Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Athlon64 3200+ vs P4 3.2 for gaming

Last response: in CPUs
Share
November 23, 2003 3:07:25 PM

Which is better for gaming overall?
This goes for the other Athlon 64s too - are they all better than their P4 counterparts for gaming?

Also which would be the best and/or good mobo's to go with these processors?

Finally the "best" or at least good memory to go with them?

Any answers relating to the above would be appreciated, thanks.

More about : athlon64 3200 gaming

November 23, 2003 3:27:16 PM

thanks a lot.
Related resources
November 23, 2003 4:19:40 PM

I have an A64 and it rocks
November 23, 2003 4:27:33 PM

how many dollers you spent on it? i mean where can i get one for cheap?

..this is very useful and helpful place for information...
November 23, 2003 6:00:21 PM

nice, what mobo and ram?
November 23, 2003 11:09:33 PM

The 2.6C/2.8C are just as adequate, you don't need to spend $400 on a processor. Put the rest towards the video card or more memory.
November 24, 2003 1:34:00 AM

Heck he can buy the 2.6C OC it to 3.5.
November 24, 2003 4:14:45 AM

Thanks for the info but I'm definitely not OCing.

I'm thinking ahead to Half Life 2, DE2 and Doom 3 as well as all those other titles.

Also, by that logic couldn't I buy a 3200+ and OC (not that I'm OCing)?
November 24, 2003 5:20:06 AM

who would want a Heater for a computer?
November 24, 2003 2:46:06 PM

hehe
November 24, 2003 3:35:15 PM

Sure, it just won't perform as fast as a 2.6c. The AXP 2600+ thru 3200+ are vastly overrated on the pr rating. The intel 2.4c-3.2c are much much faster and overclock on stock cooling a pretty massive ammount. A64 stuff on the other hand is faster than the c varient p4 chips, but it's also comparatively more expensive and less throughly tested. I've not seen alot of overclock results yet either, but it appears to be mediocre from what I have seen here and there.

Shadus
November 24, 2003 3:36:24 PM

2.6c isn't a prescott. It runs nice and cool. You can clock to low-mid 3's on stock cooling.

Shadus
November 24, 2003 6:24:11 PM

OK, I'm still considering a P4 as well, for less.
November 24, 2003 6:39:56 PM

It really depends on yer budget, to be sure nothing is at all wrong with the A64 other than it's just flat out new and hasn't had time for all the chipset and compatibility bugs worked out. There may be very few or there may be piles. P4 is just slightly better tested and an overclockers dream. If you get an AXP 2500+ or faster, p4c 2.6c+, or a A64/FX/P4EE you are going to be a happy person. They're all real nice chips. If you wanna go real extreme try an FX or an EE, yah they're super expensive, but at the same time they're also the best performing cpu's on the market. Shrug, trade off. Post up some specs on what you think yer gonna build before you do and everyone will happily critique it :)  We're only bastages most of the time.

Shadus
November 24, 2003 7:05:52 PM

Here is my opinion. Performance wise, the two systems (P4 3.2c and A64 3200+) will be the same, at least when it comes to gaming. So one might say that you should go with whichever is cheaper. The thing is that if you go with Intel, your motherboard will be able to take a 3.4GHz Prescott at best, although I doubt it. So, you will have to buy a new mobo as well when you want to upgrade your CPU in a few months. On the other hand, if you go with AMD you will easily be able to upgrade your CPU next year to a A64 3800+ for example without the need to change the motherboard or any other component of your system. So, when taking upgradability into consideration, I believe AMD is currently the best route to follow. Not to mention that if you choose Intel, you will also have to change your memory at your next upgrade since probably Intel is adopting DDR-II in 2004, which is not the case with AMD.

I hope I've made myself clear !!!
November 24, 2003 7:23:46 PM

IMO upgradeability isn't the main issue because if you keep a pc more than a year or two motherboard inovations (such as pci-x, newer sata, etc...) are going to render the motherboard as inoperable. Especially now as the new video card bus is coming next year for sure. Also I believe the 64 is going to be changing sockets next year also (perhaps that was the fx but I think I remember seeing something about amd64 doing it also, but not sure-- someone else may know for sure.) So largely right now I think its a bad time to upgrade and if you do upgrade your better off going slightly lower end, overclocking, and then invest a real ammount of money mid/late next year... or at least after the new mobos/chips/video arrive.

Shadus
November 24, 2003 10:50:23 PM

Ok thanks, much appreciated.

I'm now looking at a P4 3Ghz ("800" FSB), whatever mobo, 512 DDR400 (either Crucial or the "XMS" Corsair stuff?) and hopefully a 9800 Pro *256*mb (with HL2, Q3 and all the rest in mind.)
November 24, 2003 10:55:43 PM

I've figured that those two are far too expensive - I'd have to wait until April to even think about them. There are too many good games (DE2, MoH2:p C, FarCry, UT2003, BFVietnam + other DX9 games like Max Payne 2 already out now and many more) to not upgrade now, plus I want to upgrade anyway.
November 25, 2003 2:00:22 AM

Quote:
Performance wise, the two systems (P4 3.2c and A64 3200+) will be the same, at least when it comes to gaming.


Not according to the benchamrks I've seen. The 3.2 will be quite faster in gaming.
November 25, 2003 3:23:18 AM

Quote:
Not according to the benchamrks I've seen. The 3.2 will be quite faster in gaming.


Nod very true there. Either chip will play any game you want and play it well, but the 3.2c is quite a bit faster than the 3200+

Shadus
November 25, 2003 6:15:01 AM

Thats NOT true. Of all the games tested on this site the P4c beat the A64 in q3 engine games and aquamark. Thats it.

<font color=blue>"As you journey through life take a minute every now and then to give a thought
for the other fellow. He could be plotting something."
----Hagar the Horrible</font color=blue>
November 25, 2003 7:01:22 AM

I would like to see those benchies.

<font color=blue>"As you journey through life take a minute every now and then to give a thought
for the other fellow. He could be plotting something."
----Hagar the Horrible</font color=blue>
November 25, 2003 7:12:34 AM

Shadus, doesn't XP "half" the memory on your computer? I mean would 512mb ddr400 ram not be enough generally speaking (talking gaming wise here)?
November 25, 2003 9:30:12 AM

I'm new to this scene so please tolerate some really stupid remarks I may make and educate me why those were stupid remarks I made :) 

Having said that, are all these posts not really missing a point here? The real value of the A64 will come when games will be published that have native 64bit support. Then it will blow away the p4 (undoubtedly there will be a 64bit desktop alternative from Intel soon)

So the question becomes: when will the first games come out with 64bit native support? Does anyone have any clue about this?

Seeing what the minimum specs are for the latest games I feel that the games are lagging by more than a year in terms of utilizing available processing power (of course this also covers GPUs as well as CPUs).

If it will take more than a year from now to see 64bit native support for games, what use is it to step over to the A64 now? What kind of mobo should I include in my new system today so that I can plug in a 64bit processor when it will give me seriously added value? (this is a question for both AMD and Intel cases) Or should I upgrade both mobo and cpu at the same time for 64bit?

Hopefully some of you guys can help me out here
November 25, 2003 10:07:04 AM

Quote:
I would like to see those benchies.


Check out Tom's review, or any other site.
November 25, 2003 11:28:40 AM

I was talking an AXP actually... I'd have said a64 otherwise.

Shadus
November 25, 2003 11:30:37 AM

There is a pretty significant difference in loading times and perforance in mmp games (my personal genre) between 512mb of ram and 1024mb of ram. How much difference it would make in most fp games may be negliable.

Shadus
November 25, 2003 3:09:32 PM

I agree with you completely in that case. I got confused because TTZX was talking about the A64:
---------
>>Performance wise, the two systems (P4 3.2c and <b>A64</b> 3200+) will be the same, at least when it comes to gaming.
---------

>>Not according to the benchamrks I've seen. The 3.2 will be quite faster in gaming.

I was wondering where those secret benchies are to be found.




<font color=blue>"As you journey through life take a minute every now and then to give a thought
for the other fellow. He could be plotting something."
----Hagar the Horrible</font color=blue>
November 25, 2003 3:17:46 PM

*cough*wasntpayingenoughattention*cough*

Shadus
November 25, 2003 5:48:03 PM

Quote:
The 2.6C/2.8C are just as adequate, you don't need to spend $400 on a processor. Put the rest towards the video card or more memory.

And then someone could say...

The barton 2500+ is just as adequate, you don't need to spend $200 on a processor.
November 25, 2003 6:27:36 PM

Could and will. A 2500+ is more than adequate to play ANY game that is out today. A 9800xt with 2500+ will play much better than a 2.6c w 9600xt par example. Or the extra money could be spent on quality. I cannot stress enough the importance of getting quality computer parts.

<font color=blue>If the <font color=yellow>laurel</font color=yellow> is to big for your head, it becomes a hoola-hoop, and you have to keep your butt really busy.</font color=blue>
November 25, 2003 9:20:08 PM

Quote:
A 9800xt with 2500+ will play much better than a 2.6c w 9600xt par example.

And the AMD system will cost a lot more.

A 2500+ with 9800xt won't run as well as say a 2.6c with a 9800Pro 128MB. Oh yeah, the Intel system can be had for less, too. The Intel system will also be faster in general use since it has HT. Or you could get a *quality* 9800Pro with a retail 2.6c for the same price as the AMD sytem, OC the bejeezes out of the Intel system and easily outrun the AMD system, even if it itself is OCed.

Damn Rambus.
November 26, 2003 5:03:55 AM

Perhaps at 640x480x16... At 1600x1200x32 4xFSAA 8xANISO the XT will be faster.

Regardless, the point he was trying to make was about how saving on a processor to go for a better video card makes all the difference in games. Heck, my AXP 1800+ with 512 MB ram (now 1 GB) and 9800 Pro runs HL2 faster than a P4 3.0c 1 GB ram and 9600 Pro.

Some day I'll be rich and famous for inventing a device that allows you to stab people in the face over the internet.
November 26, 2003 8:38:52 AM

A64.. duh! :smile:

----
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>
November 27, 2003 5:14:01 PM

ok thanks.
!