Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD or Intel?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
January 19, 2004 1:23:58 AM

I am getting a new computer, and have run into a bit of a budget problem. I intend to overclock my computer, and have found out that if I want an OC'ed 800FSB P4, I would need fast RAM to be able to ran at the same speed and therefore have a better bandwidth.

However, this means I would need to cut back on something else. Either 2.1 speakers or 5.1 without a sound card. Or, AMD instead of P4.

That's what I need help on. AMD + NForce onboard Sound, or Intel and no sound card.

I'm really confused about the whole AMD thing. All I know is there is a T-Bred and Barton, and that the XP number is meant to be the equivalent to the Pentium number or something like that.

Anyway, most importantly, how do you convert between the XP number and the actual frequency? For example, the RAM number divided by 8 is the speed of the RAM. What about AMD's?

Also, is there anyway that I can know if I'm getting an AMD with multiplier unlocked? Like a specific cut-off date? Appearance?

If I can change the multiplier, then which AMD's have the lowest multiplier, so I can increase the multiplier to the highest possible and get it OC'ed a lot even before increasing the FSB?

And, I read that Barton's have slightly larger core. Is there an approx size for both so I can measure it with a ruler rather than comparing? I mean, if they've only got T-Bred's I won't be able to compare.

AMD, I don't know much about and I need you guys' help on. However, it didn't do too well on the benchmark tests against Intel... I think I'd definitely get an AMD if I could be sure it was a Barton and multiplier unlocked. Otherwise, I'm not too sure.

More about : amd intel

January 19, 2004 1:31:25 AM

We need price to work with? Do need case, monitor?

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by HardwareBoss on 01/19/04 12:21 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 19, 2004 3:55:53 AM

Yeh, the whole lot. I live in Australia, so some prices are really different. Don't worry about the prices. I've already worked out my options, I just need you guys' help on deciding which one is the best choice.

If I get Intel, I have a few choices. Faster RAM (so OC'ed CPU syncs with RAM) and 2.1 speakers, faster RAM and 5.1 speakers without sound card, or normal 3200 RAM (ie, CPU and RAM won't sync) and 5.1 speakers + Audigy Soundcard.

If I get AMD, I can get slower RAM, and still have the RAM sync with an OC'ed CPU. Thus, with its' onboard sound, I can get a XP3000+ and 5.1 sound and still be within my budget.

However, I'll need the question about the AMD's answered before I can make an informed decision.

A few questions about the Intel though. I read that MSI's motherboards dynamically overclocked the CPU. Is this good or bad? Does it affect the OC potential?

Thanks for your help.
Related resources
January 19, 2004 5:46:26 AM

Get the xp2500 retail. All 2500s are bartons. Most of the new bartons are rebadged xp3200s. ( yields seem to be that good lately) The difference between the xp2500 and the xp 3200 is the fsb, 25 uses 166/333 and the 32 uses 200/400. The 2500s are inexpensive but at 200 fsb will give you the perf of a P4c @ 2.8 gigs or better (much better according to Amd about the same according to intel). Now for the bad news. At about week 39 of 03, amd decided to lock the multipliers on thier xp processors.
About the xp names, the best way to look at it is as a progressive numbering system. The higher the number the better the perf generally. This may not work too well for certain apps, but in general it is mostly harmless. The numbers compare fairly closely to P4b if they were available at that speed, again depending who you ask.Good luck, and have fun.
January 19, 2004 6:03:06 AM

Amd has the better price to cpu range. Here in the USA. Like my brother getting a emachine 3200+ onboard sound with Lower ram and gf4 440. $700 Now what he plaining on doing is upgrading the two. So the ram is the same as the fsb and video card. Then Later upgrade the soundcard. This is just a start up system. Then rebuild it.

Me I will be buying differntly. Like find the case and motherboard and cpu and ram. And sound card and videocard. This will be higher Price but everything I get if something gose Out I can replace it for a year.

And It will Depend on Amd or intel and how they run on test. And I dont go by software that been use over and over for test. We know software and cpu companys watch for this to tweak there cpus.
January 19, 2004 6:37:34 AM

Advice here is free, and in your case kanofwhatever, they do get what they pay for. By the way, sorry about your lousy aquamark score.
January 19, 2004 9:47:47 AM

Post deleted by Mephistopheles
January 19, 2004 10:06:04 AM

Stuggling to read?

"The 2500s are inexpensive but at 200 fsb will give you the perf of a P4c @ 2.8 gigs or better (much better according to Amd about the same according to intel)."

That couldn't be put any easier but i'll have a go (dunno where you got stock from :S):

At 200 FSB an XP2500 would = a 3200+ hence performing "slightly" better than a "stock" 2.8C.

Stock 3D Mark scores for a XP3200+ & 9800PRO/XT are as follows:

3DMark 2001 SE -

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7191499" target="_new">19,072 AMÐ BARTON 3200+ / 9800XT</A>
<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k1=7431173" target="_new">18,480 AMÐ BARTON 3200+ / 9800PRO</A>

3DMark 2003 (Build340)

<A HREF="http://service.futuremark.com/compare?2k3=1901706" target="_new">6,422 AMÐ BARTON 3200+ / 9800XT</A>

Sorry can only publish one 2003 score but you get the idea. :) 

---

"I thought i could see the light at the end of the tunnel, but it turned out to be some ba$tard with a torch and a load more work"
January 19, 2004 10:18:31 AM

Wow, you're right of course... I misread that post. Problem corrected. :frown:

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
January 19, 2004 1:18:07 PM

heheh i thought you did :D 

Forget the reading glasses? heheh

jk ;) 
---

"I thought i could see the light at the end of the tunnel, but it turned out to be some ba$tard with a torch and a load more work"
January 19, 2004 1:31:51 PM

Not really... the glasses were there. The mind wasn't! :smile:

Sorry 'bout that...

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
January 19, 2004 1:48:17 PM

heheh np :D 

---

"I thought i could see the light at the end of the tunnel, but it turned out to be some ba$tard with a torch and a load more work"
January 19, 2004 3:02:02 PM

Well what are you going to be doing? Games? Movies? If so, I'd cut back on speaker money and get good 2.1 speakers, get a good mobo, and good processor.

My Rig:
AthlonXP 2000+ 1.677ghz
GeForce Verto FX5200 128mb DDR
Maxtor 7200RPM 80GB, Stock 40gb
Kingston 384MB DDR
Cendyne 52x24x52 CD-RW
Lite-On 4x DVD-RW
Go EMachines...:( 
January 19, 2004 3:02:02 PM

Well what are you going to be doing? Games? Movies? If so, I'd cut back on speaker money and get good 2.1 speakers, get a good mobo, and good processor.

My Rig:
AthlonXP 2000+ 1.677ghz
GeForce Verto FX5200 128mb DDR
Maxtor 7200RPM 80GB, Stock 40gb
Kingston 384MB DDR
Cendyne 52x24x52 CD-RW
Lite-On 4x DVD-RW
Go EMachines...:( 
January 19, 2004 3:04:33 PM

..i think i double clicked or something :|...crap puter

My Rig:
AthlonXP 2000+ 1.677ghz
GeForce Verto FX5200 128mb DDR
Maxtor 7200RPM 80GB, Stock 40gb
Kingston 384MB DDR
Cendyne 52x24x52 CD-RW
Lite-On 4x DVD-RW
Go EMachines...:( 
January 19, 2004 3:06:32 PM

i think that was a double post...crap computer

My Rig:
AthlonXP 2000+ 1.677ghz
GeForce Verto FX5200 128mb DDR
Maxtor 7200RPM 80GB, Stock 40gb
Kingston 384MB DDR
Cendyne 52x24x52 CD-RW
Lite-On 4x DVD-RW
Go EMachines...:( 
January 19, 2004 3:08:46 PM

i don't like my computer :( 

My Rig:
AthlonXP 2000+ 1.677ghz
GeForce Verto FX5200 128mb DDR
Maxtor 7200RPM 80GB, Stock 40gb
Kingston 384MB DDR
Cendyne 52x24x52 CD-RW
Lite-On 4x DVD-RW
Go EMachines...:( 
January 19, 2004 3:14:08 PM

Quote:
If you can afford it get Intel. Their more expensive, which brings me to an old saying, "you get what you pay for".



funny , but to alot of people that saying certainly does not apply to Intel

-------


<A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>
dhlucke - "Phew...ok my wrists are hurting. I'm taking a break."
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 19, 2004 3:51:05 PM

> Their more expensive, which brings me to an old saying,
>"you get what you pay for".

So, you'd probably suggest your friends-on-a-budget to pay extra for a Celeron over a Duron or AXP ? Your friends must love you for it.. I'm not sure what it is they get for their bucks though; but its definately not much bang.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
January 19, 2004 4:21:34 PM

Kanavit, always in for a joke, i have seen him once advice here a P4 EE , now that was funny !
Think he does not know much about PC`s and read`s his review`s here at this site.


THG : The last 5-6 reviews have allways either had skewed results, or just somehow strangely come to a completly diferant conclusion then all of the other sites around.
January 19, 2004 9:01:53 PM

Well, here's my situation in a little more detail.
I plan to overclock. That bit is very important. That is why I prefer faster memory, so that I can still sync the CPU and RAM (BTW, can you OC a 3700 RAM to 4000 stabley?).

Now, everything below, until I say, has nothing to do with AMD's. I didn't start considering AMD's until my budget was in jeopardy. Funny, my friends at school say AMD is unstable, bad, poor quality, shoddy, etc... Yet the people here moan about Intel. I'm confused.

Anyway, before I realised I needed faster RAM, I was happy to settle with the Kingston 3200. That meant that I could get a sound card and 5.1 speakers (the Creative Inspire 5200). Now, if I do get faster RAM, I cannot get a sound card. Else, I'd be getting 2.1 speakers. Else, I'd settle for slow RAM and forget about sync'ing.

Now, thing about 'good' 2.1's. There seems to be an enormous price gap. You see, there are no speakers between $85AUD - $185AUD. Now, if I get the $85 speakers, it's the same (exactly the same) as the 5200, only in 2.1 (2500). $80, something slightly worse perhaps. $50, a Juster maybe. However, I wouldn't be able to buy the speakers over $185. Also those are like the freakin' awesome ones. Australia doesn't seem to stock the speakers in between.

Anyway, Crashman recommended a motherboard. Abit IS7 (thanks!). I'm told that most motherboards have 6 channel CODECs, but the Asus P4P800Dlx that I was intending to get before only had 3 ports, 2 being inputs. Therefore, to use the onboard 5.1, you'd sacrifice the inputs. The Abit however has 5 ports.

Now, it comes to this (still Intel now). I play lots of games, do some word processing, slides, etc... Occasionally listen to music when doing work, will watch DVD's a fair bit. I am not that picky on sound quality. Of course I don't want rasping sounds, but I'm not too picky. Reason being that when I play games, I'm immersed in playing rather than listening. When listening to music, I'm focussed on working. When watching DVD's, too busy watching the movie. You get what I mean. So, anything subtle, I won't notice. However, when playing games, I am particularly annoyed with lag, and frame rates below 30. Had to live a whole year with that (a PIII), don't want to live like that any more. To understand what I mean, try playing GTA Vice City on a computer with 128MB RAM, 800MHz Processor, 100MHz FSB, and some stupid integrated graphics card with a max of 32MB shared mem (8MB used). Then try chucking a tear gas bottle. I waited 5 minutes, and only 3 seconds passed in the game!!

Coming to that, I don't think I need THX certified speakers or the like. Just enough to make me happy. Now, I can either use the Abit's onboard 16bit CODEC and have RAM sync'ed with a 1000FSB CPU, or a 24bit Creative Audigy sound card with CPU to RAM ratio of 5:4. So, from my description, which do you think I should do. Sound card, or RAM and CPU sync? In other words, how much would a 5:4 ratio affect performance? 80%? How much better would the 24bit be better than the 16bit? Would I likely notice it?

Now, onto AMD's. I'm not very keen on them, because I am very ignorant about them as a whole. Now, here's something I don't understand. Usually, the frequency of an AMD is lower than the XP number right? A lot lower. And the FSB is 2x166 or 2x200 rather than 4x133 or 4x200. So, with a lower frequency AND FSB, how can it possibly have such a high XP number?

Since AMD's only have a max of FSB400, I would be getting a single module of RAM right? Isn't that like half the bandwidth???

Is there any way at all to work out the frequency from the XP and the FSB? I need it to find the multiplier of each, then if I decide to get an AMD, get the one with the lowest multiplier, so I can OC it easily.

One last thing. I recently heard about a few outcries about THG's reviews having weird results. Which are they? I should still get the 9600XT instead of a 5700 Ultra right? What about the Hyundai Q17 LCD monitor. Is that test screwed? There's another test. The one between several Intels and AMD's. The 2.6Ghz Intel even beat all the AMD's in one test. The non 64bit AMD's seemed to do really poorly. Was that screwed up?

Alright, thanks for all your help.
January 19, 2004 9:28:05 PM

Why overclock? Do you intend to overclock for the sake of overclocking... that's okay... I'm just trying to figure out if you need an extra 15% boost to achieve some sort of performance goal.

IMO, AMD has the best performance/price ratio just about everywhere.

The onboard sound of the nForce 2 is quite good. I don't know how much of an effect using the onboard sound would have on the CPU though... maybe it would negate any advantage you receive from overclocking.

IMO, having a nice display and sound are often overlooked by people trying to build a fast system. I've had my speaker/receiver setup for two PCs now and it's been worth every penny of the $300 I spent. My PC sounds great for games and movies. I wouldn't trade my sound for an ATI 9800 Pro, that's for sure... I'll keep my TI4400 until something comes out that makes an upgrade worthwhile.

The money you save buy getting an AMD and using nForce2 onboard sound might allow you to extend your budget in another area.

It's a "religious issue" really... no right or wrong. I can tell you that I've been very please with my AMD setup and I'm also very please with the PIII 733 setup I built before. If I were doing it all over again, I'd probably build another athlon box.
January 19, 2004 9:58:05 PM

if you are gaming and want a good monitor check out the merkortech.com they have some good grade a monitors for cheap! i would go with the 2500+ oc it to 3200 speeds and there ya go. a7n8x is a good board with good oc cpabilities.
January 20, 2004 12:10:18 AM

OK, thanks. I need to know more about the AMD's though to be able to make an informed decision. I live in Australia, so I wouldn't be able to buy from Merkortech.

Just one really important question about the AMD. The 2800+, etc... have 333FSB. Is that 2x333Mhz or is that 2x166Mhz?
January 20, 2004 12:33:53 AM

It's 2x166... AMD/Barton busses are 2x200, and current Intel busses are 4x200.

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
January 20, 2004 12:57:46 AM

Actually, the number you get to know - which is "800Mhz" for Intel and "400Mhz" for Barton CPUs - represent the <b>frequency at which data transfer occurs.</b> As such, in Intel's CPUs, information pieces are transferred at a rate of 800 Million such pieces every second. It's a 64-bit-wide bus, which means that every information piece is a chunk of 64 bits. Transferring 800 Million chunks of 64 bits is equal to transferring 51.2 Billion bits every second. Converting this to bytes, you actually get the magical number of 6.4GB/s.

AMD's bus works similarly (with bartons). Their bus width (size of information chunks) is also 64 bit, but the bus only does 400 Million transfers a second - meaning 25.6 Billion bits a second or 3.2GB/s.

The only processor that I know of that doesn't use 64-bit-bus-width is the Itanium. It uses 128-bit bus width at 400Mhz data transfer frequency, meaning 6.4GB/s bus throughput. In 2005, Itanium's FSB will be increased to 533Mhz, which means it will transfer 8.5GB/s, exactly the same as a 1066Mhz-FSB Prescott would.

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
January 20, 2004 1:58:56 AM

Thanks. But it's ok guys, I know what FSB is, I just wanted to confirm whether the AMD was 2x333 or 2x166. Since it is 2x166, it is less than half of the P4 800FSB. And that's bad right? Less than half the bandwidth.

So, the XP number... Is a XP2600+ 333FSB equivalent to a P4 2.6Ghz 333FSB, or a 2.6Ghz 533FSB, 800FSB?

In any case, I'm confused. The AMD's have a lower frequency (all frequencies - even OC'ed ones, I've seen are lower than the XP number) than their XP number, yet identical (or lower, depending on which one of the above it is) FSB. How is that?
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
January 20, 2004 2:18:37 AM

In both case the actual clock speed is of 200mhz.
January 20, 2004 3:35:20 AM

Uh huh, but the P4 can write to 4 things at the same time right? Or do they both have the same speed?
January 20, 2004 4:13:43 AM

I see, so how many 'things' there are doesn't really matter, eh?

I thought it was like RAM. If you got dual RAM, you could right to both simultaneously, ie doubling the bandwidth. Isn't it true with CPU's?
January 20, 2004 4:15:17 AM

Here is a different look at it. The xp2500+ is a good little chip from Amd. It has been around for a while, runs cool and quiet and will do 30% ocs with the stock fans. For your needs the 2.6c is about the same. The "c" is the new line from intel. It to is a good ocer, though a new fan is recommended. It to runs cool, but the fan is a little noisier. For intel to compete with amd's little charm, they had to have double the ram bandwidth, and a 40% faster clock speed.
You should be able to get an xp2500+ in your area for a little over $100AU. I think the P4 2.6c runs about $250AU. Guess that's why I like my little xp2500+
January 20, 2004 7:46:04 AM

Hmm, so you're saying an XP2500 (frequency lower than 2.5Ghz) with 2x133 (or is that 2x166?) is as good as a P4 2.6Ghz with 4x200 FSB??? Really? How does that figure?

Something that's confusing me, does having QDR actually quadruple the bandwidth?

Another thing. In the Intel and AMD comparison review, as well as that new RAM timings review, Intel whooped AMD really badly. Is that a dodgy test? If so, can I find a proper comparison?
January 20, 2004 8:53:38 AM

I always thought it was 2bits per fall and rise of clock cycle, with DDR1. DDR2 I thought was a signal integrity improvement thus to allow for high clocking. As well as some new hardware features.

As for this increase of bits per clock deal I havent heard of anything like this before. Ive just read that motherboard manufactures dont need beyond 4 layer boards with it, oh and it chews less juice to i do beleive.

-taitertot

If this post has attitude, seems to be overly aggressive, rude, distasteful to 99% of the users here, and shows a zealous defense of Intel... It’s probably Spud.
January 20, 2004 8:55:44 AM

The P4 2.6 is much better for certain things than the xp2500+. Any prog that uses SSE2 will run 20% faster, on average. No games use SSE2, nor do you need it for watching dvds or anything else you (or me) use your computer for. Intel chips and Amd chips have different architecture. They have different skills, and use resources differently. A P4 is a sprinter while the athlons are weight lifters. They are bothe world class gold medal athletes. Since you are making a heavy duty system, a weight lifter is more right for you. If on the other hand, you were using your system solely to pirate music and movies, a sprinter may be more usefull in avoiding the M$ police.
January 20, 2004 8:59:20 AM

Heres an example of a stock Intel Pentium 4 3.2GHz 800FSB & stock Radeon 9800 PRO against a stock Athlon XP3200+ and stock Radeon 9800 PRO in 3D Mark 2001. A good representation of system/game performance as 3D Mark 2003 only really tests the vid card used.

I didnt pick the worst P4 3.2GHz score there were some below 18K the one above this had the radeon overclocked so it couldn't really be used now could it? However, the P4C is using the 256MB Radeon 9800 PRO mines the 128MB version i could have picked a 17.6K score with a 128mb 9800 Pro but i didn't think it was a good representation of the P4C at its best. Probably didn't reboot to clear memory before benching etc. Anyway here ya go.

The P4C is on a i875 board mines on a Nforce 2 Ultra 400 board mmkay?

<A HREF="http://mywebpage.netscape.com/ricjax9903/benchies-ss/P4..." target="_new">http://mywebpage.netscape.com/ricjax9903/benchies-ss/P4...;/A>

---
"I thought i could see the light at the end of the tunnel, but it turned out to be some ba$tard with a torch and a load more work"<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by ITSALLBS on 01/20/04 06:04 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 20, 2004 12:43:52 PM

I just have a few suggestions when it comes to the sound issue. If THX and Dolby etc. is not important you might want to take a look at some older speakers. Altec Lansing's AC48s is a 2.1 setup with a very nice (and "flat")sound. They are a little lacking in the highs, but are still impressive sounding. The first 2.1 Creative Soundworks were also good, but it can be hard to separate these from the later ones that were not so good (Have same shell, but different components). If you do not care much at all the other white 2.1 and 4.1 PCWorks and SoundWorks (as long as they have the rectangular Sub and not the "conical" ones) aren't terrible though and should make you happier than the current low end (and very crappy) Creative speakers.
Lastly, the negativity towards AMD is largely based on the K-6 ( in the "Pentium2" and early "P3" days) series that had serious brain damage. The Athlon (K-7) and above are nice and have fewer official bugs than their Intel couterparts.

Dev

---
My Sig:
))
(( ___________________
|||_____________|_____|
January 20, 2004 1:06:44 PM

If you can get them, I'd highly recommend the Labtec Pulse 454 for your 2.1 setup. They're cheap enough to buy two sets and get 4.2... heh... but don't let the price fool you; these speakers ROCK! If you turn the sub all the way up, you can really feel the rumble.

<font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
January 20, 2004 9:18:11 PM

Alright, thanks guys. So, because I intend to play games and watch DVD's most of the time, you recommend the AMD? Is te XP2500+ really as good as the P4 2.6Ghz 800? I really really don't understand.

Another thing that's confusing me. From several THG results, AMD got whooped. And the 2500 almost always came last.

Anyway, I'd most likely get 5.1 speakers. The 2.1's that you guys mentioned, I haven't actually heard of them. They're most likely unavailable in the cheaper stores.
January 20, 2004 9:52:27 PM

The 2500+ is only better than the 2.6Ghz "C" (with 800Mhz FSB) if it is overclocked. And even then, if you overclock, the 2.6Ghz will probably best the OCed 2500...

My opinion here...

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
January 20, 2004 10:03:09 PM

Quote:
No games use SSE2, nor do you need it for watching dvds or anything else you (or me) use your computer for.

You're saying that having SSE2 doesn't make a difference in games and in DVD watching?... DVD watching I can agree on... more or less... but seriously, <b>SSE2 makes no difference in games at all?</b>
Quote:
They have different skills, and use resources differently. A P4 is a sprinter while the athlons are weight lifters. They are bothe world class gold medal athletes. Since you are making a heavy duty system, a weight lifter is more right for you. If on the other hand, you were using your system solely to pirate music and movies, a sprinter may be more usefull in avoiding the M$ police.

OK. Somewhere in the middle, this metaphor of yours turned into a joke... I'm afraid, however, that this metaphor is a bit misleading... Say, if Athlons are weight lifters, then how come rendering - which is pretty heavy-duty stuff - gets done faster on P4s, generally?

In any case, the 2.6C is so superior to the 2500+ at stock speeds that even in the thinks in which Athlons are particularly good at, the 2500+ will get a beating. There is no denying this, sorry. 2500+ is only a match to equivalently-clocked P4s if they're P4s with 533Mhz FSB and without HT. The 800Mhz FSB and HT make a lot of difference.

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
January 20, 2004 10:05:29 PM

Hmm, well, I just read some reviews from AnandTech, and it seems that AMD does better in games and business applications, but no as good in content creation and 3D rendering. I only rarely do webpages, so I'm not to worried about content creation. But I am worried about the 3D rndering. Does that affect games? I intend to get an ATi 9600XT and overclock it, so would the games be affected by AMD's poorer 3D rendering?

I couldn't find any tests of the 2500+ or the 2.6Ghz at AnandTech, anyone else know a good review site where I can find out?

If I do get the AMD, I have 2 more options. Does any 3000+ (which is always a Barton right?) come with unlocked multiplier? Because if it has a low multiplier and unlocked one, I could get that. But if it doesn't, I couldnt' afford better RAM.

The other option is Athlon 64 3000+ with 512MB cache. That's within my budget. However, the motherboards are very limited, in fact, only 1 below $200AUD. And that doesn't have the APU, or 3 output ports.

Now, if I do choose Intel, I do have a very good option. I can get the Abit IS7, with 3 output ports, so 5.1 doesn't compromise on the inputs. It also has PAT imitation, and PAT seemed to give Intel the 'edge' over AMDs in Tom's tests. So, Intel's still a good choice right?
January 20, 2004 10:17:09 PM

As a good comparison between the stock speeds, you could use this: the 2.4C is roughly on par with a 2800+, the 2.6C is roughly on par with a 3000+, the 2.8C is a rough equivalent to 3200+ and the 3.0C and 3.2C are unmatched by any stock bartons. Also consider that OCing beyond 2.2Ghz (3200+ levels) on Bartons is probably not too easy.

In any case, 3d rendering and gaming are two different things, and AMD's poorer rendering is of no importance. That's because there are two different things: <b>real-time rendering</b>, which is done by the heavy-duty tech on the video card and which has to be performed several times every second - this is the case in games, and <b>3d rendering</b>, which is software rendering and gets carried out on the CPU. This is the case with 3DSMAX and CINEMA4D - they render so complex scenes that no current video card could handle real-time rendering those scenes. So they will typically take several seconds (or maybe several hours, depending on the complexity of the scene) to get you a single image. This is the stuff that makes the most realistic images, and this is the stuff of which nice things like "Finding Nemo" and "Monsters Inc." are made of. This is of no importance to games.

Hardware real-time rendering is what affects gaming. Thus, it is of no importance that the CPU cannot render as fast when playing games, 'cause it's not the CPU that has to render what you're seeing... it's the graphics card.

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
January 20, 2004 10:43:20 PM

OK, I understand now. So, if I am going to overclock no matter if I get AMD or Intel, does that mean that I should get Intel?

EDIT: Wait, according to the Anandtec reviews (http://anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1810&p=7), the 3000+ is as good/better than the 3.0Ghz 800FSB... especially since I won't be doing many content creations at all...

So, now it all depends on how PAT and OC affects the results.

For all AMD's, would I use dual, or single RAM sticks?

For the 2500+, I would get 3200, and how much should I expect to get from OC'ing it if I can change the multiplier? What about if I can't find unlocked multipliers?

What about the 3000+ and 3200+? What RAM would I need and around what would a reasonable overclock be? Can I get the multiplier unlocked?<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Yangster on 01/20/04 07:57 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
January 20, 2004 10:51:37 PM

Erm... basically, yes.

Unless, of course, you consider the A64s. You said you could afford an A64 3000+... well, this changes the whole picture... It would apparently be a good choice, too.

Anyway, if you are to purchase now, try to wait 13 more days. By then, prescott will be out, and it will be accompanied by a price cut that will make the 2.8C very much mainstream.

:evil:  <font color=red><b>M</b></font color=red>ephistopheles
January 20, 2004 11:13:11 PM

13 more days... School would start, be very busy... Waited 4 months already, 2 weeks can't hurt. Hmm, how much do you think the prices would drop? It would be out in Australia right? I mean, if it only came to Australia in 2 months, then it'd be the that the prices would fall.

Anyway, doesn't the 2.6Ghz do better at overclocking than the 2.8 anyway?

Do you think I should get a Prescott? Would it be available in 2.6Ghz? How much would 1G benefit me?

I could afford a 64, but I only have 1 choice of mobos, and I don't like it. 3 audio ports only, no APU.

Now things are changing towards the P4's favour for me. I used to think that you could change the multiplier to the maximum, and it wouldn't affect the FSB limit. Now, according to PCStat, they only managed to raise the multiplier to 12.5, and then the FSB only went to 170. Shoddy. Whereas, if you could even increase the FSB to 200, then kept the multiplier at 11, it would even achieve better results.

However, a 2500 would allow better speakers. Altec 5100 or Logitech 5300THX. But then again. I'm not that much of a sound critic.

How much luck would I get at OC'ing a 3000?
January 20, 2004 11:35:37 PM

My stock processor at 1.83ghz recieved greater 3d benchmark scores than a 2.4ghz pentium 4 with 800fsb. And yes.. it slightly overclocked also crushed the 2.6c. I know i'll get flamed for this.. but i'm an enthusiast.. and i can say i'm finally out of the megahertz myth phase.
Way passed.
If you're going to be doing video editing... then yes. Your prescious mgz matters. Since i've had this barton i can't feel a difference between this and a 2.6c or a 2.8b.
Today was the first day i loaded wma's on this AMD machine and i honestly can't tell the difference.
It's your money you spend it. I've owned both and will continue to own both from here on and out. But i'm not on as tight of a budget. I'm not made of money.. but my entertainment is my computer.

If I was on a completely tight budget and felt that having a computer that will last a couple of years. I wouldn't even by a computer now. New Pentiums.. More amd64 boards are coming. I would wait. If i had to choose right now this second, AMD barton for video games. 85 dollars for a chip that can outperform the 200 dollar chip mark.

<A HREF="http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?run=610166081" target="_new">http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?run=610166081...;/A>
Figured i'd do it too..reality my ass.
!