Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

what should buy Athlon 64 3000+ or Intel P4 2.8?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 17, 2005 2:37:32 AM

suggestions pls.
i am now very confused what i should buy
mind helping me about this processors.

can u give me the pros and cons..?

what does 511, 633 indicate in p4 processors? thank you.

thank you for your time reading this.
hope for clarifications

More about : buy athlon 3000 intel

December 17, 2005 5:00:51 AM

yoyo,if i would buy ill go for AMD....coz its better for gaming while u could c the intel chip scoring higher in software benchies,in games.....not
the 5xx n 6xx r intel PR (performance rating) schemes like AMDs which go like 3000++ or 4000++ which doesnt mean anythin actually....(no offence to neither AMD nor intel).they use these numbers to rate their CPUs so dat they break away from the 'old style' Mhz or Ghz ratings... :wink:
a b à CPUs
December 17, 2005 6:39:59 AM

if you are talking about a64 3000 then make sure its s939 and its not at 3GHz... its its rating in comparsion to other a64s and for gaming a64 willl kick intel's ass, while a system with a cheap intel ht will work better with multiple apps (make you somputer smoother, but performs less) it is smoother with intel if you just doing web browsing (with lots of protection on that is to utilize the advantage), a64 is good for single apps, which is games.... if you want quiet, get amd because intle's fan (prescott only though) is loud and the old northwood don't have the new techologies intel is bosting about....

but at this moment, if you want to save money or get better performance, wait awhile, because soon both intel and amd supposr to have new cpus that will bring down the prices of all the cpu there is now, and supposed to perform better than current ones...
Related resources
December 17, 2005 8:15:58 AM

holylancer:

im planing to take A64 3.0G socket 939. wat do you mean not 3Ghz?
do youn mean exactly 3Ghz? coz thats wat im planning. if comparaing it with 3.2Ghz is there a big difference.? im also taking account for the price because 3.0 cost about $146 and 3.2 $186 in our place. its quiet a big difference of price.

another thing. do you mean, AMD is not good for multitasking? wat i almost do is to download torrent files, encode movies, play games, open multiple programs.

what can u suggest for me?

from the last paragraph u have just said that if i want to save money, wait awhile. my question is how long is it until it reach my country the philippines? or how many months would it take?

thanks for your reply
December 17, 2005 8:29:27 AM

Quote:
wat do you mean not 3Ghz?
Amd uses a PR number, not a speed number. An A64 running @ 1.8 ghz will perform most tasks as quickly as an Intel chip @ 3ghz. For gaming, Amd is more like a 2ghz amd will outperform an Intel 3.4ghz.
For your multitasking, a single core chip by either maker would be fine.
Right now, Amd is king in desktop chips. You will get more performance per $. You will also get a chip that runs cooler.
December 17, 2005 9:24:24 AM

Quote:
wat do you mean not 3Ghz?
Amd uses a PR number, not a speed number.

sir, where can i see the PR number or how will i know its PR number? in stores in my area, their price list only indicate these
example:

Athlon 64 3000+ Boxed (S939)
Athlon 64 3200+ Boxed (S939)

another thing, is there a great difference between these two?

thanks you.
December 17, 2005 1:28:45 PM

Consider those markings as equivalent productivity. So when you see an AMD cpu with "PR number/name" xxxx+ and so on, you will know that is as productive as an intel cpu running physically at xxxx MHz.[subject to many discussions i know, but since you don't ask amd or intel...]
Take the one with bigger cache:) 
December 17, 2005 2:45:24 PM

Hello,

AMD uses odd naming convention and the names do not reflect the speed.

For example:

AMD 3500+ does not (I repeat does not) = 3.5 ghz
THe actual speed is 2.2 ghz

AMD 4000+ does not (I repeat does not) = 4 ghz
The actual speed is 2.4 ghz

AMD trumps intel in nearly 95% of all tests. Vist the CPU comparison guide:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_al...


P.S.: P4's come in several flavors. THe newer LGA 775 (where the pins are on the mobo). And, the older 478.
December 17, 2005 5:22:17 PM

In response to your first post, in Pentium 4 processors the 5xx series are Prescott core chips that have 1MB of L2 cache while the 6xx series have 2MB of L2 cache. The 5x1 also have 64-bit OS support, while the 6xx series always had it built in and activated. The 662 and 672 are also available and the "2" indicates VT support which always multiple OS to operate at the same time. However, VT really isn't useful for the average consumer right now.

Now the difference between the A64 3200+ and the 3000+ is that the 3000+ operates at 1.8GHz and the 3200+ operates at 2GHz. They both include 512k of L2 cache. The 3200+ does offer increased performance over the 3000+ especially under heavy load conditions, but you could just as easily get a 3000+ and overclock it if you are comfortable with that.

On the Intel front, the best value is the 630. Generally the 5xx series should be avoided as the 6xx series performs better yet costs the same and in some cases less. As well, the 6xx series features SpeedStep which downclocks the processor when not under heavy load to save energy and heat.

Now choosing between Intel and AMD depends on the applications you are running. As mentioned before, Intel's do better in media-encoding while AMD's do better in games. Now with the activities you listed, the Intel may be better due to Hyperthreading if you plan on encoding movies at the same time as you have multiple other programs activated. However, neither processor will allow you to media encode and play a high-end game properly. In single program situations or light multitasking, the A64 will be better. I generally find the 630 to be priced similar to the 3200+.

If you plan on getting an Intel and are not in a rush, you should wait until January. Intel is planning on releasing their 65nm Presler dual cores on December 27, and its likely that the 65nm Cedar Mill Pentium 4s will be launched on the same day. The Cedar Mills will be marketed as the 6x1 and are priced the same as current 6x0 processors. They would be worth the wait as they use only 79% of the power of current 6x0s and should also generate less heat.
December 17, 2005 9:47:24 PM

Quote:
wat do you mean not 3Ghz?
Amd uses a PR number, not a speed number.

sir, where can i see the PR number or how will i know its PR number? in stores in my area, their price list only indicate these
example:

Athlon 64 3000+ Boxed (S939)
Athlon 64 3200+ Boxed (S939)

another thing, is there a great difference between these two?

thanks you.

The last time AMD use MHz number for their chip was back in the old Athlon Thunderbird time.. around 1999-2000. Beginning with Athlon XP, AMD introduced PR number, because people could not believe in anything else than bigger number is better. My old Athlon 1700+ would easily beat a P4 1,7 Ghz.., while running at 1.46 Ghz. But it is not easy to sell a 1.46 CPU when 1.7 ones are available....

Intel now updated their CPU to number that don't have anything related with MHz, like the 820D. MHz is no more a measure for performance. There is so much thing that make them performing good or bad. With AMD, if you see a +, it is PR. If you carefully read on the CPU box, you'll see a small sticker that say that A64 operate at 1800MHz..

The main difference between the 3000+ and 3200+ is that the later has 200MHz more than the first.

Right now, no matter the argument you'll will red as Intel perform best at this task and AMD at that one is rather pointless, as nobody use a system that is optimized for benchmark. So, you can expect even performance or unoticable one in real life between both. The major advantage the AMD has right now is power comsumption. Higher clocked (3.0 GHz and+) while performing mostly in par with AMD 3000+ and + with tend to run hotter and consume more energy. That equal to more heat created.

I was running an AMD 3000+ oced at 2.3GHz with stock cooler and temps in the mid to top 30C. With case fans running at half speed. Running stock, it is cooler than that. If you add the heat from the HDD, DVD burner, video card to the one produced from the CPU, you'll have either a throttling CPU or a noisy computer if you want stability. Right now, this is the main advantage that AMD has.
December 17, 2005 10:34:45 PM

Quote:


AMD trumps intel in nearly 95% of all tests.


ive seen the page and ive noticed that there were listing that says:

Athlon 64 3000+ Clawhammer
Athlon 64 3000+ Winchester
Athlon 64 3000+ Venice

what does this clawhammer etc. means and HOW would i know
if the processor is a clawhammer, Venice etc.

considering with different performance means they have different price?

Quote:


the Intel may be better due to Hyperthreading if you plan on encoding movies at the same time as you have multiple other programs activated.


you have said that it MAY be better due its hyperthreading. does this
HT a big deal not to choose AMD? is there a lot of difference with performance in encoding?

Quote:


I was running an AMD 3000+ oced at 2.3GHz with stock cooler and temps in the mid to top 30C. With case fans running at half speed. Running stock, it is cooler than that. If you add the heat from the HDD, DVD burner, video card to the one produced from the CPU, you'll have either a throttling CPU or a noisy computer if you want stability. Right now, this is the main advantage that AMD has
[/
quote]

my question is, is it really safe to OC? without any gud cooling system?
especially for me that i dont turn off my computer. :)  im afraid that i may burn may cpu. can u give me tips to consider. im planning to have only a dvd writer, vcard, and 1 hard disk only.

guys, sorry that i got a lot of questions.
i am grateful that you entertained my questions.
thanks again
December 17, 2005 11:14:05 PM

Clawhammer, Winchester, and Venice are different core revisions. Clawhammer is the oldest using a 130nm process, then came Winchester on the 90nm process, and the latest is Venice with a 90nm SOI process.

Now first of all, you should avoid the Clawhammer. From what I can see, the only Clawhammer 3000+ is only available on Socket 754. It is actually a 2GHz part so its will be faster in some cases than Winchester and Venice but it is uses an older motherboard so you can't upgrade later. As well, it lacks dual channel RAM support. The 130nm part that worked on the current Socket 939 is called Newcastle. Regardless, the 130nm parts use more power and generate more heat.

The coolest part is actually Winchester. However, you should just get the Venice. It's the newest and while it runs slightly hotter than Winchester its still cooler than the Intel equivalents. As well, Venice has some optimizations that should theoretically improve its performance over Winchester. In reality the improvements aren't significant but they're still nice to have.

Now about HT. It allows 2 threads or processes to run at once using unused processor resources. This is beneficial in encoding tasks which have almost all been HT optimized by now allowing them to issue 2 threads at once. The benefit to multitasking is that threads from 2 applications can be processed at once. However, HT isn't as good as a real dual core setup as HT can only process the 2nd thread if there is spare processor capacity while a dual core will always be able to process 2 threads.

If your price range is for the A64 3000+ then you should stay with that model. Intel doesn't have a comparable part in that price range as the 2.8GHz 52x are very slow.

If you are looking for encoding performance then look at this chart.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_al...

A64 3000+ Winchester 7:19 min
A64 3000+ Venice 7:17 min
A64 3200+ Winchester 6:40 min
A64 3200+ Venice 6:38 min
P4 520 Prescott 6:26 min
P4 530 Prescott 6:04 min
P4 630 Prescott2M 5:59 min

This is for converting VOB (DVD rip) to Xvid.

However, for gaming AMD's are faster.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/11/21/the_mother_of_al...

In Wolfenstein even the A64 3000+ Winchester beats the 630.

If you mainly encode, Intel is the better option with the 630 priced similar to the 3200+. If you game, AMD is better.

Of course Pat is correct about power consumption and heat. If that is also a concern of yours, then AMD is better.

Generally overclocking is safe as modern processors all have safe guards to prevent permanent damage. However, if you are not comfortable with it and aren't planning on getting better cooling then don't bother. Just concern yourself with a better graphics card. For your tasks I recommend an ATI X1xxx series one. They are available in a variety of price ranges. While their gaming performance is good, what is most beneficial for you is their hardware accelerated video encoding support. ATI's new 5.13 driver should be available on December 22 to activate those features.
December 18, 2005 12:02:45 AM

wow this one enlighten me.

well i think ill get the amd

ive been in amd site and look at the different 3000+ processors.

ive noticed that they have different STEPPING. ex CG, DO, E6, E3
what does this indicate?

another thing sir,
how would i know if it is an venice?

thank you very much. this helps me a lot in deciding.
December 18, 2005 12:35:51 AM

Assuming you're buying it online, it should say something like "AMD Athlon 3000+" and then, somewhere on the item description, it should say Venice core.

http://www.newegg.com/ProductSort/SubCategory.asp?SubCa...

If that page doesn't just change randomly, I can see two 3000+s.

Stepping I have no clue about either. Maybe it's a revision of some sort.
December 18, 2005 12:48:06 AM

CG is Clawhammer or Newcastle.
D0 is Winchester.
E3 and E6 are Venice.

Just get the highest or latest one, in other words the E6 Venice. The E6 seems to be a minor revision that uses less Vcore allowing for better overclocking and run slightly cooler. There seems to be some memory controller improvements with RAM compatibility and stability as well.
December 18, 2005 1:13:08 AM

Quote:


my question is, is it really safe to OC? without any gud cooling system?
especially for me that i dont turn off my computer. :)  im afraid that i may burn may cpu. can u give me tips to consider. im planning to have only a dvd writer, vcard, and 1 hard disk only.

guys, sorry that i got a lot of questions.
i am grateful that you entertained my questions.
thanks again


I would say that, if you keep the speed lower than 2.3, 2.4 GHz, from a 3000+, 3200+, I guess that you should be fine with stock cooling. I never went higher than that with my Winchester and it was cool enough. Did not try my Venice yet.

HDD, DVD and video card are going to be the hottest parts of an AMD system anyway..

Quote:
ltcommander_data said:Now first of all, you should avoid the Clawhammer. From what I can see, the only Clawhammer 3000+ is only available on Socket 754. It is actually a 2GHz part so its will be faster in some cases than Winchester and Venice but it is uses an older motherboard so you can't upgrade later. As well, it lacks dual channel RAM support.


Lack of dual channel is not a big deal on AMD system. Even a single channel interface is fast enough to keep the CPU busy 95% of the time.. But marketing needs always better specs to have a product to be best selling ...
December 18, 2005 2:09:51 AM

thanks a lot guys.
im now looking in our stores for an E6 venice.
hope i could find one

for the OC'ing ill think for it when ive already bough it :) 
December 18, 2005 2:15:42 AM

Good choice.
December 18, 2005 4:08:52 AM

guys,

here i am again. and got another problem.
what mobo best suite this?
if i got a buget about $65-$100?

hope u could help thank you..
December 18, 2005 4:40:01 AM

The clawhammer core was the oldest, it has 1 meg of cache and was made on 130 nano tech. The winchester was newer, faster, but only has 512 cache. The venice is the nwest core, with improvements to the on die memory controller, which makes it the most desireable.
The big problem with HT is when you are running a main program, and a background program. Windows will think you have a second core, so will give equal cpu time to each prog. Like if you are encoding, and windows decides it's time to update. Your encoding will slow way down, because windows is installing the updates, and using ram, and the hdd. I find virus scans to be particularly annoying, while playing a game.
As far as OCing goes, since you live in the Philipines, you might want to pass on it, unless you have air conditioning.
December 18, 2005 4:51:54 AM

thank you endyen, what youve said would rily help me

well anyone could help me about the mobo?

thank you for ur time.
December 18, 2005 5:18:35 AM

This or this.
+
(i think)this or this.

(like i said, I THINK, I'm falling a sleep on my computer, so I hope I picked the right things).
December 18, 2005 10:05:06 AM

go for an 3200+ venice core with a asus a8n-e mobo this combo sure will rock
December 18, 2005 10:10:05 AM

how much does that combo cost?
December 18, 2005 10:12:59 AM

Quote:
thank you endyen, what youve said would rily help me

well anyone could help me about the mobo?

thank you for ur time.


try the mobos by asus like a8n-e if u r on a tight budget else go for SLI if u gonna game...by anycase go for an nforce4 chipset mobo preferably nforce4-ultra or nforce4-SLI
!