$230 AMD or Intel, AMD Angst

[Glow]

For $230 being the max which chip would you go with, try and be unbiased if you can. I love AMD I'm used to it and it seems like the mobos are better built. I just hate how AMD doesn't have a 4-5ghz chip yet. Sure they have new chips out but hey the 3000+ came out like 3 years ago and now we have another sure it's 64bit but seriously this is the 3rd one

 

[robberbaron]

Why do you hate their lack of a 4-5ghz chip? It's not exactly easy to make an entire cpu run at that speed, especially with the K7/8 execution core of only 10/12 stages.

You're going to get more for your money with a 3200+ venice than with the comparable Intel chip, which I think is the 630.

Disregard the PR's and you'll fine a nice chip. I got a 3700+, whatever the hell that means!

4ghz Athlon 64:
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=10680

 

[Bleh?]

Last time I checked Intel doesnt have a 4-5 ghz chip either and its not always about ghz, its about the architecture and effieciency of the cpu. Go with a 3200+ venice and overclock it to 2.5ghz+

 

[freeloader1969]

Bleh...agreed. A 2.5ghz Athlon 64 is pretty damn fast. I've had several A64 systems now and had a 1.8ghz Athlon 64 (Venice 3000+) upto 2.8ghz on air. That thing was an animal.
Just sold it locally, and am patiently waiting for dual cores to arrive.

 

[robberbaron]

Bleh...agreed. A 2.5ghz Athlon 64 is pretty damn fast. I've had several A64 systems now and had a 1.8ghz Athlon 64 (Venice 3000+) upto 2.8ghz on air. That thing was an animal.
Just sold it locally, and am patiently waiting for dual cores to arrive.

I'm running 10x250 right now

 

[Dan_D]

For $230 being the max which chip would you go with, try and be unbiased if you can. I love AMD I'm used to it and it seems like the mobos are better built. I just hate how AMD doesn't have a 4-5ghz chip yet. Sure they have new chips out but hey the 3000+ came out like 3 years ago and now we have another sure it's 64bit but seriously this is the 3rd one

Actually, Intel chipsets, and chipset based boards are usually better than much of what the AMD world gets stuck with. Boards from top tier manufacturers such as Asus will make quality boards for both platforms. Still the Intel chipset drivers are much more headache free than anything on the AMD side.

Intel's quality is second to none. However, performance wise, AMD hands them their asses in many applications. Most noticably in games. So unless your using the few applications that Intel processors are truely better at, then you should stick with AMD.

 

[Glow]

4ghz Athlon 64:
http://valid.x86-secret.com/show_oc.php?id=10680

Athlon 64 FX-55 Nice chip but not near worth the cost. How is Hyperthreading comparable to 64bit? I've been using my gfs computer for the last month I built for her it's a 2.4c@2.9Ghz and I have Barton at 2.2Ghz with twice the ram and the intel feels much smoother at times.

 

[iddqd]

The PR rating (such as 3700+) means that it's comparable in performance to a tbird running at 3.7GHz, which would be pretty similar to a P4 running at 3.7GHz, for some reason. Maybe tbird is just a stolen P4 core? Nobody knows.

 

[iddqd]

The PR rating (such as 3700+) means that it's comparable in performance to a tbird running at 3.7GHz, which would be pretty similar to a P4 running at 3.7GHz, for some reason. Maybe tbird is just a stolen P4 core? Nobody knows.

Btw, if your'e on such a low budget, I don't think you can buy anything worthwhile from the Intel side.

 

[josh_1413]

Actually, Intel chipsets, and chipset based boards are usually better than much of what the AMD world gets stuck with. Boards from top tier manufacturers such as Asus will make quality boards for both platforms. Still the Intel chipset drivers are much more headache free than anything on the AMD side.

Intel's quality is second to none. However, performance wise, AMD hands them their asses in many applications. Most noticably in games. So unless your using the few applications that Intel processors are truely better at, then you should stick with AMD.

What you were saying used to be true. I never hear about problems with AMD chipsets any more. The Nforce 4 chipset I believe is the most stable as you can get. Even Intels new chipset that supporst SLI is having problems from what i read at another site.

 

[robberbaron]

What you were saying used to be true. I never hear about problems with AMD chipsets any more. The Nforce 4 chipset I believe is the most stable as you can get. Even Intels new chipset that supporst SLI is having problems from what i read at another site.

Yeah, nVidia did a good job with the nForce3 and 4. They are truly the best chipsets ever made since the 865/875, if not ever.

 

[texuspete00]

The PR rating (such as 3700+) means that it's comparable in performance to a tbird running at 3.7GHz, which would be pretty similar to a P4 running at 3.7GHz, for some reason. Maybe tbird is just a stolen P4 core? Nobody knows.

Btw, if your'e on such a low budget, I don't think you can buy anything worthwhile from the Intel side.

Nah they just made up that T-bird crap. Walk into the store there's the high number for people to see basically. Most would assume P4 and extremely high chance they have no friggin' clue what a thunderbird is! Why would a chip from that long ago even be relevant? Then you've got the sempron numbers bumping up against celerons. I think they just don't come out and say so.

 

[robberbaron]

Nah they just made up that T-bird crap. Walk into the store there's the high number for people to see basically. Most would assume P4 and extremely high chance they have no friggin' clue what a thunderbird is! Why would a chip from that long ago even be relevant? Then you've got the sempron numbers bumping up against celerons. I think they just don't come out and say so.

The PR's dont even match up with Pentium 4's though. The K8's and P4's have too many varying strengths and weaknesses. The AMD64 PR system is a rating against itself. It's usually accurate, except for the S754 3400+ being of the same performance as the S939 3800+ and other inconsistancies.

 

[apHytHiaTe]

To the OP, lets not play the megahertz game alright? Mhz means jack shit. The same goes for PR ratings. Once a chip is OC'd PR is out the damn window! With a decent motherboard, any of the new a64 chips can outdo what intel has to offer. I mean really, that boring 3000+ you are whining about is amazing! With a stock fx cooler and inexpensive memory, one review site was able to easily OC it and make it outperform anything they had. That's a fuggin $150 chip, and I'd put a few weeks salary on the fact that it will spank the wiener off anything of intel's in your price range for most apps.

 

[iddqd]

The PR's dont even match up with Pentium 4's though. The K8's and P4's have too many varying strengths and weaknesses. The AMD64 PR system is a rating against itself. It's usually accurate, except for the S754 3400+ being of the same performance as the S939 3800+ and other inconsistancies.

Well, actually I have their system figured out (somewhat). You see, their PR system awards points for different features. For example, the worst you can have is in their eyes, s754, 1.8GHz clock, 512k cache. That's 2800+. 200MHz clock bump is awarded 200 PR points. Therefore, the same chip running at 2.0GHz is a 3000+. Now, 1Mb cache is awarded another 200 PR points. So, the 3000+ with twice as much cache is now a 3200+. Apparently, s939 is awarded yet another 200 points. The s939 3200+ is now a 3400+. There are inconsistencies, however with the scheme between s939 and s754, however. For example, the 3700+ is awarded an extra 100 points, when it really should be the 3600+. And the 3500+ as well. Basically, all the odd-numbered ones are exceptions to this rule.

The FX-5X rating is based on the clock frequency alone.

 

[robberbaron]

Well, actually I have their system figured out (somewhat). You see, their PR system awards points for different features. For example, the worst you can have is in their eyes, s754, 1.8GHz clock, 512k cache. That's 2800+. 200MHz clock bump is awarded 200 PR points. Therefore, the same chip running at 2.0GHz is a 3000+. Now, 1Mb cache is awarded another 200 PR points. So, the 3000+ with twice as much cache is now a 3200+. Apparently, s939 is awarded yet another 200 points. The s939 3200+ is now a 3400+. There are inconsistencies, however with the scheme between s939 and s754, however. For example, the 3700+ is awarded an extra 100 points, when it really should be the 3600+. And the 3500+ as well. Basically, all the odd-numbered ones are exceptions to this rule.

The FX-5X rating is based on the clock frequency alone.

Yeah, I know how it's added up. It's still a rating against itself, i.e. the base 2800+.

Socket 939 gets the 200 points from dual channel, so when people only have a single channel setup, the extra 200 points doesn't really count.

 

[DejaWiz]

Yeah, nVidia did a good job with the nForce3 and 4. They are truly the best chipsets ever made since the 865/875, if not ever.

I am going to have to wholeheartedly agree with this statement. My Venice 3000+ is running 267fsb x 9 STABLE. A 33% overclock is what this translates to. With no bump in core voltage. With no increase in heat output. On a Gigabyte NF4-SLI board, no less . I have known no intel processor to accomplish that feat. Stick with what is better. AMD all the way!

 

[Dan_D]

What you were saying used to be true. I never hear about problems with AMD chipsets any more. The Nforce 4 chipset I believe is the most stable as you can get. Even Intels new chipset that supporst SLI is having problems from what i read at another site.

I believe it still is. There is no Intel chipset that supports SLi. Only nVidia's NForce 4 SLi Intel Edition supports SLi officially.

Driver installation issues, and general quirkyness are still more commong with VIA/SIS/ULi/ALi/nVidia. I have no information on the ATi chipsets. I've used a whopping two systems with them and they didn't give me any real problems. Except some instability with a X600, however I don't think it was chipset related. But rather the crappy Diamond Stealth X600 that claimed it needed a 450Watt PSU. Yes it says that on the box.

Anyway I am off topic again.

Still Intel chipsets still lead the way in stability and ease of use. Does that mean that the AMD chipsets themselves are worse? No, certainly not. But I'd take Intel chipset drivers over NForce chipset drivers any day of the week given the choice.

 

[robberbaron]

Still Intel chipsets still lead the way in stability and ease of use. Does that mean that the AMD chipsets themselves are worse? No, certainly not. But I'd take Intel chipset drivers over NForce chipset drivers any day of the week given the choice.

I would too, for Intel CPU's. But my 3700+ doesn't have much use for the 955X, and for AMD chips, the nForce3/4 is the best thing that ever happened.

 

[Glow]

I mean really, that boring 3000+ you are whining about is amazing! With a stock fx cooler and inexpensive memory, one review site was able to easily OC it and make it outperform anything they had.

I never said it was a bad chip but for the next 4 years everytime I upgrade buying a new 3000+ gets old. YaY Barton YaY Newcastle YaY Venice. Like I said feels like running in spot. Same shit different pile. I wanna see something new.
Why not a 4Ghz Venice as the new Venice chip. Remember w/out AMD, Intel could still be selling PIII's and nobody would know any different I mean really. It just seems like they are both in this comfy little bubble they don't need to push on for. I'de like to see one of them pull something big so they have another little technology race.

 

[sabrewolf732]

I would go with a venice 3000, which should hit 2.6Ghz if not more. At 2.6GHz you will outperform anything intel has to offer by far, and venice's run EXTREMELY cool.

 

[Elios]

I never said it was a bad chip but for the next 4 years everytime I upgrade buying a new 3000+ gets old. YaY Barton YaY Newcastle YaY Venice. Like I said feels like running in spot. Same shit different pile. I wanna see something new.
Why not a 4Ghz Venice as the new Venice chip. Remember w/out AMD, Intel could still be selling PIII's and nobody would know any different I mean really. It just seems like they are both in this comfy little bubble they don't need to push on for. I'de like to see one of them pull something big so they have another little technology race.

then get up your budget and get a X2 4400+

 

[Glow]

I'm not going to spend $600 on something that will be $200 in a year.

 

[robberbaron]

I'm not going to spend $600 on something that will be $200 in a year.

That's quite an exaggeration. AMD couldn't afford to sell dual core chips like that at that price. If you want performance you'll need to spend a little money or have a lot of skill/luck at OC'ing. Good luck overclocking a 3200+ venice to 4200+ performance

 

[sabrewolf732]

That's quite an exaggeration. AMD couldn't afford to sell dual core chips like that at that price. If you want performance you'll need to spend a little money or have a lot of skill/luck at OC'ing. Good luck overclocking a 3200+ venice to 4200+ performance

Alot of venice's hit 2.8GHz... that is 4200 perf. is it not?

 

[robberbaron]

Alot of venice's hit 2.8GHz... that is 4200 perf. is it not?

No matter how high you oc that venice, it won't grow a second core out of nowhere.

 

[Glow]

3000 or 3200 venice which seem to be OCing higher? I wouldn't mind a San diego but they are little pricey too?

 

[(cf)Eclipse]

3000 or 3200 venice which seem to be OCing higher? I wouldn't mind a San diego but they are little pricey too?

*cough* look at the oc sticky *cough*

that said, i'd prefer the 3200+, as i have seen a few 3000+'s that are duds, one couldn't even do 2.2ghz, another was stuck at 2.4ghz (actually, i think were were a few like this)
and the extra multi of the 3200+ is nice

 

[sabrewolf732]

No matter how high you oc that venice, it won't grow a second core out of nowhere.

im stupid didnt realise dual core

 

[Josh_B]

What you were saying used to be true. I never hear about problems with AMD chipsets any more. The Nforce 4 chipset I believe is the most stable as you can get. Even Intels new chipset that supporst SLI is having problems from what i read at another site.

Exactly. That certain site has a laundry list of items that had to be REPLACED because the Intel setup was unstable.

I fully realize that Intel boards might've been better in the past, but I can't agree with Sir-Frag's blanket statement anymore.

AMD == Intel for stability.

 

[Elios]

Exactly. That certain site has a laundry list of items that had to be REPLACED because the Intel setup was unstable.

I fully realize that Intel boards might've been better in the past, but I can't agree with Sir-Frag's blanket statement anymore.

AMD == Intel for stability.

yes back in the day AMD wasnt the best now there is no resion to say its not as good for Jo Sixpack thats not realy pushing his PC anything over 1Ghz is going to be fine

for any one that wants to play games to the max its AMD even for every thing else AMD is right there at Intels heals and its over taking them in some places now
with the X2 AMD now has every thing that made the P4 better then the A64 and the A64 just needs a bit of clock speed bump with 90nm and 65nm coming down the road i can see AMD closing the clock speed gap with intel

this is not to say intel is all bad the P-m is a winner and intel realy needs to start moving this to the desktop if it whats to stay in the lead but till then its only matter of time till we see 3.5 A64s stock