What Exactly is an Athlon 64 Better at?

[stimpy1]

I just built my own computer with a Winchester 3000+ because of the good reviews here. I'm quite happy with its performance. Someone told me, "Don't get an AMD because they don't have hyper-threading and it won't multi-task well. They're alright for surfing the web and e-mail, but that's about it." I know that's bunk, but I have a few questions because of it. So what exactly is an Athlon 64 better at than its equivalent P4? Where do each excel?

 

[P0ldy]

You can read tons of AT articles that give you all the benchmarks...

 

[imported_Kensai]

Actually, I have personally proven that an A64 does multi-task better than a P4. (CS : Source, WoW, DVD shrink and DVD decrypter at once)
AMD is the actual owner of the HyperThreading patent, but Intel leaches off of it.
Intel CPUs are generally better than their AMD counterparts at multimedia applications, like encoding, CAD, etc. etc.

 

[Sureshot324]

Originally posted by: stimpy1
So what exactly is an Athlon 64 better at than its equivalent P4?

Pretty much everything except audio/video encoding

 

[Regs]

Lets see....

Games
Buisness Applications
Archiving
Multimedia Multitasking
2D Application Multiasking
Multimedia/Photo Editing
Most Workstation Applications

Not to mention it runs a lot cooler with less power consumption.

Proof

And tell that guy to stop living under a rock.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Originally posted by: Sureshot324

Originally posted by: stimpy1
So what exactly is an Athlon 64 better at than its equivalent P4?

Pretty much everything except audio/video encoding

this answer deserves A+

 

[hippotautamus]

Everything except aud/vid encoding, as that guy said. Has he used a computer since the K6 core was AMD's performance monster? 7 or 8 years ago...

 

[stimpy1]

Originally posted by: hippotautamus
Everything except aud/vid encoding, as that guy said. Has he used a computer since the K6 core was AMD's performance monster? 7 or 8 years ago...

I thought that was the case. I just wanted a little confirmation/affirmation in my choice.


I think a lot of people share the same thoughts, and it's probably because of Intel's marketing. I can't remember the last time I saw an AMD advertisement.

 

[mechBgon]

Athlon64 is definitely not as good at heating soup. Prescott P4 at full load > AMD64 for that. Eggs too.



...ok ok but here are some more benchmarks in a range of different areas if you want to check them out: from this page onwards at XBit's A64 Venice review. The conclusions are for you to make.

 

[hippotautamus]

^ahahaha true. It saves you money in the long run, in that you no longer have to pay for heating or electricity for cooking. Just don't try to boil water with it unless you use a leakproof pot

 

[mechBgon]

BTW I find this contrast interesting:

P4 load & idle power consumption

A64 load & idle power consumption

The measurements appear to be taken upstream of the voltage regulation circuitry, which of course has some overhead.

 

[Baked]

With Venice, everything.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Kensai
Actually, I have personally proven that an A64 does multi-task better than a P4. (CS : Source, WoW, DVD shrink and DVD decrypter at once)
AMD is the actual owner of the HyperThreading patent, but Intel leaches off of it.
Intel CPUs are generally better than their AMD counterparts at multimedia applications, like encoding, CAD, etc. etc.

Originally posted by: Regs
Lets see....

Games
Buisness Applications
Archiving
Multimedia Multitasking
2D Application Multiasking
Multimedia/Photo Editing
Most Workstation Applications

Not to mention it runs a lot cooler with less power consumption.

Proof

And tell that guy to stop living under a rock.

Well said

Also on AMDs side is A64's "snap" it's talked about by lots of reviewers/users probably due to A64's incredible low latency: Problem is there is no benchmark for it either. READ THIS qualitative summery.
http://silentpcreview.com/article169-page2.html

PERFORMANCE

The Athlon 64 is most assuredly a fast 32-bit CPU. Benchmarks can be found at every hardware site on the web, but just in case you?ve missed them, I ?ll summarize: In all but a very few benchmarks the Athlon 64 stomps an equivalently priced Pentium 4. Not only that, but the Athlon 64 simply feels faster under normal use.

You?re probably asking, ?What do you mean it feels faster?? Well, for comparison I have a Pentium 4 2.8 GHz machine at work, and an Athlon 64 3000+ machine at home. They both have 1GB of the same ram and 80gig 7200rpm 8mb cache hard drives. Under light use?web surfing, writing documents, writing code, etc?the Athlon 64 is just snappier. Windows, menus, animations, etc. respond quicker and feel faster on the Athlon 64 machine. I ?m not alone in my feelings either. In a recent forum post our own Mike Chin writes:

?... my A64-3200 system [is] right next to my main P4-2.8C rig. Win XP Pro on both. No contest: The A64 runs faster & cooler. I don't mean benchmarks, I mean using the full range of apps I use daily -- Photoshop, Dreamweaver, Acrobat, Adobe InDesign, a bunch of web design tools... I've been gradually migrating to the A64 -- to turn it from backup machine to main machine.?

 

[mechBgon]

Snap is also what I like about... err... The HDD Interface We Do Not Name Aloud