• 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.

Athlon 64 vs P4

M

manifesto

Member
Hey you guys. I have recently decided to build a new pc due to a motherboard/cpu dmg. I have been for the longest time building Athlons because of the value. Athlon has always offered the same speed processor for a better price than the pentiums. Recently however, a friend (who is also a tech) recommended that the P4 3 gig is a better value than the athlon 64 3000+. I searched on the price for both. The athlon is still cheaper but not by much it seems to be about $10 - 20 less. I also searched the speed. seems the athlon 64 runs 1600 mhz bus speed and p4 3 gig is 800mhz.

The reason why my friend said that p4 is a better value is because the athlon processor tends to over heat a lot.

If you guys can share some lite on what you know about these 2 cpu's itd be very helpful. Tell us which cpu is the best buy, why, and the quirks with each that we should know (i.e. overheating, overclocking, etc).

 
get the a64, dont know what your friend is talking about. The a64 runs much cooler than the p4 especially if its a prescott. The a64's tend to be a good ocers if your into that. Also if your planning on doing some gaming than you will like the advantages teh a64 has over the p4. 😉
 
asking that here is akin to going on rage3d forums and posting, "which is better, nvidia or ati?" 😉
 
Originally posted by: manifesto


The reason why my friend said that p4 is a better value is because the athlon processor tends to over heat a lot.
Click to expand...

dude, no disrespect to your friend, but he speaks out of his arse!!! 😀
athlon 64's dont run no where near as hot as a prescott, and thats the 130 nano part. theres a new core, winchester, that should be coming into the retail channel any moment, thats based on a 90 nano process. IIRC i read a review of the 3200+ winchester a64 and they put it against a 3200+ 130 nano and a 3.2ghz prescott. Under load the 90 nano 3200+ was generating as much heat as the 3.2 prescott was IDLE. the normal, current 130 nano 3200+ a64 was also A LOT cooler than the p4!!!

as for which cpu offers better value, well, thats a tough one. i consider my self a self proclaimed AMD " fanboy " yet even i will admit that you cant go far wrong with a sweetly set up Intel Box. On the intel side youve got hyper threading and VERY strong audio / video encoding performance. also, internet content creation is a very strong area of pentium 4's performance, including the ever popular photoshop! generally if u spend a lot of time in the desktop a p4 would be a fine choice. its also very good for games. i would go as far to say even, that p4 is a more balanced cpu in regards to what runs well on it.

However, if u like your gaming, A64 is a extremely strong contender, with a 3000+ skt 754 based system able to stand shoulder to shoulder with 3.4/ 3.6 ghz prescotts, even on a par with p4EE chips on some gaming engines. Also, linux is a great area where the a64 shine, with 64 bit kernals bieng avalible and the compilation time on a a64 bieng very impressive. Either chip would be a fine choice, both chips have there strengths and weaknesses, but yet can handel anything you throw at them very well!!!
all in all, despite the fact that the amd chips are more expensive then they were in the days of athlon xp, they still under price intel, and, IMHO offer best bang for buck.

just dont be put off AMD by someone trying to tell you that they run hotter than p4's!!!
karlos
 
Thanks for the info you guys. At one point I know that the Pentiums could proccess more layers. With same speed proccessors, the pentiums well outperform AMD "only" if you do heavy graphical work because it multitasks better and safer. I havent been in the market for another proccessor lately but I noticed the gap in prices on P4's and A64 is closing in. I remember b4 u could save at least 100 bucks just on cpu itself if u went with an athlon. now the difference is only like a $20 difference. Thats what theconfusion was for me. If it was 2 years ago if the prices differed only by $20 then I would have gone with a pentium instead. I'm not sure where AMD stand with pentiums as far as for multitasking and graphics.

That was very informative karlreading. Thanx. I havent owned a intelbox for 4 years thats what was tempting me to try it out again. But the 64bit proccessor is also gonna be a fun toy for me. I think I am sold to AMD again.
 
Originally posted by: manifesto
Thanks for the info you guys. At one point I know that the Pentiums could proccess more layers. With same speed proccessors, the pentiums well outperform AMD "only" if you do heavy graphical work because it multitasks better and safer. I havent been in the market for another proccessor lately but I noticed the gap in prices on P4's and A64 is closing in. I remember b4 u could save at least 100 bucks just on cpu itself if u went with an athlon. now the difference is only like a $20 difference. Thats what theconfusion was for me. If it was 2 years ago if the prices differed only by $20 then I would have gone with a pentium instead. I'm not sure where AMD stand with pentiums as far as for multitasking and graphics.

That was very informative karlreading. Thanx. I havent owned a intelbox for 4 years thats what was tempting me to try it out again. But the 64bit proccessor is also gonna be a fun toy for me. I think I am sold to AMD again.
Click to expand...

AMD seems to be the better choice overall but:

Two reasons for going with Intel are faster performance in graphical rendering apps (check benchmarks because AMD can be as fast or faster in some apps) which are optimized for SSE3.

Another reason is stability and choice. Theres not much choice for socket754 and 939 motherboards if you want the newer chipsets like NF3Ultra, NF3250, SIS755FX, SIS755 from reputable vendors. And AMD m/b has had more problems running dual channel mem. With Intel, your choices are vast and varied 865,875 platforms are reasonably cheap and plentiful.
 
RE:"Two reasons for going with Intel are faster performance in graphical rendering apps (check benchmarks because AMD can be as fast or faster in some apps) which are optimized for SSE3."

The benchmarking wing of Intel, Bapco, is about to reease a new Sysmark.
Soon you will se the Prescott get a lot faster. "LOL"
 
From what I see on benchmarks. A64 will give you a few more FPS's in games. Nothing all too impressively greater than a P4 tho. The P4 will save a lot of time with creating VCD's, MP3's, DivX's.
Its a coin flip really. Is a unnoticable 6fps worth 30 minutes when you do any of the above? for roughly $30 more for a system from scratch. I say the P4 is a better value. That is if you compare the PR rating to the appropriate P4.

P4 3.4GHz with 1MB cache = $299.00 http://www.newegg.com/app/View...=19-116-177&depa=0
A64 3400+ with 1MB cache = $295.00 http://www.newegg.com/app/View...=19-103-426&depa=0

Of course the Intel is OEM, meaning you'll need to spend a few more dollars on a heatsink/fan. So like I said, it boils down to a coin flip. They are very simalar in price. (there was also a lack of 3400+ 1MB OEM CPU's, I just gave that as the retail HS/Fans for both r tha suk)
 
Originally posted by: SinfulWeeper
From what I see on benchmarks. A64 will give you a few more FPS's in games. Nothing all too impressively greater than a P4 tho. The P4 will save a lot of time with creating VCD's, MP3's, DivX's.
Its a coin flip really. Is a unnoticable 6fps worth 30 minutes when you do any of the above? for roughly $30 more for a system from scratch. I say the P4 is a better value. That is if you compare the PR rating to the appropriate P4.

P4 3.4GHz with 1MB cache = $299.00 http://www.newegg.com/app/View...=19-116-177&depa=0
A64 3400+ with 1MB cache = $295.00 http://www.newegg.com/app/View...=19-103-426&depa=0

Of course the Intel is OEM, meaning you'll need to spend a few more dollars on a heatsink/fan. So like I said, it boils down to a coin flip. They are very simalar in price. (there was also a lack of 3400+ 1MB OEM CPU's, I just gave that as the retail HS/Fans for both r tha suk)
Click to expand...



You can actually get a 3.0 with a mobo on p4 at newegg for a much better buy. it was 280 retail on both for weekly special. I would think thats a much better buy just because I dont trust OEM that much. MOBO and cpu are the main components of your PC, I wouldnt touch the OEM with just these 2 parts. Anyways, I think its too late. I purchased my AMD 64 3000+ cpu and board for 260 (retail) over the weekend at newegg. I wont minded that much since its a fun toy either way. I havent touched on graphics since school, so it didnt matter much anyways.

Now looking for 2 sata/RAID HD. Every1 seems to be still looking at WD. I've read some good things aobut the newer ver of seagate. I like the 5 yr warraty on theirs. Anyone have any suggestions?

I'm gonna upgrade my rig with my newly (still in shipping), upcoming system. 😉
 
Originally posted by: CraigRT
P4 3.0 will be a lot hotter than the A64... he obviously hasn't run an AMD in at least 3 years.
Click to expand...

The A64's are sweet CPU's Also I would lean toward the Seagates with thier 5 year warrenty. That was what pushed me to get a WD Raptor as it also has a 5 year warrenty.
 
Originally posted by: manifesto
Originally posted by: SinfulWeeper
From what I see on benchmarks. A64 will give you a few more FPS's in games. Nothing all too impressively greater than a P4 tho. The P4 will save a lot of time with creating VCD's, MP3's, DivX's.
Its a coin flip really. Is a unnoticable 6fps worth 30 minutes when you do any of the above? for roughly $30 more for a system from scratch. I say the P4 is a better value. That is if you compare the PR rating to the appropriate P4.

P4 3.4GHz with 1MB cache = $299.00 http://www.newegg.com/app/View...=19-116-177&depa=0
A64 3400+ with 1MB cache = $295.00 http://www.newegg.com/app/View...=19-103-426&depa=0

Of course the Intel is OEM, meaning you'll need to spend a few more dollars on a heatsink/fan. So like I said, it boils down to a coin flip. They are very simalar in price. (there was also a lack of 3400+ 1MB OEM CPU's, I just gave that as the retail HS/Fans for both r tha suk)
Click to expand...



You can actually get a 3.0 with a mobo on p4 at newegg for a much better buy. it was 280 retail on both for weekly special. I would think thats a much better buy just because I dont trust OEM that much. MOBO and cpu are the main components of your PC, I wouldnt touch the OEM with just these 2 parts. Anyways, I think its too late. I purchased my AMD 64 3000+ cpu and board for 260 (retail) over the weekend at newegg. I wont minded that much since its a fun toy either way. I havent touched on graphics since school, so it didnt matter much anyways.

Now looking for 2 sata/RAID HD. Every1 seems to be still looking at WD. I've read some good things aobut the newer ver of seagate. I like the 5 yr warraty on theirs. Anyone have any suggestions?

I'm gonna upgrade my rig with my newly (still in shipping), upcoming system. 😉
Click to expand...

Like you said, if you add $30.00 to the Intel for a heatsink you have a much bigger price difference.

The retail h/s are perfectly acceptable if you aren't overclocking. If he's overclocking there is no point in buying 3400 level chips. Get a 3000 of either and push it beyond 3400 level. He'll save 50% cash that way.
 
AMD64s retail HS/Fans are just amazing. They keep my system so cool. My load temps are around 45c. My friends Pentium 4 system runs at that idling if he is lucky.

Even if comparing at the same price (which really isnt possible, AMD is still cheaper and faster) if you are customizing a computer, no reason to settle for second best. Go for the best of the best. Id say A64. The 175 dollar (?) A64 3000+s can hang with the 1,000+ dollar P4EE processors when it comes to gaming FPS-wise. And the whole Pentium > AMD thing when it comes to video editing and multimedia etc is really just a joke. They dont perform significantly better, unless you want to compare with some synthetic benchmark that doesent realistically compare to anything in real world performance. When it comes to gaming, the AMD 64s deffinetly perform significantly better than the P4s.
 
I more comfortable with Intel generally. Nothing against AMD.

Some immature kid (I HATE INTEL ERR) lol, get a life.
 
it just depends what u wanna do with ur computer...if u game hands down AMD if ur into encoding and what not Intel takes the cake there...but i have owned both and prefer AMD all day
 
I'm an intel freak, but I'd go a64 right now. It's a little bit more cash for the chip with the 1mb cache, but it's worth it. Definetly performs very well.
 
Intriguing topic, as always. I'm wondering the same thing, but in my circumstances I do no gaming and virtually no 3D work, as Photoshop is my principal application. I understand that lots of RAM, big, fast hard drives, etc. is of paramount importance, but strictly in terms of CPU performance, would I be better off with an Athlon64 or Intel chip? I'm on the verge of ordering an Athlon 3500 Socket 939 CPU with either an MSI K8N Neo Platinum or an Asus A8V, with at least 2 gigs of RAM, lots of fast storage, and so on. I don't want to overspend, but money really isn't a deciding factor (within reason, that is). The cooler-running AMD chips are attractive on that score alone.

Any thoughts?


thanks in advance...aa
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top