P4 3.2 vs. Athlon XP 3200+ review

[Lyfer]

it sux for amd.

 

[rogue1979]

I don't think it is that bad for AMD. Intel has taken the performance crown, but AMD is still real fast and real cheap, especially when the 1700+ and 2500+ overclocking is considered. Only the few people who will order all the bells and whistles and pay over $2500 for a top of the line system from Dell or other big pc manufacturer will benefit from the performance boost of the 800MHz fsb P4. For most of the people who will order a lower priced ($800-$1500) system with a lower end video card and minimum amount of ram, the performance will be wasted. Us few avid overclockers will have a choice, awesome performance for dirt cheap (AMD), or extreme performance second to none for a price premium (Intel).

 

[redpriest_]

Yes, I think it's safe to say that the 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 is the fastest processor for *most* applications. However, I also think it's safe to say that it didn't get there on its own -- it has the aid of a very good chipset behind it. If the i865/i875 didn't exist, it would have been much closer, and I think the original PR system was meant to reflect that. Since the 3200+ was released before the 3200 mhz Pentium 4, it isn't false advertising.

Also, do you think it's false advertising when a 2600C Pentium4 walks all over a 2800 mhz non-C Pentium4? Platforms change, and AMD isn't going to revise the model numbers of their processors if suddenly, tomorrow, Intel introduces a 1600 mhz chipset.

Consider this - what should AMD do -- release a faster Barton with a faster chipset, or concentrate their efforts on Athlon 64 which will be faster than Northwood when it is released? Which is the better idea? Which has more life expectancy? Barton is just a stop-gap measure until the desktop version of the K8 arrives. We *know* how the Opteron performs. The desktop version of K8 will have advantages that the Opteron will not. (AGP, faster memory, probably faster clockspeed).

Also consider how much speed means to you. If playing at 80 fps rather than 60, or 400 rather than 350 really means $400 more to you, by all means, grab yourself one - I think the majority of people would be willing to compromise a little performance to save a lot more cash.

 

[Snipa]

Originally posted by: rogue1979
I don't think it is that bad for AMD. Intel has taken the performance crown, but AMD is still real fast and real cheap, especially when the 1700+ and 2500+ overclocking is considered. Only the few people who will order all the bells and whistles and pay over $2500 for a top of the line system from Dell or other big pc manufacturer will benefit from the performance boost of the 800MHz fsb P4. For most of the people who will order a lower priced ($800-$1500) system with a lower end video card and minimum amount of ram, the performance will be wasted. Us few avid overclockers will have a choice, awesome performance for dirt cheap (AMD), or extreme performance second to none for a price premium (Intel).

I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you here.

I'm honestly not biased at all, I have both AMD and Intel systems in my apartment. And the AMD systems I have, I love.

For most people I build computers for, I usually end up going with AMD. Because you are right that in the $500-800 PC range, AMD is definitely the best bang for the buck. Get yourself a 1700XP or a 2500 Barton, a Epox 8rda+, and 512MB of ram and you have yourself a quick, stable, cheap core system to build around.

However, I just built a P4 System with the following specs for under $1200 and I guarantee you the peformace won't be wasted. And it will definitely benefit from the performance boost of the P4s 800FSB.
The specs are below, and granted it is no slouch, but it isn't TOP OF THE LINE either. But it does have some pretty good bells and whistles, and it certainly didn't cost anywhere near the $2500 you were talking about.

Core components:

Abit IC7
P4 3.0c
512MB Corsair 3500 XMS (2x256)
WD Raptor SATA HD
128MB Radeon 9500 Pro
M-Audio Revolution Soundcard
52x32x52 Liteon CDRW
Antec Truepower 430 PSU
Chieftec Case

And if you count the dual format NEC DVD burner from the Dell 15%+15%+%5 hot deal I got a little while back, then the system also has a dual format DVD burner for a total of around $1300.

But I'm definitely not trying to start an arguement. Like others have said, both AMD and Intel have their place. Personally I can't wait tell the Athlon 64 debuts. I hope it kicks butt. I like AMD, but right now they just don't have the price/performance crown in the mid to upper range systems.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: redpriest_
Yes, I think it's safe to say that the 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 is the fastest processor for *most* applications. However, I also think it's safe to say that it didn't get there on its own -- it has the aid of a very good chipset behind it. If the i865/i875 didn't exist, it would have been much closer, and I think the original PR system was meant to reflect that. Since the 3200+ was released before the 3200 mhz Pentium 4, it isn't false advertising.

Also, do you think it's false advertising when a 2600C Pentium4 walks all over a 2800 mhz non-C Pentium4? Platforms change, and AMD isn't going to revise the model numbers of their processors if suddenly, tomorrow, Intel introduces a 1600 mhz chipset.

Consider this - what should AMD do -- release a faster Barton with a faster chipset, or concentrate their efforts on Athlon 64 which will be faster than Northwood when it is released? Which is the better idea? Which has more life expectancy? Barton is just a stop-gap measure until the desktop version of the K8 arrives. We *know* how the Opteron performs. The desktop version of K8 will have advantages that the Opteron will not. (AGP, faster memory, probably faster clockspeed).

Also consider how much speed means to you. If playing at 80 fps rather than 60, or 400 rather than 350 really means $400 more to you, by all means, grab yourself one - I think the majority of people would be willing to compromise a little performance to save a lot more cash.

NO NO NO....Hyperthreading had been out and DCDDR mobos had already been out....The increase of i865/i875 mobos are often quite neglible...no excuses!!! Plus the nforce2 is no chump and should be thanked tremendously for the amd putting up a decent show...YOu wont to run a via mobo and then talk about where the 3200+ will be then....

the plain and simple fact is amd equate 200pr points with only 166 actual mhz...they are bound to start falling behind....Also they fact they have kept back tracking on the speed cause they bump the fsb or the l2 cache when we have all seen it before the increases do not equate to performance in all types of apps....Hence why they are really falling behind in the less memory intensive apps that are more cpu dependent....In quite a bit of the benchmarks there is no substitute for raw mhz in gains....The 3200+ gained less over the 3000+ then did the 3.2ghz over the 3.0gh p4...that alone equates why it is gladly the end for the line as they will only fall further and further behind each clock increase....

 

[redpriest_]

Hyperthreading does next to nothing for single-threaded applications, and really is only a factor if you run workstation applications that are designed for SMP, or you have a habit of running anti-virus software scans when you are playing an intensive game. Sure, it's a neat trick, but is it really useful or adds to productivity? Probably not.

Moving from 533->800 mhz fsb and the dual channel 400 mhz memory that it entails is *the* primary factor in the Pentium 4's incredible performance.

 

[Duvie]

Originally posted by: redpriest_
Hyperthreading does next to nothing for single-threaded applications, and really is only a factor if you run workstation applications that are designed for SMP, or you have a habit of running anti-virus software scans when you are playing an intensive game. Sure, it's a neat trick, but is it really useful or adds to productivity? Probably not.

Moving from 533->800 mhz fsb and the dual channel 400 mhz memory that it entails is *the* primary factor in the Pentium 4's incredible performance.

Ohhh How little thee know!!!

First HT will benefit multitasking as well....One does not need to be a work tation or running things designed for SMP....read the reviews where they ran games with encoding programs....Those are modern desktop things.

Secondly while 800fsb was an improvement you go talk to thugsrook about how much 800fsb is bringing advantage over his 533fsb chip....In many apps a DCDDR mobo of 533fsb paired with DCDDR mobo is really quite neglible to the 800fsb..PLus the fact there are many programs that are just not memory bandwidth intensive and will show little or no gain.

Overall you need to relook at some of the reviews especially where they ran with ht on and ht off....Even in some single task things it can have a tangible effect.

HT with DCDDR was a nice boost alone...Look at the reviews...The skew started happening around p4 2.8ghz and the amd 2800+ xp...then AMD screwed itself with its poorly speed rated 2800+ Barton...I think Intels chipset definitely adds some but no more then say the nforce 2 has over the via chipset....AMD did this to themselves and their obviously lack of ability to ramp the barton much more in speed. So they try to boost fsb and add l2 cache and then boost pr rating yet the speed has not changed much in a long time....

 

[orion7144]

To add to Duvie's cost break down

Take away his IC7 and get an IS7 savings of ~$40
Take away the 3.0C and get a 2.4C (OC'd to 3.0 easily) savings of another $200 so for about the same cost as the AMD 2500+ system you have an outstanding computer that will beat the 2500+ and has HT.

I bought my IS7 and 2.4c for $270 shipped.

 

[Duvie]

redpriest....I stand corrected the 800fsb has obviously made a bigger impact then I thought...Anandtech has a nice chart that shows the increase in the programs.....


However I stand on the fact that AMD are a bunch of dumb-asses and did this to themselves....2.2ghz for a 3200+ while the xp 2800+ is 2.25ghz...Fuk!!! We jumped 400 pr points and went back 50mhz and seemed surprised by the dismal performance???

This just in (for me that is since I really looked at the numbers and the lower speed chips)....

The 2.6c beat the 3200+ in majority of Anandtech's test......SAD!!!!

IN one of the gaming test it shows this pr skew...the amd gained 400pr points but only increases 4 pts while an actual 400mhz increase with Intel garners 22 pts...get the picture!!!

In 3d rendering of 3DSmax test the 2800+ actually beat the bloated 3200+.....mhz talks ppl!!! In the divx test it narrowly defeats the 2800+ and I am sure in a mp3 program it would have lost to the 2800+ there as well....

In most multimedia stuff the 2.4c actually beat the 3200+....


I need to go see if Tomshardware showed the same results in the lower c chips....

 

[Duvie]

Fortunately in Toms case he didn't use the 2800+ xp but instead the barton one at 2.083ghz, but you can notice that even in the mp3 maker program the 2700+ and 3000+ which have identical clock speed the scores were about identical....The 2800+ 2.25ghz would have beat the 3200+ in that test....


Tom has more test and doesnt look like in the whole pcture the 2.6c beats the 3200+ but damn it is tight considering the priceon those bad boys AMD truly starts sucking in price performance now in the mid range even...

 

[rogue1979]

Originally posted by: orion7144
To add to Duvie's cost break down

Take away his IC7 and get an IS7 savings of ~$40
Take away the 3.0C and get a 2.4C (OC'd to 3.0 easily) savings of another $200 so for about the same cost as the AMD 2500+ system you have an outstanding computer that will beat the 2500+ and has HT.

I bought my IS7 and 2.4c for $270 shipped.

I bought my 8RDA and retail 2500+ for $151 shipped.

 

[rogue1979]

Originally posted by: Snipa

Originally posted by: rogue1979
I don't think it is that bad for AMD. Intel has taken the performance crown, but AMD is still real fast and real cheap, especially when the 1700+ and 2500+ overclocking is considered. Only the few people who will order all the bells and whistles and pay over $2500 for a top of the line system from Dell or other big pc manufacturer will benefit from the performance boost of the 800MHz fsb P4. For most of the people who will order a lower priced ($800-$1500) system with a lower end video card and minimum amount of ram, the performance will be wasted. Us few avid overclockers will have a choice, awesome performance for dirt cheap (AMD), or extreme performance second to none for a price premium (Intel).

I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you here.

I'm honestly not biased at all, I have both AMD and Intel systems in my apartment. And the AMD systems I have, I love.

For most people I build computers for, I usually end up going with AMD. Because you are right that in the $500-800 PC range, AMD is definitely the best bang for the buck. Get yourself a 1700XP or a 2500 Barton, a Epox 8rda+, and 512MB of ram and you have yourself a quick, stable, cheap core system to build around.

However, I just built a P4 System with the following specs for under $1200 and I guarantee you the peformace won't be wasted. And it will definitely benefit from the performance boost of the P4s 800FSB.
The specs are below, and granted it is no slouch, but it isn't TOP OF THE LINE either. But it does have some pretty good bells and whistles, and it certainly didn't cost anywhere near the $2500 you were talking about.

Core components:

Abit IC7
P4 3.0c
512MB Corsair 3500 XMS (2x256)
WD Raptor SATA HD
128MB Radeon 9500 Pro
M-Audio Revolution Soundcard
52x32x52 Liteon CDRW
Antec Truepower 430 PSU
Chieftec Case

And if you count the dual format NEC DVD burner from the Dell 15%+15%+%5 hot deal I got a little while back, then the system also has a dual format DVD burner for a total of around $1300.

But I'm definitely not trying to start an arguement. Like others have said, both AMD and Intel have their place. Personally I can't wait tell the Athlon 64 debuts. I hope it kicks butt. I like AMD, but right now they just don't have the price/performance crown in the mid to upper range systems.

You are quite right, if you build the system yourself. But remember, the majority of people still buy Dell and the likes, and they charge a very hefty premium for those top of the line computers.

 

[Shimmishim]

Originally posted by: Duvie
Fortunately in Toms case he didn't use the 2800+ xp but instead the barton one at 2.083ghz, but you can notice that even in the mp3 maker program the 2700+ and 3000+ which have identical clock speed the scores were about identical....The 2800+ 2.25ghz would have beat the 3200+ in that test....


Tom has more test and doesnt look like in the whole pcture the 2.6c beats the 3200+ but damn it is tight considering the priceon those bad boys AMD truly starts sucking in price performance now in the mid range even...

yeah.. i'm with duvie on this one.. i'm an avid amd fan... but seriously...

pr system is messed up beyond belief...

my 1700+ @ 2.5 beats a 2500+ @ 2.3 ... i've ran the benchies and i've seen the numbers... and to a certain degree, duvie is right when he says that mhz talk...

blah... i think the 3200+ should be rated at 2800+ or lower..

 

[SpideyCU]

I never minded AMD's rating system as much as everyone else because I saw the effect it had on my friends and family when considering processors - they gave equal consideration and didn't automatically ignore AMD's chips because the clock rates were just lower. However, I do have to say that they abused this rating system and that the 3200+ shouldn't have that high of a value. I guess they figure that by giving it a ridiculously high rating like that, the majority of the population isn't going to look at benchmarks and will simply assume that the 3200+ is comparable to the 3.2 GHz P4 and make their purchase decision based on that. I'm none too happy about them doing that, it's almost like breaking down some trust.

 

[bgeh]

Originally posted by: shady06
wasnt there something back in the day when tom had some fake p4 2.6 or sumthing like that?

that was by lars, who got an Engineering Sample chip and then photochopped the codes and then claimed it was a 800MHz FSB cpu at 3GHz. anyone remember tom bashing van smith and kyle in his article last year?

 

[PCPETE]

p4s still suck, but alas it still wins here