• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

AMD 64? or Intel 32?

V

Valkerie

Banned
I want a mobo with Intel P4, which is around 150 bucks with a retail fan.
But Athlon 64's cost about the same, for the low end ones, that is.

And it's only like 1/2 GHz difference in speed, but I heard that 64-bit CPU's work better in 32-bit software environments?

What should I do? 32, or 64?
 
thats not really the main thing, since not many aplications are made for 64 bit yet. AMD processors are supreme in gaming, and a lot of other stuff. intel is better at encoding and office apps. the clock speed really doesnt matter. you should look at the pr rating of the amd64's. that will give you a good estimate of the corrosponding speed for a p4. if you game, get a amd64.
 
The bit count isnt what matters, the A64 can do more work per clock cycle than the P4. This makes the A64 perform better than an equivalently clock P4.

The A64 will be better for gaming, and most other applications. The P4 has a slight edge in extreme multi-tasking, and some encoding applications.
 
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Read anandtech, you are obviously very very very very very very very undereducated about what you are doing.
Click to expand...

i'm looking for a solution, not be studied, so kiss my @$$
 
im not studying you, you obviously dont even read this website. All youre gonna get in here is advice from fanbois. Educate yourself and make an informed decision.
 
Originally posted by: Valkerie
Originally posted by: Acanthus
Read anandtech, you are obviously very very very very very very very undereducated about what you are doing.
Click to expand...

i'm looking for a solution, not be studied, so kiss my @$$
Click to expand...

Perhaps he could have worded it better, but he is essentially right. This question has been asked a bajillion times and people tend to get cranky answering it after awhile.

So Search the Forums, read the reviews/comparisons. SSvegeta has pretty much given you the basics though and what he said applies to both 32 and 64 bit.
 
Go for AMD.
Get a Socket 939 motherboard, 1Gb of RAM, a nice and cheap PCIe graphics card, and an Athlon 64 3000+ skt939. You will be very pleased with overall performance in 32bit AND 64bit apps.

80% of forum users use A64 systems as their main computers.
 
Originally posted by: Valkerie
I want a mobo with Intel P4, which is around 150 bucks with a retail fan.
But Athlon 64's cost about the same, for the low end ones, that is.

And it's only like 1/2 GHz difference in speed, but I heard that 64-bit CPU's work better in 32-bit software environments?

What should I do? 32, or 64?
Click to expand...


The reasons Acanthus is so cranky.

1. AMD motherboards at the low end for an AMD64 are no where near 150 dollars. Here is an example for one at 69 bucks for Nforce 4 boad
2."And it's only like 1/2 GHz difference in speed."This shows you don't understand anything about the architecture differences between the AMD and Intel processors. The AMD64 processors are designed to run more efficiently and do more per clock cycle while the Intel (non Pentium M) are designed to run really fast but not efficiently The AMD64 does more per cpu tick 9 than does an Intel Prescott, 6. An AMD64 at 2.2ghrtz will run equally with a PIV at 3.4-3.6 depending on the application. (This is simplistic and does not take into account memory, chipset, core revision, L2 cache size etc)
3. All AMD64's are full X86 CISC 32bit compatible processors. They will do everything an Intel processor wil do with the X86 instruction set. An AMD64 does all that a Intel 32bit processor will do (I am not talking about hyperthreading and specific enhancements). Intel also has a 32bit cpu with 64bit extensions added onto it under the EM64T designation that is based on the AMD X86-64 instruction set they designed.
4. 64 bit processors don't work better in 32bit environments. As stated before, the AMD64, and Intel EM64T chips are all full 32bit processors in a 32bit OS environment so they run full speed as non 64bit extension chips.
5. You can purchase Windows XP 64 to utilize the 64bit extension found in the AMD64 or Intel chips with EM64T but in order to really take advantage of the 64bit changes you must run in longmode, not compatibility mode. You must have all 64bit components from applicatoin code, to driver code, to OS 64bit operands.
6. You should get Windows Pro 32bit OS and either an AMD64 or Intel EM64T compatible processor and run full speed 32bit now (because if you are asking this queation you don't need the driver and compatibility headaches of Win XP 64) and later on upgrade to all 64bit if you so desire.

That is why Acanthus was cranky
 
Originally posted by: Valkerie
I want a mobo with Intel P4, which is around 150 bucks with a retail fan.
But Athlon 64's cost about the same, for the low end ones, that is.

And it's only like 1/2 GHz difference in speed, but I heard that 64-bit CPU's work better in 32-bit software environments?

What should I do? 32, or 64?
Click to expand...

Step 1) Get a venice 3000+
Step 2) Get a good S939 motherboard
Step 3) Thank me later
 
AMD's are faster and cheaper. Their price->performance ratio can't be beat. Intels are sometimes better at multitasking, but amd's have been pulling ahead lately. Get a cheap nForce4 mobo with a 3000venice a gig of ram and a 6800.
 
Originally posted by: AntiStatic
AMD owns Intel in every way possible. the only people buying P4's are living in the past.
Click to expand...

Although an Athlon 64 will pwn a Pentium 4 in about 90% of the time, Pentium 4's are still better for extremely heavy multitasking like in corporate enviornments.
 
Originally posted by: carlosd
Buy a presscot and you will only enjoy the hotness, yeah!! but in winter.
Click to expand...



I think I should buy a bunch of socket T mobos with Pr3$$HOTT$ in them and mount them around some tritium and create fusion do to the emmense heat. Oh wait, it wouldn't work, because presshotts waste so much friggin' power.:shocked::roll:
 
Originally posted by: t3h l337 n3wb
Originally posted by: AntiStatic
AMD owns Intel in every way possible. the only people buying P4's are living in the past.
Click to expand...

Although an Athlon 64 will pwn a Pentium 4 in about 90% of the time, Pentium 4's are still better for extremely heavy multitasking like in corporate enviornments.
Click to expand...

I think for extreme multitasking RAM would make much more of a difference than the few % of a P4 and a A64. More RAM = less troubles multitasking.
 
LOL seriously... all the kidz on this forum just regurgitate self-evident statements and pretend they are good with the tech and stuff, and act all stuck up on people who know slightly less than they do.

what a riot.
 
Originally posted by: dmens
LOL seriously... all the kidz on this forum just regurgitate self-evident statements and pretend they are good with the tech and stuff, and act all stuck up on people who know slightly less than they do.

what a riot.
Click to expand...

^^ Agreed.

There are many benefits to one chip vs the other. The true strenght in Intel lies in their chipset. S939 chipsets as a whole are utter garbage.

In addition with Intel you get reasonably priced dual-cores, plus the future proof DDR2 and PCI-E. Granted Intel is slower in raw games, it has other features including HT that make up for it in general every-day use.

However, keep in mind that Intel plans to enable 64bit on every one of their CPUs, not just the 8XX and 6XX. Eventually even Celerons will get 64bit.

What you buy is entirely up to you but I like my pentium 4 much better over my A64. Sure, technically speaking the A64 is faster in games....that of course if it can run them without problems.

While a great number of people have had little issues with A64, I have personally had a great deal. I personally would go with Intel this round until AMD gets their act together.

People ridiclue Pent4 every chance they can get, but few have actually seen what I can do in the hands of an experienced O/Cer.

Numbers like these:

05 (6600 Non-GT): http://service.futuremark.com/compare?3dm05=886897
01SE (6800GT): http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8490269
03 (6600 Non-GT): http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=4002636
01SE (6600 Non-GT): http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8592200
01SE (5200FX U):http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=8554420

...really paint a much different picture of what an LGA775 chip is capable of. All of these scores are on the front page of the orb. Even with a prescott I have the #3 score in the world for a 6600 Non-GT on Aquamark (i'd link but website has been down all day)

While they may still boast the gigahertz argument (which is valid), VERY few can topple these scores on an A64 with pure air cooling. Despite the rabid fanboyism I dont think anyone in this thread is even close to scoing as well as this Prescott does. Infact Im sure of it.
 
Even without taking performance into consideration,

if you're building a new system right now, the better choice would be the Socket 939 Athlon64, since you can

upgrade to the dual cored Athlon64 with only a BIOS flash.

Whereas if you build a new system based on the current Intel Socket 775 system, you're facing a dead-end,

since you will have to use a new motherboard to run the dual-cored Intel CPUs.

 
Originally posted by: Promethply
Even without taking performance into consideration,

if you're building a new system right now, the better choice would be the Socket 939 Athlon64, since you can

upgrade to the dual cored Athlon64 with only a BIOS flash.

Whereas if you build a new system based on the current Intel Socket 775 system, you're facing a dead-end,

since you will have to use a new motherboard to run the dual-cored Intel CPUs.
Click to expand...

fyi, Socket 775 dual-core motherboards have been out for almost a month.
 
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: Promethply
Even without taking performance into consideration,

if you're building a new system right now, the better choice would be the Socket 939 Athlon64, since you can

upgrade to the dual cored Athlon64 with only a BIOS flash.

Whereas if you build a new system based on the current Intel Socket 775 system, you're facing a dead-end,

since you will have to use a new motherboard to run the dual-cored Intel CPUs.
Click to expand...

fyi, Socket 775 dual-core motherboards have been out for almost a month.
Click to expand...

Indeed... so its an utter moot point. In addition lets be honest people. If you are a cheap bastard to buy a 3000+ no way in hell are you going to shell out $500 for a CPU.

This is why I laugh at SLI. Most of the people who rabidly support it are the ones who will never own one.
 
Originally posted by: dmens
LOL seriously... all the kidz on this forum just regurgitate self-evident statements and pretend they are good with the tech and stuff, and act all stuck up on people who know slightly less than they do.

what a riot.
Click to expand...

What do you add other than sideswipes of the people posting?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top