New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Benchmark between 3.0 and 3.2ghz

post #1 of 29
12/29/03 at 5:18am
Thread Starter 
Can anyone post there benchmark scores because I am deciding If I should get a 3.0 or 3.2ghz and want to see if its a vast improvement.
Craig hows the 3.0ghz ? Do you use HT, is it really needed you think?
Would A Pentium M technology be as fast as HT?
I plan to do 3d modeling/animating and gaming

So far I narrow down to
Area 51m: extreme
Voodoo M:855 AMD 64 3200 but with ati 9600 pro 64mb ram (still the fastest, and long battary hours)
voodoo M:460 (Pentium M technology)

and maybe the 750 but doubt it since im more of a gamer then a movie watcher
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 29
12/29/03 at 10:36am

Go El cheapo!

Quote:
Originally Posted by shyy
Can anyone post there benchmark scores because I am deciding If I should get a 3.0 or 3.2ghz and want to see if its a vast improvement.
Craig hows the 3.0ghz ? Do you use HT, is it really needed you think?
Would A Pentium M technology be as fast as HT?
I plan to do 3d modeling/animating and gaming

So far I narrow down to
Area 51m: extreme
Voodoo M:855 AMD 64 3200 but with ati 9600 pro 64mb ram (still the fastest, and long battary hours)
voodoo M:460 (Pentium M technology)

and maybe the 750 but doubt it since im more of a gamer then a movie watcher
To tell you the truth I got the 2.8ghz and am getting roughly the same in 3dmaro03 as most everyone else that has faster processors I think the best deal is get the 2.8ghz you wont be able to tell much differecne with 400 more mzh anyway!
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 29
12/29/03 at 11:40am
Thread Starter 
even rendering a scene? Do you use the HT tech?
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 29
12/29/03 at 11:44am
For gaming a 2.8 is probably just fine. The 3.2 is going to save me a little time compiling my kernel and open office :P
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 29
12/29/03 at 12:37pm
Shyy,

The HT kicks in all by itself. You don't enable it so it is hard to tell the difference. I'd def get at least a full blown P4 w/HT if you want to play games and render 3D graphic applications. The Mobile Pentiums are very efficient and do some great things for what they are...but again, all they are is Mobile choices for the real deal.

As we all know, benchmark programs like 3DMark03 are very much testing the Graphics Card and not the CPU.

I found that I'm posting higher benchmarks than many people that have the 3.2 in b/c I'm tweaking things from the GPU side. That is not to say my machine is better or any such nonesense, it just means I've narrowed down what the benchmark is looking for in the PC and tweaked it. I say this again, benchmarks are no way to decide what machine is best for you.

Pick out the laptop that you feel fits your needs. Write those needs down and cross reference them with the laptops you've narrowed it down to. For instance if Battery life is at the top of your list, you probably want a Centrino powered laptop.

Best of luck and let us know what you decide. Any one of those laptops in your post are excellent.

-Craig
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 29
12/29/03 at 9:22pm
Thread Starter 
Im think P4 3.0ghz HT and AMD 64 since the amd 64 is so much cheaper then everything. just the video is what I worry about on it
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 29
12/29/03 at 9:40pm
I have both and AMD 64 and a P4 3.0, as well as a 3.2. The 3.2 and the AMD are in desktops.

That being said I can hardly tell any difference between the 3.0 and the 3.2. But the AMD is a D O G. Windows XP truely does not take advantage of the AMD processor at all, it's extremely slow in comparison to my latop and my work desktop.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 29
12/29/03 at 9:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Time-Pilot
I have both and AMD 64 and a P4 3.0, as well as a 3.2. The 3.2 and the AMD are in desktops.

That being said I can hardly tell any difference between the 3.0 and the 3.2. But the AMD is a D O G. Windows XP truely does not take advantage of the AMD processor at all, it's extremely slow in comparison to my latop and my work desktop.
Thanks to the info on the 64 Time Pilot I was wondering about that. I'm assuming you'll buy the Windows XP 64 bit OS as it becomes available. I would love to know if this changes anything.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 29
12/30/03 at 3:10am
Thread Starter 
Time pilot can you run benchmark so we can see #'s
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 29
12/30/03 at 5:02am
I don't believe that there is a considerable difference between a 3 Ghz and 3.2 Ghz CPU, for a processing difference of only 200 Mhz. It's not like it was 3 years ago.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 29
12/30/03 at 12:55pm
Do you want a 3d mark? Or something else like sandra, or Intel's benchmark program?

Also it may not be a great test, the AMD station that I have is a work machine and it only has a basic video card in it. The 3.2 has a Nvidia ti4400, but my AW has the Nvidia 5600 of course.
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 29
12/30/03 at 4:20pm
I don't think it's worth paying the extra cash for a short jump in clock cycles. Yeah, the 3.2 is faster than the 3.0, but not enough to justify throwing down the extra money. I just went w/the 3.0. My 2-cents.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 29
12/30/03 at 4:26pm
I'm with Rubric on this one. I also have the 3.0 and can tell you its not at all slower/faster than any 3.2 solution I've seen yet. I certainly could not justify the extra bread.

Maybe the extra headroom will come into play if you're doing uber-multitasking (which the HT will solve mostly anyway) but I'm one of those guys that has only a few progys running at one time.

-Craig
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 29
12/30/03 at 4:27pm
But then you may be like me, and your just not satisfied until you have the absolute best
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 29
12/30/03 at 4:29pm
Touche, AW3.2. I'm like that too, but w/this i know it's nothing too significant to want over.
Reply
Reply
post #16 of 29
12/30/03 at 4:36pm
i'm glad to hear there is not much difference
Reply
Reply
post #17 of 29
1/1/04 at 3:53am
Unlike Craig, I'm the opposite. I'm a rabid multi-tasker. I've *always* got a million things going on at once. And it drives me batty when the computer can't keep up. In a way, I'm like Alienware3.2 and Rubric- I like to have the best. However, that's always at a price, so oftentimes I'll settle for less because of the cost.

Anyone know if heavy multi-tasking would be helped at all by the small jump in clockspeed from 2.8 or 3.0 or 3.2?
Reply
Reply
post #18 of 29
1/1/04 at 9:02am
RAM has always been the factor that determines your computer's multi-tasking capabilites; that's what it's for mostly. The more RAM you have, the more programs you can run with little to no sluggishness. In the broad spectrum, there is not too much of a considerable difference between the 2.8 GHz and 3 GHz CPUs. Same with the 3 GHz and 3.2 GHz.
Reply
Reply
post #19 of 29
1/1/04 at 11:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Right Winger
RAM has always been the factor that determines your computer's multi-tasking capabilites; that's what it's for mostly. The more RAM you have, the more programs you can run with little to no sluggishness. In the broad spectrum, there is not too much of a considerable difference between the 2.8 GHz and 3 GHz CPUs. Same with the 3 GHz and 3.2 GHz.
Yah, I've got my current laptop max'd @ 512 and my desktop (when I've got it running) @ 768. I figured the CPU has to enter in at some point, tho'. Just didn't know at what increments (for example, a 3.2ghz w/ 512mb is going to multi-task better than my current PIII 700 w/ 512mb). If the 2.8 & 3 are close and the 3 & 3.2 are close, then there's not going to be much of a difference between the 2.8 and 3.2?
Reply
Reply
post #20 of 29
1/1/04 at 2:17pm
There is 400 MHz worth a difference . I guarantee it'll show in benchmarks. I went with the 3.2, and someday I will be glad I did (especially when hl2 finally shows up). Besides if you ever get in a pissing contest with another person's laptop...you'll be glad you have the 3.2 (unless your not as shallow as me)
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home