P4 VS Athlon 64

[imported_script]

I am trying to decide between the P4 3.0E and the Athlon 64 3000+
I don?t do heavy gaming or anything like that so its not an issue. Basically I use the computer for mainly downloading. I?m not looking for the best of the best, I want to keep this build affordable and suitable to my needs. So with this in mind which would you buy, or am I over shooting my processor all together? If you think a better bang for my buck would be something slower then I would love to here more suggestions as well. Also I would like to add that I will not be over clocking.

Thank you

-Script-

 

[Dufrane]

How long do you plan on keeping this system??? I for several years than A64 might be the best option, because of 64 bit compatability. If not than an Athlon XP 2500 might be a consideration.

 

[Shimmishim]

first of all... WELCOME TO AT!!!



um...

for things such as just downloading, browsing, office stuff... i'd say that the p4 3.0e and a64 3000+ are overkill for you...

but as dufrane said if you wanna go 64-bit for future stuff then get the a64... but get the cheapest one... 2800+

but if it were me, i'd get me a mobile 2500+ barton and overclock it to a decent speed (2.2 to 2.3 ghz)... that should be plenty fast for what you need... IMHO

 

[Mik3y]

athlon 64 hands down

 

[Zebo]

Waaay overkill shimm.



I'd just get a $47 1.8 Duron, and a Biostar MOBO with excellent GF4MX intergrated graphics and intergrated everything else for $65 ..


MOBO and processor for half the price of either of these chips alone... It will be faster than anything you need it for.

 

[imported_script]

Ok thank you guys. I think I will end up going with the Athlon 64. I know it may be too much but I will probably be running it for a wile, so I might as well.

I'm pretty sure im running a P4 2GHZ right now, but it just keeps hitting snags. I have tried rebuilding it and every thing. But it just runs slow for some reason.

Will I notice as a difference between an A64 3000+ and what I am currently running?

thanks

-Script-

 

[KenSr]

Would the A64 still be the best choice if not used for gameing?

 

[CVSiN]

Yes becasue 64 bit is not just for games...
when we get our 64 bit OS and drivers its gonna shred Apps as well as windows tasks..

 

[csrx]

If you want to keep it for a long time, i would go with the A64 and run 64-bit OS.

If you want excellent performance for everyday things (with gaming not being its main use), i would go with the P4 3.0C NOT the P4 3.0E. You can overclock the P4 3.0C to 3.5 on air easily and not worry about heat too much. You will see how fast it feels.

I've owned both, one right next to the other, which is what I'm basing my recommendations on. I also notice that gaming is not a priority to you, and gaming is one of the A64's assets. Of course there will be fanboys on this forum that will cheer for Intel or AMD without an open mind, so be careful with the recommendations.

All these chips are scheduled to drop in price in about a month.

 

[CVSiN]

Frankly until Intel gets off its high horse and lowers its prices to match AMD and gets a 64 bit chip out in the same price range that AMD does it .. whats the choice... same performance lower price than Intel...
its not about who I like better its about saving cash and getting a worth while product for your money.
Intel cares about nothing but money
AMD seems to offer better support a better price and a very good product..
I used to use nothing but Intels up to the P3 days...
then AMD blew everyone away with the XP series and I havent even looked back at Intel since then...
just becasue they are clocked higher doesnt = performance...
ill take my 2.0 ghz A64 over a 3.06 HT Intel anyday

 

[imported_script]

Thank you all for your help, I don't mean to be a bother but i have one more question. Please excuse my ignorance but why do the AMDs run just as fast / faster than p4 when there only running at 2.2ghz and p4 is running at 3.0ghz???

 

[imported_smilingcrow]

It's not a particularly great time to be building a new system in some ways, as there are a lot of recent platform changes and pending changes. If you don't need a BFOS (Big Fcuk Off System) now, I would recommend an Athlon XP. There are some technical issues that you need to be aware of in terms of what Athlon XP platform to buy, but I don't hold that info in my head. Keep asking and the right people will inform you.

If you'd rather buy a BFOS now, personally, I find it a difficult call. Athlon 64 is tempting, but socket 754 is the only affordable platform and that has a limited future. The latest Intel platform is not typical for Intel. Version 1 of a new Intel platform are usually to be avoided. They usually offer a minimal performance increase and a well sign posted change of socket round the corner. There are certainly some good things in the new Intel platform, but the power output of the Prescotts is a downer to many. Especially if you prefer your computer to run more quietely. At least the new socket has already been launched, although a new chipset with a faster FSB isn't so far away.

I think it's a hard call at this point in time. I'd be tempted to try and fix your P4 2.0 system and maybe upgrade the CPU.

 

[CVSiN]

Originally posted by: script
Thank you all for your help, I don't mean to be a bother but i have one more question. Please excuse my ignorance but why do the AMDs run just as fast / faster than p4 when there only running at 2.2ghz and p4 is running at 3.0ghz???

its not the overall clock speed of a chip that matters...
its what it does with those cycles...
AMDs perform 2x the intructions per cpu cycle to get the same amount of work done..
so they can do it with less overall speed to the chip..

now Im not a Engineer so dont ask me how.. but thats the nerd level explaination..
if you want the uber geek definition find a CPU engineer -=P

 

[imported_smilingcrow]

Originally posted by: script
Thank you all for your help, I don't mean to be a bother but i have one more question. Please excuse my ignorance but why do the AMDs run just as fast / faster than p4 when there only running at 2.2ghz and p4 is running at 3.0ghz???

One analogy would be with car engines. You can't gauge the performance of a car purely by the engine size. The number of cylinders, valves per cylinder, state of tuning, presence of turbo charger, are just the more obvious parameters that point to the engine's performance.

 

[orangat]

Originally posted by: script
Thank you all for your help, I don't mean to be a bother but i have one more question. Please excuse my ignorance but why do the AMDs run just as fast / faster than p4 when there only running at 2.2ghz and p4 is running at 3.0ghz???

Because Intel and AMD have different architectural design strategies. Intel opted to stick with their prevailing strategy and go for very deep pipelines and higher clock speeds. That doesn't mean AMD design is better or worse, just different.

You can look up the Intel Centrino which is a real monster clock for clock.

 

[Mik3y]

people dont buy the athlon 64's now because it's 64 bit capable. people buy it cuz its better in the 32-bit environment then intel at nearly everything (talkin about socket 754).

 

[clarkey01]

hmm although the 1066 FSB is coming .....

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: CVSiN
Frankly until Intel gets off its high horse and lowers its prices to match AMD and gets a 64 bit chip out in the same price range that AMD does it .. whats the choice... same performance lower price than Intel...
its not about who I like better its about saving cash and getting a worth while product for your money.
Intel cares about nothing but money

AMD seems to offer better support a better price and a very good product..
I used to use nothing but Intels up to the P3 days...
then AMD blew everyone away with the XP series and I havent even looked back at Intel since then...
just becasue they are clocked higher doesnt = performance...
ill take my 2.0 ghz A64 over a 3.06 HT Intel anyday

AMD-64 is more expensive in every single performance tier.

AMD built your family a house or something?

Neither company has direct support for their products.

The Northwoods are faster than the equivalent XPs, period.

 

[clarkey01]

"The Northwoods are faster than the equivalent XPs, period."

my 2000+ beats a 2.2 Northwood is most tests.

And im sure that northwood doesnt rule every test or benchmark in its direction.

Yes 3000, 3200+ dont quite stand up P4C'S, 3Ghz, 3.2Ghz.


Hmmmmm, i agree northwood was a good core, but why didnt Intel take it down to 90 nm and tweak it ?

 

[clarkey01]

"AMD-64 is more expensive in every single performance tier."

Im not sure this is true , K8-wise, AMD-64, Opteron 4-U will SMOKE an a Xeon 4-U , cost you a lot less and give you twise the performance and is future proof for a 64-bit OS, where's Nocona ? and isnt that not fully compatible with 64-bit extensions ?

 

[DreamInBlue]

P4 C editions only are faster than athlon xp counterparts.

 

[Sonic587]

AMD-64 is more expensive in every single performance tier.

AMD built your family a house or something?

Neither company has direct support for their products.

The Northwoods are faster than the equivalent XPs, period.[/quote]

AMD-64s are no longer more expensive than Intel's chips. They recently had a giant price drop. Just check out
Pricewatch.

EDIT: You'll have to forgive that bad format there. Something messed up my quote.

 

[Zebo]

"The Northwoods are faster than the equivalent XPs, period."
-------------
The equivalent A-Xp's are half the price, Northwoods sure as hell better be faster... twice as fast would be in line with price/performance curves. Too bad northwood users pay double for infinitesimal gains.

 

[Vee]

Originally posted by: Zebo
"The Northwoods are faster than the equivalent XPs, period."
-------------
The equivalent A-Xp's are half the price, Northwoods sure as hell better be faster... twice as fast would be in line with price/performance curves. Too bad northwood users pay double for infinitesimal gains.

Well, the poster is actually somewhat wrong. I've used Intel for 25 years, but I don't like the P4 much.
The P4 relies very heavily on it's ability to run large or many loops very fast, using software that has had its loops vectorized and optimized for SSE2 instructions. Software like that rules benchmarking and modern media apps, and may contribute to the impression that P4s are fast. Outside that environment, AthlonXPs are almost twice as fast. Easiest way to see that for yourself, is to benchmark some old app, that hasn't been optimized for the P4.

In fairness to Intel and P4, the kind of code the P4 can run fast, makes up a lot of the timeconsuming tasks a modern consumer PC is asked to run. So it's certainly a good move to concentrate on that kind of things. Also in fairness, the 533 and 800 fsb gave the P4 some nice kicks.

But all things considered, popular benchmarking paints an, as rosy as can be, picture of P4 performance.
I've been very wary of making statements about P4 performance, since I purchased my first AthlonXP, 1½ years ago. I certainly would never say: "The Northwoods are faster than the equivalent XPs, period."
My fastest private P4, (I have access to P4Cs at work) is only an old 2.4GHz/400fsb/ddr266, but it is a Northwood, and generally speaking, a dog compared to my A-XPs.

 

[Zebo]

Very interesting Vee and cooborates a bit what I've heard about AMD's XP domination in Pinnacle studio 7 and older as well as Adobe Premiere 6.5 and older. Who knows what the proper testing matrix is to analyze these processors today...they seem to do so much more and have so many optimizations to favor benchmarks and a few select popularly reviewed apps.

All I have to go with is what the reviewers provide for me which seems ok since all i do that's intensive is game. They cover that in depth...My other tasks, any modern processor can handle with indiscerable lighting speeds; excel, office tasks, opening and closeing windows, play a movie or MP3 etc. It must be really fustrating for buyers who use obscure and unreviewed/unbenched software to choose the fastest product for thier needs....