Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD Athlon 64 3200+ vs Pentium 4 3.2ghz

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 12, 2004 10:00:43 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Hello,
I was just shopping around for a new machine and the only thing I am
left to decide on is which one of these processors I should choose.
Today I almost bought a very nice HP Pavillion T680 with a AMD Athlon 64
3200+ processor.
It was only when I got home, I learnt that 3200+ doesn't mean 3.2ghz and
that this processor is actually 2.0ghz.
This has now put me in a confusing situation to whether or not I buy this
machine or go for a Pentium 4 3.2ghz or faster.

Does the Athlon 64 3200+ actually show the same performance as a Pentium
3.2ghz ?
What would the readers of this recommend for me to do?

I use my computer mainly for Internet related tasks, Communication, MS
Office; but recently I have started wanting to use it for video editing and
using Flight Simulator 2004, which I have bought but hardly used as my AMD
Duron 800mhz with 192MB RAM doesn't work too well with! lol

Thanks for any help.

Simon
September 12, 2004 10:00:44 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Simon Lee wrote:

> Hello,
> I was just shopping around for a new machine and the only thing I am
> left to decide on is which one of these processors I should choose.
> Today I almost bought a very nice HP Pavillion T680 with a AMD Athlon 64
> 3200+ processor.
> It was only when I got home, I learnt that 3200+ doesn't mean 3.2ghz and
> that this processor is actually 2.0ghz.

The clock speed doesn't matter. What matters is how fast it runs programs.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=206...

Think of the clock speed of a processor as being like how many steps
per minute an animal makes. Even though a centipede makes many
more steps per minute than a race horse, you know that the race horse
can move much further than the centipede in a certain amount of time.
Why? It is because the horse makes so much more progress with each
step than the centipede. AMD processors also make a tremendous
amount of progress per clock cycle.

An important thing to remember is that the review of the Athlon 64
I posted a link to is for use of the Athlon 64 with a 32 bit operating
system(Windows XP) and 32 bit software. One should expect
even greater performance running 32 bit software using a 64 bit
OS(it can run 64 bit software side by side with 32 bit software when
a 64 bit OS is used), and even better performance running 64 bit
software with a 64 bit OS. The typical Pentium 4 chip is a 32 bit
chip.

>
> This has now put me in a confusing situation to whether or not I buy this
> machine or go for a Pentium 4 3.2ghz or faster.

Go for the Athlon 64.

>
>
> Does the Athlon 64 3200+ actually show the same performance as a Pentium
> 3.2ghz ?

In many cases the Athlon 64 is much faster. This includes business software
and games. The important thing to remember is that the Athlon 64 allows
future upgrades to 64 bit software.

>
> What would the readers of this recommend for me to do?

Buy an Athlon 64 system. Make sure to get a good video card since
you want to play games. In Doom 3 for example, a $160 Athlon 64 3000+
chip beats an $825 Pentium 4 3.2 ghz EE chip.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=214...

For Business Winstone 2004, a $190 Athlon 64 3200+ beats a
$1,000 Pentium 4 3.4 EE chip.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=206...

Another reminder. all the benchmarks I have referenced were for 32 bit
software using a 32 bit OS. The Athlon 64 can run 64 bit software when
a 64 bit OS is used.

Here is one example using 64 bit software(with the beta edition of Windows 64
bit) compared to the 32 bit version running on an Athlon 64. The 64 bit version
finished the task in 25% less time.

http://www.short-media.com/review.php?r=257&p=1

Other applications might have a much larger performance boost when moved to 64
bit. Keep in mind that the 64 bit results are in comparison to the already
great 32 bit results for the Athlon 64.

>
>
> I use my computer mainly for Internet related tasks, Communication, MS
> Office; but recently I have started wanting to use it for video editing and
> using Flight Simulator 2004, which I have bought but hardly used as my AMD
> Duron 800mhz with 192MB RAM doesn't work too well with! lol
>
> Thanks for any help.
>
> Simon
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 12, 2004 10:34:53 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Simon Lee wrote:
> Hello,
> I was just shopping around for a new machine and the only
> thing I am left to decide on is which one of these processors I
> should choose.
> Today I almost bought a very nice HP Pavillion T680 with a AMD Athlon
> 64 3200+ processor.
> It was only when I got home, I learnt that 3200+ doesn't mean 3.2ghz
> and that this processor is actually 2.0ghz.
> This has now put me in a confusing situation to whether or not I buy
> this machine or go for a Pentium 4 3.2ghz or faster.

They call it a 3200+ precisely because it's more or less equivalent to a
Pentium-4 3.2Ghz. Actually, AMD is being highly conservative because usually
it's closer to a 3.4Ghz Pentium 4. The Athlons are generally faster at
games, while the P4's are faster at video/audio conversions (converting from
one format to another). Typical office and Internet activity are a wash-out
between the two of them.

Yousuf Khan
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 12, 2004 11:19:25 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

JK,
Thankyou very much for that information. It was very helpful.
I think I might go for the T680 Athlon 64 depending on one other factor,
room for wireless netowrking hardware.

Simon
September 12, 2004 11:19:26 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

I am very interested in that computer. It must be a very new model,
as the Athlon 64 3200+ at a 2 ghz clock speed is a chip made on
the new 90 nm process, and uses two on chip memory controllers,
and the newer socket 939 motherboard. This website indicates
an October release for the chip. Is that system in stores already
(if so what country?), or is it a built to order system to be shipped
in a week or two? I couldn't find information on the net under that
model number.

http://www.c627627.com/AMD/Athlon64/



Simon Lee wrote:

> JK,
> Thankyou very much for that information. It was very helpful.
> I think I might go for the T680 Athlon 64 depending on one other factor,
> room for wireless netowrking hardware.
>
> Simon
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 13, 2004 12:08:23 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Bitstring <41448D75.7895D795@netscape.net>, from the wonderful person JK
<JK9821@netscape.net> said
<snip>

>> It was only when I got home, I learnt that 3200+ doesn't mean 3.2ghz and
>> that this processor is actually 2.0ghz.
>
>The clock speed doesn't matter. What matters is how fast it runs programs.
>
>http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=206...
>
>Think of the clock speed of a processor as being like how many steps
>per minute an animal makes.

I prefer 'the rev counter in your car'. Yeah, it measures something, but
nothing you really care about comparing between different brands.
Roadspeed and gas consumption are much more interesting.

>> This has now put me in a confusing situation to whether or not I buy this
>> machine or go for a Pentium 4 3.2ghz or faster.
>
>Go for the Athlon 64.

Seconded. The number of things a P4 beats an Athlon at is quite small,
and (at least until recently) the price premium for ;buy Intel' was
pretty steep.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 13, 2004 12:29:18 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

> For video and audio editing and a few other things, the P4 will be faster.

When you say faster, how much faster?
If it's quite a tiny difference, I can live with that.

Simon
September 13, 2004 12:29:19 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Here is a link to performance running an Opteron(basically an Athlon 64,
but intended for servers that works with registered ECC memory, a different
form of memory than the Athlon 64 works with) using a 64 bit version of Linux
compared to an Intel 64 bit chip(Intel's 64 bit chips are very expensive).
It shows the Opteron beating the 64 bit Intel chip(which is much more expensive)

when running 64 bit software, even when running rending.

http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2163&p=4

It is hard to find 64 bit benchmarks run under Windows 64 bit, however we
will probably see many more before the end of the year. I presented one
in a previous post. It will be interesting to see 64 bit benchmarks for
video using Windows 64 bit.

Simon Lee wrote:

> > For video and audio editing and a few other things, the P4 will be faster.
>
> When you say faster, how much faster?
> If it's quite a tiny difference, I can live with that.
>
> Simon
September 13, 2004 12:48:06 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On second thought it could be the older Athlon 64 3200+ with
1000K of L2 cache that uses a socket 754 motherboard. So
it is either an old model or a very new model.

JK wrote:

> I am very interested in that computer. It must be a very new model,
> as the Athlon 64 3200+ at a 2 ghz clock speed is a chip made on
> the new 90 nm process, and uses two on chip memory controllers,
> and the newer socket 939 motherboard. This website indicates
> an October release for the chip. Is that system in stores already
> (if so what country?), or is it a built to order system to be shipped
> in a week or two? I couldn't find information on the net under that
> model number.
>
> http://www.c627627.com/AMD/Athlon64/
>
> Simon Lee wrote:
>
> > JK,
> > Thankyou very much for that information. It was very helpful.
> > I think I might go for the T680 Athlon 64 depending on one other factor,
> > room for wireless netowrking hardware.
> >
> > Simon
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 13, 2004 3:48:26 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 18:00:43 +0100, "Simon Lee"
<simon@lee1287.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Hello,
> I was just shopping around for a new machine and the only thing I am
>left to decide on is which one of these processors I should choose.
>Today I almost bought a very nice HP Pavillion T680 with a AMD Athlon 64
>3200+ processor.
>It was only when I got home, I learnt that 3200+ doesn't mean 3.2ghz and
>that this processor is actually 2.0ghz.
>This has now put me in a confusing situation to whether or not I buy this
>machine or go for a Pentium 4 3.2ghz or faster.
>
>Does the Athlon 64 3200+ actually show the same performance as a Pentium
>3.2ghz ?

Generally speaking it's actually faster than the Pentium4 3.2GHz.. and
cheaper and it can run 64-bit OSes if you so desire.

Clock speed is a VERY limited measurement of performance, there are
dozens of other factors that affect things. Both AMD and Intel are
moving away from labeling their processors only by clock speed these
days.

>What would the readers of this recommend for me to do?

Stick with what you've got, it looks like the system you have has
pretty reasonable specs.

>I use my computer mainly for Internet related tasks, Communication, MS
>Office; but recently I have started wanting to use it for video editing and
>using Flight Simulator 2004, which I have bought but hardly used as my AMD
>Duron 800mhz with 192MB RAM doesn't work too well with! lol

I think you'll find that for most of the applications your looking at,
you would never notice the difference between the P4 of the Athlon64.
Benchmarks might show a slight edge for one or the other, but nothing
huge.

For Flight Simulator 2004 you'll probably find that the video card
plays at least as big of a role as the processor. The default config
of the system you've got has an nVidia GeForceFX 5500, which is
reasonable as far as PCs from big OEMs go. It would probably be
slower than the T685 which uses an ATI X600, but definitely faster
than the el-cheapo stuff that uses integrated Intel or VIA graphics.

Between those two systems (the t680 and t685), it's a bit of a
toss-up. The standard price is identical (1100 of those sketchy
British monetary units) and almost all the add-in features are the
same. The AMD-based t680 comes with a faster processor with more
features (the Athlon64 3200+ vs. P4 530), but a slower video card
(GeForceFX 5500 vs. Radeon X600 Pro) and slightly more dated I/O
technology (parallel ATA hard drive vs. Serial ATA, AGP graphics vs.
PCI Express).

All in all though, they're pretty comparable. Personally I would tend
to opt for the P4-based t685 for the better video card, though buying
a Radeon X600 Pro video card separately will only set you back about
$125 US (might be a bit more on that side of the pond). Better yet,
you could stick with the t680, wait for a year until your warranty
expires and you're allowed to open the case and get yourself something
twice as fast as either of those video cards for about the same price.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 13, 2004 3:48:26 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 15:43:26 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote:
>
>I am very interested in that computer. It must be a very new model,
>as the Athlon 64 3200+ at a 2 ghz clock speed is a chip made on
>the new 90 nm process, and uses two on chip memory controllers,
>and the newer socket 939 motherboard.

Naaah.. Nothing that exciting. Check the tech specs:

http://h20195.www2.hp.com/search/pdf/090017ad81ca315d.p...

It's just a plain, old 130nm, 2.0GHz/1MB L2 cache, socket 754
Athlon64.

> This website indicates
>an October release for the chip. Is that system in stores already
>(if so what country?),

The system seems to only be sold in Britain, though I'm sure that HP
has similar systems available in other countries.

> or is it a built to order system to be shipped
>in a week or two? I couldn't find information on the net under that
>model number.
>
>http://www.c627627.com/AMD/Athlon64/

You'll notice on that chart that there are three different Athlon64
3200+ chips. The one used in this system is the first, a "Clawhammer"
running at 2.0GHz with 1MB of L2 cache and socket 754. The
"Newcastle" running at 2.2GHz and with 512KB of L2 cache and socket
754 is also available now (though the chart has a typo on the date, it
came out in April of 2004, not April of 2003). The chip you're
thinking of, a socket 939 "Winchester" running at 2.0GHz and 512KB of
L2 cache won't be out for a little bit.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 13, 2004 4:09:43 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

JK wrote:

> I am very interested in that computer. It must be a very new model,
> as the Athlon 64 3200+ at a 2 ghz clock speed is a chip made on the
> new 90 nm process, and uses two on chip memory controllers, and the
> newer socket 939 motherboard.

JK,

Why would dual channel imply two memory controllers?

--
Regards, Grumble
September 14, 2004 2:22:10 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Mon, 13 Sep 2004 12:09:43 +0200, Grumble wrote:

> JK wrote:
>
>> I am very interested in that computer. It must be a very new model,
>> as the Athlon 64 3200+ at a 2 ghz clock speed is a chip made on the
>> new 90 nm process, and uses two on chip memory controllers, and the
>> newer socket 939 motherboard.
>
> JK,
>
> Why would dual channel imply two memory controllers?

Imply? Dual channel == two memory controllers.

--
Keith
September 14, 2004 2:26:07 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:08:23 +0100, GSV Three Minds in a Can wrote:

> Bitstring <41448D75.7895D795@netscape.net>, from the wonderful person JK
> <JK9821@netscape.net> said
> <snip>
>
>>> It was only when I got home, I learnt that 3200+ doesn't mean 3.2ghz and
>>> that this processor is actually 2.0ghz.
>>
>>The clock speed doesn't matter. What matters is how fast it runs programs.
>>
>>http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=206...
>>
>>Think of the clock speed of a processor as being like how many steps
>>per minute an animal makes.
>
> I prefer 'the rev counter in your car'. Yeah, it measures something, but
> nothing you really care about comparing between different brands.

Exactly. If you're spinning your wheels, all you're doing is wasting
energy. ;-)

> Roadspeed and gas consumption are much more interesting.

....not to mention negotiating curves.

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 14, 2004 6:30:11 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

keith wrote:

> Grumble wrote:
>
>> Why would dual channel imply two memory controllers?
>
> Imply? Dual channel == two memory controllers.

Can't a dual-channel memory controller be implemented as one circuit
with twice as many wires as a single-channel memory controller?

--
Regards, Grumble
September 17, 2004 2:40:36 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:30:11 +0200, Grumble wrote:

> keith wrote:
>
>> Grumble wrote:
>>
>>> Why would dual channel imply two memory controllers?
>>
>> Imply? Dual channel == two memory controllers.
>
> Can't a dual-channel memory controller be implemented as one circuit
> with twice as many wires as a single-channel memory controller?

An unqualified *no*. It would be more difficult, slower, and add nothing
to the mix. One of the reasons to go with multiple channels is to
simplify timing across many wires. Note the high-speeed interfaces have
narrower "channels" so the timing is simpler (or possible). Indeed, the
ApplePI/EI bus has timing adjustments on a per-pin basis. Making channels
wider makes no sense.

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
September 17, 2004 7:18:30 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 22:40:36 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

>On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 14:30:11 +0200, Grumble wrote:
>
>> keith wrote:
>>
>>> Grumble wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why would dual channel imply two memory controllers?
>>>
>>> Imply? Dual channel == two memory controllers.
>>
>> Can't a dual-channel memory controller be implemented as one circuit
>> with twice as many wires as a single-channel memory controller?
>
>An unqualified *no*. It would be more difficult, slower, and add nothing
>to the mix. One of the reasons to go with multiple channels is to
>simplify timing across many wires. Note the high-speeed interfaces have
>narrower "channels" so the timing is simpler (or possible). Indeed, the
>ApplePI/EI bus has timing adjustments on a per-pin basis. Making channels
>wider makes no sense.

....

Fwiw, the two memory "channels" (DDR2/266-400) on the Lindenhurst family of
MCH chips (P4 and P4 Xeon) are closer to a single, double-wide bus than not.
The same could be said for the various flavors of Serverworks' CMIC chip
(DDR266-400).

The same address appears on both channels simultaneously, and the data from
both "channels" is aggregated and delivered to the FSB as a cache line with
both channels contributing equally. And clocks for all dimms on both
"channels" originate from the same source...

/daytripper ()
!