Why not OC a P4 3.0 Ghz to 3.6 + and beat AMD

[nvfx]

Its been long while you people have talked in favour of INTEL.

Every one prefers AMD 64 over P4's.

Here a question.......

If a buy a P4 3.0Ghz for $ 200, and spend 35 more on TT Heatsinks. OC should be stable over 3.5 Ghz and more.

Consider i get a stable OC of 3.6 Ghz forever, than its the fastest CPU on the market. So if that really is the case, where does the AMD 64 3000/2800 stack up.

I havent seen much Overclockings of the 64's.

So should buy the P$ OC it to hell or Stick with the AMD 64 3000 Plan.

Further more, Will i be able to OC my AMD 64's just as good as AMD XP's M.

What the hell is going on.

OC P4 or buy AMD 64 3000

 

[ericgl]

My thoughts exactly. Unfortunately I can't get much past 3.2 on my 3.0C.

 

[DaNorthface]

the AMD 64 bit processors overclock to somewhere around a PR rating of 4000+ or 2400 mhz. Well that's what i read in the other post at least. Myself, i'm going to get a mobile barton and overclock that to 2500 mhz which is a reasonable OC (people usually get 2400-2600 mhz), so that's about an 3800+ rating.. Question though, is intel going to use 64 bit processors at all? I don't see it on their roadmap.

 

[nvfx]

Originally posted by: ericgl
My thoughts exactly. Unfortunately I can't get much past 3.2 on my 3.0C.

How poor, why in the world your getting 3.2 from a 3.0. Even on stock cooling it should atleast hit 3.4

 

[JeremiahTheGreat]

Oveclocking is a gamble.. which is the answer to your original question.

 

[Shimmishim]

once again... it comes down to ... what are you goign to use your processor for?

if you are a heavy video encoding maniac, then p4 is the way to go for you..

if you are a heavy video gamer maniac, then A64 is the way to go for you...

it's all a matter of what you do...

 

[ericgl]

Originally posted by: nvfx

Originally posted by: ericgl
My thoughts exactly. Unfortunately I can't get much past 3.2 on my 3.0C.

How poor, why in the world your getting 3.2 from a 3.0. Even on stock cooling it should atleast hit 3.4

Luck of the draw I suppose. This is with a SP-94 and very good case cooling. I'm not through tweaking, but I just wanted to point out 3.6 is not a dunk shot. Maybe if I had one of those 30 cap processors.

 

[MichaelZ]

apparently there are 30 cap 2.8Cs now too... link

heard a rumour somewhere that the 30 cap ones are just EEs that didn't quite make it. gots myself the 30 cap one back in Feb. sure supprised me when it hit 3.7 on intel default cooler. if anyone is looking for one, they're under the eSpec: SL6WU or SL6WK

 

[orion7144]

I have been through 7 2.4C's, 2 2.8C's, and 2 2.8E's all of witch would OC to at least 3.4 (there was one 2.4c that would only do 3.2) on default cooling and a small voltage bump. So save even more money and get a 2.4C or 2.6C.

 

[SickBeast]

AMD=teh RoXorZ
intel=teh suXorZ

OK yeah seriously, I'm pretty sure an overclocked A64 at 2.4 would take the prize, even against a P4 at 3.6. It depends on the situation tho. As shimmishimm pointed out, the P4 would pwn at encoding, whereas the AMD would rock at gaming.

 

[orion7144]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
AMD=teh RoXorZ
intel=teh suXorZ

OK yeah seriously, I'm pretty sure an overclocked A64 at 2.4 would take the prize, even against a P4 at 3.6. It depends on the situation tho. As shimmishimm pointed out, the P4 would pwn at encoding, whereas the AMD would rock at gaming.

The P4 would also "pwn" while running more than one active application.

 

[jagec]

All I know is that my mobile 2400+ @ 2.3GHz is (according to Sandra, I know that's not the most authoritative of benchmarks) faster than a P4 3.2c. Not too bad for a $77 proc (with $20 HSF of course). Granted, that P4 would blow me away if they overclocked it, but as far as bang for the buck goes Mobile is where it's at.

 

[MichaelZ]

Originally posted by: SickBeast
AMD=teh RoXorZ
intel=teh suXorZ

:disgust:

 

[VIAN]

AMD=teh RoXorZ
intel=teh suXorZ

:beer:

 

[Dman877]

Originally posted by: orion7144

Originally posted by: SickBeast
AMD=teh RoXorZ
intel=teh suXorZ

OK yeah seriously, I'm pretty sure an overclocked A64 at 2.4 would take the prize, even against a P4 at 3.6. It depends on the situation tho. As shimmishimm pointed out, the P4 would pwn at encoding, whereas the AMD would rock at gaming.

The P4 would also "pwn" while running more than one active application.

Depends what the application's are...

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: DaNorthface
the AMD 64 bit processors overclock to somewhere around a PR rating of 4000+ or 2400 mhz. Well that's what i read in the other post at least. Myself, i'm going to get a mobile barton and overclock that to 2500 mhz which is a reasonable OC (people usually get 2400-2600 mhz), so that's about an 3800+ rating.. Question though, is intel going to use 64 bit processors at all? I don't see it on their roadmap.

2400mhz is a PR rating of 3700+ on socket 754. Also it is more difficult to get 3000+ A64 to 2400mhz than a 3.0ghz to 3.6. A barton 2600mhz isn't a PR rating of 3800+. There was a thread long time ago that showed even a 3200+ A64 beating it in gaming applications.

Personally though, to get the best bang for the buck in my opinion, I'd just go for 2.8C processor as those overclock to 3.5 and cost $35-40 less than 3.0C. The advantages of this will include spending this 35-40 on the cooler of your choice, and higher FSB which will somewhat make up for the 100mhz difference assuming you achieve 3.6 and 3.5 in each case. I think the 2.8C is a better bang for the buck right now between the 3000+ and 3.0C

However, if you do not want to spend a lot, maybe you could look into a barton mobile solution.

 

[clarkey01]

The title of this thread show one mad Intel trying to shine some light onto PIV

Hell i like the 2.8C/3.0C, i think there great for overclockers, but when you word a thread like this , it's like he's tryna make some crusade against AMD.


First why not applaud AMD for their fine job of the A64

Then say or ask the question what would be needed in terms of an over clock to match a A64 at its highest speed, or if you wanna be completely fair over clock an a64 and p4 and see. I think the Fx @ 2.9Ghz pretty much owns a p4@ 4ghz or anything within most people?s reach. I think Toms did an article on that recently and they pointed it out.

I would be more interested to see what a highly overclocked Pentium M can do against A64, someone mentioned to me at college that he saw an article seeing the thing at 2.4Ghz which was a wall for clock speed, maybe it needs 65 nano before it can get any higher.

 

[BlindBartimaeus]

I have a 3000+ A64 at 2.4 gig with a stock HSF. All you need is one of the new NF3-250 boards and you could easily be there 2.3-2.5 ish with a bit of tweakage. Same price as a 3.0 and at 2.4 will PIMP SLAP a 3.6 P4 any day of the week in gaming.

Like it has been said. Gaming belongs to AMD which is almost everyone of us. To you video phreaks...you are straddled with the Evil Empire...er...Intel.

 

[Mingon]

Originally posted by: orion7144

Originally posted by: SickBeast
AMD=teh RoXorZ
intel=teh suXorZ

OK yeah seriously, I'm pretty sure an overclocked A64 at 2.4 would take the prize, even against a P4 at 3.6. It depends on the situation tho. As shimmishimm pointed out, the P4 would pwn at encoding, whereas the AMD would rock at gaming.

The P4 would also "pwn" while running more than one active application.

I dont know my dual mobile bartons can run 2 instances of dr divx at circa 40fps each my 3.2ghz p4 gets nowhere near that!

 

[nvfx]

Oh brother, can any one tell me a really serious answer.

What do you mean it depends on what your doing, what if i play games as well encoding than what is the preference a combination of the two something like AMDINTEL P464 etc.

I see some of you have put a 2.8 best for the buck, i guess thats correct.

One last question, which of the two will survive longer in the future.

3DMARK 04 is on the way and Socket 754 are numbered due to Socket 939.

I still cant decide what to choose

Since a AMD 3000 and Intel P4 3.0 cost almost the same, what should i get.

Suppose that i dont overclock than whos the champ, and i also read Far Cry's read which depicts a High end system with 3 Ghz.

Whats this bullshit. Already a recommendation for a P4 3.0 Ghz, what next and who would want to buy new PC's every year just to play games

 

[Lyfer]

Originally posted by: nvfx
Its been long while you people have talked in favour of INTEL.

Every one prefers AMD 64 over P4's.

Here a question.......

If a buy a P4 3.0Ghz for $ 200, and spend 35 more on TT Heatsinks. OC should be stable over 3.5 Ghz and more.

Consider i get a stable OC of 3.6 Ghz forever, than its the fastest CPU on the market. So if that really is the case, where does the AMD 64 3000/2800 stack up.

I havent seen much Overclockings of the 64's.

So should buy the P$ OC it to hell or Stick with the AMD 64 3000 Plan.

Further more, Will i be able to OC my AMD 64's just as good as AMD XP's M.

What the hell is going on.

OC P4 or buy AMD 64 3000

Overclocking is not guaranteed. With the new Nforce 3 250GB boards coming out, one could say that with a $211 A64 3000 with a decent HSF one should be able to attain 2.3-2.4GHZ. ANand achieved 2.36GHZ with stock cooling on an MSI Nforce 3 250 board. You could have TONS of alternative but as they say with overclocking, YMWV!

 

[ericgl]

Anyone know about the mobile A-64s?

For pure gaming, I'd get an A-64 (stock speeds). But if I was comfortable in hitting 3500+ with a 2.8 or 3.0C that is the route I'd go. Just remember, your likely to have to spend some money on cooling and a very good PSU.

By the way I'd get a Thermalright not a Thermaltake HSF.

 

[peonyu]

iirc, a stock A64 3200+ will beat a oc'd P4 @ 3.6 ghz in gaming [and of course, a overclocked A64 will beat it that much more], while the P4 will beat the A64 in video encoding.
So, if it was up to me, id go with the Athlon 64 for two reasons. One is that its faster at gaming, and gaming is usually the area that requires upgrades faster than video encoding does.
Two, its a 64 bit chip, and because of that future 64-bit enabled OS's *may* enable it to overtake the P4 in video encoding, so you will get the best of both.

 

[RussianSensation]

1. A64 3000+ is better than P4 3.0C at gaming stock, 3200+ > 3.2C, 3400+ > 3.4C and so on
2. Even though A64 is better at gaming, it gives you maybe 2-3FPS in intense games like Far Cry and about 20FPS in Unreal where the frame rates are already 85+ frames on an Intel rig so it's irrelevant. It makes NO SENSE to spend extra $50-100+ on a faster cpu after 2.8-3.0ghz for gaming because investment in a better videocard nets a much greater improvement. A 2500+ XP barton with X800Pro will smoke a A64 3400+ with 9800Pro in any new game by a mile.
3. You cannot have SETI, encode, or do any other cpu intensive background task and play a game on an AMD system. With an intel system and HT you can play a game and do those tasks without dropping frames as much. Of course, encoding and other major tasks take forever, so most ppl either do them at night or when they dont do anything else and when a task takes 2 hours or more no one cares if it takes 2 hours or 2 hours and 30 min.
4. The potential for performance improvement for A64 is there with 64-bit system. Normal every day tasks like office work (word, excel, etc.) and extracting, compression of files (winrar, winzip) which take place every day for most users is faster with an AMD system so this is a huge bonus....

So intel is faster at encoding, etc. but because this task takes so long its performance advantage over A64 is irrelevant. A64 is faster at gaming but in intense games, it wont make them playable if they are not playable on an equally fast P4/XP rig and it doesnt make a difference when the games are running above 80FPS already anyway....so this is irrelevant also. Other things to consider include if you will game and do your other tasks at the same time => if so Intel is the way to go no question. The advantage on the AMD side is that the 64-bit system might boost its performance. Of course 3000+ and 3.0 cost around 200+. When you can get a 2.8C ($160 on pricewatch) and overclock it to 3.5, I don't see either as a good deal. My suggestion is if you want to use 64-bit go AMD (so 3000+ >3.0). If you want to save $40 go Intel. Besides the performance difference is not noticeable by the human eye if the difference is <10% and between 3000+ and 3.0C the performance difference is <10% 99% of the time in most tasks so either is a winner. That is why I think you should consider price and get the 2.8C instead.

 

[mboy]

All I know is that I have used AMD on my personal rigs for a long time. Got a new 3.0C and Abit IC7-Max3 board in trade. Swapped the mobo and P4, used same ram,video carde, etc in my AMD rig and bumped it to an everyday/stable overclock of 3.63Ghz. My 3DMK2003 score went from a high 0f around 5400 or so with an XP 2100 @ 2.35ghz to over 6800 with the 3.6P4. So, the gaming on the P4 isn't too terrible . 6876
That being said, I was not planing on upgrading until next year and when the AMD 64's became cheap enough to upgrade too (the not yet released versions) along with BTX, Win64, etc), but I got the P34 and mobo in trade for stuff I did not need, so I upgraded.
I have yet to play around with AMD 64 tuff, but there is no denying that a P4 @ 3.63Ghz with HT is fast as sh!T. There is absolutely nothing it is slow at, not encoding, not gaming.