AMD64 or Intel P4?

I'm looking at building a new system and am having a bit of trouble figuring out which way I want to go. I've used AMD processors for the last 3 computers i've built and they have worked out pretty well, but now, im kind of in a dilema. Since Intel makes a 3Ghz+ processor and AMD only makes a 2.2Ghz Athlon XP, or a 2Ghz Athlon64, im unsure where to go at this point.

I've read the reviews and it seems that Intel is the clear winner, but ive always found (in the past anyway) that AMD seems to offer comparable (if not better) performance than most Intel processors at equal speed.

Not knowing if the new AMD64 idea is a sound one, I was wondering if some of you could give your personal experience with both of these processors. I'm looking at either the AMD64 3400+ or the Intel P4 3.0Ghz (800Mhz FSB w/hyper threading).

Ive heard of the new hyper thread technology with the Intel CPU's but as of yet, doesnt seem like there are alot of applications which take advantage of it.

My main purpose for this new computer is going to be gaming, with some web development and graphic design as well. Probably wont be doing any sound mixing or watching DVD movies on it, though i will be putting in a DVD ROM for the upcoming DVD games.

Anyway, just hoping someone could give me a little advice and help me see a clearer picture of which direction I need to go.

Thanks in advance,

15 answers Last reply
More about amd64 intel
  1. My friend just got an Athlon64 3200+ and man that thing is fast when coupled with his Radeon 9800 Pro. If you want to play games, I would go with the AMD. Although you sacrfice clock speed, the integrated memory controller makes up for it. Also its 64 bit ready compared to the Intel's 32 bit.
  2. AMD is usually better for gaming. that A64 3400+ will beat the 3Ghz P4 by quite a lot in gaming. definately go with the 3400+. and I'll just keep on dreaming for one.
  3. I'd have long good look at the 3000+ personally. Its barely slower than a 3200+ (same clock, less cache) and will eat the P4 3.0 for breakfast when it comes to gaming. Its also -dirt- cheap.

    And don't forget the 64 bits. As you will have read by now, intel will also be implementing AMD64, meaning software will definately get ported to it. A year from here, you don't want to be stuck with a 32 bit only cpu when you have the choice now ..

    = The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
  4. There's not a clear winner between the two.Amd is better than intel cpus at stock speeds;but overclocked the intel cpu are better.The hyper transport of the amd cpu is much better than the fsb of intel,64 bit is marketing hype right now and so is hyperthreading.Mostly there are amd mobos based around the via chipsets and the via south bridge has shown itself to be a cpu hog making sata raid HDs not as effective as on intel mobos and they've shown themselves to be defective at handling more than 2 512mb ddr400/3200 memory sticks;but the sis chipset mobos and ali are coming out now so you'll be able to have a decent hd array soon or even now if you don't want to wait for an asus mobo with a sis chipset.

    Unfortunately,THG has a known intel bias in reviews,so they cann't be used as your main source of cpu reviews(lol;but that's true of any source of info) and THG is still the best site;though not my much over anandtech. go to for an unbiased review of the amd64 3400.
    < a href="">hypertext link</a>
  5. What error did I make in html?
  6. Yes but snaggle the new ASUS boards for the 64's use nForce3 chipsets don't they ;) not VIA and regardless of what chipsets are currently out there the CPU's for both AMD at 64 and the Current Intel CPU would perform better in a correctly made motherboard.

    I hear a few good things perhaps coming for just that purpose from perhaps MSI seems they are dedicating some serious talent into board design for the new AMD 64's

    We still don't have an OS for the new AMD CPU and by the time we do Intel will have a user retail chip out @ 64 for us to look at. Microsoft has not made a commitment to that OS yet and Intel is standing next to that MS statement or hiding behind it for now.

    It is all really a money thing for most home P.C gurus anyways because if we could we would have every flavour to pick from at home to play around with.
    AMD is going to find out just how big the gaming community really is out in the big world because they are providing yet again what gamers would want and that is a CPU that rocks in games.
    We had a guy in Day Of Defeat on our server the other night just a computer junky and he had a new AMD64 and he said he realy noticed nothing new with his new system for performance gains....BUT either because his system was @ more GHz then he was used to or the 64 was running his DoD game maxed to the redline because he lead all 8 maps for the night in score flags and kills. accept for a few times when I banged him off the top of the score list for a few moments at a time, and all this going on in a 32 player game online and I am top ranked along with a couple other guys.

    He was before his new CPU an average player 4th or 5th player level.

    I am not sure about Intel's reason but I am not investing the cash on anything 64 until there is a supporting operating system or at least some real kick-ass/must-have online games made to run in that environment.

    If they make Day Of Defeat 64 bit or Half Life 2 I would not care who made a 64 CPU, I would buy one and a supporting motherboard and memory.

    Barton 3200+ 400MHz
    A7N8X Deluxe
    Liquid 12 Celsius
    2x512 Crucial DDR 400 PC3200
    GeForce FX5900
    Two Maxtor 40Gig 8MB cach 7200rpm
    SONY RW 52x/24x/52x
    SONY DVD 16x/40x
  7. check FAQ's over <---. You can't use HTML in this forum.

    <b> ...more people are driven insane through religious hysteria than by drinking alcohol - W.C. Fields </b>
  8. Quote:
    What error did I make in html?

    THG Forum does not support it.
    <A HREF="" target="_new"><b><font color=red>THG Forum FAQ</A></b></font color=red>

    :smile: Good or Bad have no meaning at all, depends on what your point of view is.
  9. Yes;but the nforce3 is worse than the via in general performance,so its either use the sis or ali or wait for nforce3 250,so my pro-intel point is still valid.

    MSI has always made great mobos and has always worked well with via chipsets,so it did not surprise me they have made perhap the best mobo for the via chipset.

    I would always recommend the amd 64s other the intels for serious gaming addicts:it's more stable than an overclocked intel cpu;it can survive a hsf failure;uses cheaper and more stable single channel ram and is amd(always better to keep the underdog alive,with more or less equal cpus-we don't want intel to be microsoft now do we!).

    PS I think you're an intelligent and useful poster,who's also courteous and thinkskinned enough to let the general flaming of you roll off you.The majority of the flamers don't seem to realize talent is always a combination of knowledge and abilty,the experience you and crashman bring to the table is just as valuable as studying benchmarks and reviews or stats;but then your being an AMD fanboy does not help your reputation,anymore than THG being an intel fanboy helps theirs.
  10. P4 3.0c is $175 now, while the A64 3400+ is $400. you know what i would pick for gaming.

    :evil: <b><font color=blue>Intel rules</b></font color=blue><A HREF="" target="_new"></A>
  11. Now why would you consider or what fact's would you use to decide that the nforce2 and 3 chipsets are worse then the VIA chipsets.

    You forget that the A7N8X Deluxe motherboard uses the nforce2 chipset and was voted motherboard of the year, in fact Tom's Hardware Guide voted the board best chipset of the year and even have the THG Logo on all the ASUS boxes promoting the board.

    My system even had better memory scores then 2 Intel boards running 800MHz BUS speeds and my A7N8X Deluxe is a 400 MHz board and still beat the two 800MHz boards in the memory test portion of the PerformanceTest benchmark.

    The nForce3 Chipsets are even faster and better then the nForce2 chipsets and rated out for 800MHz speeds PLUS you have to remember a CPU using a 64 bit registry could currently run in Windows XP Home or Pro every stick of memory made on the planet to date and use all of it.

    There is nothing wrong with the nForce2 or 3 chipsets accept that they are made by Nvidia and not ATI and that has many older Radeon users all pissed off.

    There is nothing to get pissed off about... I have been to the ATI plant it is only a 4 hour drive from my house I went there as a Quality Control Engineer in an Auditing role to inspect the SMT or surface mount equipment they use to manufacture their graphics cards.

    ATI is a wonderful plant but since they are 1 Canadian and 2 build in house they will never be able to match the Nvidia Corporation for Engineering standards world wide.

    Nvidia will be into every aspect of Computer engineering and design when the small not ever going to expand ATI plant will continue to do what they do best simply make graphics cards.

    Barton 3200+ 400MHz
    A7N8X Deluxe
    Liquid 12 Celsius
    2x512 Crucial DDR 400 PC3200
    GeForce FX5900
    Two Maxtor 40Gig 8MB cach 7200rpm
    SONY RW 52x/24x/52x
    SONY DVD 16x/40x
  12. the nforce2 was not mentioned by me because the choice was clearly between an amd64 and a p4 northwood with fsb of 800.

    No,I did not forget and was telling people before the vote that the asus a7n8x deluxe was the best mobo for the amd bartons(now the asus a7n8x-e deluxe).

    The nforce3 has worse benchmarks than any other chipset for the amd64,so the clear choice is to use the via chipset or the ali,the sis one is a bust now too,with the only mobo supporting it able to support one ddr333 despite claims of ddr400 support(never trust the elite group).The nforce3 is mainly defective because of its 600/800 hyper transport,rather than 800 both ways.

    Ati is beating nvidia hands down right now in gpu,I could care less who makes something,quality is all that counts.
  13. Really kanavit you are the greatest troll in the world, your fanatic rol is pathetic.
  14. Kanavit, where did you get that $175 for 3 ghz 800 FSB? That sure seems way cheap. Pricewatch gives the lowest pirce for it at $223. PW usually has the lowest prices you can get. Here are CPU prices from pricewatch:

    $174 - Pentium 4 2.8GHz 800MHz
    $223 - Pentium 4 3.0GHz 800MHz
    $269 - Pentium 4 3.2GHz 800MHz
    $424 - Pentium 4 3.4GHz 800MHz
    $404 - Athlon 64 3400
    $268 - Athlon 64 3200
    $211 - Athlon 64 3000

    AMD prices are a bit lower when you compare the PR ratings.
  15. Try to ignore him as much as possible

    <b><A HREF="" target="_new">My Website</A></b>

    <b><A HREF="" target="_new">My Rig & 3DMark score</A></b>
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs Intel Processors