I rarely post, but this was so damn funny...

[Redah]

Here we go. I had to dig up the 3000+, but succeeded.

In the meantime I tested my own PC (ofcourse the fastest of the bunch):

Then my laptop (clearly, the slowest of them all):

Then the 2500+ (which was slower than I expected, but this could be because the system was installed with loads of crap).

And then the 3000+, put in a KT400A mainboard with 1GB of Corsair XMS memory:

It's not much but... jay!

 

[Redah]

Then it would seem to me that I would have a "decent rig" afterall, huh? 1 second is like next to nothing. I'm going to disable my HT in the bios and see what happens.

True, but: This XP 3000+ is from about the same time as your PC. So if we'd go back 2 years and we both would have had this system, the XP3000+ would have won, even with the low busspeed.

 

[Redah]

BY THE WAY, you might want to remove the product key from your Windows' system tab. Perhaps it's a work license, perhaps not, either way, not smart to put it on the net

 

[Redah]

Then it would seem to me that I would have a "decent rig" afterall, huh? 1 second is like next to nothing.

IF, however, we would ran a test with your CPU and your GFX card of that time (both outdated) and my CPU and GFX card of that time (also both outdated), you'd be in for an even worse spanking

Oh and, why do you keep editing all of your posts?

 

[Eagle]

Wow, my system came real close to yours considering mine is 200MHz slower. I didn't think that would happen, Redah whats your memory like on that system?

 

[Redah]

Wow, my system came real close to yours considering mine is 200MHz slower. I didn't think that would happen, Redah whats your memory like on that system?

I have very basic memory in this system, it has absolutely nothing fancy like the Corsair XMS modules I used to use all the time. They cost me 1/3 of a Corsair module as well, and I figured that it was better for me

But the reason our specs are so close together, I guess, is because the speed isn't that much difference, plus you have a Venice core (good choice!) which is already 'better' and 'newer' than the Winchesters.

 

[Eagle]

I have very basic memory in this system, it has absolutely nothing fancy like the Corsair XMS modules I used to use all the time. They cost me 1/3 of a Corsair module as well, and I figured that it was better for me

But the reason our specs are so close together, I guess, is because the speed isn't that much difference, plus you have a Venice core (good choice!) which is already 'better' and 'newer' than the Winchesters.

Ah, well also I was pointed to some really low latency memory so that probably helps. I had thought the Winchester was a better core, but I've fallen behind in the technology so everything between my Athlon 2000+ and this one I have no idea about.

 

[General Plot]

IF, however, we would ran a test with your CPU and your GFX card of that time (both outdated) and my CPU and GFX card of that time (also both outdated), you'd be in for an even worse spanking

Oh and, why do you keep editing all of your posts?

Well, disabling HT hindered my results by about 12 seconds, so it's clear to me that the higher bus speed (achieved only through HT) still makes a difference, even when an app isn't optimized for dual core cpu's, the bus still plays a big role. So, just say what I want to hear you say, a P4C is still a pretty decent chip. My FX5200 may be a bottle neck in graphics apps (at least til that 6600GT gets here), but it in no way takes away from my cpu the raw power that it packs. And dude, can we make a truce? We both made some good points, at least I think we did, and unlike what AMD and Intel are willing to do, we put them side by side and had a cpu decathlon (lmao notice decATHLON). I'm willing to agree both companies offer good chips.
P.S. I edit my posts so as not to clutter a page on a thread with new posts. I thought this was the proper 'nettiquette'.

 

[Clements]

This has been interesting, I wasn't sure how the Pentium 4 C would stack up to the AthlonXPs, but it looks like a 3000+ is enough to beat it, both at stock, in a fair test.

In summary:

1] 43.204s [Redah, Athlon64 3500+ @ 2.2GHz]
2] 43.297s [Eagle, Athlon64 3200+ @ 2.0GHz]
3] 46.484s [Clements, AthlonXP 3200+ @ 2.3GHz]
4] 47.156s [Redah, AthlonXP 3000+ @ 2.17GHz]
5] 48.313s [generalplot, Pentium 4 'C' @ 2.4GHz]
6] 57.953s [Redah, Mobile Sempron 3000+ @ 1.8GHz]
7] 1.06.938s [Redah, AthlonXP 2500+ @ 1.84GHz]

 

[cooliscool]

SuperPi and Prime95 benches on my [email protected]. :whistling

 

[Redah]

Well, disabling HT hindered my results by about 12 seconds, so it's clear to me that the higher bus speed (achieved only through HT) still makes a difference, even when an app isn't optimized for dual core cpu's, the bus still plays a big role. So, just say what I want to hear you say, a P4C is still a pretty decent chip. My FX5200 may be a bottle neck in graphics apps (at least til that 6600GT gets here), but it in no way takes away from my cpu the raw power that it packs. And dude, can we make a truce? We both made some good points, at least I think we did, and unlike what AMD and Intel are willing to do, we put them side by side and had a cpu decathlon (lmao notice decATHLON). I'm willing to agree both companies offer good chips.
P.S. I edit my posts so as not to clutter a page on a thread with new posts. I thought this was the proper 'nettiquette'.

That's agreed. But I won't say what you want to hear me say

 

[Redah]

This has been interesting, I wasn't sure how the Pentium 4 C would stack up to the AthlonXPs, but it looks like a 3000+ is enough to beat it, both at stock, in a fair test.

In summary:

1] 43.204s [Redah, Athlon64 3500+ @ 2.2GHz]
2] 43.297s [Eagle, Athlon64 3200+ @ 2.0GHz]
3] 46.484s [Clements, AthlonXP 3200+ @ 2.3GHz]
4] 47.156s [Redah, AthlonXP 3000+ @ 2.17GHz]
5] 48.313s [generalplot, Pentium 4 'C' @ 2.4GHz]
6] 57.953s [Redah, Mobile Sempron 3000+ @ 1.8GHz]
7] 1.06.938s [Redah, AthlonXP 2500+ @ 1.84GHz]

And you have way too much time Nice graph though

 

[General Plot]

SuperPi and Prime95 benches on my [email protected].

It's no question a 3000+ A64 would beat a stock 2.4C..

I'm happy that it got that close to an XP3000+. Goes to show it's closer in performance than some may have thought. Leads me to believe a 2.6 could probably take it at stock.

 

[General Plot]

That's agreed. But I won't say what you want to hear me say

Just acknowledge that it's a decent rig, and I'll be happy. Even if you don't want to say it And no hard feelings, ok?

 

[t0rek]

I'm getting almost 50 seconds with my A64 3000+. I'm too lazy to post the pic, but it's true. I'm sure that I'm doing something wrong, what could it be? I think it's weird for me to get this results...

 

[otomo]

Just acknowledge that it's a decent rig, and I'll be happy. Even if you don't want to say it And no hard feelings, ok?

What ?! No respectable man will openly acknowledge somebody else`s dick to be *decent*.

 

[General Plot]

What ?! No respectable man will openly acknowledge somebody else`s dick to be *decent*.

Actually, you're looking at it the wrong way. I see my PC as a sort of child you might say. I built it, put work in it and all of that for performance. So I take an insult to my rig almost as deeply as I would if someone were to insult my daughter.

 

[Clements]

I'm getting almost 50 seconds with my A64 3000+. I'm too lazy to post the pic, but it's true. I'm sure that I'm doing something wrong, what could it be? I think it's weird for me to get this results...

An Athlon64 3000+ should get 47 secs in the test according to this what I nicked from AMDzone. Could be poor RAM perhaps adding an extra couple of seconds.

 

[t0rek]

An Athlon64 3000+ should get 47 secs in the test according to this what I nicked from AMDzone. Could be poor RAM perhaps adding an extra couple of seconds.

Well, and maybe because all you guys have 1Gb of RAM. I only have 512.

Edit: Just 100 more posts to celebrate!

 

[ShizZy]

Not to bust the 6600 users, but that isn't too much of an impressive card either. Either go 6800 Ultra, or go x800. But don't half-ass it and go "almost" one or the other. (Reminds me, almost time to sell my 6800, 7800 is on the way )