I was upgrading my computer this year and wondering if I should switch from Pentium 4 to AMD 64. Ive been reading info and I guess the way to go is AMD 64 for the new windows. But the clock speeds are so slow, the 3500 being at 2.4 while Pentium 4 you can get at 3.4 for almost the same money. I was wondering what processor I should get?
AMD 64 or Pentium 4
- Thread starter gamerxx13
- Start date
get hte athlon 64. dont worry about clock speeds. amd64 at 2.4ghz is faster then the P4 at 3.4ghz. it's all because of the diffferences pipeline legths between the amd and intel cpu architecture. clockspeed isnt everything and intel somewhat brainwashed the public on making them think that higher numbers are everything, and because of that, they are renaming all their processors to a different scheme, whcih is the 560 and 550.
Go A64 for just about everything, especially gaming. It might be lower in MHz, but it is MUCH more efficient per clock, plus you'll have the 64 bit extensions for when they are actually useful (for now they add performance to 32 bit applications, or so I've been told). The integrated memory controller is also a huge plus for memory intensive applications (like games as well as photo editing programs I think).
I used to be all for chipzilla (intel), but I got converted because AMD is just offering better products, especially for the prices they're selling them for.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...oc.aspx?i=2261&p=8
If you go with a lower end A64, you're definitely going to get more mang for the buck.
I used to be all for chipzilla (intel), but I got converted because AMD is just offering better products, especially for the prices they're selling them for.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...oc.aspx?i=2261&p=8
If you go with a lower end A64, you're definitely going to get more mang for the buck.
Clock speed does matter. If your doing DVD encoding get the fastest P4 you can. My overclocked 2.5GHz A64 is much slower than my old non overclocked 3GHz P4 running CCE. If you play alot of games or do Xvid encoding get a A64. If you do Divx or DVD encoding a P4. If you do office stuff or just surf get whats ever cheapest.
Well then which 64 do you recommend. And should I wait for the new nvida NForce 4 chipset to come out? I read that the 3200 is the best value because you can overclock that to 2.5 with stock cooling.
An article I read basically pointed out that if you're doing just about anything related to video, you'll want to use Intel, but if you're doing more graphic rendering, then you'll want to go AMD. Of course one Benchmark test showed that different programs excelled on different processors. I believe that the Adobe programs worked better on the AMD and that Roxio worked better on the Intel processor.
I think this is where I read it. Again, it all depends on what you're doing.
Tech Report - AMD's Athlon 64 4000+ and FX-55 processors
I think this is where I read it. Again, it all depends on what you're doing.
Tech Report - AMD's Athlon 64 4000+ and FX-55 processors
not true anymore. wtih socket 939, intel doenst own amd at encoding.
it's nto because of clock speed. it's because of the piplelines and encoding just scales much better wtih a longer pipeline. like i said, with socket 939, intel doesnt kill amd at encoding anymore, so basing a decision on getting an intel system for encoding isnt the most logical anymore. the athlon 64 still is the better cpu far more times then not. the a64 isnt just faster in gaming, but is also faster in general comparison, such as the 3000+ and the P4 3.0ghz.
Clock speed does matter, but only within a given product family. A 2.4GHz A64 is faster than a 2.0, but you can't compare a 2.0GHz A64 to a 2.0GHz P4. They are just too different in architecture. It's like assuming that because a bus has more horsepower than a mazda miata, then it will be faster. It's simply not true. Anyways, I think AMD is pretty much the way to go right now, especially in a week or 2 with the arrival of the nForce 4. BTW, I on another thread in here, MSI's nforce4s (ultra and SLI) are both listed on some etailers in germany, and apparently they are claiming availability in 2-4 days, so I hope the wait is nearly over. The SLI looks kinda disappointing, no PCIe x1 slots, but the Ultra looks freakin awesome (mmm....dual gigabit lan, 2 PCIe x1, SATA-II, nTune, 7.1 audio, etc). I say go for a 3000+ or 3200+ coupled with MSI's nForce4 Ultra and a 6600GT for a rediculously fast computer for pretty cheap. It will own anything you can get from intel in its pricerange.
That's easy A64.
The only numbers that matter are the performance numbers(look at benchmarks) of each chip at the price that's right for you.
I'd probably get a 2800+ and then OC it and a 6800GT and OC that.
The only numbers that matter are the performance numbers(look at benchmarks) of each chip at the price that's right for you.
I'd probably get a 2800+ and then OC it and a 6800GT and OC that.
Athlon 64=1600 mhz fsb, better for games, 64 bit
Pentium 4=800 mhz fsb, better for encrypting/decrypting, extracting, 32 bit
Pentium 4=800 mhz fsb, better for encrypting/decrypting, extracting, 32 bit
clock speeds are meaningless by themselves. what matters more is what you do per clock. its a rediculous simplification, but the A64 does more per clock than the P4. and its better that way, since when the clock gets super fast, the clock itself sucks massive power. thats all a waste, if you cut the clock in half and do twice as much per clock, you have a chip thats equivalent that uses less power and makes less heat.
check the review and find out for yourself how they stack up.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...ts/showdoc.aspx?i=2249
people like to say that one does this better and the other does this better to sound objective, but it makes them seem equivalent, and as you'll see in that review, the A64 does most things better.
also
linux runs in 64bit mode and windows will at some point too ;-) that should give you a serious boost
it has an anti-virus feature that blocks buffer over-run viruses
runs cooler
as far as which A64 you should get, depends on how much speed you want and how much you want to spend and if you want to overclock and run dual channel memory or not?
check the review and find out for yourself how they stack up.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...ts/showdoc.aspx?i=2249
people like to say that one does this better and the other does this better to sound objective, but it makes them seem equivalent, and as you'll see in that review, the A64 does most things better.
also
linux runs in 64bit mode and windows will at some point too ;-) that should give you a serious boost
it has an anti-virus feature that blocks buffer over-run viruses
runs cooler
as far as which A64 you should get, depends on how much speed you want and how much you want to spend and if you want to overclock and run dual channel memory or not?
dug777
Lifer
- Oct 13, 2004
- 24,778
- 4
- 0
I'll be the dickhead who says 'search for other threads with the same or similar title- there must be millions of them 
' shall I
But it gives everone a chance to chip in i guess, and the originator gets his questions answered specifically...
My advice- 2day i've decided to tailor it to your username, gamerxx13
Get an A64 4 games, if u have the money and want the very best for no o/c effort, get a fx-55 or 4000+, if u want 2 overclock and have a (much) lower budget get a 2800+ and o'c
' shall I But it gives everone a chance to chip in i guess, and the originator gets his questions answered specifically...
My advice- 2day i've decided to tailor it to your username, gamerxx13
Get an A64 4 games, if u have the money and want the very best for no o/c effort, get a fx-55 or 4000+, if u want 2 overclock and have a (much) lower budget get a 2800+ and o'c
pft.. 1600 fsb? first, calling the 800mhz bus on intels is wrong.. and amd has no fsb.. fsb is a terminology that only applies to memory controllers off chip. second, that "1600 mhz" crap that amd preaches is only for the chipset. between cpu and non-memory devices, it operates at that speed.. but only 16-bits at a time. so that 1600 mhz is only 400 mhz. and once again, amd's marketing at play.. the actual speed is equivalently 200 mhz down and 200 mhz up.. they just decided to add the 2 together and treat it like ddr. and intel has already come out with a 64-bit pentium 4, so the whole "intel doesnt support 64-bit" isn't valid anymore.
and really.. encryption and decryption is all that pentium 4's are good at? i don't think you're post could possibly be any more misinformative.
aside from this joker.. everybody else pretty much said it all. a64 generally performs better than the p4 in everything non-content-creation related. some people argue that it's only in benchmarks that the p4 lacks.. whether they're trying to just make up for what they see as a bad investment or it's actually true.. i have no clue, and i'm too lazy to give a sht. there is a possibility tho (infinitesimal as it may seem) for some of the benchmarks considering omega drivers boost performance but reduce benchmarks.
The problem with all the threads about Intel vs AMD is they all spout benchmark stats. I could care less how something runs in a benchmark, but would much rather see it in actual action.
I'll give you an example of what I would like to see;
A video of two systems set up, side-by-side. Both with dual screens. One running a P4 with Hyperthreading and the other running a A64 (at comparable price levels). Same video, RAM, HD, etc (as close as you can with two different motherboard chipsets of course).
On the secondary screen, they should both be downloading a Bittorrent file, encoding a video (using the same encoding software), and playing MP3s. On the primary screen, they should be playing a video game (don't care which, just as long as they are using the exact same software).
Seeing how both systems handle these tasks at the same time would give me more of an idea of what I want, since that would be the usual task that I use my system for. All the comments of "AMD rules gaming" and "INTEL owns encoding" don't mean squat when they are based solely on benchmarks running one application at a time.
I really wish review sites would get away from the attitude that gaming is everything for a PC. I wish they would get away from using all the benchmark software and review more "real world" results. I realize that this is a little harder to do, but it is much more informative in my opinion than reading a bunch of statistics. Am I asking too much? Probably, but everyone saying "AMD>INTEL" or "INTEL<AMD" doesn't hasn't helped me decide on my next upgrade and neither has the reviews that show AMD gives you 5-10 better FPS in Doom 3 (or whatever stat they give out for whatever game).
I'll give you an example of what I would like to see;
A video of two systems set up, side-by-side. Both with dual screens. One running a P4 with Hyperthreading and the other running a A64 (at comparable price levels). Same video, RAM, HD, etc (as close as you can with two different motherboard chipsets of course).
On the secondary screen, they should both be downloading a Bittorrent file, encoding a video (using the same encoding software), and playing MP3s. On the primary screen, they should be playing a video game (don't care which, just as long as they are using the exact same software).
Seeing how both systems handle these tasks at the same time would give me more of an idea of what I want, since that would be the usual task that I use my system for. All the comments of "AMD rules gaming" and "INTEL owns encoding" don't mean squat when they are based solely on benchmarks running one application at a time.
I really wish review sites would get away from the attitude that gaming is everything for a PC. I wish they would get away from using all the benchmark software and review more "real world" results. I realize that this is a little harder to do, but it is much more informative in my opinion than reading a bunch of statistics. Am I asking too much? Probably, but everyone saying "AMD>INTEL" or "INTEL<AMD" doesn't hasn't helped me decide on my next upgrade and neither has the reviews that show AMD gives you 5-10 better FPS in Doom 3 (or whatever stat they give out for whatever game).
P4 isn't better for 32bit, even in 32bit benches AMD on average is in the lead.
"neither has the reviews that show AMD gives you 5-10 better FPS in Doom 3 "
Ok, I'm gonna say this; If any benchmark shows a cpu giving you an extra 10fps over the competition at the settings you play at... BUY THAT PROCESSOR. A cpu upgrade raising FPS by 10 in a current game @ playable settings (none of the 640x480 crap) is insane.
And bittorrents and mp3's put negligible strain on the processor. You might as well ask for benches of just Encoding and gaming. Which intel would obviously win (assuming you don't adjust windows process management). But again, if you are encoding while you game, you aren't the sharpest tool in the shed.
I have a question quasi-off topic.... does te Itanium really count as a P4? I was under the impression that it was a highly specific processor, I would understand the argument that a Celeron is a P4 especially the Celly Ds but the Itanium? If that was true Intel would have released a 64 bit chip for the home market by now. I mean based on the specs from Intel's website on the Itanium it has a 400/533 MHz bus which really doesn't strike me as a P4, the only P4s with that low of a bus are the 478s.... I coulds be wrong but it just doesn't strike me as an architecture that is in anyway similiar.
OK, I pulled the FPS thing out of my a$$. It just goes to show that I don't pay any attention to gaming benchmarks because I don't use my system primarily for gaming. I don't do LAN parties and I don't waste my time playing FPS games online because I always get smacked down
In fact, I'm not even a big fan of FPS games, I acutally prefer RTS and RPG games (which generally are not as video or processor intesive). Personally I don't see a problem with playing these games while encoding a video, burning a DVD, etc. Personally, I follow the idea "work smarter, not faster" attitude that if I can do multiple things at once, just a little slower, than I can do one thing really fast, that is a much better use of my time. So my opinion is that if you buy a computer just to play games, you are the one that isn't too sharp since you could have spent less and just bought an XBOX or PS2 (or whatever other item you prefer to waste your time on).However, I do use my system for several different chores, and occasionally play games. I usually purchase a computer with the plan that it will get me by for at least 3 years with only minor upgrades (for example, I am looking at buying a new system because my reliable Abit BE6 motherboard with a Celeron 1 Ghz processor that I have had since 2000 took a nose dive). In otherwords, I am not a hardware enthusiast. I buy what will do what I need it to for as long as possible. With my new system I will definately be purchasing a tv-encoder to try to get away from using a VCR (I would rather record shows digitally and watch them on the computer in the office, on the laptop in the living room, or connect the laptop to the tv and watch it). Eventually I will be adding a HTPC to the house to replace the DVD player and so I don't have to connec the laptop to the TV to watch a recorded show (and also allowing me to record more than one show at a time).
itachi,
"but only 16-bits at a time. so that 1600 mhz is only 400 mhz."
don't get it man, the speed of the bus doesnt change, its still 1600MHz, is the P4 bus or the K7 bus 64bit or something? but you say it runs at 400MHz?
either way, i'm told, although i havent read about it that HT is really not even a bus, since busses are serial, its a point to point link, in that it sends packets. i'd like to read about this and figure it out, but supposedly point to point links are the future.
"but only 16-bits at a time. so that 1600 mhz is only 400 mhz."
don't get it man, the speed of the bus doesnt change, its still 1600MHz, is the P4 bus or the K7 bus 64bit or something? but you say it runs at 400MHz?
either way, i'm told, although i havent read about it that HT is really not even a bus, since busses are serial, its a point to point link, in that it sends packets. i'd like to read about this and figure it out, but supposedly point to point links are the future.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 15K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter