Standard Def Steve wrote:
Here's how a PXE-840 with a 6800 Ultra performs (notice how well the 4000+ does):
http://techreport.com/review/8285/intel-penti … 840-processor/6
My nForce3/AGP system is usually powered by an A64 3700+ overclocked to 3GHz. When it comes down to gaming performance, it completely outclasses my finest Netburst gear (currently a P4 520 @ 3.73 on a NF4 IE board). But then again, so does my Pentium M @ 2.66GHz. It just takes more than a 9800 Pro to show the difference between architectures.
Sure, it's measurably faster in some games under test conditions, however none of that really matters (in that, with the exception of UT2004 (which I don't quite get what they're doing to achieve such bad performance (my AthlonXP handled that game with no problems; they're showing a Pentium D 840 having trouble...)) they're all putting up such outrageous numbers as to be equivalent, and once you bring the resolution up to more normal levels you'll see those differences mostly evaporate as the GPU becomes the limiting factor).
My point wasn't to start an Intel vs AMD argument or argue that Intel is better or worse - but instead to say that comparable era Netburst chips are generally comparable (and for demanding games of the era you'll end up being GPU limited more than anything else), and as used hardware have the general advantage of being more plentiful (and often cheaper (which unfortunately has to be considered - and I get it, years ago the AMD chips held this position: those XEs cost around $1000/ea when new, but now you can usually find them for $10 or less, while the older AMD stuff tends to command pretty serious premiums (in some cases pretty close to new retail)).
I wrote that they were "cool, fast and modern" because they often ran at 45-50C at load with the supplied heatsink/fan. The standard HSF even allowed for decent overclocking.
Ambient temperatures, case temperature, etc are very much needed when comparing temps. My 2.0GHz Willamette runs in that range with the Intel HSF; my overclocked Celeron D never broke 60* C (2.13GHz -> 3.33GHz on that one). Average ambient is around 18* C and case temps around there or low 20s for those conditions. TDP isn't much different between the two series; until you start talking about the very highest spec Netbursts (the dual-cores especially 🤣). I know, Netburst has a reputation for being "super hot" - when it was brand new it was deserved; compared to a Pentium 3 it was a big increase in TDP. But compared to Athlon64 (And a few of the later XPs even), and modern chips, it's really not a stand-out (again, excepting the dual-cores; some of those are pushing on 150W TDP!).
I was an AMD fan back then, I certainly am not one anymore. I just never was impressed with Netburst. Willamette was a huge letdown; Duron could sometimes outperform it. Prescott managed to be a little slower than Northwood-C at the same frequency. And Pentium D is a fine example of what happens when a CPU company decides to "half-ass" it. Intel was putting far better processors into notebooks at the time. Dothan and Yonah were even faster than A64 and A64-X2, clock-for-clock.
To their credit, Netburst is the only IA Dud I can think of. AMD's had far more.
I'd agree with this more or less (and you aren't wrong about Prescott being worse clock-for-clock; it was just yet another step in Intel's quest for 20GHz chips...) - I like my Willamette system primarily because it has been very reliable for more than a decade, but would agree that Netburst quickly got out of hand in terms of price/performance in its day (it's worth remembering that even though Pentium 4 and Pentium D chips are almost worthless these days, most of the higher-spec chips (like those XEs) were very expensive when new, compared to very affordable AMD chips) and was probably the first CPU series to really run-away in terms of power consumption and heat dissipation (of course AMD obliterated that record with the QuadFX). AMD offered a much more economical solution that provided very good performance. However that isn't to say the Pentium 4 chips are "bad" - especially given their dime-a-dozen status these days.
Also (and this is totally off-topic): I'd say IA-64 was a dud too, and a much bigger one than Netburst. 🤣
F2bnp wrote:Don't just look at the benchmarks. An Athlon 64 machine will feel that much snappier, because it doesn't have the long pipeline that the Prescott has.
Really? "It feels better"? What next, how the machine aligns with the balance of the universe? 😲
Dismissing measured performance data to talk about "feelings" seems kind of silly to me - you end up having to quantify "feel snappier" and how you define what you "feel" and your response to that "feeling" - how is this condition observed, measured, repeated, etc. Do we have to assume that your feelings equal my feelings? What is being defined as "snappy" or "snappier" etc. It's just a massive can of worms that isn't worth opening.
You can benchmark things like application start-up times, system boot-up times, measured throughput, etc and produce a realistic picture of how the machine will perform. But it has to be remembered that many of those things are heavily influenced by non-CPU factors, like the memory subsystem, the hard-drive, the operating system and whatever optimizations have been made there, and so on. Even a Pentium MMX system can be made relatively responsive, depending on what software is (or isn't) loaded onto it - it's entirely possible to turn an Athlon64 into a dog by loading it up with tons of multimedia bloatware and trying to make it "modern" - but if you keep it relatively correct for the period, it shouldn't be a problem at all.
soviet conscript wrote:are there even any Win 98 games that utilize SSE2 or 3?
Not that I'm aware of. There are some early-ish DX9 games that seem to benefit quite a bit from the SSE2/3 on Pentium 4 or Athlon64 over an AthlonXP, like Hitman 4 for example. But I don't think those games tend to be supported under Windows 98; worth keeping in mind if a dual-boot 9x/XP system is up for consideration though. For Windows 98 and games from that era, this entire discussion in moot - even top Pentium 3 chips tend to be such overkill, let alone a high-spec Pentium 4, Athlon64, etc. I mean we're talking about games like Quake 3, SimCity 3000, and Red Alert 2. 🤣
Something else worth noting since they've come up in discussion - dual-core CPUs are not good bedmates for Win9x; it doesn't support SMP.
