Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Tough choice Amd or Intel?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
April 6, 2004 4:16:47 PM

Ok, i'm sure this is going to spark some debate (been reading other posts). But I'm looking for a good processor for gaming, Intel seems to be a good choice (picked out the p4 2.8c, IC7 mobo and a kit of Geil 256 x2 ram). As far as AMD is concerned looks like the AMD 64 3000+ would be a good choice. What i'm not sure of really (not being very knowledgable in this area), what would be the best choice for gaming? I'm only willing to spend at the very most $250 on a proc, but would rather stay somewhere below $200. Also what board would go well with the AMD Proc? Thanks!

BTW, I just picked up a Asus 9800 xt video card, which i'm very happy with but i'm running it with a 2.7 celeron proc (not sure what I was thinking buying celeron), so things can be a bit choppy, wanna upgrade to a good processor specifically for gaming.
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by tasey on 04/06/04 11:20 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

More about : tough choice amd intel

April 6, 2004 5:15:39 PM

Either one would be good along with your 9800XT.
I would perfer the AMD Athlon 64 3000+ because
1)it does better in games. Sometimes they are close while other times A64 pulls ahead by a good chunk.
2)cost less than the P4 3ghz and close to the P2.8ghz price
3)the low latency ondie memory controller helps tons more than Hyperthreading in games

Although I would probably settle for the A64 2800+ before picking up the P42.8ghz too. Have to do a little research though. These would be a lot closer for average performance.

The A643000+ is very close to the 3200+ performance also.
Considering you have a 9800XT, the price difference is probably not an issue but performance is.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Piccoro on 04/06/04 01:23 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
a c 159 à CPUs
a b À AMD
a b å Intel
April 6, 2004 5:17:04 PM

Yeah, it's a tough choice. But if you've waited awhile for an upgrade, a couple more weeks won't hurt. I was checking out one of the new nforce3 250 boards, the epox 8kda3+, a new listing on their website. It should work well with the athlon 64 3000.
Related resources
April 6, 2004 5:30:36 PM

GAMES = AMD

AMD processors are better in games. Your best choice right now is Athlon 64 (Socket754) with a VIA Chipset based MB.

And for under 250$ you have the choice :
Athlon 64 2800+ (173$US)
Athlon 64 3000+ (207$US)
Athlon 64 3200+ (<font color=red>263$US</font color=red>)

If I were you, I would consider the 3200+, because it has 1Megs of cache instead of 512Kbytes (the 2800+/3000+ only have 512K of cache). It's only 13$ over your budget if you don't consider shipping. And for the MB choice... It's up to you! At least, don't get an overpriced MB with features that you don't need or plan to use.

The 2800+ is not a bad choice either, it will perform well in games, and you would save 35$. You have to ask yourself if you are willing to spend more on the CPU for little increase in performance? Because, you already have a kick-ass GPU, so your CPU will be the bottleneck.

If you can wait 2-3 months there will be Socket939 Athlon 64 processor that will offer dual channel and better long term value. And the nForce3 250Gb is a very promising chipset for Socket939/940.

--
Would you buy a potato powered chipset?
April 6, 2004 5:33:19 PM

Well I guess what I don't quite understand is, why wouldn't I go with the p4 2.8c proc instead of the AMD and loose all that clock speed? Or does the AMD Bus/Cache, ect., more than make up for the clock differance?
April 6, 2004 5:40:06 PM

Better board for the 2.8C is IS7 from Abit. Unless you need the features of Canterwood.
April 6, 2004 6:30:23 PM

Think of it like this.
Is there a difference between a truck that can hold 6 tons of dirt and do 2 trip per min (Athlon) and a truck that can hold 4 tons of dirt and do 3 trips a min (P4).
Both move 12 tons of dirt each min.
# trips/min = speed/ghz

Obviously this is a very very basic analogy.

MHZ/GHZ is not the only measure of performance.
April 6, 2004 8:01:40 PM

Well it seems I won't be needing to upgrade right this second as much as I thought. Currently I have a 2.7 Celeron (arg) processor, but would still like to at least get out of the celeron and actually get a p4! I'm looking at a P4 2.4 (core?) 533mhz fsb (my motherboard won't take 800mhz), I hear these 2.4's are great oc! Which core should I look into? I have a Soyo Dragon Lite board, with only one stick of 512 mb crucial ram (didn't realize it's good to run ram in pairs for dual to work) but I do have another 512 (same ram) that I could pull and put in my current computer.
April 6, 2004 8:09:37 PM

with a celeron i would consider updating soon. If you want cheap go with the xp-m 2500+ it will overclock just as good if not better then the 2.4c or 2.4e and it's alot cheaper. you can also get a nice socket a mobo for pretty cheap. If you do go with the p4 choose the 2.4c unless you have good cooling then get the 2.4e(but anint it lacking ht?)it will overclock pretty high with a good hsf.
April 6, 2004 8:12:16 PM

yeah, unfortunatly the dragon lite doesn't support HT, I believe. so i'll probably just go with the 2.4c for now and overclock that sucker a bit, it will get me by. would it be worth throwing in the other stick of ram? (512mb ddr x1 with another in another machine)
April 6, 2004 9:17:38 PM

I don't like that choice at all. Why buy a low buck CPU that you are going to cripple? A few months down the road you are going to be selling it on E-Bay! Save your bucks for an A64 and Nforce 250 board if you AIM to Game.

"I am become death, the destroyer of worlds. Now, let's eat!
April 6, 2004 9:27:32 PM

I must agree, AMD64 is the best CPU for the moment, and its future ready(windows XP 64bit)
Also does it have Cool&Quit, so it will clock itself back to 1000MHz when your just surfing, typing a letter, watching a movie, so the CPU cooler can fall out.


Toms Hardware Site is a joke !
April 6, 2004 9:27:56 PM

yeah it's worth it if you play current games and do alot of muiltitasking, just make sure you get the same kind that your already running so you can run dualchannel(unless your mobo doesn't support it).
April 6, 2004 9:38:22 PM

My current pick is the Intel Pentium 4 2.4A Prescott or 2.8C.

Reasoning as follows, the A64 while good doesnt have as good as platform, nor is it as mature as the Intel P4 platform (referring to the chipsets).

Also, you must realize that you are buying a chip for its 32bit capabilites as 64bit is irrelevant in current apps.
Paying extra for that is silly.

I'd take SSE3 and Hyperthreading over 64bit.
This is comparing my 2.8C choice to the A64.

If you chose to go 2.4A then I'd say that still-
SSE3 > AMD64

At minimum, at LEAST HT in the "C" revisions is used in SOME apps and Windows.. and to some degree that could be said about SSE3.
While 64bit is useless.

Plus, the 2.4A (which has SSE3 but not HT) is the cheapest of the 3 (A64, 2.8C, 2.4A).. I am personally buying this one for myself because its
1. Cheap
2. Overclocks madly
3. Has the most stable consumer platform on the planet
4. That platform is also mature and much cheaper than A64s
4. Has the option of upgrading in the future when Intel unleashes 64bit on the world and Prescotts get even better and drop in price

All of these reasons are more important versus the ONE reason to go A64- which is a bit more STOCK speed.
Overclock both and expect to see the 2.8C (and prob 2.4A) overtake an o/c'd A64.


So to summarize, you have to look at both CPUs as 32bit processors.
Both perform very well with A64 having the STOCK- non o/c'd lead.
But only one has a cheap, mature and superior platform.
You also get instructions that improve performance to at least SOME degree.
While 64bit does nuttin.

64bit will not take hold until Intel releases it in their chips and its in every Dell being sold.
Period.
And prelimary results have not been favorable to AMD64, regardless. And those are the ONLY results we have to go by if you are going to go by anything at all.

Its nice and cute that AMD took the initiative for this- but its more of a bragging right like hitting 1ghz first was.
It is as meaningless in the real market just as hitting 1ghz first was.

So get yourself a 2.4A or 2.8C (if you value HT and want better O/C results for about $40) and rest assured you will have the best plaform and will be ready for the 64bit future when Intel decides its going to happen.

I'm a former AMD fanboy, and many of my former comrades will flame the crap out of me.. but I hope this all makes sense to you and helps you in your buying decision.

2sense.

____________________________
:evil:  <b>RESIDENT FORUM WARRIOR :evil: 
<font color=purple>I just neutered the cat.
Now he's a liberal.</font color=purple></b>
April 6, 2004 10:12:20 PM

Quote:
If I were you, I would consider the 3200+, because it has 1Megs of cache instead of 512Kbytes (the 2800+/3000+ only have 512K of cache).

I would pick 3000+. Spending 25% extra money for only 1% to 3% extra performancne is HIGHLY NOT RECOMMENED.

------------
<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>
April 6, 2004 10:21:07 PM

All but one did not mention 64bit. Oh and you.
Hyperthreading is not used in games but other apps.
Ondie memory controller has very low latency (which games love)
and it frees the bottle neck of the old FSB system.
You are not paying for 64bit.
A64 3000+ Retail @ newegg = 223$
P4 3.0c Retail @ newegg = 224$
For the performance of A64 in games we really should be comparing it with the P4 3.2c Retail which is 288$ @ newegg.

Those who bring up 64bit are thinking that if they got a chip today,it would be nice if it had a refreshing advantage in a year or two when that really cool yet demanding game comes out in 64bit and 32bit they will have the 64bit chip capable of a better experience, either increased detail or holding the high detail while expanding the environment of the game.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Piccoro on 04/06/04 06:23 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
April 6, 2004 10:38:21 PM

Hi,for gaming ram is a larger bottleneck than your cpu,upgrading to a gig of ram in dual channel or to a gig with the amd 64's in single channel is the best thing to do.Costwise the amd64 with cheap but reliable crucial,mushkin or corsair is the way to go.Your real choices are:p 4c with a gig dual pack;amd xp with a gig dual pack or an amd athlon 64 with two 512mb sticks.P4 c's boot faster,are less choosy about ram and are better than the amd xp line because of the fsb of 800;the xp are cheaper;the amd 64 have the best performance without an overclock and use the cheaper single channel ram(but are choosy about it).if you don't overclock get an amd64 with crucial ram;really any of these solutions will be fine as long as you've got the golden gig of ram with your cpu.
April 7, 2004 12:13:09 AM

I dont know about the relevancy of this to what I stated.

Quote:
SSE3 brings no performance advantage.


SSE3 might and might not in the future.. but it is at least in USE by ONE Windows app.
While you wont see broad 64bit acceptance until Windows64, and you wont see Windows64 being supported and promoted until Intel supports Windows64.
It wont be on every Tom, Dick and Harry's desk until that point.. and companies will not dedicate resources to mass development without Tom, Dick and Harry having this.
If they dont have a 64bit CPU, they wont want this. Nor are companies going to waste money to provide this.

This is undoubtably true because if AMD had the clout to change the market without Intel, then everyone wouldve ran out to buy their A64.
But its still an enthusiast curiousity.

Companies worry about $, and supporting AMDs little 64bit charade wont give them anything but a warm feeling in their bellies.
Which is better filled, and exponentially more likely to be filled by working with numero uno, padre Intel.

Quote:

Socket 478 is limited to P4 3.4C GHz

Socket 754 is upgradable upto at least A64 3700+


S478 is limited, as all are including the ill conceived, single channel, S754 that was dead before it was even born.
While that is useful information...
we are talking about the best choice for this individual and I was merely pointing out how the Pentiums offer a better choice over A64, with its useless 64bit support (which you are paying for), its stock performance benefit and crappy platform support.
The good platform isnt coming until a bit from the new NV, and dont expect it to be going for <A HREF="http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?descripti..." target="_new">$39</A> like a rock-solid, 865 Intel.
Refurbed or not, the Intel chipsets are cheaper and superior. While at least their CPUs features are in use in SOME of todays applications.

____________________________
:evil:  <b>RESIDENT FORUM WARRIOR :evil: 
<font color=purple>I just neutered the cat.
Now he's a liberal.</font color=purple></b>
April 7, 2004 12:26:57 AM

Quote:
Hyperthreading is not used in games but other apps.


But if you do happen to have other apps running with games, the P4 is going to handle it better.
I've done this MANY times in HT-enhanced games such as Everquest.. when I have downtime I will task out and do other things on my PC like Photoshop tasks ect.

Quote:
You are not paying for 64bit.
A64 3000+ Retail @ newegg = 223$
P4 3.0c Retail @ newegg = 224$


It appears that you are paying for 64bit.
AMD has always been cheaper than Intel, now they are about the same.
Reason for this price increase?
No one knows for sure, but 64bit development/implementation is as good as any.

Quote:
Those who bring up 64bit are thinking that if they got a chip today,it would be nice if it had a refreshing advantage in a year or two when that really cool yet demanding game comes out in 64bit and 32bit they will have the 64bit chip capable of a better experience, either increased detail or holding the high detail while expanding the environment of the game.

This would be nice, if true.

But reality says that by the time 64bit takes hold (or, when Intel enters the consumer 64bit marketplace)..
current Athlon 64s wont have near the power to run that generation of 64bit applications.

Other than that, all preliminary testing that we have to go off of have shown that AMD64 might not bring the performance increases some were hoping.

____________________________
:evil:  <b>RESIDENT FORUM WARRIOR :evil: 
<font color=purple>I just neutered the cat.
Now he's a liberal.</font color=purple></b>
April 7, 2004 1:39:58 AM

Athlon XP proccessors remained lower priced because while they were good in games they didn't dominate, infact the P4 held most the wins especially in video creation performance with 800FSB models.
AMD kept those prices lower to add value as a benefit to draw buys.

Athlon 64 CPUs basicly have taken the performance in many more benchmarks and have challenged Intel in their video creation area even when a P4 has HT. <A HREF="http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/intelamdcpuroundupv..." target="_new">Link</A>
Dual Opterons win vs dual xeons in most of the benchmarks except 3d rendering.
<A HREF="http://www.sudhian.com/showdocs.cfm?aid=487" target="_new">Link</A>

You are paying for solid CPU that wins benchmarks based on its 32bit performance. AMD does not need to lower prices as they stick out more than Intel as a buy at the current pricing. I'm not sure why you think they need to and keep pointing to 64bit.
Also if Multitasking/SMP was of that much interest to consider you can get an AMD Opteron SMP system for a lot less than you think (pretty close to the cost of a top end P4 system w/HT) and do better in SMP/Multitasking + Gaming etc. Hell, even early benchmarks of the Opteron 240 (as a single CPU) showed it challenged a 3ghz P4 in gaming. Look em up.
*update
<A HREF="http://www.hardwarezoom.com/viewcontent.jsp?ReviewID=16..." target="_new">Opteron 240 (1.4ghz) vs P4 3.0ghz vs P4 3.06ghz</A>

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Piccoro on 04/06/04 10:04 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
April 7, 2004 2:08:38 AM

I think we can agree to disagree.

Quote:
You are paying for solid CPU that wins benchmarks based on its 32bit performance. AMD does not need to lower prices as they stick out more than Intel as a buy at the current pricing. I'm not sure why you think they need to and keep pointing to 64bit.

Because their platform is immature and not on par with Intels, that is why.
As well as being more expensive.

The stock 32bit performance lead just doesnt add up to enough considering all the factors in the Pentiums favor.

I was merely showing how 64bit was absolutely useless, and I wanted to make that clear. Its not a bonus, but rather a cost-adding "feature".

One that will not be useful until Intel implements it.
Once that happens, then software will take a while to catch up.
Their target 64bit chip that they will base their software off of will be Intels 64bit chips, which are likely to be much faster than a A64 3000+ in 64bit mode.
So AMD has a cost-adding feature that is useless, and will likely remain useless in the future due to the likely scenario.

It would be irresponsible and unfounded to claim that AMDs 64bit R&D has no effect on their chip pricing.
Everything else both Intel and AMD research affects their CPU pricing so I dont know why this would be any different.

____________________________
:evil:  <b>RESIDENT FORUM WARRIOR :evil: 
<font color=purple>I just neutered the cat.
Now he's a liberal.</font color=purple></b>
April 7, 2004 2:41:14 AM

you must know something everyoen doesnt. where are these signs that an intel 64bit chipp wil outperform an amd 64bit chip? This is what you assume, not based on any facts, unless you have access to some. You also assume intel will drive the development and adoption of 64bit, I have to disagree, but there isnt much way to convince one way or another, so we have to wait. I mean I can understand where your coming from, in the past intel has driven such things, either to thier destruction or fully embraced. I just get the feeling its not so cut and dry anymore. I mean it took a long time to transition from 16bit to 32bit, you cant expect that at this point youd seem more apps or drivers this soon. I also dont htink the MS delay is becuase of intel, MS always delays. Its certianly possible intel could steal the fire of amd's move, but if amd plays it right, I dont think it will be as black and white as you assume. Dont forget, intel had to change its plans to move up its adoption, at least on paper anyway, to respond, so I think amd has a fighting chance.
April 7, 2004 3:02:27 AM

"I can think on NO good reason to buy Intel now!"

Posted by Kinney one week ago! Granted, it was after a late nite binge in an afterhours joint. Kinney was served up a thick blue liquor by a waitress with stitches in her face. He leaned over the table and slurred, "I'm going to marry that girl some day!" Tomorrow he will argue FOR AMD. LOL!

MSI 875 Neo-FIS2R - Ready, Captain!
P2.8 C - Ready, Captain!
PC-3500 OCZ 2.5-3-3-6 - Ready, Captain!
CoreCell Temps - 39C - Ready, Captain!
Mr. Sulu, prepare for overclock!

"I am become death, the destroyer of worlds. Now, let's eat!
April 7, 2004 3:14:10 AM

Is the Celeron system playing your games OK now, or are you so ready to upgrade right away?

What are your plans for the current mobo/cpu? Selling them, using them as a spare system? Etc.


Is your current rig nice and stable? Just not fast enough?


Have you considered upgrading your current motherboard to a 533 bus P4? Not the fastest option, but the cheapest and easiest to upgrade. No need to buy a new mobo and ram. No need to reinstall Windows or your programs, settings & data. Not sure if the 2.4A works on your mobo or not. It is $141 retail. The 2.8B is $167 retail. The 3.06B is $222 retail. Quick easy cheap upgrade that will blow away the celeron. Of course double check your motherboards max supported cpu before buying one. If the current rig isn't going to be used as a spare, this might hold you off further upgrades for quite a while. By the time a 2.8B or 3.06B is obsolete in gaming, all 64 bit choices will look much different than today. Also, they'll be cheaper and faster by far then. Maybe you'll still buy A64. But it would be a socket 939 with PCI express and other nice features. Shoot, maybe even be a generation beyond that or Intel 64 Bit. I agree with kinney that there is no real benifet to buying a 64 bit cpu now. A64's only benifet to me is a little more speed in games than the p4's. But your system with a 2.8B or 3.06B paired with all your ram and that 9800XT will game very well for you. And the upgrade will cost ya no more than $167 - $222. EDIT: and only 15 minutes of your time. :smile:


Honestly, my thought is that you should have bought a R9800 pro 128MB card and saved $200. (unless the 9800XT was a steal) That $200 could have upgraded the Celeron 2.7GHz to the fastest P4 your mobo supports. Then you could have sold the celeron and bought a nice game or two.

Sure the 800 bus P4's are faster(I'm still a huge supporter of these as they have been so rock solid stable and problem free for me), as are the A64 options. But how much faster and at what cost. If your system is stable, wouldn't it be nice to just pop in a speedy P4 3.06GHz and go about your gaming?



ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Pauldh on 04/06/04 11:18 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
April 7, 2004 3:22:26 AM

Well, its directly due to that 2.4A HardOCP article that got me thinking about that chip and the future of Prescott. Along with lengthy conversations with a good friend of mine within this forum through PMs.

I was quite misled on AMD64 and had let the hype get to me about the Athlons gaming speed, all while ignoring the plethora of other reasons to use Intel instead.

____________________________
:evil:  <b>RESIDENT FORUM WARRIOR :evil: 
<font color=purple>I just neutered the cat.
Now he's a liberal.</font color=purple></b>
April 7, 2004 3:34:41 AM

Quote:
so I think amd has a fighting chance.

I hope so. I really do.
Does anyone really want to return to the days of the virtual Intel monopoly of the 286-486 days when CPUs were through the roof?
I don't.

I dont know anything about the PC market prior to the 286, that was my first PC.. I used a Commodore 128 before that.

Quote:
where are these signs that an intel 64bit chipp wil outperform an amd 64bit chip?

I just meant that on CPUs on a whole will be faster by that time and will likely lay the circa 3000+ A64s to waste.
I would assume that if CPUs are hitting 4ghz (or whatever speed Intel is at at that point) by that time, that their 32bit and 64bit speed would increase proportionally as well.

Thats what I meant.
So of course when Intel releases their 64bit chip it will be faster than current AMD stuff.

While AMD stuff will increase in speed as well, it makes no sense to buy A64s now on this 64bit aspect at all.
As 64bit apps and games will be based off of the baseline performance of the Intels, not the A64s of today.

____________________________
:evil:  <b>RESIDENT FORUM WARRIOR :evil: 
<font color=purple>I just neutered the cat.
Now he's a liberal.</font color=purple></b>
April 7, 2004 5:53:11 AM

Quote:
I think we can agree to disagree.

I agree. ;) 
We have different points we value.
a b à CPUs
April 7, 2004 7:06:47 AM

2.4C doesn't make a lot of sense because Intel's cheapest Northwood P4 currently is the 2.8C. Either depend on your board supporting 800 bus and work best with PC3200 or faster RAM.

Perhaps you meant the 2.4B...Intel also had a 2.6B (2.66GHz) and 2.8B if you care to look around. The 3.06 is probably still expensive.

<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>
a b à CPUs
April 7, 2004 7:14:32 AM

Oh, as to the first question: Normally for anyone replacing their board I'd recommend AMD, but since another member called "darko" says I hate AMD, I'll have to go with Intel on this one :smile:

<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>
April 7, 2004 11:49:22 AM

Quote:
I would pick 3000+. Spending 25% extra money for only 1% to 3% extra performancne is HIGHLY NOT RECOMMENED.

I recommended the 3200+ with 1Megs of cache, because he sais he was willing to psend up to 250$US for the CPU. I hink that if he have the money for a 250$US cpu, it's logical to spend about 10$ more to get the 3200+ with 1Megs of cache.

I know that there is not much difference in performance. And when we check price/performance 2800+ and 3000+ are better value. But, if he really wants to spend 250$US it's correct to suggest him the 3200+.

Actually, I strongly suggest him to consider the A64 2800+, because it's cheaper and not much slower... Have you read my post from A to Z? :smile:

--
Would you buy a potato powered chipset?
April 7, 2004 12:22:43 PM

KINNEY! Wow! You are SO on the Intel side on this thread... Almost incredible...

The guy asked a simple question about a GAMER'S PC CPU recommendation, and you really don't want AMD to win!

I 100% agree with you on most of your point, but, at stock speed and same price you can't argue that Athlon 64 (even with the "already dead" socket754) are better CPU in games than P4C or Prescott.

AMD64 is useless in your opinion, and it's OK! My point about AMD64 is that if you are the kind of person who buy a CPU once every 2-3 years AMD64 is good choice, because in 1 year we will start to see Windows 64bit apps and the AMD64 will be ready to run them. Today's AMD64 owner will have the opportunity to keep their system longer before upgrading to "next-gen" 64bit CPU.

On the other hand, if you upgrade every 6-12 month, the 64bit argument is not important at all. Because in 1 year new CPU from both AMD and Intel with 64bit support will be out and the CPU market will probably have changed and PCI-EXPRESS will more available as SATA drives, etc...

I can't change your mind, but I really think you can't argue that AMD64 have the opportunity to last longer than actual P4C/E because of their 64bit extension.

And a last note, Intel will push 64bit to the market sooner than they would have liked because AMD push them hard and it's good for competition. Heve you read the article about the Intel 64bit performance, it seems that the Intel renamed AMD64 technology is slower than the AMD implementation, it might not be true when final product will hit the market... I can't wait to see WinXP 64bit edition benchmark between Intel/AMD. This will be very interesting reviews to read!

--
Would you buy a potato powered chipset?
April 7, 2004 1:39:41 PM

The way I see it 64bitness isn't really anything really that great. Your right it has been hyped all to hell even here on the boards. From all that I have seen 64bitness really isn't anything to jump out of your seats at. On the other hand the new AMD64s out there are something to be in awe at. First off let’s just compare an AMD64 to an AMD XP and right there you will see a huge difference. The AMD64 is just so much better. As for it being immature I have to say that for an immature product its doing one hell of a job ripping apart both old and new processors. I also see allot of talk about the Motherboards being crap for the AMD64. So far though that’s all I hear is that the Motherboards are crap and nothing backing up that statement. What’s so crappy about the motherboards? Is there some major feature that the AMD64 motherboards are missing? If you say that the performance is crappy well then prove it. Show me how the performance is crappy? I can’t see how you could make that statement because if motherboard had crappy performance then would the whole system and from the look of all the benchmarks out there the whole AMD64 system seems to whip the [-peep-] out of the AMD XP line and is now on par with the P4c line. So I don't see how the motherboards suck and I don't see how it matters that the processor is immature as it seems to be doing just fine. What’s so Fu**ing wrong with AMD64?

Let’s do a quick overview to see if maybe I am wrong and the AMD64 bit is crap.

Point 1: AMD64 has unstable or low quality motherboards

Answer: NO, I have seen no evidence to support such a claim. Although all of the options for the AMD64 motherboard are not up to par for the OCer but that’s ok because this isn't the OCers computer.

Point 2: the AMD64 is overpriced because of its 64bitness

Answer: NO, it performance is that of a P4c in every way shape and form. It excels in some areas that he P4 doesn't and losses some ground where the P4 excels at but over all I would have to say that it’s even with the P4c or P4e. It comes down to what you do most with your comp. If you are a gamer pick AMD if you are a big and I mean big audio video encoder go for Intel. There is more reason then that for picking a processor but you get the idea.

Point 3: 64bitness has not real importance Answer: Yes, but who cares, it works in 32bit mode and that’s the important part. Yes it has 64bitness and this may come in handy in the long run for us gamers. Now if you bring in that we are paying for it your right. But I think this has to do with the server line and not the desktop line. In the server line it is actually useful to have 64bitness and that is where AMD is really making you pay for it. I can see no evidence that states that if you get rid of the 64bitness you will have a drastic drop in price. But this will be seen soon enough. The XP line is coming out soon for the 939 (I think I’m not 100% sure on what socket its coming out on) and when it does we will be able to compare prices. As the XP line for the 939 is support to be an AMD64 with out its 64bitness.

Point 4: AMD64 is not really upgradeable on the current socket.

Answer: True but the same goes for Intel as of right now. And it even looks like you will have more upgrade ability with the AMD64s then with the P4s. So in the end even though you are right and AMD64 doesn't have a great upgrade path it does have the best upgrade path as of right now compared to its Intel Competitor.

Point 5: AMD64 doesn't have Hyper threading

Answer: Alright so it doesn't have Hyper Threading but to a game what does this really matter? OK so I can do a virus scan and play a game at the same time. (ok changed the misinformation on this one and apologies for the giving of misinformation But to me personally HT doesn't give any real edge because anything I really want done like Virus Scanning and Video encoding normally takes for ever so even doing it while in a game doesn't cut that much time off and you take a performance hit while playing the game. I would rather you just play the game and before I go to bed put the video encoding or Virus scan on and worry about it when I wake. There really isn't that much I would personally would do with HT just like how I have very little need for duel processors. However to some this is very important but it is on a case by case basic and I personally don't want to pay for something I don't use and you can see that you are paying for HT because with out it the Processor is cheaper. Although a very useful idea in practice I don't think many gamers do actually benefit from this in a drastic way.

Point 6: AMD64 don't have SSE3

Answer: True but just like 64bitness SSE3 hasn't shown any really cool benefits. Who cares about SSE3 and if you are one to preach about how 64bitness is useless because it has no use as of right now then you should say the same about SSE3 as it has giving us gamers nothing.

Point 7: AMD64 cant over clock worth crap

Answer: OK OK you got me there AMD64 cant OC worth crap. And to tell the truth if you are big into OCing I would pick a P4 right now or an FX and try to push 3ghz out of it with the cooling system Toms did a review on a while back. I would love to see the results of that OC and from what I saw of the FX at 2.8 didn't it take like a 5ghz P4c to compete. I can’t remember exactly but I remember the boards being abuzz about how the FX at 2.8 rocks this world in performance and that it would take an insane P4 to even compete in Gaming. Now if I was into OCing because I wanted bang for my buck I would might look at the XP line but I hate doing that (personal option here). The XP line is just so lacking in so many areas. The AMD64 is just the next step up the next generation and it has proven that is just that much better then the XP line. Unless I was tight on cash I don't think the XP line is a good option. But like I said the P4c and P4e are the OCers of today. But as far as I have seen and read it seems that the P4c and P4e are still locked so you have to manually unlock them. I personally like to OC and mess around with stuff like that but I never want to actually physically mess with any of my Hardware. That’s just me personally so unless I can get my hands on a already unlocked P4 I don't want to OC as I don't want to mess up a 200+ buck CPU for such little gain. As for the reason I would pick the FX if I really wanted to OC but I would also have to have the money. (Also could be wrong about the P4s being locked as I haven't done any looking around on this but from what I remember of all that I have read in the past it is still locked)

Alright so it wasn't a short summer so what but you get my point. AMD64 is just as good of a processor as a P4c if not better (for gaming at least) and is defiantly better then the space heater called the P4e.

I will up date this list of Points agents AMD64 as I see more points agents it and if any of my answerer are incorrect please tell me and if I agree with you I will change what ever needs changing.

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

Edit: Now we are spell checked :) <P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Frozen_Fallout on 04/08/04 10:14 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
April 7, 2004 4:01:12 PM

Quote:
OK so I can do a virus scan and play a game at the same time. Ok thats true but what is also true is if you have a 2.8ghz P4 you will only be using half of that so you will be using a 1.4ghz p4 in your game.

Sorry, but I can't let this misinformation go uncorrected. While no secondary thread is consuming CPU cycles, a hyperthreaded 2.8GHz CPU performs just as fast as if it were not hyperthreaded - IT DOES NOT perform like a 1.4GHz CPU.
April 7, 2004 4:03:33 PM

3000+ has 11.11% extra clock speed compared to 2800+. This should result in ~9-10% performance difference. So price/perforance ratio fof 2800+ and 3000+ is equal

3000+ still remains the best A64 purchase. A64 2800+ is good only when you really can't afford to spend little extra for 3000+.

------------
<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>
April 7, 2004 4:04:06 PM

First of all, a processor MUST perform well in stock speed. Because no overclock is guranteed.

At stock speed, P4 2.4/1 MB/533/Prescott should perform similar to P4 2.4B GHz. AXP 2400+ & 2500+ and P4 2.4B GHz performs similar. But AXP 2400+ and 2500+ costs almost half, and 2500+ is very good overclocker, too.

P4C's have edge over encoding apps. HT gives them the extra performance. HT gone and P4 encoding performance is similar to AXP. In fact, AXP beats P4 "C"comprehensively in the best MPEG4 codec, XviD.

And I don't think you have any complain about nForce2 platform.


The final equation,

Stock speed:

AXP 2400 + nForce2 = 2x priced P4 2.4 GHz ("Scotty") + similar priced i865 platform

Overclocked speed:

AXP 2500 + nForce2 = 2x priced P4 2.4 GHz ("Scotty") + similar priced i865 platform + slight performacne advantage + EXTRA HEAT

You can always have legendary nForce APU as bonus if you follow AMD route.

P4 2.4 "scotty" is a good 2500+ alternative for Intel zealots. In reality, P4 2.8C GHz the lowest priced P4, that can be considered a real good purchase.

IMO, AXP 2500+ and P4 2.4 "Scotty" are toy CPUs for playing with overclocking. AXP 2400+ is real good low end CPU. A64 3000+/2800+ and P4 2.8C GHz are similarly good for midrange buyers.

Quote:
But if you do happen to have other apps running with games, the P4 is going to handle it better.

If anybody do such thing, then they set the priority of encoding app to "low", which results in smooth gameplay. And I don't think who cares about encoding speed, plays game while encoding.

Quote:
It appears that you are paying for 64bit.
AMD has always been cheaper than Intel, now they are about the same.

The price is bit higher, because:-

# It's new technology. AMD needs extra money to make up their R&D cost.
# Yield is low because of much larger die size.

Since there's no 64 bit software at this moment, it's a bonus feature and A64 pricing is good enough to consider it a good 32 bit purchase.

(Please don't mind) You're looking like a two faced snake because of your earlier all out Intel bashing and current passionate love for P4 2.4 "Scotty".

------------
<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>
April 7, 2004 4:13:46 PM

I agree with you! But if you forget price, the A64 2800+ is not a bad choice at all... But, when we check the price difference, it's worth getting the 3000+ for not much more.

In actual game performance, I don't think we would notice much difference between 2800+/3000+ (about 5%).

Maybe this 5% can be substantial in very CPU intensive games, but if I put 2 PC side by side, one with the 2800+ and the other with the 3000+ would we be able notice the fastest one?

My personnal choice would be to buy a 2800+ and keep the 35$US in my wallet and in the future I would use this money to get a 3700+ whne my 2800+ would suffer with new games/apps.

--
Would you buy a potato powered chipset?
April 7, 2004 4:51:36 PM

Well, its directly due to that 2.4A HardOCP article that got me thinking about that chip and the future of Prescott. Along with lengthy conversations with a good friend of mine within this forum through PMs.

I was quite misled on AMD64 and had let the hype get to me about the Athlons gaming speed, all while ignoring the plethora of other reasons to use Intel instead
____________________________________________________________




Ditto! I think the question should really be, "What do you want to build today?" I would be perfectly happy with an A64 although I would not be without the 1mb cache. I simply got into a deal that was too good to pass up. The future of 64 bit platforms is quite impossible to predict, so I took Crashman's advice and built a nice midrange system for now. Next year I'll probably be longing for the new AMD FX-57 socket 939 with the 2mb cache @ 3ghz! That's life


"I am become death, the destroyer of worlds. Now, let's eat!
April 7, 2004 5:48:18 PM

lol well im glad you had a revelation about the 'misleading' amd situation. dont take this personally, but it just sounds liek youve been to one of those seminars that brainwash people lol. how oyu talked to a friend and just saw the light so to speak lol. Anyway, back to the thread at hand.

I still dont see your point about how what you said is relevent to buying a cpu now. We can argue what amy or may not happen in the future, but for his buy now, an ahtlon 64 is the best choice if he wants it for gaming, wouldnt you agree?

As to the future, you made it sound like once the intel processors ramp up in speed and go 64bit,t hen they will just recalim the performance lead, of course you nothing to prove this, as much as anyone has proof that amd can hold its lead. Personally, Im glad they pushed the 64bit mode out now, for me it is a bit of a bonus, sinc ei do use apps that would see boosts from it. But I think more then the marketing, it was good to go ahead and get it out there, get people tlaking, get support for apps and drivers going. Now the pressure of users will push some apps to 64bit faster. If 64bit was going to be adopted at any point, it has to start somewhere, and no matter what, it wouldnt start as an instant success that sweeps the industry, much like the transition to 32bit wasnt.

Im just waiting to see Intel's next big jump to see what they decide to counter with.
April 7, 2004 8:34:05 PM

Quote:
But 3700+ has to cost $100, otherwise why we should invest money after obsolete platform?

TRUE, it's why I consider getting a mobile Barton 2400+ to replace my t-bred 1800+ (o/c to 2.0GHz). I can easily overclock the Mobile 2400+ to about 2.4/2.6GHz, for 78$US, it's very cheap to get 20 to 30% increase in CPU performance.

--
Would you buy a potato powered chipset?
April 7, 2004 9:55:46 PM

I will reply to your main points, that were in counter to mine and I will clarify for you and the masses.

Quote:
Point 1: AMD64 has horrible motherboards

Answer: NO, I have seen no evidance to support such a claim.


I dont know if horrible was the word I used.
But I think both of us would agree that the P4 platform is exponentially more mature, hence more stable.
Its well known fact that Athlons are finicky with memory.. anyone worth their salt knows this.
Intels, especially the popular boards based on chips such as the 865s, are not.
They are cheaper as well.
Higher quality and cheaper equals superior in my book.

The only REAL choice for a real AMD enthusiast for chipsets are the Nforces.
Only fools and idiots use VIA, and SIS is unnecessary with the NF chipsets.

While the current NF A64 chipset is lackluster, even to VIAs offering.. I'd say its safe to say they are in an immature stage overall and I havent talked to anyone, who disagrees.

Compare that to the Intel platform, and you have quite a disparity.

Quote:
Point 2: the AMD64 is overpiced because of its 64bitness

Answer: NO, it proformance is that of a P4c in every way shape and form. It exels in some areas thatt he P4 doesn't and losses some ground where the P4 exels at but over all I would have to say that its even with the P4c or P4e. It comes down to what you do most with your comp. If you are a gamer pick AMD if you are a big and I mean big audio video encoder go for Intel. There is more reason then that for picking a processor but you get the idea.


Well, I thought I had clearly stated while NO ONE knows for SURE, WHY AMD raised their prices this generation.. the R&D and implementation of their AMD64 would be as good as any.

If not, then this would be the first case in the history of engineering and capitalistic business where R&D costs DONT trickle down to the consumer.

Quote:
Point 3: 64bitness has not real improtantance

Answer: Yes, but who cares, it works in 32bit mode and thats the important part. Yes it has 64bitness and this may come in handy in the long run for us gamers. Now if you bring in that we are paying for it your right. But I think this has to do with the server line and not the desktop line. In the server line it is actualy useful to have 64bitness and that is where AMD is really making you pay for it. I can see no evidance that states that if you get rid of the 64bitness you will have a drastic drop in price. But this will be seen soon enough. The XP line is coming out soon for the 939 (I think Im not 100% sure on what socket its coming out on) and when it does we will be able to compare prices. As the XP line for the 939 is suppost to be a AMD64 with out its 64bitness.


You agree here.
I'm not sure why you bothered with the tirade.

Quote:
Point 4: AMD64 is not really upgradeble on the current socket.

Answer: True but the same goes for Intel as of right now. And it even looks like you will have more upgrade ablity with the AMD64s then with the P4s. So in the end even though you are right and AMD64 doesn't have a great upgrade path it does have the best upgrade path as of right now compared to its Intel Compeditor.


You stated exactly what I stated to Spitfire in this thread.
That BOTH are limited.
It just so happens, that we ALL KNEW that the S754 was DOOMED even BEFORE it was even released!!
Other than that, 754 is single channel.. I, along with nearly everyone else on this forum including AMD fanboys would pass on this.

Quote:
Point 5: AMD64 doesn't have Hyper threading

Answer: Alright so it doesn't have Hyper Threading but to a game what does this really matter? OK so I can do a virus scan and play a game at the same time. (


You basically agree here.
Bottom line is, HT is something that is used in current apps and OSs... and Athlons dont have it.
You get what you pay for, or at least you should.

And you are getting usable technology with Pentium 4s.

Quote:
Point 6: AMD64 don't have SSE3

Answer: True but just like 64bitness SSE3 hasn't shown any really cool benfits. Who cares about SSE3 and if you are one to preach about how 64bitness is useless beacause it has no use as of right now then you should say the same about SSE3 as it has giving us gamers nothing.


Again, same as above (Point 5s response).

Quote:
Point 7: AMD64 cant overclock worth crap

Answer: OK OK you got me there AMD64 cant OC worth crap.


You agree here as well.

I understand alot of stuff that your saying, but my stance hasnt really been changed.

I hope you better understand where I'm coming from.

____________________________
:evil:  <b>RESIDENT FORUM WARRIOR :evil: 
<font color=purple>I just neutered the cat.
Now he's a liberal.</font color=purple></b>
April 7, 2004 10:20:25 PM

Quote:
We can argue what amy or may not happen in the future, but for his buy now, an ahtlon 64 is the best choice if he wants it for gaming, wouldnt you agree?


If being higher in a performance bar graph automatically makes a CPU and platform, then sure.
I would disagree and the reasons for this are the crux of my argument contained within this thread.

I didnt see many other questions to answer in your post so I'll leave it at that.


____________________________
:evil:  <b>RESIDENT FORUM WARRIOR :evil: 
<font color=purple>I just neutered the cat.
Now he's a liberal.</font color=purple></b>
April 7, 2004 10:33:33 PM

Quote:
First of all, a processor MUST perform well in stock speed. Because no overclock is guranteed.


This is true. But unfortunately about the only thing the A64 has going for it.

I thought I had clearly stated this.

Quote:
P4 2.4 "scotty" is a good 2500+ alternative for Intel zealots.


I'd raise you an <A HREF="http://hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjAz" target="_new">[H]</A> on that one!

Quote:
If anybody do such thing, then they set the priority of encoding app to "low", which results in smooth gameplay. And I don't think who cares about encoding speed, plays game while encoding.


I dont know if that is a solution.
It results in lower performance than the P4s to do it your way and would perform whatever task that is in question.. slower.

Quote:
The price is bit higher, because:-

# It's new technology. AMD needs extra money to make up their R&D cost.


Thank you!
Now all of your AMD buds in this thread can read this and realize that I am correct in saying that you are PAYING for useless tech with A64!

As I've explained, by the time Intel releases 64bit upon the world.. the current circa 3000+ A64s will be garbage, and software is developed around the chips that have the majority of the market ie Intel.
Combine that with poor preliminary AMD64 results (which are the ONLY thing we have to go off of AT ALL) and you have a more than likely scenario that current A64s are filled with useless technology based on hype.

When some analytical thinking reveals how useless AMD64-bit is, and how the A64 is nothing more than a decent 32bit CPU.

My view is, why not go with the option that has so many great reasons to purchase and use it?
I've listed these for the P4 a few times in this thread including my first post.

Quote:
You're looking like a two faced snake because of your earlier all out Intel bashing and current passionate love for P4 2.4 "Scotty".


Thats ok, i think it says more good about me than anything.. that I can change my mind and am open to new ideas and points of view.
My loyalties lay with my money, not AMDs marchitechure.

____________________________
:evil:  <b>RESIDENT FORUM WARRIOR :evil: 
<font color=purple>I just neutered the cat.
Now he's a liberal.</font color=purple></b>
April 7, 2004 10:49:25 PM

Quote:
but, at stock speed and same price you can't argue that Athlon 64 (even with the "already dead" socket754) are better CPU in games than P4C or Prescott.


But of course, IF you think that performance charts and having a slightly longer bar on those equals the "best gaming PC".
I strongly disagree with that sentiment and frankly, it makes my stomach turn to see such blind ridiculous fanboyishness.

Fanboyishness I was once a part of.
AMD has a sick cult, and that cult as Omid stated, might even be AMDs downfall..

Quote:
My point about AMD64 is that if you are the kind of person who buy a CPU once every 2-3 years AMD64 is good choice, because in 1 year we will start to see Windows 64bit apps and the AMD64 will be ready to run them. Today's AMD64 owner will have the opportunity to keep their system longer before upgrading to "next-gen" 64bit CPU.


Yeah you'll be able to run the 64bit Windows, and apps but what 64bit CPU will they be developed for?
The one that exists in every single shipping Dell, or the 10% of the overall market that is enthusiast.. and even a smaller percentage of that uses AMD.
The problem for AMD is, they have not saturated the mainstream consumer CPU market.
While this A64 is a consumer CPU, this is bad news for any added instructions they might implement.

Games will be developed for the first 64bit processors that Intel puts out there.. and that will likely blow away these 3000+ era A64 CPUs.

Quote:
I can't change your mind, but I really think you can't argue that AMD64 have the opportunity to last longer than actual P4C/E because of their 64bit extension.


It might "last" longer, barely.
It will likely be like buying a Pentium 60mhz with Windows 95 installed and upgrading to 98SE.
But in this case, this will apply go games developed for 64bit.

And in the meantime when Intel decides to make 64bit relevant (and they do, if this wasnt true everyone would be rushing out to buy one of these "64bit" CPUs out of necessity instead of curiousity)... those 64bit Intels are going to be used for game development, not AMDs.
Also in the meanwhile, you get USABLE features like HT and SSE2 or 3 on Prescott.

They can attempt to belittle HT and SSE instructions all they want too in this thread.

But the fact remains-
64bit is meaningless, useless tech that you pay for when purchasing a A64
HT/SSE3 is not meaningless.. and unlike AMD64 does not rely on the competition to bring the technology to mainstream attention.

Quote:
Heve you read the article about the Intel 64bit performance, it seems that the Intel renamed AMD64 technology is slower than the AMD implementation, it might not be true when final product will hit the market...


Even IF this is true, by the time Intel releases 64bit CPUs they will dwarf the current 3000+ A64s in performance.
Making even a slight loss in 64bit performance a moot point.

____________________________
:evil:  <b>RESIDENT FORUM WARRIOR :evil: 
<font color=purple>I just neutered the cat.
Now he's a liberal.</font color=purple></b>
April 7, 2004 11:12:10 PM

Quote:
Thank you!
Now all of your AMD buds in this thread can read this and realize that I am correct in saying that you are PAYING for useless tech with A64!

Useless tech???

Did AMD spend all their R&D money after AMD64? They have new features like on-die mem. controller, HyperTransport and SOI.

Currently their CPU yield/wafer is much lower than Intel and SOI wafers cost more. Yet they're priced slightly lower than P4s. I can't find any point for bashing A64 pricing.

Quote:
As I've explained, by the time Intel releases 64bit upon the world.. the current circa 3000+ A64s will be garbage, and software is developed around the chips that have the majority of the market ie Intel.

Both AMD and Intel will have hard time improving CPU performance in near future, until they introduce dual Core CPUs. 3000+ is NOT going to be obsolete very soon.

And AMD64 and Intel's EMT64 is going to be 100% compatible. So it doesn't matter if software developers use Intel CPUs.

Quote:
My loyalties lay with my money, not AMDs marchitechure.

My loyalties lay with my money and certain performance. I don't buy toy processors (yeah, I will probably never buy AXP 2500+). OC potential is always a bonus.

Quote:
KNEW that the S754 was DOOMED even BEFORE it was even released!!

Does it matter? S754 still has more life than S478, though it was "doomed before release".

Quote:
Other than that, 754 is single channel.. I, along with nearly everyone else on this forum including AMD fanboys would pass on this.

Again, does it matter? In benchmarks, you see there's little difference between AMD dual channel vs. Single channel.

The case itsn't like P4 + i850E vs. P4 + i845PE. You're getting exactly what you see in the benchmarks.

------------
<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>
April 7, 2004 11:13:44 PM

This is exactly as I feel. A64 is faster in games. Who would argue that. But faster doesn't mean better. If the P4's were too slow for games, obviously I'd change that conclusion. But they aren't too slow for games, they are very fast in games, just not as fast in games as A64. And yes faster in other areas than A64. All things considered I think right now the better platform has the slower gaming fps and the faster gaming cpu/platform isn't as good for other reasons. And I think that the current faster CPU's will be getting better platforms in time. I for one am excited about A64's future, and curious as to what Intel will be able to do to match or beat them. It could take along time before the clear best performance choice is Intel again. And in the mean time, could AMD become the clear best choice? I think if NF3-250 came out as good alround as NF2, it could happen. I just don't know what Intel has to soon bring into the fight. Can prescott become what it failed to be so far?

AMD had the value, Intel the performance. AXP took the performance tittle for a while, and Intel grabbed it back. I like the battles and having two good cpu companies.

Since you are a car guy. When buying a performce car is 0-60 and 1/4 mile the only consideration? Of course not. It is important and might be the first thing we read in a review. But It doesn't make it a better sports car. Especially if one is proven to be unbelieveably reliable and a pure joy to own. Not to mention easy to tweak for more perfomance with little to no drawbacks. (OC baby) Now if you here that the next model of the faster one will iron out many of it's current drawbacks, isn't waiting a few months aslo a wise choice?

So to me, these performance charts are important, but they aren't the whole picture. Not even close. I would like A64 gaming performance on a Canterwood or Springdale Chipset. They are rocks and still excel in many ares. Plus look at how many features are built in for such a cheap price. Not the newest, but IMO the best. Only chipsets that can measure up IMO have been 440BX and NF2. I don't get excited about chipsets that have had many complaints and that Overclock poorly. Because although they look good now, they may become the KT333's in the future. Good, and plenty fast at first, but not much to get excited about when better chipsets (NF2) came out.

I do not think that gamers who want to build an A64 for the highest framerates, are making a mistake. But I also don't think gamers who Build a P4 for high framerates (not as high) and for all the other reasons I've mentioned in the past, are making a mistake either. I also don't think people hanging onto their capable older gaming machine until better NF3-250 or socket 939 are making a mistake either. IMO, People who get rid of an XP2500+/NF2 because they think they need an A64 or because they want the most 3dmarks, those people are making mistakes, (or are hardware addicts like me, or are just made of money, not like me :smile: ) And people who buy A64 because they listen to those who claim that "play games = buy A64" and nothing else, they are making a mistake by being fooled. Yet at least AMD makes some much needed money off them, which seems to be the most logical reason to illiminate all other options... To help AMD's revenues.


ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt
April 7, 2004 11:29:59 PM

Quote:
But of course, IF you think that performance charts and having a slightly longer bar on those equals the "best gaming PC".
I strongly disagree with that sentiment and frankly, it makes my stomach turn to see such blind ridiculous fanboyishness.

Fanboyishness I was once a part of.
AMD has a sick cult, and that cult as Omid stated, might even be AMDs downfall..


Its the hypocrisy that makes *my* stomach turn.

>Yeah you'll be able to run the 64bit Windows, and apps but
>what 64bit CPU will they be developed for?

Here's a hint: they are being developped now, what platform do you think they are testing and tweaking on ? Not that this matters, you may not have noticed, but EM64T and AMD64 are carbon copies as far as a software developper is concerned. the difference is no bigger than between SSE and "3DNow! Professional", in other words, for all practical purposes completely non existant.

>Also in the meanwhile, you get USABLE features like HT and
>SSE2 or 3 on Prescott.

HT is not a useable feature for a gamer, unless you think its important to crunch SETI workloads as fast as possible while fragging online. Or if you care how long it takes before the virusscan completes while playing a game. HT has its uses, and some apps benefit greatly, like rendering, but if you think it makes alt+tab any faster like you implied in another post, you're delusional.

SSE3 is not a usefull feature now either, and once it gets supported (probably not before AMD64), all it will bring is a tiny bit of extra performance. You're looking at a few percent at best, did you see the SpecFP results using SSE3 ?Probably not enough by a long shot to make up for the performance difference with A64 anyhow (at least in gaming).

If you want useable features besides performance, how about cool& quiet or extra security (NX) ? To each its own, but those things matter more to me than a possible 1-2% performance boost in 12 months. A performance boost on top of a much larger performance deficit that is.

>Even IF this is true, by the time Intel releases 64bit CPUs
>they will dwarf the current 3000+ A64s in performance.
>Making even a slight loss in 64bit performance a moot
>point.

Right.. so a future 2% gain is worth mentioning, but a future loss isn't ? I see your logic..

I've told you this before, you need counceling. There is no room in your mind for nuances or subtility. Everyone not agreeing with whatever it is you happen to believe in that day is out of his mind. A few weeks ago you posted you saw "no reason whatseover to buy intel now", then someone brings up 'motherboard maturity', which is a valid point, -only in spite of 200 posts on the subject, I have not heard ONE credible source pointing to any problems with K8T800 boards beyond the fact K8 boards might be more pickey about their DDR modules-, and now SSE3 rocks, HT rocks, AMD64 sucks, you'd be crazy not to get a P4..well.. what can I say :/ 

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =
April 7, 2004 11:32:02 PM

OK about the boards your right they havent show any matureity yet but I still see no evedice that states they are unstable. Although when it comes the memeory your right its finicky with it but you even say that this is more do with Athlons not the motherboards so really its a bad point for the CPU not the Motheboard so once again I state that I see no reason to think the P4 motherboard is any better. Ok I do see that P4s have dual chanal right now but personly I don't think the AMD64 NEED it they are fine right now with out it and still kicking the P4 around and in the close futur the AMD64 is going to get its dualness so once again I don't see whats wrong with the Motherboard. As for your hatedred of VIA understandable but come on man things change. I haven't seen on this board anyone complaining about how undstable the new VIA motherboards are. How ever when the VIA boards came out for the XP family I saw may reports of its horrible stiblility. But like I said your right they may not fully be mature yet but I feel that this is really the case for the Nforce motherboards then the VIA motherboards.

As for the paying of 64bitness I don't dought that the money you spend on the processor goes to pay for some of that R&D but I still don't think that they jacked up their prices just to pay for the 64bitness. Atleast not for the Desktop verson. The server Version and the FX are what I think are manly paying for the 64bitness. Anway like I said before you may be right but we will have to wait to see the price diffrance between the XP and the AMD64 when the New XP comes out. But I do exept that you could be very right in this area. If you are I cant wait for the XP version to come out because like you I would hate to pay for the 64bitness because I don't think I will be using a 64bit application for aleast 1.5-2 years. And by that time I will probly buy the next generation 64bittness CPU (AMD or Intel which ever is better at the time)

I put in that 64bitness is usless because Im not try to put AMD in a good light Im trying to get the trueth out. Not just for me but for all of us. Yeah at first it seems like I am just being an ass but truely I just want to know why so many people are agenst a AMD64 system for gaming. Right now its the best gaming buy and many agree but some don't and so far I have seen no really good reason given by these people to not get a AMD64. Most just say 64bitness sux and well 32bit is whats here to day and so you shouldn't get a AMD64 (not you but some have made this statement on this board) and to me this statement could only be made by a stupid person. Why avoid a processor because of an added feature. It would be like saying don't buy a P4e because of its SSE3 (don't know if the P4c have SSE3) istead of saying don't buy a P4e because its a space heater now that would be just stupid right??? But still you have people out there that say it. I have seen no really good reason not to buy a AMD64 and I am only trying to understand the point of view that states that the AMD64 is not a worthy gamer buy.

Yeah the Soctet for the AMD64 was dead before it started but really when you say this you only say this because in the past AMD has had one really good upgrade path for its motherboards and not his isn't the case. In the past Intel has had shorter upgradeablitiy for its sockets. My old Celeron (first computer) is a 400mhz and I could only go up to 500mhz before I would have to get a new motherboard. (I was going to upgrade it about a year and a half ago, yes my first computer was really old for its time and was only a short while ago) Now thats a crappy upgrade path. I think the lowest proccessor I could get would be a 300mhz (cant remember exactly) Now thats what I call crap for upgradeablity. Its just not normal for AMD to have a crappy upgrade path. But I can see why AMD did it this way. And Im quite happy they did. I really wouldn't want to have to see these cool operterons being released for 2 years along with a very expencive FX and have no AMD64 just because they aren't finished with the 939s. Its a quick fix right now. And I would rather have it that way because I would want my AMD64 NOW not in 6 MORE months. (or how ever long its going to take AMD to get the 939 out)

I to understand much of what you say but even with the small minises that the AMD64 does have (fickle with memeory - ok just get memory you know will work and don't take a bargan brand in hopes of it working) (No good 64bitness apps - ok fine don't use the 64bitness its not like AMD is forcing you as of right now to use it) (Motherboard being unstable- I have seen no real complaints about VIA being unstable if you can give me a link that states that its commen for the VIA boards to be unstable with the AMD64 please show me and then I will agree but even with that small problem the AMD64 still have the NForce coming out soon that will fix this problem it is truely there)

Just wondering Can I get a 3.2c with out HT?





-------------------------------------------------
Remember what your fighting for, Remember why you even started fighting, and Remember who you are
April 7, 2004 11:42:41 PM

You keep making these vague claims about 865/875 being somehow so far superior to current K8 boards, to the point where benchmarks or price/performance becomes irrelevant but I see you still did not answer the question I've been asking you for months now.

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?nam..." target="_new"> WHat exactly is wrong with current A64 boards </A>

Keep in mind that recommending a P4 board now, because even better A64 boards will become available over the next weeks (?) is not really a logical argument.

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