AMD 64 3500 v Intel P4 3.4

[gamerxx13]

Hi, Im planning to build a PC soon. Waiting for the NForce 4 motherboards like all of you. I want to get a AMD 64 3500, but the Intel P4 3.4 is cheaper..and I was wondering if the Intel was a better chip because it is clocked so high. Why is the AMD clocked so slow, only have 2.2, what makes it so good then?

 

[Xed]

Because amd's architecture is much more efficient, basically.

3500+ will beat the p4 gaming easily.

 

[LTC8K6]

The AMD does more per clock cycle so it doesn't need to run as fast.

The same way an Intel Pentium M (Dothan/Centrino) does more per clock cycle than a desktop P4.

Both chips are great, but the AMD is faster overall, especially in games, and it will run the 64bit version of Windows XP when it comes out.

In the real world though, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between the performance of the chips.

You really can't go wrong buying either one.

I would go with whichever I could get for the least money, including mobo.

If you are intending to keep the system for a while, and you have faith in Windows XP 64bit coming out reasonably soon, the AMD 64 socket 939 system is probably the better choice.

 

[RealityTime]

Originally posted by: gamerxx13
Hi, Im planning to build a PC soon. Waiting for the NForce 4 motherboards like all of you. I want to get a AMD 64 3500, but the Intel P4 3.4 is cheaper..and I was wondering if the Intel was a better chip because it is clocked so high. Why is the AMD clocked so slow, only have 2.2, what makes it so good then?

the amd 3500 is faster than intel's fastest p4ee for gaming. If your pc is for gaming there is nothing intel has to offer that is faster than the 3500+

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: RealityTime

Originally posted by: gamerxx13
Hi, Im planning to build a PC soon. Waiting for the NForce 4 motherboards like all of you. I want to get a AMD 64 3500, but the Intel P4 3.4 is cheaper..and I was wondering if the Intel was a better chip because it is clocked so high. Why is the AMD clocked so slow, only have 2.2, what makes it so good then?

the amd 3500 is faster than intel's fastest p4ee for gaming. If your pc is for gaming there is nothing intel has to offer that is faster than the 3500+

agreed

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Mik3y

Originally posted by: RealityTime

Originally posted by: gamerxx13
Hi, Im planning to build a PC soon. Waiting for the NForce 4 motherboards like all of you. I want to get a AMD 64 3500, but the Intel P4 3.4 is cheaper..and I was wondering if the Intel was a better chip because it is clocked so high. Why is the AMD clocked so slow, only have 2.2, what makes it so good then?

the amd 3500 is faster than intel's fastest p4ee for gaming. If your pc is for gaming there is nothing intel has to offer that is faster than the 3500+

agreed

agreed

 

[gururu]

the P4 will likely OC better and will outperform a 3500 on most motion video and adobe apps when overclocked 3.5GHz +.
the P4 will get stomped by the 3500 in games and in math operations regardless of your video card

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: gururu
the P4 will get stomped by the 3500 in games and in math operations regardless of your video card

That last comment made no sense. The difference in performance in gaming between a P4 and A64 processor is at best 20-30% in lowest resolutions and 5% at 1600x1200. The difference between Geforce 3 and X800XT PE at 1600x1200 4AA/8AF can be 1000%.

No matter how much ppl stress A64s dominance in games they always have to remember:

1) a videocard is 1000000 x more important than your processor 99% of the time unless you have something like 1.1ghz P3. P4 2.6ghz with X800Xt will laugh at A64 3500+ with 6800GT in Half Life 2.

2) A64's dominance in games is only prevalent in lower resolutions, which most users with high-end videocard don't play at anyways.

Yes A64 is faster for gaming. Does it mean that P4 system sucks at gaming? No.

Lets look at Doom 3 - very intense video benchmark - Here

In fact you are likely to notice more difference between a P4 2.4ghz and AXP2000+ vs. P4 2.4ghz and A64 FX-53 since one will run at 60 frames with P4 2.4 and at an average of 45 frames frames with XP. A64 will run at 100 frames. But the difference is 100 and 60 are still both smooth, in contrast to 45s (which means that you are dipping close to 20s for your minimum frames).

Also AXP2500+ with 6800GT will CRUSH A64 3800+ and Radeon 9800Pro in almost everything related to gaming.
The Real Deal - If you want a gaming rig, spend 90% of your funds towards a videocard and not the cpu.

Most people that care about gaming should first replace the videocard and then worry whether or not they have A64. Sure if i had a choice, I'd get A64. But if someone has a P4, there is no need to switch to A64, cuz it wont make games playable at settings/resolutions that were unplayable in the first place. In reality what most gamers should be doing is researching videocards not cpus, and spending money on videocards, not cpus.

Also dont even attempt to play games and do anything else in the background on an A64 system. So if you are doing video encoding or having Norton in the background and a distributed computing project like SETI@Home, your frames on an A64 system would go to single digits. I am not saying P4 is better for gaming, because it's usually not. But you should know that there are advantages to an Intel system and that it doesn't suck as much as ppl make it seem on Anandtech. In fact the difference in performance was way more between AXP processors and P4 C with HyperThreading and some ppl still failed to mention just how much AXP sucked.

 

[gururu]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: gururu
the P4 will get stomped by the 3500 in games and in math operations regardless of your video card

That last comment made no sense. The difference in performance in gaming between a P4 and A64 processor is at best 20-30% in lowest resolutions and 5% at 1600x1200. The difference between Geforce 3 and X800XT PE at 1600x1200 4AA/8AF can be 1000%.

I meant with the same video card in each system. At resolutions where the video card is not the bottleneck, an athlon64 will stomp a P4. And I think my first statement provides several reasons why many prefer Intel BTW.

 

[caz67]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: gururu
the P4 will get stomped by the 3500 in games and in math operations regardless of your video card

That last comment made no sense. The difference in performance in gaming between a P4 and A64 processor is at best 20-30% in lowest resolutions and 5% at 1600x1200. The difference between Geforce 3 and X800XT PE at 1600x1200 4AA/8AF can be 1000%.

No matter how much ppl stress A64s dominance in games they always have to remember:

1) a videocard is 1000000 x more important than your processor 99% of the time unless you have something like 1.1ghz P3. P4 2.6ghz with X800Xt will laugh at A64 3500+ with 6800GT in Half Life 2.

2) A64's dominance in games is only prevalent in lower resolutions, which most users with high-end videocard don't play at anyways.

Yes A64 is faster for gaming. Does it mean that P4 system sucks at gaming? No.

Lets look at Doom 3 - very intense video benchmark - Here

In fact you are likely to notice more difference between a P4 2.4ghz and AXP2000+ vs. P4 2.4ghz and A64 FX-53 since one will run at 60 frames with P4 2.4 and at an average of 45 frames frames with XP. A64 will run at 100 frames. But the difference is 100 and 60 are still both smooth, in contrast to 45s (which means that you are dipping close to 20s for your minimum frames).

Also AXP2500+ with 6800GT will CRUSH A64 3800+ and Radeon 9800Pro in almost everything related to gaming.
The Real Deal - If you want a gaming rig, spend 90% of your funds towards a videocard and not the cpu.

Most people that care about gaming should first replace the videocard and then worry whether or not they have A64. Sure if i had a choice, I'd get A64. But if someone has a P4, there is no need to switch to A64, cuz it wont make games playable at settings/resolutions that were unplayable in the first place. In reality what most gamers should be doing is researching videocards not cpus, and spending money on videocards, not cpus.

Also dont even attempt to play games and do anything else in the background on an A64 system. So if you are doing video encoding or having Norton in the background and a distributed computing project like SETI@Home, your frames on an A64 system would go to single digits. I am not saying P4 is better for gaming, because it's usually not. But you should know that there are advantages to an Intel system and that it doesn't suck as much as ppl make it seem on Anandtech. In fact the difference in performance was way more between AXP processors and P4 C with HyperThreading and some ppl still failed to mention just how much AXP sucked.

Good post..!!

 

[RampantAndroid]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
The AMD does more per clock cycle so it doesn't need to run as fast.

The same way an Intel Pentium M (Dothan/Centrino) does more per clock cycle than a desktop P4.

Both chips are great, but the AMD is faster overall, especially in games, and it will run the 64bit version of Windows XP when it comes out.

In the real world though, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between the performance of the chips.

You really can't go wrong buying either one.

I would go with whichever I could get for the least money, including mobo.

If you are intending to keep the system for a while, and you have faith in Windows XP 64bit coming out reasonably soon, the AMD 64 socket 939 system is probably the better choice.

Not quite right....clock cycles are measure in MHz...is does LESS clock cycles. Its does more calculations per clock cycle, hence, say the Athlon does 10 calculations per cycle, and a p4 does 5.....THEORETICALLY a 2GHz Athlon would be equal to a 4GHz P4....that isnt the only consideration mind you, but that is the basics of that...



the athlon has integrated mem controller (kudos)
64-bit (upgradeable....DDR2 what? not 64-bit!!)

 

[Zebo]

....gaming.... and lots of other things too

3.4 P4 cheaper for a reason, it's slower in most things. Especially things the only thing I need CPU power for anyway, gaming.

http://hardware.fr/art/imprimer/496/

Athlon 64 3500 simply beats it, as added bonus it runs cooler, uses less power, is quieter and has long future with 64 bitness.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: gururu
the P4 will likely OC better and will outperform a 3500 on most motion video and adobe apps when overclocked 3.5GHz +.
the P4 will get stomped by the 3500 in games and in math operations regardless of your video card

No the P4 will not OC better, the Athlon will.

3.4 to 3.8 if you're lucky = a 400Mhz OC

2.2 to 2.6 if you're lucky = a 400Mhz OC

But, giving 400 more Mhz in the athlon 64 requires a 600 Mhz OC on p4 since Mhz/performace ratio is 1.5:1 between the two.

 

[Zebo]

gamerxx13, do yourself a favor and buy the $200 Athlon 64 3200 939 then set FSB to 240 and you got a $640 3800 for $200.

This is a great place to shop for bundles:

http://www.mwave.com/mwave/Pro...ard+Bundles+By+AMD+CPU

 

[Icepick]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Also dont even attempt to play games and do anything else in the background on an A64 system. So if you are doing video encoding or having Norton in the background and a distributed computing project like SETI@Home, your frames on an A64 system would go to single digits.

Russian Sensation, that's a nice post. However, I am going to disagree with you here. I'm using a 3500+ with a 6800GT. I routinely play Unreal Tournament 2004 while listening to MP3's on MusicMatch in the background. This is in addition to Norton Antivirus 2005, Zonealarm, CoreCenter and MBM5 running in the background. Althouth I admit I haven't tried this while folding.

 

[gururu]

Originally posted by: Zebo

Originally posted by: gururu
the P4 will likely OC better and will outperform a 3500 on most motion video and adobe apps when overclocked 3.5GHz +.
the P4 will get stomped by the 3500 in games and in math operations regardless of your video card

No the P4 will not OC better, the Athlon will.

3.4 to 3.8 if you're lucky = a 400Mhz OC

2.2 to 2.6 if you're REALLY lucky = a 400Mhz OC

But, giving 400 more Mhz in the athlon 64 requires a 600 Mhz OC on p4 since Mhz/performace ratio is 1.5:1 between the two.

400 MHz on an AMD64 is well...REALLY lucky. It's almost a given on a P4.

 

[Appledrop]

no.. 400mhz on the 90nm chips is a low OC. expect 500mhz-600mhz OC for a 90nm (equal to about 800mhz p4 equiv i guess)

 

[gururu]

Originally posted by: Azzy64
no.. 400mhz on the 90nm chips is a low OC. expect 500mhz-600mhz OC for a 90nm (equal to about 800mhz p4 equiv i guess)

well I guess that is good news... I'll try to work a little harder on my buddy's 3200+. I couldn't for the life of me get it past 2.4GHz stable. Let me go back to the drawing board...


edit: ok so I am looking at this Anandtech review and it seems that they couldn't get more than 400MHz out of a 3500+. For the 3000 they did pretty darn good with 800 MHz. Mind you they are using aftermarket cooling.

 

[Vee]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
Also dont even attempt to play games and do anything else in the background on an A64 system. So if you are doing video encoding or having Norton in the background and a distributed computing project like SETI@Home, your frames on an A64 system would go to single digits. I am not saying P4 is better for gaming, because it's usually not. But you should know that there are advantages to an Intel system and that it doesn't suck as much as ppl make it seem on Anandtech. In fact the difference in performance was way more between AXP processors and P4 C with HyperThreading and some ppl still failed to mention just how much AXP sucked.

And you learned this by reading Cainam's Intel HT-campaigning posts :roll: here on AT forums, I suppose?

Well, here's some news for you. Both he and thus now also you are wrong. I routinely play games with lot's of stuff in the background. No problem at all. Framerates just fine. In fact the same as would have been without.
I never turn off Norton or SETI@home. Never notice them either. If I have something very heavy in the background, and also have something, that despite being interactive, also demands lots of CPU, to be comfortable to work with, I simply lower the background base pri to 'lower than normal'. And then it's impossible to even notice that something is running in the background.
This is not normally needed though. It's fine just to have the usual WinXP foreground stretch. The A64 multitasks fairly flawlessly, and anybody that says anything different is full of it, ...even if I've given up discussing this.

There are people with such multitasking needs, that they would indeed benefit from a ht P4. But I would never change the effortless, snappy, working comfort of my A64 for a P4. Have been there, done that, will probably even get yet another P4, - AMD is still better. Even if you have normal multitasking needs. At least for now...

- Now, - the rest of your post is really nailing it! :thumbsup:

 

[LouPoir]

Im a fairly big Intel fan - currently own both an A64 and P4 rig.

P4 3.4 @ 3.8
A64 3400 (2.4gig) @ 2.5 gig

I find them to be fairly equal in performance.

If you go P4, I would stay away from the LGA775 P4's and try to get a good old P4 S478 Northwood. The LGA775 is really HOT with limited cooling solutions.

As usual - IMHO

Lou

 

[Lyfer]

Bottomline = The P4 is the Athlon 64's bitch.


It's not that hard. The Athlon 64 is cheaper, runs cooler, and faster in game that the equivalent P4. (plus you don't have to by some expensive useless DDR2 ram)

 

[jiffylube1024]

Originally posted by: RampantAndroid

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
The AMD does more per clock cycle so it doesn't need to run as fast.

The same way an Intel Pentium M (Dothan/Centrino) does more per clock cycle than a desktop P4.

Both chips are great, but the AMD is faster overall, especially in games, and it will run the 64bit version of Windows XP when it comes out.

In the real world though, you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between the performance of the chips.

You really can't go wrong buying either one.

I would go with whichever I could get for the least money, including mobo.

If you are intending to keep the system for a while, and you have faith in Windows XP 64bit coming out reasonably soon, the AMD 64 socket 939 system is probably the better choice.

Not quite right....clock cycles are measure in MHz...is does LESS clock cycles. Its does more calculations per clock cycle, hence, say the Athlon does 10 calculations per cycle, and a p4 does 5.....THEORETICALLY a 2GHz Athlon would be equal to a 4GHz P4....that isnt the only consideration mind you, but that is the basics of that...



the athlon has integrated mem controller (kudos)
64-bit (upgradeable....DDR2 what? not 64-bit!!)

That's exactly what he said, RampantAndroid - the Athlon64 and Pentium M do more work per clock cycle. He didn't need to mention that both operate at a lower frequency (and hence fewer clock cycles per second) because he explained that per clock cycle, the A64 and P-M do more work.

 

[RussianSensation]

Thank you guys for pointing out that I was wrong on some of the assumptions made about the A64.

Just stumbled upon some benchmarks back in the days that showed that gaming and multitasking was smoother on a P4 system that's all.

Yes A64 does pretty good in multitasking for the most part. But when the system is really heavily overloaded, P4 still excels. Of course we are talking about some serious multitasking here:

Multi-Threading comparison
Multitasking Performance
"The wild card here is multitasking performance. All of our game testing was performed on "clean" systems, with no substantial background tasks running. If you're like us, though, you probably have a fairly busy system tray. It's difficult to quantify, but the P4 running games in an environment that includes busy background tasks running could eat into AMD's lead. For example, we know of gamers what will play massively multiplayer online games in a window, while running other tasks at the same time. MMORPG's lend themselves to this behavior, due to frequently waiting for other party members or monster respawns." Extremetech (however they didn't provide a benchmark to quantify this claim)

Download THG Video #5 - HT advantage

 

[vmaddogv]

gamerxx13, do yourself a favor and buy the $200 Athlon 64 3200 939 then set FSB to 240 and you got a $640 3800 for $200.

This is a great place to shop for bundles:

http://www.mwave.com/mwave/Pro...ard+Bundles+By+AMD+CPU


-------------------------

Agree