Intel P4 vs AMD

So the dual channel capability of the 3500+ doesn't make it match the 3700+'s performance?

 

Sophocles
will do that. i drop it to 3.50 then i'll bump it up ina couple of days thanks

 

All athlon 64 amd chips have intergrated mem controllers. I know. I own a 3700 athlon 64 san diego.

 

The 3700 and the 3500 only differ by their L2 cache. The 3700 has the same core and L2 cache as the FX57.

 

The 3700 does support dual channel, why wouldn't it?

 

baltekmi
You may think temps are a nonissue with your Prescott. However, they are the known "firecracker" of Intel CPUs. Follow Theonejrs' example and improve the cooling. You'll probably notice improvements, if nothing else, you'll be able to keep the system stable at higher OCed settings.

 

To Sophocles:
Do you think that the Opteron 146 is a good option since zipzoomfly.com offers it for 189 bux? Also is this cpu considered very overclockable and is it a 939 socket cpu? I ask because zipzoomfly has it as a socket 939 but other sites say it is so cheap because it is a sock 940 800mhz fsb cpu.

 

It's a good chip and it over clocks well(all opterons are good for over clocking). It's going down in price to make room for single chip dual core opterons. It's a socket 940 so it won't work in socket 939 boards. The number in an opteron (IE 175 equals a single socket board) tells you how many you can socket in a single board. If the first number is a 1 then you can socket 1 and if its a two then 2. If you're just looking for a single chip solution and you have the right board for it then go for it but if you have a 939 board with a single chip then I would recommend the AMD 64 3700 for a little more in price, it has the same core and L1 and L2 cache as the current opteron models and is just about as overclockable. Plus you would have the benefit of a slighly higher clock multiplier (11 times versus 10 times).

 

Hello Sophocles,
I'm planning to buy a new computer and would love your expertise on the following: Which cpu to get, Intel's fastest, or the Amd fastest 64 dual 2x 4200 or (Amd's top of the line)? Although, I am just a novice, play simple games like flash and 19.95 downloads, I still want to have the fastest computer cpu that I can see the speed. Currently, I have a Pentium 4, 2.4 mhz cpu with 512mb ram, 7200 rpm 80 gb hard drives, and a cheap 256 mb generic video card. I would appreciate your opinion and any further thoughts you may have for a novice, regarding this. Also, if a stock system exists that you can recommend as I can't really do overclocking, etc.
Thanks so much for your opinion. I only wish I could learn 1% of what you know about computers.

Sincerely,

Miles E. Stone, M.D.(retired)

 

brobear, I didn't meant temps were not an issue at all. I do have a real good cooling system even though it is air. I have tried the zalman 9500 which was a wee better then the thermal take polo 735 vs2.
so I then went with thermal take pipe101 with a VANTEC TD9238H tornado 82 mm fan with 119 cfm. idle to me is downloading a file from the internet while searching throught the web, while lisiting to sirius radio. if i just let it set doing nothing I get temps below 35. noisy as all get out, but when your playing Call Of Duty 2 with 7.1 sound going on you really do not notice. I would really love to go water cool, but my extra money comes from snowplowing in the winter. It started off with a bang, but fizzled out like a p-3! Just a lil note to all. I have been reading all the post. And you guys are making me a beliver in AMD. You guys never seem to have the same issues (as much) as a intel. So when I get ready to do another build, i will certainly ask for help and it will be amd.
To sophocles, nice choice on mother board!

 

excuse me 5.1 logitec z-5450 sound

 

baltekmi,

Since most things are equal, to me the determining factor must be the Motherboard! The facts say look at the temps and memory. Both are very good quality. Temps are low and and the memory speed is fast.

I run an Asus P4P-800SE MB socket 478 MB with a P4 3.0, 800fsb, H/T at 3.60 (20% OC) with a 960 fsb and 1 Gb. of Corsair XMS (2x512 400Mhz DDR PC3200). It's as stable as a rock at memory settings of 2 2 2 6. I can live with the 58C max which it sometimes gets to when encoding. It will run stable at 3.75. I'm just not crazy about temps in the high 60s while encoding, so I run it at 3.60 and am very happy with the way it runs and the fine members of this forum who suggested, helped and generally poked, prodded and knocked on my head a few times before I learned enough to improve this computer, which runs rings around my old?? Dell 3000 P4 3.0 800fsb. Even with equal memory running at 3.0 and using the same componants, it was a much faster machine. I highly recomend this MB for anyone with a P4 who wants to over-clock.

Sincerely,
theonejrs

 

i see what you are saying, but i need nore info on memory timing I think to make it more stable. heck, i oc'd to 3.8 with no problems untill i played games. and all I ever got was a drop off.

 

Baltekmi
I like the old PC I have, a P4 Northwood running at 3.4GHz (stock, locked OEM mobo). It has 2x1GB XMS Corsair Cas 2 matched performance RAM. It's HT and dual channel. I don't turn it off for days or weeks sometimes and do multiple bactch encodes often. It runs about as cool as one can expect from a stock box, no way of knowing the real heat buildup. If performance is an indicator, it's well within it's limits because it never skips a beat. I posted my benches for the PC and it is comparable to the highend single core AMD processors (stock). That's comparing apples to apples. If I wanted to change the mobo and do a mild 10% OC, that would put the system at 3.7GHz without a strain. Currently the CAS 2 RAM isn't fully utilized due to the locked board settings.

That said, currently I would build with an AMD processor. I don't see sinking a lot of money in old tech. If I'm going to build a custom system, I want to go with the best currently available (within reason). Unfortunately Intel took the wrong direction in architecture for their processors. They appear to be getting back on track, but haven't caught up yet. Sometimes the AMD fans go a bit far in their enthusiasm, since much of the performance gain is minimal in the real world. But the differences are there, plus AMD has the better dual core for the time being as well. (Differences between dual and single core CPUs are very noticable, but that can be seen within offerings of the same manufacturer, apples and oranges.) The AMD is also more OC friendly for the custom enthusiast. So, if you want to be a "bench" racer and win bragging contests, AMD is the way to go. Of course you could go with liquid nitrogen, or realistically water cooling, and OC a high end Intel; but AMD is the best with air.

Me I'm happy with the relatively inexpensive upgrade I did on my stock PC and that will tide me over till I build whatever. I can wait to see what happens with the newer systems coming along. AMD is still improving and Intel is finally making some interesting headway. That tied to the upcoming OS changes and possible system based encryption (affecting my video backups); not to mention the Blue-Ray and HDDVD technology soon to be delivered. I may not buy into all the new tech at once, mainly due to "pilots" usually being high priced and later versions get improved. However,I want whatever I build to be ugradable for developments coming within the year. We're at an interesting crossroad for both hardware and software development. Some of it may not be user friendly. That would be a good reason for a lot of people to hang onto their XP running systems as a backup for the new custom builds; at least till we know what we're dealing with.

 

brobear, ditto!!! I am happy with what i got and things are changing way too fast.It will be a while before i do another rebuild once things get settled and standards develope better. Thanks for the reply!

 

MESMD

If you're planning to buy a computer then the best advice that I can give you is to find a local builder and don't buy a commercial make. A good builder is going to build to your specifications and the parts that they'll use will be far more vesatile than those used in a commercial machine, you'll be able to hold off obsolescence for a couple of years. The best commercial machines run over $4000, but you can build an equivalent for half that. I recommend that you focus on a dual core AMD X2/Opteron system.

 

Absolutely, and only a small manufacturer like pcspecialist will do my config for a PC, not a single other company will do an X2 4200, 2GB DDR and an X1900XTX for some reason, they only allow the XTX with say an FX-57 or 60, and only give you like X800GTOs and stuff with the 4200.

 

Which Proc is better I am seeing mixed results for gaming, is it the 3800+ venice? or the 3700+ San diego? The cache is bigger on the 3700+ and the speed is faster on the 3800+ A table on tom's hardware
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=245&model2=227&chart=68, shows the 3800+ better in the game farcry in terms of FPS which I thought having more cache helped, Lost as usual please help.

 

As a general rule, if you're leaving it stock, the 3800 will perform marginally better, hence its higher number. The faster speed helps for gaming generally, although it is a reasonable price increase over the 3700. Anyone who's a fan of overclocking however would choose the 3700.

 

afire77

They're two different chipsm the 3800 is dual core and the 3700 is single core. For multi tasking or for multi threaded applications (many encoders/transcoders such as CCE and DVD Shrink are multi threaded) the 3800+ is better and it offers more future proofing in the event that games become multi threaded. But for now the 3700 has and edge for gaming but I would go for the 3800 and over clock it be cause it's close enough and in time when new games become multi threaded it's going to walk all over the 3700+.