Pentium 4 s478 2.6ghz vs. Today's Athlon 64s

Taylormade

Distinguished
May 3, 2006
17
0
18,510
I have been trying to find benchmarking to give me an idea how my P4 2.6ghz chip compares to the Athlon 64 chips (i.e. 3000+ or 3200+).

Besides being 64bit, how much of a performance difference should I expect to see if I switch to the Athlon 64. I'd likely go with a MSI K8N Neo4 SLI motherboard, 1gb ddr ram, and the NVidia 7600GT video card.

My current ATI Radeon 9600XT just died so I'm not sure if it makes sense just to go with an ATI Radeon X1600 pro AGP and keep the P4 2.6ghz or should I just make the switch to the Athlon 64? I could also just upgrade the P4 to a 3.0e or 3.2e as well.

Thanks!
 

zarooch

Distinguished
Apr 28, 2006
350
0
18,780
for the cpu benchmarking you can see THG's already benchmarked charts... you can select both of your processors and look for different scores...
 

Datman

Distinguished
Nov 20, 2004
875
0
18,980
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html

For the moment I would just get the X1600pro.

Do you have the 2.6 with 533FSB or 800FSB?
What motherboard do you have? dual channel?



I recently upgrade from a 2.8G 533fsb single channel setup to 3.2G 800fsb dual channel setup, the dual channel memory and 800FSB made a noticeable gain in performance. For what this computer is used for it will be fine for sometime for me.
 

Taylormade

Distinguished
May 3, 2006
17
0
18,510
Thanks for the info regarding the CPU chart. It's interesting because there is a performance difference with some applications running better with the P4 and others running faster with the Athlon 64, primarily games.

I have a MSI 865PE Neo2 motherboard which is a dual channel motherboard. The P4 is actually a 2.4ghz 800FSB overclocked to 2.6ghz.
From the CPU chart, it doesn't appear that either the 3000+ or 3200+ offer a huge difference over my current P4 other than with games. The only game I play is World of Warcraft and that doesn't seem to be CPU intensive.

The advantage I could see with going the Athlon route is that the MSI K8N Neo4 supports the X2 processors so there's plenty of room for growth in the future. Also, the PCI-express bus is faster than AGP and AGP cards will likely dwindle out of production eventually. On the other hand, I'm only going to have to pay $130 for a Radeon X1600 pro card and can use my current equipment rather than investing in a new motherboard and a new CPU.
 

Datman

Distinguished
Nov 20, 2004
875
0
18,980
I would just grab the X1600pro then, for the gaming you do.

If you can find a cheap 3.4Ghz PGA478 CPU then think about it. That's a 1GHz increase and room for OCing.

Better to wait and see what the new stuff will do, AM2/Conroe, before any expensive major upgrades.
 
Thanks for the info regarding the CPU chart. It's interesting because there is a performance difference with some applications running better with the P4 and others running faster with the Athlon 64, primarily games.

The advantage I could see with going the Athlon route is that the MSI K8N Neo4 supports the X2 processors so there's plenty of room for growth in the future. Also, the PCI-express bus is faster than AGP and AGP cards will likely dwindle out of production eventually. On the other hand, I'm only going to have to pay $130 for a Radeon X1600 pro card and can use my current equipment rather than investing in a new motherboard and a new CPU.

Traditionally, Pentium 4 has always been better than the Athlon 64 in applications outside of games which includes media creation, and especially media encoding. The Pentium 4 single core wins without a doubt. However, when looking at dual core CPUs the Pentiums advantage disappears entirely. The Athlon X2 are better than the Pentium 4D at almost all benchmarks across the board.

The Athlon 64 other advantage is that consumes less power than a Pentium 4. Before the 65nm Pentium 4 came out the Pentiums comsumed at least twice as much power as a comperable Athlon 64. With the release of Presler, P4 only consume about 50% - 60% more power than the Athlon 64. More power also means more heat so Athlons are much easier to cool and can mean less fan noise as well.

Intel's Conroe should bring performance back to thier side, at least based on the preliminary benchmarks. The 65nm Conroe should also run far cooler than the 65nm Presler. Best guess, they should run about just as hot as the 90nm Athlons, or less since it is partially based off of the Pentium M.
 

Riverama

Distinguished
May 3, 2006
11
0
18,510
Let's see, beside the fact that it transfer twice the amount of data during the same clock cycle than a 32bit one, it has a faster FSB, built in HyperTransport and memory controllers...
the AMD64 will make your computer faster.
(otherwise why would Intel be moving to 64bit too?)
Also today's Athlon 64's are not the 3000+ or 3200+, but the X2's (dual Cores) and FX's
(the 3000+ is more than a year old)
If you want to upgrade, get a 939 socket motherboard and the X2 3800+
-newegg prices:

Athlon 64 3500 ~ $200 or Athlon 64-X2 3800 ~ $290
s939 MoBo w/PCIe16x ~ $50
X1600xt PCIe ~ 150
 

mesarectifier

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2006
2,257
0
19,780
Let's see, beside the fact that it transfer twice the amount of data during the same clock cycle than a 32bit one, it has a faster FSB, built in HyperTransport and memory controllers...
the AMD64 will make your computer faster.

Errr, sorta like running 64bit code like I said? He was asking if 64bit CPUs would make his PC run faster, which they won't unless he's running 64bit software.

And the FSB and HyperTransport have nothing to do with AMD64, that's just new tech on the new chip.
 

Taylormade

Distinguished
May 3, 2006
17
0
18,510
MesaRectifier said:
Errr, sorta like running 64bit code like I said? He was asking if 64bit CPUs would make his PC run faster, which they won't unless he's running 64bit software.

And the FSB and HyperTransport have nothing to do with AMD64, that's just new tech on the new chip.

Actually, I asked about the P4 vs Athlon 64 excluding the 64 bit part. I chose the Athlon 64 because if I was going to switch from the P4 and a 865PE motherboard, I'd go to the 939 motherboard which is compatible with the Athlon 64, FX and X2s. I was planning on spending the least amount possible so the Athlon 64 would be the chip to go with even though it's not the current technology.

Therefore, what I was asking is whether an Athlon 64 3000+ or 3200+ setup would provide a performance boost over my 2 year old P4 2.6 setup, excluding the 64bit part. IE, if I'm playing WoW or using Photoshop, etc. does it make sense to go with the Athlon 64 or just leave it at the P4. The main incentive for change was really the video card issue because better cards are avaible for PCI-e than for AGP.

For my needs, I probably could just go with an ATI agp card and try to upgrade the PGA478 chip cheaply in the future, but since starting this thread today, I have realized that I could donate my current setup to a family member and do a complete upgrade for myself. Perhaps the X2 3800+, a MSI K8N Neo4, and a NVidia 7600gt would be the way to go.

As I understand it, the 7600gt easily outperforms the x1600xt for about the same price.

Thanks for everyone's input! :D
 

rodney_ws

Splendid
Dec 29, 2005
3,819
0
22,810
I would wager to say that 99% of the people with AMD 64's do NOT run 64 bit operating systems... but the people that do own AMD 64's all have that option. For most of us the 4 GB memory limit still isn't an issue and driver support under Windows XP 64 Bit is a bit spotty... in your comparison between the two processors it's really a non-issue.
 

azncoduyen

Distinguished
May 3, 2006
31
0
18,530
I think that you should go for the AMD 64 3200+ socket 939. I have a similar pc like you with 2.6ghz 800 fsb. My mobo was fried... luckily I have warranty on it at Fry's. They let me change my entired pc from a p4 2.6ghz to a AMD 3200+ 64. I would say that the performance wise, the AMD beats the 2.6ghz. There are a lot of other things that the 2.6ghz beats the AMD but those are usually in the video/music and stuff editting. But it doesnt beat the AMD 3200+ by a lot. On the other hand, the AMD is very good at gaming. I was playing source with double the resolution + fps vs my 2.6ghz. It is up to you to decide, but i would recommand getting the AMD 3200+. Its good for gaming and you can overclock it easily to 2.5ghz from stock 2.0 with stock heatsink
 

1Tanker

Splendid
Apr 28, 2006
4,645
1
22,780
http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html

For the moment I would just get the X1600pro.

Do you have the 2.6 with 533FSB or 800FSB?
What motherboard do you have? dual channel?



I recently upgrade from a 2.8G 533fsb single channel setup to 3.2G 800fsb dual channel setup, the dual channel memory and 800FSB made a noticeable gain in performance. For what this computer is used for it will be fine for sometime for me.


There is no 2.6 533 FSB.

X1600Pro AGP is pretty low-end
 

Riverama

Distinguished
May 3, 2006
11
0
18,510
The AMD64 also provides enhanced security via DEP (data execution Prevention) on WindowsXP which prevents damaging program, like virus and worms, from being executed; it's only available to 64bit CPU's

(try to enable it: -Control Panel - System - Advanced - Performance - Data Execution Prevention)
 

Scougs

Distinguished
Mar 10, 2006
398
0
18,780
If you are going to stick with your current system, you should be able to overclock it more. I have heard of 2.4 Northwood C core CPUs going close to 290fsb which would almost be 3.5GHz. I have a 2.8C @ 3.5GHz and it is pretty fast. BTW I have the Sapphire X800GTO unlocked to 16 pixel pipes.
 

Taylormade

Distinguished
May 3, 2006
17
0
18,510
I have the Northwood C but can't get beyond the 2.6 range without instability. For a while, I was at 2.8, but then I was no longer able to stay there without the computer failing. There were no changes in hardware when this occurred so I have no explanation for this. I dropped it down to 2.6 and it's been fine.

Of course this goes down another thread topic all together, but I don't know if it would be a PCI modem or SCSI card used for a scanner that was causing the failure. Even with the memory locked into its standard clock rate and the pci bus at 33.5 or whatever it's supposed to be, I had problems with overclocking. I suppose I could try again by removing the modem and scsi card and seeing if there's a problem, but if I locked in the PCI bus at a normal frequency, I wouldn't have thought that those were the source of the failures. Or perhaps the MSI 865PE Neo2 board I have just isn't a good overclocker. As I recall, I thought it was a decent board for overclocking from the reviews prior to purchasing it.

I purchased the 2.4c with the idea of overclocking it to 3.0 or more but it never panned out for me.
 

weskurtz81

Distinguished
Apr 13, 2006
1,557
0
19,780
I am pretty sure he was dismissing 64 bit extentions, meaning he doesn't care about that.... all he is asking about is performance..... can you guys read?
Also, I don't think he asked anything about overclocking.... it sounds to me like he is asking about STOCK PERFORMANCE...... his question could have been answered with one post.... The 3200 Venice will be faster than your current cpu in all cases, at least that is what I have read.
 

1Tanker

Splendid
Apr 28, 2006
4,645
1
22,780
I have the Northwood C but can't get beyond the 2.6 range without instability. For a while, I was at 2.8, but then I was no longer able to stay there without the computer failing. There were no changes in hardware when this occurred so I have no explanation for this. I dropped it down to 2.6 and it's been fine.

Of course this goes down another thread topic all together, but I don't know if it would be a PCI modem or SCSI card used for a scanner that was causing the failure. Even with the memory locked into its standard clock rate and the pci bus at 33.5 or whatever it's supposed to be, I had problems with overclocking. I suppose I could try again by removing the modem and scsi card and seeing if there's a problem, but if I locked in the PCI bus at a normal frequency, I wouldn't have thought that those were the source of the failures. Or perhaps the MSI 865PE Neo2 board I have just isn't a good overclocker. As I recall, I thought it was a decent board for overclocking from the reviews prior to purchasing it.

I purchased the 2.4c with the idea of overclocking it to 3.0 or more but it never panned out for me.


Same here. I have 2.4C on a P4P800E D, and also ran it on my P4C800E

Deluxe, With a great HSF, and very good ram, and 2916 is about tops

stable, yet its not hot at all...just the limit of the chip.
 

Tattysnuc

Distinguished
Dec 21, 2005
184
0
18,680
I made the switch from S478 P4 EE 3200 to an Athlon 3800 then to a dual core X2 4200 in the last year.

The X2 has reduced my 3d marks scores, and doesn;t overclock much in my experience. I know people have managed some big overclocks, but these appear to me to be the exception rather than the rule.

Anyway, the main benefit you'll get will be by moving to PCI express. My 7800GTX wooops ass on the 6800GT I had. That and the SLI options seem to leave the options for me in the future a little more open.

Personally, I'd say get rid of your bits via ebay while you can get a good price, and then choose your platform. Conroe's alleged performance is tempting a lot of non fanboys back to Intel. If you want it cheap and chearful, I'd suggest a single core Athlon 3000. Absolute bargain at the price, and overclock like no tomorrow!

just my pennies worth....

Good luck!
 

weskurtz81

Distinguished
Apr 13, 2006
1,557
0
19,780
Out of the 5 K8's I have owned. The X2 3800 achieve a 600mhz per core stable OC to 2.6 as high as 2.75.... My Opteron 165 goes as high as 2.8 2.7 stable, My 3000 went to 2.6 stable, the other one that I traded a friend for went to 2.8 stable my 3500 went to 2.65 stable. Another one of my friends onwed a X2 3800 which would not OC at all, but it has some memory controller issues.... everyone else I know who owns one achieves about the same as I did with mine. Also, I don't really buy cpu's to benchmark 3d mark, I normally use real world tasks like encoding, multitasking, file compression. Both my dual core cpu's smoke Intel 8XX's and 9XX's up to the 940. The 940 is about a 50/50 winner loser in comparison so they are close.
 

Scougs

Distinguished
Mar 10, 2006
398
0
18,780
You can't lock the memory at any speed. The memory speed settings in the bios set a ratio. Here is the breakdown for CPUs with 800fsb (200 MHz actual clock):

Memroy to FSB ratio
400 => 1:1
333 => 5:4
266 => 3:2

Try setting your memroy to a lower setting and you can probably run your fsb higher. I have my memory set to 333 so that at 250fsb the memory is running at DDR400.
 

WINDSHEAR

Distinguished
Jan 25, 2006
626
0
18,980
The AMD64 also provides enhanced security via DEP (data execution Prevention) on WindowsXP which prevents damaging program, like virus and worms, from being executed; it's only available to 64bit CPU's

(try to enable it: -Control Panel - System - Advanced - Performance - Data Execution Prevention)

untrue... my 3.0Ghz Prescott has the Execute Disable bit.... and does exactly what you just said DEP on AMD does. And, my 3Ghz does not have 64bit capability. So, wrong on two counts.