Intel now has what it calls hyperthreading technology in the newer P4's.
My question is that, is HT an answer to amd's claim to better performance in few clock cycles

Thanx.................

Will this debate every die? Is Ford better than Chevy? I'm sure Intel does R@D to better their CPU's over AMD's and vice versa. Is it their answer? Who knows, I don't. I doubt even Intel would admit if it was. You have to remember that a lot of what comes out today took years of R@D and was in the works long before AMD announced this and that.

I state this, until there is an Industry Standard Benchmark Utility nobody can ever claim top dog. Intel does this and AMD does that. Use what suits your needs.

KTTD

Well. So far Intel is taking the powerful lead in CPU after it introduces Pentium 4 all versions of XP got killed. Don't get me wrong I hate pentium because of its popularity =). All my friends are saying pentiums are better and they don't know anything! Its just a brand. Whats with AMD its 2800+ still not out and even if its out it will take some effort to increase its availability. While Pentium 4 takes another jump this time right out of the solar system introducing its HT 3.06ghz. Athlon XP is just dead. Thew newest 2800+ doesn't nearly match its power and its newest for AMD yet? Now what? AMD better come up with something fast before they crash and burn.

XP got killed..?????? you need to look at the latest benchmarks. I believe it was pcworld who done the 2800+ vs the new p4 3ghz. The 2800 did a hell of a job keeping up with the p4. The new p4 technology is made to take advantage of multitasking. It gives the impression that there are two processors letting you do multitasking better than the p4 that is used today. The catch to the new technology. It doesnt do well on a lot of software. It could be the case of the cpu is ahead of the software....hhhmmmm I think i heard this before from intel in the past. Dont get me wrong. The new p4 is faster than the 2800+...but I dont think you will see people lineing up out at stores ready to buy a system the the cpu is priced at 800 dollars. And also AMD has announced the new 64 bit cpu that will work with 32bit apps...so in my opinion AMD is still in the race.

I'm always with AMD but when I saw the 3.06 ht pentium came out I was eager to find its benchmark against XP2800+. I almost cried when I saw its 2800+'s office production performance against 3.06 ht. Some where merely 3/4 of P4's performance. However, the gaming benchmark for 2800+ was ok. Still it was lower than P4 I wish AMD can just come out with a new line of chips at this coming year 2003.

its all advertising and misconseptions. The only real way to get 2 cpus worth of multitasking is 2 cpus.

If you look at Toms Hardware review, you'll see thats the XP2800+ isn't very far behind....

hows that for "2" cpus?

Ok, I said this in my first post and I will say it again.

There is NO industry standard benchmark

This is what kills the whole argument because others can set up a sytem to perform better in this and that. It has been this way for quite some time. AMD can out perform Intel in this instance and Intel can out perform AMD in this test. There is no "FAIR" test to determine what CPU is the best or the fastest.

I have a great respect for Tom's team at Tom's Hardware Guide, I've been going to his web site since it's URL was http://www.sysdoc.pair.com type that URL in your address bar an see where it takes you.

The bottom line is that both CPU's are kick ass fast, which one you go with is up to you.

KTTD

Hey KTTD what do you suggest to be the basis for that industry standard 'thingy' you're talking about. number of Clock cycles or the amount for things done per cycle

True true there must be a standard benchmark but when will that happen?

Maximus,

I don't really have the answer for that to be honest but I'll try to explain how I feel.

First, a MHZ rating is no longer important. AMD has proven this and Intel should follow suit. When it comes to clock cycles or how much can be done per clock cycle is a hard topic. The bottle neck is in DRAM, be it SDRAM, DDR or RIMM's. We then also have to consider that hard drives can not keep up with the data transfer speeds of these CPU's as well.

The question is still though what should be the standard?

I don't know that standard, I wish I could find it because I might get rich if I did. I'm sorry I can't answer your question but the computer industry needs to come togther and fine that mark so we can have an un-biased report on what CPU is better.

KTTD

So why can't we place are heads togther an attempt to come up with a "industry" benchmark? A lot can be accomplished when a few come together.

This may sound crazy but if we can have a valid argument the big boys might listen.

KTTD

I was wondering has 3DMark became an Industry Standard for 3D gaming performance?
Also SiSandra Soft seemed to be very popular and I guess accurate if everyone is using it.

There is "NO" industry benchmark, that is the problem. Some might use one program, others might use another. That is the problem. Not everyone is using the same thing, that is the problem. Some use this, some use that. Well quess what? That some doesn't add up to what is right.

KTTD

well...if you throw out the benchmarks numbers then that leaves you with numbers alone. And thats not the way you judge cpu's. Because everybody knows that the first athlon out performed the p3 with higher mhz numbers. The way that I buy a cpu is i try to get the most for my money. And paying 800 dollars for a p4 alone is not worth my money compared to a 2800 that did pretty good against the same cpu for 280.00 dollars.

I was mistaken on who compared the benchmarks and tests. It was pcworld. They did a number of benchmarks and ran applications on the new p4 and the 2800. Check it out at Pcworld.com