Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by Zephor, Oct 26, 2001.
What? Those are video card benchies. Yes, video cards are very bandwidth starved. What's your point?
Anand worked pretty hard to give his site the reputation that it has, and he would probably think twice before making up stuff and ruining all his previous hard work.
That if the Athlon was truly bandwidth limited, it would also perform 80% better.
file = fopen("ASCII.txt", "w");
for (int k = 0; k < 255; k++)
b = k;
a = k;
fprintf(file, "%c ", b);
fprintf(file, "%d\n", a);
That's not what you originally said
Please stop twisting your argument. I'm tired of posting countless links from Anandtech only to have Jakeman accuse me of pulling things out of my ass.
The Athlon platform still needs more bandwidth, just not as much as video cards. Video cards are like CPU's running on a 128-bit 100000GHz CPUs with 1KBs memory. Basically, they would like to process WAY WAY WAY more data than they get. Yeah, the Athlon doesn't have it that bad.
We're off topic here. Nice dicussion, but I think we can agree that all CPUs are bottlenecked by something. Some have smaller bottlenecks like the G4/PIII, others have larger ones like the Athlon/P4. All these chips have largely different raw speeds, but their real world performace is much closer. Since most software is written to run on a G3/PII/Celeron, any high CPU kicks ass.
...Should I respond to that... Nah...
Having just read this whole thread, I can only say that Grizzly has owned you all. He has, not only single-handedly shot down every argument you fellas have given him, but has also provided factual evidence from a reputable and reliable source as to why your argument/logic was incorrect.
However, all of you Mac users refuse to acknowledge defeat, and instead change your argument around to try and dig yourselves out of the hole you are already in.
Grizzly and I may be friends, but we debate over similar things very frequently, and we both know when to bow out gracefully, which the other members of this forum do not seem to know how to do.
grizzly was wrong about a few things
And I'm just having fun
Ahh, give it a break
Gimme A Break, Break me off a peice of that KIT KAT BAR
*me runs around kicking everyone*
My computer roxxors joo. Why? because i says so, so put that in your pipe and smoke it. :fart:
Well, since I am bored, I will add my 2 cents:
Most of this technobabble is beyond me, because to tell the truth I really don't give a rat's behind about things like memory bandwidth and FPU calculations and DDR whatevers. Blah, blah, blah. The SOFTWARE has always driven the market and always will. Bill Gates was smart enough to realize that, which is why M$ is the dominant company in the world and not a hardware company like IBM or Intel or Motorola.
I own a Mac because I prefer its operating system (ie software) over Win-blows. Simple. I have used both enough to know which I prefer. I have yet to meet a Wintel box that is worth my dollar, because no matter how well it performs, it runs a suck-ass operating system. Why should I care how well it runs it? Actually, most Windows users are more or less ambivalent, so they go with what on paper appears to be the less expensive choice. (This is debateable when you figure in life-cycle costs, but that is a topic for a different thread.) In my experience, most hard line anti-Mac people have barely used a Mac, if at all, and are just ridiculing those whom they perceive to be in the minority. A common human failing. At least most of us who have chosen Mac have used Windows enough to know that it sucks.
I know this is not strictly the subject of the thread. We are talking about performance. However, that is a pointless debate. As others have pointed out, any comparison of the two systems has to include a comparison of the software.
Okay, I can't stand it anymore. Yes, I said the Athlon doesn't have enough "memory bandwidth" to truely shine, but I was also taking about frontside bus speed. As I think about it, this is what every CPU needs more of, as it almost always improves performance. When I said the words "memory bandwidth," I meant the bandwidth between system memory, the north bridge, and the cpu as a whole. I did not just mean the bandwidth between system memory and the north bridge, but it's my fault for making this unclear.
Anyway, you're right in saying that DDR alone doesn't improve speed significantly. But with a faster system bus and DDR 333, I think you'll see the Athlon still has quite a bit of untapped power left.
Oh, and Lurk's right. I want a 867MHz G4 because it's the fastest chip that can run my operating system of choice. I can settle for 550MHz though.
Oh and Grizzly, the Athlon's FSB was designed to support DDR 400 speeds. 266 is by no means the limit. I wonder why, AMD gave the K7 arcitexture that much head room? I predict 333 Athlon's will appear sometime in the near future. These puppies will really scream.
Separate names with a comma.