|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Here's another POV:
http://www.emulators.com/pentium4.htm#02282001
Some excerpts:
"Benchmark after benchmark after benchmark shows the 1.5 GHz Pentium chip
running slower than a 900 MHz Athlon, and in some cases slower than a 533
MHz Celeron, even as slow as a 200 MHz Pentium in rare cases."
snip
"In a third floating point test, running the SoftMac 2000 emulator and then
running a heavily floating point based benchmark on the Mac OS, the Pentium
4 fails to keep up with even the 600 MHz chips, losing badly (82 seconds vs.
49 seconds) against the 670 MHz Pentium III and losing worse (82 seconds vs.
36 seconds) against the 900 MHz AMD Athlon."
snip
"If it isn't clear already, the Pentium 4 is a terrible choice for PC users.
It is a severely crippled processor that does not live up to its original
design specifications. Its makes inefficient use of available transistors
and chip space. It places a higher burden on software developers to optimize
code, contrary to the trends being set by AMD and Transmeta processors. It
reverts to 10 year old techniques which Intel abandoned and apparently
forgot why. And it just plain runs slower than existing Pentium III,
Celeron, and AMD Athlon chips."
I have no clue if these comments are valid. Perhaps someone more
tech wise might comment.
BW
>From: ribau@xxxxxxxxxxx
>To: omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: the ideal computer for tradestation...
>Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 08:12:05 -0700
>
>My daughter's boyfriend turned me on to this discussion at the MegaGames
>web site http://www.megagames.com/news/show.cgi?&idtype=pc&database=152&;
>
>"It is official, after millions of test runs, thousands of benchmarking
>trials and hundreds of hours, the results on the fastest and all round best
>processor available are in. Will it be AMD's Athlon 1.33 GHz or Intel's
>Pentium 4 1.7 GHz Willamette wonder that will grab the much coveted title?
>Looking at the core frequency GHz values assigned to each processor you
>would tend to think that the winner would be obvious but the test results
>tell a different story.
>
>"There is of course no clear winner. As is usual with these benchmarking
>face offs, each processor seems to have its strong points. After looking at
>the results you can't help but get the feeling that these are almost the
>same processor as far as performance averages are concerned."
>
>AMD seems to have a slight edge with applications, INTC seems to have a
>slight edge with games. TS2Ki, being graphics and processor intensive like
>games are, would seem to do best with the INTC processor. But apparently,
>the differences are very minor and probably not noticeable to the trader.
>The real issue is that the both the newer generation chips way outperform
>the previous generation.
>
>My new system works incredibly well with TS2Ki. I couldn't care less what
>brand powers it because both the performance difference and the price
>difference are negligible.
>
>
> >>I'm certainly not qualified tech wise to argue one over the other but:
> >>
> >>A) I've run TS on both Intel (since 386) and AMD since 486 vintage
>machines:
> >>No problem at all on the AMD's regardless of what Omega says, and FWIW
>that
> >>old AMD 486 is still working just fine for my kid.
> >>
> >>B) Many (if not most) things I've read say the Athlon is a *better
> >>chip,* not just cheaper, than the P4.
> >>
> >>C) Look at the charts of AMD and INTC if you want a "put your money
> >>where your mouth is" comparison since the new Athlons and the P4's
> >>hit the market.
> >>
> >>Some would have you believe Intel is the only quality choice. That
> >>seems blind brand loyalty to me. It's a two horse race now, and IMHO
> >>that's a good thing.
>
|