• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Which one is better? AMD 2ghz w/512MB or P4 2.4 w/256MB?

S

slicksilver

Golden Member
I'm not very sure about this and hence the question. Both combos end up at the same price...The P4 is a 533FSB one. Which one should I get guys? Please desist from making any other suggestions coz I dont have any other options.

Ram in both cases will be : PC2700
OS will be : WinXP
Mobo for AMD : Nforce 2
Mobo for Intel : 865

Thanks

Raj
 
I got no choice but to recommend the AMD setup since you'll be crippling the 865 setup with single channel pc2700 memory and a 533fsb cpu.
 
I vote for the 512MB of RAM with the 2GHz AMD. With more RAM, WinXP can cache your applications in RAM and re-launch them from RAM instead of pulling them from the hard drive, so the system feels very quick.
 
Originally posted by: mechBgon
I vote for the 512MB of RAM with the 2GHz AMD. With more RAM, WinXP can cache your applications in RAM and re-launch them from RAM instead of pulling them from the hard drive, so the system feels very quick.
Click to expand...

One for AMD too
 
No Mday..I didn't mean the 2.4 ghz. one..I mean the 2 Ghz one which runs at a clock speed of 1.66Ghz

Thanks everyone for your opinions
 
Originally posted by: Mday
amd would be faster, even if you had the same amount of RAM. (amd 2GHz is the 2400+ chip)
Click to expand...

I am not entirely sure he meant 2 ghz,probably he was thinking 2000+ . 😉

But still a 2.4 533fsb chips with 256 megs in XP isnt going to be that fast.

If it were a 800fsb chip with 2X 256 megs then yes the intel setup would get my vote.
 
if you are making the purchase and not taking any other options...

sorry about making a suggestion but you can always grab a 1700 instead and save a few bucks into the "barton piggie bank"
 
Somebodys math must be off, becuse you can get a 2500 Barton with MB ($146 on up) for the price of the cheapest 2.4 ( b core at $157), and that with 512 meg will KILL any 2.4 P4 with 256 meg. Actual dollar figures please ? more details please ?

Or you could get an XP2400 ($76) and have $81 left over for the memory which will buy 512 meg all by itself vs the P4 and no memory for the P4 at $157.
 
how do you make xp launch programs from ram? My xp opens my IE icon on taskbar very slow.. it takes like 10 sec to open it from taskbar and on my current windows 2003 it opens in 1 sec. Strange and i did have the services tweaks and the os.
 
Originally posted by: orion7144
Originally posted by: Snatchface
That AMD proc whups-up on the Intel one, regardless of chipset.
Click to expand...

Where have you been! That is not the case anymore
Click to expand...

Oh come now, a 2.0 XP wil chew up and crap out a 2.4 P4. No contest. (assuming no overclocking)
 
Originally posted by: Twista
how do you make xp launch programs from ram? My xp opens my IE icon on taskbar very slow.. it takes like 10 sec to open it from taskbar and on my current windows 2003 it opens in 1 sec. Strange and i did have the services tweaks and the os.
Click to expand...
It should simply do it. At work I have 1.5GB of RAM, and Win2000 will simply hang onto the last 1200MB of data that it had its hands on, which is tremendously useful to me since it serves files to our network at the same time that I'm using it as my workstation. The more stuff it can pull straight from RAM, the less impact it has on my workstation performance, since it leaves my HDDs free to serve my needs.

So if you open a program from the HDD, it should re-open from RAM (assuming you have enough RAM). For Win2000, 256MB is enough that I can open Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Publisher, Outlook, Acrobat Reader, My Computer, Network Neighborhood, QuickBooks Pro (all while McAfee VirusScan is running in the background), then I can close them all, and they'll re-launch from RAM in the blink of an eye. WinXP has a reputation for wanting more RAM for the OS, so I'd guess 384MB would yield an equivalent effect.

If your IE does launch slowly in particular, check your system for spyware using AdAware 6.1 or Spybot Search & Destroy.
 
Soltek NV400 + Barton 2500 + 512mb ddr can't be that expensive. Prolly the same as the intel setup!

edit: Pc3200 then of course too.
 
An XP 2000+ w\ 512MB RAM would probably be better than the P4 setup w\ 256MB RAM. You could probably get a faster Athlon than a 2000+. I'd get at least a 2100+ to make sure you don't get a Palomino.
 
Oh come now, a 2.0 XP wil chew up and crap out a 2.4 P4. No contest.
Click to expand...

Not really, it also depends on the mobo/chipsets each uses. My 2.4ghz P4b and 850E Intel-made board (the slowest 850E board out there) spanks my A7N8X deluxe with the 2400+ and two sticks of DDR333. And the P4 was only using PC800 RDRAM. Swapping in some PC1066 RDRAM from another machine widens the gap even more.
 
Here is my input... the intel will be more expensive. The amd will probably be equal to the 2.4 unless you are going to use RDRAM. Then intel spanks it. To explain it... rdr will just flat whoop ddr. Not to mention paired with an intel chip that NEEDS memory bandwidth to perform. Honestly i would get the amd and save a few bux. Just dont buy a retail one if you can but oem and go to svc and get a cooler. Believe me you will never regret it.

I say amd.
 
Originally posted by: Tbirdkid
Here is my input... the intel will be more expensive. The amd will probably be equal to the 2.4 unless you are going to use RDRAM. Then intel spanks it. To explain it... rdr will just flat whoop ddr. Not to mention paired with an intel chip that NEEDS memory bandwidth to perform. Honestly i would get the amd and save a few bux. Just dont buy a retail one if you can but oem and go to svc and get a cooler. Believe me you will never regret it.

I say amd.
Click to expand...

Where have you been? you living under a rock somewhere?

Rdram is old & Dual channel DDR DOES spank it.
 
If you're gaming, the AMD system. If you're number crunching, the 2.4 with another 256MB sometime in the future.
 
Rdram is old & Dual channel DDR DOES spank it.
Click to expand...

only dual channel DDR400 coupled with a 800fsb (actually 200mhz) CPU will be faster than PC1066 RDRAM. DDR333 (or even DDR400 running asynchronously)coupled to a 533fsb CPU is still not enough to overtake PC1066 RDRAM and a 533fsb CPU.
 
Originally posted by: magomago
Originally posted by: mechBgon
I vote for the 512MB of RAM with the 2GHz AMD. With more RAM, WinXP can cache your applications in RAM and re-launch them from RAM instead of pulling them from the hard drive, so the system feels very quick.
Click to expand...

One for AMD too
Click to expand...

As I have stated in other forums I would also go the AMD solution. But I would purchase an Athlon XP 2100+ Throughbred-B and overclock it to 2.2GHz (11x200). However with this solution you might want faster memory also. How fast money flys!
rolleye.gif


But as for memory the 512MB will definately help you out, not only in games. When I went from 256MB to 512MB on WindowsXP it felt like night and day!

-Por
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top