Intel P4 vs AMD

As of right now i would go with AMD. If you search around you will see that the amd dual core is more effient and is just a better chip. If your on a budget get a X2 3800 and if you dont care about ocing and you still want to keep your old agp card get one of these:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813157081

You want onboard video and dont mind using a micro board http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813135191

I just built two of these for people and they are good boards. The fact is you have to know what you are doing they both need a bios flash.

If you want ocing get a DFI NF4 board or the new crossfire board.

I am waiting for intel to get off their butt and make something worth buying. There next line of chips I WILL BE BUYING. Their new dual cores run hot and so do there P4s. If you get an AMD 64 you WILL be able to tell the difference compared to P4. IMO the dothan core is awesome i wish intel would do more with it. Intels reign of encoding/decoding has ended with the X2. Intel cant ramp their clock speeds up anymore and where is the P4 4.0 ghtz chip? Thats right there isnt one. Both architectures are good but AMD IMO will come out on top as of now being more effient. I like both Intel and AMD but right now I choose AMD. Intel makes more money than AMD and they dont have to do anything they dont need to do.

Heres a couple benchies on my neo2 platinum board and this is ONLY on a NF3 board you can see how it compares beating fx57, dual core intel and dual xeon.

http://img271.imageshack.us/my.php?image=arith8lk.jpg

http://img271.imageshack.us/my.php?image=membandwidth7vg.jpg

http://img65.imageshack.us/my.php?image=multimed2er.jpg

http://img65.imageshack.us/my.php?image=validation2ac.jpg

 

Trouble is, Intel bully major computer builders into just using their processors - hence AMD's lawsuit. I wouldn't mind seeing AMD win the lawsuit as the Sempron64 deserves some limelight in the low-cost PC arena. However, despite their astonishing intel-demolishing performance, the FX series and high end X2 CPUs are still overpriced. Only an impresive overclock renders them slightly worth the money you have to fork out....
Still, at least you CAN overclock them...

 

I have both AMD & Intel, The AMD is the better system overall for games and other stuff, except for video work, thats when AMD processors fall flat on their faces, as real clockspeed of the processor is need and thats when Intel is best.

Bottom line if your not doing video work go for AMD, if you use your pc for mainly video converting coding/encoding go for Intel.

 

nad2dare


Video encoding is one of the few features of a CPU that relies heavily on clock speed but only by a small amount. My Venice core overclocked to 2.664 GHZ is encoding Video in around 90 minutes or less using CCE that used to take 150 to 180 minutes on my 2.8 GHZ P4@3.149 GHZ. Both systems were built by me. In fact my system is encoding video faster than a 3.4 GHZ Prescott and I'm hearing of other results across the web that verifies my results. Intel isn't winning at much of anything anymore. They will however come back with a vengeance and I can't wait for the CPU battle that's to come.

 

yeah, imo, my 2800 is a lot faster than my friends intel based systems. we both built ours our self, and for the most part, they have the same specs, but he has a 3ghz p4 and i have a 2.2ghz athlon 2800+
anyways, w/e, i like amds more now XD. i was always kinda iffy about them cause i wasn't sure how to compare their clockspeeds

 

Comparable speeds for AMDs used to be simple, now both AMD and Intel are moving away from using speeds as designations for the chips. Your 2800 AMD is comparable to an Intel running at 2800 MHz or 2.8GHz. A 3200 is comparable to a 3.2GHz Intel processor. AMD named their processors according to the Intel processor it was comparable to. I have more trouble keeping up with their actual processor clock speeds. I always have to look those up.

 

Hey Guys,I was wondering,I'm on a budget,and im a gamer. The amd chip would be my best chance, but the intel p4 is cheaper and my dad can overclock the cpu... Please give me some ideas on good processors.
Currently I am running a 1.5 athlon xp thunderbird, with a motherboard that can only handle a 1.8 ... and a gig of ram, and a 64mg video card, HEEEEELLLLPPPPP....

 

Not a good match. Make some money and buy better equipment, and I'm not trying to be flip. The stock AMD 2800 is running at a little over 2.0 Ghz (higher than your current capabilities), which is comparable to a P4 at 2.8GHz. Even overclocked, you're not looking at a good "gamer". Sophocles might give you a less expensive means of upgrading for an AMD. However, for those that don't do their own work and overclock their systems, it's buy a designer PC with AMD or settle for a P4 which runs faster stock, but has less capabilities when it comes to overclocking. Also, a lot of gaming ability depends on the graphics cards one can use. There you have to look at the systems resources to see how that works out as well. Also the chipsets on the MoBo come into play. FSB does have some effect when it comes to gaming. So make a good selection on your new MoBo.

AMD has consistently been the best for gaming, but that is not with stock configurations. You would be best served going to the gaming forums and looking at some of the system configurations and see if there is something you can afford to start with that is expandable as your finances and expertise improve.

Before anyone says anything about my supporting AMD, remember this is for gaming. I still say at low to midlevel usage, in stock form, the Intel equipped PCs are better for the average PC user. Not everyone is an avid gamer or PC enthusiast that works on and overclocks their PCs.

Remember, when cranking up the Intel chips for really good performance over stock, you need to look into a good cooling system, usually improved over stock. If you really push it, liquid cooling is a good idea. What you might save on a cheaper P4 for gaming, you can lose on upgrading the system to accommodate it. Looking at some of the more expensive gamers at Alienware might give you some idea of what's going on, they have both Intel and AMD. With the designer PCs, it takes more to build an Intel than an AMD. Looking doesn't cost and you may come away with some ideas.

 

Triock

You're going to have to dump the board and get one that at the very least has an agp pro slot. It sounds like a lot but for about $300 you can make some pretty fair gains. Say about $50 for a slightly dated board, another $75 for an XP2700+ that easily overclocks to a 3200+ and $175 for a decent vid card. Your old memory should work ok. That would get you a system that should play most games at about 800 by 600 and quite a few at 1024 by 768 resolution.

 

$300 + dollars and salvaging parts from the current system... Maybe not exactly what Triock wanted to hear, but sound advice nonetheless.

@Triock
Remember as well, that still isn't getting you near a top line gamer. The faster Intels and custom AMDs will still set you on fire with the heads on gaming. If you're just wanting to play some games though, that would get you going.

 

yeah, the comp i wanna build, costs around 800 dollars, but for what it is, i think i could do quite a bit of gaming. i'm still debating on whether or not to get the 3500+ 939 chip with hypewr transport. 1ghz fsb hehe.

 

Bearing in mind that costs twice as much as an XP and has an expensive 939 motherboard...

 

It sounds like you have enough to make a decent budget gamer.
I was thinking you had a lower budget but it is best to spend a few dollars on better parts if you can.

But my idea of a budget gamer is:

A Venice core 3000+ for $146 clocked to 2.5 ghz(3500+ Venice is great for an extra 70 bucks)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103568

An MSI NF4 board for $59(refurb)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813130491R

Crucial 2x512 XMS c2 memory for $123(best not to skimp on memory)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16820145449

Radeon X600XT 256meg 500mhz core, $69
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814153022R


The rest you can choose to replace or reuse as desired. A fast NCQ 250gig HD goes for a little over $100.

 

If you are a confident, competent gamer then overclocking a cheap processor is far and away the best strategy to get a powerful, cheap computer.
The 90nm CPUs overclock best, but of course they're more expensive...

 

As Donald pointed out, you can up the performance of some cheap processors. However, they're not going to be anywhere near as competitive as the newer and faster setups. If you're just doing for something to do, no problem. But, when it comes to the heads on competition that is a popular pastime nowadays, anything below the mid 3s will get you trampled.

The 3500+ mentioned is a good start, then overclock it to the max and add the best graphics card available and make sure it has ample quality memory. Then if you really want to build something, go with the AMD Athlon 64 and overclock it. Sort of make a 3500 look like a toy. But that is only on benchmarks and extreme game tests. For the rest of us mortals, an overclocked AMD 3500 or P4 at 3.6GHz or better would keep us happy for some time.

 

To all!
What irks me the most about all these processors is the name game. The fact that all processors for a certain socket type don't necessarily work in those socket types drives me up a wall. As far as I am concerned all socket 478 motherboards should be able to run any socket 478 chip. The bios should be able to be changed to accomodate changes in design. A few months ago I bought a socket 478 MB because I had a spare 2.8/533 I wanted to use. It would not work even though I asked about it when I bought the board.

I presently have:
Asus P4P800 SE motherboard
Intel Prescott 3.0/800/HT chip
1 GB DDR 2700
Maxtor Diamond + 120 Gb/7200 drive
Emprex DVD-ROM 16X
Optorite Dual layer 12X DVD Burner
Nvidia FX5200 PCI video card
Demon 480 watt power supply

With this system there are a few things I don't understand. When all of this was in my Dell 3000, The memory was dual channel and running at 333. Now in this MB it is single channel running at 320! What I don't understand is why! I don't overclock so everything should be equal. I know that the video is slow by todays standards but it's what I have to work with. I do a lot of video and it seems to be a little faster than the Dell. When I can afford a new 8X AGP card I will buy one but for now, this is what I got!

Any info to improve what I'm working with would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely.
theonejrs

 

To be honest, I think most processors work for motherboards of their socket types, might depend on the BIOS thats on the motherboard...

 

Besides BIOS, anyone ever hear about things like chipsets and FSB? There's more to a MoBo than just a place to plug the processor. The MoBo's resources have to be complement the CPU. So, there is no mystery, older MoBos just don't have the resources to support some of the newer and faster processors, even though they may plug into the socket. Also, the type memory and where it's plugged into the system can affect the dual channel function (matching chips and 1-3 and 2-4 slots ring a bell?).

Manufacturers and retailers supply the pertinent info for matching components. It just takes a little research for matching up RAM type, processors, and motherboards. Also, you have to look at the various options and select what you want performance wise. Taking memory from one board and plugging it into another board won't automatically assure dual channel operation. A system has to be capable of dual channel support and set to use it. Same with a processor, you're not going to change the processors speed, but the processor can be limited by a board that has less resources, such as a slower FSB.

 

6402

suggestion is about as good as it gets for the amount of money he posted. Both the 3000 and 3500+ are Venice core CPU's which are the latest AMD 64 bit processors. With overclocking the 3000 Venice core should see an increase of at least 500 MHZ depending on the flexibility of the system memory used. The 3500+ could be raised to an easy 450 MHz or more (I know I'm doing just that) and at those speeds it will out bench an FX55/57 which has been considered the best gaming CPU's on the market bar none.

 

Just otu fo interest while I'm here, I've currently elected to keep my XP 3000 stock speed cos I don't think I can get much more of any benefit out of it for the amount of extra heat. RUns at around 54ºC idle on a reasonably cool day.

That seems high seeing as I have an arctic cooling heatsink with thermal paste, but if it's worth overclocking, i might...