AMD 64 3000+ or P4 3.2ghz HT?

[Fred da Roza]

Mulciber, your uncommonly low load temps are no more significant than ANova's. And there was nothing wrong with my statement... I was refering to load temps with stock cooling, and I was right.

How does the stock P4 cooler compares with A64? If the P4 cooler is in fact larger and/or requires a faster fan, then even at equivelently recorded temperatures, the A64 runs cooler.

I'm not getting temperatues as low as Mulciber is but I'm wondering if it's because I'm running Cool‘n’Quiet? I find the fact the stock CPU fan/cooler runs at ~1000 RPM (idle) quite impressive.

 

[ninelven]

erased

 

[Fred da Roza]

How does the stock P4 cooler compares with A64?

Doesn't matter that wasn't the point.

If the P4 cooler is in fact larger and/or requires a faster fan, then even at equivelently recorded temperatures, the A64 runs cooler.

So equal temperature doesn't equal equal temperature? /boggle
I understand the point you are trying to make, but it has nothing to do with mine. Mine was only addressing the veracity of previous statements taken at face value.

AMD could slap on a larger stock cooler with a delta fan. If you think that's irrelevant to the issue you don't get it. What’s amazing is how you conveniently skew the comparison so you don't have to admit your wrong. Pathetic.

 

[ninelven]

erased

 

[ANova]

P4s are still the way to go for really anything besides gaming atm.

K8 is a really new architecture whereas P4 is not as advanced, and was primarily designed to be able to reach high frequencies (marchitecture).

Not as advanced? That's debatable. The now old Northwood core still compares well to the much newer A64 cores. AMD only now implemented thermal protection, whereas the P4 has had it for many years, among other advantages. The only real advanced aspect the A64 has over the P4 is its onboard memory controller.

and 64 bits has a real added value (not only adress space, but increased number and size of registers), NX bit too. power consumption and heat make it more suited to build powerful server that uses a minimum of space.

Yeah and the newer 6xx as well as Intel's dual core chips have all of these features as well.

opteron just makes a better server platform. i choosed for our critical servers (os being linux 64 bits), and am very glad with our investment.

I'm not arguing about the effectiveness of the Opteron, I think it's a very good chip as well. What I am arguing is the claim in which some are making the P4/Xeon out to be terrible, which it simply is not from a performance standpoint.

in x86 world intel is just playing catch-up with AMD, implementing what AMD creates, just a lot later, with the notable exception of SSE2/3..

What exactly, besides x86-64 (Which is really just an improvement on Intel's x86) is Intel playing catch up to? I'm quite curious on this. I do know AMD is implementing SSE3 in their new chips.

besides SS3, for what is the P4 better than AMD 64 bits ?

It's already been discussed, P4s are better in some areas then A64s, such as encoding or rendering and they also offer smoother performance when multitasking. It depends entirely on what you will be using your PC for.

Therefore the lower clocked 90nm Winchesters run much cooler than the Northwood equivalents. Luckily, the Northwoods are still reasonably cool in comparison to the Prescotts. Unless you're really interested in silencing your PC, a Northwood is fine in a normal PC.

This is not what other A64 owners are claiming on forums I visit or have looked up regarding their operating temperature, which typically hover right around where I said mine are. As far as noise, yes the stock Intel cooler can get loud but slap on a Zalman CNPS 7000 and this is not an issue.

my athlon 64 3000+ runs at 39C under 100% load, also stock cooling, which might i add, is a lot less noisy than my poor brothers prescot 2.8ghz stock cooling solution. poor fella

Well your temps are uncommonly low and btw, I forgot to mention I live in Phoenix where ambient temps are around 80 F during the summer, and that's with the AC on.

 

[Mulciber]

I live in Houston and my computer is in the closet. I really doubt my temps are uncommonly low. If at all, it would be by 1 or 2C, which considering the fact that P4 fans run at much higher speeds during load, doesn't change the fact that P4s run significanly hotter than athlon64s.

I run F@H on my computer 24/7, but I wouldn't dare run it on my brothers 2.8ghz prescott. After an hour or so the damn fan shoots up past 6k RPMs and starts to sound like its about to shoot through the side of the case. You can hear it downstairs.

 

[hovz]

what is intel playing catch up on? how about performance in 90% of scenarios. comparing any intel processor to an a64 is like comparing an nv30 to an r300. sure in a select few caes its as fast or faster, but most of the time it gets burned, all while running hotter, louder, and sucking up more power. actually intel has become what nvidia was during the entire nv3xx timeframe. only they dont have an nv40 in the pipeline any time soon to save them. they are only going to drift further and further behind amd as time goes on.

 

[pakotlar]

what is intel playing catch up on? how about performance in 90% of scenarios. comparing any intel processor to an a64 is like comparing an nv30 to an r300. sure in a select few caes its as fast or faster, but most of the time it gets burned, all while running hotter, louder, and sucking up more power. actually intel has become what nvidia was during the entire nv3xx timeframe. only they dont have an nv40 in the pipeline any time soon to save them. they are only going to drift further and further behind amd as time goes on.

Ok this is a load of crap... i'm sorry, but the p4 performs between 0%-25% slower than the a64 in games, in the same price bracket. The benifits of the Netburst architecture for multitasking, encoding/decoding, and running office apps are self evident. If your main focus is gaming, go for an A64. If you use your computer for a variety of tasks, the p4 would be a better choice. By the the way, the 600 series goes a good ways to closing the gap in many games.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium4-6xx_12.html

This being said, the picture will change when AMD releases its dual core product. The p4 will pale in comparison, as the A64 will have both the speed in games and multitasking environments. This will be my next upgrade.

 

[Mulciber]

This being said, the picture will change when AMD releases its dual core product. The p4 will pale in comparison, as the A64 will have both the speed in games and multitasking environments. This will be my next upgrade.

which is why im glad my nforce4 939 motherboard already has support for dual core a64s

 

[pegisys]

right now with windows xp 64 being done or just about done I would go amd you can get into 64bit computing for a lil over $100 but with intel the 650 is going to start out around $400 for that type of price gap the few sec's or min's of encoding time doesn't matter

 

[hovz]

what is intel playing catch up on? how about performance in 90% of scenarios. comparing any intel processor to an a64 is like comparing an nv30 to an r300. sure in a select few caes its as fast or faster, but most of the time it gets burned, all while running hotter, louder, and sucking up more power. actually intel has become what nvidia was during the entire nv3xx timeframe. only they dont have an nv40 in the pipeline any time soon to save them. they are only going to drift further and further behind amd as time goes on.

Ok this is a load of crap... i'm sorry, but the p4 performs between 0%-25% slower than the a64 in games, in the same price bracket. The benifits of the Netburst architecture for multitasking, encoding/decoding, and running office apps are self evident. If your main focus is gaming, go for an A64. If you use your computer for a variety of tasks, the p4 would be a better choice. By the the way, the 600 series goes a good ways to closing the gap in many games.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium4-6xx_12.html

This being said, the picture will change when AMD releases its dual core product. The p4 will pale in comparison, as the A64 will have both the speed in games and multitasking environments. This will be my next upgrade.

thanks for that link, youve just proved how much amd fucking demolishes intel in 90% of benchmarks at the same price point. i just want through damn enar every bench and compared the 3500+ to the intel equivalent in terms of price(the 550, time will tell how much stores sell the 650 for), and the 3500+ fuckign demolished it. intel is garbage at everything except video encoding and a few select applications, plain and simple, it isnt an opinion its a fact.

EDIT: just checked the msrp pricing on the last page, lol let me go back and compare the 3500+ to its real price point competitot, the 640. lmao what a fucking joke every single desktop cpu from intel is. its even sadder people are dumb enough to buy their garbage products. id have to seriously question the intelligence of anyone who knowingly puts down money to buy an intel cpu.

 

[ANova]

right now with windows xp 64 being done or just about done I would go amd you can get into 64bit computing for a lil over $100 but with intel the 650 is going to start out around $400 for that type of price gap the few sec's or min's of encoding time doesn't matter

Intel's lowest dual core chip, the 820 will retail for around $240, not $400. The 840, aka non extreme edition with about 5-10% less performance will retail for $500.

hovs, I guess that makes you an idiot as well, since by your own admission you own a P4.

 

[Tim Murray]

random question since I'm sleepy and don't remember the answer off the top of my head:

WinXP Home only supports uniproc systems. XP Pro supports SMP. both Home and Pro support HT. but what about dual-core? will Home work with dual-core machines?

 

[hovz]

right now with windows xp 64 being done or just about done I would go amd you can get into 64bit computing for a lil over $100 but with intel the 650 is going to start out around $400 for that type of price gap the few sec's or min's of encoding time doesn't matter

Intel's lowest dual core chip, the 820 will retail for around $240, not $400. The 840, aka non extreme edition with about 5-10% less performance will retail for $500.

hovs, I guess that makes you an idiot as well, since by your own admission you own a P4.

i didnt pay any money for my p4 tho... 8)

 

[Magnum PI]

If you use your computer for a variety of tasks, the p4 would be a better choice.

i don't really trust the reviews that you see in many websites, which relies lmost always the same selected apps/bench that shows the P4 in a favorable light, including the (in)famous bapco benchmarks..

http://www.vanshardware.com/articles/2001/august/010814_Intel_SysMark/010814_Intel_SysMark.htm
http://www.vanshardware.com/reviews/2002/08/020822_AthlonXP2600/020822_AthlonXP2600.htm

a website using these benchmarks is either misinformed or dishonest..

i'm not so enthusiast about the hyperthreading, as in a lot of cases it introduces a performance penalty. only with the prescott core its implementation start to give real benefits.

for what do you need CPU power ? not for typing you CV, or surfing on the Internet.. any processor today is overkill for the general usage, the only thing that should be taken into account are the power-demanding apps, like games, 3D rendering apps, encoding..

the video encoding that is said to be the strong point of P4, the picture is not so clear. that depends entirely on the codec you use, for example if you use xvid (like i do ) performance is a lot better with AMD than with intel.

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/intelamdcpuroundupvideo/

the main advantage i see for intel is the SSE2/3, and performance in some 3D rendering software

anyway when choosing a new processor i would look as the performance in apps that i intend to use, no synthetic benchmarks relying on applications that are not really cpu limited (i consider a word processor being limited by my typing speed), or applications that i don't care about. and i wouldn't certainly trust the bapco-based picture that some much sites wants me to believe.

By the the way, the 600 series goes a good ways to closing the gap in many games.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/pentium4-6xx_12.html

where the P4 is shown in a pathetic light, even the 660 is beat in every game by the slowest AMD, the 3500+, which costs 2,5 times less thant the 660 where i live.. and the XE series only manage to beat the slowest amd cpu in one game and an outdated one.

 

[Pete]

will Home work with dual-core machines?

Good question. I vaguely recall reading that MS would accept a dual-core sold as a single CPU as (wait for it) a single CPU, so XP Home should be good (though without a patch, I dunno). I think this was a point of contention, as another company wanted to charge double licensing fees for dual-cores. That's obviously not good for a certain Intel and AMD intent on selling as many dual-core CPUs as physically possible, as it shifts some potential profit to the software side.

I may be horribly wrong, but sadly I'm not horribly sleepy. I really should give Nyquil a try.

 

[Mariner]

will Home work with dual-core machines?

As far as I'm aware, a dual-core processor is still treated as one physical CPU by WinXP so therefore WinXP Home could use a dual-core chip. Similarly, WinXP Pro can use two dual-core chips. The following (translated) link seems to confirm this but I'm sure I've read this elsewhere before anyway:

http://babelfish.altavista.com/babe...p://www.hkepc.com/hwdb/dualcore-opteron-1.htm

 

[ANova]

right now with windows xp 64 being done or just about done I would go amd you can get into 64bit computing for a lil over $100 but with intel the 650 is going to start out around $400 for that type of price gap the few sec's or min's of encoding time doesn't matter

Intel's lowest dual core chip, the 820 will retail for around $240, not $400. The 840, aka non extreme edition with about 5-10% less performance will retail for $500.

hovs, I guess that makes you an idiot as well, since by your own admission you own a P4.

i didnt pay any money for my p4 tho... 8)

Could you send it my way? Since you think it's garbage and all I guess you don't have a need for it.

 

[London Geezer]

i didnt pay any money for my p4 tho... 8)

Could you send it my way? Since you think it's garbage and all I guess you don't have a need for it.

No u seen hovz is one of those guys who get stuff for free then think they have the luxury to complain about it...
Bit like Somalians complaining they don't get roast chicken and smoked salmon with their food ratios.

 

[hovz]

right now with windows xp 64 being done or just about done I would go amd you can get into 64bit computing for a lil over $100 but with intel the 650 is going to start out around $400 for that type of price gap the few sec's or min's of encoding time doesn't matter

Intel's lowest dual core chip, the 820 will retail for around $240, not $400. The 840, aka non extreme edition with about 5-10% less performance will retail for $500.

hovs, I guess that makes you an idiot as well, since by your own admission you own a P4.

i didnt pay any money for my p4 tho... 8)

Could you send it my way? Since you think it's garbage and all I guess you don't have a need for it.

sure, give me an equivalently priced a64 and u hve urself a deal.