Intel Pentium 4 3.2GHz - The Real Slim Shady
by Anand Lal Shimpi on June 23, 2003 11:23 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
Gaming Performance - Unreal Tournament 2003 (Botmatch)
With previous versions of UT2003, Botmatch couldn't be used to compare different systems as there was a bug in the benchmark that could cause inflated numbers on AMD systems vs. Intel systems. We went to Epic with the problem and they provided us with a beta patch in time for this review, the fix will make it into the next publicly available patch release in several weeks.
For those of you that aren't familiar, the Botmatch test focuses mostly on physics and artificial intelligence performance in UT2003, the two areas that are the most CPU dependent in the game.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
17 Comments
View All Comments
Anonymous User - Wednesday, October 8, 2003 - link
Atari 2600 Rules!Anonymous User - Sunday, September 7, 2003 - link
i love how you see amd chips compared directly to intel ones which cost 8 times as much - and then they say that the intel 'kicked arse' - also optimised code compared to unoptimised (ala sandra)i think ill write a review 'dual AMD 3200+ = intel killer - kicks the p3-1000 arse' just wait till you see how extended 3dnow+ is going whomp intels mmx1 hehehe
Jeff7181 - Saturday, August 30, 2003 - link
#11... the review on the 3.0C used PC800 RDRAM's and this one uses DDR400. That's one difference... they may have also used slightly different options for testing since they seem to customize the benchmark.Anonymous User - Saturday, August 23, 2003 - link
Read Tomsharware review and xbitlabs and youll see how the p4 flies above those athlonsAnonymous User - Saturday, August 23, 2003 - link
I think INTEL and their last line of Pentium 4 really kick AMD athlon ass ... and very hard ...Anonymous User - Friday, August 8, 2003 - link
Hello,I was wondering if any of you guys knows how to overclock the P4 2.8GHz on a I875PBZ MOBO
Why the bios under the same board are so limited?
Can the Intel MOBO 875PBZ upgrade my CPU?
Anonymous User - Tuesday, August 5, 2003 - link
Why is there such a large difference in the UT2003 benchmark results between this review and that of the P4 3.0C? Hmm...Anonymous User - Saturday, August 2, 2003 - link
Pictures does not work on XP using IE either.Anonymous User - Tuesday, July 22, 2003 - link
Another web site did testing on the same two chips and the p4 came out on top.If you want to see it go to tomshardware and read for yourselves.Anonymous User - Sunday, July 20, 2003 - link
What really buggers me off is that I can't see any of the attached images in this article as I am using Opera 7.11 on a linux box. Please make your site all OS- and browser-compatible. (At least to some extent anyway). Not everyone uses IE and Windows.