My Rant about Computer performance to Demigod.

chrisray: I figure if I buy The Quality ram now. It'll meet what I want it to do
chrisray: I'm running a 149 mhz FSB 299 mhz FSB)
chrisray: Wanna hear my latest rant?
chrisray: frikkin computers
chrisray: Mhz
chrisray: Performance ratings
chrisray: whatever
chrisray: None of them mean jack **** anymore. in regards to system requirements
chrisray: Do you remember the day you could pick up a Game. And it would say "Require Pentium 133" and you could be pretty sure your pentium 166 would run it great?
chrisray: Here's the real kicker
chrisray: Lets say
chrisray: I run my system at typical Athlon XP 2200+ speeds
chrisray: 13.5x 266
chrisray: = 1.8 Ghz
chrisray: I get 11.5k 3dmarks. And about a 4% boost over 2000+
chrisray: when I say 4% I'm talking about most aplications ect
chrisray: Now.
chrisray: Default Athlon XP 2000+ is clocked at 12.5 @ 266
chrisray: Now to compare it to my current settings
chrisray: 150 mhz FSB (149 actually)


chrisray: so I set it to 12.0 @ 298 mhz FSB) = 1,788 mhz
chrisray: and I get
chrisray: 12k 3dmarks. And About a 10% performance increase
chrisray: Now we have AMDS pR system
chrisray: Intels ****ty willy core
chrisray: Intel releasing its northwood core @ same mhz as its willy core
chrisray: How the hell are we supposed to judge performance by minimum system requirements anymore?
chrisray: Obviously. From what I just illustrated. By my FSB adjustments, Different multipliars. performance is never relevent anymore
chrisray: The only way I can get an idea of performance (other than benching myself)
chrisray: Is to look at review sites
chrisray: where we have both ATI, Nvidia, Intel. And AMD. all pulling various PR stunts for whatever reasons. Driver cheats ect
chrisray: NOTHING is relative anymore
chrisray: performance is never relevent. ect...
chrisray: I honestly dunno how my machine will perform in a year.
chrisray: Or even this year
chrisray: anyway ya there? I'm done ranting

Demigod: But computers have always been that way. People never really complained about it. Intel is not deceiving anyone, their chips really run at their advertised clock speed. Developers include minimum and recommended system specs so that people will have a basic idea of what they'll need. Besides, the definition of "minimum requirement" varies from person to person. To me min req is 15 fps, for some it's 30 and no less.



chrisray: Well consider the willy p4 1.6 Ghz verses the northwood p4 1.6 Ghz scenerio? No intel is not fooling anyone. Really. But you cant really say that its a fair comparison at all
chrisray: cuz the northwood 1.6ghz performance a "lot" better
chrisray: And lets not forget Dual DDR equations
chrisray: are we to assume Dual DDR equates into this?
chrisray: Btw I'm posting this conversation on ngemu :P
chrisray: so what numbers can we go by? Nvidias Dual Channel DDR? Or Vias Single channel? Intels Rdram? or Intels Dual Channel DDR?
chrisray: You cant really deny. That computer performance is just so much more complicated than it was 4 years ago


Demigod: There's only about a 10% between the Willy and Northwood (both running at 100 Mhz fsb). When you're getting 30 fps in a game the difference is only about 3 fps. It'll hardly be noticeable don't you think?


chrisray: That really depends. I notice the difference between 25 FPS and 30 FPS. Expecially when its borderline
chrisray: and since this is minimum systen requirements. I feel borderline is a good scenerio to consider


Demigod: This isn't a new phenomenon either. It was an issue back in the Pentium days. The Cyrix 5x86 ran faster than the Pentium (but had crappy FP performance and some stability issues). On Need for Speed 3 it checks for minimum requirements and it stated "Pentium 120 or Cyrix 90
Demigod: Nowadays the difference is minimal. If developers included every single requirement (motherboards affect performance as well) there'd be no end of it. They can only suggest min and recommended requirements so people don't complain that their games don't run.
Demigod: If AMD's PR system is no accurate they should include mobo performance as well, don't you think?
Demigod: *is so accurate



chrisray: Well. I guess thats true, I'm really really more concerned about the varying setups and just how differently they perform. Like I said. Its definately representive to say Via chipsets dont perform equally to Nforce 2 as well?
Demigod: Let's say someone is using a SIS AMD chipset while the recommended specs are based around the nForce 2. Pretty big difference I'd say. It should be a consideration as well.
chrisray: I personally dont trust AMDS PR sysem either.
chrisray: Ya thats exactly what I am thinking. And What about sync memory? 400 mhz DDR? 333 mhz DDR? ect. What do you think? Do you think system requirements are going to have to adapt to the current trend of PCS?

chrisray: I mean we're speaking strictly mhz too. What About Geforce 4 MX? Radeon 9500 Pros to 9600 Pros? Do you think minimum system requirements will be based upon Value cards?
chrisray: I mean Valve reccomends a 9600 Pro card for HL2. Definately not a 9200.


Demigod: Well neither AMD's PR or Intel's Mhz systems accurately reflect performance. The PR system was just a stint to improve sales and Mhz hardly accounts for performance at all, as AMD has shown with the Athlon.

I think they will. Developers will test their products based on what's currently out there and will set requirements as such. As long as there's no huge gaps in performance between processors, motherboards or RAM it should be fairly accurate.



chrisray: Well I hope you're right. And god I hope I'm not right about the way performance will be indicated in future mininum system specs in the future. But you have to admit. it's no wonder the PC game market is suffering right now



Demigod: I think it's suffering because of slump in PC sales and an overall slump in attitudes among PC goers. There's not much new technology to embark on and the only a few PC games are worth mentioning.

I don't know if Intel's playing the Mhz game anymore either. They're focusing more on improving the user experience (hyper-threading and all). It was the focus of fall IDF this year. Plus their Centrino line doesn't boast Mhz, but around user experience. They're done extensive marketing to that end. They'll still use Mhz to sell their CPUs no doubt (it's the only way they can, really).



chrisray: So you dont believe It has anything to do with the influx of confusion regarding Computer gaming as well? You have to admit. Consoles look pretty nowadays. Expecially since they are now boasting Online Gameplay. Which was the PCS domain. What do PCS offer over consoles right now? Yes better graphics. But at what cost? and what confusion measure?
chrisray: I think If intel changes its mhz ratings ect. They'll only confuse the market more. I actually liker how intel has been sticking to its guns on that issue




P.S. I'll update this later about


P.S.S. I may have edited a few swears out

[Phoenix Flame]

It's true, minimum system requirements don't mean jack. In the early 90's if a game said it needed a 486DX40 with 4MB RAM minimum, that's all I would need. Since 3D cards came out and since AMD started getting a lot more popular things got way more complicated. You can't put a MHz/GHz clock speed for minimum system reqs because AMDs are clocked much slower than P4s. You can't put a spec for the 3D card at all because if you put GeForce, people with ATi's think they won't be able to run the game. Most games seem to just put '64MB video card' but what if you have a crappy integrated solution which is drawing on 64MB of system ram for its VRAM? And also with the various DX versions, people are getting confused. It's no wonder so many people are just buying consoles these days, you just pay $500 on launch day and you're set for three years, no upgrading, no worries about incompatibility.

Originally Posted by Phoenix Flame

It's true, minimum system requirements don't mean jack. In the early 90's if a game said it needed a 486DX40 with 4MB RAM minimum, that's all I would need. Since 3D cards came out and since AMD started getting a lot more popular things got way more complicated. You can't put a MHz/GHz clock speed for minimum system reqs because AMDs are clocked much slower than P4s. You can't put a spec for the 3D card at all because if you put GeForce, people with ATi's think they won't be able to run the game. Most games seem to just put '64MB video card' but what if you have a crappy integrated solution which is drawing on 64MB of system ram for its VRAM? And also with the various DX versions, people are getting confused. It's no wonder so many people are just buying consoles these days, you just pay $500 on launch day and you're set for three years, no upgrading, no worries about incompatibility.

Well its good to see someone agrees with me. I dont believe in the word "Future Proof" In the PC industry anymore. If you want a future proof game system. Buy a PS2 or an Xbox.

[Violineb]

well in theory you'd be future proof with a P4 3.2ghz, 5900u, and a gig of ram. But I understand you point exactly.

[Gamer1]

why we are in the conundrum that we are in today

back then there was only one game in town, and that was intel. there chips that they were releasing was completely identical to each other. the only difference was their clockspeeds. And that's how people can tell their cpus apart. 10 years later... the only way people still tell cpus apart is by clockspeeds. even though cores are different... people are still stuck with mhz as a way to compare performance. It's like telling people that gravity doesn't exist outside the earth. A totally different concept in which people are just beginning to grasp. As they see clockspeeds the same for ANY platform, without taking to account the work done per clock cycle.

AMD's PR system and why i am still sticking to them. There were 2 resons for the PR system... 1, try to compensate for the lack of clockspeed, since joe somebody is still stuck with MHz. 2, to compare performance of it's chips against each other.

*people say it's to compare to intel's but that's only half true, why...

cuz we see during the athlon xp's life, the PR system remained constant (so it wasn't ever conservative or liberal in it's rating). Everytime the FSB increased... clockspeed goes down for the same rating .... Everytime more cache is added, clockspeed goes down to match it with the same rating.

meanwhile, intel's revisions keeps changing, but their clockspeeds remained contant, but performance increases. making joe somebody think that a 2.8Ghz with a bus of 533 is the same as a 2.8 with 800 fsb. A marketing ploy... that works for and against intel. It numbs it's consumers that more mhz is better. But what if they can no longer scale it any further... a constant reminder that my sister keeps telling me, that she (and her team at intel) are just prolonging the inevitable and the mhz wall will stop them, and they will get caught with their pants down when they can no longer increase clock speeds.

Here comes Centrino. Personally, i still have not seen a commercial of them advertising centrino speeds. Why... Joe somebody would still think that a 2ghz p4 is still better than a 1.6 centrino. Here's intel's marketing ploy... integrated wi-fi... HP notebooks now comes with wireless G integrated to almost all their athlon nothbooks, while centrino is still stuck with wireless B...

*sigh

[Violineb]

hmm then wouldn't it be something if intel starting making centrino style chips for desktops? I mean less mhz and more power. Imagine a 3ghz centrino, then again it might not even be possible.

Originally Posted by Violineb

well in theory you'd be future proof with a P4 3.2ghz, 5900u, and a gig of ram. But I understand you point exactly.

How can you say that for sure? How do you and I know. The basis for performance of a 3.2 Ghz equivalent CPU wont be measured by a Radeon 9800 Pro and Athlon 64 FX PR @ 3200+

There's a huge difference in performance between those examples. You cant say a P4 3.2 Ghz is going to be the "performance number" in a year. Which is what you are supposively trying to upgrade for.

Mhz may be nice. But it certainly doesnt indicate performance. I noted with my example of my Overclocking tactics at the begining of the thread. I could say my computer is running @ 1.8 Ghz @ 133 mhz FSB, And say its faster than my current system at 1,788 mhz and a 149 mhz FSB.

But in actuality. My COmputer runs faster at the ladder settings. Hell it runs faster at 1,733 mhz @ 145 FSB than @ 1.8 Ghz @ 133 mhz FSB. It's definately not relevent.


P.S. I edited my logs to make it easier for people to read.

[Exophase]

On the whole MHz issue.. MHz ARE still a good way to compare a processor with a slower (lower clocked) version of itself. For the most part Northwood P4's have been scaling pretty well. Unfortunately, AMD's PR ratings have started taking into account all kinds of things, what with the various changes in FSB and cache and all that, and have gone from being too conservative to too liberal in their numbers. And now, with Opteron/Athlon 64/Athlon FX the PR system has basically been done away with altogether. The numbers themselves are pretty ambiguous and confusing, too. But at least no one can accuse them of being deceitful, unless you expected your 8** Opteron to be 8 times faster than the 1** model out of the box

At least right now for CPUs higher numbers still tends to mean equal or better performance across the board (as compared to previous versions of the same CPU). Too bad video cards have managed to break that simple constant, where you see things like GF4 MX performing worse than GF3 (and probably some GF2's?), GFFX 5200 performing worse than GF4 Ti 4200, Radeon 9000 generally performing worse than Radeon 8500, etc...

It's true that these days it's pretty hard to know what you're getting if you're uninformed, but this has been the case for years now. Ever since 3D accelerators became necessary for gaming, PC's have been selling with good CPUs and crappy integrated video, thus screwing over potential gamers. At least now there are fewer integrated solutions that can't pull their weight at all. Still, joe gamer is going to have to do some decent research before buying a new PC..

- Exo

[Seta-San]

i'm personally glad we ditched megahertz as a means of comparism. They should put on the box "If the graphics for this game look better than your system runs buy a new computer."

[Phoenix Flame]

I partially agree with you, Exophase. The 64-bit line of CPUs are going to throw the market into chaos because people simply won't be able to tell what they're buying just from the name. True, in the first year or so the only people buying them will be enthusiasts but what happens when the mainstream market gets involved?

But the clock speed issue is a problem. The most basic person generally knows that speed is about MHz, and the more you have, the faster it goes. So when people get an AMD system and they see on the startup screen that their 2000+ is running at 1.67GHz, they wonder why they bought it when they could have got a 2.2GHz P4 for the same price. Their mind thinks 2.2>1.67 = I have been ripped off. Yes the 2000+ gives some hint as to its real speeds but as far as the general punter is concerned, if it's not followed by MHz or GHz then it's only a name ...

[Demigod]

Well I don't think the model number system helps AMD at all. It casts their products in a better light but not nearly good enough. The #1 reason why customer buy AMD over Intel is price. AMD is significantly cheaper at the same number (2000+ vs 2.0 Ghz) so those without a lot of money opt for AMD, if not for the Celeron. The only other people who buy AMD are enthusiasts but they make up such a small portion of the market that it's hardly worth mentioning them. AMD has been keeping up with Intel in terms of numbers (Barton 3200+ vs P4 3.2 Ghz) but they've fallen behind in sales quite a bit. They've posted losses for the past 8 quarters (2 years) and why? Because their chips aren't cheap anymore. The Athlon XP 3200+ costs just as much as the P4 3.0 Ghz and at the high-end people are always going to choose Intel. In the low-end AMD still rules but they can hardly make any money down there. With the slump in PC sales and Intel's new dual-channel platforms as well as their promotions of HT technology they've been dominating the market. The Athlon 64 is not going to change things. Average Joe won't be able to tell a difference, all they'll see is price. Unless AMD reduces prices drastically they're not going to improve their position. The Opteron can potentially bring in some much needed funds but they must promote the product in order to make it work.

On the whole MHz issue.. MHz ARE still a good way to compare a processor with a slower (lower clocked) version of itself. For the most part Northwood P4's have been scaling pretty well. Unfortunately, AMD's PR ratings have started taking into account all kinds of things, what with the various changes in FSB and cache and all that, and have gone from being too conservative to too liberal in their numbers. And now, with Opteron/Athlon 64/Athlon FX the PR system has basically been done away with altogether. The numbers themselves are pretty ambiguous and confusing, too. But at least no one can accuse them of being deceitful, unless you expected your 8** Opteron to be 8 times faster than the 1** model out of the box

It's not that I think Mhz is the a good way to compare a proccessor. But I think its the only practical way right now. If Intel Starts throwing out PR too. We'd have a whole slew of problems. Which would drive us Even further into our current problem.

Obviously I have stated this. But Mhz isnt really reaching the same results. As Gamer1 mentioned (which Btw Gamer1 excellent post) You have different FSB variations ect. When I get my crappy ram replaced. I am going to up my FSB to 333 mhz (currently craps out past 305 mhz) And even lower my multipliar/mhz core again. Because the FSB is benefiting more than the pure clock speed is.

So we cant really come to a basis that mhz means anything. Expecially with the variations of mhz/performance scenerios out there right now.

[felinusz]

It is so totally true what you are saying. For instance - my processor is currently clocked at 12 x 205 - for a total of 2460 MHz. Another processor the same as mine clocked at 227 x 10.5 for a total of 2383 MHz looks like a worse performer - the MHz clock is a good 20 less. *BUT* that other processor beats the crap out of mine and then proceeds to mop the floor with my shattered remains. That FSB overclock - with synced memory (I am using james.miller's rig as my "second" example BTW ) makes the whole system a very great deal faster than mine - when we have the same video card and motherboard of course.

MHz value is useless now - the Athlon 65 3200+ clocks at 2200 MHz and owns a P4 at 3.2 GHz. My rig owns a P4 at around 3.3 GHz.

When I get my watercooling in, volt mod my Motherboard chipset, and pick up my new RAM I will achieve a MHz raise of around ~75-150 on my overclock - but the increased bandwidth in my system will increas performance and benchmarking a very considerable deal. When I tell people who don't know anything that I have a 2.4 GHz CPU they laugh and say that they have a 2.6 GHz P4 that is better than my AMD. The average Joe 2-4 of beer doesn't know what the heck is going on, and gets extremely confused about all this - and rightfully too.

And PR ratings are dismissed as propaganda they sometimes are - worsening the confusion.

[Chinoz]

Unless AMD reduces prices drastically they're not going to improve their position.

And if they do that, they're gonna start posting red for the next couple of quarters

[Exophase]

Originally Posted by Phoenix Flame

I partially agree with you, Exophase. The 64-bit line of CPUs are going to throw the market into chaos because people simply won't be able to tell what they're buying just from the name. True, in the first year or so the only people buying them will be enthusiasts but what happens when the mainstream market gets involved?

But the clock speed issue is a problem. The most basic person generally knows that speed is about MHz, and the more you have, the faster it goes. So when people get an AMD system and they see on the startup screen that their 2000+ is running at 1.67GHz, they wonder why they bought it when they could have got a 2.2GHz P4 for the same price. Their mind thinks 2.2>1.67 = I have been ripped off. Yes the 2000+ gives some hint as to its real speeds but as far as the general punter is concerned, if it's not followed by MHz or GHz then it's only a name ...

That's a problem with the general mentality of user's, which in all likelihood is really dying off by now. MHz may not be fair in using for comparison, but at least they're consistent and not arbitrary. They're not a good measure for ability, but what's better? A lot of people are bitter about Intel for pushing Megaherz.. but let's face it, those high MHz HAVE translated into real world abilities for P4. What some people have missed is that while MHz aren't everything, neither are average instructions per clock (and there are more factors than that, as well. Far more.). Yes, Athlon XP can typically do more than P4 per clock, but does it matter if P4's ability to reach high clock speeds balances out against this? And it really does.

Unfortunately, people WILL have to research before they buy something. It just can't be helped. But there's no better way; if they go by MHz or even PR ratings then that's really their own problem. Intel is doing nothing wrong here; MHz have been used for years and years, and they shouldn't change that just because they opted for a different kind of architecture than AMD did. I don't think Intel is saying right now "look at our CPU's, they're x MHz faster than the competition, so we're better", it's just everyone else saying "look at us, despite the fact that we're x MHz slower than Intel's offerings we're still much better." Especially Apple (if you want to talk about companies being dishonest, that would be a great place to start instead)

- Exo

[Demigod]

Yeah, I'm with Exophase here. Mhz has always been used with CPUs and people had no real problems with it, until AMD started with the whole PR thing. Intel is not deceiving anyone, they're not lying to you. A P4 2.4 Ghz actually runs at 2.4 Ghz. Plus they put letters to indicate the generations (P4 2.4B, P4 2.4C). Just because an Athlon XP does more work per clock than the P4 doesn't mean Intel should change their system.

I also agree that people should do research before buying, but not everyone has the time, knowledge, or will to find and sort through benchmarks and reviews. I can usually find the time and resources to check up on reviews but I want to do it and like to do it (if you like something a lot you can usually find time for it). Most people don't though. They don't know where to go for critical reviews and/or don't have the time to sort through benchmark scores. Therefore most people go for the most popular brands or what others say is good. Others simply want something that'll get the job done and quarantees good service. Intel has always been there for people and have made themselves a familiar brand name (Intel Inside, the Pentium Processor). The term CPU is almost synonymous with "Pentium". It's obvious most people are going to go for Intel products if they can, get a genuine Pentium processor to power their systems. It's not about clock speeds or model numbers, but the influence of the company and their products.

As far as consumers go I don't think Mhz or model numbers has anything to do with it. Oh I'm sure people want products with higher numbers but I think most consumer would opt for a P4 1.8 over an Athlon XP 2200+. A lot of people seem to think Intel is deceiving people with higher clock speeds and is selling products that way but I don't think that's true. If you ask me it's about influence and image. Intel has done a lot of work promoting and marketing their products to the average consumer and has built up a good reputation. AMD on the other hand has only really promoted their products to enthusiasts. Now tell me, why would the average consumer trust AMD over Intel? They've seen Intel commercials, their friends have Intel systems. Why would they go with AMD when Intel is available? If you've heard really good things about a product would you go to the store and buy something completely different, something that you've never heard of before because they're cheaper and promise better performance? I certainly wouldn't.

Yeah, I'm with Exophase here. Mhz has always been used with CPUs and people had no real problems with it, until AMD started with the whole PR thing. Intel is not deceiving anyone, they're not lying to you. A P4 2.4 Ghz actually runs at 2.4 Ghz. Plus they put letters to indicate the generations (P4 2.4B, P4 2.4C). Just because an Athlon XP does more work per clock then the P4 doesn't mean Intel should change their system

Actually I'm not promoting AMDS PR, I'm just questioning the actual relevence of the "Mhz". Now Obviously I dont have access to Intel system. And I have never actually worked with them when it comes to Overclocking. But I am pretty sure that there are going to be similar relevent situations.

Northwood Pentiums/Willy Pentiums/p3 1.4 Ghz Tualitions/ ect which all most be thrown into an equation. Since its all safe to say each of these types of Pentium perform very differently from each other but cross over. How can we actually verify Which kind 1.4 Ghz proccessor we can make our accessment on system requirements? At the moment System requirements havent exceeded 1 ghz. But I believe once they cross over into the 1.4 Ghz + Range, We're going to see some very skewed results of performance. Across the Entire Intel And AMD line of CPUS. Based on the various caches/FSB settings ect.

Which is kinda hard to swallow. When the companies are aiming for a minimum Frame Rate. Which could be 15 FPS or 30. I think we both can understand. A 10% CPU difference equate from 10 FPS to 15. Which is Huge at such low requirements.

I also agree that people should do research before buying, but not everyone has the time, knowledge, or will to find and sort through benchmarks and reviews. I can usually find the time and resources to check up on reviews but I want to do it and like to do it (if you like something a lot you can usually find time for it). Most people don't though. They don't know where to go for critical reviews and/or don't have the time to sort through benchmark scores. Therefore most people go for the most popular brands or what others say is good. Others simply want something that'll get the job done and quarantees good service. Intel has always been there for people and have made themselves a familiar brand name (Intel Inside, the Pentium Processor). The term CPU is almost synonymous with "Pentium". It's obvious most people are going to go for Intel products if they can, get a genuine Pentium processor to power their systems. It's not about clock speeds or model numbers, but the influence of the company and their products.

Well. I understand the whole research thing. I would like to consider myself an "educated" consumer. And there are times even I am going to be confused. Now lets consider for a moment something.
If I decided to freeze frame my current system and not update it again the hopes that I have "future" proofed for 2 years.

I'm gonna go pick up the Box to Doom 5 (remember hypothetical) and it says Minimum System Requirements. 2 Ghz CPU, DX 9.0 Video card with 128 Megs of Vram and 512 Megs of System memory.

The "2 Ghz CPU". Now what generation of 2 Ghz CPU can we compare too? The Athlon XP 2000+ The Pentium 4 2.0 Ghz Willington core? The Pentium 4 2.0 Ghz Northwood core? This is my problem. In the next 2 years I see the problem increasing actually.

As far as consumers go I don't think Mhz or model numbers has anything to do with it. A lot of people seem to think Intel is deceiving people with higher clock speeds and is selling products that way but I don't think that's true. If you ask me it's about influence and image. Intel has done a lot of work promoting and marketing their products to the average consumer and has built up a good reputation. AMD on the other hand has only really promoted their products to enthusiasts.

It's not really about deception to me. Its about relevency. I dont believe AMD orIntel are trying to "decieve me" I'm just concerned. That Minimum SYstem requirements really arent going to accurately portray actual system performance at all. Because obviously. Even on Intel CPUs, some CPUS at the same speed are not equal. This holds true to both AMD and Intel.

[Gamer1]

Okay, this further makes my point on why amd's pr system is good, consistant, and made to compare it with other athlons

http://www.cpu3d.com/modules.php?nam...wcontent&id=86

benchmarks' the athlon 2600+, thoroughbred and barton versions!!!

[Exophase]