New Dothan Gaming review - Page 2

I agree, but hey it wasn't me that started it this time

Some words of wisdom:

There are lies, damn lies, and benchmarks. -- Kevin McCurley

The only genuinely objective benchmark is the one left on a person's trousers when they sit on a bench that has just been painted. -- HPC Wire

Exactly, every now and then AMD will be on top, then Intel, then AMD. I think sometime people need benchmarks to justify their purchase of a P4 EE or an AMD 53 FX or Dothan 755.

AMD and Intel so close in gaming?!

Wow, I don't know how GamePC configured their Athlon64 systems, but the tests at Anandtech show a much, much bigger difference in AMD's favor:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...px?i=2275&p=10

I would be really surprised to find that Dothan can beat Athlon 64 clock-per-clock.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...px?i=2129&p=10

I think u were looking at the wrong results. The dothan is just a tad worse than the amd 64 per clock. The 2.0 ghz dothan is about as fast as an amd 64 3000+ IMO

LoL! Look at their actual wording....

Clicky - For Lazy People


But can't wait for the next Dothan replacement

Just to preface this post, I enjoyed a weekend in New Orleans burbon street, drinking, drag queens with boobs and balls, the standard fare) only to return to a thread I COULDN'T resist checking out for myself. My response is as follows.


It is impossible to comapre the ratings on the gamepc website with TRUE benchmarks. The marks on the site are ALL graphics intensive. Try running CPU intensive marks to bench CPUs....only run GRAPHICS intensive marks for GPU scores. GamePC has a major flaw in their test. They need to run those benches again, but with a GeForce 4 Ti or ATI 9700/9800.

I'm glad you guys with your Pentium M's got to have your 15mins of fame...or however long it took me to post this reply. I won't argue that they aren't good processors, because they are hands-down amazing. But the 64 is more amazing than that! (I just wish I had the kick-ass battery life of the Pm.)

Anyway, when the day is done and we all enjoy our computers just as much as the other guy, all we want to do is have a beer (and then we can argue the matter drunk )

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduc...111-161&depa=0

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduc...103-443&depa=0

the dothan is wayyyy more expensive than the amd 64. For performance/price ratio the amd 64 cant be beat, but the dothan just has such a better better life than the amd 64.

haha anohter snorre baiting thread...brightens my morning.

well done snorre for standing up for yourself... the ferrari is a nice looking machine... though i dont think it will age as well as the real thing does...

in any case, i sure am happy with my sony a series with the 17 inch screen... super duper for video editing and all sorts of things!

by the way all... if you want a cool application, get objectdock from stardock.com .... that mimics the taskbar of a mac and its really cool!!!

krlock

I didn't know about Anand's Dothan review - that clears up some claims that 1.7Ghz Dothan is faster than Athlon 64 3200+.

But in fact I was looking at the P4 - A64 comparison.

Let's look at %age difference between Athlon 4000+ & P4 3.6Ghz, according to both sites:

Anand GamePC
Doom3 16% 1.4%
Source 23% 8.9%
Far Cry 15.9% 8.8%
UT2004 16.4% 13.1%
Halo 9.5% 1.4%

See a pattern here?

Now, I trust Anandtech - therefore I doubt GamePC' AMD64 setup and/or test methodology.

Yep, that Dothan sure is powerful. Too bad you need a desktop graphics card to get good game performance, they don't make dothan's with good video cards in laptops, that's for sure.

Anubis, I disagree - they have to use the fastest possible video card to reduce the GPU bottleneck. So in this respect their choice of X800XT is a good one

But they should've reduced the resolution and quality settings to move more work from the GPU onto the CPUs (as you can see, the results for Battle Vietnam are hardly affected by the processor speed)

Hell yeah

yea right, im running everysingle high end thing out there right now perfectly on this laptop witha 9700 radeon

Well, HL2 is freaking awesome on my laptop at high detail. Full screen 1280 x 800 baby!

Ok, last response for me on this. Let's compare the Mobile AMD 64 2800+ to Intel's Pm 1.8 (keeping in mind, they are still only 32 bit.)

SiSoft Sandra Arithmetic Benchmark:
Mobile AMD 64 2800+ 1.83ghz: ALU 8285 MIPS / FPU iSSE2 2846/3711 MFLOPS
Intel Pentium M 1.8ghz: ALU 7747 MIPS / FPU iSSE2 2499/3198 MFLOPS

SiSoft Sandra Multimedia Benchmark:
Mobile AMD 54 2800+ 1.83ghz: Integer x4 aEMMX/aSSE 17201 it/s
Floating-Point x4 iSSE2 18441 it/s
Intel Pentium M 1.8ghz: Integer x4 iSSE 17100 it/s
Floating-Point x4 iSSE2 18868 it/s

Summary:
The Pentium M 1.8 holds it's own against the bottom of the line mobile 64 from AMD. Being only a 32-bit processor, it keeps up with the AMD 64, falling short in some tests and keeping up in others. So it is simply a matter of prefernce in your chip manufacturers, as both perform well in their own right. Do you prefer the expandability of the 64-bit processor but a shorter battery life? Or do you prefer the last of dieing breed, the 32-bit processor, but relish the incredible batter life? It's your choice, no one else's, and it's your computer, no one else's. And as long as you're like me, you're happier with your choice and your computer than you are with anyone else's.

(Beer anybody? )

looks nice!

No, SiS has always favored Intel's P4 because of Hyper-Threading.

Anubis256: