Was Athlon 64 faster than Pentium 4?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 вер 2023
- In September it’s been exactly 20 years since the amazing Athlon 64 was launched, and boy-o-boy, did AMD changed the game or what?
#retro #computer
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
🎧Discord: / discord
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Наука та технологія
The Athlon 64 needs dual channel memory to stretch its legs.
It surely does, but AMD had the excellent idea to create 2 sockets, one cheaper (754), and the more expensive 939. Also, don't remind me of the 940, for the 64 FX...
@@MidnightGeek99Really bad arguments. Intel also had own Netburst Xeon line (Opteron competitor), desktop Northwoods With older single channel chipsets (still at sale at the time probably - competitor for A64 754), cheaper celerons with less cache and Extreme Edition CPUs (competitor to AMD FX).
Main advantage of A64 was the integrated dual channel memory controller. Also you just had compared AMD PR rating, not if the CPUs of both brands were performing the same. AMD had at the time of launch 4000+ 2.4 GHz CPU with same amount of cache as P4 Prescott. You have chosen one of the worst A64 CPU with half the cache against almost the best Pentium 4 CPU - complete nonsense.
Socket 940 and AMD FX? Not really a problem. Architecture and memory controller was exactly the same.
@@swrzesinski I wouldn't say that this benchmarking is complete nonsense. There are flaws to be sure. Such as I would either have used a Single Memory Channel Pentium 4 board to match the single channel Athlon 64 board, or the reciprocal and paired a Socket 939 board with dual channel against the P4. Aside from that everything else with these benchmarks is pretty accurate. I remember when the A64 chips launched. I watched the release information and knew from the testing results that I wanted to avoid the Socket 754 as the performance in memory operations were worse than half as slow. The Athlon64 really suffered with limited memory bandwidth. If I recall, the Pentium 4 suffered as well, but not as seriously. I would genuinely be curious to see the S939 3200+ tested against this P4 3.2 to see what the differences are. As far as I know it should only effect memory intensive benchmarks. Everything else should stay relatively the same I believe.
@@swrzesinski Don't forget about those Pentium 4's that used RD RAM. When there was DDR 400, there was also RD 533 for some Pentium 4 set ups. I was an unfortunate owner of a Dell Dimension 8250 that had that set up. I remember buying a 256MB stick of it for about $250. It was 4 or 5 times as expensive as DDR RAM lol.
But, yeah, not sure why this guy even bothered with the 6800GS if he was going to benchmark the games using the CPUs without the GPU at all. I used to have a 6800GS. You could use RivaTuner and try your luck at unlocking the shaders and pipeline to make it a 6800GT. I was able to unlock the 5 shaders or whatever it was but not the other single thing. I had it paired with a 3400+ (s754 model which had 512KB cache but 2.4ghz vs the s939 3400+ that had 1MB cache but ran at 2.2ghz... PLUS I was able to overclock mine to 2.62ghz.) Man, the good old days when 200mhz made a noticeable difference to the eye. And as far as my unlocked 6800GS, I always scored the same as 6800GTs in benchmarks for whatever reason.
EVERYONE knew that an Athlon 64 performed better than a Pentium 4 HT in games and by a substantial amount. My A64 3400+ on s754 with AGP x8 went through a 9800PRO, a 6600GT, a 6800GS unlocked to nearly a GT and last, but not least, the final, most powerful AGP card ever made: The HIS HD3850. Waste of money because by then, the 3400+ was bottlenecking the crap out of it and Core 2 Duo had already been out.
And Core 2 Duo was to Athlon64 what Intel i5/i7 was to AMD's FX-8000/9000 line up. Leaps and bounds ahead. I had a couple of Core 2 Duo's (they overclocked like mad) and then ended that rig with a Core 2 Quad.
Enough reminiscing.
The benchmark is fine if you at least call it what it is.. but it's totally not how people used their rigs back then. You didn't NOT use your 6800GS to play games.
He should have at least showed software gaming and then showed how it turned out when gaming like normal and using the GPU. The Athlon64 would have smoked that P4. They were just so much faster at gaming.
@@helldog3105agreed, it should have been dual channel vs dual channel, or single vs single. The A64 was hobbled here. It probably should have been up against the older northwood core too.
Back then I skipped the entire P4 and Athlon64 generation, I used a AMD Barton 2600+ overclocked at 2300 mhz (11.5x200) up until the Core 2 Duo. But if I would have to choose between those two, I would choose the Athlon64 since it consumes less power and has a very similar performance.
I did the same thing, Barton core all the way till Core 2 Duo. My system was long overdue for an upgrade by that point.
Yeah, I was stuck with Athlon XP until Core2 also, but I did not complain back then, I had my own PC, it was all that mattered!
These are fantastic results for the Athlon considering it has nearly half the TDP and is clocked at 2.2 GHz. AMD was on point.
Exactly, they're practically keeping up with a CPU that's clocked an entire GHz higher and gobbles far more power. Kind of a funny 20th anniversary considering the situation now is very similar.
Yeah, nice results for the first 64 platform.
@@MidnightGeek99 Why did you compare the pentium 4e to an early athlon 64 on socket 754. Socket 939 had a dual channel memory controller and to me was the real athlon 64. Socket 754 was half assed.
Its a shame that the Athlon was not clocked higher with a higher TDP. The problem with AMD is their attitude of just good enough, they are followers and not leaders, ATI was a real contender before AMD bought them and infected them with the same disease.
Nvidia and Intel are the best and that is a fact.
Hehe opening old wounds of the eternal question 😊😅
What are you doing here lol
I like my retro stuff just like my food, spicy! :D
Hi, Uncle Phil!
@@MidnightGeek99 mmm lay on the spice
The takeaway is that AMD were spot on with their 3200 "performance" rating.
with only 2ghz clock
With the Athlon64 yes, with the Athlon XP no :)
@@MidnightGeek99 It might have been true with the first Athlon XP CPUs, back in the day a friend of mine had the 1.4GHz 1700+, I'm pretty sure it would have been as fast or faster than a Willamette 1.7GHz P4.
On the Athlon 64 3200+ it worked well, but the XP 3200+ not so much. It was accurate to about the 2600+, perhaps even the 2800+, but the 3000+ and 3200+ were more marketing than a real rating.
And the Athlon XP 1700+ on 1.4 GHz being close to a 1.7 GHz Pentium 4 puts it pretty much in line with a Tualatin Pentium 3, where 1.4 GHz also come out roughly with a 1.8 GHz Northwood. Heck, oc'ed to 1.6 GHz Tualatin can even compete with a 2.2 GHz Northwood in some tasks.
@@HappyBeezerStudios Yup, I remember having an Athlon XP 2400+, I loved it. I upgraded to an XP 3000+ and barely saw any improvements.
Basically the 3000 had the exact same clock speed, but a faster FSB and more L2 cash. While it does make a difference, it wasn't substantial enough to warrant a CPU Upgrade.
Crazy how AMD didn't change their heatspreader design for almost 20 years.
And now their current one is designed specifically to maintain backwards compatibility.
If ain't broke, don't fix it :))
It's nice to buy new coolers for the 939 socket.
The original Socket 754 Athlon 64 3200+ was a notably handicapped CPU, what with being stuck with just single channel memory running on just one thread, compared with the Socket 478 P4 3.20E Prescott with it's dual channel memory controller and Hyperthreading, theoretically allowing the P4 Prescott to handle boring background tasks on a second thread, allowing games to run smoother. The P4 Prescott having additional SSE3 support as well may have given it a further advantage, particularly with later games and software in general.
So it'll be interesting to see how the Socket 478 P4 3.20E Prescott holds up against a more advanced Socket 939 Venice Core (DH-E6 stepping) based Athlon 64 3200+ with it's dual channel memory controller and SSE3 support, despite still being single threaded, as well as running at a real speed of just 2GHz.
yes, it was single channel, but the P4 was NOT better. I had a p4 2.8ghz cpu, my friend had an Athlon 64. His destroyed my pc in gaming, I quickly switched and was amazed how much better it was.
I wouldn't call it handi-capped... Considering it was the very first processor released to consumers with an integrated memory controller, shitting on all other processors at the time.
Had a Socket 478 P4 3.20E Prescott build once, running XP, just to see what it was like. Hot enough to be a hand dryer round the back, and LOUD. Performance was OK, but sticky feeling.
Changed up build to a Socket 939 Athlon 64 4000+ San Diego. Notably better.
Changed it up again to a Socket 939 Athlon 64 X2 4800+ Toledo. Smooth and fast. Now it's Carling.
Same GPU & sound card throughout. XFX 6600 GT AGP @ full PCIe speeds & Sound Blaster Audigy SB0090 PCI audio.
Still considering the handicap, that the first gen Athlon 64 3200+ could already trade blows with the Prescott P4 3.20E is pretty indicative of what the next Athlon 64s could do without the handicaps. That's why I'm suggesting removing the handicaps with the S939 3200+ Venice to see what happens then. ;-)
A64 at socket 754 are counterpart of P4 Northwood, Presshot should be compared to 939 cpus or remove one stick of ram to compensate performance drop due to single channel.
Well, it's a socket 478 CPU, so it's ok to test it against Socket 754 Athlon 64.
And no, there are no reasons for removing a stick of RAM, it's not may fault that AMD were not able to stick dual-channel intro 754.
Prescott with single channel is something I would wish nobody. Even with dual channel it will be bandwith limited.
Prescott with 250 MHz FSB and DDR2-800 is roughly 15% faster than with 200 MHz FSB and DDR2-400 at the same CPU clock.
Dropping it to single channel I would expect about a 20-40% drop, depending on the task.
Dual Channel vs. Single Channel. Maybe that is the reason Pentium 4 is bit faster?
Yes, and sometimes the L2 cache, Prescott had 1 MB.
@@MidnightGeek99 Please compare similar products. The comparison is not legitimate.
@@cosmefulanito5933 What are the similar products in this case?
@@MidnightGeek99 Socket 939 is the most similar and correct to make the comparison, as many people have already told you.
@@cosmefulanito5933 ok, so socket 478 with socket 939 is a correct comparison?
@Midnight Geek i have a question about old Retro Cards. I have a system P4 2,6GHz 512MB DDR Ram and DVD Rom and 80 GB IDE HDD. The Power Supply has only 180W maximum. Which good cheap Retro Card can you recommenend for me that fit otimal to the system? I hav etested it with geforce 2 GTS and it handle it well the system running stable. I know the Geforce 2 GTS consumes 10Watt in 3D or even more?
i guess tje Radeon 9600 Pro AGP 8x could be a good choice it consumes around 18-20Watt Power in 3D. I think you can get this card pretty cheap?`I want only pay 10-15€ per card not more becuase i don't want pay a lot for an old graphic card.
Prices may differ, but you can get a Radeon 9600, just to be sure.
How is the comparison with socket 775 Cedar Mill P4 651? We have a much lower power draw. Does it win against AMD?
Cedar Mill goes against a Socket 939 Athlon 64, and by that time, the Athlon 64 became way faster than the Pentium 4.
Cedar Mill is basically a die shrink of Prescott-2M in 65nm. No other difference. They are much better for efficiency (so a smaller PSU will do) and allow to set their multi down to 12x, which allows to run higher FSB, which in many cases noticeably improves performance, but they are still Pentium 4 and will perform like Pentium 4.
Didn't run one at the time, but looks like main thing that held back the A64 vs the P4 was all memory related. A64 only had single channel memory and half the cache.
The Newcastle chip tested in this video was single channel. Faster versions of the A64 with dual channel memory access (Socket 939) and more cache were available back in the day.
@@looks-suspicious Thanks. Wasn't too familiar with these platforms then. Around this time I was running an Intel/Asus 875P board with a couple P4 Xeons, so I was set for a while. Yay for near 100% disposable income while at home in college.
Yes, the single-channel memory and the 512 KB L2 made all the difference.
@@looks-suspicious But problem is that when socket 939 was released, there was already socket 775 for intel with even more clocked P4s and soon after that, superior Core 2 Duo architecture was slightly getting into knowledge.
man, i was always curious about how the athlon64 was because i never had a chance to use one - i went from a Duron 650 to a Athlon XP 2100+ (Palomino i think), then XP 3200+ (Barton), then skipped a bunch of time when i was out of PC gaming and came back with a prebuilt that had a Wolfdale Core 2 Duo E8400 (which i eventually upgraded to a Q9650. i wonder between an OC Barton 3200+ vs the athlon 64 3200+ stock which you were better off with and if the memory or motherboard quality made up any differences for the older CPU.
the XP 2100+ was the 1st PC i built with all parts with my own money instead of just upgrading a computer my parents bought for me. it was on a Soyo KT333 Platinum Dragon with an MSI FX 5600 Ultra that had Morrowind as part of the software package. when i upgraded to the 3200+, i also swapped the motherboard for a DFI LANParty NF2 Ultra 400, complete with goin all-in on the phosphorescent plastics and UV lights. it was all in a big steel/plastic Chieftech case with a cut out window (you know the one, we all had a variation of it back then lol). i kept that for so long eventually selling it off with the Q9650, the Asus motherboard i was using, and an X800 GTO AGP.
good times remembering all these old processors that i started getting into PC tech with so many years ago. good times
Athlon 64 was in a rather rough spot, because it should have been released earlier, but releasing it in late 2003 / early 2004, it was to close to Core2, just 2 years difference.
FX 5600 Ultra? I'm searching for that card with passion, could not find one that's worth it, very bad but nice card :)
Also, DFI LANParty NF2 Ultra 400? Yes please! Give me also an ASUS A7N8X-E Deluxe and I'm set.
Ouch, selling those nice stuff seems rough to me :D
@@MidnightGeek99 i miss when you could get a fun colorful or UV reactive motherboard. it's all boring solid colors mostly now with random RGB lights so it falls into the trap where computers are looking the same again - they may as well be beige boxes with green PCB.
yeah, the FX 5600 Ultra was letting me play Morrowind at 1024x768 on high settings though and could play all my older games fine. i did upgrade for half life 2 and Halo CE with a 6800 GS and it was amazing times with everything being (relatively) affordable for good gaming experiences with legendary games.
i think i had an 8800 GT afterwards as my last AGP card before buying a GTX 260 as my 1st PCIE card (i still have it!).
On my Asus K8N S754 with NF3 chipset I have the same issue: the memory speed drops to 333MHz when using 2 sticks of ram. I don't remember how Via chipsets behave in this situation. I might give it a try since I have a S754 with Via chipset.
Back in the days I've used my Socket A system until I have upgraded to a socket AM2, so I've missed both S754&S939🙂
Well it shouldn't be the chipset because the memory controller is in the CPU. That was one of the principle changes in A64; an integrated memory controller.
Could be that you need to bump the ram voltage up in bios, or the caps need to be replaced.
@@phillycheesetake Midnight Geek also had the same problem reported in the video. The problem is that when you install 2 memory sticks, the speed drops from 400MHz to 333MHz. It's true that the memory controller is in the cpu, but I wouldn't be 100% sure that the chipset isn't playing a role here.
Funny thing is that when I first noticed this anomaly I've searched the internet about it. I've found topics dated 20 years ago about people complaining about this on their brand new Asus K8N mobos. So I honestly doubt that my motherboard has bad caps on it.
@@georosculet6505 Have you tried flashing the 1006 bios?
Edit: 1010 and 1011 should also work.
@georosculet6505 AMD platforms had RAM issues since forever, and they still have, look at the first generations of Ryzens.
It might be that your motherboard is not that compatible with those memory modules, try other ones.
@@phillycheesetake all my computer cases are hosting Windows XP machine and the Asus sits comfortable in a box. So I can't check its BIOS version right now and I don't remember it as well.
In the meantime I've looked over my benchmark archive and the result are these:
- Asus K8N with 1 module of RAM installed - RAM speed is 400MHz
- Asus K8N with 2 modules of RAM installed - RAM speed is 333MHz
- Biostar K8M800-M7A with 2 module of RAM installed - RAM speed is 333MHz
Unfortunately, as I've written earlier, all of my S754 mobos are sitting comfortably in boxes and I can't test the Biostar one with 1 module of RAM at this moment. But, if you find the topic interesting, I'll let you know when the time comes.
Funny that mid range GPUs now pull much more power on their own than those full systems
Yeah, we call this "technological advancement" :) Too bad the prices have 10x-ed.
@@MidnightGeek99 Actually today hardware is superior and has totaly superios ratio performance/consuption. Problem is 100% only in very badly optimised games and software which need nonsense HW requirments for no rason even when it doesn't look that good compared to some 10 years old games. If optimalisation was that good as 20 years ago, we could have 300W PSUs now. 😀
Thank you :) What would be interesting to know is what system is more compatible ?
Pentium 4 :)
@@MidnightGeek99 yeah, because I don't care to be faster if I can't run it 😉
Back in the day, I managed to get an Opteron 146 (Athlon64 with 1 MB of cache) installed in a 939Dual SATA2 from ASRock, and it destroyed my friends P4 Prescott, which ran hotter, and were far more expensive. Great times.
Opterons were amazing, Athlon 64 FX was basically an opteron.
That was my first ever cpu, athlon 3200 . Then a San Diego 4000+
Very good CPU, and the 4000+ was a beast!
I didn't expect the Prescott P4 to win, but except for power consumption I think it is now a better CPU because almost everything is multithreaded nowadays. I was an AMD fanboy back then but waited for the socket 939 which could run on dual channel 400 mhz.
That aspect is irrelevant nowadays, because you really don't want to use either of those two platforms for anything modern or multithreaded. From today's point of view, their performance is abysmal. These two platforms are really only useful for Windows XP and Windows 98 retro gaming setups.
It's also worth noting that while this particular Prescott wins against this particular Newcastle, this is not true for the P4 vs the Athlon 64 in general. Once you go for Socket 939 and later offerings from 2005, like the fastest Prescott 3.8 vs the San Diego A64 4000+, the P4 loses pretty badly in gaming. But even then, you're not doing anything wrong with either of these for a retro build. Just be warned, as those very fast Prescott chips are much harder to cool than the A64.
@gert106xsi have fun using a Pentium 4 today :D
@looks-suspicious You're right, later Athlon 64s were much better, and yeah, Prescott is very hot, that's why I prefer Northwood core CPUs.
If power consumption is an issue, Cedar Mill exists. it's basically a PRescott-2M die shrink to 65nm and is much less hungry. (65W vs 115 TDP on the faster models)
But that is already deep into LGA775, and so a small Core 2, Pentium Dual-Core or even Conroe-based Celeron is an option. The latter come with a 35 W TDP, will compete and even outperform the Pentium 4, will offer the same amount of overclocking headroom, and run on the same boards.
I had the Asrock K8Upgrade-NF3. I really wanted to buy the "Upgrade" card for 939 socket,but at the time the AGP slot was already outdated in favor of PCIe.
Right now it's hard to find the upgrade card, in my country at least.
I would like to see comparison: Athlon 64 3200+ Socket 754 vs Athlon 64 3200+ Socket 939. How much boost you can get with dual chanel. Socket 939 was released in 2004 the same year Pentium 4 3.2E
I would also like to see this comparison :))
I bought the Athlon64 back in the day, very shortly after it came out on the consumer platform. Here in the UK, I found that the Athlon64 3200+ was substantially cheaper than a 3.2GHz Pentium 4, with the 2.8GHz processors being their more usual competitor. All of the 3.2GHz CPU's were far more expensive than the price you listed there. I bought a 3400+ which runs at the same clockspeed, but has double the L2 cache. I believe that made a small difference at times, making it a much closer match to the 3.2GHz Pentium 4. I was using nForce 3 with 400MHz memory. It could support 3 slots.
I will note that a few months later, I managed to acquire a an nForce 2 motherboard with dual channel memory support and a Barton core Athlon XP for a second system. The performance was much closer and I mildly bemoaned the Athlon64 upgrade, feeling that the motherboard boost would have let me wait and get the funds for a socket 939 system later on. Oh well.
Indeed.
AMD overstated thier model names.. a 3200+ does not equal a P 3.2.
They were good bang for the buck and you were supposed to pick the right one.
Also.. one stick of RAM.. what could go wrong.. 😅
Yes, the 1 MB of L2 cache was a nice boost for the Athlon 64, 512 was simply too low, we're talking Athlon XP levels.
That was interesting. Thank you for putting in the time to make this comparison. I think in day to day life you would not really notice as the differences are very marginal. My conclusion is that they are the same (almost). How would this comparison be on the socket 775 vs 939 platforms? I’d be interested in the 65w Cedar Mill P4 vs comparable single core A64 / Opteron. Also why was the memory limited to 4GB on these 64 bit platforms. Why didn’t they add more ram slots? Also is there a way of engineering a higher memory capacity. Would this work? I have some 2GB DDR1 server memory modules. They generally don’t work on regular mother boards, but it would be great to set these up so that I can have 8GB of accessible memory.
I guess that this first Athlon 64 3200+ for s754 should be compared to Northwood D1 FSB800 rather than Prescott (released around half year later). But probably difference wouldn't be noticeably worse. What about PAT equivalent (original PAT was available only in i875)? Does your ASRock mobo have it and have you enabled it for tests?
Regarding problems with A64 s754 and 2 sticks of RAM: that's normal, if you'd use 2 double sided sticks. Some motherboards sets RAM to 333 MHz, other change Command Rate to 2T in order to boot and work "safely". You can always try to set these params (400 MHz / CR 1T) manually in BIOS and check if it'll boot (a bit higher vcore might help with that too).
To "solve" that problem you can also try to use one double sided and one single sided stick (1 GB + 512 MB) or one double sided 2 GB module (they aren't that common unfortunately).
The 800 FSB Northwood would have been faster in games than this Prescott :)
I did not make any changes in the BIOS, so I don't know about PAT.
I guess the issue is memory ranks.
I thought you will also use Crysis as a benchmark :)
Hehe, Crysis is a Vista game :P
@@MidnightGeek99 it works well on XP too.
Just a few points to help make this comparison clearer, and will explain why other reviewers may come to a different comclusion.:
1) You are using a P4AX Athlon 64 3200+ which has 512k cache. Other models, such as the P5AP/P5AR, had 1MB cache and were noticeably faster.
2) You are comparing a low end Athlon 64 with a high end Pentium 4. Compare it to a high end Athlon 64 like the 3400+, 3600+ or 3700+. This would bemore apples:apples.
3) And finally, what are your RAM speeds and timings? These can impact BOTH processors if set incorrectly. These should be confirmed, and not left to "auto". Just good methodology.
Hope this helps.
They had the same price back then, it seems like a fair comparison to me.
There was a weird cult around the early AMD 64bit chips back then. I remember posting up some productivity based performance comparisons back then and got so much abuse for it. People got really upset as to how well the Pentium 4s were doing in things like rendering in Lightwave and compressing videos. Probably the biggest upset I remember was on the SETI@home forum. I posted showing how Hyper Threading would allow you to parallel the work flow with proportionality little impact on each instances performance and in so making the processor well suited for this specific task. The two chip manufactures just had just radically different architectures and so each was better a different things.
Athlon 64 gives you option for dual channel but only with Socket 939.
Yes, because...AMD.
single memory channel (S754) VS double memory channel (P4) in software rendering.
Yes?
I like Midnight Geek. He’s like Phil’s computer lab with the gloves off. No rules apply🎉❤
since 2004/05 I used a socket 754 motherboard and an Athlon 64 3000+ for quite a few years. It was sop much faster than the slot 1 pentium iii PC that I upgraded from. With an OCed Radeon 9550 I remembered having played quite a few games. Later when the Athlon 64 x2 was launched, I wanted one so badly but I was broke back then. The AMD K8 family of processors have a special place in my heart.
Slot 1 to Socket 754...yeah, nice upgrade :)
I was stuck with Athlon XP until Core2 was release, so I feel you.
@@MidnightGeek99 Yes, before I got the „new“ machine, my slot 1 pc had definitely shown its age. But back then the internet was not as bloated as today, so I can still use it for the daily things.
On the other hand, athlon xp processors are one of the best for value gamers ever. It was powerful yet inexpensive. When it started to become slow then it’s overclocking capability wouldn’t disappoint
6:42 is that an Auchan branded CR2032? 😂
Yeah :))
Those batteries come back to haunt me...I have a few, they are terrible!
That GPU is so interesting, based on pcie NV41 + HSI bridge, also has 512mb vram instead of standard 256mb. if you ever want to get rid of that win98 unsupported gpu, i can help you with that!
It is, only the 6800 Ultra had this amount, from the 6000 series.
I built my first own computer in 2003. It was a P4. I remember the Athlon XP but the A64 wasn’t out yet. I didn’t own an A64 until I built my second computer in January 2006. A few months later the Core 2 Duo came out. I always built a computer just before it became obsolete 😂
Buying A64 just before Core2 release...ouch!
@@MidnightGeek99 that was my least concerned with that computer. The 7800GT GPU broke 3 times. Displaying green stripes across the screen. And I lived in Canada at the time and every time I had to pay 50 bucks to send it to the US to be RMAd. Last time it happened I was back home in Sweden and I just gave up and bought an ATI card that worked even if it was worse. The case was also banged up on the flight home from Canada and I had to pay extra for overweight. I also had constant issues with Windows. As it was a 64 bit CPU I assumed I needed a 64 bit OS so I used XP 64 bit edition even though I only had 2 GB of RAM. I was so happy to get rid of the entire thing when I got my C2D machine with an E6550 that must have been a golden sample because it could OC like a beast even though I undervolted it and it ran very cool.
My first machine was a 750 Athlon 64 3200+. Glad I went AMD for my first build, I didn't know much about P4 back then but I kept hearing that AMD was the better one for gaming at the time.
Nice, Socket 754 Athlons were great CPUs in 2003 - 2004.
In some way the Pentium 4 was misunderstood. Or rather, it wasn't optimized for what most people at home use their computers for.
Looking at old benchmarks, it performed really well in stuff that could keep the pipeline filled, like video rendering or MP3 encoding.
It was also quite bottlenecked from it's bus.the 2MB Prescott's could do better in some tasks than the 1 MB models, and when overclocking the FSB (while keeping CPU clock the same) performance could increase noticably.
I have a Pentoum 4 HT 631, which by default runs on 15x 200, but when I run it at 12x 250 (and increase memory from DDR2-400 to DDR2-833) performance will increase by about 15%, despite the same CPU clock.
Games on the other hand were less predictable than rendering, and pipeline stalls hurt NetBurst a lot, so games tend to do worse. The thought that an Athlon XP 2600+ could easily compete with a 2.6 GHz Pentium 4 shows that P4 was designed for high clocks and low IPC.
And K8 improved IPC compared to K7 while Prescott went a step back compared to Northwood.
On the other hand, NetBurst had an extension benefit (Northwood had SSE2 and K7 only SSE, Prescott had SSE3 and K8 only SSE2), so games that use those extensions will perform much better.
A good example is Quake 3, where a 2.8 GHz Northwood will beat an Athlon XP 3000+ with no issues. And a 1.4 GHz Willamette will beat an Athlon 1.2 GHz just fine, despite being much slower in other games.
Although Pentium 4 was fine, intel failed to produce a good architecture, Netburst was a bd idea.
@@MidnightGeek99 in a way it was sort of a stopgap because P7, their 64 bit architecture turned out unsuited.
Aaaah the Slavoj Žižek of retro hardware is back. Nice!
Thanks!
Back in the day I upgraded from the Socket A AthlonXP 2800+ to an Athlon64 Socket 939 3000+ On a Gigabyte K8N something motherboard. I had that board and CPU up until about 3 years ago when I built a Windows 98/XP system and gave it away on stream to someone. Still had the video card I had back then with it as well, the Radeon 9700 128MB. Fun times. I still have 3 Socket 939 boards here. Two with 3000+ CPUs and one with x2 4200+ I also have a couple AM2 boards. One surprisingly with a 3000+ and the other with an x2 4800+ All of the boards I have for them are surprisingly robust and featured. One is supports SLI, the other doesn't and the third is actually an AGP 8x board. All of them are nForce chipsets. Aside from having to replace all of the electrolytic caps on them, they all still work to this day. Sadly, I don't have any Pentium 4 computers. Kind of wish I did. But there's a lot of different versions, and selecting which socket, chipset, and then manufacturing of CPU, northwood, prescott, etc makes it a bit more complicated to make sure you are optimizing the performance of your build. I may try it later. I have other plans on my plate right now.
Unfortunately a lot of motherboards have bulged capacitors, but those are easy to swap, giving your mobo a lot more years to go :)
nForce motherboards were great, I have few myself.
@@MidnightGeek99 That is true. I have gotten fairly competent at PTH soldering and repair work, including cleaning leaky capacitors as I try to take care of my slowly aging collection of computers that go all the way back to 1979 (oldest working computer I have is an Atari 800). The Hakko FR 301 was the best purchase I have ever made and I don't know how I desoldered caps before I got it.
The AMD Athlon 64 was a good gaming cpu in 2004-2007😊
It was the best until the Core2. Well, Intel had the Extreme Edition, but that was just for show-off!
@@MidnightGeek99 Athlon 64 FX was a bit faster than the Pentium 4 EE.
The only Pentium 4 EE that was really worth getting was the 3.46 GHz Gallatin. It was blazing fast, but incredibly expensive. And it is still expensive, since as high end chip it sold in small numbers and is the fastest for the platform. And the fastest will always cost a premium. Just like a Q9650 or a i7--2700K.
Why use dual channel ram on Pentium 4 and single channel for Athlon 64??
Because the Socket 754 platform does not support dual-channel.
Nice comparison! Was gifted a lga 775 pentium 4 530J system a few weeks back with a asus p5p800 agp board. Put an p4 650 in it so it can run win 98, win xp AND win 10 32 bit. Then oced it to 4.3 ghz, giving it a 180% benchmark score. You can easily feel the difference specially while downloading files running win 10. These intel cpus always oc like crazy. The long pipelines of the pentium 4 isn't really a problem at high speeds.
Pentium 4 is an excellent platform for Windows 98.
@@MidnightGeek99 Yes blazing fast in win 98 SE, its running off a ssd on a sata to ide connector. Just need to swap the 512mb ram for 2gb for xp and win 10. Who knew a sound blaster audigy 2 zs and geforce fx 5950 ultra still work under windows 10 with xp drivers? 😂 The pentium 4 is still pretty usable in win 10 oced.
@@mealot7613 "The pentium 4 is still pretty usable in win 10 oced." - No, it's terrible. Don't lie to yourself. And stop destroying retro chips with massive overclocks.
Also, what do you mean by Geforce FX on Win10 with XP drivers? How is that supposed to work?
@@looks-suspicious You cannot destroy semi or old chips with massive overclocks if the temperatures are all within specs, it really doesn't matter how much energy you push into it or at what speeds its running, but clearly as an expert, you already know. Got cpus that have been running oced for the last 15 years. Only people like you who have no clue as to what they are doing will break stuff. Even intel employers will tell you so. Just keep cpu core and vrm temps under 80 degrees at all times. Besides this cpu was $6 incl shipping. I have seen people use a atom cpu with a fragmented 5400 rpm hdd. Win 10 is actually usable on the pentium 4 using a ssd, downloading files. If you know how to handle win 10 by turning stuff off it runs just fine with 2gb ram. For the drivers, even a clown can do that. You download Driver booster and let the program run. For the geforce fx drivers version 175.19 runs just fine if you use win xp sp3 compatibility turned on.
@@mealot7613 basically a triangle of clock, temperature, and voltage. If you keep them in check, all is fine. You can push some, if you keep the rest down. Which is why it is no problem to run chips at 8 GHz with 1.6 V when you use LN2 and cool the chip to -160°C
Guess I made the wrong choice in my XP build...
lol...what choice did you make? also, the only bad choice would be not to build an XP PC :D
@@MidnightGeek99 a 3ghz P4, the framerate differences in your comparison don't really matter to me since my monitor can only go up to 70hz, but the file copying and power usage are a little concerning, hopefully I made the right choice lol
the reason why the P4 beat Athlon in software rendering unreal is because rendering tasks are beneficial to the Pentium 4 due to its Branch Prediction being accurate enough to get though more predictable and repetitive tasks such as Rendering
Be lucky your house didn't burn down from that Prescott P4.
Neah, it was fine...I had good cooling :)
yea it was had several pentium 4 and athlons at that time
We all had :)
Salut hai să îți explic ca să poți înțelege și tu
Nu procesoarele sunt de vină că au fost create așa la vremea lor fie că vorbim de generația lor creată noi sau vechi sunt si vor rămâne mereu bune proaste sau nu merită un loc de apreciat
Nu contează ce level cache are mic mare nu asta contează principalul este că au fost bune la vremea lor dar prost concepute să fie utilizate pentru gaming intens
Și îți mai spun ceva multe din procesoare din generația asta cum se numesc sunt și astăzi rulate in office le regăsești procesoarele pe orice placă de bază cu fiecare socket anume in parte
Prin anii 2000 nu erau asa separate lucrurile, intre componente de gaming si de office, da.
@@MidnightGeek99sunt așa cum sunt procesoarele dar AMD crezând că va da lovitura cu acestea procesoare au dat fail mare cu ele
Bun ele sunt sunt bune Ok ca aspect contrast și felul cum au fost gândite dar să reamintesc nu pentru gaming intens aceste procesoare cum ar Cs go global fortnite sau altele jocuri care solicită la puterea maximă a procesorului
Cum sunt generațiile noi de procesoare din familiile respective care au un consum ridicat
Ele sunt gândite da în așa natură să ruleze pe ele jocuri old sau retro nu știu din păcate sau să îmi aduc aminte ca acest tip de procesor să poată suporta Windows 98 asta chiar nu știu și cu părere de rău o spun
Știu doar că din ce am testat eu personal maxim până Windows 7 îl recunoaște dar mai în sus de 7 cum ar fii gen 8 sau 10 ii dă Crash instant la sistem fiindcă nu îl recunoaște Windows 10 sau 8 nu vorbim despre 11 care automat iese din discuție că se prăbușește rapid
Windows 7 să îți spun drept eee cam cu greu la digerat acest procesor să îl recunoască installerul
RIP abit 🫡
RIP
I think, that you need to test faster Athlon 64s as well. I think that something like A64 4000+ will absolutely smoke the P4.
Yes, the 4000+ was a beast!
The 4000+ compared to a 3.8 GHZ P4 would be fun. And for good measure, throw one of the Celeron 400 chips into the run. Also single core, but with the massively improved Core 2 IPC.
Considering the Athlon frequency and power usage... Way to go AMD! Way to kick that P4 in the rear 😀
Yeah, Athlon 64 was a really nice CPU.
It was antil p4 d. Then the frequency and tiny bit icreqsed ipc of the newer p4 made it faster by a bit. But u could oc athlon 64 and we had pentium m ie the precursor to intel core/duo/quads that u could run on a desktop mobo for the ultimate gaming cpu.
Pentium 4s were more overclockable than the Athlon 64s :)
@@MidnightGeek99 mm but because of the lower IPC it does not help as much as when u over athlon64/Pentium m CPUs. Back then only one of my friends had a p4 machine rest of us had athlon based rigs and later on a few got Pentium m based systems.
The Athlon XP-M 2500+ and Pentium M were great chips. Pentium M were pretty much on par with Athlon 64 chips and there were desktop boards available.
hello my friend
Well hello, again :P
Socket 754? REALLY?
COME ON!
Bad comparition.
Socket 478 vs Socket 754 is pretty fair.
@@MidnightGeek99 No is not. Dual vs single channel is not fair at all.
@@cosmefulanito5933 Tell that to AMD, they've released a socket without dual channel :)
@@MidnightGeek99 Intel also launched Celeron processors and chipsets with a single memory channel. But they are on another level. You are comparing processors of different levels.
I don't remember if it was you or different youtube channel, but I was just recently talking about that somewhere in comments. Athlon 64 was not bad, but "AMD fanatics" created a nonsense legend that Pentium 4 is so bad and Athlon so good and it's not really true, socket 478 P4 with dual channel in fact gives better results in a lot of tests, AMD adopted dual channel too late.
Only advantage of socket 754 is that some Athlons 4000+ exist, but that socket was released in time when this single core architecture was already getting obsolete, so there is pretty much no reason to using that and there was no reason to buy that back in the day.
For retro gaming, I would always pick 3 GHz Prescott with dual channel better than some sc754 AMD because there is a lot of them (while everything with sc 754 is pretty rare now) and + dual channel.
If socket 754 had dual channel, I believe that situation would be completely different, Athlon 64 was better architecture.
I totally agree with you, Socket 754 is there to exist, I like it because you can use Athlon 64 with it :)
Pentium 4 was fine, especially Northwood. They performed well, could be kept cool, power consumption wasn't too insane. But they were still more expensive, put out more heat and consumed more power than a similar performing Athlon XP or 64
From a retro perspective, I would probably take a Northwood with RDRAM for that period correct goodness, a Cedar Mill (for lower power consumption than Prescott), or just go with a low end Conroe chip. And well, AMDs offering.
If you let Pentium 4 run in single channel like the rest, then we will see the real picture of his performance! For the rest, i see only - Intel fanboy testing))))))))))))))))))))
That'd hardly make sense since the A64 S754 only had a single memory channel, it was however much lower latency for memory access than everything else available at the time (hell, probably better than current DDR4/5 platforms nanosecond for nanosecond) and that's where a non-trivial portion of its performance came from. The S939 A64's were faster but it wasn't earthshattering (5-10% or thereabouts on a memory heavy workload), nothing to sneeze at to be sure, but not enough that the s754 parts instantly felt slow when they were released. As for running the Pentium 4 single channel... well that's not how someone would have run it at the time, so that's not a representative test.
Well, I am an intel fanboy :)
Comparing the P4 with dual channel is totally realistic how the hardware available at the time and to the configuration we can run nowadays. Sure, the extra bandwith is an advantage, but then, Pentium 4 needs it. The architecture is bandwith starved already.
My room is sauna while playing with Athlon x2 4800+ in mobo MSI K8N Neo2 and HD3850 agp 🥵
Nice system btw! Are the X2 and 3850 that hot?
@@MidnightGeek99 With Nvidia Zalman cooler it doesn't. But stock cooler is totally master of fan sounds.
I don’t run my HD3850 AGP (it is also still ‘new’ and boxed). Instead I prefer to to use HD 4650 AGP as they run much cooler. It’s a shame there aren’t more HD 4670 AGP’s around as these are closer to the 3850. I’ve only seen one or two 4670’s for sale and they cost hundreds of Euros.
The Athlon 64 was faster by a huge margin. It could do far more per clock cycle. Later model Pentium 4's had huge power demands.
It was not faster by a huge margin, maybe just when comparing them at the same frequencies.
faster than the socket 478 pentium 4s but not the 775 ones
With the 775 CPUs, AMD had the 939 Athlon 64s, which were faster.
@@MidnightGeek99 yes that is true all the way until core 2 duo
Ater Sempron 3000 i moved to A64 3200 s939 and it was much better platform than open core socA
Yes, socket A to 939 was an excellent upgrade!
Athlon 64 on single Channel....
Yes?
@@MidnightGeek99 It's slower. It's not correct dual channel pentium 4 vs single Channel athlon 64
@@claudiodaloia3458 It's not my fault that AMD were not able to add dual-channel for Socket 754 :)
Ahhh, ok. You have to try the sk939 with dual Channel. Much faster
@@claudiodaloia3458 guess what, that makes for a great followup to see the improvements K8 got from dual channel.
I would go even further and do a full 3.2 GHz series.
Athlon XP 3200+ (Barton, socket A)
Athlon 64 3200+ (Clawhammer/Newcastle/Venice, socket 754)
Athlon 64 3200+ (Newcastle/Winchester/Venice, socket 939)
Athlon 64 3200+ (Orleans, socket AM2)
Pentium 4 3.2 GHz (Northwood, socket 478)
Pentium 4 3.2 GHz (Prescott, socket 478)
Pentium 4 3.2 GHz (Prescott, LGA775)
Pentium 4 3.2 GHz (Prescott-2M/Cedar Mill, LGA775)
They all claim to be the same speed. But how much of that is really true. And not just in 2003-2006 games, but also in some newer stuff that is rarely tested on older hardware.
And if we want to destroy them a bit, throw a 3.2 GHz Conroe into the mix.
funny thing about the Pentium 4 is the Northwood 3.2 is faster due to it's shorter pipeline even though it's only 512kb cache, this would be a good time to compare results with these results.
also wonder if this was true or if the slightly longer pipeline of the prescott was negligible.
good job on the video.
The prescotts combined with the FX series; one of the few times during moores law era that things were more of a sidegrade and for all intents and purposes not the ideal purchases for the money. I think it's this moment that ATI/AMD really gained it's major fanbase still prevelant today.
Prescott had a longer pipeline to facilitate higher frequencies, but because it had 1 MB of cache and some pipeline improvements, over Northwood, it was better in some games / applications, but I'd take a 3.2 Northwood every day!
@@MidnightGeek99 sadly those higher frequencies peaked at 333-400 MHz, not enough to balance out the longer pipeline. The fastest northwood was 3.4 GHz (3.46 if we cosider the EE) while the fastest Prescott came in at 3.6 GHz.
From some reviews and benchmarks back in the day it seemed like Prescott was gaining the lead at around 4.4 GHz (for both CPUs), but that was basically unsustainable. Intel cancelled even the 4.0 GHz chip.
you need socket 939 they were cheap
I have Socket 939 :)
Not anymore. It seems that the retro collectors have bought them up.
Can I interest you in an A64 Fx-57? 😜
Calitate - pret - consum curent, AMD a distrus Pentium IV la diferenta de 1000 Mhz si fara dual chanel la ram:))
Cam da, insa la noi gaseai mai repede Pentium 4 decat Athlon 64, cel putin asa tin minte.
AMD 3200 (NewCastle) (low-mid level) vs Pentium 4 (Prescott) (Hi level). Incorrect comparison of systems. I should have checked on Socket 939.
So I should have compared Socket 478 with Socket 939?
@@MidnightGeek99 Yes
@@denyda1754 ok!
pentium 4 was a so inneficient architecture that intel drop him for literally revive Pentium 3 for the new cores instead.
Netburst, will never miss you
Indeed, but we have a ton of Pentium 4s on the market right now, I would say that this is good for the retro folks.
A bit of the design came back in SandyBridge in 2011. But only the things that were actually good.
TLDW; Yes, it was faster.
Athlon 64 had a rough start, but it grew to become legendary.
Atlon 64 3700 is faster than Pentium 4 3,6Ghz in the most games buit in couple of games P4 3.6GHz are faster because of the advantage of the Hyperthreading (HT Technologie from intel)
in Games especially in Call of Duty 2 or Boiling Point which prefer a lot from Dual Core.
I'm planning to also test Socket 939 Athlon 64, so stay tuned, we will see then the performance differences, as I will be testing older, and also newer games.
I recall hosting regular LAN parties with 20 people in the P4 era, my only mate with the AMD 64 was always complaining about his games running worse then everyone else's on P4's , largely down to Windows x64 not being a stable platform at the time and software support was terrible for x64. This was the golden age of Intel stomping by single thread speed and ipc vs AMDs frequently poor chips.... which lasted until the Ryzen tbh. I also had several thunderbirds AMD cpus before that P4, boy were they garbage. Only decent CPU AMD made in that decade was the Phenom series... before killing the company nearly will the bullshitdozer series.
AMD had some good runs in the 2000s, the early Athlon XPs (until Intel released P4 Northwood), the Athlon 64 and 64 X2 (from 2004 to 2006), and that's all :)
I've seen reviews of small Excavator Athlons, and they did surprisingly well. About 30% improvement over Bulldozer/Steamroller, but that small Athlon was socket FM2, with single channel memory and only PCIe x8.
The thought of an FX chip on that newer design was nice. But then the idea of a "Pentium 5" that improved on all the issues is similar. Use proper 128-bit SSE units (who had the idea to do 128-bit floats on 64-bit execution units), give it a large L3 cache (like on Gallatin), and a much faster bus (I'm thinking 300 MHz/1333 MT or even 400 MHz/1600 MT) would work wonders to improve performance. Maybe even manufactured in a smaller node, maybe 32 or 22 nm. Would have no practical purpose but would be a great chip to tinker around with.
Disagree... :)
Agree to disagree, or just disagree?
I find it amusing that I have two almost identical Alienware machines but one uses either of these chips but they have Radeon 9800XTs.
Very nice systems, Alienware with Radeon 9800 XTs? Great keepers!