Athlon 64 vs Pentium 4

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

This has probably been talked about before here...

I'm building a new system...the goal is to avoid building a new system
for the longest possible time. It's come down to getting an AMD Athlon
64 3200+ with 1MB cache, or a Pentium 4 (Prescott) 3.0 GHZ with 1MB
cache.

In my research I've found that a prescott will beat the Athlon in most
benches. The prescott also seems attractive because it can be
overclocked to 4 GHZ (!).

But is the future of operating systems 64-bit? Or is it going to be
years before windows will be 64 bit in the mainstream?

So in other words, is 64-bit silly, and should I just go for the
speed?
36 answers Last reply
More about athlon pentium
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    man wrote:

    > This has probably been talked about before here...
    >
    > I'm building a new system...the goal is to avoid building a new system
    > for the longest possible time. It's come down to getting an AMD Athlon
    > 64 3200+ with 1MB cache, or a Pentium 4 (Prescott) 3.0 GHZ with 1MB
    > cache.
    >
    > In my research I've found that a prescott will beat the Athlon in most
    > benches.

    That is not true. The Athlon 64 3200+ will beat the P4 3ghz Prescott
    in most benchmarks.

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=1

    > The prescott also seems attractive because it can be
    > overclocked to 4 GHZ (!).

    Overclocking is not recommended if you want a stable system. Overclocking
    also tends to reduce the life of the processor, and might require expensive
    water cooling to overclock by large margin.

    >
    >
    > But is the future of operating systems 64-bit?

    Yes.

    > Or is it going to be
    > years before windows will be 64 bit in the mainstream?

    Years? It will probably be released in early to mid 2005.
    64 bit Linux is available now.

    >
    >
    > So in other words, is 64-bit silly, and should I just go for the
    > speed?

    The Athlon 64 has the speed in both 32 bit and 64 bit.
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    >
    > That is not true. The Athlon 64 3200+ will beat the P4 3ghz Prescott
    > in most benchmarks.
    >
    > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=1
    >

    Don't listen to this guy. He spouts a few benchmarks and ignores all the
    contradicting benchmarks. Plus he seems very determined to bash Intel for
    some odd reason. The truth is, those two processors are pretty well
    matched, performance wise. You won't need 64 bit hardware for a few years
    yet. Either processor would work great, but don't believe anyone who tells
    you that the Athlon 64 will beat the P4 in most benchmarks. That's like
    taking (car A tops out at 210 MPH on most tracks while car B can only do 205
    on most of them, but will do 230 on some of them) and interpreting that as
    (car A is faster on most tracks). It is a gross exaggeration. Anyone with
    half a brain will be happy with either of them. -Dave
  3. Archived from groups: comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    but would you want a first gen 64bit system? First gens are usually
    expensive and bad when you look back and compare them to the 2nd or 3rd
    generations.

    "man" <rotto@ucla.edu> wrote in message
    news:9d527db9.0408101727.4282e2e7@posting.google.com...
    > This has probably been talked about before here...
    >
    > I'm building a new system...the goal is to avoid building a new system
    > for the longest possible time. It's come down to getting an AMD Athlon
    > 64 3200+ with 1MB cache, or a Pentium 4 (Prescott) 3.0 GHZ with 1MB
    > cache.
    >
    > In my research I've found that a prescott will beat the Athlon in most
    > benches. The prescott also seems attractive because it can be
    > overclocked to 4 GHZ (!).
    >
    > But is the future of operating systems 64-bit? Or is it going to be
    > years before windows will be 64 bit in the mainstream?
    >
    > So in other words, is 64-bit silly, and should I just go for the
    > speed?
  4. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    The first generation Athlon 64 chips were out in early '03.

    Monster wrote:

    > but would you want a first gen 64bit system? First gens are usually
    > expensive and bad when you look back and compare them to the 2nd or 3rd
    > generations.
    >
    > "man" <rotto@ucla.edu> wrote in message
    > news:9d527db9.0408101727.4282e2e7@posting.google.com...
    > > This has probably been talked about before here...
    > >
    > > I'm building a new system...the goal is to avoid building a new system
    > > for the longest possible time. It's come down to getting an AMD Athlon
    > > 64 3200+ with 1MB cache, or a Pentium 4 (Prescott) 3.0 GHZ with 1MB
    > > cache.
    > >
    > > In my research I've found that a prescott will beat the Athlon in most
    > > benches. The prescott also seems attractive because it can be
    > > overclocked to 4 GHZ (!).
    > >
    > > But is the future of operating systems 64-bit? Or is it going to be
    > > years before windows will be 64 bit in the mainstream?
    > >
    > > So in other words, is 64-bit silly, and should I just go for the
    > > speed?
  5. Archived from groups: comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    I'm running the AMD64 3200 and am quite pleased with it. The system performs
    well and is stable. It is somewhat "future proofed", in that it is capable
    of running the 64 bit OS (though I chose not to install the Beta version).
    Most major hardware manufactures have 64 bit drivers available now. Prices
    have already dropped considerably on the 754 pin 64's.

    The 64's do seem to be very demanding of RAM, and quite a lot of the stuff
    that is out there doesn't do well even though the manufacturer's rating says
    otherwise. If you go with the AMD, get high quality RAM, and a lot of it-
    the 64 will make use of it ( 1 GB Mushkin Level 1 PC3500, and I've seen the
    system using over 850 MB's).

    I'm an AMD fan, but between the two processors your comparing, your not
    going to "see" any performance difference...you can't blink fast enough. For
    the 8 bucks difference in price (M-Wave), pick the one you want- you won't
    be disappointed in either.

    Fitz
  6. Archived from groups: comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    >
    > I'm an AMD fan, but between the two processors your comparing, your not
    > going to "see" any performance difference...you can't blink fast enough.
    For
    > the 8 bucks difference in price (M-Wave), pick the one you want- you won't
    > be disappointed in either.
    >
    > Fitz
    >
    >

    Finally a voice of reason. -Dave
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 00:17:10 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net>
    wrote:

    >
    >
    >kony wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 22:18:12 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >> >Overclocking is not recommended if you want a stable system.
    >>
    >> Nonsense
    >> There are instable o'c systems but instable non-o'c systems too.
    >>
    >> If someone is ignorant of how to o'c, then of course they
    >> shouldn't... same goes for driving a car but it's not an argument
    >> against someone else driving a car.
    >
    >It is an argument for not driving a car above the speed limit. Keeping
    >with the specs. adds to safety and avoids problems. There are
    >speed limits for a reason, and processors have rated speeds
    >for a reason. As you go further outside the specifications, you
    >increase the risk for problems.


    Almost everyone DOES drive above speed limit, at least on THIS
    planet. It may increase risk for problems IF the specifics of
    the o'c aren't considered, how they effect system. "Safety" is
    random nonsense, life is inherantly unsafe and there's nothing
    particular to overclocked CPU that's unsafe, if done correctly.


    In other words, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with
    overclocking, rather that someone should known what they're doing
    if they start making *any* kind of hardware configuration
    changes.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    For crying out loud Kony get a life. JK just mention the points to the
    user. Those are the facts. If you still want to over clock you CPU by all
    mean do it.

    Of course there are system that are unstable without over clock but that the
    exception not the norm.
    You can certainly drive you cpu until it crash and burn, it's your money.
    The fact that overclock will reduce CPU life remains. Whether that life is
    within the next upgrade is not the point. Info were given so that
    individual can make decision. No one said don't do it.

    Just because you muck around with the damm PC does not mean you know
    everything about it. Get a life.


    "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
    news:or7jh0t2i328jpjutdfinsfdsk6mkh2ueg@4ax.com...
    > On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 00:17:10 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >
    > >
    > >kony wrote:
    > >
    > >> On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 22:18:12 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net>
    > >> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >Overclocking is not recommended if you want a stable system.
    > >>
    > >> Nonsense
    > >> There are instable o'c systems but instable non-o'c systems too.
    > >>
    > >> If someone is ignorant of how to o'c, then of course they
    > >> shouldn't... same goes for driving a car but it's not an argument
    > >> against someone else driving a car.
    > >
    > >It is an argument for not driving a car above the speed limit. Keeping
    > >with the specs. adds to safety and avoids problems. There are
    > >speed limits for a reason, and processors have rated speeds
    > >for a reason. As you go further outside the specifications, you
    > >increase the risk for problems.
    >
    >
    > Almost everyone DOES drive above speed limit, at least on THIS
    > planet. It may increase risk for problems IF the specifics of
    > the o'c aren't considered, how they effect system. "Safety" is
    > random nonsense, life is inherantly unsafe and there's nothing
    > particular to overclocked CPU that's unsafe, if done correctly.
    >
    >
    > In other words, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with
    > overclocking, rather that someone should known what they're doing
    > if they start making *any* kind of hardware configuration
    > changes.
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    JK wrote:
    > kony wrote:
    >> JK <JK9821@netscape.net> > wrote:
    >>
    >> >Overclocking is not recommended if you want a stable system.
    >>
    >> Nonsense
    >> There are instable o'c systems but instable non-o'c systems too.
    >>
    >> If someone is ignorant of how to o'c, then of course they
    >> shouldn't... same goes for driving a car but it's not an
    >> argument against someone else driving a car.
    >
    > It is an argument for not driving a car above the speed limit.
    > Keeping with the specs. adds to safety and avoids problems.
    > There are speed limits for a reason, and processors have rated
    > speeds for a reason. As you go further outside the
    > specifications, you increase the risk for problems.

    It is also desirable to not o'c because it gives you someone to
    yell at when things don't work. It also produces that extra
    margin of safety that protects your data.

    --
    "Churchill and Bush can both be considered wartime leaders, just
    as Secretariat and Mr Ed were both horses." - James Rhodes.
    "A man who is right every time is not likely to do very much."
    - Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Hi,

    I had a look at those benchmarks and it seems as soon as you put the
    resolution up the Athlon 64s drop nearly 20fps while the Intel ones seem
    to drop a much smaller amount.

    This seems to indicate that the Athlon 64s don't perform very well when
    you put them under any real pressure.

    -Steve
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Stephen Gordon wrote:

    > Hi,
    >
    > I had a look at those benchmarks and it seems as soon as you put the
    > resolution up the Athlon 64s drop nearly 20fps while the Intel ones seem
    > to drop a much smaller amount.
    >
    > This seems to indicate that the Athlon 64s don't perform very well when
    > you put them under any real pressure.

    Your interpretation is wrong. The large drop for the Athlon 64 when the
    resolution is raised means that the video card is the bottleneck,
    and is holding back the cpu from achieving its potential. For
    the cpus where there is a small change, it means the cpu is the
    bottleneck, and is holding back the video card.

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=1

    >
    >
    > -Steve
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    JK wrote:
    >
    > Your interpretation is wrong. The large drop for the Athlon 64 when the
    > resolution is raised means that the video card is the bottleneck,
    > and is holding back the cpu from achieving its potential. For
    > the cpus where there is a small change, it means the cpu is the
    > bottleneck, and is holding back the video card.
    >
    > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=1
    >

    If there is no graphics card available that can keep pace with the CPU
    then what is the point of wasting all that money.

    -Steve
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Stephen Gordon wrote:

    > JK wrote:
    > >
    > > Your interpretation is wrong. The large drop for the Athlon 64 when the
    > > resolution is raised means that the video card is the bottleneck,
    > > and is holding back the cpu from achieving its potential. For
    > > the cpus where there is a small change, it means the cpu is the
    > > bottleneck, and is holding back the video card.
    > >
    > > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=1
    > >
    >
    > If there is no graphics card available that can keep pace with the CPU
    > then what is the point of wasting all that money.

    The point is to have the video card do all it is capable of.
    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=8

    >
    >
    > -Steve
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    My CPU is only mildly o/c'ed, I only look at soft porn, and I don't have any
    trojans.

    Fitz

    sorry- couldn't resist
  15. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:17:31 -0500, "noone" <noone@nospam.com>
    wrote:

    >For crying out loud Kony get a life. JK just mention the points to the
    >user. Those are the facts. If you still want to over clock you CPU by all
    >mean do it.

    Not the facts, more of his biased marketing spiel towards
    consumers sending AMD a boatload of cash for their high-end part
    at the moment. Perhaps you have not witnessed or realized his
    promotion of AMD, and only AMD, hundreds of times if not more
    only considering the "Jeffrey Karp" handle alone?

    JK ~ Jeffrey Karp

    http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Jeffrey+Karp+buy+AMD

    >
    >Of course there are system that are unstable without over clock but that the
    >exception not the norm.
    >You can certainly drive you cpu until it crash and burn, it's your money.
    >The fact that overclock will reduce CPU life remains. Whether that life is
    >within the next upgrade is not the point. Info were given so that
    >individual can make decision. No one said don't do it.

    It certainly IS the point. When system is retired before CPU
    dies, who cares when it would've died? To put things in
    perspective, those Celeron 300 I menitoned previously are already
    8 years old, and still run fine... how many years do you expect
    to get from them? Since CPU lifespan reduction is known, like
    other variables it can be considered when overclocking, which was
    the point all along, that overclocking when you are aware of the
    impact is not an unsafe thing.... according to theory that CPU
    will die, also it would die anyway eventually. Likewise it would
    die sooner if using low-end OEM heatsink instead of better 'sink
    that keeps it cooler, yet OEM still chooses cheaper heatsink.


    >
    >Just because you muck around with the damm PC does not mean you know
    >everything about it. Get a life.

    Do you always try to stoop so low when you don't have an
    argument? I doubt anyone would take you seriously if that is the
    case.

    Perhaps it's just ego, that you personally aren't good at
    overclocking and instead of just accepting it or becoming more
    educated, you prefer to assume it MUST be problematic? It is a
    choice, not a mandate to do so... your choices need not be same
    as anyone elses but get over yourself if you feel everyone should
    make same choice as you.
  16. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Well, to tell you the truth. I am a computer engineer and mainly deal with
    asic. These memory timing is just greek to me. All my computers never OC.
    Never seem to needed being the peripheral is the bottle neck. LOL. If life
    were just as simple as turn up the clock and you get great result ........

    Read all the bench marks if you like but the result are always subjective.
    beside the CPU the platform are never the same motherboard etc. So being
    so inform and astute as you are how can you slam a person when they trying
    to express their opinion.

    So what if he pro AMD do you not have a mind to reject it? Info were
    given to you to process who to say that you have to accept it. What make
    you think that you are right and that he is wrong or vice versa?


    "kony" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
    news:sgpkh0tsr5kadknebs5fh0knke1nh3ripe@4ax.com...
    > On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:17:31 -0500, "noone" <noone@nospam.com>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >For crying out loud Kony get a life. JK just mention the points to the
    > >user. Those are the facts. If you still want to over clock you CPU by
    all
    > >mean do it.
    >
    > Not the facts, more of his biased marketing spiel towards
    > consumers sending AMD a boatload of cash for their high-end part
    > at the moment. Perhaps you have not witnessed or realized his
    > promotion of AMD, and only AMD, hundreds of times if not more
    > only considering the "Jeffrey Karp" handle alone?
    >
    > JK ~ Jeffrey Karp
    >
    > http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Jeffrey+Karp+buy+AMD
    >
    > >
    > >Of course there are system that are unstable without over clock but that
    the
    > >exception not the norm.
    > >You can certainly drive you cpu until it crash and burn, it's your money.
    > >The fact that overclock will reduce CPU life remains. Whether that life
    is
    > >within the next upgrade is not the point. Info were given so that
    > >individual can make decision. No one said don't do it.
    >
    > It certainly IS the point. When system is retired before CPU
    > dies, who cares when it would've died? To put things in
    > perspective, those Celeron 300 I menitoned previously are already
    > 8 years old, and still run fine... how many years do you expect
    > to get from them? Since CPU lifespan reduction is known, like
    > other variables it can be considered when overclocking, which was
    > the point all along, that overclocking when you are aware of the
    > impact is not an unsafe thing.... according to theory that CPU
    > will die, also it would die anyway eventually. Likewise it would
    > die sooner if using low-end OEM heatsink instead of better 'sink
    > that keeps it cooler, yet OEM still chooses cheaper heatsink.
    >
    >
    > >
    > >Just because you muck around with the damm PC does not mean you know
    > >everything about it. Get a life.
    >
    > Do you always try to stoop so low when you don't have an
    > argument? I doubt anyone would take you seriously if that is the
    > case.
    >
    > Perhaps it's just ego, that you personally aren't good at
    > overclocking and instead of just accepting it or becoming more
    > educated, you prefer to assume it MUST be problematic? It is a
    > choice, not a mandate to do so... your choices need not be same
    > as anyone elses but get over yourself if you feel everyone should
    > make same choice as you.
  17. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 11:50:42 GMT, CBFalconer
    <cbfalconer@yahoo.com> wrote:


    >
    >It is also desirable to not o'c because it gives you someone to
    >yell at when things don't work. It also produces that extra
    >margin of safety that protects your data.

    You're right that a non-o'c system can provide more of a margin,
    and yet typical user is not aggressively testing stability of
    their non-o'c system so they have no idea if data is protected.
    You also witness lack of support for ECC memory for the same
    reason, that a user will assume something without testing it.
    Going the opposite way, a system could have even larger margin
    for error if it were underclocked, yet we see none underclocked
    for this reason.

    With any o'c, testing is mandatory. Risk must be assessed,
    system qualified for it's intended purpose.
  18. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
    news:411981E4.D990CC96@netscape.net...
    >
    >
    > man wrote:
    >
    > > This has probably been talked about before here...
    > >
    > > I'm building a new system...the goal is to avoid building a new system
    > > for the longest possible time. It's come down to getting an AMD Athlon
    > > 64 3200+ with 1MB cache, or a Pentium 4 (Prescott) 3.0 GHZ with 1MB
    > > cache.
    > >
    > > In my research I've found that a prescott will beat the Athlon in most
    > > benches.
    >
    > That is not true. The Athlon 64 3200+ will beat the P4 3ghz Prescott
    > in most benchmarks.
    >
    > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=1

    Stop comparing apples to oranges. You can't compare a 64 bit processor to a
    32 bit processor. It's like comparing the gas mileage in an electric hybrid
    car and a regular combustion engine. When Intel comes out with their own 64
    bit processor, than you can start with the whole benchmark thing.

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

    "Stephen Gordon" <s4054252@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
    news:cfc8rh$mb7$1@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
    > Hi,
    >
    > I had a look at those benchmarks and it seems as soon as you put the
    > resolution up the Athlon 64s drop nearly 20fps while the Intel ones seem
    > to drop a much smaller amount.
    >
    > This seems to indicate that the Athlon 64s don't perform very well when
    > you put them under any real pressure.
    >
    > -Steve

    Bingo, I said that in another post. He ended up disputing something else I
    said...

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

    > Not the facts, more of his biased marketing spiel towards
    > consumers sending AMD a boatload of cash for their high-end part
    > at the moment. Perhaps you have not witnessed or realized his
    > promotion of AMD, and only AMD, hundreds of times if not more
    > only considering the "Jeffrey Karp" handle alone?
    >
    > JK ~ Jeffrey Karp
    >
    > http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Jeffrey+Karp+buy+AMD

    Hehe. I was going to say something about it. I see JK post in several
    groups which I read and post in. I don't think I've seen a post yet where
    he fails to place a link to a CPU benchmark site and tout AMD.
  21. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Moderately Confused wrote:

    > "JK" <JK9821@netscape.net> wrote in message
    > news:411981E4.D990CC96@netscape.net...
    > >
    > >
    > > man wrote:
    > >
    > > > This has probably been talked about before here...
    > > >
    > > > I'm building a new system...the goal is to avoid building a new system
    > > > for the longest possible time. It's come down to getting an AMD Athlon
    > > > 64 3200+ with 1MB cache, or a Pentium 4 (Prescott) 3.0 GHZ with 1MB
    > > > cache.
    > > >
    > > > In my research I've found that a prescott will beat the Athlon in most
    > > > benches.
    > >
    > > That is not true. The Athlon 64 3200+ will beat the P4 3ghz Prescott
    > > in most benchmarks.
    > >
    > > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=1
    >
    > Stop comparing apples to oranges. You can't compare a 64 bit processor to a
    > 32 bit processor.

    Of course you can, provided you are running the same 32 bit OS and 32 bit
    software in each. Of course the Athlon 64 will probably be much faster
    in its 64 bit mode with 64 bit software and a 64 bit OS than with 32 bit
    software and a 32 bit OS. It is very reasonable to compare a P4 3ghz
    Prescott to an Athlon 64 3200+, since they are very close in price.

    > It's like comparing the gas mileage in an electric hybrid
    > car and a regular combustion engine. When Intel comes out with their own 64
    > bit processor, than you can start with the whole benchmark thing.

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

    "Moderately Confused" <moderatelyconfused@Y@hoo.com> wrote...
    >
    > Stop comparing apples to oranges. You can't compare a 64 bit processor to
    a
    > 32 bit processor. It's like comparing the gas mileage in an electric
    hybrid
    > car and a regular combustion engine.

    Actually, it is fair to compare the Athlon 64 to the Pentium 4 when both are
    marketed to the Win32 market as the 'latest' in high-performance processors
    for home use.

    Also, the OP cited 2 similarly priced variants.

    Also, why can't you compare gas mileage in the Civic gas to the Civic
    hybrid, or any other comparable car?
  23. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "John R Weiss" <jrweiss98155@.comNOSPAMcast.net> wrote in message
    news:KmySc.241247$%_6.26923@attbi_s01...
    > "Moderately Confused" <moderatelyconfused@Y@hoo.com> wrote...
    > >
    > > Stop comparing apples to oranges. You can't compare a 64 bit processor
    to
    > a
    > > 32 bit processor. It's like comparing the gas mileage in an electric
    > hybrid
    > > car and a regular combustion engine.
    >
    > Actually, it is fair to compare the Athlon 64 to the Pentium 4 when both
    are
    > marketed to the Win32 market as the 'latest' in high-performance
    processors
    > for home use.
    >
    > Also, the OP cited 2 similarly priced variants.
    >
    > Also, why can't you compare gas mileage in the Civic gas to the Civic
    > hybrid, or any other comparable car?

    Ok, maybe that was a bad example, but why compare something that shouldn't
    be compared that way? Of course 64 bit is going to be better than 32 bit.
    Maybe it's like comparing a screwdriver to a cordless drill?

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

    Moderately Confused wrote:

    > "John R Weiss" <jrweiss98155@.comNOSPAMcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:KmySc.241247$%_6.26923@attbi_s01...
    > > "Moderately Confused" <moderatelyconfused@Y@hoo.com> wrote...
    > > >
    > > > Stop comparing apples to oranges. You can't compare a 64 bit processor
    > to
    > > a
    > > > 32 bit processor. It's like comparing the gas mileage in an electric
    > > hybrid
    > > > car and a regular combustion engine.
    > >
    > > Actually, it is fair to compare the Athlon 64 to the Pentium 4 when both
    > are
    > > marketed to the Win32 market as the 'latest' in high-performance
    > processors
    > > for home use.
    > >
    > > Also, the OP cited 2 similarly priced variants.
    > >
    > > Also, why can't you compare gas mileage in the Civic gas to the Civic
    > > hybrid, or any other comparable car?
    >
    > Ok, maybe that was a bad example, but why compare something that shouldn't
    > be compared that way? Of course 64 bit is going to be better than 32 bit.

    The benchmarks in the article are done with 32 bit software and a 32 bit OS.
    It isn't necessarily the case that a cpu that has a 64 bit mode will outperform
    comparably priced 32 bit processors running 32 bit software. For the Athlon 64
    it happens to be true though.

    >
    > Maybe it's like comparing a screwdriver to a cordless drill?

    Not quite. Think of the Athlon 64 chips as being like a car that is
    a convertible that can be used with the top up or the top down.
    The Athlon 64 has two modes, 32 bit or 64 bit. The 64 bit mode
    is with the use of a 64 bit OS, while the 32 bit mode is with a
    32 bit OS. In the 32 bit mode, only 32 bit software can be run.
    In the 64 bit mode, 64 bit or 32 bit software or both side
    by side can be run.

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

    On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 19:17:28 -0400, "Moderately Confused"
    <moderatelyconfused@Y@hoo.com> wrote:

    >
    >"Stephen Gordon" <s4054252@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
    >news:cfc8rh$mb7$1@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
    >> Hi,
    >>
    >> I had a look at those benchmarks and it seems as soon as you put the
    >> resolution up the Athlon 64s drop nearly 20fps while the Intel ones seem
    >> to drop a much smaller amount.
    >>
    >> This seems to indicate that the Athlon 64s don't perform very well when
    >> you put them under any real pressure.
    >>
    >> -Steve
    >
    >Bingo, I said that in another post. He ended up disputing something else I
    >said...


    AS much as I hate to agree with JK, it is true that this is an
    indication of video card bottlenecks, not CPU performance.
  26. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 19:14:23 -0400, "Moderately Confused"
    <moderatelyconfused@Y@hoo.com> wrote:


    >> http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=1
    >
    >Stop comparing apples to oranges. You can't compare a 64 bit processor to a
    >32 bit processor. It's like comparing the gas mileage in an electric hybrid
    >car and a regular combustion engine. When Intel comes out with their own 64
    >bit processor, than you can start with the whole benchmark thing.

    Reread the linked article, 64 bit is irrelevant as it wasn't
    doing anything 64 bit. It is true that eventually Intel will
    also have higher performance CPUs, but then so will AMD... world
    keeps spinning...
  27. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    > be compared that way? Of course 64 bit is going to be better than 32 bit.

    For what? -Dave
  28. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "~misfit~" <misfit61nz@yahoo-mung.co.nz> wrote in message
    news:IJySc.12148$N77.533897@news.xtra.co.nz...
    > JK wrote:
    > > kony wrote:
    > >
    > >> On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 22:18:12 -0400, JK <JK9821@netscape.net>
    > >> wrote:
    > >>
    > >>> Overclocking is not recommended if you want a stable system.
    > >>
    > >> Nonsense
    > >> There are instable o'c systems but instable non-o'c systems too.
    > >>
    > >> If someone is ignorant of how to o'c, then of course they
    > >> shouldn't... same goes for driving a car but it's not an argument
    > >> against someone else driving a car.
    > >
    > > It is an argument for not driving a car above the speed limit.
    >
    > Your analogy is flawed. OCing a CPU, if being compared to a car, isn't
    like
    > breaking the speed limit, it's like hotting it up. You know, big bore
    > exhaust, high compression heads, Nox (NO2) kit, increase bore/stroke,
    > turbocharging, balance the crankshaft/pistons/con rods. That sort of
    thing.

    No. OCing a CPU is like taking a STOCK car and never running the engine
    BELOW redline. You are doing something with the car that it was not
    designed to do. And yes, it will be fast, until the engine and all other
    mechanical components give out on you. THAT is what OCing a CPU is,
    exactly. -Dave
  29. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    <BIG SNIP>
    Lol dude I just bought a P4 2.8E. I could have forked out the extra cash
    for the 3.2, the only difference? They are actually the same EXACT
    processor die. The only difference is that when they are manufactured at
    the factory, whatever part of the CPU that does the reporting to the board
    is different so it reports it to set as a 3.2. So OC'ing a 2.8e to a 3.2 is
    actually only setting the chip to what it was originally set to do in the
    first place! I don't have to up my core voltage, just my FSB settings.
    Funny how that works huh? Like my video card as well, an ATI X800 Pro ViVO
    Sapphire. It is actually the same chip that is in the X800XT, they just
    didn't connect the extra 4 pipelines. They are there, they just didn't
    connect them in the manufacturering process. So I get the card, pop off the
    Heatsink, using a conductive pen I connect the extra 4 pipelinesand
    suddenly, BAM I have gone from a X800 Pro to an X800XT. 12 pipelines to 16.
    Running at what the chip WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED TO DO! Most lower end
    hardware these days is just higher end hardware that has not had the "extra"
    stuff that makes it so, connected. So OC'ing my stuff actually on got it to
    run at what it was originally designed for. Funny how that works isn't it?

    -Chris
  30. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 04:40:11 -0400, "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net>
    wrote:


    >> Your analogy is flawed. OCing a CPU, if being compared to a car, isn't
    >like
    >> breaking the speed limit, it's like hotting it up. You know, big bore
    >> exhaust, high compression heads, Nox (NO2) kit, increase bore/stroke,
    >> turbocharging, balance the crankshaft/pistons/con rods. That sort of
    >thing.
    >
    >No. OCing a CPU is like taking a STOCK car and never running the engine
    >BELOW redline.


    Who said anything about running it THAT far at the borderline?
    Sure if you're a masochist you can destroy anything, but it would
    have to either be a goal or be done quite recklessly, just like
    anything else.

    It is more similar to a german shipping over a Corvette for
    driving on the autobahn, then finding there is a governor
    restricting it to 80MPH, so they alter the artifical limiter to
    reach it's full potential.

    >You are doing something with the car that it was not
    >designed to do.

    >And yes, it will be fast, until the engine and all other
    >mechanical components give out on you. THAT is what OCing a CPU is,
    >exactly. -Dave

    Grand theory, but where are those stacks of dead CPUs?
    There MUST be stacks and stacks of 'em, because quite a few
    people o'c and have CPU that've ran that way for years. How many
    years should we wait to see if the CPU died? In a previous post
    I mentioned an example of Celeron 300 o'c to 450... those are
    about 8 years old now, do we need to get 10-20 years out of a
    Celeron 300? Possibly on a space station that would be
    important, but back on the mother planet that Celeron 300 is not
    going to die before the motherboard, power supply, video card,
    etc, to the extent that odds are very high the rest of the system
    will be dead before CPU died, so it was abandoned due to no
    platform to run it. Running a celeron @ 450 can't be argued as a
    significant cause of motherboard or power supply failure since it
    wasn't as much of power or heat problem as it's predecessors
    running at stock speed on same platform(s).
  31. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    kony wrote:

    > On Thu, 12 Aug 2004 04:40:11 -0400, "Dave C." <mdupre@sff.net>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >>>Your analogy is flawed. OCing a CPU, if being compared to a car, isn't
    >>
    >>like
    >>
    >>>breaking the speed limit, it's like hotting it up. You know, big bore
    >>>exhaust, high compression heads, Nox (NO2) kit, increase bore/stroke,
    >>>turbocharging, balance the crankshaft/pistons/con rods. That sort of
    >>
    >>thing.
    >>
    >>No. OCing a CPU is like taking a STOCK car and never running the engine
    >>BELOW redline.
    >
    >
    >
    > Who said anything about running it THAT far at the borderline?
    > Sure if you're a masochist you can destroy anything, but it would
    > have to either be a goal or be done quite recklessly, just like
    > anything else.
    >
    > It is more similar to a german shipping over a Corvette for
    > driving on the autobahn, then finding there is a governor
    > restricting it to 80MPH, so they alter the artifical limiter to
    > reach it's full potential.
    >
    >
    >>You are doing something with the car that it was not
    >>designed to do.
    >
    >
    >>And yes, it will be fast, until the engine and all other
    >>mechanical components give out on you. THAT is what OCing a CPU is,
    >>exactly. -Dave
    >
    >
    > Grand theory, but where are those stacks of dead CPUs?
    > There MUST be stacks and stacks of 'em, because quite a few
    > people o'c and have CPU that've ran that way for years. How many
    > years should we wait to see if the CPU died? In a previous post
    > I mentioned an example of Celeron 300 o'c to 450... those are
    > about 8 years old now, do we need to get 10-20 years out of a
    > Celeron 300? Possibly on a space station that would be
    > important, but back on the mother planet that Celeron 300 is not
    > going to die before the motherboard, power supply, video card,
    > etc, to the extent that odds are very high the rest of the system
    > will be dead before CPU died, so it was abandoned due to no
    > platform to run it. Running a celeron @ 450 can't be argued as a
    > significant cause of motherboard or power supply failure since it
    > wasn't as much of power or heat problem as it's predecessors
    > running at stock speed on same platform(s).

    Yes. My BP6, running dual 300As overclocked to 495, began life with NT4
    server but is still going strong today as my 24/7 internet/LAN server
    running Win2000.
  32. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    > > That is not true. The Athlon 64 3200+ will beat the P4 3ghz Prescott
    > > in most benchmarks.
    > >
    > > http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=1
    >
    > Stop comparing apples to oranges. You can't compare a 64 bit processor to
    a
    > 32 bit processor. It's like comparing the gas mileage in an electric
    hybrid
    > car and a regular combustion engine. When Intel comes out with their own
    64
    > bit processor, than you can start with the whole benchmark thing.

    A processor is a processor... If a 64bit CPU can beat a 32bit CPU and cost
    the same as the 32bit then it's obviously better and the one to choose (as
    long as the rest of the platform doesn't drive up the price - final cost is
    the main issue)

    When comparing anything, it's price to performance that counts, regardless
    of technology. (Performance here also includes durability/quality as well).
    The biggest/fastest/etc isn't always the winner if a cheaper solution will
    still get the job done.
  33. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    > > Also, why can't you compare gas mileage in the Civic gas to the Civic
    > > hybrid, or any other comparable car?
    >
    > Ok, maybe that was a bad example, but why compare something that shouldn't
    > be compared that way? Of course 64 bit is going to be better than 32 bit.
    > Maybe it's like comparing a screwdriver to a cordless drill?

    Because they both do the same job. If the 64bit works better and costs the
    same, why would you get the 32bit?

    ....and have you ever had a cordless drill, dead battery and noplace to plug
    in? That 49 cent screwdriver is sure worth a lot more at that point!
  34. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    "Dave C." wrote:
    >
    .... snip ...
    >
    > No. OCing a CPU is like taking a STOCK car and never running the
    > engine BELOW redline. You are doing something with the car that
    > it was not designed to do. And yes, it will be fast, until the
    > engine and all other mechanical components give out on you. THAT
    > is what OCing a CPU is, exactly. -Dave

    It depends on your objectives. Mine is reliability and data
    integrity, with a loud and instantaneous complaint when any error
    occurs. For people who don't care about that, and really just
    want to play games, overclocking may be a fairly cheap way of
    improving performance. Meanwhile I recommend none of it, ECC,
    languages with strong typing and error detection, open-source
    programs, etc.

    --
    Chuck F (cbfalconer@yahoo.com) (cbfalconer@worldnet.att.net)
    Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
    <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE worldnet address!
  35. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    kony wrote:
    >
    >
    > AS much as I hate to agree with JK, it is true that this is an
    > indication of video card bottlenecks, not CPU performance.
    >

    As I;ve already pointed out elsewhere in the thread in that case what's
    the point of spending so much on a fast CPU if you can't possibly get a
    GFX card to match it?

    -Steve
  36. Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

    Stephen Gordon wrote:

    > kony wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>
    >> AS much as I hate to agree with JK, it is true that this is an
    >> indication of video card bottlenecks, not CPU performance.
    >
    >
    > As I;ve already pointed out elsewhere in the thread in that case what's
    > the point of spending so much on a fast CPU if you can't possibly get a
    > GFX card to match it?
    >
    > -Steve

    I suspect there may be uses for PCs other than playing games.
Ask a new question

Read More

Homebuilt Hardware Pentium Systems