Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (
More info?)
On Fri, 2 Apr 2004 17:22:07 +0100, "Clive" <someone@NOTHANKS.com>
wrote:
>Last time I posted I was considering upgrading from a PIII system to a P4. I
>got a real flaming saying "go for AMD - better, cheaper, etc, etc"
>
>I've always been an Intel user, but decided to go AMD - no particular
>reason. Now CPU roadmaps have always confused and bored me - to many, too
>often.
>
>So, Do I go for Athlon 64 or XP CPU's
Go for the 64.
I intend to expand a little on the answers you've already got from
others, and also go against them a little.
How much money do you intend to spend on the cpu? If you're looking
for a cpu at around $180, or higher, by all means go for the
Athlon64.
Personally, I'm an advocate of spending little money often, to have
PCs that are 'comfortable' (meaning no discernable difference relative
high end PC's) for their specific use. As opposed to spending a lot of
money once every 3-4'th year, for a machine that will be the hottest
thing for a couple of months, but then increasingly obsolete for
years.
So my general advice to anyone looking to buy a PC or upgrade now, is
to go for an AthlonXP 2800+ downwards. They're such incredible value!
They cost next to nothing, and they kick ass. Particularly on old
PII-PIII applications (that budget users tend to have a lot of, and
P4s doesn't run well), games and technical/physics/math applications.
>I will be using Windows 2000, etc. Main Heavy CPU use would come from Flight
>Simulator 2004. I already have a Radeon 9800XT card
But since I see you've spent on the videocard (which BTW, I consider a
very clever thing to do, even for a cheap cpu!) I think you might
possibly be interested in paying extra for CPU horsepower.
Consider it a case of what kind of level of cpu performance you're
prepared to pay for. Forget 64-bit issue just for a brief moment, and
just consider the 32-bit performance you want. Athlon64s are not just
64-bit cpus, they are AMDs fastest cpus.
Athlon64 are higher performing than AthlonXP, on 32-bit as well.
Athlon64 2800+ and Athlon64 3000+ are priced alongside AthlonXP 3000+
and AthlonXP 3200+. And if anything, the Athlon64s are a notch faster,
even on 32-bit code.
(A64's and AXP's "+" ratings do not seem to correspond.)
So you pay for performance, you do _not_ pay anything extra for 64-bit
capability.
I think it's appropriate to point this out, since I see you spend on
the very good videocard.
If you're (still?) upgrading from a PIII, I doubt you'll be
disappointed in a XP 2500+, and it will leave your bank account in
good condition. But if you're considering like XP3000+ and XP3200+, I
think you'd might do better considering A64 2800+ ($175) and A64 3000+
($212).
Also, another reason, for paying attention to the Athlon64, is that it
is the supreme CPU for running Flight Simulator. And, of course, we're
still speaking 32-bit mode. In particular the offensively expensive
P4EE, suggested to you by someone else here, would be a very, _POOR_
choice. If you're rolling around in money, the AthlonFX 53 is still
the one you want! Even though it's considerably cheaper. This is where
the advantage in performance should take precedence over your need to
burn money. If you desperately have to get rid of a lot of money,
spend it on things like outrageous monitors, water cooling,
restaurants, wines, satin bed sheets, Hawaiian holidays, art,
Bentley...
- Or why not a 2-way Opteron 248?
The AthlonXP range's attraction, lies primarily in that it's currently
amazingly cheap to upgrade to, or acquire, what is still a very decent
PC, with AthlonXP2800+ downwards. You can get a nice enough mobo for
like $50, and the cpu for like $60 - $80. For those looking to upgrade
an old PII-PIII, K6 - early K7, to something modern, that's a terrific
deal.
As for the 64 bit question, - I think we'll see more 64-bit, sooner
than most think. But I also agree that 32-bit bit will be alright, for
another 2 years, for most people.
ancra
qgbc.12242$Id.4901@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram