AMD or Intel ?

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,

Gary Hendricks
<A HREF="http://www.digital-music-guide.com" target="_new">www.digital-music-guide.com</A>
19 answers Last reply
More about intel
  1. I think you'd be very happy with an AMD64-based system. Just be sure you get a good motherboard. I would price both an AMD64 3000+ system and a P4C 3.0GHz system. If the price difference turns out to be negligible, I'd go with the AMD system. If the P4 system offers any significant savings, go that route. Either way you'll have a comp that will do everything you need it to.

    Being a gamer, make sure you get a good vid card as well. I recommend the ATi 9800 Pro... as prices are coming down on that card... and it is the current 3D champ.

    <font color=red> If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it. </font color=red>
  2. actually the AMD 64 bit 3400+ (which I have) is clocked at 2.2 Ghz. I suggest the MSI K8T Neo board. If you want something faster then you will have to entertain AMD FX cips that can handle dual channel memory because the AMD 64 bit 3400+ only does single channel memory. On the good note it has the FSB clock on the chip. But I am still learning the ramifications of that.

    XP 2800+ (thor B); Asus A7N8X Delux; Maxtor 40/120 gig ATA 133; AIW9700 RadeonPro; Corsair PC3200 (2X256); LiteOn CDRW; TDK 420N DVD+RW; Antec Case; Antec SL350; many many fans; WinXp
  3. I would price out both systems and go with the one that has the best price.
    I think the difference between a athlon64 and a p4 3ghz can be measured in benchmarks, but really no real world difference.
    At newegg the p4 3.06 with northwood core is $229.00, the asus 865pe mb goes for $105.99.
    The athlon64 goes for $224.00 and asus k8v goes for $129.99
    So $335 for the P4 or $354 for Athlon
    Of course you could get cheaper or more expensive mb for each one so ..... toss a coin lol
    I guess you can check out which one does better on your favorite game.
    Bob
  4. I wouldn't pay much attention to the Mhz difference between the AMD & Intel designs. Performance is all that matters, and the performance difference between 2Ghz+ AMD chips and 3Ghz+ Intel chips isn't that much. There IS a difference (sometimes AMD is better than Intel and vice versa [depending on task/app/benchmark), but nothing like what the difference in clockspeed immediately suggests.

    Oh, and ignore any replies from the Axis of Stupid...

    Axis of Stupid = coop, Kanavit, FUGGER, and SoDNighthawk<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by captainnemo on 03/03/04 01:27 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
  5. well the mhz rate, like others have said, is not a sign of performance. it boils down to 2 things, gaming or video encoding/rendering. If youll be using the pc mainly for gaming and youll be gaming alot, then the athlon 3400+ is definitely the fastest out there, all of the ahtlon 64 line perform better at gaming. If your focus is video encoding or 3d rendering, then Id go with the p4 since they across the baord, run faster in those areas. I do agree though that either chip will make you happy, so it comes down to price and what you can spend.
  6. most games will run on a p3 700mhz!!
    have a look at
    http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040106/index.html
    this should help with the processors
    the best processor on its own won't get you frames per second
    graphics cards are also key, to frames per second
    then look at the type and cost of ram you will need for both systems
    you'll probably find that the 3ghz p4 is cheaper if you have to have fps then the amd seems to have it for now look at the link then dx9 benchmarks
  7. well of course other things add performance, form ram to video cards, even hard drive speed. But all things being equal, and the only differnce is amd or intel its obvious amd leads in gaming.
  8. Quote:
    most games will run on a p3 700mhz!!

    I felt performance decrease in Call of Duty when I switched to Duron 1 GHz from AXP 1700+

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

    <A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig</A> & <A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/benchmark.html" target="_new">3DMark score</A>
  9. A64 will beat the crap out of 3.06B....3.0C (which costs LESS anyway) would be a better comparison. A64 still tends to be faster in games, too.

    In his situation, I'd definitely go with A64.

    Maxtor disgraces the six letters that make Matrox.
  10. Just checked on Anandtech and they recommend the Athlon 3400+ for their cutting edge system.
    They call it very close, went with Athlon over p4 3.4c because of ability to run 64 bit code.
    Anandtech chooses the asus k8v mb for Athlon, and the
    abit IC7-G MAXII advance mb for the p4

    So either one will be great.

    Do I hear a echo??
    Bob
  11. It's very close, either way is good. I still think 32-bit processing is still very productive and far from dead. I would buy a P4, since i feel like i am getting more quality and better value. By the time 64-bit windows comes , out. Intel will have a 64-bit celeron that can run faster than your A64 3400+ today.

    -------
    <b><i>1024MB-P4 2.8B-RADEON 9500PRO</b></i>
    <A HREF="http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?run=1417098376" target="_new">29,831 Aquamarks</A>#1 in class!
  12. Get an Athlon64 for the following reasons:
    1. Cool n Quiet
    2. Not very particular with RAM
    3. Faster than P4 in all aspects except video rendering in present 32-bit platform
    4. Future-proof (64-bit)
    5. Reasonable price

    Other considerations:
    1. When viewing reviews, note the type of RAM used. In P4 systems, you need top quality RAM, dual channel to achieve top performance.
    2. It may bleed your heart to now that you'll need to upgrade when 64-bit OS becomes mainstream. Unless you can afford to buy a new PC every year.
    3. Consider top components for video card and HD.
    4. 5% or less difference in benchmark is not noticeable to users in most cases.
  13. I agree on most of what you said except your first 4 points.

    1.) Giving it a name doesn't make it perfect
    2.) Completely false, look at the article at Tom's about problems getting PC3200 to run at low latencies
    3.) Ok, I'll give you that one
    4.) Not nearly, current A64 platforms are the least future-proof of any I can remember. Next year all current platforms will be completely outdated by the change to PCI-Express, the A64 platforms being the newest will have the shortest lifespan. In fact, by the time 64-bit computing is REAL, you'll want a PCI-Express video card.

    <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>
  14. when is windows 64 coming out?
    it's gotta be in 5 years to have a celeron clocked high enough to beat a A64. :smile:
    Bob
  15. Like everybody else said, go with the cheapest. The only thing i beg to differ on is the A64 beating the P4 in all games, it does not. It mostly depends on weather the games are optamized to the Athlon or the Pentium, although the athlon does beat the P4 in most games, but the difference is usually only a few frames per second which is pretty negligable, lol. Good luck.

    OverKill is not defined by the power you use, but by the power you have to spare....
    P4 2.6c@3.1, 512mb OCZDDR533, GF4Ti4400(will be replaced soon), Asus P4C800 Deluxe
  16. AMD

    You Want To Click Me, Go Ahead:)
  17. No..wait, Intel

    <A HREF="http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?michael:)" target="_new"> You Want To Click Me, Go Ahead:) </A>
  18. A page late. but "The Axis of Stupid." Now that's funny. I'm not sure why I come here, to read what is said about the components, or to laugh at the silly trash said.
  19. Heh - I come here to read about new components and stuff, but I've had enough of reasonable and informative threads being ruined by fanboys.

    Axis of Stupid = coop, Kanavit, FUGGER, and SoDNighthawk
Ask a new question

Read More

CPUs AMD Processors Intel