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

[BAMAVOO]

I use my Mobicel 2.2ghz @ 3.26ghz to play games and encode. It is killing my old AMD 3000+ setup and I am just using the Stock Intel fan. I do want to try the A64 though 😀, but for now I am sticking to this little mobile combo.

I have been using AMD exclusively since 1999. I was turned on to the Mobicel and am having a blast watching the little chip run and run. I had problems in the beginning gettting it stable, which was my fault, but now this chip is rocking.

<<< Call of Duty Revolt Mod FRREAKKKK!!!!!

 

[peonyu]

Originally posted by: 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.

Theres no reason to compare the price of a 3000+ to a 2.8c when the A64 2800+ is the same price as a 2.8C. apples and oranges...

 

[nvfx]

Seems like there is an increase in issues here, i wanted to know whether an AMD 64 will be worth for future or the P4, any how there are some wonderful posts but it seems to me that thier is a balance in the P4 and 64 bit war.

I own a P4 my self, 1.5 Mhz and my stupid Mobo only allows no more than 2.0 Ghz so i run it at 2.0 Ghz on Stock Intel Cooling with Temperatures of << 55 deg.

Thats why i think a 3.0 Ghz should hit 3.5 + Ghz with Seperate cooling.

For AMD, i am a bit to concerned over the Mhz war, WHY ARE THE AMD LOW ON Frequency while intel hsa a high frequency.

Does that mean that a 3000+ OC @ 2.2 Ghz SHOULD MATCH THE PERFORMANCE OF THE OC 3.0C @ 3.5 Gh, if so than i will go for the AMD no doubt.

Finally stop recommnding older technologies like the XP M's. After all i am spending so much on CPU alone + 400 on X800, i'll want my system to please me for atleast 2 years.

So the final question OK, Regardless of Overclocking, i see already Crytek recommending 2.0 Ghz AMD, dont you guys think AMD 64 may have some problems running future games because of Low Mhz.

Damn... I just cant get the right choice, time is short i have to make a buy before June 5th because i dont live in the U.S.

Help me quick

 

[irenealan]

Just wonder, do you guys think it's a concern that the A64 3000+ can't run dual channel memory? On the other hand the A64 3000+ has HyperTransport. Don't see anyone mentioned these in the thread and wonder if these will affect judgements on performance of these chips!

 

[clarkey01]

"So the final question OK, Regardless of Overclocking, i see already Crytek recommending 2.0 Ghz AMD, dont you guys think AMD 64 may have some problems running future games because of Low Mhz."

No no, 2ghz is enough from a A64 to use future apps, you forget that the A64 has higher IPC'S then a PIV, meaning it does more per Mhz, like the PR number says it compares and out performs in some tasks a PIV @ 3.2 Ghz, id say is fast then a PIV @ 3.2GHz but then again hyperthreading comes in useful.

"For AMD, i am a bit to concerned over the Mhz war, WHY ARE THE AMD LOW ON Frequency while intel hsa a high frequency."

like i said A64 has higher IPC and some might argue a finer architecture with hypertranspot, on die memory controller etc.

"Finally stop recommnding older technologies like the XP M's. After all i am spending so much on CPU alone + 400 on X800, i'll want my system to please me for atleast 2 years"

XP-m's are great, one at 2.5Ghz-2.6Ghz will last you two years for sure, you may say thier old but i dont see anything brand spanking new from prescott except the heat problem and intel fanboys crys.

"I own a P4 my self, 1.5 Mhz ......."

Im sure thats a typo.....well i hope anyway

Go AMD, if your goona spend 400 get an A643200+ or 3400, i was kinda shocked to see the difference seeing far cry on my freinds manchine who runs a a64 3000+ with a 5600fx to my palomino 2000+ with the same card.

 

[clarkey01]

irenealan the a64 3000+ runs just fine without it, with a 200 Mhz overclock and duel channel it'd match an Fx 51 , but good point, however I think our boy is Intel biased , but shhhhhhhhhh dont tell any one i told you ;-)

 

[Ackmed]

I have had a 3.0c for a year. Have had it to 3.5 on air, 3.75 on water, and 4gig on phase-change. At the time I got it, the A64's were not even close to being out. Yeah it was a fast chip, but A64's are faster in games, and thats all I care about. I have never noticed any difference from HT in my 3.0c, than I did no HT in my 2.8b. It was faster, but thats largely because of the 875 chipset and more bandwidth. I dont do photoshop or any other CPU intensive program, 90$ of what I do on my PC is play games. HT has never benefited me that I am aware of.

I just sold the combo (CPU+mobo), and shipping it out tomorrow. Im getting a NF2 250 mobo, and a 3200+ A64. My IC7 MAX3 is still $184 or something on newegg, and my new one is just $77. $77 for a NF2 250 chipset mobo is a great deal, combine that with the 3200+ that is $270, and thats a great deal. The MP A64's seem to be great overclockers, and run cooler because of the absence of the heatspreader.

And overclocking the 3.0c to 3.6 wouldnt necessarily beat the 3000+ A64 if it was overclocked 200Mhz or so, which is very feasable. In fact, I would say the A64 would still be faster.

 

[RussianSensation]

Theres no reason to compare the price of a 3000+ to a 2.8c when the A64 2800+ is the same price as a 2.8C. apples and oranges...[/quote]

Only 2800+ is a bad overclocker and 2.8C will hit just as high as a 3.0C. That is why it makes sense to go for 2.8C and save $$$. Or go for 3000+ and hope to overclock it to 2.4ghz which is great.

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: irenealan
Just wonder, do you guys think it's a concern that the A64 3000+ can't run dual channel memory? On the other hand the A64 3000+ has HyperTransport. Don't see anyone mentioned these in the thread and wonder if these will affect judgements on performance of these chips!

Dual channel is supposed to give A64 0-5% boost, yet in the latest review 3400+ (754) and 3500+ (939) were almost as fast and 3400+ even beat it in several benchmarks. Since A64 has an onboard memory controller, memory speed is already fast enough for A64 and dual channel and low latency are less relevant than in comparison to an XP or P4 system.

When we consider performance, it doesnt really matter what is under the hood. You can simply look at the benchmarks or scores a product produces. That is like arguying one product is better than another because it has newer or different technology if their scores are similar. You cant say a V8 is better than a V4 if both cars are just as agile, just as fast, have just as good fuel economy and cost just as much (imagine that was true). P4 has 800FSB, A64 has 800-1000HT but all these numbers mean nothing to a normal user who just wants to know what is faster.

_______________________
If you can get A64 to 2.4ghz, I'd take it over P4 3.6 for gaming. Consider the price of the motherboards that you want to buy too and see if one costs less than the other. Maybe this will allow you see which system will be cheaper. Like I said a 2.8 will get you to 3.6 just as happily so there you can save extra $40 and this might justify going P4 route. Otherwise, I'd never pay $40 extra for 3.0C and just get 3000+ and overclock it.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

I have a fast 32bit AMD system, and a fast 64bit one, but I will probably build a P4c when it fits in my budget because like Ackmed I mostly need power for gaming, since I'm not using my system as a workstation doing CAD/CAM/PS/heavy multitasking or any other serious or mission critical tasks on a regular basis. There is one exception for myself though, distributed computing projects. They require everything you can throw at them and more and that's where a P4c setup could really shine for me. The P4c@3.5ghz+ being capable of running 2 instances of SETI or F@H for me would be awesome! Then when I do need it for something else I can still have one instance running, instead of having only 1 instance, and it have to pause at that, while the CPU is loaded with other tasks.

The alternative to a P4c is to employ 2 Bartons for MP use, but I will have to add up the total cost-to-performance vs the P4c to determine which is better suited to my needs and budget allocation for the system.

To more directly address the OP's question, either a P4c@3.5ghz+, XP@2.4ghz+, or A64@2.2ghz+ is going to do everything most of us do with very exceptable results, and more emphasis on the speed of the storage system is where to look for better overall system performance, just as mechBgon is always preaching. SCSI is too much for most of us considering our usage so raptors and raid are where we can cost effectively make our overall system performance better.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: nvfx

Finally stop recommnding older technologies like the XP M's. After all i am spending so much on CPU alone + 400 on X800, i'll want my system to please me for atleast 2 years.

what makes the XP-M "old technology"? It's just as advanced as a Northwood. In fact, my $77 Mobile beats out a 3.2C in some benchies. Sounds to me like it should last at least 2 years...especially considering Intel isn't coming out with chips as quickly these days.

It's true that if you're spending the $$$ for an x800 you might as well get A64 as well, though.

But don't call my Mobile "old technology"!:| 😉

 

[AMDScooter]

I purchased my current P4 setup to last until socket 939/NF3-250 and maybe PCI-E was out and stable. At this point my Video card is the only thing that may hold my gaming performance back... but not by much. Farcry at hi-res with all the eye candy on is the only current title that slows my system down. All other games I play at 1600x1200. The bottom line is to buy whichever you can get cheaper as the performance is more limited on most systems by the GPU and HD than any other components... My2c.. GL 🙂

 

[gwag]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER
I have a fast 32bit AMD system, and a fast 64bit one, but I will probably build a P4c when it fits in my budget because like Ackmed I mostly need power for gaming, since I'm not using my system as a workstation doing CAD/CAM/PS/heavy multitasking or any other serious or mission critical tasks on a regular basis. There is one exception for myself though, distributed computing projects. They require everything you can throw at them and more and that's where a P4c setup could really shine for me. The P4c@3.5ghz+ being capable of running 2 instances of SETI or F@H for me would be awesome! Then when I do need it for something else I can still have one instance running, instead of having only 1 instance, and it have to pause at that, while the CPU is loaded with other tasks.

The alternative to a P4c is to employ 2 Bartons for MP use, but I will have to add up the total cost-to-performance vs the P4c to determine which is better suited to my needs and budget allocation for the system.

To more directly address the OP's question, either a P4c@3.5ghz+, XP@2.4ghz+, or A64@2.2ghz+ is going to do everything most of us do with very exceptable results, and more emphasis on the speed of the storage system is where to look for better overall system performance, just as mechBgon is always preaching. SCSI is too much for most of us considering our usage so raptors and raid are where we can cost effectively make our overall system performance better.

are you a little silly in the head? 2 instances of F@H? why would you do that on a single processor? so the both run at half speed? and you would turn one off when you did something else? what good would that do.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Not having a P4c I'm going off of what I've read, which is that AMDs are really good for tinkers and P4s for Gromacs. I also read that if you get 2 Gromacs going together with HT using the -local option, that they will finish faster than if they were crunched consecutively. I also wasn't planning to turn one instance off when doing something, from reading posts here I got the impression that when you do another task, one instance would be interrupted if the task has priority while the other instance continued to run. I've also seen it claimed that the CPU usage with 1 instance running is 50%.

If that's not the case, I welcome enlightenment. :light:

 

[RussianSensation]

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Then when I do need it for something else I can still have one instance running, instead of having only 1 instance, and it have to pause at that, while the CPU is loaded with other tasks.

In fact you could still run 2 instances of SETi and play any game you want with little slowdown. Of course SETI will encounter the majority of the slowdown instead of gaming as the cpu will recognize gaming as the most important priority and revert most of its power to it.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation

Originally posted by: DAPUNISHER

Then when I do need it for something else I can still have one instance running, instead of having only 1 instance, and it have to pause at that, while the CPU is loaded with other tasks.

In fact you could still run 2 instances of SETi and play any game you want with little slowdown. Of course SETI will encounter the majority of the slowdown instead of gaming as the cpu will recognize gaming as the most important priority and revert most of its power to it.

Cool, I can't achieve any real production on my A64 while gaming, even with a single WU.

 

[orion7144]

As far as the F@H on a P4C goes... An average frame of 5-6min only goes up to about 7-8min if running two instances so on the high side you get 2 WU done in 800min compared to 1200min with only one.

And Tinkers take about 30-40sec longer on my 2500 Bartons at 3200 speeds then on my 2.8E at 3.5gig. So when you are talking 400 frames that adds up to quite a bit of time.

 

[nvfx]

That all this conversation means to go for the P4. True i can save on a 2.8C and OC it to 3.5 atleast.

Tell me one thing guys, with an OC of more than 600 Mhz i.e 2.8>>3.4, will i be able to set this clock speed for ever, that is the real question. So once an OC always an OC or are there severe heatups as well.

Secondly which processor will heatup more during OC, an AMD 64 3000 or the P4 2.8C, considering that we OC them at a very respectable level.

What about the 64 bit issue, will that come in play in future or if its just a marketing value for AMD

I still cant decide which proc i should goi for. As i mentioned i am also purchasing a X800 Pro, so this is a high end system, please give me some real reasons why i should go for either of these

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: nvfx
That all this conversation means to go for the P4. True i can save on a 2.8C and OC it to 3.5 atleast.

Tell me one thing guys, with an OC of more than 600 Mhz i.e 2.8>>3.4, will i be able to set this clock speed for ever, that is the real question. So once an OC always an OC or are there severe heatups as well.

Secondly which processor will heatup more during OC, an AMD 64 3000 or the P4 2.8C, considering that we OC them at a very respectable level.

What about the 64 bit issue, will that come in play in future or if its just a marketing value for AMD

I still cant decide which proc i should goi for. As i mentioned i am also purchasing a X800 Pro, so this is a high end system, please give me some real reasons why i should go for either of these

To me it's a simple equation. If you do heavy multitasking, do a bunch of encoding, and/or run DC projects the P4C is king. If you can live with slightly less in thos areas but want the best gaming possible without springing for an EE or FX then overclocking a A64 on nF3 250GB is the best bet right now. Neither CPU is a cooling problem on air so it's really a non-factor, if you were looking at Prescott then it'd be a bigger issue at high clockspeeds and higher than default voltage.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: nvfx
That all this conversation means to go for the P4. True i can save on a 2.8C and OC it to 3.5 atleast.

Tell me one thing guys, with an OC of more than 600 Mhz i.e 2.8>>3.4, will i be able to set this clock speed for ever, that is the real question. So once an OC always an OC or are there severe heatups as well.

If you do mostly gaming, go AMD.
If you do mostly Folding, go Intel

If you have a stable overclock @ 3.4, and can run Prime95 overnight with no errors, you'll be able to use that clock speed pretty much forever. However, just make sure it doesn't go above 55-60C under full load.

Procs don't get steadily hotter every day you leave them overclocked, if that's what you're asking.

 

[orion7144]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: nvfx
That all this conversation means to go for the P4. True i can save on a 2.8C and OC it to 3.5 atleast.

Tell me one thing guys, with an OC of more than 600 Mhz i.e 2.8>>3.4, will i be able to set this clock speed for ever, that is the real question. So once an OC always an OC or are there severe heatups as well.

If you do mostly gaming, go AMD.
If you do mostly Folding, go Intel

If you have a stable overclock @ 3.4, and can run Prime95 overnight with no errors, you'll be able to use that clock speed pretty much forever. However, just make sure it doesn't go above 55-60C under full load.

Procs don't get steadily hotter every day you leave them overclocked, if that's what you're asking.

Actually if you don't keep your HSF clean the temps will increase
😉

 

[stardust]

I have a P4 2.6C @ 3.4ghz and a A64 3000+ @ 2.4ghz. The A64 is definitely smoother in games, but has a little bit of mouse lag and ap lag due to the absence of hyperthreading. I tend to open many programs at one time and simultaneously run many things.

For daily use I prefer the P4 system, but for gaming I've been using my A64 system more. (ironic because my rig names are opposite)

 

[Zebo]

Secondly which processor will heatup more during OC, an AMD 64 3000 or the P4 2.8C, considering that we OC them at a very respectable level.
--------------

I'm glad you asked that. Since you think AMD 64's are a dog, even though they run applications faster than a 1000Mhz more PIV, temperature is where these chips really shine. A 3400 uses only 80W, while a 3.4 Pentium IV northwood uses 110W. This increases or decreases proportianatly depending on your overclock or underclock. But the bottom line is the A64 will always run cooler than a P4 for the same performance.

 

[nycxandy]

Originally posted by: RussianSensation
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.

Uh... No, the XP 2500+ w/X800 Pro won't smoke the A64 3400+ w/9800 Pro.

http://firingsquad.com/hardware/x800_pro_athlon_xp/default.asp

 

[nvfx]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Secondly which processor will heatup more during OC, an AMD 64 3000 or the P4 2.8C, considering that we OC them at a very respectable level.
--------------

I'm glad you asked that. Since you think AMD 64's are a dog, even though they run applications faster than a 1000Mhz more PIV, temperature is where these chips really shine. A 3400 uses only 80W, while a 3.4 Pentium IV northwood uses 110W. This increases or decreases proportianatly depending on your overclock or underclock. But the bottom line is the A64 will always run cooler than a P4 for the same performance.

Yup i get it now, A64 runs cooler than a P4, but you know what i have a P4 1.5, on idle it stays at 40 deg under full 3D MARK 03 or Heavy Copying + Mp3 the temperatures only go upto 50 deg. Thats pretty good only max 10 deg increment without extra cooling.

What about A64's. i have heard they get hot more during load than the P4 ( I am not sure )