What is a Athlon 64 3200+ compared to a P4

[sk8er722]

How does this CPU:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103535

compare to a P4.

 

[Ctrackstar126]

OWNS it . I got that sucker running now and its a beast. I had a 3000+ running in my old system never had a hiccup with either one.

 

[pontifex]

the 3200+ part of the AMD CPU refers to its equivalent in pentium cpu.

so the 3200+ would be equivalent to the 3.2 ghz pentium cpu.

 

[imported_Kiwi]

AMD never directly claimed that their "Performance Rating" number was intended to compare an AMD cpu with a Pentium of any stripe. What they have maintained is that when they stopped including the cpu's clock speed in the names, they wanted buyers to be able to know how the newer cpu's compared to those that did include clock speeds in the names (being the "Athlons" that were last produced with "Thunderbird" cores).

Ordinary users have taken this with a grain of salt, and directly compared 3.0 GHz P4's to the A64 3000+ cpu. For ordinary, general, day to day BUSINESS type usage, the two named are closely comparable, with some things done in that environment ahead or behind on each side. The advantage that AMD offered there was a more competitive price.

However, when it comes to gaming activity, AMD cpu's have mostly worked BETTER than equivalent Pentiums back to the XP's era, when the Performance Ratings were first used. And for the high performance geeks, the AMD cpu's have seemed to offer a higher ceiling that might be worked toward as a percentage of performance increase possible when using Overclocking tweaks.

If you want to do some game playing with any fast-moving action game, using the latest video cards, the A64 is far less likely to offer a choke on speed than a P4 is. The FX's, comparable Opterons, and the fastest X2's are particularly adept for these games, but the gamer doesn't get the same kind of price advantage when looking at the top levels, where FX's cost as much, almost, as P4 EE's.


:thumbsup:

 

[jough]

While the AMD chips are generally faster and run cooler at lower clock speeds than their Pentium counterparts (they're faster at lower frequencies due to doing more work per clock tick) the truth is that any mid-level to high-end processor from AMD or Intel will suit most users' needs.

If you're looking to buy a new processor and want to "future proof" your purchase as much as possible, you'd be better off getting an Athlon 64 X2 Dual-Core processor than an Intel Core Duo, as the X2 beat the Core Duo in every single round of CNet's recent battle royale.

The AMD chips also used to be cheaper than their Intel counterparts, but that isn't really the case anymore.

The AMD product numbers give you a rough estimate as to how processors hold up (higher is better) but now that Intel has also dropped processor frequencies/speeds from their product names it's harder to directly compare the two.

If you're doing a lot of gaming or video editing, then AMD is the only way to go. Get an FX or X2 dual-core chip and you'll be set for the forseeable future, at least until the Quad-Core chips come out next year. 😉

 

[sk8er722]

I'm not getting anything new for awhile. My brother-in-law is getting that CPU and I just wanted to see how that will compare to my P4 Socket 775 3GHZ 800FSB 2MB L2 Cache w/ 64bit

 

[jough]

That Athlon chip hands your P4 its ass.

 

[Bassyhead]

I use SiSoft Sandra to compare ratings between CPUs. According to it, an Athlon 64 3200+ is quite a bit faster than a Pentium 4C 3.2GHz.