AMD 64 or P4 EE?

[sheemone00]

I'm looking to create couple new systems that'll last for a while, so I'm willing to spend a pretty chunk of cash for them. One of the system will be used for softwares like AutoCAD and other softwares similar to that. The other system will be used for basic business applications and games. I've seen the benchmarks for these CPU's in the recent Anandtech review and for graphics I can conclude that P4 EE is the way to go right now, but what I'm wondering is should I invest in the Athlon 64 XP and wait for the future 64-bit softwares to enhance the performance of the chip?

(btw P4 EE is 32-bits right???)

 

[Czar]

think I should just generaly wait for now on either processor

 

[digitalsm]

Wait till Q1'04, at that point there should be a pretty clear picture of how things will line up, as of now, there is not.

 

[dartworth]

here we go....

 

[InlineFive]

From the look of Anandtechs article I would say the Athlon 64, simply because it and the P4-EE arn't too far apart in benchmarks and the Athlon 64 is about $100 cheaper. That is if you dont already have a P4 motherboard, if you do I would say get the P4-EE because you dont have to buy a new motherboard with the processor.

Sorry if this is kind of confusing.

-Por

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: jfano
here we go....

You have no idea. My face dropped in awe from this question.

Me being a avid supporter of AMD and the way they build their technology, I'm getting a AMD 3200 Hammer. That does not mean its better than a p4 3.06 Ghz or even the EE P4, it's just because its some what affordable new technology that may hold even more promise when 64-bit apps arrive in months or years. The AMD 64 FX however I think is too pricey for the performance it out puts. It's no where near this 30-40% mark Anand speculated before it's release, so its hardly worth mentioning.

If you currently have a Intel system, then stick with Intel .


And Why do I get the feeling this isn't going be the last post with AmD 64 vs P4 EE in it...

 

[Finnkc]

I really could care less ... I am an AMD fan so even if Intel took over the World I would still use an AMD CPU ...

 

[Lyfer]

The P4-EE wins in the majority of the tests. But the Athlon 64 is $100 cheaper. I would get the P4-EE because it works with existing hardware I865/I875 hardware. If you take the Athlon 64 route the board options haven't been "guru" tested for overclockability, and any bugs/incompatibilies because its a brand new platform.


If you really wanna go Athlon 64, just wait till more boards are released so the prices can drop down. More boards equate to more features. BTW the Asus Nforce 3 solutions doesn't even have soundstorm in the MCP anymore. GO figure.

 

[alexruiz]

Anand's review was a joke..... it is a shame he didn't try to get something better....

Aceshardware shows the Athlon FX 51 creaming the P4 emergency edition.....

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: alexruiz
Anand's review was a joke..... it is a shame he didn't try to get something better....

Aceshardware shows the Athlon FX 51 creaming the P4 emergency edition.....

There are three basic articles:
(1) On one end is Aces where the Athlon FX 51 did quite well,
(2) Anand's is in the middle, and
(3) Tom's where the P4 EE creamed the Athln FX 51 (and I'm talking about the 3.2 GHz P4EE not the 3.6 GHz P4EE).

Actually I most trust the ones in the middle. Anand's is one of many of the middle examples.

 

[Corporate Thug]

i'm not gonna make any decisions til i see prescott

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: alexruiz
Anand's review was a joke..... it is a shame he didn't try to get something better....

Aceshardware shows the Athlon FX 51 creaming the P4 emergency edition.....

There are three basic articles:
(1) On one end is Aces where the Athlon FX 51 did quite well,
(2) Anand's is in the middle, and
(3) Tom's where the P4 EE creamed the Athln FX 51 (and I'm talking about the 3.2 GHz P4EE not the 3.6 GHz P4EE).

Actually I most trust the ones in the middle. Anand's is one of many of the middle examples.

How about tech report?? Awesome reviews usually..... it also shows the FX beating the emergency edition, and not by little....

 

[Lyfer]

Originally posted by: alexruiz
Anand's review was a joke..... it is a shame he didn't try to get something better....

Aceshardware shows the Athlon FX 51 creaming the P4 emergency edition.....

Just how much does the Athlon FX 51 cost?

 

[JetBlack69]

Originally posted by: shady06
i'm not gonna make any decisions til i see prescott

I concur!!!

 

[XBoxLPU]

I always read Anand's fisrt and IMO he does the best reviews

 

[m2kewl]

man, i'm waiting for xmas season and seeing what pricing these procs will be. it's all going to be real good for the consumers.

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: Lyfer

Originally posted by: alexruiz
Anand's review was a joke..... it is a shame he didn't try to get something better....

Aceshardware shows the Athlon FX 51 creaming the P4 emergency edition.....

Just how much does the Athlon FX 51 cost?

Very likely the same that the P4 emergency edition... (a little over $700, ouch)

 

[Regs]

Originally posted by: JetBlack69

Originally posted by: shady06
i'm not gonna make any decisions til i see prescott

I concur!!!

Are you kidding? I all ready know the prescott is going to blow the AMD 64 away. lol. Will they be cheaper then a 3200?

 

[andreasl]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: alexruiz
Anand's review was a joke..... it is a shame he didn't try to get something better....

Aceshardware shows the Athlon FX 51 creaming the P4 emergency edition.....

There are three basic articles:
(1) On one end is Aces where the Athlon FX 51 did quite well,
(2) Anand's is in the middle, and
(3) Tom's where the P4 EE creamed the Athln FX 51 (and I'm talking about the 3.2 GHz P4EE not the 3.6 GHz P4EE).

Actually I most trust the ones in the middle. Anand's is one of many of the middle examples.

Come on you can't judge reviews this way. Aces used ALOT more benchmarks than Anand did. IMHO Aces produced the BEST review of all I've read so far. It's just not a matter of how many benchmarks CPU X and CPU Y wins...

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: andreasl

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: alexruiz
Anand's review was a joke..... it is a shame he didn't try to get something better....

Aceshardware shows the Athlon FX 51 creaming the P4 emergency edition.....

There are three basic articles:
(1) On one end is Aces where the Athlon FX 51 did quite well,
(2) Anand's is in the middle, and
(3) Tom's where the P4 EE creamed the Athln FX 51 (and I'm talking about the 3.2 GHz P4EE not the 3.6 GHz P4EE).

Actually I most trust the ones in the middle. Anand's is one of many of the middle examples.

Come on you can't judge reviews this way. Aces used ALOT more benchmarks than Anand did. IMHO Aces produced the BEST review of all I've read so far. It's just not a matter of how many benchmarks CPU X and CPU Y wins...

Anand used far less benchmark than he used to.... He didn't try to dig deeper in the performance either. He rants a lot about the Athlon FX 51 being expensive and having a huge die size, but not a word about the P4 EE even bigger die size (bigger than the Athlon) or its likely similar price..... that is why!

Tech report made also a very nice review......

 

[dullard]

alexruiz and andreasl,
I agree that Anand should have tested more programs, and there were some typo and other problems in his review. BUT you two seem to dismiss it since it shows the P4EE doing average and you like Ace's since it shows the P4EE doing poorly. THAT to me is a horrible reason to like one review and to ignore the rest. I think the spread (ranging from the Athlon FX dominating down to the P4EE dominating) shows that the two chips are quite comparable. Sure one will work better on program X while the other works better on program Y - but on average they were quite close considering the massive differences between the chips.

Some sites are biased and will highlight program X or Y. This may be an intentional bias or an unintentional bias (for example they might not have the license to a particular program). That is why I read all the reviews I can and base my opinions on all of them. Simply throwing out a review since it doesn't support your opinion is idiotic...

 

[sellmen]

Originally posted by: dullard
alexruiz and andreasl,
I agree that Anand should have tested more programs, and there were some typo and other problems in his review. BUT you two seem to dismiss it since it shows the P4EE doing average and you like Ace's since it shows the P4EE doing poorly. THAT to me is a horrible reason to like one review and to ignore the rest. I think the spread (ranging from the Athlon FX dominating down to the P4EE dominating) shows that the two chips are quite comparable. Sure one will work better on program X while the other works better on program Y - but on average they were quite close considering the massive differences between the chips.

Some sites are biased and will highlight program X or Y. This may be an intentional bias or an unintentional bias (for example they might not have the license to a particular program). That is why I read all the reviews I can and base my opinions on all of them. Simply throwing out a review since it doesn't support your opinion is idiotic...

...Unless its from Toms Hardware. I haven't seen a single other review showing the P4EE dominating like it does at Toms.

 

[Is]

Well, yeah. Of couse the P4 EE will dominate if you OC it, while running the A64 at stock speeds...stupid Tom's.

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: sellmen
...Unless its from Toms Hardware. I haven't seen a single other review showing the P4EE dominating like it does at Toms.

You have to be careful with Tom's since he has an unlocked P4EE at 3.6 GHz. You must compare the 3.2 GHz P4EE for now (slightly different shade of blue). Then you'll see the P4EE gets the same results as with other reviews. However Tom's uses more software that shows the P4s strengths (just like Aces uses more software that shows the P4s weaknesses). Remember to look at the programs you run and compare those and ignore the programs you won't run. That way bias is pretty much removed. Tom's numbers for a game are just as accurate as Aces or anyone elses numbers for that game. So his numbers aren't wrong. He just has more P4 friendly programs in his review.

Originally posted by: Is
Well, yeah. Of couse the P4 EE will dominate if you OC it, while running the A64 at stock speeds...stupid Tom's.

There are also reviews out there with an overclocked Athlon FX. So you have to be sure to compare the right chips.

 

[vaporize]

what does P4-EE stand for? P4 Extreme? but then what does the second E stand for?