I'm building a new pc mainly for gaming, who makes the better processor for such a purpose? Processors really aren't my thing, I don't know much about them and I've been told a ton of pros and cons about both of them. So maybe all of you can help me out.
On pricewatch you can get an Asus A7N8X deluxe and an Athlon XP 3000 for about $450 total, whereas the Asus P4C800 with the P4 3.0Ghz/800Mhz fsb combo runs at least $650. Does the price difference reflect a performance difference worthy of $200?
I've also noticed that the Athlon XP 3000 runs at 2.1Ghz, my current P4 runs at 2Ghz. Surely there's some big difference between the two, but what is it? Plus, how does a Athlon XP 3000 running at 2.1Ghz stack up against the P4 3.0Ghz?
Can anyone maybe point me to an article that can explain such things?
Clock speed isn't everything an AMD XP 2400+ for instance easily beats a P4 of similar clock speed in most gaming benchmarks.
This is because games tend to be FPU intensive and AMD CPUs are stronger than Intel in this area. Video encoding uses a different process in the CPU again and in this case it’s the P4 that is stronger as far as speed is concerned.
I prefer AMD CPUs mainly because they're better value for the money you pay any are more backwardly compatible (don't have to change your Motherboard every time you upgrade your CPU) on the whole.
That's good info. So how does the XP3000 stack up against the P4 3.0 specifically? Any big drawbacks? I'm wondering because Intel has always been my choice and jumping ship may occur here. Would the Asus A7N8X be a good choice for a mobo?
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by toddmd2 on 04/30/03 07:28 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
So how does the XP3000 stack up against the P4 3.0 specifically?
Tons of benchmarks around but the summary is that the XP3000's model number is somewhat inflated. It can't really hang with the P4 3.06/533 and falls way behind the P4 3.0/800 except in business and old x87 apps. For multimedia and today's games, the P4 is generally superior. If I were you I'd wait until next month for the lower-speed hyperthreading 800 FSB P4s to be released. Get perhaps a 2.4 and run it on a Canterwood mobo. I guarantee you'll be pleased. :smile:
It appears that AMD won't have a proper response until the A64 comes out and that's only with the 1 MB cache version, the 256K version doesn't have a chance. With such a huge die (1 MB L2 on 0.13 micron process) I don't expect the A64 to be cheap...
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ritesh_laud on 04/30/03 06:52 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
intel tends to be better at opengl(quake) based games, AMD is better at direct3d games (unreal)
both are good processors, but i personally find that for the performance you get AMD is a much better price, one thing to consider, to get the max performance out of a p4 with DDR, you need two sticks of DDR, AMD loses only about 1-2% when running in single channel as opposed to dual ram
so that'll bring the price down too
"Going to war without France is like going hunting without an accordion."
- Gen. (Ret) Norman Schwartzkopf
Personally, I'd save some money, keep your currrent system, and get a really good video card, like an ATI 9700/9800 Pro. And, depending on how much memory you have, get 512 MB. For the MOST part if you have 2G+ system and a good video card it will run all of todays games just fine. I think the only time you'd "see" a difference is in benchmarks. But if you want the "best" I'd go with Intel. The 3000XP can't hold it's own like the older XPs could.
"Quotes are for people that can't think for themselves"