I haven't really been paying attention to recent benchamarks and CPU releases, and was wondering what the Best AMD CPU would be for gaming and video editing purposes. The mobo would be an Asus a7n8x rev 2. Money Is not an object. I was thinking either the 3200+ Barton or 2800+ throughbred B. Thanks for the help.
I agree 3200, or the new Opteron chips are out, I bet they are pretty good??..... though you can't use Opteron + Asus A7N8X...<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by fo_sho on 06/20/03 01:34 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
While the Operons might be faster for graphics design, server chips are definately not intended for gaming. If the Xeons are any indication of server gaming performance, you'd be better off using a standard desktop processor. According to some of the benchmarks I had seen here - the 2800+ chips still might be faster than the new 3200+ ones... the Barton core seems to have a lot of difficulties these days. I'd probably opt for an older 2800+ if I could find one because it would likely cost less. But if I had unlimited money... sure, why not go for the 3200+... in either case you'll hardly be able to tell the speed difference - what in san hell do you need all that speed for anyway? Why not drop down a few model numbers and save a lot of money... you'd hardly notice the loss in performance. But hey, that's just me, I try to be tighter with the cash. Good luck on figuring out what you'd like to do!
Sorry to interrupt but if you have been disconnected from CPU/chipset market for a while, I think I have to tell you that now the best thing is Intel P4 'C' core CPU with i865PE/i875P chipset. I said this just in case you still think AMD rules the high-end market. Anyway AMD still rules the mid-range market. The only weapon Intel have here is the 2.4C where Athon XP 1700+, 2100+ and 2500+ are rocking here.
If money's no object, then forget about the AMD stuff for right now. The 3GHz+ cpus from Intel are pretty much washing the floor with the AMDs. Put one on a Springdale or Canterwood motherboard and it should scream.
Pertaining to Opteron I saw w few test, don't remember where but I'm 100% sure that Opteron won gaming competition UT2003 scoring even above 3.0c PIV. But perosnally i'm the owner of Intel rig and after a few AMD rigs that I had won't change my own rig to AMD, maybe if Opteron would be cheaper and have better utilization of memory esp. DDR400
The 3GHz+ cpus from Intel are pretty much washing the floor with the AMDs.
Watch out for hype like this, it's pretty much crap. There is a small benchmarking margin between the top pentium 4s and top AMDs but in the real world you won't notice it. What you will notice is the difference in price and hell, since when was money no object?
Yeah, he's right. It's all relative to the test your running. The real world difference is usually very small. It's like travelling from here to Mars, when you're going that far, one or two miles doesn't make that much difference, but if you are working on smaller scale, like going across town, the miles are a lot bigger. If spaceship 'A' gets there in two years and one month, and spaceship 'B' gets there in two years and 3 months, then, for most of us, the difference isn't that big, but if you're the astronaut in that spaceship, that extra month makes a big difference. So to say that AMD is getting smacked around by Intel is probably an exaggeration, but nevertheless, if you compare the late model processors, side-by-side and use that as your scale instead of starting from zero, generally, it's a true statement. It could change in a couple of months when Clawhammer finally comes out. You may want to wait until then if price is no object, since what you buy now as the latest and greatest will no longer be, and it's gonna cost ya.
Incidentally, the last Intel system I owned was a 333MHz Celeron. I traded it in for an AMD 1.4GHz T-bird, then an 1800+ XP and now I'm running a Barton 2500+. I've built about a dozen systems in the last year for friends and family and they've all been AMD. Yes, I am an AMD fan, but I can face the facts. At the high-end, Intel wipes the floor with AMD, right now.
If u r thinking of the SoundStorm technology, of course no other on-board sound beats it. If u r thinking of DUal Channel DDR, then the INTEL 875P chipsets offer 6.4GB/s bandwidth with Dual-Channel DDR.
<b><font color=red>The statement below is true.</font color=red></b>
<b><font color=blue> The statement above is false.</font color=blue></b>
Watch out for hype like this, it's pretty much crap.
There is a small benchmarking margin between the top
pentium 4s and top AMDs but in the real world you won't
notice it. What you will notice is the difference in price and hell,
since when was money no object?
Please, do watch out for posts like this :smile: . I mean, how can anyone judge what someone else can, or can't, "notice" in the "real" world? For instance if one is coding/decoding or numbercrunching, even "small" (whatever small is) margins can be translated to "huge" amounts of time waste/gain. Even in gaming the differences can be quite large.
Well, actually, if you don't want to pay a lot of money for a state-of-the-art CPU, you might get the 2.6C or 2.8C P4. They're much cheaper than the 3.0C, and are better choices than the AMD alterantives. The 2.8C, for instance, matches the 3200+ very, very frequently on benchmarks.
When your traveling at 300 mph does an extra 3 mph make a noticable difference?
Dollar for dollar AMD CPU's and system boards cost less than Intels, the differences in performance is nominal. Use the money you save buying an AMD and invest it in a good video card, SATA HDD or high-end RAM