p4 3,0c vs athlon 64 3000+

benthepenguin · Jul 2, 2004

im upgradin my 1.2 thunderbird to new ~240$ cpu. i use my pc mainly to gaming. i read few reviews, but couldn't decide.

Fern · Jul 2, 2004

I'd say go with amd if ur gonna be gaming mostly.

Mik3y · Jul 2, 2004

amd is better. nuff said

ncage · Jul 2, 2004

For gamming it would definitly be AMD. P4's only seem to be better for video encoding. That might change though once we get 64bit OS's

nick1985 · Jul 2, 2004

Shimmishim · Jul 2, 2004

A64 for straight up gaming.

S4M33R · Jul 2, 2004

AMD 64bit 3000+ owns the p4 3.0C for gaming.

buy from www.newegg.com, the 64bit 3000+ is only like 211 (free shipping?)

TourDe · Jul 2, 2004

Does it? Looking at a benchmark test from this Website in April, a 2.8C and a 64 2800 are almost identical in direct 9 games. The same goes for 3000++ and P4 3.0 ghz ~ . It there something I'm miSsINg?

Mik3y · Jul 2, 2004

wut bechmark have you been looking at? the a64 clearly performs better hten the p4 as shpwn in all the benchmarks i've seen, but i'm too lazy to search em up.

TourDe · Jul 2, 2004

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=2038&p=5

Looking at it I fail to see any clear advantage an Athlon has over a P4. The next page in the direct8 game tests, Athlon kicked alot of asses.

FiberoN · Jul 2, 2004

gaming = AMD64 3000+

Lyfer · Jul 2, 2004

Originally posted by: FiberoN
gaming = AMD64 3000+

For the 1billionth time, INDEED!

oldfart · Jul 2, 2004

Originally posted by: TourDe
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=2038&p=5

Looking at it I fail to see any clear advantage an Athlon has over a P4. The next page in the direct8 game tests, Athlon kicked alot of asses.

You are right. I think the gaming advantage is way overstated. Just look at the benches. Most games are very close. Nothing you would ever notice. There are a couple of games like UT2K3 where the A64 has a clear advantage, but most are neck and neck.

StrangerGuy · Jul 2, 2004

I will say go for the A64 just for the added 64-bit functionality. In gaming I don't think you can see a difference between the two without some benchmarks and fps counters.

TourDe · Jul 2, 2004

Originally posted by: oldfart

Originally posted by: TourDe
http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=2038&p=5

Looking at it I fail to see any clear advantage an Athlon has over a P4. The next page in the direct8 game tests, Athlon kicked alot of asses.

Click to expand...

You are right. I think the gaming advantage is way overstated. Just look at the benches. Most games are very close. Nothing you would ever notice. There are a couple of games like UT2K3 where the A64 has a clear advantage, but most are neck and neck.

Excatly. Hype is contagious.

imported_michaelpatrick33 · Jul 3, 2004

AS is the encoding myth that it runs faster on Intel LOL. It all depends on what encoding program you are using for some are much faster on the AMD system. It is all hype except for the reality that I would like a new Athlon 64 or new Intel LOL

benthepenguin · Jul 3, 2004

well. ill buy amd then. ty every1 !

LordPhoenix · Jul 5, 2004

I don't see how you can choose AMD for gaming. I used to DESPISE intel but now I respect it.
AMD
1. Cheaper
2. More Non-Mainstream
3. Couple Seconds Ahead of Intel in Gaming.

INTEL
1. Expensive
2. Mainstream
3. Ahead in Encoding, etc

BUT, many of you will say AMD Athlon 64 Owns INTEL. Well. I have seen those benchmarks.. AMD Athlon 64 is being compared to Intel Pentium 4s. For ex, amd 64 2800+ to intel p4 2.8. Well...Maybe I'm just dumb or does Intel NOT have a 64 bit processor yet? What if was compared to Intel's 64 bit processors.

Another thing, Intel processors IMO are more "overclockable" than AMDs. You can take a 2.4 and make it a 3.4-6-8 easily. So if you overclock, you really would get more "bang" for the "buck."

Yes Intel cost much more but once you overclock you get way ahead of AMD in more bang of the buck and wouldn't that be more for the gamer?

I might be wrong..

Nebor · Jul 5, 2004

Originally posted by: LordPhoenix
I don't see how you can choose AMD for gaming. I used to DESPISE intel but now I respect it.
AMD
1. Cheaper
2. More Non-Mainstream
3. Couple Seconds Ahead of Intel in Gaming.

INTEL
1. Expensive
2. Mainstream
3. Ahead in Encoding, etc

BUT, many of you will say AMD Athlon 64 Owns INTEL. Well. I have seen those benchmarks.. AMD Athlon 64 is being compared to Intel Pentium 4s. For ex, amd 64 2800+ to intel p4 2.8. Well...Maybe I'm just dumb or does Intel NOT have a 64 bit processor yet? What if was compared to Intel's 64 bit processors.

Another thing, Intel processors IMO are more "overclockable" than AMDs. You can take a 2.4 and make it a 3.4-6-8 easily. So if you overclock, you really would get more "bang" for the "buck."

Yes Intel cost much more but once you overclock you get way ahead of AMD in more bang of the buck and wouldn't that be more for the gamer?

I might be wrong..

Who's fault is it that Intel doesn't have a mainstream 64-bit processor? AMDs don't overclock as many mhz, but keep in mind that a 2000mhz AMD 64 is (at least) as fast as a 3000mhz Pentium 4 in gaming. And saying that Intel is a better bang for the buck is.... laughable. What do you think AMD is all about?

jdogg707 · Jul 5, 2004

Originally posted by: LordPhoenix
I don't see how you can choose AMD for gaming. I used to DESPISE intel but now I respect it.
AMD
1. Cheaper
2. More Non-Mainstream
3. Couple Seconds Ahead of Intel in Gaming.

INTEL
1. Expensive
2. Mainstream
3. Ahead in Encoding, etc

BUT, many of you will say AMD Athlon 64 Owns INTEL. Well. I have seen those benchmarks.. AMD Athlon 64 is being compared to Intel Pentium 4s. For ex, amd 64 2800+ to intel p4 2.8. Well...Maybe I'm just dumb or does Intel NOT have a 64 bit processor yet? What if was compared to Intel's 64 bit processors.

Another thing, Intel processors IMO are more "overclockable" than AMDs. You can take a 2.4 and make it a 3.4-6-8 easily. So if you overclock, you really would get more "bang" for the "buck."

Yes Intel cost much more but once you overclock you get way ahead of AMD in more bang of the buck and wouldn't that be more for the gamer?

I might be wrong..

You are wrong unfortunately. AMD's 64 bit extensions are completely useless in a 32 bit environment, so saying that an Intel 64 bit chip may perform better would be a waste of time, since neither one would make a difference unless you were in a 64 bit OS environment. It is true that Intel chips may overclock by greater margins, but the effect of a 500MHZ Intel overclock is much less than the effect of a 200MHZ AMD overclock, due to the size of the internal pipeline, and other chip enhancements. That is why when you compare a 2.4GHZ FX53 to a 3.4GHZ Pentium 4, even though there is a 1GHZ speed difference, the FX53 is faster. In the case of gaming, the AMD 64 chip has shown to be far superior, check the benchmarks on Anandtech and other sites and you will see this first hand. The only thing the Pentium 4 is better than the Athlon in is Media Encoding and in some cases, multitasking.

Bad Dude · Jul 10, 2004

Originally posted by: jdogg707

Originally posted by: LordPhoenix
I don't see how you can choose AMD for gaming. I used to DESPISE intel but now I respect it.
AMD
1. Cheaper
2. More Non-Mainstream
3. Couple Seconds Ahead of Intel in Gaming.

INTEL
1. Expensive
2. Mainstream
3. Ahead in Encoding, etc

BUT, many of you will say AMD Athlon 64 Owns INTEL. Well. I have seen those benchmarks.. AMD Athlon 64 is being compared to Intel Pentium 4s. For ex, amd 64 2800+ to intel p4 2.8. Well...Maybe I'm just dumb or does Intel NOT have a 64 bit processor yet? What if was compared to Intel's 64 bit processors.

Another thing, Intel processors IMO are more "overclockable" than AMDs. You can take a 2.4 and make it a 3.4-6-8 easily. So if you overclock, you really would get more "bang" for the "buck."

Yes Intel cost much more but once you overclock you get way ahead of AMD in more bang of the buck and wouldn't that be more for the gamer?

I might be wrong..

Click to expand...

You are wrong unfortunately. AMD's 64 bit extensions are completely useless in a 32 bit environment, so saying that an Intel 64 bit chip may perform better would be a waste of time, since neither one would make a difference unless you were in a 64 bit OS environment. It is true that Intel chips may overclock by greater margins, but the effect of a 500MHZ Intel overclock is much less than the effect of a 200MHZ AMD overclock, due to the size of the internal pipeline, and other chip enhancements. That is why when you compare a 2.4GHZ FX53 to a 3.4GHZ Pentium 4, even though there is a 1GHZ speed difference, the FX53 is faster. In the case of gaming, the AMD 64 chip has shown to be far superior, check the benchmarks on Anandtech and other sites and you will see this first hand. The only thing the Pentium 4 is better than the Athlon in is Media Encoding and in some cases, multitasking.

Multitasking in which programs? I can't decide which one to keep either.

p4 3,0c vs athlon 64 3000+

Member

Elite Member

Banned

Golden Member

Lifer

Elite Member

Senior member

Member

Banned

Member

Senior member

Diamond Member

Lifer

Diamond Member

Member

Platinum Member

Member

Golden Member

Lifer

Diamond Member

Diamond Member