gaming with 3.2C or 3200+?

[stickybytes]

the amd64 3200+ and the p4 3.2C are the only processors within my budget. Which one is faster for games? I know the higher end amd64's (3500+-3800+ and those awesome fx's) are excellent at games but those are way beyond my budget. What i want are game comparisons between the 3.2C and the 3200+.

 

[Markfw]

This is well documented and discussed to death, the Athlon64 wins in games.

 

[jdogg707]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
This is well documented and discussed to death, the Athlon64 wins in games.

What he said...if you would like proof of this, type "3200+" in the search menu and see the many threads on it.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Also, have you ever visited the main AnandTech site? Benchmarks aplenty there with charts aplenty too!

 

[stickybytes]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Also, have you ever visited the main AnandTech site? Benchmarks aplenty there with charts aplenty too!

I have visited Anandtech main site. The articles show a mixed bag. The p4 3.2C performs better at aquamark 3 as shown here: AT Aquamark 3

Other than that, i haven't been able to find much benchmarks comparing those two paticular processors.

 

[imported_Killswitch]

AMD are better for games, enough said

 

[Dug]

Originally posted by: stickybytes

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Also, have you ever visited the main AnandTech site? Benchmarks aplenty there with charts aplenty too!

I have visited Anandtech main site. The articles show a mixed bag. The p4 3.2C performs better at aquamark 3 as shown here: AT Aquamark 3

Other than that, i haven't been able to find much benchmarks comparing those two paticular processors.

Ummm.. that's only one benchmark and the difference is only .4fps

If you had both a P4 and an Athlon next to each other, you wouldn't be able to tell a difference.

 

[flexy]

nice thread...i was wondering that too today.

My max. range for a CPU (right now) would be $270....which brings in A64 3200+ or PIV 3.2. (The other higher CPU's "price <--> perf ratio" is not too great)

Anyway....still have some time left 'til end of the year and i hope i will get something nice(r) for $270 or so in 5 months

 

[oldfart]

Honestly, I dont get all the posts on how the A64 is better in games. In just about every bench, they are VERY close. If it wins, it is usually by a couple of FPS that would never be noticed. There are a couple of games like UT2K3/4 where there is a noticeable difference, but really. There is VERY little difference between them in the vast majority of benches. How does 1 - 2 FPS make such a difference??

Flip a coin.

 

[stickybytes]

Originally posted by: oldfart
Honestly, I dont get all the posts on how the A64 is better in games. In just about every bench, they are VERY close. If it wins, it is usually by a couple of FPS that would never be noticed. There are a couple of games like UT2K3/4 where there is a noticeable difference, but really. There is VERY little difference between them in the vast majority of benches. How does 1 - 2 FPS make such a difference??

Flip a coin.

Ha "Flip a coin". Very funny. Now can someone provide me some benchmarks of these two processors please.

 

[TourDe]

i think these are some benchmark

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&amp;p=9




Direct 9 benchmarks and stuff


keep going, more on next page

 

[nick1985]

A64.

 

[jdogg707]

Originally posted by: stickybytes

Originally posted by: oldfart
Honestly, I dont get all the posts on how the A64 is better in games. In just about every bench, they are VERY close. If it wins, it is usually by a couple of FPS that would never be noticed. There are a couple of games like UT2K3/4 where there is a noticeable difference, but really. There is VERY little difference between them in the vast majority of benches. How does 1 - 2 FPS make such a difference??

Flip a coin.

Ha "Flip a coin". Very funny. Now can someone provide me some benchmarks of these two processors please.

Since you apparently lack the ability to do research on your own, here are a few descent ones:

Hard OCP and Anandtech

 

[dudeman007]

Originally posted by: stickybytes

Originally posted by: oldfart
Honestly, I dont get all the posts on how the A64 is better in games. In just about every bench, they are VERY close. If it wins, it is usually by a couple of FPS that would never be noticed. There are a couple of games like UT2K3/4 where there is a noticeable difference, but really. There is VERY little difference between them in the vast majority of benches. How does 1 - 2 FPS make such a difference??

Flip a coin.

Ha "Flip a coin". Very funny. Now can someone provide me some benchmarks of these two processors please.

That's why I got a 3.2c. The game benchs that I have seen are about the same for the games but for the other stuff intel pulls away a little, but still not by much. BTW...I'm pretty sure a64 mobos are cheaper though for top of line stuff so thats a plus for amd. lol yeah flip a coin.

 

[oldfart]

Originally posted by: stickybytes

Originally posted by: oldfart
Honestly, I dont get all the posts on how the A64 is better in games. In just about every bench, they are VERY close. If it wins, it is usually by a couple of FPS that would never be noticed. There are a couple of games like UT2K3/4 where there is a noticeable difference, but really. There is VERY little difference between them in the vast majority of benches. How does 1 - 2 FPS make such a difference??

Flip a coin.

Ha "Flip a coin". Very funny. Now can someone provide me some benchmarks of these two processors please.

Well, you could try a site called Anandtech. Ever hear of it? There is also Toms Hardware if you prefer. Lots of others too. There is also a search engine called Google.. It works pretty well. You should give it a try.

 

[CraigRT]

Originally posted by: stickybytes

Originally posted by: oldfart
Honestly, I dont get all the posts on how the A64 is better in games. In just about every bench, they are VERY close. If it wins, it is usually by a couple of FPS that would never be noticed. There are a couple of games like UT2K3/4 where there is a noticeable difference, but really. There is VERY little difference between them in the vast majority of benches. How does 1 - 2 FPS make such a difference??

Flip a coin.

Ha "Flip a coin". Very funny. Now can someone provide me some benchmarks of these two processors please.

search works great!

 

[Rainsford]

Really, those two processors are VERY close in terms of performance in games. I would give the nod to the Athlon simple because of 64-bit processing ability. It's not very well utilized right now, but trust me, that will change soon.

 

[BFG10K]

The P4 is faster for Quake 3 based games and other older titles while the Athlon 64 is faster in newer games such as UT2004 and those games that aren't optimized well.

Since Quake 3 games run fast enough these days I picked the Athlon 64 so that I could get performance where I needed it the most.

 

[manymoons]

get the athlon because i heard from a chap in a shady back alleyway that when they are idleing they whip out a penny whistle and start playing happy go lucky jigs, which is always a bonus.

 

[wseyller]

AMD 3200+ is just better than 3.2C when it comes to gaming and is probably cheaper system all around so what is the problem.

 

[Safeway]

True, AMD is better for games. I got a P4 for good performance all around.

 

[StrangerGuy]

A64 3200+. While both of the processors performs very close in gaming, generally the A64 still edges out the P4. Plus the A64 runs much cooler as well and has 64-bit capability that may prove useful in the future.