Slashdot Mirror

Here

yeah, it's good for when you're not over-filling your video-RAM. Otherwise taking a trip to your main RAM will take quite a bit longer than the benefits of the 64Mb version.

But I don't think it's that hard to decide, get an ultra-fast display on todays games, and slow for tomorrow's (64Mb), or fast on todays games, and average on tomorrow's (128Mb).

Check out this article

Well, the article shows (as did Anand, and others, in June) that Jedi Knight II can use the extra memory for a 10 - 25% increase in FPS. We've heard the Unreal Tournament 2003 will use more detailed textures than the demo, so 128 MB may help there, too.

Here's what Tim Sweeney says about texture caching:

"This is something Carmack and I have been pushing 3D card makers to implement for a very long time. Basically it enables us to use far more textures than we currently can. You won't see immediate improvements with current games, because games always avoid using more textures than fit in video memory, otherwise you get into texture swapping and performance becomes totally unacceptable. Virtual texturing makes swapping performance acceptable, because only the blocks texels that are actually rendered are transferred to video memory, on demand.

Then video memory starts to look like a cache, and you can get away with less of it - typically you only need enough to hold the frame buffer, back buffer, and the blocks of texels that are rendered in the current scene, as opposed to all the textures in memory. So this should let IHV's include less video RAM without losing performance, and therefore faster RAM at less cost.

This does for rendering what virtual memory did for operating systems: it eliminates the hardcoded limitation on RAM (from the application's point of view.)"

Ok, Well after reading the first hundred or so posts I've realized that most of you are strokeing your ego's and not awnsering the man's question!

Now, Simply put here are some sites that contain a lot of information to digest.
Tom's Hardware
AnandTech

Now here is a list of components to pick, and please do your self a favour and do some resarch before hand, get some do's and dont's and faq's stuck in your skull before spending any hard earned dough.

BTW I build systems on the side for the not so techniclly apt (as I'm sure many /. readers do for friends and family!).

Heres your shopping list
1. CASE w/PS (at least 350W ATX and a size you could "Grow" into)
2. Mother Board (Think long and hard about this one as it is a more important choice than even your CPU or RAM). Personal recomendations include ECS, MSI, Asus, and if you like spending money Tyan. Not to mention Gigabyte, Abit and shuttle, however if you visit the both tom's and anands they will have all the links for you with recent information and benchmarks. 3. CPU (what ever you want to spend on this will directly determine the capabilities of your system hence money=power!)
4. Ram (your options are limited by the capablilties of your motherboard.).
5. Video (again do you play video games or do you simply fart around in office all day and surf the net?). And if you play video games how much power do you need (can you afford to spend upwards of $400 on a card?).
6. Sound (Are you a musicaian, do you want home-theatre quality or is the AC'97 on the motherboard good enough for you?).
7. Optical devices (DVD, CD-ROM, CDRW, DVDRW?) again functionality direclty determined by price. DVDRW drives cost roughly $300 - $500 and the media is $4 to $8 per (and when you screw up they make expensive coasters). On the other hand I pay about 12 cents us per blank CD-R. (I purchase bulk!).
8. Storage (again price determins functionality). all drives now start at around 40GB and cost about $70 to $150.

9. Printing/Scaning (do you need a multifunction device to deal with the "real" paper world?).

10. Lastly but definitly most important! Connectivity! Will you get DSL? Do you already have a DOCSIS compliant cable provider in your area? or are you stuck with a measly little 56K modem? (I'm sorry I'm biased by my Canauk 3.5MB/s DSL.) The choice is simple if you get a modem stick with USRobitics or GVC. (both have lifetime warrenties). If you get a NIC (Network Interface Card), then you may consider weather or not you'll use the added features of a $50 3Com or weather or not a $10 Realtek will do?

Now you have a lot of foot work to do, quotes are a bitch! I only say that haveing worked in a computer store sales environment. They take time effort and forethought. You will get out of it what you put into it. If you simply think "Ok I'll get one of those dell's or compaq's and add what I need as I go!" well then you will be stuck with whatever decisions you make. Keep in mind computer parts depreceate faster than Ford Pinto's! So if you maintain a steady investment then you will have great preformance at price point that would make any scrouge druel. Stay away from used hardware unles it has a warrenty! Refurbished monitors are a huge saveings and have a one year warrenty. Realisticly you should simply say "This is my budget and this is what I need!" If you know what your doing (after all that reading!) then you'll get a killer deal. If you like you can even email me and I'll send you a quote .

A note to the rest of you /.'ers my first computoy was a crappy zenith vic clone that turned up the daisy's to a cup of tea across the keyboard. Peek and Poke are KEWL! The second system I used was a MICOM (Text ONLY! muahahah in beautiful PUKE ORANGE!), and the first color system I ever touched was a comodore 128 (with a whopping 128K). The first system I purchased (I will never buy a name brand again!) was a crappy AST (no they don't exist anymore!) and the first system I built was a 386SX, followed by a K6 266 and then an Abit BP-6 (man $70/processor and there are 2). Now I run a dual Athalon setup (Yes I render stuff and cant work without multitasking). My older computing geek friends tell me of the 'days of yore' when your 'codeing tools' consisted of a hole punch and bristol board cut to the right size, analog computers, and the first IBM/Amdhal S360's that in thier old age required physical battery to operate properly.

Google is probably an overlooked resource too. Most of the time I can find answers to my Linux questions by searching for "linux howto topicname" (without the quotes). And I have bookmark folders full of sites devoted to one or two specific topics (networking, MP3's, beginner-level Linux, CD-RW's, etc).

.. and hook up the video card.

I have a 1800 Althon system with the GeForce 4200 card that runs like a top with XP.

Although Intel would have you believe that the P4 is what makes the net "come alive", it's really your graphics card and internet connection.

As a previous poster stated, get a good case from newegg.com

I recently built my system, spending ~700 bucks and had no problems with any of the parts I purchased from them. As always, check the guides at tom's hardware, sharkyextreme, anandtech.com

Good luck and remmeber not to run on the carpet before you build it together. Personally, I never had a problem with static electricity except for one time I touched the bottom of HD and fried it. Good thing it was a work computer though :-P

2. Allocate your engineering resource to make the processor/system run cooler instead, to the point that it no longer need the active cooling measure(fan) on processor and (hopefully) whole board/system.

You mean like the Banias chip that Intel is developing?

3. Make a new small, low power, quiet PC form factor standard

You mean like Tidewater?

4. Make this combo your main production, push other heatmaker to the niche.

Now that probably isn't something that Intel is after. There isn't the money to be made in that market as their is in the high-end CPU market... at least not at this point in time. Things may change.

Anyway, long story short, there is some thought to doing what you suggest, but initially it will be all targeted towards laptop users. Maybe it'll start to bubble down to the desktop as well. I certainly wouldn't mind a TiVo/DVD/DivX type system sitting in my living room, and a full sized PC with a loud fan is not exactly what I had in mind.

Well, AMD once put the Intel Jingle on a board... Oh wait...

The Kyro series of cards has fully functional drivers in Linux. They are beta drivers, but are fast and stable. In AnandTech's comparison, it favored well with similar results as the GeForce 2 cards of last year. It isn't a high-end card by any means, but looks like it works well in a game that was designed around nVidia GPUs.

I use a Kyro 2 in my Linux box and have no complaints. RTCW flies in 1024x768x32- max details. It looks pretty and runs fast. All of my other Linux OpenGL apps work great too, as does XV accelleration for Video playback with MPlayer.

There are alternatives. It might not be viable to buy one now, but when the card game out a year ago, it was a perfect substitute to the GeForce 2 (all models).

That is my understanding as well. Despite the fact that it has 128K L2 Cache like its Celeron sibling, the cache is 8-way set associative like the PIII.

Sources: Anandtech (specifically discussing Xbox and other consoles), and Firingsquad discussion of PIII and Celeron differences.

Hans

• [H]ard|OCP Intel Pentium 4 @ 2.80GHz : Intel is breaking out the big guns with their sights set directly on the competition. Will the 2.80GHz Northwood be enough for Intel to hold onto the performance crown?
• Anandtech Intel's Pentium 4 2.80GHz - Moving to the Head of the Class
• Tom's Hardware Speed Isn't Everything: P4/2800 Meets Athlon XP 2600+
• Ace's Hardware Faster Still: The 2.8 GHz Pentium 4
• FiringSquad Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz Review
• Hexus.net Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz Review
• SimHQ.com Intel "Northwood" 2.80GHz Pentium 4 Processor using .13 Technology
• Tech Report Intel's Pentium 4 2.8GHz processor - Two billion eight-hundred thousand hertz
• Hot Hardware The Pentium 4 2.8GHz Processor - Intel ups the anti once again
• xbit labs Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz against Athlon XP 2600+
• VR Zone Intel Fastest Pentium 4 2.8Ghz Review
• HardcoreWare A Thorn in AMD's Hide
• Lost Circuits Pentium4 2.8 GHz - Another Hit And Run

• [H]ard|OCP Intel Pentium 4 @ 2.80GHz : Intel is breaking out the big guns with their sights set directly on the competition. Will the 2.80GHz Northwood be enough for Intel to hold onto the performance crown?
• Anandtech Intel's Pentium 4 2.80GHz - Moving to the Head of the Class
• Tom's Hardware Speed Isn't Everything: P4/2800 Meets Athlon XP 2600+
• Ace's Hardware Faster Still: The 2.8 GHz Pentium 4
• FiringSquad Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz Review
• Hexus.net Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz Review
• SimHQ.com Intel "Northwood" 2.80GHz Pentium 4 Processor using .13 Technology
• Tech Report Intel's Pentium 4 2.8GHz processor - Two billion eight-hundred thousand hertz
• Hot Hardware The Pentium 4 2.8GHz Processor - Intel ups the anti once again
• xbit labs Intel Pentium 4 2.8GHz against Athlon XP 2600+

Myth/rumor: The Athlon XP is a furnace of unimaginable heat! I'm getting a Pentium IV! Even though they are slower and more expensive, at least they won't dim the lights then melt them!

The fastest Athlon XP chips dissipate less than 5% more heat than the fastest Pentium IV chips. They can, however, handle more heat before cooking.

Myth/rumor: Tom's Hardware guide is "more objectvice" or even "Tom's Hardware guide is reliable"
I can't believe I read this, even in a Slashdot comment.
Tom's Hardware Guide is infamous among forums such as those at StorageReview.com and among people that actually know what they are talking about for being little more than a hardware review tabloid. Read the reviews! They come to illogical conclusions and sensationalize most of their reviews.
Read the Athlon review in question:
This is AMD's admission that the previous performance scale was set too high, especially when it came to the higher clock speeds.
Umm... Could it be that because the CPU is advancing where the other components such as memory and FSB are not, that it is possible that AMD added another 66MHz to make sure the rating system was still accurate? It isn't like system performance scales linearly with CPU speed when everything else sits still. Whoever thinks that Tom's Hardware is a good place to get hardware reviews doesn't have a clue about hardware!
Read Tom's glorious review of the KT266a vs the Nforce where despite there being less than a 5% difference between the chipsets and despite the Nforce outperforming every one of the many KT266a that outnumber it greatly in some tests, their "conclusion" was Conclusion: KT266A Trounces nForce 420D - Soltek is Front-runner
Tom's has had some good reviews, and most of the reviews BY TOM HIMSELF are pretty good, but most of the reviews are from his editors, and the proof is in the reviews--they are making Tom's Hardware more of a tabloid than a legit hardware review site, riding on the reputation that Tom made for the site years ago. I know, I was once an avid Tom's reader and am disgusted how the once clear and thoughtful reviews have turned into manic drivel.
If you want reviews that are actually well thought out, intelligent, and have sane conclusions based on mere facts, try Ace's Hardware, Ars Technica, and Anandtech.
Ace's Hardware reviews are clearly the best and most researched, but they are few and far between. Want an excellent review of current and future memory technologies written with the help of actual engineers? Read Ace's Hardware.
Ars rarely has hardware reviews, but when they do the reviews are good.
Anandtech is a good all-around major review site that as far as I can tell has never been biased, but is a little bit too PC for me. (that's Politically Correct, not the other one)

Is Tom's biased? Read the reviews! They aren't biased in a classic sense as far as I can tell, that is, they don't "always favor Intel" or "Always favor AMD"; rather they are often biased against one or the other. They will post stories that are clearly opinionated bullshit from ignorant tech writers that tend to have a bias against one or ther other. This is a mystery to me as they surely piss off both AMD and Intel all the time, and don't make any friends in the process. Overall, I wouldn't say that bias is a big problem at Tom's Hardware as much as stupid technical writers that don't know what they are talking about is a problem.
Want more examples? Point me to a review at Tom's and I'll tell you what's wrong with it (if there is anything wrong with that particular one)

At Tom's--read the reviews by Tom, but everyone else is not trustworthy.

Myth/rumor:
When you hold a seashell up to your ear, you can hear the sea.
Fact: You can hear the same sound reflections by holding a drinking cup up to your ear. It has nothing to do with the ocean. The question is, if you hold a Unix shell up to your ear, can you hear the C?

There are several more 2600+ reviews, and these are much better too.
AMDZone.com
Hot Hardware
Tech-Report
Overclockers.com.au
Ace's Hardware
Firing Squad
Hexus
xbit
Anandtech
Van's Hardware
VIA Hardware
The Inquirer

Anandtech has some alternative review links over here including the more in-depth (and perhaps more objective?) review, at Tom's.

Anandtech has some alternative review links over here including the more in-depth (and perhaps more objective?) review, at Tom's.

Yeah, that was indeed very very cheap. I don't understand why Slashdot should post a link to a site like this anyway. Clearly the editor has no knowledge about this matter and thought he had a good story, or something. There's few hardware sites that actually give some real information, and among them are Tom's Hardware and AnandTech.

I read a few days ago about Intel's plan to use "Strained Silicon" in their 90 nm process. Here's the link
Quote from the article:

Simply put, you want transistors to be able to pass as much current as possible when they're switched on and to pass no current when they're switched off. Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world and transistors don't always behave as they should. Technologies such as Silicon on Insulator (SOI) help stop current from flowing when it shouldn't (leakage current) and technologies such as Strained Silicon help increase the amount of current that's allowed to flow when it's needed (drive current).

I saw no mention of IBM doing this so I wondered, is this patented by Intel? Even so, if you are setting about to make the most advanced FAB, it would seem that this technology should be licensed.

Actually, ATI kept it a secret. I would still buy an ATI card if they had something in my price/performance range, (same with nVidia) as I have both at the moment (I have an ATI Radeon and an nVidia TNT2 in the same box) but I'll probably end up getting the new Trident card instead.

Check for yourself: A ViA 'lab' and an Intel one.

Open two tabs (or windows) and see then side by side.

Now guess what chipset/cpu combo I'll get next?

Check for yourself: A ViA 'lab' and an Intel one.

Open two tabs (or windows) and see then side by side.

Now guess what chipset/cpu combo I'll get next?

"A third output is a 9-pin s-video-like connector that interfaces with Gainward's VIVO cable. The cable features a set of composite/s-video input and output cables to take advantage of the Philips SAA7108E video encoder chip on the card itself. As we mentioned in our GeForce4 roundup, the Philips encoder chip only allows TV output for resolutions up to 800 x 600 but it makes up for that limitation in its support for both video output and input. Just as is the case with Gainward's more expensive GeForce4s, the Ti 4200 comes with a copy of WinCoder and WinProducer to help take advantage of the VIVO nature of the card. "

Quake 3 is still being used as a benchmark because there are still games being released that use the Q3 engine.

However, Anandtech's review of the 9700 has some benchmarks that include the Unreal Tournament 2003 engine. There are also some cool CPU scaling charts in there. Epic has been providing Anandtech with build of the UT2003 engine for quite some time. All of their recent reviews include UT2003 numbers.

Quote:

When ATI started talking about R300 and hinted that it would be significantly faster than anything NVIDIA had up their sleeves, we were understandably skeptical. The progression from there is best summed up by what our own Matthew Witheiler had to say about the R300: "It all started with Carmack's endorsement of the card; that was huge for them. Now it has erupted into something that I didn't think was possible"

Matthew's final statement sums up the feelings all of us at AnandTech had about the R300; we were impressed that John Carmack provided such a glowing endorsement of the technology back at Quakecon, but we were floored once we actually saw working silicon in action.

An anonymous reader writes "AMD is expected to announce a new chip to compete with arch-rival Intel. An overview of the new CPU can be seen here, and some more information is available on Anandtech. Go AMD!" I just can't wait to see the prices on them! UPDATE: 08/11 17:00 GMT by T: This might be a re-post, as we have word that AMD working on a K8 processor, which will run at around 2 - 3GHZ.

There's a review oriented more towards us at AnandTech. I just read it and they apparently rave over the ATI AIW 8500DV.

When an author who works for a company describes the features of a product from that company it's called an advertisement not a review.

Yes, still think the product is damn cool.

When an author who works for a company describes the features of a product from that company it's called an advertisement not a review.

Yes, still think the product is damn cool.

When an author who works for a company describes the features of a product from that company it's called an advertisement not a review.

Yes, still think the product is damn cool.

check here.
second paragraph from the bottom.
It talks about some problems installing Win XP and it corrupting a MS Word document.

and here is the IHS (integrated heat spreaders) at anandtech.

yes, it is in fact very good news they decided to add it. putting and removing heatsink+fan on AMD CPU is not that easy to do nowadays (thermal paste and so on). fortunately it's not something you do every day....

Now with the nForce2 there's another option for me. If I want I can get an nForce2 board without integrated video that still takes advantage of Dual Channel DDR400 (how many other mainboards have that?) and has high-end audio, USB 2.0, Firewire, and dual ethernet controllers built in.

First, let me point you to this NVIDIA nForce2 Preview from AnandTech. Lots of people (myself included) prefer Anand's articles to Tom's.

On page 3 of the article Anand writes:

Weve proved in the past that the dual channel memory architecture, which NVIDIA is now calling DualDDR, only provides a performance improvement in 3D games with integrated graphics enabled. The reason that adding more memory bandwidth doesnt improve overall system performance is because the Athlon XPs FSB is stuck at 133MHz offering up to 2.1GB/s of bandwidth between the Athlon XP and the nForce2 IGP/SPP. With a maximum of 2.1GB/s of data going between the CPU and the IGP/SPP, having twice or even three times that bandwidth between the IGP/SPP and main memory is useless without a memory bandwidth hungry device eating up the remaining bandwidth.

Now with the nForce2 there's another option for me. If I want I can get an nForce2 board without integrated video that still takes advantage of Dual Channel DDR400 (how many other mainboards have that?) and has high-end audio, USB 2.0, Firewire, and dual ethernet controllers built in.

First, let me point you to this NVIDIA nForce2 Preview from AnandTech. Lots of people (myself included) prefer Anand's articles to Tom's.

On page 3 of the article Anand writes:

Weve proved in the past that the dual channel memory architecture, which NVIDIA is now calling DualDDR, only provides a performance improvement in 3D games with integrated graphics enabled. The reason that adding more memory bandwidth doesnt improve overall system performance is because the Athlon XPs FSB is stuck at 133MHz offering up to 2.1GB/s of bandwidth between the Athlon XP and the nForce2 IGP/SPP. With a maximum of 2.1GB/s of data going between the CPU and the IGP/SPP, having twice or even three times that bandwidth between the IGP/SPP and main memory is useless without a memory bandwidth hungry device eating up the remaining bandwidth.

Now with the nForce2 there's another option for me. If I want I can get an nForce2 board without integrated video that still takes advantage of Dual Channel DDR400 (how many other mainboards have that?) and has high-end audio, USB 2.0, Firewire, and dual ethernet controllers built in.

First, let me point you to this NVIDIA nForce2 Preview from AnandTech. Lots of people (myself included) prefer Anand's articles to Tom's.

On page 3 of the article Anand writes:

Weve proved in the past that the dual channel memory architecture, which NVIDIA is now calling DualDDR, only provides a performance improvement in 3D games with integrated graphics enabled. The reason that adding more memory bandwidth doesnt improve overall system performance is because the Athlon XPs FSB is stuck at 133MHz offering up to 2.1GB/s of bandwidth between the Athlon XP and the nForce2 IGP/SPP. With a maximum of 2.1GB/s of data going between the CPU and the IGP/SPP, having twice or even three times that bandwidth between the IGP/SPP and main memory is useless without a memory bandwidth hungry device eating up the remaining bandwidth.

The iPod uses a PP5002B-C chip made by PortalPlayer. It decodes as well as encodes MP3, WAV, and AIFF. Too bad Apple didn't include a sound in jack. AnandTech did a review of the iPod. Now Apple could always code a nice ogg decoder and flash it to the firmware. This would involve codnig an integer decoder for vorbis and would also likely decrease the long battery life the iPod gets. Like I said before, I don't see ogg coming to the iPod anytime soon. And considering the fact that apple is putting all their weight behind Mpeg4 and AAC, I bet we see AAC on the iPod before we see ogg.

It is also important to note that Anandtech doesn't have a REAL R9700 at all. They don't have the production model. There core was running at 325 and their memory was a t 310 (620 effectivly) but there is no gaurentee this is where ATI is going to stick it. And...just for fun, here are a few numbers since I can do some simple math:

UT2003-DMAntalus 1600x1200x32 (since it is a less CPU bound test):
GF4 = 198fps (rough estimate since it was a chart, not a number)
R9700 = 304.92fps (198 * 1.54)
Source for the GF4 number

Anothing interesting note is that in anantech's R9000 review they claim the R97000 has the following speeds: 270MHz with 275MHz. So is their 9700 review wrong since that card is clocked 55 mhz faster (core) and 35 mhz faster (memory)????

It is also important to note that Anandtech doesn't have a REAL R9700 at all. They don't have the production model. There core was running at 325 and their memory was a t 310 (620 effectivly) but there is no gaurentee this is where ATI is going to stick it. And...just for fun, here are a few numbers since I can do some simple math:

UT2003-DMAntalus 1600x1200x32 (since it is a less CPU bound test):
GF4 = 198fps (rough estimate since it was a chart, not a number)
R9700 = 304.92fps (198 * 1.54)
Source for the GF4 number

Anothing interesting note is that in anantech's R9000 review they claim the R97000 has the following speeds: 270MHz with 275MHz. So is their 9700 review wrong since that card is clocked 55 mhz faster (core) and 35 mhz faster (memory)????

The page you really need to go is this. It talks about not just raw FPS, but about running UT2003 with 4X Anti Aliasing enabled at 1600x1200x32. This is where ATI trounces Nvidia with a whopping 251% faster performance.

Though the framerates at 1600x1200 on UT2003 are not exactly playable (there goes my hopes of running DoomIII at 1600x1200 on this baby) ATI has finally produced a card worthy of their name.

Nvidia has atleast six months to go before they can have something to show. And running the 927 leaked build of UT2003 on a GF4 Ti 4600, you dont get playable framerates beyond 1024x768 with every detailed notched up.

Anandtech's article This one is much more than just a "breif" overview...it is meaty :)

There is also a preview article at AnandTech.

See here (one long page for printing) or here 8 pages

There is also a preview article at AnandTech.

See here (one long page for printing) or here 8 pages

Blatantly stolen from Anandtech . . .

The Best of Trance [JUN 7 UPDATE - 203 TRACKS - 22 HRS]

Enjoy.

DDR333 is here now, but you won't see a 333MHz FSB until Hammer hits the scene. According to Toms' Hardware, you won't even see it in Barton. While a DDR333 connection to the northbridge might be nice for smp setups, it'll be wasted connected by a 133 MHz DDR interface to one cpu. It'll help, just not as much as it should.

ATI fairly recently came out with an adapter to let their Radeon 8500 cards output to HDTV. Anandtech has a brief review of it.

You compare Xeons to XPs and MPs. Fine with me, just don't forget to compare the Xeons with Hammer when it comes out (because Itanium won't stand it). Oh, and check here for a database comparison of Xeons and MPs. Interesting, no? You can check the rest of the article if you absolutely need some charts with a Xeon on top.

Thoroughbred is here now. Where's that 3GHz+ proc? Oh, and here's a link to the report of the 10GHz ALU. Remember, it's not a complete processor, just a small part (Arithmetic and Logic Unit).

For the Hammer, I agree: it's where AMD's future is. But the Tualatin PIII was also doomed from it's conception. As was the PIV 423 platform.

And what's wrong with just keeping the computer together for a couple of years? My dual PII-400 has 3 years this month: never changed the procs (in part because to go higher than 600MHz, I'd have to change the MB because mine doesn't play well with CuMine CPUs). So far for "upgradeability" in the future...

You compare Xeons to XPs and MPs. Fine with me, just don't forget to compare the Xeons with Hammer when it comes out (because Itanium won't stand it). Oh, and check here for a database comparison of Xeons and MPs. Interesting, no? You can check the rest of the article if you absolutely need some charts with a Xeon on top.

Thoroughbred is here now. Where's that 3GHz+ proc? Oh, and here's a link to the report of the 10GHz ALU. Remember, it's not a complete processor, just a small part (Arithmetic and Logic Unit).

For the Hammer, I agree: it's where AMD's future is. But the Tualatin PIII was also doomed from it's conception. As was the PIV 423 platform.

And what's wrong with just keeping the computer together for a couple of years? My dual PII-400 has 3 years this month: never changed the procs (in part because to go higher than 600MHz, I'd have to change the MB because mine doesn't play well with CuMine CPUs). So far for "upgradeability" in the future...

So you spend 200 bucks on an MPX motherboard and 150 each for a pair of 1800mp CPUs. (2*1533mhz)

Or spend 100 bucks on a Dual Pentium III motherboard and 150 each for a pair of tulatin Pentium IIIs that are not performance comparative. (2*1133mhz)

The first Dual Pentium 4 motherboard starts at $400 and $200 each for the processors... at the same performance level that AMD provides for $500

$400 for the crappy intel.
$500 for the AMD
$800 for the good intel, that performs no better than the AMD, so you just want to pay $300 for the name.

Their absolute top end systems perform comparatively MP 2100+ vs. Intel Xeon 2.4GHz

$1400 for the Xeon, $700 for the AMD MP.

Don't forget the Rambus Tax that doubles the price of any memory you purchase for the Intel system. No, there are no DDR solutions for the Xeon yet.

I don't think it's as cut and dry as that. First, I do scientific computing. So, when I look at the floating point performance of the two, the AMD chips rate very well... and extremely well on a price/performance metric. Intel chips perform very well where the application has been optimized for SSE, but for straight FP the Athlons are really nice.

>>AMD is nowhere nearby, still stuck with DDR266.

Then you'd better hurry up and buy your Intel boards with RDRAM b/c Intel is doing away with it and going with dual channel DDRAM. Guess it can't be that bad, huh?

The problem with the market right now is that it seems AMD is having all their engineers work on Hammer and so the Athlon line is slowing. In the meantime, the P4 is starting to hit its stride after its initital poor showing (remember the initial benchmarks that showed the P4 1.4GHz getting beat by a 1GHz PIII?).

Their major concern seems to be frame rates in SS and Q3A, two games built on old technology.

Exactly the point: if Parhelia dips as low as 35 fps running SS @ 1024x768 with nothing turned on, then you know for a fact that it will be near-unplayable on newer more demanding games.

But, since the reviews available test a whole lot more than just SS and Q3 engine games, we don't need to rely on that obvious deduction. Parhelia also gets its clock cleaned on newer games like Commanche4, and UT 2003, as well as the mini-games in 3DMark, which are supposed to simulate future game engines. The only difference is, with these games you actually need a GF4 to get decent performance.

What I'm concerned about is high-resolution performance with AA enabled. I have no intention of ever again running a game below 1024x768 with AA enabled. Why would you, when the Parhelia can do it without breaking a sweat?

Because the only games that Parhelia can run at 1024x768 with 16x FAA "without breaking a sweat" are the ones "built on old technology" that you denigrated a sentence ago. Check out the scores for UT 2003 with AA and anisotropic filtering. Parehlia is most definitely breaking a sweat @ 1024x768. (So, of course, is the GF4.) This is for a game that is going to be out in a month; and not only that, but a deathmatch-oriented game which is most definitely tweaked for high framerates. If you never want to run a game below 1024 with AA, then you better either get used to the games that are already out today, or prepare to upgrade video cards very very often.

I'd like to see some benchmarks of the Parhelia running DooM3 at 1024x768 w/ 16xAA.

Too bad: using current drivers, it won't run it. That's because Parhelia's 16x AA is fragment anti-aliasing, which only AA's the edges of polygons, and thus can't deal with a stencil buffer which is used in Doom3 (and many other games) to render cast shadows. Even assuming a driver fix will allow Parhelia to at least run games with a stencil buffer in FAA mode, the shadows themselves will still have jaggies unless you use the much much slower FSAA mode. Given how large a part shadows play in the Doom3 experience, it's doubtful FAA will be better than no AA at all.

If your goal is to never run below 1024x768 with AA, your best bet is probably to buy a GF4 MX 440 today, ride that as long as it will last, and then upgrade in 12-15 months (before you need a DX8 compatible card, which GF4 MX is not) to whatever the best $150 card then is (i.e. equivalent of today's GF4 Ti4200 or Radeon 8500). You'll get your Doom3 at 1024 with AA, and save $175 over buying the Parhelia today to boot.

I wonder what The Carmack has to say about this card.

Me too; in particular, he (or someone) should be able to inform us where the expected throughput benefit for highly multi-textured games has disappeared to. Unfortunately, given the shrug gamers are going to give this card after this morning, he may not even bother.