A $160 Athlon64 3000+ beats an $825 P4 3.2 EE in Doom 3!

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.computer,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7
12 answers Last reply
More about athlon64 3000 beats doom
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
    news:4115BA21.2AFBDD0F@netscape.net...
    >
    > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7

    Yes it does, but up the resolution, and it's performance is only slightly
    better, by an amount which wouldn't be noticeable anyway. If you look at
    the 2.8C, almost the same price as the Athlon64 3000+, when the screen
    resolution is changed, almost no difference is made. So it may not be the
    fastest, but it can hang in there. I'm begining to think that you are some
    kind of spam whore for Anandtech....

    MC
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Moderately Confused wrote:

    > "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
    > news:4115BA21.2AFBDD0F@netscape.net...
    > >
    > > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7
    >
    > Yes it does, but up the resolution, and it's performance is only slightly
    > better, by an amount which wouldn't be noticeable anyway.

    However compare it to a $160 P4 2.8, and the Athlon 64 3000+ still
    leads by a large margin.

    > If you look at
    > the 2.8C, almost the same price as the Athlon64 3000+, when the screen
    > resolution is changed, almost no difference is made.

    That is probably due to limitations of the video card. It will be interesting
    to see the results when even higher performing video cards are available.
    Do many people even play games in higher resolutions though?

    > So it may not be the
    > fastest, but it can hang in there. I'm begining to think that you are some
    > kind of spam whore for Anandtech....
    >
    > MC
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
    news:41166109.644C568C@netscape.net...
    >
    >
    > Moderately Confused wrote:
    >
    > > "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
    > > news:4115BA21.2AFBDD0F@netscape.net...
    > > >
    > > > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7
    > >
    > > Yes it does, but up the resolution, and it's performance is only
    slightly
    > > better, by an amount which wouldn't be noticeable anyway.
    >
    > However compare it to a $160 P4 2.8, and the Athlon 64 3000+ still
    > leads by a large margin.
    >
    > > If you look at
    > > the 2.8C, almost the same price as the Athlon64 3000+, when the screen
    > > resolution is changed, almost no difference is made.
    >
    > That is probably due to limitations of the video card. It will be
    interesting
    > to see the results when even higher performing video cards are available.
    > Do many people even play games in higher resolutions though?

    Of course. Do you think people with a 19" monitor will want 800X600 res, or
    even 1024X768? I would want, at a minimum, 1200+. I doubt that I'm the
    only one, too.


    > > So it may not be the
    > > fastest, but it can hang in there. I'm begining to think that you are
    some
    > > kind of spam whore for Anandtech....
    > >
    > > MC
    >
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.computer,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    But what about for work rather than for gaming?

    MB


    On 08/08/04 01:29 am JK put fingers to keyboard and launched the
    following message into cyberspace:

    > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Even at very high resolutions though, the Athlon 64 chips will
    beat comparably priced Intel chips in Doom 3. Of course
    that will probably mean that you will need to use an
    Athlon 64 FX-53 chip, and that you might have to choose
    a professional level video card(I haven't seen how these
    perform in Doom 3, but they do get into the thousands
    of dollars).

    Moderately Confused wrote:

    > "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
    > news:41166109.644C568C@netscape.net...
    > >
    > >
    > > Moderately Confused wrote:
    > >
    > > > "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
    > > > news:4115BA21.2AFBDD0F@netscape.net...
    > > > >
    > > > > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7
    > > >
    > > > Yes it does, but up the resolution, and it's performance is only
    > slightly
    > > > better, by an amount which wouldn't be noticeable anyway.
    > >
    > > However compare it to a $160 P4 2.8, and the Athlon 64 3000+ still
    > > leads by a large margin.
    > >
    > > > If you look at
    > > > the 2.8C, almost the same price as the Athlon64 3000+, when the screen
    > > > resolution is changed, almost no difference is made.
    > >
    > > That is probably due to limitations of the video card. It will be
    > interesting
    > > to see the results when even higher performing video cards are available.
    > > Do many people even play games in higher resolutions though?
    >
    > Of course. Do you think people with a 19" monitor will want 800X600 res, or
    > even 1024X768? I would want, at a minimum, 1200+. I doubt that I'm the
    > only one, too.
    >
    > > > So it may not be the
    > > > fastest, but it can hang in there. I'm begining to think that you are
    > some
    > > > kind of spam whore for Anandtech....
    > > >
    > > > MC
    > >
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.computer,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    "Minnie Bannister" <GoonButNotForgotten@NottheBBC.org> wrote in message
    news:10hct3dt32mr224@corp.supernews.com...
    > But what about for work rather than for gaming?
    >
    > MB
    >
    >
    > On 08/08/04 01:29 am JK put fingers to keyboard and launched the
    > following message into cyberspace:
    >
    > > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7

    Depends on what you mean by work. I'm a programmer who deals mainly in
    creating web based applications (mainly php/mysql/linux but some .Net as
    well). When it comes to running a Database server Opteron beates the crud
    out of any P4, when it comes to compiling code the Opteron/A64 win again,
    when it comes to running a webserver the A64/Opteron wins yet again. So when
    I go to work I deffonetly prefer AMD to Intel! Now I do realize that this
    won't be the case in every situation, but it certainly is in mine!

    Carlo
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.computer,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    The Athlon 64 chips are great for business software.

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6

    The $160 Athlon64 3000+ also beats the $825 P43.2 EE chip
    in Business Winstone 2004.

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=6

    If you plan to run business software, and not heavy gaming,
    video editing, heavy audio or Photoshop or cad,etc. you might
    want to choose an Athlon XP 3000+ chip instead? It might
    be around $100 less than the Athlon 64 3000+ when motherboard
    plus cpu prices are considered. Those who run games, Photoshop,
    video editing and business software will want an Athlon 64.

    Minnie Bannister wrote:

    > But what about for work rather than for gaming?
    >
    > MB
    >
    > On 08/08/04 01:29 am JK put fingers to keyboard and launched the
    > following message into cyberspace:
    >
    > > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Moderately Confused" <moderatelyconfused@Y@hoo.com> wrote in message
    news:-PWdnVJ4CpoCwIvcRVn-uw@comcast.com...
    >
    > "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
    > news:4115BA21.2AFBDD0F@netscape.net...
    > >
    > > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7
    >
    > Yes it does, but up the resolution, and it's performance is only slightly
    > better, by an amount which wouldn't be noticeable anyway. If you look at
    > the 2.8C, almost the same price as the Athlon64 3000+, when the screen
    > resolution is changed, almost no difference is made. So it may not be the
    > fastest, but it can hang in there. I'm begining to think that you are
    some
    > kind of spam whore for Anandtech....
    >
    > MC
    >

    Really ? I thought he was a fanboy troll for AMD. This group has been free
    of them for a long time now. I guess AMD is doing well and hiring again.

    PWY
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "PWY" <pyork22@*mail.com> wrote in message
    news:4qARc.244707$2o2.14164216@twister.southeast.rr.com...
    >
    > "Moderately Confused" <moderatelyconfused@Y@hoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:-PWdnVJ4CpoCwIvcRVn-uw@comcast.com...
    > >
    > > "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
    > > news:4115BA21.2AFBDD0F@netscape.net...
    > > >
    > > > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7
    > >
    > > Yes it does, but up the resolution, and it's performance is only
    slightly
    > > better, by an amount which wouldn't be noticeable anyway. If you look
    at
    > > the 2.8C, almost the same price as the Athlon64 3000+, when the screen
    > > resolution is changed, almost no difference is made. So it may not be
    the
    > > fastest, but it can hang in there. I'm begining to think that you are
    > some
    > > kind of spam whore for Anandtech....
    > >
    > > MC
    > >
    >
    > Really ? I thought he was a fanboy troll for AMD. This group has been
    free
    > of them for a long time now. I guess AMD is doing well and hiring again.
    >
    > PWY

    I think I said that in another thread :-) All he does is suggest AMD....

    MC
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "PWY" <pyork22@*mail.com> said:

    > Really ? I thought he was a fanboy troll for AMD.

    JK is the eqivalent of the 'Wendy's Guy'.
    --
    Mac Cool
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt (More info?)

    On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 14:43:58 -0400, Minnie Bannister
    <GoonButNotForgotten@NottheBBC.org> wrote:

    >But what about for work rather than for gaming?
    >
    >MB

    Anyone who bought an Intel after the P3 bought junk.

    Thank GOD for AMD.
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware,alt.computer,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.sys.intel (More info?)

    When running only office, check out those via epia boards...

    They are fast enough for that and they are cool (not hot, but cool). That
    good on very hot days :)

    Ow did I mention your power bill yet?

    - Joris

    "Minnie Bannister" <GoonButNotForgotten@NottheBBC.org> wrote in message
    news:10hct3dt32mr224@corp.supernews.com...
    > But what about for work rather than for gaming?
    >
    > MB
    >
    >
    > On 08/08/04 01:29 am JK put fingers to keyboard and launched the
    > following message into cyberspace:
    >
    > > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=7
Ask a new question

Read More

Homebuilt Hardware Computer Intel Systems