I'm upgrading my system (which currently has axp 1800+, 512 mb). I want to but a new mobo, and a new cpu (and probably also new memory). The issue is, I can get for practicly the same price AMD 64 3000 (754 pin) OR Prescot 3 Ghz. Assuming everything else will be the same i.e. same price level mobo, and same memory, which one should I get? I know a little about both processors, I heard the prescot heats up like hell, but I also know it has 1mb L2 + HT and it supports dual channel (for system memory). About the amd 64 I know a little less, I'm really uncertain about which one to get, I know the amd 64 is supposed to be a little better, but it has no HT, and no dual channel support... I use my computer alot, and for everything, office, programing, games, movies, internet, you name it... I need a good strong solid machine. Any suggestions?
which one to get (AMD 64 or Prescott) HELP please
- Thread starter narcotic
- Start date
According to
this anandtech article the A64 3000+ holds its own with a P4 3.2 GHz in everything but media encoding (P4's always win this).
Either chip will suit you very well.
If I were deciding:
A64 3000+:
64-bit prestige and can use Windows 64 / Linux 64.
Runs Cooler / quieter
Much lower memory latency
~$20 cheaper
P4 3.0 Prescott:
Much better at media encoding
Performs better with applications designed to use hyperthreading, such as photoshop.
Runs hotter
~$20 more expensive
If I were doing lots of media encoding and compression, I'd get a P4 no question. Otherwise, I'd prefer to have a 64 bit chip for the day Windows 64 comes out.
a review on extremethech.com i read recently sums up my experience on this pretty well (tho my exp is comapring the northwood to the a64):
"..the real strength of Prescott seems to lie in its Hyper-Threading performance. In the majority of our multitasking tests, the Prescott performed as well as the higher clocked 3.4GHz Northwood CPU. In at least one case, Intel's latest offering even outpaces the 3.4GHz P4 Extreme Edition, so it's not just a matter of cache size. So if you're running a system with a lot of windows open, and lots of background processes running -- a situation all too common these days -- Prescott may be just your cup of tea. "
"But for the dedicated gamer, the Athlon 64 3400+ is tough to beat, provided you're not running many background tasks. We were pretty impressed by the performance of the 3400+ when running games as the only major task. "
they both have their upsides; it comes down to what's most important to you. my particular needs are being able to run multiple apps requiring significant cpu time, and for that, my intel is a much better solution than my a64.
"..the real strength of Prescott seems to lie in its Hyper-Threading performance. In the majority of our multitasking tests, the Prescott performed as well as the higher clocked 3.4GHz Northwood CPU. In at least one case, Intel's latest offering even outpaces the 3.4GHz P4 Extreme Edition, so it's not just a matter of cache size. So if you're running a system with a lot of windows open, and lots of background processes running -- a situation all too common these days -- Prescott may be just your cup of tea. "
"But for the dedicated gamer, the Athlon 64 3400+ is tough to beat, provided you're not running many background tasks. We were pretty impressed by the performance of the 3400+ when running games as the only major task. "
they both have their upsides; it comes down to what's most important to you. my particular needs are being able to run multiple apps requiring significant cpu time, and for that, my intel is a much better solution than my a64.
P4's "only" performs really well on apps that do things that are suited for the P4, and on modern code optimized for the P4. (like SySMark and PCMark :roll: ) On older apps and many other things it sucks, sometimes badly. Sometimes really badly. I think the record so far is RSA-encryption, where A64 is 5 (five) times faster (64-bit software).
I have no personal experience of the latest edition of the P4. But ok, the Prescotts seem to have more robust 'general' performance than previous generations. (Actually continuing a trend, since P4B and P4C also improved).
P4E does have hyperthreading, and it is a nice feature. And it also seem to be slightly better than P4C's HT. I do not agree with CaiNaM, but I will agree with him on that hyperthreading is the nicest feature of P4C and P4E.
Prescott is definitely hot though, so you will need to pay real serious attention to cooling.
The big cache is more a compensation for the very deep pipeline, than any real advantage. Don't be so impressed by "1GB" cache. Same thing with dual channel RAM. P4 needs it. AMD don't (...much).
But the way you describe yourself, I think you'll like the A64. In fact I'll go so far as to say it's an easy choice. It's only weakness is encoding, but it's not much of a weakness. Not like the AthlonXP.
I have no personal experience of the latest edition of the P4. But ok, the Prescotts seem to have more robust 'general' performance than previous generations. (Actually continuing a trend, since P4B and P4C also improved).
P4E does have hyperthreading, and it is a nice feature. And it also seem to be slightly better than P4C's HT. I do not agree with CaiNaM, but I will agree with him on that hyperthreading is the nicest feature of P4C and P4E.
Prescott is definitely hot though, so you will need to pay real serious attention to cooling.
The big cache is more a compensation for the very deep pipeline, than any real advantage. Don't be so impressed by "1GB" cache. Same thing with dual channel RAM. P4 needs it. AMD don't (...much).
But the way you describe yourself, I think you'll like the A64. In fact I'll go so far as to say it's an easy choice. It's only weakness is encoding, but it's not much of a weakness. Not like the AthlonXP.
First, thanks for all the replies!
The bottom line here is, that I 'm probably going to go for the AMD 64 3000 (754 pin).
The reason I thought of going Intel, is that I struggled quiet alot with my axp 1800+ (0.18-micron) heat problems, and I had to suffer its noisiness. I always thought AMD gives you more bang for you buck, but I was thinking, it also makes you work harder (or suffer noise/heat etc.) to enjoy it. Now I understand its not the case anymore, now Intel has got the heat problems, which I'm not willing to deal with. As I said, I want a good solid system, not having to worry about it every other day. So ok, I'll wait a couple more minutes when encoding media (I don't do it too often anyway), and I won't run two heavy tasks at once, which could have been nice, but I don't think its my main usage.
Having passed phase one of choosing a cpu, now I need to choose chipset. I'm looking at two possibilities, the nforce3 OR VIA K8T800. Again, assuming either board I get will be of the same price level, which one should I preffer (and why...? i.e if one is better OC or more stable etc.)
Thanks again.
The bottom line here is, that I 'm probably going to go for the AMD 64 3000 (754 pin).
The reason I thought of going Intel, is that I struggled quiet alot with my axp 1800+ (0.18-micron) heat problems, and I had to suffer its noisiness. I always thought AMD gives you more bang for you buck, but I was thinking, it also makes you work harder (or suffer noise/heat etc.) to enjoy it. Now I understand its not the case anymore, now Intel has got the heat problems, which I'm not willing to deal with. As I said, I want a good solid system, not having to worry about it every other day. So ok, I'll wait a couple more minutes when encoding media (I don't do it too often anyway), and I won't run two heavy tasks at once, which could have been nice, but I don't think its my main usage.
Having passed phase one of choosing a cpu, now I need to choose chipset. I'm looking at two possibilities, the nforce3 OR VIA K8T800. Again, assuming either board I get will be of the same price level, which one should I preffer (and why...? i.e if one is better OC or more stable etc.)
Thanks again.
I have the exact same problem, A64 or P4. I have had some disappointing experiences with AMD processors before. Are the stability issues fixed with the new generation?
stability issues are year 2000 and before.. both platforms are completely stable.
i had an argument with an intel fanboi who said "amd sucks", and said that his clients wanted systems that were stable, so i just dropped the whole thing right there after that. that's just an uneducated ignorant statement. a TRUE statement would be Intel does not have as good of a value, and for cost conscious buyers, that can be the breaker.
Also, you fail to realize that the Athlon 64 does have 1mb L2 cache as well. It's the Clawhammer core.
AnonymouseUser
Diamond Member
- May 14, 2003
- 9,943
- 107
- 106
There are no stability issues with the current generation AMD processors, or the previous generation, or the previous generation.
Only stability issues I've ever had with amd. (Back to k62 and before that my buddies 5x86 and 486x133) was with my kt133(or was it kx?) slot A system. $175 asus motherboard, and stability was absolute garbage. That was because the chipset was the biggest turd ever to fall from betwixt via's cheeks.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter