About The Benchmarker
So what are the special circumstances surrounding this review? Well, I'm sure some of you folks are thinking, "Wow! I can't believe that Jonny has five motherboards that he can run benchmarks on all at the same time. I wonder what he's going to do with those boards when he's done?"
The D845BG board was a loaner from Intel. They wanted my impression and then I had to give the board back. The D845WN and the D850MV were borrowed from my work, as well as the 1.9 GHz processor. This is rough work, I tell you! I was only given enough time to do the benchmarks I had done and none more.
Why bother with doing a comparison at all? As you may have read in my Guru's World columns, I do this for a living. People buy the parts from my work and then make their feeble attempts and building their own PCs. Most "builds" are pretty much me putting together "test rigs" on my bench on top of small cardboard boxes so I can try to duplicate exactly what the customer is doing, only correctly. I fire the test rigs up, hold the phone up to the running machine and say, "I can make it work...why can't you?"
Well, on occasion, I'll get the person that bought the D45WN motherboard, a 1.8 GHz CPU, a couple DIMMs and brag that they have this killer PC. The way I see it is that they could've spent the same amount of money on an Athlon 2000+, a DDR motherboard and DDR RAM for just as much money! Why bother with the P4 at all? You're completely crippling it with the SDRAM anyway!
Uh oh! Now you start getting into the Intel versus AMD flame wars. AMD runs too hot and has stability issues. VIA chipsets have compatibility issues. The CPUs are too fragile and you wont warranty the chip if I crack it in two. Whaaaaa!!!
If you knew what you were doing, you would have not only an AMD Athlon based system that runs 24/7 like mine, but also have it overclocked to boot. Then again, if you knew what you were doing, you wouldn't be calling me, would you?
I have nothing against Intel. They make a good product. Even as an AMD user, a zealot if you will, I can find more at fault with the AMD platform than the Intel platform. Believe it or not, I also own a P4 1.7 GHz overclocked to 1.9, but there are two "issues" I think we can all agree on. Pentium 4s are on the average slower than their AMD counterpart.
How is it that a Pentium 4 2.0 GHz runs at the same speed as an Athlon XP 1667 MHz in most benchmarks?
It used to be that price was an issue, but if you look at what AMD is doing with their PR ratings, you'll find that the AMD Athlon XP is now MORE expensive then a Pentium 4. For example, that Athlon XP 1900+ is only running at 1.6 GHz and costs $225. A Pentium 4 that runs at 1.6 GHz only costs $170!
What's an issue now is value.
The fact remains that MHz doesn't mean squat! Forget side by side comparative results between PR ratings and MHz ratings because you're bound to find a few benchmarks that the Pentium 4 will beat the Athlon XP at if you look at two CPUs of the same "rating", but if you took that $225 1.6 GHz Athlon XP (a model 1900+) and put it up against a Pentium 4 that costs the same, a 1.8 GHz, the Athlon will wipe the floor with that P4.
So it seems I've gone off on some tangent I can never recover from. The fact is this is my defense testimony for throwing two AMD benchmarks in the mix. For those of us who use an Athlon and were curious as to how the numbers would compare. Mind you, the XP 1900+ in the chart is "only" a 1.6 GHz processor. That CPU is running on a Biostar M7MIA board, which has an AMD 761 Northbridge.
>> The Benchmarks