P4EE-Athlon FX51?

jack131

Distinguished
Oct 27, 2003
3
0
18,510
When p4ee will be released. I will decide, p4ee or fx51. I need fast cpu for fs2004. Any ideas which one will be better for me?
I will also buy radeon 9800XT 256.

Thanks
 

pitsi

Distinguished
Jan 19, 2003
650
0
18,980
Ok, I'll take it for granted that money is no object for you. I think that's pretty obvious so I won't ask about your budget :p

Nobody really knows for sure when P4 EE will be out but that will happen probably soon. On the other hand, the FX-51 is already out, which should offer you (at the worst scenario), the same performance as the P4 EE. Also, there is a rumour that the P4 EE will cost around $900 while the FX-51 costs right now about $750. Note though that the FX also needs more expensive memory, since registered memory is a requirement.

I personally think that you should go with Athlon 64 FX-51, no question about that. It's a MUCH better choice than the P4 EE and you can get one right now instead of waiting until who knows when. On the other hand, are you absolutely sure that you want to spend this kind of money? The Pentium 3.2c or the Athlon 64 3200+ for example will cost you about 50% less, offering at the same time more than enough performance for anything you want to do with your PC. In fact, I don't think the FS2004 has ANY trouble running smoothly on my Athlon XP 2400+ w/ Radeon 9500 Pro for that matter !!!
 

Corona999

Distinguished
Jul 23, 2001
49
0
18,530
Agreed. The power that these 2 cpu's are offering is way too much for what we all need. Getting either of them would just be for bragging rights and to make your p*nis feel a little bigger with your friends. But if you must have the latest and greatest, I would definitely go AthlonFX-51. If you're thinking of waiting for the P4EE, you might as well get the FX-53 because that will probably be out around the same time the first P4EE is out. There's no question the FX will crush any P4EE in performance by then.
 

jack131

Distinguished
Oct 27, 2003
3
0
18,510
Thanks for replies. I really need fast cpu. Everything else will work great with 2400XP.. but not fs.. I have so much addons, payware/freeware, sceneries. traffic, etc. I waited very long. So finally I want to get a new cpu and videocard this year.
FX53? Can you tell me where I can get some info.. I can wait a month or so.. but I want new cpu this november/beginning of december.
 
G

Guest

Guest
<A HREF="http://www.simhq.com/_technology/technology_014a.html" target="_new">http://www.simhq.com/_technology/technology_014a.html</A> scroll down, and you'll see a few flight sim benchmarks.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
 

Crashman

Polypheme
Former Staff
Nah, there is no CPU powerful enough for me.

<font color=blue>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to a hero as big as Crashman!</font color=blue>
<font color=red>Only a place as big as the internet could be home to an ego as large as Crashman's!</font color=red>
 

eden

Champion
Personally I wouldn't advise for the FX-51 because of its limited socket line. It should end in Q2 04 and from then on, you will have to change the entire system.

My personnal recommendation would be a 3200+ A64, and its performance shouldn't be over 10% below the A64 FX. In fact, the benchmarks below should be pretty convincing for FS2004: <A HREF="http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031023/nvidia-nv38-nv36-40.html" target="_new">http://www.tomshardware.com/graphic/20031023/nvidia-nv38-nv36-40.html</A>
Here the benchmarks reveal the game played at 4X AA and 8X Aniso filtering, both the common image quality enhancements. I am assuming they had maximum detail as they said in their description. I remember how storms and clouds always deteriorated performance too. Performance is not too shabby at all. In that case, consider the A64 already way ahead in performance over the 3.2GHZ P4 when you look at this Extreme Tech test (albeit with low detail to check out CPU effect) <A HREF="http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1276894,00.asp" target="_new">http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1276894,00.asp</A>
The A64 is clearly ahead of the 3.2GHZ, and it most definitely is a better buy buget-wise and for potential upgrade paths.
You should then focus on the video card, where an XT is about 7% better than the 9800PRO. You choose if it's a better value. Note the 256MB on the PRO model finally seems to make use of its extra RAM space for more textures with a slightly better performance.

In my opinion, the A64 + a 9800 XT will not fail you, they bring some nice savings over the FX-51 system who asks for expensive ECC memory. To augment the value even more, a 9800PRO, which really is far from being bad relatively to the high-end XT, is a great buy as soon its price should drop to 250-300$, thanks to the XT and FX5950 causing trickling in current cards to lower price ranges.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol:
 

jack131

Distinguished
Oct 27, 2003
3
0
18,510
Thanks Eden.

One question... on extremetech fs2004 benchmark, p4 3.2 is better then athlon64? and p4 3.2 is better then p4 3.2extreme? I dont get it... Maybe I should get p4 3.2? hmm...
 

eden

Champion
Wow, this one slipped me right out. I could've sworn I've seen the 3200+ crapping on the 3.2GHZ in FS. Oh well, still, the 3200+ is a better value solely because of the future optimizations for the extra registers on the AMD64 technology. Games could benefit very much so.

Although if you work with multimedia a lot, a 3.2GHZ is still the sounder choice, hands down, over a 3200+. That also might be overtaken by the AMD64 optimizations, and if you are gaming more, any optimizations later coming will make you happier than the multimedia aspect which is likely to get better on the A64, considering the A64 still has the gaming lead over the 3.2GHZ.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 10/27/03 11:23 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 
G

Guest

Guest
yeah the P4EE's performance is pretty weird on that one. However, the A64 and P4C are so close to each other, its almost within the margin of error of such benches. Hardly a reason to pick one over the other. Given the A64's performance on other flight sims (like IL2: forgotten battles) and games in general, I'd still recommend it for your purpose over a P4C. Also, considering MS' is going to release 64 bit software for the AMD, it would not be impossible if it will someday release an AMD64 version of Flight Simulator. I've not seen, read or heard anything about it, but its still a disctinct possibility.

As for the Athlon FX; its true we will see a new socket next year. However, AMD has stated it will continue to produce socket 940 FX's for another 12 months. And if that isnt enough, you should always be able to plug in an Opteron 15x. Socket 940 isnt going anywhere anytime soon, and since the opteron 1xx is pretty much identical to the FX, and they are priced the same, its hardly a concern IMHO.

Finally, the nForce3 isnt doing the FX justice; VIA based chipsets seem to give a tangible performance increase especially for AGP intensive apps.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
 

kinney

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2001
2,262
17
19,785
OMG is this eden? I never thought I'd see you type such things!
Serious!

I'd have to fully agree with everything you've said.
FX=No buy
A64=best buy

That 3200+ A64 is now available at newegg in OEM form for $300(!).
Thats roughly the OEM price of the 3.0ghz P4..

that is an easy decision IMO.

Reasons I'm purchasing A64 over the FX even after the socket change-
-its not the new duron line, the thorton xp core is designated for that.
-it uses single channel memory, no need for 2 identical sticks for optimum performance (I hate that!)
-nonecc memory
-within what, 10% in games of the $700+ FX51?!

If you want an AMD thats the way to go IMO.
If you want to save yourself some money the P4s that are good overclockers (2.4/2.8c?) are becoming increasingly appealing with good price/performance. And you could always upgrade to a P4EE later (i think) going that route.

----
I just tell it like it is and some can't handle it. If your experience is different, well congratu-fukulation.
<b>I’M NOT A ATI FANBOY, I’M NOT A NV FANBOY, I’M A STABILITY FANBOY</b>
 
G

Guest

Guest
> And you could always upgrade to a P4EE later (i think)
>going that route.

I don't think the EE will ever be affordable/worthwhile; however, upgrading to prescott later (<=3.6 GHz) should be possible if you are going for a P4 platform.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
 

Frozen_Fallout

Distinguished
Jan 8, 2003
433
0
18,780
Don't fogget that the scaling for overclocking the Athlon fx and 64 3200+ is beautiful. Also I think that when you boost the 3200+ to 2.2 it gets alot better proformance almost as much as the FX if I rmemeber right

-------------------------------------------------
Remember what your fighting for, Remember why you even started fighting, and Remember who you are
 

eden

Champion
I'm all for the 3200+ A64 as the prime choice.

I can't possibly fathom recommending the FX any soon though. There simply is NO guarantee it will last that long. Not to mention the real Socket 939 will feature a much cheaper RAM pricing which in turn also features better performance.

So for the moment:
A64 for the gaming
P4C for the multimedia

Good point on the overclocking. Consider the 2.8C being very cheap with the new price drops, or the 2.6C, and overclock them for even better value.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol:
 

kinney

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2001
2,262
17
19,785
I don't think the EE will ever be affordable/worthwhile; however, upgrading to prescott later (<=3.6 GHz) should be possible if you are going for a P4 platform.
Yeah I was assuming the EE is going to be 'for real'. I agree that its probably not... but hopefully it will be available someday.

I havent been keeping up with things, I realize that the Prescott is simply going to be named another P4 but no socket change?

----
I just tell it like it is and some can't handle it. If your experience is different, well congratu-fukulation.
<b>I’M NOT A ATI FANBOY, I’M NOT A NV FANBOY, I’M A STABILITY FANBOY</b>
 
G

Guest

Guest
>Yeah I was assuming the EE is going to be 'for real'. I
>agree that its probably not

I'm not claiming the EE is not going to be "for real". i just doubt it will ever sell below ~$700, therefore, probably not a worthwile upgrade when higher clocked prescotts arrive.

> I realize that the Prescott is simply going to be named
>another P4 but no socket change?

they will change sockets (socket 775), but so far, it looks like only prescotts above 3.6 or 3.8 GHz will strictly require them. A recent Japanese article seemed to indicate, Intel was having trouble making early Prescotts work on existing socket 478 @800 MHz FSB, and reworking the packaging and/or core just to enable this. This is pretty solid support at least 3.6 GHz prescotts will work on existing boards. If not, they wouldnt bother redesigning in the first place.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
 

kinney

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2001
2,262
17
19,785
I guess it all comes down to price then.

Educate me here if I'm wrong. But isnt the P4EE supposed to be faster than the Prescott on launch?

As far as P4EE/Prescott pricing, I'd wager they will be comparable at prescott launch.. and if I'm correct that the P4EE is going to be faster at launch its not a bad way to go (now or later even) for a 478 board owner.

Not saying I wouldnt suggest a A64 3200+ over any of those options due to the pricing but if you were intent on staying intel and had a P4 system to begin with of course.

----
I just tell it like it is and some can't handle it. If your experience is different, well congratu-fukulation.
<b>I’M NOT A ATI FANBOY, I’M NOT A NV FANBOY, I’M A STABILITY FANBOY</b>
 
G

Guest

Guest
yes, the EE is probably gonna be faster (in most apps) as the initial prescots @~3.2-3.4 GHz. At least that is what initial benchmark preview seem to indicate, and its what intel told us (clock for clock, EE>prescott)

I also don't expect the EE to ever be anywhere near cheap (not with a ~240mm die, roughly twice prescott!), and as faster prescotts become available, the EE will either become redudant or it will be replaced with some "prescott EE". At any given moment, I suspect a P4C or P4 prescott would make more sense than the EE, which is really only being released to win benchmarks IMHO.

So, as far as upgrading choices are concerned, 478 does have a more or less acceptable life span, not because of the EE, but because of ~3.6 GHz Prescott which ought to work in those. A 3.6 GHz Prescot EE is also a remote possibility of course, but once more, if ever released, its probably gonna be ~$900 cpu as well.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
 

eden

Champion
To be honest I'm not too believing on the EE>Prescott claims. Really, lately marketting has been ruling everything.

Intel wants people to buy the EE, because they know the Prescott's delayed. Spur the purchase desire and you're off. There will be places where the EE will rule over the Prescott at the same clock, I don't doubt that, but they're not common, and Intel is likely basing themselves on such results like nVidia did for the FX5800 Ultra.

Just my view.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol:
 

kinney

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2001
2,262
17
19,785
Thanks for the info. I'd have to agree, sounds like the EE is not worth looking at.
If you have a 478 P4 and want an upgrade just pickup the first Prescott... actually not a bad deal for current P4 users! The price of prescott at launch is still in the air.
I have a feeling if someone wants to do that it'd be cheaper to get a A64 3200, even with motherboard and be better off.
Besides, it is a single channel setup that performs faster than most DC. A draw for me at least.

----
I just tell it like it is and some can't handle it. If your experience is different, well congratu-fukulation.
<b>I’M NOT A ATI FANBOY, I’M NOT A NV FANBOY, I’M A STABILITY FANBOY</b>
 

eden

Champion
It IS too bad it runs at single channel. The potential is so strong when the other is held back by ECC, when you think about it.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol:
 

kinney

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2001
2,262
17
19,785
You think there would be a performance increase going to DC? If so how much??
Does it need more than single channel ddr400?

Im honestly ignorant as hell on this!

But either way really, I am still getting one because I was planning on picking up one 512mb stick of ddr400.. and the motherboards are cheap enough if DC is introduced later and is great then I'll pickup another 512stick and new mobo.

----
I just tell it like it is and some can't handle it. If your experience is different, well congratu-fukulation.
<b>I’M NOT A ATI FANBOY, I’M NOT A NV FANBOY, I’M A STABILITY FANBOY</b>
 

eden

Champion
Yeah but you'd need to switch CPUs, because the memory controller needs the dual-channel function too!

The increase is apparent in some areas. THG had some areas where the FX even with ECC, just sped ahead beyond the maximum theoretical 10% caused by the 200MHZ higher clock speed.
Without ECC the boost is likely bigger.

I could've sworn I read somewhere the A64 would have DC, but that would destroy pretty much anything the FX had over it I guess. I don't recall any other feature it has over the A64.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Eden on 10/29/03 01:37 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 

kinney

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2001
2,262
17
19,785
Oh. I'll still get one, the single channel is fine by me considering the performance. I mean it does beat most of the previous generations (P4/XP) even when they had DC. How it does this I dont know.. guess bandwidth isnt that important on a Athlon as it is on the P4.

----
I just tell it like it is and some can't handle it. If your experience is different, well congratu-fukulation.
<b>I’M NOT A ATI FANBOY, I’M NOT A NV FANBOY, I’M A STABILITY FANBOY</b>
 

eden

Champion
Don't mean to be blunt but, "well duh".

The P4 has always needed more bandwidth. However it seems to me now that the mem controller is up there, bandwidth has finally become more of an issue on the K8s. In the past, 25% more bandwidth yeilded as much a maximum of 10%!

Consider the P4 has aggressive prefetching and longer cache line fetches, you easily got more bandwidth to be used. Doesn't make it more effective but since it works that way, and it is also a 20 stage pipeline design, my guess is it does a lot of pipeline stalls or bubbles, hence why it needs more bandwidth. No one should however discredit the P4 on account that "it needs 6.4GB/sec more than the K7s to beat the competition". It's simply not applicable, not when the P4 functions differently. Mind you, the P4 does have the best prefetch abilities of the two processors. There were some Ace tests showing a significantly more powerful result on the P4 in such test.

Anyways, my personal preference would be if you waited and got the 3400+. With 10% higher clock speed and probably great scaling, it could very well be a better buy than the FX-51 and still manage a ~400$ price (if AMD sticks to the market categories as they are now, high-end A64s will cost ~400$ always). So maybe you could consider waiting for the end season to be sure.

--
<A HREF="http://www.lochel.com/THGC/album.html" target="_new"><font color=blue><b>This just in, over 56 no-lifers have their pics up on THGC's Photo Album! </b></font color=blue></A> :lol: