AMD Athlon 64 - yea or nea?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
SagaLore

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,036
21
81
It's about time for me to build a new system.

I currently have an XP 1700 that is a solid performer.

Was just looking at Athlon 64 benchmarks, and if I read the article correctly it didn't perform better than the XP and in only 1 test could do better than the P4, it's main advantage is the onchip memory controller.

The higher speed XP's are at a much lower price than the 64's. Suggestions?
 
A

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
The Athlon 64 handily defeats the P4C and P4E at pretty much every gaming application, its slightly behind in encoding, but is catching up as clockspeeds ramp.

It clearly (as in across the board) stomps on the Athlon XP, its superior in every possible way.

If you are building a new PC, and plan to keep it around for a while, the A-64 is looking pretty good right now.
 
M

Mik3y

Banned
Mar 2, 2004
7,089
0
0
wut kind of benchmark are u talking about? athlon 64's KILL the athlon xps in everything. a barton at 2.4ghz is only as fast as an athlon 64 3000+. the athlon 64 2800+ also creams the xp3200+.
 
C

carlosd

Senior member
Aug 3, 2004
782
0
0
What benchmaks di you see? athlon 64 has much better performance than Athlon XP (of course, those are the succesors of XP). An destroys in performance to their direct competition P4C, P4E and P4EE.
Look at some anandtech benchmarks. I Suggest.
 
nick1985

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
Originally posted by: Mik3y
wut kind of benchmark are u talking about? athlon 64's KILL the athlon xps in everything. a barton at 2.4ghz is only as fast as an athlon 64 3000+. the athlon 64 2800+ also creams the xp3200+.
Click to expand...

 
SagaLore

SagaLore

Elite Member
Dec 18, 2001
24,036
21
81
Considering the Athlon 64 FX?s workstation heritage, it is surprising to see the processor bested by Pentium 4 and Athlon XP alike in every test except for one. VIA?s K8T800 platform is said to improve some of these scores, but at least as it relates to the platform at hand, Athlon 64 FX takes a small step backwards.
Click to expand...

http://firingsquad.com/hardwar...n_fx_preview/page9.asp

Maybe it was just talking about the tests on that page... there are about a dozen others. I use to keep up with this years ago before I put together my last system. AmdMB.com was a nice site, but then the owner stopped updating it.
 
S

Sonic587

Golden Member
May 11, 2004
1,146
0
0
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Considering the Athlon 64 FX?s workstation heritage, it is surprising to see the processor bested by Pentium 4 and Athlon XP alike in every test except for one. VIA?s K8T800 platform is said to improve some of these scores, but at least as it relates to the platform at hand, Athlon 64 FX takes a small step backwards.
Click to expand...

http://firingsquad.com/hardwar...n_fx_preview/page9.asp

Maybe it was just talking about the tests on that page... there are about a dozen others. I use to keep up with this years ago before I put together my last system. AmdMB.com was a nice site, but then the owner stopped updating it.
Click to expand...

That article is close to a year old. And on top of that, you're looking at a lot of synthetic benches (I. E. Useless)

A64 beats down all XPs except the 2.4-2.6GHz mobiles. It is also ahead of the P4 in most things sans popular video encoding programs. Gaming is where is really shines, however. Just take a look at the recent Doom 3 CPU battlegrounds article.

 
B

Bob151

Senior member
Apr 13, 2000
857
0
0
Yea.

I'm even getting one after thinking I've never get another AMD after my BIG K62-450 disappointment.
 
Imyourzero

Imyourzero

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
3,701
0
86
Originally posted by: Bob151
Yea.

I'm even getting one after thinking I've never get another AMD after my BIG K62-450 disappointment.
Click to expand...

I think AMD have come a long way with the Athlon 64. Their early CPU's were somewhat disappointing (the K6 series) but the Athlons have just been getting better and better. The Thunderbird was a solid performing (but hot-running) CPU. The XP series were even faster and ran cooler, and the Athlon 64 is just a beast of a performer. I'm not really brand loyal to AMD or Intel. My money will go to whoever makes the CPU with the best performance for the dollar that runs stable and (preferrably) cool.
 
B

Blain

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
23,643
3
81
You want a dual core CPU next... Get an XP
You want NCQ soon... Get an XP
You don't need 64bit now... Get an XP
When you do need 64bit, the current AMD 64's will be "old school"... Get an XP
You want to brag about having a 64bit CPU... Get a 64 :p
 
Imyourzero

Imyourzero

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
3,701
0
86
Originally posted by: Blain
You want a dual core CPU next... Get an XP
You want NCQ soon... Get an XP
You don't need 64bit now... Get an XP
When you do need 64bit, the current AMD 64's will be "old school"... Get an XP
You want to brag about having a 64bit CPU... Get a 64 :p
Click to expand...

You want to run apps and games slower than an Athlon 64...Get an XP. ;)
 
M

Mik3y

Banned
Mar 2, 2004
7,089
0
0
Originally posted by: Imyourzero
Originally posted by: Blain
You want a dual core CPU next... Get an XP
You want NCQ soon... Get an XP
You don't need 64bit now... Get an XP
When you do need 64bit, the current AMD 64's will be "old school"... Get an XP
You want to brag about having a 64bit CPU... Get a 64 :p
Click to expand...

You want to run apps and games slower than an Athlon 64...Get an XP. ;)
Click to expand...

rofl! here, have a :cookie: :D
 
Imyourzero

Imyourzero

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2002
3,701
0
86
Originally posted by: Blain
The CPU benchmarks he linked to are the...
$127 XP-3200+
and the...
$745 64 FX-51

Hmmm... I wonder which one he should get? :p
Click to expand...


Oh yeah definitely...I agree with you. I personally feel that the A64 FX CPU's are overpriced considering a regular A64 can hang with them in many benches and actually performs better in a few. I feel the same way about the P4 EE CPU's.

I was talking about a $200-$400 A64 like the 3200+/3400+/3500+, not a $700-$800 A64 like one of the FX series processors. As far as "bang for the buck" like your signature mentions, the XP definitely wins out over the A64 FX CPU's. But I still think the regular" A64's are great CPU's for the money and give a nice performance boost over the XP's. Sorry about the confusion. :)
 
P

pipsey

Member
Aug 27, 2004
31
0
0
From the owner of an A64 3400+ - Yea

But don't buy a Soyo CK8 Dragon+, I don't like the board :)
 
A

Agamar

Golden Member
Oct 9, 1999
1,334
0
0
I went from a 1700+ to a A64 2800+, and the speed increase was very noticeable. Even in windows it was a good bit faster.
 
Jeff7181

Jeff7181

Lifer
Aug 21, 2002
18,368
11
81
Originally posted by: Blain
The CPU benchmarks he linked to are the...
$127 XP-3200+
and the...
$745 64 FX-51

Hmmm... I wonder which one he should get? :p
Click to expand...

Damn... don't bother to educate the OP at all...


Anyway... your decision should not be between an XP3200 and an FX-51... they're both desktop processors but they're in a completely different class IMHO.

Your decision should be based on your budget. If you're looking for a low cost performer and don't want to overclock, the Socket 754 Athlon-64 2800+ is your winner. It's less than $150 retail with a heatsink, and it outperforms the XP3200 in most tests.

If you can afford $400-500 the Socket 754 Athlon-64 3400+ fits the bill.

If price is really no concern, consider a Socket 939 Athlon-64 FX53.

As far as RAM goes... almost any RAM will be fine as long as it's PC3200 and not REALLY crappy stuff like the $40 512 MB no name stuff you find at computer shows.

And for motherboards... I believe Via's chipset is still a bit faster than the nForce3 without overclocking anything. But check AnandTech's motherboard articles for Athlon-64's and decide for yourself what features you need and if the performance differences between them are important to you.
 
E

epsilon9090

Member
Sep 4, 2004
144
0
0
Actually, the chipsets are mostly identical in stock performance, but if overclocking is your thing grab an Nforce3 based board.

I have a Chaintech VNF3-250 with stock settings and its great, except for all of the temperature bugs, for which you need to use SpeedFan to monitor with.
 
A

Adn4n

Golden Member
Aug 6, 2004
1,043
0
0
I just assembled a buddy's 2500 Barton system. Even overclocked it feels like using an old nintendo compared to my 64 3200+.
 
V

Vee

Senior member
Jun 18, 2004
689
0
0
Originally posted by: SagaLore
Considering the Athlon 64 FX?s workstation heritage, it is surprising to see the processor bested by Pentium 4 and Athlon XP alike in every test except for one. VIA?s K8T800 platform is said to improve some of these scores, but at least as it relates to the platform at hand, Athlon 64 FX takes a small step backwards.
Click to expand...

http://firingsquad.com/hardwar...n_fx_preview/page9.asp

Maybe it was just talking about the tests on that page...
Click to expand...

That's a *funny* quote. I've just built a prototype A64 3400+ for work. On our main $30,000 workapp, this darling outperforms a 3.2 P4C by 91% (1.908 times faster).
It is due to the code, of course. It's probably mostly old 386/387, with little or no SSE2.
But my impression is, that's pretty common for math'y, niche workstation apps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom