see no reason to go down the dothan road, simply because he'll be able to overclock with ease ANY processor! The valid point of the current dothan desktop mobos has been aired and if you need all the latest bells and whistles then thats cool, personally I dont have that kinda cash lying around so I'm more interested in the "poors mans FX" because it'll allow me to run at FX speeds in games, which is really all that matters :D. Computerpro3 I honestly doubt that anything better will be comming out soon for the Dothan, mobo wise, I personally am waiting for the aviso based systems to make an appearence to guage if DDR2 will help or hinder performance OC wise. In the meantime get a FX whatever as you sound like you need more than DFI or Aopen can offer in their current mobos.

Happy shopping :toast:

JB

When they release the Alviso, the Dothan will give you FX-like performance at half the price (or less) of an FX-55 in games. It already does with single channel memory. To say otherwise is a lie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by uclajd

Ask anyone (anyone who is intellectually honest and isn't beholden to either platform) who has used both platforms. P4's multitask better. I'm not some tard who listens to "with HT technology!" on Dell commercials or QVC. Nor do I care about Intel (I do care about IBM and Apple, since my family owns lots of stock). ;)

Funny thing is, if you bench and game, FX is faster much of the time, but there actually are other things that people do with their PCs which Intel does as well or better. :p:

But in a lot of forums, there are some arrogant FX people (not referring to you) who think Intel users are dumb. Again, on both platforms, do some extensive video encoding, while doing 4 other things and playing a CD.

Some people actually use their PCs for things other than games or calculating pi! :lol:

Oh, and if I had the money, I'd run an FX (or maybe a Dothan, depending how the boards shake out) for gaming and benching and have a nice Pentium 4 for productivity - and stability. Not good to do work on bleeding-edge systems. :eek:

---

I'm not trying to have a go at you, I was just pointing out that hyperthreading has nothing to do with the multitasking ability of Pentiums. It's probably simply down to raw mhz.

personally i'd get a 3.4 Northwood under that prommie and overclock to 4.5+ we all know northwood faster than prescott clock for clock, and also alot cheaper than dothan or an FX55.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheTrebleKing

personally i'd get a 3.4 Northwood under that prommie and overclock to 4.5+ we all know northwood faster than prescott clock for clock, and also alot cheaper than dothan or an FX55.

---

Actually, once the Pressy exceeeds 4gigs, it begins to overtake the Northy at similar clocks.

But you are right, 55's cost over $800 US. Funny how all the AMD people always come into these type of threads and tout the FXs, but you look at their sigs and it seems not one of them actually have them. :lol: I wonder why that is. $$$

I agree with the motherboards not beeing great at all on the P-M platform, but there´s just something to it having a even slower (in terms of Mhz) beating / on par with the grandfather model in the AMD army.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by uclajd

but you look at their sigs and it seems not one of them actually have them. :lol: I wonder why that is. $$$

---

:hehe: Otherwise it could be people not updating sigs often.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by uclajd

LOL, nice objective opinion. Show these benches with some of the clocks people have gotten here with Dothans, like 2.8 or 2.9 on air, not to mention when the Aviso boards come out and they can go over 200 FSB. Smoke City.

---

It's not subjective. They are within 5% of one another. Read Margin of error. Especially from some commercial site I've never heard of. Add in the fact you are overclcoking the bus on Dothan in these test and not the A64's I think it's safe to assume it's a wash. My 3000 @ FX-55 speeds is much faster than the 55 itself because of OC bus and mem. If we going to compare Dothan to A64 in gaming we need to do apples to apples. Not stock against OC.

i.e take a 1.8 Dothan vs. 1.8 A64 then start clocking them.

Quote:

---

when the Aviso boards come out and they can go over 200 FSB. Smoke City.

---

That won't help Dothans colossal performance flaws which is inside chip iself, see above a few posts.

even then, 1.8ghz vx 1.8ghz wouldn't work either. It would be something like AXP 1.8ghz vs 1.8ghz P4. I know not that extrmeme of a difference, but you get the point. They don't have the same arictechure. You would need to do something like AMD, find a model number system. saying something like a 1.8ghz processor=2000 rating or something.

jjcom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by uclajd

Actually, once the Pressy exceeeds 4gigs, it begins to overtake the Northy at similar clocks.

But you are right, 55's cost over $800 US. Funny how all the AMD people always come into these type of threads and tout the FXs, but you look at their sigs and it seems not one of them actually have them. :lol: I wonder why that is. $$$

---

You'd never hear me tout FX, it's a frekken rip off. But since he asked between those two I answered within those limits set. A64 FX simply has better all around performance and much better motherboards than Dothan.

No ones' asking but, I'd either get a northwood 3.0 or a 3200 if I had prommy. They have excellent multipliers for crazy OCing and offer best bang for the buck.