Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel or Athlon

Tags:
  • Gaming
  • Intel
  • Windows XP
  • Video Games
Last response: in Video Games
Share
June 16, 2003 12:03:15 AM

Ok For about the past year I have been planning a new gaming box...a Athlon box.
Now that I'm getting ready to order, I am wondering if I would do better with Intel....???

The choices would be:
A. XP 3000+ Barton 400
A7N8X deluxe
B. P4 2.4 800
Say a P4P800

My objective is to get a fast CPU to go with a fast vid. card,9700 pro. Ram will be XMS PC 3500 512 x 2.

I like to go with Athlon but after looking at these forums, Intel seems to be a no brainer.

What do you think?

18r
Stano

No Cats or Geese where actually harmed in the making of Might & Majic IX

More about : intel athlon

June 16, 2003 5:11:11 AM

It's my opinion that the Intel 2.4C is a far better buy at this point in time.
June 17, 2003 2:05:21 AM

Ya the the intel "C" can be o/c'd with more stability, and they put of way less heat compared to the old AMD xp chips.

So if you have the money to buy an intel, (at the moment) they have WAY more value to them in my opinion.

Not to mention that the radeon 9700 also puts off a significant amount of heat... and this + xp = noisey fans.
Related resources
June 17, 2003 1:41:05 PM

I went from a XP1800 to a P4 2.8 clock over 3.34.

The reason I switch is because my XP1800 was starting to trail behind, I could of got a faster CPU, but since my mobo also needed updating I spent a little more and got the P4. Do I miss my Athlon, not at all, since I was able to do away with my water cooler, getting rid of three fans doing so, not to mention losing two case fans, and to top it off having the two fans I do have on low speed. So I’m pretty impressed, meanwhile getting and extra 500MHz out of the CPU with a stock fan. By the way I got the P4P800 mobo. And I’m using 2400 DDR, which clocks pretty good at DDR330, since the mobo doesn’t show DDR 333 for what reason I forgot. I read somewhere the DDR333 was faster then the DDR 400. What ever is true the DDR2400, which is DDR300 is holding me over, since I already had it. Though I can’t hit Cas2, but 2.5, but being over 3.34MHz I haven’t thought the need to even go into the BIOS and tweak much, at least not yet.


***************************************
When you feel that reality does not suit you, live a fantasy life.<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by jiffy on 06/17/03 09:44 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
June 18, 2003 3:37:46 AM

Get a nforce2 ultra 400 mobo with a 2500+ barton. Put the fsb to 400 and you get a 3200+...with stock cooler! Just make sure you get the C1 revision of the nforce2 chipset. Did that with my 2500+ and Soltek 75frn2-rl mobo. lot of bang for the buck...compare the price between 2500+ and 3200+!

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!
June 18, 2003 5:43:30 PM

honestly you shouldve built your gaming system a year ago when you first thought about it because at that point AMD was the best 'deal'. i dont ever really consider using a intel cpu a good deal.

but now, since we are relatively close to the new athlons i'd wait it out.

but if i were to build one today it would be a 2700+ 333fsb processor with a decked out nforce2 board, 1GB cl2 pc2700 memory in dual ddr, a 9700pro and sit back and enjoy.

but from what i can gather from your post it sounds like you need to go intel

America- The Home of the Brave

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100 in Dual DDR, Geforce 3, Audigy, Z560s, MX500
June 27, 2003 9:48:47 PM

I'd go with Intel for the hyper-threading... especially if the price difference isn't all that significant. The reason I stuck with AMD for my last two comps was because they were much cheaper with equal or better performance. When I built my new PC, the price differences I was looking at were no longer significant enough for me to stick with AMD. Perhaps my next PC will be AMD again... but that won't be for quite a while yet.

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
June 28, 2003 9:58:02 AM

Get the best 3D Video you can afford, avoid top of range because it will be expensive.

For cpu get a AMD for games or Intel for MS Office, Word, Excel, etc.

Still your choice, either will do fine for a bugfree multiplayer opponent.
July 8, 2003 2:07:38 AM

Nach is right, the athlons are very good gaming cpu because of it's nice fpu combined with a nforce2 chipset.
July 8, 2003 5:11:20 AM

The PIV 2.8 is only a little more than the 3000+ ($15 more at NewEgg) and is more powerful.
July 8, 2003 7:29:13 PM

Stano, where are you from? That in itself can affect what you buy.
July 9, 2003 1:13:00 PM

AMDs win of price performance, Intel are expensive but fast...
just get a P4 2ghz(not celeron,avoid)/XP2000(tbred B core or newer) minimum with half a gig of ram, a big HDD & the best gfx card you can afford, U will not be disapointed either way

Trust me I know what I'm doing... ooops, grab the cat...
July 9, 2003 2:07:59 PM

a barton 3000+ is definitly <b>much</b> faster than a P4 2.4 GHz. If you would have said P4 3GHz, I had said, that you should take the P4, but P4 2.4 GHz is definitly much slower than a XP3000+.

If you wait a while, you can get an Athlon64. The best Athlon64 will be faster than anything Intel has.

AMD Athlon XP 2700+
Epox 8rda+
Thermaltake Volcano 7+
2x256 MB PC2700
Creative GeForce 4 Ti 4800 (4600 Chip)
Chieftech Case
WD 80GB/8MB HDD
16x48 DVD-ROM
20x10x32 Burner
July 9, 2003 7:34:20 PM

I wouldn't be too sure. How much of a difference does the 64bit processing do on a 32bit software? And the current top end Athlon is on Average slower than the P4 2.8GHz C model. And Intel should be bringing their chips out at the same time. There have been no benchmarks or formal testing, so the new Athlon could turn out to be an overpriced, underperforming piece of junk. They did the same with the XP3200+
July 9, 2003 9:16:36 PM

You are right about the Athlon 3200+ Its faster than the P4 2.8GHz w/ 533MHz FSb (I dont know about the C model), but its even slower than the P4 3.0 GHz in avarage. In some tests its even slower than the 300+ w/ 333 MHz FSB, because of the slower clock speed. Whats also interesting is that the 2800+ t-bred is faster than the Barton in nearly all tests, because its clocked faster and the Barton only has a little more cache. Also the 3000+ model w/ 400MHz is slower on avarage than the 333 MHz. The p-rating was accurate until the t-bred 2800+, which is approximatly as fast as a P4 2.8 GHz w/ 533MHz FSB. I have an Athlon XP 2700+, which beats the P4 2.66 GHz CPU in all gaming tests which are <b>not</b> based on the Quake 3 engine.


About the Athlon 64: I have found some (32 bit) benchmarks here:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/cpu/display/athlon64_9...

You can use the Nest Page/Previous Page link on this site view non-gaming benchmarks. I only looked at the gaming tests, so everything I say now refers to gaming-tests. You see, that the Athlon 64 2800+ (1.6 GHz) is faster than the (Barton) XP 2800 in all tests, and that it is only a little bit behind the P4 2.8 C in all tests. AMD plans to release versins from 1.6 GHz to 2GHz at the inital release. Versions up to 2.4 GHz should follow before the end of the year. I calculated, that the P4 2.8C needs 75% more clock speed for the same performance (In this calculatio I set the performance-difference to the 2,8 GHz P4 to 0, because it is neglectible). I used this to calculate the performance of the 2 GHz and 2.4 GHz Athlons compared to the P4s. The result is: the 2 GHz model is as fast as a P4 w/ 3.5 Ghz, and the 2.4 Ghz model is as fast as a P4 w/ 4.2 GHz. Intel will not release a 4GHz P4 before end this year, maybe it will not release one this year at all, and the highest will stay 3.2 Ghz (Intel doesnt plan any releases betwenn the 3.2GHz and the 4GHz model), and even if they would relwease a 4GHz model, it will still be slower than the 2.4 Ghz Athlon64. <b>So AMD will be the king when the Athlon64 will be released!!!</b>

About 64-bit apps: Epic will release a 64bit version of UT2k3 for Linux when the Athlon64 is ready. The version is ready now, Epic only waits forn the release of the Athlon64. Microsoft plans to release a 64-bit version of Windows before end of the year. Epic will also release a 64 bit UT2k3 (or maybe UT2k4) for Windows, when the 64bit-Windows will be ready. I am sure, that soon a lot games and other apps will also be released as 64bit-versions, and they will be so fast, that this apps will run faster on a Athlon64 w/ 2GHz, than the 32bit versions run on a P4 w/ 4GHz.

My prediction: In two years there will be so much 64bit apps, that Intel will not sell any 32bit-CPUs, and if they dont have a 64bit CPU at this time, they will get bankrupted. Everyone who didnt buy a 64bit CPU when they became available will say to himself "how could I be such an Idiot and buy an outdated 32bit CPU".


I just want to add, that I am <b>not</b> an AMD-fan. I am neutral, but I am for the Athlon64, because it is a new technology, and far better than the P4s. If Intel had released a 64bit-CPU instead of AMD, and it would kick ass like the Athlon64, I would say the same about the Intel-CPU.

AMD Athlon XP 2700+
Epox 8rda+
Thermaltake Volcano 7+
2x256 MB PC2700
Creative GeForce 4 Ti 4800 (4600 Chip)
Chieftech Case
WD 80GB/8MB HDD
16x48 DVD-ROM
20x10x32 Burner<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by MrBurns on 07/09/03 05:31 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
July 10, 2003 10:57:25 PM

But it's just a preliminary test. How many people here saw the original non-barton core XP2800+? The one that proved very powerful on benchmarks yet never really saw the light of day.

How much will this chip cost? When will the boards be available?

AMD have been giving out testbench prototype models and with all the trouble surrounding nVidia I'm dubious about any "press release" products that havn't been released and fully tested.
July 11, 2003 2:53:53 AM

I wouldn't be so sure about those predictions of AMD dominance (btw, I'm an AMD fan - I have never bought a single piece of Intel silicon). I don't think that your projections take into account Intel's <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?nam..." target="_new">Prescott</A>, which looks like it's gonna be rediculously fast in addition to more advanced architechture (more L1 and L2 cache, extended command set). I for one have adopted the wait-and-see approach, but then I am happy with my current rig. :cool:

<font color=blue>Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
-Einstein</font color=blue>
July 11, 2003 12:37:35 PM

"But it's just a preliminary test. How many people here saw the original non-barton core XP2800+? The one that proved very powerful on benchmarks yet never really saw the light of day."

There was a t-bred 2800+ out, but it was only available for short time, but some shops still have it.

"How much will this chip cost? When will the boards be available?"

Boards where already ready last year, because that was the release date originally planned. The release date of the chip is September 22 according to AMD.

AMD Athlon XP 2700+
Epox 8rda+
Thermaltake Volcano 7+
2x256 MB PC2700
Creative GeForce 4 Ti 4800 (4600 Chip)
Chieftech Case
WD 80GB/8MB HDD
16x48 DVD-ROM
20x10x32 Burner
July 11, 2003 2:56:18 PM

I know the XP2800+ T was released, we used too sell it in my old store, it was pulled and you'd have a very hard time finding them. But even when it was available the quantities were tiny. I think there were more P4 3.06GHz CPUs than XP2800+ within the same type of time scale.

And also the CPUs haven't been finalised, everyone is rumouring the CPUs to get faster but what if they don't. What if the press release is the fastest they could make and all the actuall released CPUs will be slower. To get the best possible acceptance for your product you have to show it in it's best light.
July 11, 2003 4:04:50 PM

The XP 3200+ is definitly faster than the 2800+. It has less MHz (3200:2200, 2800: 2250), but it has more cache and a faster FSB. It scores definitly better than the 2800+, but the differnec is something like 200 pr-points, not 400.

AMD Athlon XP 2700+
Epox 8rda+
Thermaltake Volcano 7+
2x256 MB PC2700
Creative GeForce 4 Ti 4800 (4600 Chip)
Chieftech Case
WD 80GB/8MB HDD
16x48 DVD-ROM
20x10x32 Burner
July 14, 2003 10:13:28 PM

Which in the games tests was equal to anything between 5 and 23 fps increase. And the P4 2.6GHzC model still beat the 3200+XP in most tests. So when Intel applies the same technology to their next chips (prescott isn't it?) Intel's should be superior, seen as their current medium chip is equal to AMDs top chip and 1/2 the price.
July 14, 2003 10:28:32 PM

Post a few links to benchmarks, where the P4 2.6C model beats the XP3200. On the tests I have seen, the XP 3200+ was between the P4 3.0C and the 2.8C.

And maybe Intel will be superior after the Prescott-release, but only until AMD releases the Athlon64 (see previous posts for explanation).

AMD Athlon XP 2700+
Epox 8rda+
Thermaltake Volcano 7+
2x256 MB PC2700
Creative GeForce 4 Ti 4800 (4600 Chip)
Chieftech Case
WD 80GB/8MB HDD
16x48 DVD-ROM
20x10x32 Burner<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by MrBurns on 07/14/03 06:30 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
July 15, 2003 8:29:34 PM

wow....<i>My prediction: In two years there will be so much 64bit apps, that Intel will not sell any 32bit-CPUs, and if they dont have a 64bit CPU at this time, they will get bankrupted. Everyone who didnt buy a 64bit CPU when they became available will say to himself "how could I be such an Idiot and buy an outdated 32bit CPU".</i>

I can't believe you said that and then followed up with
<i>I just want to add, that I am not an AMD-fan. </i>

Get your own sig!!! :tongue:
July 22, 2003 11:55:03 AM

"Post a few links to benchmarks, where the P4 2.6C model beats the XP3200. On the tests I have seen, the XP 3200+ was between the P4 3.0C and the 2.8C."

Quake3 Benchmarks
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030623/p4_3200-07.htm...

Comanche4 Demo
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030623/p4_3200-08.ht...

DirectX 8 Engine: 3D Mark 2001 SE / DirectX 9 Engine: 3D Mark 2003
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030623/p4_3200-09.ht...

MP3 Audio Encoding: MP3 Maker Platinum 3.04
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030623/p4_3200-10.ht...

AV Encoding: Mainconcept MPEG Encoder 1.3.1
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20030623/p4_3200-11.ht...





<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Gastrian on 07/22/03 07:55 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
July 22, 2003 2:32:52 PM

Ok

Quake3: everyone knows, that Quake3 favors the P4-CPUs.

3DMark01SE: I have seen other benchmarks w/ 3DMark01SE, where the difference between a P4 2.8C and an AthlonXP 2800+ was only small (and not 1200 points). One of these benchmarks was the one of the Athlon64, which I posted before.

3DMark03: Yes, the P4 is ahead in the default-benchmark, but this benchmark is graphics-card-bottlenecked, so the difference between the CPUs is only 13 points (or 0.3%). If you want to say something about CPU-performace, you should look at the CPU-score. There the Athlon XP 3200+ has 21 (or 3.1%) points more than the P4 w/ 2.6 GHz.

MP3 Maker Platinum 3.04: This app seems to be SSE2 optimized (because the differences between the P4 and AMD-CPUs is so big). Because there are only a few SSE2 optimized apps, this is not an important benchmark. Also, who does so much MP3-Encoding, that he cares about 1 min more or less.

AMD Athlon XP 2700+
Epox 8rda+
Thermaltake Volcano 7+
2x256 MB PC2700
Creative GeForce 4 Ti 4800 (4600 Chip)
Chieftech Case
WD 80GB/8MB HDD
16x48 DVD-ROM
20x10x32 Burner<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by MrBurns on 07/22/03 10:34 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
July 29, 2003 9:01:50 PM

I suggest getting a 2800 barton (cheaper) and ocing it, to ~2.4 - 2.6 ghz (whatever it will hit with your setup).
Its cheaper and better. In games esp. the Athlon does proportoinally better compared to the intel, compared to how it compares with the Intel in many other programs.

Read that last sentence carefully, it makes perfect sense.

Bottom line, 2800 XP oc'd ownz and is cheaper.

"Mice eat cheese." - Modest Mouse

"Every Day is the Right Day." -Pink Floyd
July 30, 2003 3:16:41 AM

Quote:
Ok For about the past year I have been planning a new gaming box...a Athlon box.
Now that I'm getting ready to order, I am wondering if I would do better with Intel....???

Sorry for starting a post and not taking the time to answer anyone that has replied to my question. This is a terrible catagory to fall into, but that's where I'm at.

It's been a busy summer and I can not see it changing anytime soon. I am putting my build off until I have the time and energy to spend on it. I don't want to try building my first computer after work and if I'm not working on the weekends, I'm fishing the oil rigs off the cost of Louisiana.

I am going to build a new box..someday



No Cats or Geese where actually harmed in the making of Might & Majic IX
!