Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

P4 -3.2Ghz, Verses AMD Athlon 64 3500+

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 3, 2005 2:45:40 PM

Building a computer for a friend of mine and I've been fighting myself on which cpu/mb to go with :<. Old school, P4, 3.2 - 478, 800 FSB (AGP 8x/4x)or new school AMD Athlon 64 3500+ (AGP/PCI Express) ?? I got a great deal on the P4 - 3.2 with MB and have a older 4600 AGP video card. The guy plays games, but not a true gamer. AMD will run me $50 more than I already spent. Well what do think, old school P4 or new AMD Athlon 64 3500+ ??? :< :<. P.S. believe 3.2 is faster & more stable??

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by setdhook1 on 10/03/05 12:59 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
October 3, 2005 6:45:19 PM

Um, go AMD, no question about it.

<font color=red><b>Long live Dhanity and the minions scouring the depths of Wingdingium!</b>

XxxxX
(='.'=)
(")_(") Bow down before King Bunny
October 3, 2005 7:38:03 PM

AMD, and its versus, not lyrical verses.

"If it ain't broke, fix it till it is."
AMD 2500+M@ 2.4 ghz, 6800GT
Related resources
a b à CPUs
October 3, 2005 9:45:23 PM

Another fisherman has joined the forums - Sweet! Mozzartusm and I love to set a hook, too. We're relatively close to each other in southern MS. Where are you from?

<font color=blue>(\__/)
(='.'=)This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into
(")_(")your signature to help him gain world domination. </font color=blue>
October 3, 2005 10:26:39 PM

delete life.exe from the windows folder =P make sure the 3500 is a venice

<font color=red>gforce mx100/200 @ 230/440 =]</font color=red>
October 3, 2005 10:48:17 PM

Quote:
believe 3.2 is faster & more stable??

Even if we are talking P4c, the A64 is faster, and more stable. If talking prescott, it is by far the slowest, and least stable of the three.
October 4, 2005 2:03:03 AM

Sweet! Much better sig with blue!

<font color=red><b>Long live Dhanity and the minions scouring the depths of Wingdingium!</b>

XxxxX
(='.'=)
(")_(") Bow down before King Bunny
a b à CPUs
October 4, 2005 9:46:11 AM

AMD shouldn't cost you more, because the A64 3200+ is faster in many applications than the P4 3.2, and the latest version of the AMD processor produces less than half the heat of the latest Intel processors.

Ah, but what am I saying, all I have is this slow P4 Prescott 3.0GHz, nearly-as-fast P4 2.6C, and a much faster A64 3200+.

<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>
October 4, 2005 4:19:24 PM

You have a slow Scottie? I still have 2.4C But OCed to 3.0.
October 4, 2005 4:20:44 PM

Which vid cards are you looking at?
a b à CPUs
October 4, 2005 6:25:48 PM

Thx!

<font color=blue>(\__/)
(='.'=)This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into
(")_(")your signature to help him gain world domination. </font color=blue>
a b à CPUs
October 5, 2005 1:25:18 PM

At stock speed the Scotty sucks. It wakes up as you overclock, it's fairly fast when you get to 3.8GHz.

Programs seem a bit laggy and unresponsive at slower speeds, but benchmarks show the thing operating properly.

Clock for clock my 2.6C has pummeled it for responsiveness, but this 2.0GHz A64 is like, eating my 2.6C for dinner!

<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>
October 5, 2005 5:14:36 PM

From what I've heard the AMD beats the C's for breakfast. But mine still works fine.
a b à CPUs
October 5, 2005 5:19:20 PM

Yes, I use the 2.6C, at an undisclosed clock rate (hehe), in my own machine. And the AMD processor is so much more responsive, but sits in the test bench.

<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>
October 5, 2005 11:04:05 PM

I had the 3.2C northwood, and compared to my new A64 san diego 4000+... heh the 3.2 is slow and I don't know why I ever got intel, the 3500+ venice should run circles around a p4 3.2.
I've been running folding@home, and I fold out workunits twice as fast as my old cpu.

-Not to mention it will run cooler ;) 
October 6, 2005 5:10:14 PM

<A HREF="http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=26628" target="_new"> Choosing a good processor, AMD or Intel </A>

<pre><font color=red>°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°`°¤o \\// o¤°`°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°
And the sign says "You got to have a membership card to get inside" Huh
So I got me a pen and paper And I made up my own little sign</pre><p></font color=red>
October 7, 2005 12:40:14 AM

Everyone is entitled to thier own opinoin. Unfortunately that Arron Rouse doesn't seem too lucid.
First off, once a celeron always a celeron, so the sempron is a better idea. Aside from that, s754 supports a number of new chips (albeit mobile). while some s775 boards support some dual cores, only a few support the 820, he also recommends.
As to the 820, it is too slow, too hot, doesn't work on most boards, has poor interconnects, and when bothe cores are loaded, the memory interface becomes a severe bottleneck.
I would only recommend these chips to someone I really did not like.
a b à CPUs
October 7, 2005 6:11:41 PM

LMAO

<font color=blue>(\__/)
(='.'=)This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into
(")_(")your signature to help him gain world domination. </font color=blue>
!