Help me with a decision on P4 or AMD FX

[Athlongamer]

Hi all,
The other day i was at best buy and some how i got started talking with this certified computer programer and his side job was PC repair. Well he was telling me that AMD processors run like a scalded dog when they're new but over time with the factor of OC'ing they burn up faster than, say a P4 at 3.4, even with an upgraded heatsink and fan. So he was saying go with P4 b\c it's rugged and can handle the OC'ing better.... i guess.

And i do plan on gaming and OC with either processor i get, but i want to see what some of the other more experienced people have to say so what do u think about what he said ^. Thanks

 

[JSSheridan]

I would say, at default voltage, the failure rate for Prescotts and the AMD FX over a given time is probably similar. All bets are off when you tinker with the voltage. Also, the last time I heard, Prescotts use more power and dissipate more heat than the FX's, though I can't confirm this.

Tell me, was this guy at BB a salesman, and do you have a reason to trust him? Peace.

 

[imported_Interloper]

Best Buy employees work on commission. He will always point you at whatever he gets a better commission of of. Doesn't matter if he says "I'll tell you the straight info because I don't care which one you buy." Money is money, and business is business. He is there to earn a paycheck. And if he needs a side job as a programmer he isn't that good a programmer to begin with

 

[Joshfast]

If you have the money for an FX chip (socket 939) then to hell with that guy. FX chips are so nice they will make your computer explode ...err in a good way.

 

[LTC8K6]

The way I read the OP, the guy did not work for BB, he was just there.

At any rate, what he said was just more anti-AMD garbage.

Both companies make excellent processors.
Buy the one that works best for your needs and your budget.

 

[Mik3y]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
The way I read the OP, the guy did not work for BB, he was just there.

At any rate, what he said was just more anti-AMD garbage.

Both companies make excellent processors.
Buy the one that works best for your needs and your budget.

i agree

 

[Spikey289]

Yeah I would have to agree with that too. I run amd in both my systems and they run nice. No problems with heat or any thing else.

 

[Athlongamer]

Originally posted by: JSSheridan
I would say, at default voltage, the failure rate for Prescotts and the AMD FX over a given time is probably similar. All bets are off when you tinker with the voltage. Also, the last time I heard, Prescotts use more power and dissipate more heat than the FX's, though I can't confirm this.

Tell me, was this guy at BB a salesman, and do you have a reason to trust him? Peace.

Yes he was a salesman, and i kinda trust him. I kno he's goin to throw me a bunch of factoids about the P4 cuz thats what they sale. I just had this sweet picture of AMD and how they have mobos at 1600mhz bus and Intel only has 800Mhz bus, and all that, but then he's like well if u try to look into how or why they have 1600mhz bus they just backtrack themselves and talk around it b\c it's not really a 1600mhz bus. ???? so he confused the hell out of me there. He said he has 7 computers at his house all wireless and a server on the web and all he uses is pentiums because he said " when run my computers i RUN my computers, it's usually clocking alot of hours", so i was like ok w\e. Then he started with, how AMD 64bit processors aren't hyperthreaded (which is true) and that the hyper threading technology is so much better then 64 bit.? hmm....

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

What a load of crap. lol. The saleman or "informed" customer appears to be smoking something. The FX-53 939 pin has a hypertransport of 1000Megahertz DDR for an effective 2000. The 2000ddr refers to the hypertransprot frequency between the processor and the northbridge. AMD64 has no front side bus anymore becuase the memory controller is integrated onto the die. The FX 53 is faster than anything Intel has with the exception of encoding (depending on what encoding program you use, and some 3d work (depending on what program you use). Intel has hyperthreading because of their super long pipeline in their processor that has a lot wasted cycles. For some programs hyperthreading speeds things up nicely, faster than AMD for others slows them down. If you do a tremendous amount of multi-tasking than hypertreading could be advantageous to you. If you game than AMD is for you. As far as 64bit and hyperthreading are concerned they are two different monsters. The 64bit on AMD is not active except on Linux (sweet). Windoze is sleeping and waiting for the lameduck Intel copied emulated 64bit processors I bet lol. The 64bit will increase performance mainly due to the doubling of the general purpose registers and doubling the size of the registers (AMD 32bit = 8registers, 32bit wid\AMD 64bit = 16registers, 64bit wide) To take advantage of these registers and some other ehancements you have to have a 64bit OS and 64bit code though. That is future driven while hyperthreading is here now. I am going with AMD 64's becuase I like to game I will immediately go 64bit when Windoze comes out (I know, I know but I just don't feel like learning Linux, sorry) and use office applications but either way I think you would be happy.

 

[Sid59]

lol .. you talked to a Best Buy salesman about OC'ing an OEM?

 

[Athlongamer]

haha sid59 i wasn't asking questions for help, it started out with a simple man i can build a hell of alot better computer for less money then u can buy one of these computers. and then we got to talking about what i'm tryin to build and crap and eventually OC'ing.


but MichaelPatrick33 that was a great post man, just the information i wanted to read but i didn't have to go searching for it. thanks man.

 

[Athlongamer]

Do you guys think that Windows longhorn will be 64 bit OS??? sorry for lack of info, i don't know anything about it. But if it is that would be so freakin awsome. Talk about jizzing in your pants......damn that would be sweet.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

I haven't heard but I would imagine that with Intel now going 64bit on the Xeon's and Longhorn not coming out until the end of 2006 and with them already having a 64bit OS out they will have to have at least a 64bit version available or no one will buy it. Of course you need about a 10gigahertz dual core processor and 64gigs of memory and 4 terabytes of hardrive space to just have it lol. Just kidding but not by much

 

[Munkies123]

man listen to that michaelpatrick not some honkey at bestbuy he probably has like 2 old macintosh s and smokes the crack pipe at night, he just needs to feed his addiction. Help the man out and dont give him comission he needs help dont buy an Intel it will just pay for a couple of hits of that tutti fruiti. He is also probably gay.

 

[Zebo]

Guess he never heard of SNDS "sudden northwood death syndrome", which is exponential with increased voltage. In essence this guy is talking out his ass. All AMD chips are more "durable" if that's the right word. Proof? Is they can handle huge amonts of voltage over stock for a very long time w/o ill effects. Proof2? is there is no SADS (athlon) anywhere on any forums. Nor will you find one review site stating such a thing.

More FUD from some dolt.

 

[AnnoyedGrunt]

Just curious why you are interested in the FX?

It seems pretty expensive for the added performance.

If you are intested in that level of performance, you can check out the Opteron 150, which is $620 instead of $800. It will require the 940 MB and ECC Registered RAM, but that's only about $50 more than non ECC Unregistered RAM (1 GB worth). The opteron 150 and the SCKT 940 FX-53 are basically the same chip, but the Opteron has the multiplier locked. If you aren't going nuts with overclocking, that might be an option though. Would save about $120 which could be spent on something else, hehe.

Anyhow, the FX-53 will be quite a bit faster than the 3.4 P4, but also quite a bit more expensive. Both are great chips though IMO.

-D'oh!

 

[n0cmonkey]

He's certifiable all right.

 

[Athlongamer]

Thanks for the info. i'm pretty sure i'm goin with either 3200 or 3400 to save some money and just flat out hook my computer up. Thanks for then info, i guess that BB guy was just an ass trying to get me to listen to a sales pitch. lol

P.S. Is loading bios on a computer u put together yourself that hard???

 

[Athlongamer]

Originally posted by: AnnoyedGrunt
Just curious why you are interested in the FX?

It seems pretty expensive for the added performance.

If you are intested in that level of performance, you can check out the Opteron 150, which is $620 instead of $800. It will require the 940 MB and ECC Registered RAM, but that's only about $50 more than non ECC Unregistered RAM (1 GB worth). The opteron 150 and the SCKT 940 FX-53 are basically the same chip, but the Opteron has the multiplier locked. If you aren't going nuts with overclocking, that might be an option though. Would save about $120 which could be spent on something else, hehe.

Anyhow, the FX-53 will be quite a bit faster than the 3.4 P4, but also quite a bit more expensive. Both are great chips though IMO.

-D'oh!

Dang man i didn't even kno about the opteron 150, that sounds pretty sweet too. I'll have to think about it.

-Thanks for the posts guys

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Athlongamer9800
Thanks for the info. i'm pretty sure i'm goin with either 3200 or 3400 to save some money and just flat out hook my computer up. Thanks for then info, i guess that BB guy was just an ass trying to get me to listen to a sales pitch. lol

P.S. Is loading bios on a computer u put together yourself that hard???

No, but I'd rate it as dangerous. I've updated BIOSes before on my systems, and I've had good luck. But unless something is broke, I don't even look at it. I've only done it with floppies and since floppies are crap, at best, I can't trust them. Anyways, it can fail, and that becomes difficult.

 

[Schadenfroh]

read the reviews, FX is better than p4

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
read the reviews, FX is better than p4

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
read the reviews, FX is better than p4

Even the regular A64 is better than the P4 quite convincingly.....

 

[Athlongamer]

I'm planning on buying a A64 3200 and OC'ing

 

[fbrdphreak]

Originally posted by: Interloper
Best Buy employees work on commission. He will always point you at whatever he gets a better commission of of. Doesn't matter if he says "I'll tell you the straight info because I don't care which one you buy." Money is money, and business is business. He is there to earn a paycheck. And if he needs a side job as a programmer he isn't that good a programmer to begin with

Actually slick, Best Buy doesn't and hasn't worked on commission for about six or seven years. So shut your hole when you don't know what you're talking about.
**Best Buy SALESMAN**