Slashdot Mirror

Or if you don't have the time to do all the research, word has it that it is pretty safe to trust the guides at anandtech.

I think their Overclocked System Guide is especially handy if you want to get the most bang for your money. Although it hasn't been updated in over a month, which is rare.

Or if you don't have the time to do all the research, word has it that it is pretty safe to trust the guides at anandtech.

I think their Overclocked System Guide is especially handy if you want to get the most bang for your money. Although it hasn't been updated in over a month, which is rare.

Here.

They had a review of MCE2k5 (and MythTV) and Myth vs. MCE2k4).

They had a review of MCE2k5 (and MythTV) and Myth vs. MCE2k4).

They had a review of MCE2k5 (and MythTV) and Myth vs. MCE2k4).

<a href="http://anandtech.com/">AnandTech</a&g t ; and <a href="http://howardchui.com/">HowardChui.com</a&gt ; (Mmm... chewy)

<URL:http://anandtech.com/> and <URL:http://howardchui.com/>

<a href="http://anandtech.com/">AnandTech</a&g t ; and <a href="http://howardchui.com/">HowardChui.com</a&gt ; (Mmm... chewy)

<URL:http://anandtech.com/> and <URL:http://howardchui.com/>

Read Anand's excellent report from Taiwan on how "915 and 925X Express ushered in a new era for personal computer hardware" etc:

"Intel seems to have learned from their 925X and 915 chipset launches - multiple fundamental technology changes without performance gains don't go over well."

"The problem is that right now, no one wants 915 motherboards - they simply aren't selling well at all (925X boards aren't doing any better; I leave them out of this discussion because they are generally much lower volume boards, 915 is the mainstream product so that's what matters). "

And to answer the question from the this article's blurb:

"On the AMD side things are much simpler; just about every single motherboard manufacturer has a nForce4 solution for AMD as their high end Athlon 64 platform. In fact, NVIDIA is quickly turning into the Intel of AMD chipset manufacturers, which is something we've been asking for ever since the introduction of the Athlon.

Although there is a lot of support for ATI's upcoming chipsets (you'll read about them here next week), almost all the manufacturers were saying that their ATI products will be Intel-only. The worry is that with such a strong competitor in the Athlon 64 realm that their ATI products won't sell; there's also a lack of confidence about ATI's ability to supply their South Bridges. Whether or not the fears are well founded, none of the motherboard manufacturers expressed much interest in an ATI Athlon 64 chipset just yet. We'll see what happens next week, there may just be a few changed minds."

Industry Update - Q4-2004: AMD adds SSE3 Support, Intel's 925/915 not selling and more

For those that don't know, Intel's current dual-Xeon chipsets (E7520 and E7525) share a single 800MHz front side bus between both CPUs. AMD's Athlon MP platform has had dual, independent front side buses since 2001.

Anandtech also has a reveiw up. I haven't taken a real close look, but I think they actually compare performance with the ATI chipset with an early nForce4 board.

Oh, I dont suppose you are refering to PCWorld Bench?
AnandTech

Yeah, I know. Reading the article is tough, but some of us have to do it. More info here: PCWorld

I've heard this complaint many times, but I'm beginning to think that Tom's Hardware may simply feature insane reviewers and article authors. The results in the benchmark suite to which I linked are a bit odd(in particular are the rather stunning Doom III results which are wildly different than the ones features not long ago in Anandtech's Doom III CPU shootout), but what is most noteworthy is that the author is not at all enthusiastic about the 3.46 ghz P4EE in his conclusion. If he truly was biased towards Intel, or if everyone at Tom's was thusly biased, you'd think he'd try to spin the benchmark results as a major victory for the EE.

I think Intel knows that they are not going to get a lot of kind press today.

I think Intel has put this launch where they think it can do the least amount of damage by actually being noticed.

Intel's new Pentium 4 3.46 Extreme Edition processor touting its 1066MHz FSB and supporting 925XE chipset bring nothing new to the table in terms of real-world performance.

"Is this a paper launch?" Quite frankly, I don't know, and I don't see any real reason to care.

So there you have it folks - the 1066MHz FSB does absolutely nothing for performance.

We can only wonder what Intel is thinking, releasing an entirely new chipset just four months after they released the original. Either the 1066MHz FSB is going to make its way to CPUs faster than we have anticipated, or Intel has just introduced the world's first useless FSB improvement for the next 9 months.

But given that Intel isn't planning on ramping clock speed up too high anytime soon, we'd say that the 1066MHz FSB is best left for late next year, when more useful implementations of it will appear.

anandtech shows a 1% increase in speed over 800mhz fsb in most cases, is this really something to get excited about? will this difference open up in the future?

Try this review if you don't like it.

Anandtech
Ars Technica
BBC Science/Nature
BBC Technology
CNET News
Nature Science Update
Slashdot
Space.com
SpaceWire
Wired News

Look at it this way. I just bought a FX5900 in January. I can't remember what I paid, but I know I saved up for a while. Now they have these 68oo thingies. They are only about a cunt-hair faster than mine, but they support more cool stuff like pixel shaders and bump mapping.

Also, Nvidia must have really taken a step backwards to have knocked bump mapping out of the FX series, considering that environment bump mapping has been in cards since the Matrox G400, and embossed bump mapping was basically there since x86 3D cards existed. The lack of pixel shaders in the GeForce FX series surprises me, but considering how awful the reviews were I'm not surprised.

Yeah it does good on SPEC (page 8) then proceeds to come in dead last on basically every other benchmark (pages 9 to 13).

Not so impressive as you are implying...

Page 5 says that JDS's apps and kernel are "fairly dated," but Sun designed JDS as an enterprise operating system with tech support from Sun. Thus, "workstation stability is paramount." Maybe JDS is like a workstation version of Debian "stable." JDS may not have the latest features and performance tweaks, but it's more stable and easier to support.

Also, for those who want the whole article on one page, here's a link to the one-page version:

Sun's w2100z Dual Opteron Workstation (1-page version)

Yeah it does good on SPEC (page 8) then proceeds to come in dead last on basically every other benchmark (pages 9 to 13).

Not so impressive as you are implying...

Page 5 says that JDS's apps and kernel are "fairly dated," but Sun designed JDS as an enterprise operating system with tech support from Sun. Thus, "workstation stability is paramount." Maybe JDS is like a workstation version of Debian "stable." JDS may not have the latest features and performance tweaks, but it's more stable and easier to support.

Also, for those who want the whole article on one page, here's a link to the one-page version:

Sun's w2100z Dual Opteron Workstation (1-page version)

The results of the SPEC benchmarks (Page 8) look quite impressive, from a cursory look at the graphs (more=better). It seemed to outperform RH9 and SuSE9.1 on most of them.

Quite an extensive review IMHO.

The results of the SPEC benchmarks (Page 8) look quite impressive, from a cursory look at the graphs (more=better). It seemed to outperform RH9 and SuSE9.1 on most of them.

Quite an extensive review IMHO.

well, if you're talking about computer human interface (which we are, because this is about Jef Raskin), what you've said is not true. that's not what a review by Anand said when he reviewed his new PowerMac G5.

p.3 and p. 4 are particularly pertinent:

The fundamental difference between OS X and Windows is how applications and windows are handled. What OS X has going for it is uniformity between applications and windows; for example, the keyboard shortcut for the preferences dialog in any OS X application is Command and the "," key. So, regardless of what application you're in, the same keystroke combination will have the same expected effect - pretty useful.

Check the whole article out. There are some things he's got wrong, but not surprising for anyone whose just switched to a totally new platform.

well, if you're talking about computer human interface (which we are, because this is about Jef Raskin), what you've said is not true. that's not what a review by Anand said when he reviewed his new PowerMac G5.

p.3 and p. 4 are particularly pertinent:

The fundamental difference between OS X and Windows is how applications and windows are handled. What OS X has going for it is uniformity between applications and windows; for example, the keyboard shortcut for the preferences dialog in any OS X application is Command and the "," key. So, regardless of what application you're in, the same keystroke combination will have the same expected effect - pretty useful.

Check the whole article out. There are some things he's got wrong, but not surprising for anyone whose just switched to a totally new platform.

The 1990's called, they want your facts back. If anything, lately its Intels P4 generating more heat overall. Anandtech has a useful article on the issue http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx? i=2026

You can refer to recent story on Slashdot Particuly Anandtech comparison. If you want to compare performance : AnandTech (same article) or ExtremeTech.

So don't think Intel had any interest in low power consuption, they were for the gagihertz race. Now tings are changing, they canceled everything (think of 4Ghz) to work "around" the CPU. They surrender to AMD. Race for Gigahertz is over. Dual core is the way to go, particularly specialysed ones.

If you want to reduce your CPU temperature about 20deg C try Athcool on GNU/Linux. It shuts down northbridge went idle. Obviously, you lose 5% performance, but it's your choice. It can be activated at will!

By the way, I'm talking about desktop.

You can refer to recent story on Slashdot Particuly Anandtech comparison. If you want to compare performance : AnandTech (same article) or ExtremeTech.

So don't think Intel had any interest in low power consuption, they were for the gagihertz race. Now tings are changing, they canceled everything (think of 4Ghz) to work "around" the CPU. They surrender to AMD. Race for Gigahertz is over. Dual core is the way to go, particularly specialysed ones.

If you want to reduce your CPU temperature about 20deg C try Athcool on GNU/Linux. It shuts down northbridge went idle. Obviously, you lose 5% performance, but it's your choice. It can be activated at will!

By the way, I'm talking about desktop.

AnandTech's tour of Abit's Chinese facility.

[...] how big of an impact is SLI going to be in the coming months for gamers?

Well, if you read the Anandtech article you would have seen that on page 9 http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx? i=2249&p=9 is were the comprehensive game reviews begin. The second Benchmark on that page is the Half Life2/CS: Source Video Stress Test (VST) benchmark. The top of the line AthlonXP 3200+ (about the fastest socket A proc.) is 34% slower than the lowest performing Athlon64. That is all in 32 bit mode btw. On top of that, Valve has already anounced that they will be releasing a 64 Bit port of Half Life 2/Source some time after the release of HL2. Now Valve hasnt been the model of reliability but the possibility is there for a future boost to your performance. Finally, the Socket 939 platform has legs for the future, its gonna be around for a while. The Socket A platform is very close to the end of its life. The only real advantage that you get with Socket A is that mobo's can be found for cheap, however, if your like most gamers you probably dont want a generic cheap mobo so the cost here may be closer than you realize. Bottom line, pick up an Athlon64 3000+ or 3200+ cpu and a nice socket 939 board. Add a good mid-range graphics card like the 6600GT or the X700 Pro and about 512 of DDR RAM and you will have a very nice HL2 gaming rig. mickes

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=22 49

This is a major overhaul of the aging nforce3 chipset.. Check it out.

Expect a flurry of new advances by the end of the year.

I am ready to buy a new Linux system and am pulling hair out trying to make the best choice. Due to Linux compatibility issues (and mixed experiences with nforce2), I cannot really consider nforce4 so it will be Via for me. Though Nvidia will likely get the nod for graphics.

The 90nm chips are a mixed bag at the moment.

It's not extremely fast, but a 1.5 GHz Pentium M isn't that slow, either. I don't know the exact equivalent here, but I guess depending on the application and of course the overall system it should be as fast as a P4 2 GHz or even 2.5 GHz.

This page and this page of an Anandtech review (September 2003) shows two 1.5GHz Pentium M notebooks keeping up with a 2.4GHz Pentium 4 in Winstone 2003 and SYSMark 2002. A 1.6GHz Pentium M notebook was faster than the 2.4GHz Pentium 4 in all but the Pentium 4-optimized Internet Content Creation SYSMark 2002 (Photoshop 6, Premiere 6, Dreamweaver 4, Flash 5, Windows Media Encoder 7).

However, this page shows that the Pentium M notebooks had slower hard drives (4200-5400RPM), slower graphics (ATI "Mobility" and Intel integrated), and sometimes less memory (256MB). In comparison, the hip-e has a 7200RPM hard drive, (apparently) a desktop Radeon 9700 graphics controller and 512MB of memory.

It's not extremely fast, but a 1.5 GHz Pentium M isn't that slow, either. I don't know the exact equivalent here, but I guess depending on the application and of course the overall system it should be as fast as a P4 2 GHz or even 2.5 GHz.

This page and this page of an Anandtech review (September 2003) shows two 1.5GHz Pentium M notebooks keeping up with a 2.4GHz Pentium 4 in Winstone 2003 and SYSMark 2002. A 1.6GHz Pentium M notebook was faster than the 2.4GHz Pentium 4 in all but the Pentium 4-optimized Internet Content Creation SYSMark 2002 (Photoshop 6, Premiere 6, Dreamweaver 4, Flash 5, Windows Media Encoder 7).

However, this page shows that the Pentium M notebooks had slower hard drives (4200-5400RPM), slower graphics (ATI "Mobility" and Intel integrated), and sometimes less memory (256MB). In comparison, the hip-e has a 7200RPM hard drive, (apparently) a desktop Radeon 9700 graphics controller and 512MB of memory.

It's not extremely fast, but a 1.5 GHz Pentium M isn't that slow, either. I don't know the exact equivalent here, but I guess depending on the application and of course the overall system it should be as fast as a P4 2 GHz or even 2.5 GHz.

This page and this page of an Anandtech review (September 2003) shows two 1.5GHz Pentium M notebooks keeping up with a 2.4GHz Pentium 4 in Winstone 2003 and SYSMark 2002. A 1.6GHz Pentium M notebook was faster than the 2.4GHz Pentium 4 in all but the Pentium 4-optimized Internet Content Creation SYSMark 2002 (Photoshop 6, Premiere 6, Dreamweaver 4, Flash 5, Windows Media Encoder 7).

However, this page shows that the Pentium M notebooks had slower hard drives (4200-5400RPM), slower graphics (ATI "Mobility" and Intel integrated), and sometimes less memory (256MB). In comparison, the hip-e has a 7200RPM hard drive, (apparently) a desktop Radeon 9700 graphics controller and 512MB of memory.

OK.

OS X, runs smoothly on a G3 700MHz, it runs smoothly on a G4 400MHz, a G4 1GHz won't leave you waiting in any application including Alias' Maya. Hence you don't need a dual 2.5GHz G5 to 'test' OS X, a second hand mac is usually just fine to try it out.

Although the performance of OS X on the dual 2GHz G5 system that I'd been running was definitely acceptable, there is definitely room for improvement. The overall responsiveness of the system was decent, but go back to using a top-of-the-line PC in Windows for a few minutes, and you definitely feel a bit sluggish on the G5.

I would purchase Mac OS for x86 and give it a try. I would not dump Linux for it, buy I would certainly dump MS Windows. Maybe Apple should rethink their business and make software their "cash cow" like MS did (it has made MS billions). I bet Apple would make tons more cash with the x86 market then they could ever dream of. It could also be a selling point for their proprietary hardware. I am sure that if people used Mac OS x86 and really liked it that some of them would make the switch from x86 to Apple.

12 pages, all of them slashdotted, the print command runs some MS-only WinOpen script that doesn't work in Safari

Note the difference between the http addresses of first page of the article and the 1 page version.

First page: http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2232

1 page version: http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2232

Just replace everything between ".com/" and ".aspx?" with "printarticle"

12 pages, all of them slashdotted, the print command runs some MS-only WinOpen script that doesn't work in Safari

Note the difference between the http addresses of first page of the article and the 1 page version.

First page: http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2232

1 page version: http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.aspx?i=2232

Just replace everything between ".com/" and ".aspx?" with "printarticle"

As a nice companion to this Doom3 Linux release, there's also a Linux gaming benchmark article on Anandtech.com this morning:

http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2229

It's more of an AGP GPU on Linux comparison, but the information on some of the setup was, for a Linux newbie like me, a little informative. I had considered doing a Linux installation on my A64 gaming machine (using a separate hard drive) and installing some of the Linux versions of games that are mentioned in the article.

I'm curious, though -- do most of the mainstream game Linux versions come on the CD-ROM or have to be downloaded from the developer? Doom3, for example, requires the Windows CD for adding some files to the Linux installation. Enemy Territory is standalone. What about Jedi Knights: Jedi Academy, as mentioned in the Anandtech article? On the CD-ROM? Or a free download without requiring anything from the original Windows CD-ROM?

Anyway -- a good article. I enjoyed seeing information about gaming on Linux. Now, I just gotta get an Nvidia card so I don't have to struggle as a Linux newbie with the ATI driver installation.

IronChefMorimoto

<a href="http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/linux/gp u_roundup/fps.csv">CSV file</a>

<URL:http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/linux/gpu _roundup/fps.csv>

<a href="http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/linux/gp u_roundup/fps.csv">CSV file</a>

<URL:http://images.anandtech.com/reviews/linux/gpu _roundup/fps.csv>

Another issue that we came across with ATI's was the lack of 64-bit Linux drivers. ATI has no 64-bit drivers for Linux, yet they have 64-bit Windows binaries. Thus, our benchmarks are limited to 32-bit binaries only.

Read..

According to these benchmarks, a 64-bit Athlon actually runs games FASTER under the current 32-bit version of Windows XP than under Windows x64 with the latest beta drivers and such. Some games saw as much as a 35% decrease in framerate under the 64bit windows beta.

This just goes to show that we can't really evaluate 64-bit apps on 64-bit platforms (except linux) until we have both an OS and final release drivers.

Although things like that do take up substantial computing power, todays 64bit proccessors aren't going to have an easier time doing it then the 32bit counterparts.

You were saying?

Seems to me that nowadays you need to compromise.
You can have a 6-bit LCD with 12ms response time (like the Samsung 172X (with the LTM170EX panel) or an 8-bit LCD with 16ms response time.

It's possible to get Doom 3 playing fairly decently on very modest hardware. On my setup:

• 1.4 GHz Pentium IV
• 384 MB RAM
• GeForce2 Ultra

...I was able to lower the settings and tweak away until I got Doom 3 benching at a steady 25 fps average. That's without pulling out the übertweaks, and I'm sure that others could do better anyway.

I then bought an ATI Radeon 9600 Pro based on performance/price advice (thanks be to AnandTech) for £70.98 (~$128.04, plus we're ripped off here in the UK), and I'm now getting ~30 fps benchmark averages on higher settings, with a modest overclock (ATITool be praised). In-game is jumping between ~20-60 fps. Looks like I'm a bit CPU-bound here from here on though.

http://anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=21 39&p=7

For the record, I have a 900MHz Celeron. Those were good processors. Nortwood Celerys just plain suck.

Secondly, EM64T processors are expensive, server-oriented Xeons.

It wouldn't make much sense to compared them with cheap desktop Athlon64s.

It would make perfect sense to compare socket 939 Athlon64s to EM64T Pentium 4s on 925X chipset, but I don't think EM64T P4s are easy to get without purchasing a whole workstation (oddly, boxed EM64T P4s are available in Japan). Can't Anandtech mooch a CPU from Intel for review purposes?

Notice in the benchmarks, for example the first one, both the Fx-53 and the 3800+ beat all the intel processors. Thus two AMD 2.4GHz beat a 3.0, 3.4, and a 3.6GHz intel processors. Thus, the slower processors beat the faster processors.