Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

utterly confused about processor performance

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 30, 2005 2:52:09 PM

Hi,

I'm trying to pick whether to go with a P4 630 Model (3Ghz, 2MB Cache) or an AMD 64 3.2GHz model to go in my new PC. Pricewise, I actually pay slightly more for the AMD because I can get a discount on Intel-based machines through work.

What's confusing me is that having gone through a number of reviews (including the buyers guide) I don't know which is the better performer. The PC will be used mainly for multimedia editing and gaming. The TG guide suggests that P4 is the best bet for this, giving excellent multimedia performance and decent game clout, but elsewhere I've seen a number of reviews suggesting that the AMD processors have a really big edge in gaming performance.

Which is right?

Cheers,
Matt
a b à CPUs
November 30, 2005 3:19:39 PM

The AMD has a significant gaming performance advantage. The CPU charts on THG are skewed towards Intel. Intel used to have decent advantage with encoding/decoding, but AMD has basically negated that advantage recently.
November 30, 2005 4:02:09 PM

Performance wise, both CPU would do good with the AMD doing better in game.

But, right now, even if the newer core did fix some of the excessive heating problem on Intel CPU, those remain hot and power ungry processor.

Best bet right now, for a stable and trouble free computer is to go with the cooler AMD.
Related resources
November 30, 2005 4:17:39 PM

Yep. It's hard to actually promote Intel right now. The procs are just so darn hot and power hungry. Granted, AMD's are getting up there too, just not quite as far. It's really going back to the drawing board like Yonah that's going to save people from power hungry CPUs. I mean unless computer cases start coming with watercooling built in standard anyway...
December 2, 2005 11:50:18 AM

Just to inform you, the AMD64 3200+ doesn't run at 3.2Ghz - It runs at 2.0Ghz (Assuming it is a skt939). The AMD is faster, but don't be suprised when you see it runs at 2.0Ghz 8)
December 2, 2005 7:36:29 PM

Quote:
Just to inform you, the AMD64 3200+ doesn't run at 3.2Ghz - It runs at 2.0Ghz (Assuming it is a skt939). The AMD is faster, but don't be suprised when you see it runs at 2.0Ghz 8)


Which is why you should go with AMD because it can keep up with Intel at quite lower speeds.

But seriously, the AMD64 is what i would go with. I haven't exactly heard anything bad about either, but doesn't the P4 run at (a maximum of) 32 bit?

If thats the case, the AMD has the advantage because if any kind of big 64 bit software comes out that drastically improves performace, you won't be totally left in the dust :) 
December 2, 2005 7:41:35 PM

The new single and dual core Intel chips run 64-bit code...
December 2, 2005 8:19:33 PM

Ah, well then, you can't really go wrong with either CPU i guess. They will both be fast and both should be pretty stable...
December 2, 2005 8:48:42 PM

I run windows 64 Pro and it runs great. On my amd 64 3000+
December 2, 2005 11:43:51 PM

Yep, aside from performance for price, where each CPU has their own area of excellence, the only big issue is that Intel needs extra care for cooling.

Mike.
!