AMD Athlon 64 vs P4 3.2 GHz
- Thread starter F1man
- 49 comments
- 2,939 views
- 2,224
Come on Ray, you know you want the Pentium 4.
darklegion_ca
(Banned)
- 601
You are an asshat ray i told you amd's allways suck and intel will rule over everything
- 15,799
You're probably better getting the 64-bit processor so in the near future when we see 64 bit applications and OS's, you can get the full potential out of them.
At the moment, you won't see any real advantage out of 64-bit processors as there are currently only 32-bit applications. But there is a 64-bit version of Windows XP coming out soon...
At the moment, you won't see any real advantage out of 64-bit processors as there are currently only 32-bit applications. But there is a 64-bit version of Windows XP coming out soon...
- 13,719
- Indiana
- ViperManiac
I think not. AMD have great processors and they dont cost as much as Intel.
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,455
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
I just got done building my current system....
Intel 3.2HT
1gig Dual Channel DDR400
120GIG SATA ATA150 Serial Drives (Raid0)
D875mobo
The thing is...this mobo will also support the new intel chips sporting 2mb cache, which is currently at 512k. WOW....
I do a lot of rendering so the P4 was the logical choice, but if I was on a budget and gaming was all I did, I would definately look in the AMD 64 being the superior solution for gaming apps....for now.
Intel 3.2HT
1gig Dual Channel DDR400
120GIG SATA ATA150 Serial Drives (Raid0)
D875mobo
The thing is...this mobo will also support the new intel chips sporting 2mb cache, which is currently at 512k. WOW....
I do a lot of rendering so the P4 was the logical choice, but if I was on a budget and gaming was all I did, I would definately look in the AMD 64 being the superior solution for gaming apps....for now.
- 7,889
- SolidFro
- RRoDzaaah!
The Athlon 64 owns on almost all gaming benchmarks. If you want a gaming machine, the Athlon 64 is the best choice. (If you can afford one) Even a K7 Athlon is a better choice compared to a Pentium 4.
If you plan to do 3D rendering or video editing, that's a different story... P4 owns, period.
If you plan to do 3D rendering or video editing, that's a different story... P4 owns, period.
- 7,588
- Whateversville
- Flerbizky
Sit your ass down fanboy....
As it is now, the Athlon 64 kicks the P4 3.2 (even the EE) in most benchmarks running 32 bit apps.. Just wait till the 64 apps appear and the P4 will be left in the corner wondering wft just happened.....
Idiot Racers
(Banned)
- 167
I just found something to sit in my signature...
In my humble opinion the AthlonXP 3200+ kicks both their arses. The 3200 runs at around 2.6GHz with overclocking up to 4 gig. But you'll melt your CPU.
- 7,588
- Whateversville
- Flerbizky
Feel free - Quotes are on the house todayOriginally posted by Idiot Racers
I just found something to sit in my signature...
In my humble opinion the AthlonXP 3200+ kicks both their arses. The 3200 runs at around 2.6GHz with overclocking up to 4 gig. But you'll melt your CPU.
Are you fer real ?.. The XP3200+ runs at 2.2Ghz - And oc'ing to around 3.2Ghz is the most I've heard of... I could be wrong though....
And the 64 whoops the XP3200s butt
Idiot Racers
(Banned)
- 167
No no, you're likely right. I heard my info from "dubious" sources. As in folks who started tinkering with the idea of cumputers in like February.Originally posted by Flerbizky
Feel free - Quotes are on the house today
Are you fer real ?.. The XP3200+ runs at 2.2Ghz - And oc'ing to around 3.2Ghz is the most I've heard of... I could be wrong though....
And the 64 whoops the XP3200s butt
As for the 64 - it's better in cacheing and FSB than the XP3200, that I know.
- 7,588
- Whateversville
- Flerbizky
The lack of need for a external memory controller is why the 64 (especially the FX and Opteron with their dual channel controllers) is the only way to go 👍 Kudos AMD !
And once the 8 way Opteron systems are getting airborne I think we'll see some VERY interesting benchmarks... I think Intel needs to come up with something FAST or they're gonna loose a lot of shares in the lower high-end server market....
GilesGuthrie
Staff Emeritus
- 11,038
- Edinburgh, UK
- CMDRTheDarkLord
Well, my next computer will probably be Intel-driven, but then both of my previous ones have been also.
Had an interesting chat with a hardcore gamer over the weekend - he says that his Athlon runs very quickly, but crashes through overheating a lot. We looked at his system, and it seems to have lots of cooling in it, which was odd.
I don't care about games though, so I'm actually not hitting the processor that hard. My next computer will probably have 2GB RAM.
Had an interesting chat with a hardcore gamer over the weekend - he says that his Athlon runs very quickly, but crashes through overheating a lot. We looked at his system, and it seems to have lots of cooling in it, which was odd.
I don't care about games though, so I'm actually not hitting the processor that hard. My next computer will probably have 2GB RAM.
- 7,588
- Whateversville
- Flerbizky
Unless doing some massive oc'ing, I've never had an unstable Athlon system. I started with the slotted 800Mhz and have progressed to my current XP3200+. I've stuck to Asus boards except for a one off to a Soyo - Which I did NOT like at all... I assume that all drivers / bios updates etc. have been applied ?..
And I do a lot of gaming so that kinda confuses me.. I've even bought Athlon systems for the DTP folks at work and if there were any unstability problem - I sure as h3ll would've heard
Idiot Racers
(Banned)
- 167
Tsk. Your holier-than-thou attitude is REALLY annoying. Some day I'm going to cut you down to size, little boy.Originally posted by Cobraboy
Show's how much you know.
So what if I'm not the world's leading expert on CPUs? I SAID it was a humble opinion. Does it have to be correct?
I had to settle for the cheaper A7N8X-X, but they're still good boards.
- 2,808
I'm going to start off saying that I'm an AMD man.
I was reading a little artical the other day about Athlon 64 FX-51 vs. P4 EE and Athlon 64 vs. P4.
The P4 did okay, considering it's kind of old news. However the P4 EE put up one heck of a fight. As a matter of fact, there was not really a winner. They both did worse in some things while doing better in others. It came out about even. The A64 FX-51 did better than the P4 EE in games but I believe it did better in rastor graphics, of course, they didn't "kick" each others butts, just one did a little better in one thing than the other. The Athlon 64 beat the P4 in most things, if I remember correctly.
What's funny is that these two compinies have been competing for years on creating a better CPU but neither has won.
As far as which you would be better off with, I would have to deffinatly say the Athlon 64 FX-51. Since it is 64-bit, and because we are going to be moving into that, it just makes more sense to spend the money on one.
I was reading a little artical the other day about Athlon 64 FX-51 vs. P4 EE and Athlon 64 vs. P4.
The P4 did okay, considering it's kind of old news. However the P4 EE put up one heck of a fight. As a matter of fact, there was not really a winner. They both did worse in some things while doing better in others. It came out about even. The A64 FX-51 did better than the P4 EE in games but I believe it did better in rastor graphics, of course, they didn't "kick" each others butts, just one did a little better in one thing than the other. The Athlon 64 beat the P4 in most things, if I remember correctly.
What's funny is that these two compinies have been competing for years on creating a better CPU but neither has won.
As far as which you would be better off with, I would have to deffinatly say the Athlon 64 FX-51. Since it is 64-bit, and because we are going to be moving into that, it just makes more sense to spend the money on one.
- 5,677
Intel. becasue they are the leading chip manufacturer, we are currently using 130 Nanometer chips, the next generation chip is around 90 Nm which intel is already the largest manufacturer of. Not only that but intel has already made a 65 Nm chip so not only do they have the next generation chip but the one after that...MMMM 6 gigahertz.
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20031124tech.htm?iid=HPAGE+low_news_031124a&
http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/20031124tech.htm?iid=HPAGE+low_news_031124a&
darklegion_ca
(Banned)
- 601
This is why amd's suck ass there not even at 3 ghz and intel is at 3.2 ghz. And why does amd have to have such dumb numbers like 4000 now equals 3 ghz like wtf.
Idiot Racers
(Banned)
- 167
You can't do anything to me; I don't intend to go outside the AUP.
Ahem. I've tried all three CPUs (3200; 64; 3.2) and in my HUMBLE opinion I know which one I prefer.
So there.
Similar threads
