<Daniel: hat personal attacks? My claim that you are sucking up the NetB**s* marketing campaign? I stand by that one.>
Ok, but if I prove you wrong, please retract it ;)
Here goes...
The whole Intel NetBurst marketing ploy (which we all know it is, even I) referenced the P4's "double pumped ALU". I have neither spoken favorably of the marketing nor of the underlaying architecture. I have also not commented on Athlon vs P4 performance!
What I have said is that P4 performance, relative to P3, is about what one would expect when looking at Intel's previous launches.
Yes, the PPro had been out for some time at that point, and it still showed up weak on 16 bit software. Which was the only thing it ever looked weak on.
Well, in a time of 90% 16bit software, that's a pretty bad thing, no? And somehow this is different from the P4's bad performance on business apps? /shrug
You dig up a ridiculous comparison of an OC'd PPro, an OC'd Pentium, and a 5 month prerelease PII, and then accuse me of making bogus comparison?
I dug up the only benchmarks I could find. Looking a bit more at Tom's site, I did find one thing which contradicts a claim you made:
sysdoc.pair.com
The P5MMX beats the PPro at Quake!!
Oh, and if the PPro was indeed overclocked, it only serves to prove my point even better!!!
-fyo |
