Quote:
Originally Posted by YiffyGriffy
Frankly, I'm not all that impressed with Dothan. Sure it's a good chip, and it does put up some nice numbers, but it still costs too much. $400-450 and only about as fast as a Athlon 64 3500 that costs $260, still not worth it, but I guess if you love Intel you'll pay the money
You also have to account for the fact that overclocking is a relative process dependant on many things and of course should never expect the same result as someone else. Factor in again that when reviewers overclock CPUs, they often have "special" chips from the manufactures like engineering samples which are tested to run higher than normal speeds.
|
Let's clarify one thing in this argument. At
stock speeds, compared to AMD's (since this seems to be the comparison of choice....imagin that....), The 2.0 P-M beats out the 3500+ on all gaming benches, and loses to the 4000+. And, oh, what's this? The 4000+ is
$750.....so at the price point of $400-$450, the P-M 2.0 falls right between the price points of the 3500+ and the 4000+, and *gasp* this
is reflected in performance.
Furthermore, BSMan, your line of reasoning about the processor not being able to handle the data influx from higher resolutions....I am just plain befuddled at the ignorance of that statement. How much L2 cache does the 3500+ have? (Let me help you out: 512k) How much L2 cache does the 4000+ have? (Here's another nudge in the right direction: 1mb) Now, what about the dothans? Hmmm....would that be 2mb?
And lastly, the primary reason for better gaming performance (drumroll please):
a shorter pipeline.
http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_cont...ngaming&page=1
Oh yeah....and the P-M's have astounding floating point operations capabilities...so oops, there goes AMD's hold on that facet of benchmarking fascination, as well.