Hyper Transport
- Thread starter GameGURU
- Start date
- Status
crazybeans
In Runtime
- Messages
- 233
Cough*AMDbias***
I couldn't help but notice that all but a couple of you have AMD systems. Those of you without AMD had older Intel systems and didn't seem to know much about newer Intel technology. I heard a lot of "I don't know exactly how it works but sounds a lot better than HT!" and a little "hyper transport utilizes the computer better, besides who is going to rip a cd and play a game at the same time?" The fact is Intel describes HT in this manner so people will understand it. HT technology allows the CPU to execute two sets of commands at once. With our current software there are only a few games and programs that utilize HT technology such as AquaNox 2 Revelation and AquaMark3. You can't test the performance of a technology using software that isn't compatible or capable to use it. Now I'm sure your thinking "Well why buy something that isn't utilized by all software?" The answer "If we never change, we can never advance." Now, I am not saying one is better than the other because they are completely different things. I'm just saying; don't knock it if you haven't tried it or if you don't fully understand it. Also, I would recommend making a decision based on facts such as benchmarks. Prove your thesis, don't just say it if you can't back it up.
I couldn't help but notice that all but a couple of you have AMD systems. Those of you without AMD had older Intel systems and didn't seem to know much about newer Intel technology. I heard a lot of "I don't know exactly how it works but sounds a lot better than HT!" and a little "hyper transport utilizes the computer better, besides who is going to rip a cd and play a game at the same time?" The fact is Intel describes HT in this manner so people will understand it. HT technology allows the CPU to execute two sets of commands at once. With our current software there are only a few games and programs that utilize HT technology such as AquaNox 2 Revelation and AquaMark3. You can't test the performance of a technology using software that isn't compatible or capable to use it. Now I'm sure your thinking "Well why buy something that isn't utilized by all software?" The answer "If we never change, we can never advance." Now, I am not saying one is better than the other because they are completely different things. I'm just saying; don't knock it if you haven't tried it or if you don't fully understand it. Also, I would recommend making a decision based on facts such as benchmarks. Prove your thesis, don't just say it if you can't back it up.
wait a minute wait a minute . . .
just because it doesnt say in my signature doesnt mean i dont have an HT pentium 4 . . .
the windows computer we have in the living room is a :
3.0GHz HT
1GB PC3200 RAM
Radeon 9600XT 128MB
160GB HD
19" LCD
i have had experience with it . . .
i experienced better gameplay on it (flight sim and battlefield) with HT off than HT on . . .
i just dont play hardcore on that machine . . . since its downstairs right in the middle of everything . . .
crazybeans . . . have you ever used an AMD? you say that we're all AMD-biased . . . sounds like you're INTEL-biased . . .
i have actually used an AMD Athlon 64 2800+ the same day as my 3GHz HT, and i can clearly say that the Athlon is better at more things than the P4. Its not that the P4 is bad . . . they're both good processors . . . but when I see that a 2800+ with 768MB RAM is better at the same tasks than a 3GHz w/ 1GB RAM, then that's telling me something
just because it doesnt say in my signature doesnt mean i dont have an HT pentium 4 . . .
the windows computer we have in the living room is a :
3.0GHz HT
1GB PC3200 RAM
Radeon 9600XT 128MB
160GB HD
19" LCD
i have had experience with it . . .
i experienced better gameplay on it (flight sim and battlefield) with HT off than HT on . . .
i just dont play hardcore on that machine . . . since its downstairs right in the middle of everything . . .
crazybeans . . . have you ever used an AMD? you say that we're all AMD-biased . . . sounds like you're INTEL-biased . . .
i have actually used an AMD Athlon 64 2800+ the same day as my 3GHz HT, and i can clearly say that the Athlon is better at more things than the P4. Its not that the P4 is bad . . . they're both good processors . . . but when I see that a 2800+ with 768MB RAM is better at the same tasks than a 3GHz w/ 1GB RAM, then that's telling me something
crazybeans
In Runtime
- Messages
- 233
Coldapu, I also have an AMD system. My point was that the posts people were adding sounded bias since nobody mentioned that they had an Intel system, or used one. Also, you failed to notice that I said most software isn't HT compatable and because of this it seems the feature slows down the computer. In the future windows and software developers plan on making their software HT compliant so people can utilize it's power.
I couldn't help but read your specs on your AMD 64 and your newly posted P4 3.0ghz. Your AMD seems much better equiped. First off you have a 128MB Radeon 9600XT in the Intel system and a eVGA GeForce 6800GT in your AMD system. That alone makes a large difference. In your AMD system you have an Audigy 2 ZS Gamer which takes processing sound away from the CPU and renders it independently. BTW, what is the FSB speed of the P4? Are you utilizing the dual channel DDR400 or just running a single channel DIMM on the Intel board? If not then this already unfair test is seemingly getting worse. Also, do you have the same OS on the two systems? Just a few things to take into consideration...
Just for shits and giggles you should do a benchmark on your AMD system using AquaMark3 and then use the same settings, except enable HT technology, on the Intel system under options in AquaMark3. Make sure it's enabled in BIOS first
Post your results. BTW, I have no clue which will score higher, just curious. Thanks.
I couldn't help but read your specs on your AMD 64 and your newly posted P4 3.0ghz. Your AMD seems much better equiped. First off you have a 128MB Radeon 9600XT in the Intel system and a eVGA GeForce 6800GT in your AMD system. That alone makes a large difference. In your AMD system you have an Audigy 2 ZS Gamer which takes processing sound away from the CPU and renders it independently. BTW, what is the FSB speed of the P4? Are you utilizing the dual channel DDR400 or just running a single channel DIMM on the Intel board? If not then this already unfair test is seemingly getting worse. Also, do you have the same OS on the two systems? Just a few things to take into consideration...
Just for shits and giggles you should do a benchmark on your AMD system using AquaMark3 and then use the same settings, except enable HT technology, on the Intel system under options in AquaMark3. Make sure it's enabled in BIOS first
Post your results. BTW, I have no clue which will score higher, just curious. Thanks.plus, i cant just go to his house and test it . . . he lives in atlanta . . .
this past memorial day wkend, before i left the airport at about 7am, i was up at 5am using that machine . . .
reached in atlanta at 5pm, and played the same game on his machine with 14 hours
his was better
EDIT: i just learned that he has upgraded to a 6800 gt a while ago . . .
so now a benchmark wouldnt be fair
but at the time, yes he did have a 9600xt
this past memorial day wkend, before i left the airport at about 7am, i was up at 5am using that machine . . .
reached in atlanta at 5pm, and played the same game on his machine with 14 hours
his was better
EDIT: i just learned that he has upgraded to a 6800 gt a while ago . . .
so now a benchmark wouldnt be fair
but at the time, yes he did have a 9600xt
- Status
Similar threads
