Intel VS AMD help!!!

[nyioo7@hotmail.com]

I have Athlon xp 3200+ and i want to upgrade it to something faster. so i have two option , to buy pentium 4 3.2 Ghz or to buy Athlon 64 3000+. so i've been looking at all the benchmarks and amd always score the top. but every benchmarks i saw used athlon 64 with 1mb L2 cache and the one i found has only 512kb L2 cache. but p4 3.2ghz has 1mb L2 cache and also the clock speed is way higher than amd. also athlon 64 i found is socket 754 so it doesn't support dual channel and p4 does. i also found out that HT in p4 is useless unless program is supported. Athlon 64's HT makes the bus speed higher. So which one should i choose? and what's the different between 32 bit and 64 bit processor?

AMD Athlon XP 3200+
MSI K7N2 Delta2-LSR
2*256 MB kingston 3200 dual
512 mb kingston 2700
MSI ATI Radeon 9550 128 mb @ 9600 pro 400/250
Maxtor SATA 80 GB

[Jimmy 2004]

L2 cache makes very little difference between 512KB and 1MB, so don't worry about that in the benchmarks. Personally I don't inderstand why you are upgrading if you have a 3200+, even if it isn't 64bit. There is definately no point going for the intel as that is probably no better than your current processor. Don't worry about AMD clock speeds in MHz, the 3200+ or 3500+ number is how it would compare to a Pentium 4. I'd say stick with your current processor for a while and then buy a faster 64 bit processor when there are AMD 64 4500+ or somethin. The upgrade you want will have almost no impact on performance.

[wazzledoozle]

AMD's run at a "slower" clock speed because AMD theoretically do 9 calculations per clock cycle, and intels do 6. Also AMD has a better overall architecture.

Wait for cheap 64 bit dual core.

[15th Warlock]

I would go for AMD if I was you, but go for the socket 939 version, the socket 754 is being phased out and chances are, that if you upgrade your mobo to a 939 mobo, it'll be compatible with future dual core AMD processors after a BIOS upgrade.

[wtf8269]

Originally Posted by nyioo7@hotmail.com

I have Athlon xp 3200+ and i want to upgrade it to something faster. so i have two option , to buy pentium 4 3.2 Ghz or to buy Athlon 64 3000+. so i've been looking at all the benchmarks and amd always score the top. but every benchmarks i saw used athlon 64 with 1mb L2 cache and the one i found has only 512kb L2 cache. but p4 3.2ghz has 1mb L2 cache and also the clock speed is way higher than amd. also athlon 64 i found is socket 754 so it doesn't support dual channel and p4 does. i also found out that HT in p4 is useless unless program is supported. Athlon 64's HT makes the bus speed higher. So which one should i choose? and what's the different between 32 bit and 64 bit processor?

AMD Athlon XP 3200+
MSI K7N2 Delta2-LSR
2*256 MB kingston 3200 dual
512 mb kingston 2700
MSI ATI Radeon 9550 128 mb @ 9600 pro 400/250
Maxtor SATA 80 GB

All 3000's are Newcastle or Winchester cores, which are 512kb L2 Cache. If you want 1mb you'd have to get a 3200 or 3400 socket 754 Clawhammer. Unless you feel like shelling out $1,000 for an FX CPU.

hmmmm makes me wanna upgrade my current 754 to 939... but think I'll wait for the prices to drop wee bit more :P And as for you thread starter, If you really want to upgrade, 939 mobo and a 3200+ winchester

[one2]

Originally Posted by Jimmy 2004

I'd say stick with your current processor for a while and then buy a faster 64 bit processor when there are AMD 64 4500+ or somethin.

wtf? ... c'mon now, no comment on that

you wait for dual-core ...

AMD will have something like that:
--- CPU ----------- Clock Speed --L2 Cache-- - Price (USD)
Athlon 64 X2 4800+ --2.4 GHz-- ---1 MB--- ----- $1001
Athlon 64 X2 4600+ --2.4 GHz-- ---512 KB--- ---- $803
Athlon 64 X2 4400+ --2.2 GHz-- ---1 MB--- ------ $581
Athlon 64 X2 4200+ --2.2 GHz-- ---512KB--- ----- $537

it's useless to talk 'bout Intel if you're into playing games, so i would probably go for that X2 4400+ ... it should be out in 2-3 months

[forsakentalon]

Actually the dual cores perform slower in games when compared to the FX athlons.

But I will pick up a dually 4200 in June and get rid of my 3000 s939 winchester

[one2]

Actually the FX athlons are not that cheap
... and yea, this dual-core amds don't have good price either ---> the cheapest dual-core AMD is more expensive than the most expensive dual-core Intel (well first of all we'll have to wait for this CPUs to come out ) (when did this happend; wasn't Intel always the big one with their prices )

[15th Warlock]

Originally Posted by one2

(when did this happend; wasn't Intel always the big one with their prices )

Guess that's just one perk you get when you are the performance leader

[nyioo7@hotmail.com]

here 's the 2 cpus in my option and that i can effort of -

Intel p4 socket 478 or 775
3.2ghz for socket 478 and 3.0ghz for socket 775
L2 - 1mb cache
Hyper Threading support
800 mhz fsb

AMD Athlon 64 socket 754 or 939
3000+ @ 2.0Ghz for socket 754 and 3000+ @ 1.8ghz for socket 939
L2 - 512kb cache can't effort clawhammer/w 1mb cache cuz i don't wanna spend like $200 on cpu
Hyper Transport
800mhz fsb for 754 and 1ghz fsb for 939


P.S- What is it mean by integrated into chip fsb?

[Jimmy 2004]

two things to say:

Originally Posted by forsakentalon

Actually the dual cores perform slower in games when compared to the FX athlons.

Thats probably only because games aren't programmed to make full use of dual core processors yet. They probably still treat it in a similar way to a single core, so are likely to lose performance.


And go for the AMD Athlon64 - the performance is supposed to be very similar between those two and 64bit processors are going to be more future proof, plus you'll benefit from better performance in the 64bit operating systems.

[btk2k2]

According to the Anandtech preview of the 2.2ghz X2, its a damn fast cpu, its almost as fast in games as the FX 55 (9% slower) and it is faster in other tasks, it gives the Dual core Pentium Extreme Edition a run for its money, and since it was using an opteron mobo and ECC ram, its only an indicator of how fast it will be, id be willing to say that the real X2 will be about 10% faster than the numbers it was showing in that review, its a sickly fast cpu and all you need is a bios update and the chip to install it on a 939 system :P.

and if you ever wanna burn a DVD/CD or say, watch a movie and play a game (with a dual monitor setup) then having a dual core will outperform the FX55 which costs a lot more.

To answer the question, if you play games get the A64, but id wait, the setup you got now is pretty good so id save the cash and either wait for the X2's to come out, and get a single core dirt cheap, or put it towards a dual core, and they are only about 6 months away.

[wazzledoozle]

Originally Posted by nyioo7@hotmail.com

here 's the 2 cpus in my option and that i can effort of -

Intel p4 socket 478 or 775
3.2ghz for socket 478 and 3.0ghz for socket 775
L2 - 1mb cache
Hyper Threading support
800 mhz fsb

AMD Athlon 64 socket 754 or 939
3000+ @ 2.0Ghz for socket 754 and 3000+ @ 1.8ghz for socket 939
L2 - 512kb cache can't effort clawhammer/w 1mb cache cuz i don't wanna spend like $200 on cpu
Hyper Transport
800mhz fsb for 754 and 1ghz fsb for 939


P.S- What is it mean by integrated into chip fsb?

The athlon 64's have the memory controller on the cpu itself, along with the fsb regulator (hypertransport) so they reach really high speeds.
Go with the athlon 64, it beats out intel easily in games.

[geeman74]

get either the 3000+ or 3200+ if you can afford it
you want socket 939 it has the on chip memory controler
if you have the money get a fx55 or 57 when it comes out
its the best thing ive bought alot better than my 3500+ and for gaming what can i say
no lag in games like i used to

[forsakentalon]

Yes definitely get the AThlon 64 socket 939 3000 with a winchester core.
I've read reviews of the winchester cores performing just as good as the original FX-51 chip. Plus they're ridiculously cheaper and run insanely cool. Mine ( 3000 winchester s939) tends to be about 1degree celcius below case temp. But I have a monster 120mm fan with a 120 to 80mm fan adaptor to focus it right on the heatsink. Yes I"m even using the stock heatsink.

Okay get the 3000, then hunt for a mobo that overclocks well and overclock that athy. You will have something just as good as the original s940 fx-51 'hammer.

" gonna be sledge hammer, I heard you callin' my name, SLEDGEHAMMA' "

[wazzledoozle]

The DFI Lanparty are supposed to be good for overclocking, and you dont wanna cheap out on a motherboard if you intend to oc seriously.

[nyioo7@hotmail.com]

yeh i've decided to go with winchster 939. i found one tht's cheap. but almost all the 939 mobos have only one north bridge. wht's the different between having only north bridge and having both north and south. will the mobo with only north bridge perform the same?

[one2]

oky, what's the difference between:

ATHLON 64 3400+/512K (2.4GHz) BOX
ATHLON 64 3800+/512K (2.4GHz) BOX S939
ATHLON 64 4000+ (2.4GHz) BOX S939


how is this possible? some new stuff with this A64? it must be some different tehnology so that they can get from 3400+ -> 4000+ with 2'4 GHz?!?!

& with this X2 ... there will be like two 2'2 GHz & two 2'4 GHz ... so what will it be? 2*3400+ or 2*4000+ (guess 3400+ )

[nyioo7@hotmail.com]

ok the first two are newcastle core and winchaster core. And the last one is ClawHammer core. the first two only have 512kb L2 cache and the last one have 1Mb L2 cache which is way faster

[one2]

Originally Posted by nyioo7@hotmail.com

ok the first two are newcastle core and winchaster core. And the last one is ClawHammer core. the first two only have 512kb L2 cache and the last one have 1Mb L2 cache which is way faster

well yea 'way faster' ... Intel has 2MB L2 (models with 64-bit) ...
oky, what does this >L2< do? is this better for programs, games (i guess not), ...

[djbbenn]

L2 cache is the same speed of the cpu. So if you have for example a Intel 3GHz, the L2 cache will run at 3GHz. The cache is used for storing information for when the cpu needs them. With a bigger cache the cpu can store more information. When the cpu runs out of space in the cache it has to go to the ram. When this happens the cpu has to slow to speed of the ram, inturn...big loss in performance. So bigger cache is better. Thats one of the reasons that Intel has a cpu called the 3.46 Extreme Edtion, it has a 2mb L3 cache. And the high end AMD's like the FX has a 1mb L2. It is also the reason for buget cpu's, they have little cache like the Celeron(Why they suck too )

-Dan

[forsakentalon]

Just some funny things about intel procs, Usually they all only have something like 28k to 64k of L1 cache. That's a joke!

AMD's have a total of 128k for L1 on basically all of them. Intel's Extreme Editions tend to disappoint me. They have a L3 cache. That's wonderful you, basically intel cpu's are a memory chip with a processor built in. LOL.

Honestly Intel is so afraid of the FX series chips that they are using modified P4 Xeon processors and renamed them Extreme Editions. Intel is losing money by selling their Xeons as remarked EE P4's. Xeons are really expensive chips.

I've learned a lesson and the network administrator at my school says it best. Always spend more money on your motherboard and video card. You can skimp out on the cpu a little and you can make it up easy and fast because they drop in price fast.

You're best of getting a "cheap" 3000 winchester 939 proc. A very decent motherboard nforce4 or something similar. And pickup an Nvidia 6800GT or Ultra or an ATI x800xt. A video card with 16 pipelines. If you DON'T play ANY games you can go with any other cheaper card. But you do not want anything less than that in video card. I know they're expensive. But you'll be happy. Or if you have a system with an AGP 8x port don't bother upgrading any thing else Just put your money into a very expensive video card.

I wish I would have instead of upgrading my whole system. My X700pro over clocked up to 500mhz core from 425 struggles with video games. Get an x800xt or something like that. I wish I would have Because I really don't really any speed difference between my old o'ced 2500 to 3200 Athlon xp and my 3000 athlon 64 winchester.

[obso1337]

Originally Posted by nyioo7@hotmail.com

I have Athlon xp 3200+ and i want to upgrade it to something faster. so i have two option , to buy pentium 4 3.2 Ghz or to buy Athlon 64 3000+. so i've been looking at all the benchmarks and amd always score the top. but every benchmarks i saw used athlon 64 with 1mb L2 cache and the one i found has only 512kb L2 cache. but p4 3.2ghz has 1mb L2 cache and also the clock speed is way higher than amd. also athlon 64 i found is socket 754 so it doesn't support dual channel and p4 does. i also found out that HT in p4 is useless unless program is supported. Athlon 64's HT makes the bus speed higher. So which one should i choose? and what's the different between 32 bit and 64 bit processor?

i advise you not to listen to allot of people on this subject. im acepted ofcourse. intel processors have a higher operating frequency in trade for their crappy architecture, they are in no way faster. amd64 have low core frequencys and high L2's with superb architecture design that triumphs over any P4. operating frequency isnt everything in a good processor, its about 50% important. granted intels are SLIGHTLY faster in SOME applications their purpose is quite diffrent from AMD's. AMD triumph in gamming and extreme rendering and most number crunching. lets compare the P4 3.4 and AMD 3400+ clawhammer.

P4 is:
3400 op freq
64+64 L1
512k L2
800fsb max

AMD64 3400+ is:
2200 op freq
64+64 L1
1024 L2
1600fsb max

in comparason the intel may LOOK faster but its really not, with the 1meg L2 and up to 1600 fsb max the 3400+ is far faster than the intel, not to mention the AMD architecture is almost twice as fast as the P4 architecture. since the op freq is lower and have COOL'n'QUITE technoligy, my AMD 3400+ runs at 35c load!!!! P4's are really hot running, if i put my CPU fan on an intel it would run probally 10c higher. the diffrence bewteen the 64 and 32??? OMFG!!! really, seriously... 64bit processors can process 64bit applications, the 32's obviously cant. its kind of pointless now, but in the near future more and more 64 bit programs will apprear (farcry 64bit will own!). if the AMD64 3400+ ran with 32 bits the architecture would still be faster than the intels P4 3.4. it simply has an extra 32 bits with a faster architecture. AMD will make as smooth transition from 32 to 64, as the 16 to 32 was done some time ago.

SUMMARY: the AMD having a higher L2 (twice as fast, moving information lots faster), higher fsb, and better architecture, operating freq is something it can afford to sacrafice when whooping the P4's ass backwards. op freq in a processor isnt KEY, its how the processor is built IN COMBINATION with the op freq. and for the brilliant folks at AMD, they make one good processor. ofcourse again, same with video card comparason, it also depends on the system. if you have a AMD64 in a crappy system not much is gooing to matter. a P4 in a system with a faster motherboard and faster ram and faster video card will outperform the crappy system with the AMD64. BUT if two computers are EXACTLY idenical the AMD64 will triumph. whew, i may have to copy and past this post.

[obso1337]

Originally Posted by forsakentalon

Just some funny things about intel procs, Usually they all only have something like 28k to 64k of L1 cache. That's a joke!

AMD's have a total of 128k for L1 on basically all of them. Intel's Extreme Editions tend to disappoint me. They have a L3 cache. That's wonderful you, basically intel cpu's are a memory chip with a processor built in. LOL.

Honestly Intel is so afraid of the FX series chips that they are using modified P4 Xeon processors and renamed them Extreme Editions. Intel is losing money by selling their Xeons as remarked EE P4's. Xeons are really expensive chips.

I've learned a lesson and the network administrator at my school says it best. Always spend more money on your motherboard and video card. You can skimp out on the cpu a little and you can make it up easy and fast because they drop in price fast.

You're best of getting a "cheap" 3000 winchester 939 proc. A very decent motherboard nforce4 or something similar. And pickup an Nvidia 6800GT or Ultra or an ATI x800xt. A video card with 16 pipelines. If you DON'T play ANY games you can go with any other cheaper card. But you do not want anything less than that in video card. I know they're expensive. But you'll be happy. Or if you have a system with an AGP 8x port don't bother upgrading any thing else Just put your money into a very expensive video card.

I wish I would have instead of upgrading my whole system. My X700pro over clocked up to 500mhz core from 425 struggles with video games. Get an x800xt or something like that. I wish I would have Because I really don't really any speed difference between my old o'ced 2500 to 3200 Athlon xp and my 3000 athlon 64 winchester.

yes i love your statments about intel loosing money. they keep putting dumb crap in those DELL (i call them HELL) computers that are really slow!!! compaq has a thing gooing with their AMD64 machines, same with aleinware and HP. although i build all of my computers. yes your x700 is slow, 6600 GT was much faster and was even faster than the 9600pro on drugs XT tripple E or whatever you call them. about video cards in systems there is a concept there too, its called "botleneck". if you put a 6800ultra in a severly crappy system dont expect "performance". now if you do what i did, which was put a mid-top range card in a awsome system to back it up, you now have a top of the line system, you will get better performance this way. that does not limit the potentials though, i could still put a 6800 GT in my system and boost performance more, but currently im beating some 6800 GT's in benchmarks and games only because some people with them put their high-end cards in low-end systems. making a bad computer. simple eh?