Wait for Athlon64 or upgrade NOW?

Hey,it looks like you are in the same situasion as me...i have an unusual AMD K6-III 450Mhz and its working realy beyon its limits.
Im not very sure if the Athlon64 is going to be so revolucionary as it thinks, but one things for sure: its faster than the Athlon XP.
For me, im going to upgrade to a P4 2,66Ghz (or a 2,4Ghz with HT) and the board will be an ASUS p4p800.
Why:
Mainly because the Athlon XP plattform has its days numbred and the socket 478 will suport the "prescott" CPU, so i can upgrade later to a more powerfull CPU if i want to(in a year or two).
IF YOU CAN HOLD ON TIL THE LAUNCH OF THE A64,YOU DO IT.IF YOU CANT (LIKE ME),CURRENTLY THE BEST PLATFORM IS THE 478 FOR THE MOMENT...

I'm really not sure if it's worth it, and I don't think anyone around here really has any solid facts that make A64 look great.

What we can suspect, from given workstation benchmarks here at THG, is that it would probably take at least a 2.2Ghz Opteron core or something to completely defeat a 3.4Ghz Northwood in typical 32-bit code. And Opteron is more feature-rich than A64 (which has, for instance, only one memory channel). And A64 will have to compete with Prescott at 3.4Ghz, not Northwood at 3.4Ghz - Precott is supposed to be 20% faster per clock, and that puts it at 4.1Ghz "Northwood scale". This comparison might be reasonable, considering that Opteron uses the same core as A64.

So what I'm saying is: I wouldn't hold my breath for A64... it looks exciting, but let's just wait and see, shall we?...

Don't you mean 3.2GHz Northwood? The 3.4GHz Northwood does not and will not ever exist. The 3.4GHz will be Prescott.

Listen to me now and forget me tomorrow

hm... yes, I know that.

But I was kind of thinking hypothetically: when A64 comes out, then not only will it compete with a 3.4Ghz CPU, but it'll be 3.4Ghz Prescott. And a 3.4Ghz Northwood (if it existed) would already be very tough to beat with a 1.8Ghz... I explained my opinion <A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=141516#141516" target="_new">here</A>.

Thanks for posting this link. It's lackluster scores like that and probable delays that made me decide to build my next PC with either P4s or Athlon XP's (and I have no patience). One side note, the prices of both CPU's (P4+AthXP) will plummet once the next wave hits the street.

--GNOMES ARE GOOD! GNOMES ARE GREAT! GNOMES GO ON MY DINNER PLATE!!!--

I wasn't impressed at all with those numbers... especially if you consider that the 2.0Ghz A64 will have to compete against Prescott, not a mere 2.8C...

You can milk a bit more out of that CPU by overclocking it. Most Celeron 600's would do 900MHz at 100MHz bus without problems. Often this required an increase in core voltage. And if your board doesn't support these adjustments, they can be made to the CPU itself.

<font color=blue>Watts mean squat if you don't have quality!</font color=blue>

I doubt the Athlon64 will be *that* expensive. Hell, even Deerfield (1.0-1.3 GHz Itanium 2 with 1.5MB of L3 cache) will be under $1000 (rumors are around $700).

"We are Microsoft, resistance is futile." - Bill Gates, 2015.

Yes I can see how this would be a tough call. Upgrade now or wait untill September. In September, these will be the most expensive AMD systems you can buy. Typically new "flagship" cpu's go for $450 or so. If you overclock, I would recommend something like an Asus Deluxe board(or comparable Abit or Epox board with nForce2 or nForce Ultra 400 chipset) for the Athlon XP 1700+ T'bred B(or 2100+). This cpu/mobo combined with 2-2-2 Corsair XMS or Kingston HyperX PC27000(2 x 256MB sticks = 512MB) memory run at a sychronous FSB 33/166 is know good (excellent) stable and powerful price/performance ratio computer. As you may know, if you use 2 sticks of memory in these systems you get better perfomance. Slap in a reasonably priced Radeon like the 9500 (pro or non-pro)and a 8MB cache 40GB Western Digital hard drive, it will be so fast compared to what you have now you will freak!! hehe cost is only around $700 plus or minus. Then you can check out the AMD64 when it comes out and let them work out any bugs for a few months a let the price come down some and you can end up with two computers for the price of one(almost).
PS you could even then sell the 1700+ computer at that point for around what you paid for it.

Opteron gaming benchmarks

<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1818&p=6" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1818&p=6</A>
<A HREF="http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1818&p=7" target="_new">http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1818&p=7</A>

Athlon 64 is definately going to be an excellent gaming CPU

----------------
<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new"> My Website</A></b>

<b><A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new"> My Rig</A></b>

So, what should i do: 1. Get a P4 2.4 533/800fsb and keep my gf2mx400 or 2. Get an AMD athlonXP barton 2500/2600+ w/nforce2 mboard +integrated gf4mx...

And is it true that prescott will work on a 478 chipset mboard with all the cpu features operational(im sure that the mboard wont support the higher cache etc.) cause that would save a lot of cash on upgrading to the 64 bit platform later on...

thnx for your replies...

Unreal is a poor benchmark to include since the compiler used was GCC 3.2 the version with SSE support. Which works well for the Athlon but not soo much for the P4. Wait till the uber P4 optimized Doom 3 comes out then we can compare slanted coded games to each other.

-Jeremy

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5341387" target="_new">Busting Sh@t Up!!!</A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm=1060900" target="_new">Busting More Sh@t Up!!!</A>

I imagine they did since the game states on the box designed for the Athlon XP. Considering the user base they have is more or less equal for AMD and Intel based CPU's you would think they would have used the ICC 7.1 P4 with SSE2 support one. Since its been shown (cant find link) that it excellerate even the Athlons performance. But Tim at Epic is pretty hardcore to make a name for himself and since Carmack is a Intel man hes gotta be someone.

Unreal 2 though seems to be a different story its performance considering the heavy use of Pixel Shadeing is some what better than 2003's. But thats my own personal perceptions nothing to document ill do that when I get my 3.06 next week.

-Jeremy

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=5341387" target="_new">Busting Sh@t Up!!!</A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?pcm=1060900" target="_new">Busting More Sh@t Up!!!</A>

Yes, but things don't look too bright for AMD either. Compilers have to be used; being available is not nearly enough. Besides, Intel's compilers give them a ridiculous boost in SSE2 (something in the range of 250±50%, it's pathetic), wo why not use them? AMD has to have paid the Unreal programmers.
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Mephistopheles on 07/06/03 12:16 PM.</EM></FONT></P>

I just have to express my full support for this opinion. Itanium is a powerful chip. It's in its third generation, and can give Opteron a really hard time - consider Deerfield.

I mean heck, even the last generation of Itanium could easily beat the Opteron at floating point. Madison can destroy anything.

Absolutely.

Besides, Itanium's approach to computing is a clean one. They were able to put all their newest tricks and ideas in the core, because it was designed from scratch. Opteron, on the other hand, was designed anchored to compatibility - which is not a bad thing, of course, but it limits the processor design.

That's why Opteron being a 32-bit processor with 64-bit tacked on is a rather bad thing!

Please quote the sentence tim sweeny used to restrict himself to games. He did not do so.

Itanium wasn't designed as a Desktop CPU at all. Its absurd floating point performance, however, is of special interest. It lacks an AGP port, like Opteron at its launch, and is not appropriate for games as such. And there is absolutely no way you could know what Itanium would be capable of, if AGP-enabled motherboards and Desktop systems were build on that technology. Itanium is 64-bit unleashed, and Opteron is 64-bit held back by backward compatibility.

That's an interesting bit. They were probably paid to say that!