Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Witch is beter Intel P4 661 3.6GHz or AMD 3800+ AM2

Last response: in CPUs
Share
July 8, 2006 8:47:32 PM

Im Making a new comp 4 gameing and im having trouble wether i should go with Intel or AMD CPU. I was thinking of going with a P4 661 3.6 or an AMD 3800+ AM2. Ive been doing my reserch and the P4 is more expensive its about $550ca and the AMD is about $400ca. I was reading some things on Toms hardware about intels and that its they need more watts and they overhead fast could that cause ne problems? I have and Intel P4 2.8 right now and its doesnt seem to overheat but i trust wat the people on toms hardware say but i need more input.
July 8, 2006 8:49:56 PM

The 661 has reeled in some of the hotness problems...
That being said, if you have existing quality DDR memory, AMD socket 939 with an X2-3800 would be the most economical upgrade... since you can re-use your RAM...
July 8, 2006 8:52:39 PM

Quote:
The 661 has reeled in some of the hotness problems...
That being said, if you have existing quality DDR memory, AMD socket 939 with an X2-3800 would be the most economical upgrade... since you can re-use your RAM...
Agreed. Also, you may as well jump on the dual-core bandwagon now, as more and more programs and games will make use of them. GL :) 
July 8, 2006 9:02:42 PM

So the AMD is a better choice as i thought but i have another Question, is it worth it to get AM2 socket or is it to early because i find the AM2 mobo ar a bit expensive.
July 8, 2006 9:07:08 PM

Not only are Socket AM2 motherboards more expensive than their S939 counterparts, they also require insanely expensive low latency DDR2 memory in order to compete with S939 platforms performance wise.

It would be nice to have the specs on your current 'rig, you may have some decent hardware that is worth migrating to your next system.
July 8, 2006 9:07:31 PM

If you go AM2 with DDR2 memory, Intel becomes the best choice...
Only thing that makes AMD considered is the fact you have DDR memory you can re-use... otherwise, Conroe is the best choice, AM2 is not...
July 8, 2006 9:10:53 PM

Quote:
So the AMD is a better choice as i thought but i have another Question, is it worth it to get AM2 socket or is it to early because i find the AM2 mobo ar a bit expensive.
AM2 will be better down the road, but in order for it to compete with s939, You will need DDR2 800@ 4-4-4-12 or DDR2 667 @ 3-3-3-8/9. That memory isn't cheap. If you are hoping to reuse some current DDR1 that you have, then s939 is the better route.
a c 159 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
July 8, 2006 9:16:33 PM

Wait a couple of weeks for the expected price drop on dual core amd. You might save $100 or more.
July 8, 2006 9:18:50 PM

is PC 6400 4-5-4-15 compatible
July 8, 2006 9:21:47 PM

Quote:
is PC 6400 4-5-4-15 compatible


It is compatible but the timings are too slow, hard to tell at a glance how low you can drop the timings with an overvolt.
July 8, 2006 9:33:24 PM

well im fine with 1 gb now but im planing on geting another set when the $ comes.
July 8, 2006 9:50:38 PM

Any reason why you are deadset on DDR2 despite our warnings about high latency modules versus cheap, low latency DDR1 ?
July 8, 2006 9:52:34 PM

well isn it suposed to b better?

because if it is im willing to go through the trouble.
July 8, 2006 10:08:24 PM

The keyword here is "supposed".

While DDR2 looks good on paper and synthetic benchmarks, its high latency pretty much cancels out any advantage the extra bandwidth may bring.

As it was mentionned multiple times, DDR2 just is'nt there yet as far as AMD is concerned, the performance benefit AM2 has over S939 is insignificant even with top notch DDR2, it is still worthwile to go for S939 & DDR1, especially if you currently have some PC-3200 in your current 'rig.
July 8, 2006 10:19:44 PM

so would it b better 4 me to get and AMD FX 53 rather than an AMD X2 3800+ AM2. Because ive mad two comps on paper that r the same price using one of these CPU's.
July 8, 2006 10:23:43 PM

Quote:
so would it b better 4 me to get and AMD FX 53 rather than an AMD X2 3800+ AM2. Because ive mad two comps on paper that r the same price using one of these CPU's.


The FX53 would be a bad move, that's an older 130nm core, why not go for a S939 X2 3800+ instead of AM2, you would get the best of both world.

I'm curious to see where you got those prices from...
July 8, 2006 10:33:29 PM

i got the prices from tigerdirect.ca
they hav realy good delivery too.

and i have a $3000 budget y not mack use of it.
July 8, 2006 10:40:07 PM

You need to keep in mind that spending just for the sake of it hardly make sense when a thousand more may only bring marginal performance increase.
July 8, 2006 10:43:02 PM

oh dont wory about that i put heavy reserch in my computers and i ask people like u 4 advise just to mack sur i wont buy my comp unless im 150% sure its worth the money and plus im not in a rush.
July 8, 2006 10:45:31 PM

One thing I noticed, perhaps others have but I haven't seen any replies of this, the AM2 boards depending on brand, can support from 4GB to 8GB & even 16GB of memory of 6 MB of 31 choices, thus far.

I suppose that is one feature to point out if moving to Vista OS.

All the 939 MB's I've seen only support up to 4GB off NewEgg. Theres only about 3 MB out of 134 giving support of 8GB, that I saw.

Just thought I'd throw that out there. :D 
July 8, 2006 10:48:58 PM

i hav another question between radeon and Geforce wich is better to play World of warcraft or F.E.A.R.
July 8, 2006 10:51:11 PM

Depends what price range you're looking at, just glance at some benchmarks...
July 8, 2006 10:57:18 PM

well my price range is strictly $3000 it could be $2900-$3200
and ive been looking at the benchmarks but it doesnt help because they dont show the GeForce 7900 & 7950s.
July 8, 2006 11:00:42 PM

Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 is faster than either of them. If thats out of your budget even the E6300 would wipe the floor with the Pentium, and outperform the X2 in many tests, and Core 2 is strong in gaming.
July 8, 2006 11:04:48 PM

thanks but im going to go with AMD its more economical, Intels tend to generate more heat and require mor watts.
July 8, 2006 11:15:39 PM

The 7970GX2 (just a pair of underclocked 7900GTX strapped together) is'nt worth the trouble, it is ridden with compatibility issues, furthermore, SLI only make sense at extremely high resolutions, a decent monitor that can do at least 1600 x 1200 will be needed if you want to see a noticeable difference.

This AnandTech benchmark should help you figure it out by yourself.

BTW, the much hyped Core 2 Duo is'nt out yet, I doubt any will be available in the Canadian retail channels until at least 6 weeks after the official release, needless to say, those will most likely be expensive and hard to get.
July 8, 2006 11:52:22 PM

Just get a D920/930 im pretty sure they are MUCH cheaper than both those chips, and dual core!
July 9, 2006 12:51:16 AM

Just wait 3 weeks or so, everything will be much clearer by then.
Everything.
July 9, 2006 8:51:05 AM

Quote:
So the AMD is a better choice as i thought but i have another Question, is it worth it to get AM2 socket or is it to early because i find the AM2 mobo ar a bit expensive.


The 3800+ should have a good edge over the 661; it's much cooler and subsequently your PC will be quieter (fan spinning slower).
July 9, 2006 4:38:20 PM

Quote:
If you go AM2 with DDR2 memory, Intel becomes the best choice...
Only thing that makes AMD considered is the fact you have DDR memory you can re-use... otherwise, Conroe is the best choice, AM2 is not...


Is Conroe performance with multithreaded application is as good as with single threaded application? I've read that it sucks badly compared to X2's performance on such task? I did not really search for benchmark on that thou, so I may be wrong.

If that is true, I wonder if, after tasting what a dual core CPU with optimized OS (Vista BETA) and applications, it will be a good choice for long term upgrade. My X2 fell twice as fast with Vista than with XP, as both core are better put to work.

I'm just a bit cautionous about all the hype around this CPU.
July 9, 2006 4:46:26 PM

Conroe's lead in multi-tasking is not as great as it is in gaming... But a lead is a lead... Intel has taken AMD's crown...
Conroe has beat AMD accross the board in price, performance and thermal properties...
July 9, 2006 7:09:02 PM

Quote:
Conroe's lead in multi-tasking is not as great as it is in gaming... But a lead is a lead... Intel has taken AMD's crown...
Conroe has beat AMD accross the board in price, performance and thermal properties...


Aye.
July 9, 2006 7:21:24 PM

We are keeping in mind that this unusual behavior is something that could get fixed via bios, software or other microcode update...
July 9, 2006 7:27:35 PM

Quote:
i hav another question between radeon and Geforce wich is better to play World of warcraft or F.E.A.R.

depends on the models. there is no rule.
Anyway I think that WoW requires more CPU and RAM perfromance and capacity than graohics card performance.
July 9, 2006 7:36:25 PM

Quote:
So the AMD is a better choice as i thought but i have another Question, is it worth it to get AM2 socket or is it to early because i find the AM2 mobo ar a bit expensive.
AM2 will be better down the road, but in order for it to compete with s939, You will need DDR2 800@ 4-4-4-12 or DDR2 667 @ 3-3-3-8/9. That memory isn't cheap. If you are hoping to reuse some current DDR1 that you have, then s939 is the better route.


Not quite. the prices have been slowly dropping.

CORSAIR XMS2 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM System Memory - Retail
DDR2 675 (PC2 5400)
Timing 4-4-4-12
Unbuffered
Avg Rating: [16]

Newegg.com

The problem is that no one is testing 667 much so it's hard to say how this would compete with DDR, but I would say that with the latency it has, it will eclipse 939 easily.
July 9, 2006 7:41:35 PM

You did not list a price... not sure what your point was...

Cheap DDR2 or not, if you have to buy a mobo, RAM and CPU... AMD IS NOT THE WAY TO GO! INTEL CONROE IS WHAT TO GET FROM $183 TO $530!!! AM2 would be a waste of money and electricity... they are now TO EXPENSIVE, TO SLOW, AND TO HOT TO BE CONSIDERED A BEST BUY!
July 9, 2006 7:59:14 PM

Quote:
The 7970GX2 (just a pair of underclocked 7900GTX strapped together) is'nt worth the trouble, it is ridden with compatibility issues, furthermore, SLI only make sense at extremely high resolutions, a decent monitor that can do at least 1600 x 1200 will be needed if you want to see a noticeable difference.

This AnandTech benchmark should help you figure it out by yourself.

BTW, the much hyped Core 2 Duo is'nt out yet, I doubt any will be available in the Canadian retail channels until at least 6 weeks after the official release, needless to say, those will most likely be expensive and hard to get.


Theyre actually GeForce 7900GTX Go. the desktop chips would melt the case.
July 9, 2006 8:03:18 PM

Quote:
You did not list a price... not sure what your point was...

Cheap DDR2 or not, if you have to buy a mobo, RAM and CPU... AMD IS NOT THE WAY TO GO! INTEL CONROE IS WHAT TO GET FROM $183 TO $530!!! AM2 would be a waste of money and electricity... they are now TO EXPENSIVE, TO SLOW, AND TO HOT TO BE CONSIDERED A BEST BUY!



Don't know why it didn't come up. It was less than $200. 179, I believe.

But they are better than 99% of Intel's current stock so they are a best buy. And until Jan they will be better than more than 70% of Intel's stock. Plus some people wouldn't buy Intel if you paid for it so if he wants AMD that's his choice.


I would like to see Turion X2 tetsed with this RAM in dual channel. Also 4200+.

All these FX62 tests are gettign on my nerves.
July 9, 2006 8:09:16 PM

Read this...
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1876721,00.a...

The latest P4's are keeping up and in many tests are exceeding AMD's chips...
In both price and performance... 8O

Even excluding Conroe, the crown between AMD and Intel is not as clear cut, and hard to pick a winner between the two, since stock they are about equal...
But Intel CPU's overclock much further than AMD's, making overclocked CPU's from Intel the clear winner! IMO... :wink:
July 9, 2006 8:21:29 PM

so to play WoW should i get a Duel Core Prossesor or a single core?
[/quote]
July 9, 2006 8:30:39 PM

RichPLS im not a fanboy but i do not want and Intel sure they r good 4 overclokcing and yes u can get a cheap chip thats good 4 overclaock ive seen the intel Pentium D 805. The Main point is that intel generats too much heat and reguir more wats and im not looking into overclock.

Another point people keep saying that its cheaper to get intel and half good overclocking capabilties well there only better than AMD when u OC in turn u have to spend more money on cooling because if u r going to b harcore OC u r gonna need hardcore cooling.

Sure the P4s r keeping up but look at the price an AMD 3800+ is about $200ca and by looking at the charts the inly P4 that comes close to the 3800+ is The P4 660 3.6GHz $430ca, P4 661 3.6Ghz $550ca and the P4 3.8GHz $730ca. This is without OC a fare comparison.
July 9, 2006 8:32:43 PM

Quote:
Read this...
http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,1876721,00.a...

The latest P4's are keeping up and in many tests are exceeding AMD's chips...
In both price and performance... 8O

Even excluding Conroe, the crown between AMD and Intel is not as clear cut, and hard to pick a winner between the two, since stock they are about equal...
But Intel CPU's overclock much further than AMD's, making overclocked CPU's from Intel the clear winner! IMO... :wink:



What that says is that there are two PCU manufs and there will be. Most people dont' OC so it's a moot point.
July 9, 2006 8:51:06 PM

Quote:
RichPLS im not a fanboy but i do not want and Intel sure they r good 4 overclokcing and yes u can get a cheap chip thats good 4 overclaock ive seen the intel Pentium D 805. The Main point is that intel generats too much heat and reguir more wats and im not looking into overclock.

Another point people keep saying that its cheaper to get intel and half good overclocking capabilties well there only better than AMD when u OC in turn u have to spend more money on cooling because if u r going to b harcore OC u r gonna need hardcore cooling.

Sure the P4s r keeping up but look at the price an AMD 3800+ is about $200ca and by looking at the charts the inly P4 that comes close to the 3800+ is The P4 660 3.6GHz $430ca, P4 661 3.6Ghz $550ca and the P4 3.8GHz $730ca. This is without OC a fare comparison.



Basically I'd decide on some thing and buy it. it's impossible to go wrong with anything. I just prefer AMD whether they lead the benchmarks or not. The P4 I'm using at work makes my head hurt.
July 9, 2006 8:57:48 PM

Quote:
I just prefer AMD whether they lead the benchmarks or not.


That says it all.
July 9, 2006 9:23:28 PM

Quote:
Conroe's lead in multi-tasking is not as great as it is in gaming... But a lead is a lead... Intel has taken AMD's crown...
Conroe has beat AMD accross the board in price, performance and thermal properties...


So, Conroe is, just as AM2 a transitional CPU. They emphasis on single thread performance to regain the gaming market, letting go a bit to the multitasking than tomorrow will bring, and the real performance will be another game between AMD and Intel, both having to release something better to compete then.

I think that the fact than Conroe did not scale up in dual performance as much as in single means something and that's why I don't see panic from AMD or the whole market.

Something better have to come.
July 9, 2006 9:34:19 PM

Quote:
I just prefer AMD whether they lead the benchmarks or not.


That says it all.

Agreed.
July 9, 2006 9:36:55 PM

Quote:
thanks but im going to go with AMD its more economical, Intels tend to generate more heat and require mor watts.


dude the core 2 duo from intel is overall better in performance and generates less heat and uses less power
!