• 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.

New Sys - Athlon or Pentium? PC1066 RAM? Northwood?

GoodRevrnd

GoodRevrnd

Diamond Member
I'm looking to build a screaming new system in the next month or two and I'm stuck with the classic dilemna of Athlon or Pentium. For the sake of this argument lets say cost isn't an issue. It will either be an Athlon XP 1900 or a P4 1.9ghz. I read the recent benchmark reviews for the Athlons and was very impressed. I will be using the system for hardcore gaming and heavy office multitasking (ie, Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Flash, Office, and several instances of IE all at once). However, I have heard from some people that the Athlons can choke slightly in network gaming and that the P4 handles heavy multitasking better. Are either of these true? Also how will the upcoming PC1066 RDRAM effect the P4's performance? How about the new Northwood chip and what will be different with it? What are the expected release dates and costs for each as well? I appreciate the feedback.

-TGR
 
Since you know the specific programs you will use, look at individual benchmarks for those programs. The Athlon is faster than the P4 in many programs and the P4 is faster than the Athlon in many others. Far too many people will jump on this thread and say: get processor X it is better no matter what on all programs. Ignore these people since they are obviously biased and obviously wrong.

The P4 runs at a faster frequency. However, it has a bigger penalty when it incorrectly guesses which path to follow when it reaches a fork in the road. (Processors predict which path to follow BEFORE it has enough information on which one it should follow). Thus programs with few branches run better on a P4 (Quake 3 and Fluent are examples). Other programs have many branches and run better on the Athlon (3D Mark and MP3 recording are examples). Overall though, the speeds are nearly identical on average (Who cares about 1 or 2 extra frames per second in a game).

Tomshardware and Anandtech are places to start.

PC1066 will be a boost to some programs. The current P4 chip barely needs the full bandwidth of PC800. Thus the first few P4s with PC1066 will not see any benefit from the extra bandwidth. However, the latency (delay for the first bit of data only) of the new RDRAM will be drastically reduced (even less latency than current DDR SDRAM). This latency decrease may make a significant boost in a few programs. Rambus (the company that owns the rights to RDRAM) announced about 6 months ago that PC1066 will cost about the same as PC800, but who really knows.

Other people will know more about the Northwood than I do. However I think it will come out quickly (January) at about $600. This is significantly higher than the $250 for the equivalent Athlon. I've heard many guesses on the Northwood performance, but I don't know exactly what will be different. Possibilities are: double the L2 cache (I'd expect a 10% boost on a few programs if that occurs), increasing the bus to 533 MHz (I'd expect a 15% boost on all programs if that occurs), changing to a .13 manufacturing process (expect cooler temperatures, less energy consumption, and maybe better overclocking if that occurs).

My conclusion: wait for the Northwood benchmarks. If it truely does have even a 10% speed boost, get one as it will be the fastest current processor in the next month or two (unless AMD has something up its sleeve). If Northwood benchmarks are basically the same as the current P4, get the Athlon as you will save a few bucks.
 
The Northwood processor is formally being introduced at 2.0AGHz and 2.2GHz in less than two weeks (although you can find some places selling them now).
 
Welcome to Anandtech father. 😉 Since you say "cost isn't an issue," I would say go for the P4 if January is your buying timeframe. I've never had problems with my Athlons multitasking, but I won't say it couldn't happen. I'm playing MP3's, ripping from CD to MP3 and browsing with 5 IE windows as I post this.

The Northwood should overclock nicely, and ramp quickly. The .18um process is really the only thing holding the chips back. RDRAM is also much closer in price to DDR than it used to be, although the boards are still more expensive. (Heh...just finished ripping the 14th track!) The Northwood will probably be the performance king for the next two months or so, but Thoroughbred will be right there with it. Barton should bring AMD back on top until Hammer arrives. Since I upgrade often, cost is a major factor...which is why I currently use AMD. If I could get a 2.0Ghz P4 for $210 I'd be using Intel inside right now...
 
If cost really isnt a factor, I agree with ST4RCUTTER, wait until you can get hold of the 2.2 GHz Northwood.

If cost is somewhat of importance though, I gotta say the AXP's really pack one he** of a punch for the buck.
As for the multitasking thing, I don't have any problems with heavy multitasking either, never noticed much difference between differenr platforms I've used, as long as the OS remains the same, and frankly, I dont see why there should be much, if any, difference.
 


<< Barton should bring AMD back on top until Hammer arrives. >>



Please don't be angry, but I feel the Hammer will not be nearly as successful as you hinted. Intel has a 1 year lead on 64 bit processing (Itanium) and has yet to sell any of them (at least any significant number). The Itanium has Intel's resources to push it and is easily the fastest processor at number crunching (the only current use for 64 bit programs). Note: cost is not an answer since number crunchers like me are perfectly willing spend $50,000 on a single computer. My question is this: if Intel doesn't have the influence to make 64 bit successful at this time, why would anyone think that AMD can?
 
Dullard, first of all, the Hammer will probabaly end up competing in the 32 bit arena more than the 64 bit arena.

Secondly, the Itanic isn't the fastest, when the first SpecFP numbers were released, it took the record, but was trounced by the POWER4.

The Itanic scored just above 700, the POWER4 scored above 1000 on both base and peak, and I believe the EV68 has topped it as well.
 
Please don't be angry, but I feel the Hammer will not be nearly as successful as you hinted. Intel has a 1 year lead on 64 bit processing (Itanium) and has yet to sell any of them (at least any significant number). The Itanium has Intel's resources to push it and is easily the fastest processor at number crunching (the only current use for 64 bit programs). Note: cost is not an answer since number crunchers like me are perfectly willing spend $50,000 on a single computer. My question is this: if Intel doesn't have the influence to make 64 bit successful at this time, why would anyone think that AMD can?

Why should I be angry? You have just as much right to an opinion as I do... Itanium may be the fastest 64-bit chip, but the Hammer will be the fastest 32-bit chip and capable of 64-bit operation if needed. AMD isn't targeting the high end server market where Itanium plays either. Make no mistake, AMD is aiming for low-end server and highend desktop where users are reluctant to upgrade to 64-bit software which would probably be overkill anyway. The starting point for Hammer looks to be 2.5Ghz, but the real power of Hammer is not Ghz, it's architecture. The K8 has it's memory controller on-die, greatly reducing latency. It has some serious branch prediction techniques used in the pipeline of which AMD has been busy patenting. The K8 also has a stronger FPU and will likely be multi-threading capable. It will have SOI which should allow it to play in the laptop space, and with hypertransport running at 800Mhz, it will have bandwidth around 6GB/s. Hypertransport is said to scale towards 12.8GB/s! Don't take my word for it though...go here.

The reality though is whether AMD can deliver on this architecture. Intel has billions to throw at their R&D, and some circles believe that Intel has a 32/64-bit chip in the works in case Itanium should be undercut by Hammer.
 


<< Secondly, the Itanic isn't the fastest, when the first SpecFP numbers were released, it took the record, but was trounced by the POWER4. >>



Thanks for correcting me. My point still is unchanged. The Itanium WAS the fastest and didn't sell. Right now is not the time for 64 bit.



<< the Hammer will probabaly end up competing in the 32 bit arena more than the 64 bit arena. >>



Basically you agree that the time isn't right for 64 bit. Maybe in a few years, but not in 2002. I will make some assumptions now (if anyone knows better information, please let me know):

(1) I highly doubt the Hammer will cost anywhere near the current Athlon prices. As a rule of thumb, new processor technology caries a hefty price tag. This will occur at a time when AMD will want to get back into profits. Also the Hammer is meant for large companies with lots of money. Thus I assume the Hammer will cost around $750-$1000. Not many of AMD's current customers are willing to spend that amount.

(2) The Hammer is meant to be built specifically to handle 64 bit while not losing any 32 bit performance. The Itanium performs miserably on 32 bit programs since it wasn't designed to run them. I have never seen AMD or anyone else claim that the hammer will have FASTER 32 bit than the current Athlons, just that it won't LOSE any 32 bit performance. Thus I will assume that the Hammer will run 32 bit programs at the same speed as the fastest Athlon available at the end of 2002.

(3) 64 bit programs are not widely available now. I will assume that they will not be widely available at the end of 2002. Thus there is no reason for AMD's current customers to change to the Hammer.

Now if my 3 assumtions are true you end up with an expensive processor that has no 64 bit programs to run and performs the same as other AMD processors at half the cost. It just doesn't sound like it will be a big success until 2004 or so.
 
Dullard, I agree with you mostly, but I think the Hammer might just have a slightly higher IPC than current Athlons, mostly due to the memory subsystem.

And no, I dont think the vast majority of applications require 64 bit CPU's today, which is what makes me doubt the McKinely, just like I had doubts about the Itanic.

The 64 bit arena is currently ruled by Sun and IBM, and they both rule cause they sell stable scalable platform(read: platforms, not systems).
As far as I've heard, the McKinely, like the Itanic, still uses a shared bus, which will limit it's scalability severaly.

Oh well, drifting away from the point I guess 😉

But I still think the Clawhammer will be priced very nicely, since AMD wants to break into the corporate market, something they have yet to achieve.
 


<< The starting point for Hammer looks to be 2.5Ghz, but the real power of Hammer is not Ghz, it's architecture. The K8 has it's memory controller on-die, greatly reducing latency. It has some serious branch prediction techniques used in the pipeline of which AMD has been busy patenting. The K8 also has a stronger FPU and will likely be multi-threading capable. It will have SOI which should allow it to play in the laptop space, and with hypertransport running at 800Mhz, it will have bandwidth around 6GB/s. Hypertransport is said to scale towards 12.8GB/s! >>



Throw all that into a 32 bit Athlon selling for $200 and you will see that AMD will be wildly sucessful. I just can't picture all this in place, working, in a 64 bit processor, and in the $200 price range. I wish I was wrong, since I'd love to buy a farm of those (I'll need a 16 processor cluster at the end of 2002). We can dream though...

I have caused this thread to get off subject. Does anyone have current P4 vs. Athlon benchmarks on Dreamweaver, Photoshop, Flash, and Office?
 
What are we expecting for RAM support on upcoming athlons? Will I be able to use my DDR SDRAM I buy now or will they switch to RDRAM or something else?
 
How about motherboards. I'm thinking Asus P4S333 or A7V266-e, depending on which processor I get. I'm not fond of built-ins. Any better suggestions?
 
I have never seen AMD or anyone else claim that the hammer will have FASTER 32 bit than the current Athlons, just that it won't LOSE any 32 bit performance.

I can tell you, there's no possible way the Hammer could just be "as fast" as the current Athlons. It has 3 times the bandwidth, an integrated memory controller, vastly improved branch prediction, larger cache, greater instruction parralellism, faster speed, and most likely multi-threading. Don't take my word for it...Anand has a great article on this.


What are we expecting for RAM support on upcoming athlons? Will I be able to use my DDR SDRAM I buy now or will they switch to RDRAM or something else?

AMD will not use RDRAM with the Athlon...for any forseeable future. The Hammer may go with RDRAM if a DDR analog is not available.
 
Guys, you're using this poor guys thread to argue your points which is kind of rude if you ask me. Why not just start a thread in the highly technical forum if you want to continue your debate?

Rev, I suggest you look into the Athlon. They have better performance right now and you can get a dual processor setup(motherboard, processor and memory) for under the $400 pricetag, which is awesome. Intel is good also, but not at their prices considering the Athlon outperforms their current p4's for a good deal less.
 
Currently I would say that the XP is the better way to go. The 1900+ rating is pretty liberal for that CPU. It does better than a 2GHz P4 in the majority of applications and games. Also, the Northwood adds another 10% onto the performance of the current P4, and 1066MHz RDRAM should add another 10%, give or take a few. However, I think Northwoods will still be too expensive in the next month or two to consider buying. Even if cost isn't an "issue", I wouldn't like to spend an extra $300+ to gain 10% performance or so. It's just not worth it. I love my Athlon system, and would never trade it for anything. Plus, once you hit 1GHz, it doesn't really matter anymore anyway.
 
I don't mind the offtopic too much. Part of making an informed buying decision is knowing what's coming. I never buy anything if I don't know a good deal about what the up and coming technology is. Must get best deals or best hardware!
 
Athlon. It's the better all purpose cpu, whether cost is an issue or not. Especially if your choices are between P4 1.9ghz and Athlon XP 1900.

As for network gaming issues, this is the first time of heard of that. The only Network/AMD issue that I have heard about, is the Netgear FA11 and AMD 760 chipset issue where the NIC just won't work. Just avoid that network card with the AMD 760 chipset and there will be no problems.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top