• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

A64 3000 vs. P4 2.8

D

DefBringer

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 10, 2002
Messages
176
Sorry, search is broken, I have looked through first 10 pages of this forum and didn't see this topic.

I have to have a new machine by next Friday, really stuck on whether to go with the 2ghz AMD 64 or go with the 2.8 P4.

I would obviously overclock either one as high as I could go.

Any insight?
 
Depends what you want to do. The 2.8ghz would probably give more performance when both were overclocked. The current a64's don't clock very well.
 
Well you can crank the 2.8 up to 3.5ghz on a decent motherboard (250fsb). Either use pc3200 @ 5:4, or pc4000 @ 1:1

You might want to get something non stock to cool it as well.
 
Thanks guys. I usually lurk and try to use the search engine to find stuff rather than bug you....:eek:
 
The A64 for will put out a little better gaming performance because of its on-die memory controller. The Intel 2.8Ghz will have alot more overclocking headroom. All in all they are both good processors but since the 2.8c can usually do at least 3.4Ghz and higher it will be the better overall processor.

You can get an idea how most of the high end Pentium 4's and A64's compete in this review. Its pretty long but gives a good look at quite a few different benchmarks. 3.2Ghz bests the 3000+ in about 65%-68% of the benches.

If your into any kind of encodeing or graphics work then definately the pentium 4. If you want the processor solely for gaming then the A64.

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2004q1/athlon64-3000/index.x?pg=1
 
Majority will be gaming and general office usage.

Very little media encoding.

It looks like the Athlon might be the better choice. Too bad, I have been stuck with AMD for the last 4 upgrades...I was hoping to give Intel a shot again.
 
Originally posted by DefBringer
Majority will be gaming and general office usage.

Very little media encoding.

It looks like the Athlon might be the better choice. Too bad, I have been stuck with AMD for the last 4 upgrades...I was hoping to give Intel a shot again.
Click to expand...

Like i said the A64 is better at gaming cause of low latency but the performance difference is very minimal as with most of the other benchmarks where the Pentium 4 wins. There isn't enough performance difference to declare a real winner. The Pentium 4 wins in a few more benches overall because theres alot more to a processor than its gaming abilities, like multitasking. If you want a good overclocking processor and havn't owned a Pentium 4c before then i would recommend trying one. Their alot of fun to overclock cause you can get some screaming FSB speeds. Otherwise wait for socket 939 A64's.
 
hey man, either way you will have a fine processor. With excellent cooling you can probably get that 2.8 to beat the a64 even in gaming applications. its up to you, the p4 will just take a little bit more work :D . i guess something in my character loves high clock speeds and FSB
 
Originally posted by hi_its_ryan
hey man, either way you will have a fine processor. With excellent cooling you can probably get that 2.8 to beat the a64 even in gaming applications. its up to you, the p4 will just take a little bit more work :D . i guess something in my character loves high clock speeds and FSB
Click to expand...

What you just said about likeing high clock speeds is just how the majority of consumers think. The large majority of pc users know very little (even though they think they know it all) and they buy the processor with the highest speed and consider it the best. They dont understand that it does less work per clock cycle. Intel knows this and does it this way to sell more chips cause only a very small percentage of computer users know any better.

Ither way whether its less work and screaming speeds or more work and lower speeds they even out about the same. Buy whichever you like the most.
 
A64 3000+ is a great chip, although I think an overclocked 2.8C would bash it.
 
Originally posted by Mad_Pyro
A64 3000+ is a great chip, although I think an overclocked 2.8C would bash it.
Click to expand...

3000+ would still be a little better for gaming cause of the extreme low latency but for the most part ither one will serve the purpose and if you like to overclock theres alot more headroom on the Pentium 4's.
 
Ok, should you go with a p4 2.8ghz or should you go with an A64 3000+?

<laughing histerically>
 
Originally posted by VideoTech
Ok, should you go with a p4 2.8ghz or should you go with an A64 3000+?

<laughing histerically>
Click to expand...

Whats that suppost to mean?

The 2.8c is cheaper and will get alot better overclock. The A64 3000+ will be better at gaming and usually only gets a max overclock of 200Mhz.

2.8c @ 3.4Ghz or A64 3000+ @ 3400+ speeds. Ither way you have a processor that will be really good at some things and not as good as the other processor in others.
 
Originally posted by MontyAC
If you can wait, see what the new Prescotts can do then decide.
Click to expand...

And then after that wait some more. Because according to AMD's roadmap the 3700+ will be the last A64 on the list. Production then shifts to 32-bit Athlon XP's on socket 754.

Socket 939 will stay 64-bit and will have dual channel enabled on it.

When Windows XP 64-bit ever comes out someday and there are plenty of drivers to support the hardware then its going to be the thing to have once applications and games are coded for 64-bit.

According to results now though, applications tend to run better in 32-bit windows then in the new 64-bit windows xp beta.
 
if you are lucky and get the 2.8 to 3.5 or higher then then the p4c will smoke the 3000+. Otherwise the amd64 will win in game benchmarks. the 64 may also win a good portion of the workstation benchmarks. here are some numbers on my system (specs in rig). my rig beats any stock a64 for $180 cpu cost :).

Cypher: 14.76 sec
Primordia: 381.69 seconds
MolecDynam: 70.2854 sec
Cinebench 2003 - 1 cpu: 363 SMT: 428
3dMark2001se - 20884 (default settings in cntrl panel - no performance settings)
Comanche4 (640) – 74.28
Comanche4 (1024) – 74.54
Ut2003 MaxDetail (1024) - 268.968 Flyby 95.73 Botmatch
(640) – 298.473 Flyby 95.96 Botmatch
SuperPi 1m : 38s
SuperPi 2m : 1m31s
PcMark 2002 : CPU - 8977
Mem - 11175
HDD – 1452

3dMark 03: Cpu Test: 827


all benchmarks run at 24/7 stable speeds.
 
I managed to not notice the business apps part - hell yeah, go with the AMD Athlon64, then. If you are gaming and using general non-encoding type of work, the Athlon64 is awesome. You wil also have bragging rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top