2500+ Barton vs P4 2.4 800 Input?

[Jayle]

Hey,
I need smart ideas on cpu/mb. I'm leaning toward a amd 2500+ barton or a P4 2.4 800 upgrade. Would I be able to tell any real world difference in the two processors(using cakewalk, photoshop, games, etc)? Is the P4 worth the extra $75? What about overclocking either, compare? Could you also give MB suggestions for which ever cpu you favor? Thanks, Jayle

 

[sugarkang]

amd. the intel is not worth the extra money, unless you're knee deep into media encoding.

that said, the most popular are the abit nf7, then the asus a7n8x.

i chose the asus because it comes with a passive northbridge cooler which means less noise.
also, the abit doesn't work with the zalman 7000a, the quietest HSF cooler you can buy.

for overclocking, i think people prefer the abit nf7. but you're talking about very marginal improvements over the asus.

 

[Jayle]

Do you think both cpu's would be similar for recording/editing audio with cakewalk? I know the P4 is much stronger on video. From what I can tell, games would run better on the 2500B. Thanks

 

[DAPUNISHER]

The 2.4c's are hitting 3.3-3.4ghz as often as the 2500+ is hitting 3200+ speeds and@3.3ghz the P4c walks all over the Barton 3200+ in just about everything. Heck, even if you get 2.3ghz-2.4ghz from the Barton the P4c@3.4ghz is going to be faster for everything from gaming, media encoding, Photoshop, and offer hyperthreading to boot. It's well worth the extra money the way I see it, particularly with overclocking in mind.

 

[alexruiz]

Not worth the money.... Try to find out what optimizations are included in your software (cakewalk). If it is NOT well optimized for SSE2/HThreading the Athlon wins. Don't believe the myth that the P4 is "always better" for media encoding. Ask adobe premiere 6.5 if you need reassurance

Your application should dictate your CPU. But if you have the money, I suggest a clawhammer 3200+

Alex

 

[sugarkang]

DAPUNISHER is right and wrong depending on how you look at things.
yes, the 2.4C is also a great overclocker and at 3.3ghz you will beat the 3200+ in just about everything. WALK ALL OVER is not a term i would agree with. you're talking about 5--15% improvements on most benches.

consider the price difference: the P4C is double the cost of the barton.
when i say double, i'm only talking about an extra $80.

so what it comes down to is how much $80 means to you.
for dapunisher, $80 means nothing. for me, it's 20 filet o fish value meals and that's a lot of meals.

one last thing. the barton chip doesn't run as hot as the P4C. so if you're buying the retail barton, it comes with a decent HSF already and you can probably use that to OC without buying a new HSF, if you're not super concerned with noise (like i am).

the P4C on the other hand... most people on this board will agree that you don't want to use the one included with intel. which means you'll need to spend an extra 20-35 bucks for cooling that thing.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Check my boxen link and you'll see all my systems are AMD, I :heart: AMD but if she can sport the extra cost I still believe the P4C is a better price/performance value, so on that we'll just have to agree to disagree. the 5%-15% difference also doesn't account for the benefits of HT if she wishes to do any real multitasking, and from my perspective 15% is walking all over

sugarkang, lay off the mickeyD's brudda, that stuff will kill you! :brokenheart: <----heart attack

 

[sugarkang]

i agree with you if she's knee deep into encoding, like i mentioned in the first post.
i doubt she's got a real recording studio if she's using cakewalk, so i assume that recording is just a hobby. in which case the athlon would be fine. otherwise she'd probably be using cubase or protools, and then you'd probably want to run that on dual opterons.

as far as photoshop, i think amd and intel switched places in performance rankings. iirc, amd did better in ps 7.0 and intel is better in ps 8.0 (cs) with HT enabled. i'm not sure on this one though. and either way, if she's just a hobbyist designer, it's not going to make much difference. it'll make more of a difference by having a 2nd hard drive with the photoshop page file on it.

so again, it comes down to how much that $80 is worth. for me that's 200 bean burritos at taco bell, or almost a new mobo, or an 80gig hard drive, or 512mb of ram, need i go on?

and yeah i heart amd too. i just wished that they weren't so freakin stupid because i'm about to dump 2k in their stocks.

 

[Jayle]

Thanks everyone,
I have a semi- "real" recording studio with more attention spent on guitars, mics, and analog than on software. I do occasionally use protools. The design work, PS, DW, flash, I do professionally as a freelancer. The extra $80 is no problem, I just wondered if I could even tell any real world difference. I've considered the amd64 but will wait until stronger software will be able to take avantage of it. Does anyone have other motherboard suggestions on the amd and P4? Jayle

 

[myocardia]

I don't think you'll notice the difference between the two proc.'s, especially if you have any plans on overclocking the 2500. That being said, if you are a serious multitasker, the P4C's win hands-down. I've bought nothing but AMD since before they came out with the Athlon, but I will switching back to "the dark side" on my next system, but only because it's gonna provide benefits for protein folding. If you do decide to go with an Athlon, and have any plans at all on OCing, buy the Abit NF7-S! Here's a link to it for $97.99 on newegg, with free shipping. We answer overclocking questions all day, every day from people who own every nForce2 board made, including all of the different versions of the A7N8X, yet we hardly ever need to answer one from somebody who bought a NF7 or NF7-S. If you want to overclock the P4's get an Abit IS7 or IC7, or an Asus P4P800 (not the 800-V or 800-VM, though) or, if you have almost $200 to throw away, you can overclock very well with the P4C800-E Deluxe. AMD is what you want for good performance, without having to move back in with your mom, though.

 

[DerwenArtos12]

IMO, the athlon is very much so worth it. I have a 250+ overclocked to 2.5ghz. MY good frine has a 2.6C. In most things my athlon will beat the intel, though not all. When he overclocks it however the tables turn. His 2.6c at 3.4ghz will beat my athlon in most things, most but not all. I feel the real world diference is not worth double the price.

 

[CaiNaM]

i can hear the fanboys already

while this is not exactly what you are comparing, i have both 2.6c running at 3.2, and a 2500+ running at 3200+. the intel is noticeably faster.

one thing many people overlook is that you really can't compare using the amd naming monikor anymore; these days the model numbering system of amd reflecting the speed of the p4 has become much more inaccurate. increasing to an 400mhz fsb can't hide the fact the athlon bus is showing it's age. an athlon xp rated at 3200+ does not really perform as well as the 3.2 p4c; in fact, it is performing more like a 2.8ghz p3. people should take note of that when comparing p4 to athlon xp.

it's kind of like comparing the faster athlon 64 to the p4c ;p

that being said, price to performance brings the athlon xps into a much more favorable light, however if the difference in price is not a hardship on you, intel is the better performer... and by more than a 10-15% margin in many cases. in sisoft sandra, my p4 is 20% faster in the alu benchmark and 90% in the FPU benchmark. yes, it's a "synthetic" test, but still..... take out of it what you will.

 

[high]

2500+ > 2.4C

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: high
2500+ > 2.4C

Not likely!!! remember the barton 2500+ will be reverted back to 333fsb....I have had both and tested them both at this speed....

2500+ < 2.4c in non gaming apps

3200+ = 2.8c on average through a host of my 16 test of non gaming stuff

Dapunisher is right. the fact he buys AMD's should be a point to you guys he is not biased which some may say about me....We have head to head tested our stuff using the same applications....


Notice that not all ppl are getting to 3200+ lately...there is just a rash of these post....If you get the p4 to 2.8 you about got it. Take it to 3.2ghz which is quite common you are starting to pull away.

IMO, the P4 will be most likely superior in encoding apps....The user above who says ask Adobe 6.5...Try updaing to the lastest adobe where it is optimized for HT...I am sure I can find a whole host of older applications to run that wont have SSE2 or HT optimizations, but they will be older versions.

I am not familiar with the program you are running so maybe find out a little bit more about the program.....


75 bucks is 75 bucks, what it means to you I don't know.....I pretty much don't care what yo get as I refuse to get into the debates anymore....I give you my opinion and leave. Take my past testing and past post into consideration....

 

[sugarkang]

i don't necessarily agree with duvie's statement that 3200+ levels aren't being reached easily anymore.

i think rather that there are so damn many posts about OCing the 2500, that most successful OCs don't even get a thread, and that all you see are the failures.

anyway, Jayle... since you gave us a little more info about what you're using your computer for, it's probably better to go with the intel. actually, you should go over to zipzoomfly and get that 6LZ3 thing or whatever it's called for the best OCs. was it on the 2.6C chip? i forget.

anyway, people were hitting 3.5ghz with those. for the applications that you're running, that would be well worth it. also, wait for intel's price drops which are coming very very soon.

with regard to the motherboards:
amd = abit nf7, asus a7n8x (the one with sata connectors)
intel = the asus p4p whatever it is. it was already mentioned in this thread.

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: high
IMO, the P4 will be most likely superior in encoding apps....The user above who says ask Adobe 6.5...Try updaing to the lastest adobe where it is optimized for HT...I am sure I can find a whole host of older applications to run that wont have SSE2 or HT optimizations, but they will be older versions.

I was, and I hold my position.....

Maximum PC had some data of a convertion of the SAME input file to the SAME format output.....
Premiere 6.5 = 185 secs rendering in an Athlon XP (faster than P4)
Premiere 7.0 = almost 300 secs rendering in a P4 (faster than any AMD)....... unless you need the new features, the optimizations "slowed" the TOTAL time rendering the same file. Need to upgrade? No thanks.

In addition, premiere is not exactly cheap.... I'll upgrade IF you buy me the software

Try also roxio videowave 5, or the canopus procoder to MPEG2..... As I said, if the application is WELL optimized for the P4 with SSE2 and HT, it will win quite easily. Not very well optimized, and the Athlon wins. Your application (TMPGEnc) is one of the best optimized ones. Some others are not, and if you have a perfectly fine software that has the features you need AND is faster than the newer one.... why "upgrade"?

Is she has an specific aplication, her best bet is to find HOW well optimized for SSE2/HT it is.... I'll bet you it is not.

 

[alexruiz]

I visited the cakewalk website, and this could be interesting:

"System requirements:
Windows 98SE/Me/2000/XP
300 MHz processor
32 MB RAM
100 MB free hard disk space
800x600 screen resolution/256 colors
CD-ROM drive (for installation)
MIDI Interface and/or Windows compatible sound card
Note: Home Studio 2004 is not compatible with Windows 95, 98 or NT."

Usually the programs that have been optimized for the P4 have the notes "optimized for the P4" "HT capable" or something like that..... I'll bet you this software will run waaay faster in an Athlon... and it is not an "old" version, it is the 2004 release

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: alexruiz

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: high
IMO, the P4 will be most likely superior in encoding apps....The user above who says ask Adobe 6.5...Try updaing to the lastest adobe where it is optimized for HT...I am sure I can find a whole host of older applications to run that wont have SSE2 or HT optimizations, but they will be older versions.

I was, and I hold my position.....

Maximum PC had some data of a convertion of the SAME input file to the SAME format output.....
Premiere 6.5 = 185 secs rendering in an Athlon XP (faster than P4)
Premiere 7.0 = almost 300 secs rendering in a P4 (faster than any AMD)....... unless you need the new features, the optimizations "slowed" the TOTAL time rendering the same file. Need to upgrade? No thanks.

In addition, premiere is not exactly cheap.... I'll upgrade IF you buy me the software

Try also roxio videowave 5, or the canopus procoder to MPEG2..... As I said, if the application is WELL optimized for the P4 with SSE2 and HT, it will win quite easily. Not very well optimized, and the Athlon wins. Your application (TMPGEnc) is one of the best optimized ones. Some others are not, and if you have a perfectly fine software that has the features you need AND is faster than the newer one.... why "upgrade"?

Is she has an specific aplication, her best bet is to find HOW well optimized for SSE2/HT it is.... I'll bet you it is not.

Well that is unfortunate it went backwards for all cpus, but I imagine either something is wrong (maybe in the software or on your end)....OR!! As many fans of Divx encoding know going from 5.03pro codec to 5.05pro codec took a major hit in time...Could this be that the quality is better per same setting or even the codec default has been raised or modified a bit???? Divx codec 5.10 has again reduced those times but still slower then Divx 5.03pro but no one wil argue that the quality isn't much better in the end run.....


I have ran several encoding apps for several generations and for the most part they have continued to go down in time with the latest revisions...So that is odd....

One thing to remember even if the app may not be optimized for HT and have a real benefit versus the AMD....try running an encoding and then minimizing it and run another application (a little more intense then surfing).....Though the app is not HT enabled it can likely take advantage of HT in the OS software (if using the correct OS software) and allow her/him to multitask and work in photoshop or other programs as she/he encodes....There may be the benefit....


Are you a female??? HEHEHE

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: sugarkang
i don't necessarily agree with duvie's statement that 3200+ levels aren't being reached easily anymore.

i think rather that there are so damn many posts about OCing the 2500, that most successful OCs don't even get a thread, and that all you see are the failures.

my 2500+ arrived from newegg day before yesterday. it booted first time at 3200+ w/ default voltage. had to bump .5v for 100% stability, but it's ran there perfectly for 3 days

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: alexruiz

Originally posted by: Duvie

Originally posted by: high
IMO, the P4 will be most likely superior in encoding apps....The user above who says ask Adobe 6.5...Try updaing to the lastest adobe where it is optimized for HT...I am sure I can find a whole host of older applications to run that wont have SSE2 or HT optimizations, but they will be older versions.

I was, and I hold my position.....

Maximum PC had some data of a convertion of the SAME input file to the SAME format output.....
Premiere 6.5 = 185 secs rendering in an Athlon XP (faster than P4)
Premiere 7.0 = almost 300 secs rendering in a P4 (faster than any AMD)....... unless you need the new features, the optimizations "slowed" the TOTAL time rendering the same file. Need to upgrade? No thanks.

In addition, premiere is not exactly cheap.... I'll upgrade IF you buy me the software

Try also roxio videowave 5, or the canopus procoder to MPEG2..... As I said, if the application is WELL optimized for the P4 with SSE2 and HT, it will win quite easily. Not very well optimized, and the Athlon wins. Your application (TMPGEnc) is one of the best optimized ones. Some others are not, and if you have a perfectly fine software that has the features you need AND is faster than the newer one.... why "upgrade"?

Is she has an specific aplication, her best bet is to find HOW well optimized for SSE2/HT it is.... I'll bet you it is not.

Well that is unfortunate it went backwards for all cpus, but I imagine either something is wrong (maybe in the software or on your end)....OR!! As many fans of Divx encoding know going from 5.03pro codec to 5.05pro codec took a major hit in time...Could this be that the quality is better per same setting or even the codec default has been raised or modified a bit???? Divx codec 5.10 has again reduced those times but still slower then Divx 5.03pro but no one wil argue that the quality isn't much better in the end run.....


I have ran several encoding apps for several generations and for the most part they have continued to go down in time with the latest revisions...So that is odd....

One thing to remember even if the app may not be optimized for HT and have a real benefit versus the AMD....try running an encoding and then minimizing it and run another application (a little more intense then surfing).....Though the app is not HT enabled it can likely take advantage of HT in the OS software (if using the correct OS software) and allow her/him to multitask and work in photoshop or other programs as she/he encodes....There may be the benefit....


Are you a female??? HEHEHE

I don't see how if I were a female it makes any difference..... :disgust:

I agree, DivX is the most noticeable case, and to be even worse, I cannot see the difference in quality. And I think a lot of aplications are quite similar, they lose speed but gain stability or features.

Let's clear the doubt for this case, YOU download the trial of the software and I do the same. You install it in your machine, and run it at both settings, stock and overclocked. I do the same (2500+ and 3200+). We agree in a common input file, and run the exact same test. We PM her the results, and then she posts the results. That way, neither of us know what the other person got....

I couldn't care less if there is SSE2 or HT, IF the application of interest to get the computer runs better in x87 hardware, anything said about the P4 is worthless.

Alex

 

[Echo3]

Hi Jayle,

I would say that any Athlon XP 2800-3200+ wood be an excellent value - I have a P4 - 2.4C (with an intel chipset mobo), but I only got it for overclocking purposes.... ANd someday the real benefit of HPT technology... yeys rolling about now... yet I will probably move over to a via chipset by next fall... sorry just rambling... do that alot - just read on...

I guess it depends on what you are going to be using for.... and depends on how extensively you use those apps - esp. photoshop....

And in my opinion, your assessment on 64bit O/S' and apps is correct. However, unlike 32bit code - which honestly has only been of recent last 2-3 years (due to XP) - 64bit programming tools will come by much quicker then expected - this must be realized-

Abit or Asus make a great mobo regardless of the cpu platform - P4 mobo's =The Abit's IC7 max3 is very good and Asus' p4p800 deluxe mobo is slamin bigtime (both are intel chipsets)

As stated earlier in the beginning... The Athlon XP+ is very good and will probably serve you better then the P4 stuff - The ASUS A78XE mobo is very good and stable with many future upgrade supporting stuff --

Think of it this way get a great motherboard and upgrade cpu's later if needed.... Athlon XP 2800+ with a gig of ram should be more then enough -

good luck and take care -
Echo3

 

[sugarkang]

my 2500+ arrived from newegg day before yesterday. it booted first time at 3200+ w/ default voltage. had to bump .5v for 100% stability, but it's ran there perfectly for 3 days

right on cainam. i'm also at default voltage a 2.3ghz
if you read all the newegg reviews on the barton 2500, you'll see that just about every single reviewer who has attempted 3200 has been successful.

amd is awesome. that said, jayle... you should get that pentium. read reviews on those sl6z3 and sl6z5 chips where you can. get a prescott compatible board if you want a future upgrade down the line. that's something that you're not going to get from an athlon board. 3200xp is the end of the line, so that's also something to consider. i personally don't do any intra socket platform upgrades, since i tend to upgrade every 1.5 years or so, so it doesn't matter for me. but people who like to do intra socket upgrades should not get the athlon xp, or even athlon 64 (until socket 939).

 

[justly]

Duvie and alexruiz both have valid points, but I would be lieing if I told you I knew the answer.

While the Athlon is no slouch it is getting harder and harder for me to recomend it over the P4 w/HT on anything other than price concerns. Certain software may favor one over the other but benchmarks indicate the P4 being the perfered platform in most cases. I would say between the two it might just depend on how recent your software is. If most of of your software is slightly dated then the Athlon may be a good choice, and if it is up to date then the P4 is more likely the better choice.

There is one thing you might want to rethink, that being your comment about the Athlon 64 "I've considered the amd64 but will wait until stronger software will be able to take avantage of it.". The Athlon 64 is among the strongest performing processors available, even using existing 32 bit code (although the P4 can still beat it in some cases). If price is within your budget it definitely deserves a second look IMO.

EDIT: I got to thinking (a dangerous pastime, I know) and thought I should clairify "slightly dated" as probably a year or more.

 

[FrustratedUser]

Originally posted by: Jayle
Do you think both cpu's would be similar for recording/editing audio with cakewalk? I know the P4 is much stronger on video. From what I can tell, games would run better on the 2500B. Thanks

The P4 2.4 will be faster for media encoding.
I compared my Barton 2500 @3200 speed to a stock speed P4 2.8C and the P4 were much faster than the OC'ed Barton.
For games and other stuff the Barton will most likely have the edge but the P4 is by no means slow.

It's a choice you make.



:beer:

 

[RussianSensation]

Pricewatch:

Considering P4 2.4 = $155, p4 2.6 = $167, p4 2.8 =$177 why go for the 2.4 version? You can buy the 2.8 and overclock it to 3.4ghz with ease.

P4 3.4ghz Reviewed

here 3.4 beats Opteron 146 2.0ghz 1mb at most things, and 146 is basically as fast as an Athlon 64 3200+ 1mb 2.0ghz. Of course you know the Athlon 64 stomps on the 3200+ xp. How important is spending extra $90-100 on performance is strictly up to you. But I recall many websites concluding at the end of 2003 that for overall performance p4 has won over the Athlon xp, however, often marginally in some applications, and significantly in others.

1) In majority of games you will not be able to tell the difference, because the videocard is the most important component especially at higher resolutions
2) p4 will be way faster in photoshop
3) I am not aware of cakewalk so I cannot comment on it

you could also think of it like this: save $100 on a p4 system and commit that amount towards a new videocard upgrade, possibly a 9600xt? so in that case you'll only have to pay $50 extra and $120 extra on a spanking 9800Pro. Of course it all depends how important gaming is for you.