Which of these two processors would be best for my needs?

[Xpred]

I'm about to build a computer over the Thanksgiving weekend/break for my cousin. I am looking at these specific processors:

AMD:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103533
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103514
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103569

Intel:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116230
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116198
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116229

and maybe these two (if I dig out more cash, but highly unlikely, just a comparison to AMD):

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116231
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116197


Basically, the breakdown is the Intel P4 vs the AMD Athlon 64. My max budget is $200 or so for a processor. I have own both of these in the past. He doesn't play ANY games at all, so he just wants a stock, fast processor for web surfing, music, movies, general applications, etc. So, I am unsure whether to go with AMD or Intel. Just have a few questions:

1. Are the A64s pretty much better for gaming, and not as good as P4s for general applications? P4 seems to have a higher L2 cache...

2. Based on THOSE processors I listed above, which one would suit my needs for non-gaming stock purposes?

3. What are the pros/cons of A64 vs P4 nowadays? I am having a hard time deciding which one to go too because I want the cool temps of A64, but also the processing power for general applications on the P4 (although I think the Prescotts, at least are way hotter in temperature)...

4. What are the differences in the AMD/Intel processors I listed above? There seems to be at least 3 renditions of the same processor, but maybe one's cooler/hotter, or just smaller/larger process type core (?), I dunno...

 

[Vee]

I think you should go with the Venice A64 3500+. Either
ADA3500BPBOX
or
ADA3500BWBOX
The BP is the E3 stepping, the BW is E6. I don't know which is preferable, but I would assume there isn't much difference between them.

Congratulations to your selection of Intel CPUs. The three first ones are almost (and 640) the only current CPUs from Intel I would ever feel like recommending. The 630 is the best of the lot. Besides larger cache, which doesn't do much (unless you're running linalg apps that happen to feature eq.systems of a size that fits in 2MB but not in 1MB), it also has better temperature control features.

"processing power for general applications " is not something that Intel is good at. Basically that performance in real life follows gaming benchmarks well enough.
The perception of anything different is due to dishonest benchmarks. SysMark and PCMark are worthless. They consist of a careful selection of autovectorized P4 optimized, easy, menial, tasks that don't cause any problems for the P4. Basically, in terms of what load and challenge they put on the CPU, they are identical to a video encoding benchmark. The benchmarks you want to look at are Veritest's Winstone benchmarks for estimate on performance on everyday apps. And ScienceMark for an estimate of available CPU performance potential.

"What are the pros/cons of A64 vs P4 nowadays?"

The only thing the P4 is good at is video editing, video encoding. That doesn't necessarily mean it's better than the A64, though. Only that it's good at it. One thing to be aware of, is that P4 video encoding performance (relative A64) increases sharply when audio is omitted. Also, P4 performance is again increased when quality option is lowered. So beware of the benchmarks you're reading. I strongly recommend Anandtech, and I strongly warn about Tomshardware.

The single one advantage of the P4 would be ht. This allows you to have better responsiveness at a foreground app, when you run a lengthy computation task in the background, without having to lower the priority for the background task.
Personally, I think way too much is made of it. When I switched my professional environment from Intel to AMD, (technical engineering app) it was a revolution in working comfort. So I'd choose AMD single core over Intel hyperthreading every day.

Edit: However, unless you're very proficient with the app and working under stress, I strongly doubt the difference between a 3500 and a 630 could ever be called significant.

There is a slight case for the 630 in a budget video editing machine. And Intel would be a fair choice for a music and movie PC.

 

[Brunnis]

I couldn't have said it better myself, Vee. I consider HT to be the single real advantage that the P4 have over the Athlon64. I can't really think of many occassions where I'd truly benefit from it, though... It all depends on what one uses the computer for and in my case it wouldn't have made much of a difference.

I do think that the large power consumption and overall lower performance is a high price to pay for HT, though.

 

[Hacp]

Go with AMD. Why? The tasks you listed aren't that CPU intensive, and going to cool and quiet route is best in that case.

 

[carlosd]

HT doesn't benefit me in tasks I do which are extremely CPU intensive, the P4HT got forzen just as my Single core A64 (That's why I got the X2), so at least for me the HT advantage doesn't exists, also the apps your cousins is using are not CPU intensive so in this case HT is not advantage. HT advantage seems to be kind of relative and benefit users only in VERY SPECIFIC scenarios. Get the 64.

 

[Xpred]

Cool. Thanks!

 

[thecoolnessrune]

If hes not doing intensive stuff why not just a sempron. It would be cheaper.

 

[Xpred]

He just wants fast. Like able to pop anything up instantly. At least 3ghz + or equivalent to the A64 or so... heh.

 

[Zebo]

There are only two processors worth buying there.. 630 or any 3500+..After that, I don't really understand comparing the two.. 3500 is a bit overrated, should have been called a 3400 looking at a cross section of benchmarks and nomalizing them to pentium.. but it *will* whup the 3Ghz 630 in just about everything. If you choose AMD, I think you're giving AMD way too much money buying a 3500 when you can get a 3200 for $100 less and it's only 200Mhz slower and can trivially be brought up to 3500 levels 100% of the time. So the real choice is between $150 3200 or $170 630..

Vee = High levels of smartness listen to her.

 

[n7]

AMD Athlon 64 3200+

It is the actual competitor to the Intel P4 630, & costs less: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103535

But if you aren't OCing, then sure, the 3500+ is even better