First, is your friend using an Athlon Thunderbird, or regular Athlon CPU chip? Don't ask me why, but it seems like AMD chips seem to out-power Intel chips alot of times. Also, since they have a 64 mb graphics card, compared to yours, it probably should be better with graphics, just because of more memory.

I don't know if all of my information is totally factual, just how I think.

I know that the next PC I get, I will be making. I want to be able to specify for MYSELF all the things I want and study up on everything before buying and making, can help out a bit. Also, I have subscriptions to PC World and PC Magazine which may provide you with more insight on your computer parts and things.

Current programs are optimized for PIII and Athlon processors. This, of course, will change over time. The early Pentium chips were a disappointment until their clock speeds increased and software was optimized for the Pentium core instead of the 386 and 486. The Pentium Pro lagged behind the Pentium in 16-bit performance, and many at the time considered it a foolish move by Intel--that is, until 16-bit software began being steadily replaced by 32-bit software, which is what the PPro was designed to run.

Also, the margins involved here are very small. In addition, CPU performance plays a relatively small part in the 3DMark test--it's really more indicative of video card performance.

My friend is using at intel pentium 3 800 overklocked to 1000mhz at the time vi was comparing machines..

I would like your subscriptions to PC World and PC Magazine ..

But , the test in 3d studio is more for the cpu , and his machine is still more faster than mine..
The graphics it¨s depending on the card , but a faster cpu would improve performance..

OK, one more time:
There are a lot of components to the 3DMark test. He has a different video card than you do, and you didn't mention any of the other specs for either system. It's quite possible that you outscored him in the CPU portion of the 3DMark test, with the 111 point discrepancy coming from somewhere else. Heck, it's not uncommon to get such a discrepancy when running consecutive tests on the same system.

3D Studio, like 99% of all current software, is not optimized for your processor. If you ran the same test two years from now, the results would be vastly different.

Please, don't run benchmarks unless you actually understand what's being measured. Otherwise we end up with things like MIPS and Bytemarks.

So the best thing to do is to wait until programs is supported by pentium 4 ??
Have i bought a bad cpu??
Maybe amd athlon had been better??

tony folmerz wrote:
- So the best thing to do is to wait until programs is
- supported by pentium 4 ??

The best thing to do is to stop worrying about benchmarks and just use the computer. And, next time, do your research instead of assuming that more MHz = faster.

- Have i bought a bad cpu??

This depends on your definition of bad. If it's "not fast", then no. If it's "won't win any DSWs", then yes.

- Maybe amd athlon had been better??

I personally would not have purchased a P4 system at this point--it's expensive, and the same level of performance can be had from a much cheaper PIII or Athlon. Also, P4 systems currently require RDRAM, and I have no intention of helping Rambus establish a DRAM monopoly.

Whether or not this was a colossal mistake resulting from more money than sense depends on how long you intend to keep this computer and how soon companies decide to start using P4-optimizing compilers.