Overclock an Intel 2.8C or go with Athlon64 3200

[exarkun2k4]

I cant make up my mind if I should pin my hopes on overclocking an intel 2.8C cpu to the 3.4 range or if i should just settle for a 3200 Athlon64 and maybe get an overclock to 2.2 Ghz. Is it really safe to put my money on this Intel CPU; is it that good? And if so what speed of RAM do I need to increase the probability of such a good OC? Is PC4000 good enough? For the Intel CPU id be pairing the processor with the ASUS P4C800-E Deluxe and for the AMD CPU I'd get the AOpen AK86-L. My computer usage mostly peratins to gaming and game programming(beginner :-D). Thanks for any help.

 

[wkabel23]

I'd go for the Athlon64. It will perform better in games and since that appears what you want to do it makes sense

 

[jdogg707]

Originally posted by: wkabel23
I'd go for the Athlon64. It will perform better in games and since that appears what you want to do it makes sense

I like mine!

 

[Don66]

I switched from a 2.8c.
Check the sig.
A64 is an awsome chip.
To be honest, I really can't see much difference between the two.

 

[Peter D]

A64 is better suited for gaming.

Welcome to AnandTech, BTW

 

[Vette73]

Also geta Athlon64 3000+ Cheaper and 99% as fast as the 3200+ as they are the same Mhz juts the 3200 has 1mb of cache and he 3000+ has 512kb


I have a A64 3000+ on my Albatron K8X800 Pro II

 

[RussianSensation]

Hmmm...i'd say get A64 3000+, but not because of performance but because of price.

1. socket 754 doesn't use dual channel so u can get 1 stick of 512 thus saving 10 bucks over 2x256 or what have ya
2. Aopen 86 is like $30-40 cheaper than the 875 chipset p4 mobo
3. The gaming performance and programming is faster on A64 (gaming is a minor point since at higher resolutions CPU has almost no bearing on game speed but for all other resolutions besides 1600x1200 it is slightly faster)

For other tasks 2.8@3.4 might be just as good though.

 

[orion7144]

2.8C would be my choice. Owning both has convinced me even more how important HT is. Don't get me wrong the A64 is fast but with a 2.8C OC'd to even a mear 3.3, the A64 gets left in the dust if running more than one application. And like another poster said you are not going to notice 2-3fps difference from the different CPU's.

And you don't need to spend the extra $30-$40 on a 875 chipset. You can get and 865 cheaper and the performance difference is not that great if you get one that has the PAT BIOS. (i.e. the Abit IS7 or Asus board)

 

[hytek369]

stick with what you got, unless you find a good deal on amd.

 

[LouPoir]

Originally posted by: orion7144
2.8C would be my choice. Owning both has convinced me even more how important HT is. Don't get me wrong the A64 is fast but with a 2.8C OC'd to even a mear 3.3, the A64 gets left in the dust if running more than one application. And like another poster said you are not going to notice 2-3fps difference from the different CPU's.

And you don't need to spend the extra $30-$40 on a 875 chipset. You can get and 865 cheaper and the performance difference is not that great if you get one that has the PAT BIOS. (i.e. the Abit IS7 or Asus board)

I agree. I would go the P4 2.8c route. I had an A64 3200 and it ran like a P4 3.0c IHMO. Nice, but a P4 3.3 to 3.4 will beat the pants off it.

Lou

 

[nick1985]

A64

 

[smahoney]

Have the P4 2.8C - running at 3.64GHz - helped in-law build an AMD64 3000 - OC' a bit and 'felt' slower then the P4 running games with same video card in both boxes.