Halo Performance

For the Halo benchmark, we used the PS/VS 2.0 rendering mode (DX9), and ran the timedemo with vsync off at 75Hz.

Under Halo, the only competitor with AMD is, again, the P4 1.8A (this time beating out the 1.6GHz and 1700+).

GunMetal Performance SimCity 4 Performance
Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • srue - Thursday, December 4, 2003 - link

    #16 Kristopher:
    That's probably what I'm going to do, but it would be nice if I didn't have to.
  • Spacecomber - Thursday, December 4, 2003 - link

    Speaking of Tualatins (#19), where are the the Tualatin Celerons? ;-) They have 256kb of cache, making them very similiar to coppermine PIIIs

    $40 for a Celeron 1.2 (which overclocks easily to 1.6 on a 133 mhz bus). I'd be curious to see how it stacked up against the P4 Celerons.

  • HammerFan - Thursday, December 4, 2003 - link

    lol @ Kyler's comment, I'm sure he's right :D
  • tfranzese - Thursday, December 4, 2003 - link

    good comparison Derek, I knew AMD would be faster but the margin was surprising to say the least.
  • Kyler - Thursday, December 4, 2003 - link

    #22 here:Ack sorry guys was just testing my login from a few months again.

    My comment to #20, you're just pissed cause you wanted to show her your sprocket :p
  • Kyler - Thursday, December 4, 2003 - link

  • DerekWilson - Thursday, December 4, 2003 - link

    So, I know I didn't explain this, but we used 2x256MB memory modules in each system, and both the AMD and Intel systems were running in Dual Channel mode.

    In other words, The Intel CPU was supplied with plenty of memory bandwidth. There may have been some small issues with the clocks not matching, but we made everything run as fast as we could, and if it made a difference at all, it would be negligable.
  • sprockkets - Thursday, December 4, 2003 - link

    Or in other words she bought the Compaq and not the computer I was going to build.
  • sprockkets - Thursday, December 4, 2003 - link

    Without cache and fast FSB and memory the P4/selloutron are crap. I thought though that some of the bottlenecks were removed, but I guess not, a simple 1.6ghz processor kills most if not all Intel's low end all the time.

    That also pisses me off, I'm pretty sure that 2 years ago a potential customer of mine went for a 1.6 Celeron P4 series processor instead of a 1ghz P3 Tulatin. She said I'm going to pass, she of course didn't know why I was sticking in a "slower" processor.
  • EglsFly - Thursday, December 4, 2003 - link

    Some people are blinded by clock speed... Intel knows this and will continue to design chips to sell to the unwise. It wouldn't surprise me if Intel would design a chip that clocked 5GHz, but performed like a 1GHz Pentium III. People would still buy it.

    Its time for the average joe to wake up already!
    Smell the crap Intel is shoveling...

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now