Help me decide.

[lbhskier37]

Ok, I need a new system. I use my system mainly for gaming, plus a little photoshop and other general stuff. I was kinda into overclocking back in the early Duron days, but since I got an XP1800 that couldnt overclock worth crap (when they first came out), I havent been into the overclocking scene. Now I have been looking a lot at the 2.4 or 2.6C P4s and an IS7, but I was wondering what AMD would have to offer. I see the 2.6Cs getting up to over 3.5ghz, which sounds interesting. What could I get to compete with this on the AMD side? What is some good AMD stuff to overclock, I am not looking for records, or benchmarking, I want a fast gaming system that will run stable without watercooling or earsplitting noise. What are the pros and cons of each side, and I dont want any fanboys answers, thats why I did this in Anandtech and not Amdzone or something. Thanks in advance for any help.

 

[Corporate Thug]

an nforce2 and a throughbred B would be AMDs solution. i have an abit NF7-s and a 1700+ Oced to 2300Mhz @ 1.62 actual volts. the amd setup is far more cost efficent than the amd system

 

[Alphanos]

The AMD setup with a 1700 Thouroughbred B JIUHB and nForce2 overclocks well and will be cheaper.
The Intel setup with a 2.4/2.6 GHz C processor and springdale/canterwood mobo overclocks well and will be faster.
Both should be able to approach 35-45% overclocks with good cooling, which includes good air cooling. With stock cooling (rough guess) you'd probably get 10-15% less overclock than that. Of course all processors are different, so there's no guarantee that they'll go that high, but most find they will.

I'm an AMD fan myself, but I'll be building an Intel system soon because I recognize that Intel's processors are faster right now, plain and simple. Read any of the dozens of reviews of the P4 3.2GHz and they'll mostly include benchmarks showing the 2.4s and 2.6s beating Athlon 3200s.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: Alphanos
The AMD setup with a 1700 Thouroughbred B JIUHB and nForce2 overclocks well and will be cheaper.
The Intel setup with a 2.4/2.6 GHz C processor and springdale/canterwood mobo overclocks well and will be faster.
Both should be able to approach 35-45% overclocks with good cooling, which includes good air cooling. With stock cooling (rough guess) you'd probably get 10-15% less overclock than that. Of course all processors are different, so there's no guarantee that they'll go that high, but most find they will.

I'm an AMD fan myself, but I'll be building an Intel system soon because I recognize that Intel's processors are faster right now, plain and simple. Read any of the dozens of reviews of the P4 3.2GHz and they'll mostly include benchmarks showing the 2.4s and 2.6s beating Athlon 3200s.

got a ~56% oc with a 1700+ here. yes the p4 chips are faster, buty i'd rather pay 40-50 for a 1700+ and run it at 2300 mhz (which is prolly equivilant to a p4 3.06) then buy a $170 2.4 C and run it @ 3.2-3.3Ghz

 

[Alphanos]

Hyperthreading is a big factor for me, since I plan on running a web server at the same time I'm sitting at the machine playing games, etc. A dually setup would be sweet of course, but I don't have the cash for xeons, dual opteron mobos with agp aren't out at a reasonable price, and the athlon mp mobos are too outdated.

 

[lbhskier37]

Thanks for the help, what do you guys thing is best for games?

 

[Duvie]

I personally would avoid the 1700+ as I hear many are not the ocers they once were...plu swhy would you get anything other the the Bartonb line with the added l2 cache and the 333 to 400fsb bus???? Seems dumb even if the cost was a bit more....

Also the 3.5ghz on the 2.6c is not the norm...still around 3.2 to 3.3 with many being the mobo limitation of these early i865/i875 mobos and ram limitations....

Games I think about even with some like quake and quake based engine games like the p4s better then amd but I think AMD does better in UT.....Either or you would be happy....

i think it is more in the other apps which may be the key to what to get....Photoshop is basic and would likel be a hair faster on the p4 due to sse2 optimization but is it worth the added cost??? Likely not....

I say get the lowest cheapest speed Barton (2500+ I believe) and clock that to 3200+ speeds....get a decent nforce2 mobo and 512mb of pc3200ddr and keep the rest of what you have...

 

[Alphanos]

Unless I'm mistaken, Anandtech's P4 3.2GHz review lists many different P4s and Athlon XPs at various speeds. In many cases the P4 2.4C outperforms the Barton 3200+. Most, if not all, of the 2.4C processors will easily overclock to at least 3.0 GHz speed levels (25% overclock) which makes them much faster. I like AMD chips, and I hope the Athlon 64 trounces the P4, but right now P4s are undeniably faster (although more costly as well).

I'd say that if you were to go with anything more expensive than an Athlon 1700+ oced, you should get a P4 2.4C w/ IS7 mobo. With the only real advantage of the Barton 2500+ over the Thouroughbred 1700+ being twice the L2 cache, and the Barton being more expensive, imo you should choose the 1700 AMD or an Intel processor depending on whether you want to pay a few hundred bucks more for the extra speed. I consider it worth it for my next system because I plan on it lasting me all the way through university, but it depends on how often you upgrade. If you do upgrade relatively often or can wait a few months, find out how the Athlon 64 performs before spending lots of money; AMD has been focusing on that for some time now.

Intel processors right now are faster in most games, but more expensive. Its a matter of balance depending on how often you upgrade; almost any modern processor will run modern games well, so it depends on whether you are investing now for 1-2 years down the road, or intend on upgrading again then anyway.

 

[Duvie]

We are talking like 40 bucks more for the 2500+ barton over the 1700+xp and trust me that is worth it...The 1700+ are not having the luck by many accounts so I consider it a risk and all liklihood the 1700+ wont get as far as the 2500+...The plu the extra cache so I think I respectfully disagree with you.....


The p4 route is an option but the limited uses may not justify the cost here...If he wanted to run a server, do tons of audio/video stuff I would say get the p4 with the sse2 and HT, but I don't see it. Save the money to upgrade a vid card or sooner next time....

 

[lbhskier37]

My main game is IL2 Forgotten Battles. Simhq says the P4C trounced the Athlon XP, does anyone play this game that can give me their input?

 

[HiTek21]

I would get a Barton 2500+, I was considering buying a P4 2.6c with an Asus P4P800 but all that extra money for the CPU, Board, and the Dual Channel RAM is not worth it because it will be outdated shortly.
I would pick up an ABit NF7-S rev 2 and a Barton 2500+ and a stick of Corsair XMS 3200. Possibly overclock it to XP3000+ speeds or higher and cost a lot less than the P4 setup

 

[Alphanos]

Keep in mind that all the reviews talking about one processor "trouncing" another, etc, aren't talking about 3 or 4-fold speed gains. In most cases, although the P4 is faster, its only faster by around 2-5%. In the most extreme cases is can make more of a difference, but even in games where the P4 does tons better you're still only talking about a difference of 50 vs. 40 fps or something like that. Since you can only SEE 30fps with your eyes, it doesn't much matter. If all you want is a fast system to run a game, get the Athlon like they're suggesting. Only buy the P4 if 1) you have money to spend/waste or 2) you don't plan on upgrading your system for another couple of years after this.

BTW, I didn't know that the Barton 2500 was so cheap now! I thought it was more like $100 more than the 1700. Sorry about that guys.

 

[lbhskier37]

See thats the thing, I probably would keep this system for a good 2 years. This makes me lean towards the P4, but that hundred bucks I could save could go to a video card, ah, descisions.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: Alphanos
Keep in mind that all the reviews talking about one processor "trouncing" another, etc, aren't talking about 3 or 4-fold speed gains. In most cases, although the P4 is faster, its only faster by around 2-5%. In the most extreme cases is can make more of a difference, but even in games where the P4 does tons better you're still only talking about a difference of 50 vs. 40 fps or something like that. Since you can only SEE 30fps with your eyes, it doesn't much matter. If all you want is a fast system to run a game, get the Athlon like they're suggesting. Only buy the P4 if 1) you have money to spend/waste or 2) you don't plan on upgrading your system for another couple of years after this.

BTW, I didn't know that the Barton 2500 was so cheap now! I thought it was more like $100 more than the 1700. Sorry about that guys.

Maybe a 2.8ghz p4 (non c) beat the 2800+ by that much but take a look again...I think the 3.2ghz beat the 3200+ by far more of an average then that....The 2.8c beat the 3200+ in a majority of apps in both Toms and anandtechs test...the 2.6c in Anandtech's beat the 3200+ but in a limited testing suite IMO.....However it shows the juice of the c chips w/ 800fsb and HT...