Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD Question...

Tags:
Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 27, 2006 8:05:10 PM

OK, what AMD CPU would be the closest match to an Intel P4 650 3.4Ghz HT?

I MAY switch over the fence to AMD, I want to see what my starting point would be...

It would mean CPU/MB/MEM change (because I have DRR2)

I use the PC for DV/DVD Capture/Editing & Web Design, but the move to AMD would pretty much be all about Half-Life :) 

More about : amd question

January 27, 2006 8:34:45 PM

IMO, Probably have to say a 939 3500 Venice core should be a about the same performance level as the intel you mentioned. And ALOT cheaper.
a c 159 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 27, 2006 8:35:17 PM

I would wait for the m2 amd cpu, so you can use your ddr2. It should be available by summer.
Related resources
January 27, 2006 11:14:34 PM

I agree, but I think the 3700+ San Diego is more comparable (if not better) to the 3.4Ghz 650. Check out the CPU charts to see how well the 3700+ stacks up against the Pentium 650. The San Diego 3700+ goes for $210 and the Pentium 650 goes for about $270.

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

And don't listen to anyone telling you to wait for M2. If you did that, someone would be telling you to wait for the M3 or some such shit 6 months from now. Socket 939 will still be supported through early 2007.

-mpjesse
January 28, 2006 1:59:29 AM

Seeing as you do a lot of multimedia work you should seriously consider a dual core. Most video encoding software is multithreaded so you would definitely see a major performance benefit there. Intel has the new 920D for around $260 and the 930D for around $340 with the older 8xx series being about $20 cheaper. The AMD equivalent to the 830D and 930D would be the X2 3800+ for as low as $300 with the higher model X2 4200+ coming in around $360.

Of course, if the point of this purchase is about gaming, I'm assuming you mean Half Life 2 and not the original, then the 3700+ that mpjesse mentioned is a good choice. If you are really focused on gaming, you should concentrate on the graphics card since that's what really matters. I would think that your current 3.4GHz computer with the X850XT would be pretty good though, especially with all those high end components.
January 28, 2006 2:47:18 AM

Quote:
... the move to AMD would pretty much be all about Half-Life :) 
Half-Life sucks, Steam sucks, and anybody who supports those suck-wads over at Valve sucks too.

Ok the game was pretty cool but no game justifies that insane online install ritual.

Install procedure for COD2:

1) Insert DVD
2) Wack in one long "CD" key.
3) Done in 15-20 minutes and the game plays perfect.

Install procedure for HL-2

1) Put in a handfull of seperate cds for about 25 minutes
2) Hook up to the internet and get an account
3) Download stuff for hours
4) It doesn't work because you de-selected an option that causes a known bug issue back in step 1) so uninstall everything and start over.

5) Un-de-secect the option for the stuff you really don't want to install but you need to anyway because single player will not work with out selecting and installing multiplayer.
6) Re-install a handfull of cd's
7) Download stuff for hours the next day
8) Click on an icon hoping to play the game
9) Download more crap
10) The next day you finally get to play.

11) When you get a new better computer, complete steps 5), 1), and 3) all over again.

Total time wasted getting HL-2 to run on 2 systems = about 9 hours.
January 28, 2006 2:54:03 AM

I agree with LC Data. If this is all about gaming, you would be better off going with a high end gfx card.
If the fan is the problem, go water cooling.
If you really want to go all out, get a newer board that supports SLI or crossfire.
January 28, 2006 3:15:20 AM

Sorry about the rant. I thought that was out of my system a year ago. Everytime I get a new system the issue comes up again and it makes me crazy all over again. I just got a new kick a$$ 7800GT and can't play HL2 because I'd rather have a sharp stick in the eye than ever deal with Steam again.
January 28, 2006 4:38:47 AM

Quote:
OK, what AMD CPU would be the closest match to an Intel P4 650 3.4Ghz HT?


Are you talking price match or performance match (in VidEnc and Gaming) ?

Just check the CPU Charts section: http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html ; and make up your own mind.

The Pentium D 900 series will likely perform a shade better than the 800 series though. But remember the Extreme Editions are Dual-Core and HyperThreaded, which is good news for Video Encoding under x64 with WME9 x64 Edition: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/9series/e...
(edit: updated above link)

For price comparisons you would want to look elsewhere.
January 28, 2006 8:38:13 AM

So much valve hostility... Personally, I've never had that much trouble with HL2. Great game in my book.
January 28, 2006 9:00:35 AM

Do you really think you will see a difference by switching platforms? I dont think you will especially with an X850 GPU. I know, I know. AMD chips do graphics better, but you are not going to see the difference. I would say maybe one day when you rgrpahics card is really hurting but that is hardly the case now. Maybe I am wrong. What settings do you usually play HL2 at? My buddy has a 3.4ghz P4 coupled with a X800 in DTR laptop. He pretty much maxes out BF2. Are you really hurting that bad to warrant an upgrade? Free will is bliss I imagine.
January 28, 2006 9:57:38 AM

I agree, no point upgrading if the performance increase is going to be under +50%.

Even the most hardcore gamers usually will not upgrade unless it adds at least 20% - 33% to their weighted performance.

If you run HL2 at say 1280 x 1024 with 4x FSAA / 8x Ansio on your Radeon X850XT then going to a X1800 XT or X1900 XT/XTX or 7800 GTX/GTX512 might increase your weighted minimum frame rate by +50% - in Half-Life 2 at least, which favours ATI video cards, esp if FSAA is used.

Changing platforms from a 3.4 GHz P4 will have less than a +20% effect on your weighted minimum and average frame rates... that is until much higher performing platforms become available, I am talking at least 6-10 months down the track here (Q3 2006). You don't seam like the overclocking type so rule that out too. I'd rather double my weighted minimum frame rate than double my average or maximum frame rate anyday. :p 

Using (~) "cl_showfps 2" in the HL2 console helps measure performance current (minimum, maximum) frame rates. Where your frame rate drops under say 40 or 50 fps (colour coded in cl_showfps 2 btw) you could see if it is really justified upgrading.

The HL2 / Source engine, and Havok physics engine run quite well on Intel Pentium 4 processors anyway. I don't think AMD has a large advantage over Intel in Half-Life 2. Sure in some games they do, and in others less so.

Futuremark PCMARK 04/05 include code from the Havok physics engine so you can compare performance between platforms and the Havok code appears to favour the Intel platforms. The HL2 / Source game code 'as a whole' might favour AMD platforms though (at equal price points).

You would likely be looking around 2.26 GHz Athlon64 for similar performance to a 3.4 GHz Pentium 4 in most games. (ie: So a 2.2 GHz overclocked about 3-4%, or a 2.4 GHz. 1 MB L2 cache helps but the 3500+ with 512 KB L2 cache would be very close due to the underlying platform architecture).

The reason most people go Athlon64 3700+ is because it's AU$100 (75% the price) cheaper than an Intel Pentium 4 3.4 GHz CPU. There is also the ongoing cost of electricity.... and lower power consumption (both overall and CPU isolated) usually indicates lower heat output, thus easier to cool and overclock, etc. That money can then be put into other components, like getting a better video card, or more memory, etc. Because AMD CPUs integrate the memory controller their associated mainboards are also cheaper to manufacture, and this is usually passed onto consumers aswell.

The Foxconn (Leadtek Winfast) 6150K8MA-8EKRS is an exellent example of this: http://www.foxconnchannel.com/products_motherboard_2.cf...
; it costs considerly little for a Socket 939 platform. For Intel mainboards at a similar price point you need to start looking at Celerons usually.

You might want to consider an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+ or 4400+ or an AMD Opteron 175 as a "transitional upgrade". At least that way you get dual-core. Then pair it with a X1900 XT/XTX or GeForce 7900 down the track if performance is your only concern.

I'd mention Intel options here, but you've already got one and not looking at them. :p  - Expect to have a few issues moving to the new platform, especially if the nVidia nForce chipset and AMD are a drastic change from your past systems. Nothing major, mostly just the chipset drivers.

http://multicore.amd.com explains a few of the 'overall' differences between AMD and Intel platforms.

If building a new platform and considering AMD (as said above), many would recommend waiting a few months for Socket AM2-940 anyway..... as your current system is quite respectable.

Sources you may wish to check out:
http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/desktop/default.aspx
http://www.amdcompare.com/us-en/opteron/Default.aspx
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/05/24/vga_charts_vi/pa...

Also recommend confirming the 7800 GT/GTX/512 performance in HL2 on a few other sites, but in HL2 / Source a Radeon X850XT is a good choice.... even today.

While waiting (until the move is more justified) consider reading up on any potential issues... by the time you get one (if you do) you'll be so versed on everything 'different' it won't seam like such a drastic change anymore.

EDIT: Testing Signature block. :) 
a b à CPUs
January 28, 2006 10:14:02 AM

if you switch you may aswell get something faster!!!!

and yeah i agree - wait for AMD's that support DDR2 so you dont have to buy new ram.
a b à CPUs
January 28, 2006 2:59:22 PM

"OK, what AMD CPU would be the closest match to an Intel P4 650 3.4Ghz HT?
"

Alas, if you already have a DDR2/P4 3.4G system, other than a few fps in most games, you really woldnt gain that much..., the video card has the most impact anyway, and at high res in most gaming titles, the P4 rigs are a 'massive' 1 or 2 frames per sec behind!

The new socket M2/DDR2 boards for AMD are rumored to be delayed at least until summer.....

If you already have a P4 3.4, I'd stay put for a bit, unless determined to build a 2nd rig, and a 3200+ or 3500+ with normal DDR will defeat most P4 650's in most benchmarks.
a b à CPUs
January 28, 2006 3:05:16 PM

""....but the move to AMD would pretty much be all about Half-Life :) "

Any HalfLife2 woes would be much better solved by a better video card, and a damn nice start would be a 7800GT on sale for about $280 US....

Once the res is 1024x768/4xAA/16xAF, the P4 and 3500+ systems score roughly the same average framerates, around 50-53 fps depending on 7800GT mem/core clocks, and about 79 fps avg without aa/af...

Think....video card!!!!!!! :-)
January 28, 2006 3:15:47 PM

i dont get why u hate steam... never had a problem with it, although some friends of mine have had random crashes and such... putting the steam folder right under the C drive worked for me all 3 times ive reformatted maybe thats why?... but steam is a very good idea and works great, updates games automatically so that u dont have to search around and wait in line at a download site, COD2 doesnt have anything else in the instructions yet because it just came out so there arnt any patches, when there are patches youll be waiting in a 50 min fileplanet line for over 2 hours... cool how that works, id rather have steam dl it for me while im at work... but i suppose convience is a problem for u
January 28, 2006 4:31:50 PM

Ok while it may be true im bias and i cant stand intel, at all.

The fact is i cant see you rationalize a whole new system just for a game.

From what ive read so far you have a sturdy platform as is, so IMO even though you are on the dark side with your intel platform just upgrade your remaining system and skip the whole idea of a newer setup for a little while.
January 28, 2006 4:40:03 PM

either proc is good its just p4 is usually more expensive for performance and puts out a little more heat, but comparing 2 proc in similar price ranges although AMD will come ontop in gaming, its not by more than 10fps, most likely its around 5 more... some p4's can be overclocked crazy high, amds overclock pretty nice too but im guessing if u overclocked each to the max the p4 would beat out an overclocked amd, or at least tie it, so its pretty much which brand you prefer (most people in this forum prefer AMD, as do i) but you really cant go wrong with either proc, no matter what people say about how crappy pentium is because there hotter and more expensive, but the diff for waht ur talkin about is what 30-40 dollars? thats not that big of a deal, especially considering they make great heaters in the winter :) ... im not trying to say one or the other is better, id get a p4 over an AMD if they were better for waht i use them for, gaming, and since i dont overclock id rather have the amd for better stock perforamnce for the cheaper price... i guess most people agree with that which is why they buy amd..
!