• 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.

AMD64 3000+ or Intel P4 2.8C ?

S

sc4r4b

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jul 10, 2003
Messages
287
This year my wife is letting me spend my tax return! :p

So, I want to upgrade my processor, MoBo, and RAM. I currently have Coppermine P3 1GHZ w/ Mushkin512MBPC133RAM and a Geforce4ti4400, which has served me well... I have been doing a lot of research (because that's the fun part) and I have narrowed the processors down to either the AMD64 3000+ or the Intel P4 2.8C.

Now this rig will be used mostly for fun (see: FPS gaming). However, I am a 3D artist (A|W Maya) and from time to time I have to bring my work home with me. So, I would like the machine to run (see: fast render times) Maya as well as my games...

Here's the deal, I should have about $1000 bucks to blow on a MoBo, Processor, RAM, PSU, SATA HDD(x2?), new case, and maybe windows XP... From what I have read I think the AMD64 3000+ and Intel P4 2.8C are somewhat comparable. But I am currently running Windows 2000, so if I upgraded to the 2.8C I would have to upgrade my OS to take advantage of the HT which means I have to shell out more cash which could go toward a new HDD or a game.

Please note, I do not plan on overclocking the processor... Yeah, I know, [H] blasphemy... Anyway, I am leaning toward the P4 2.8C because of its HT feature BUT it will probably cost more money (because I have to upgrade my OS) than if I went with the AMD64 3000+.

That said, I am kinda looking at getting the most bang for my buck, as well as something that "should" last another 2 or 3 years.

Let's NOT turn this into a fanboy pissing contest... I think both AMD and Intel are viable choices at the moment. However, I am having a hard time finding a reason to go with one over the other.

Opinions are a good, but FACTS are even better...

Thanks for your time.
 
If you were overclocking then i would definately say go with the 2.8c because it has the highest price/performance ratio right now. Its pretty easy to overclock them to 3.5-3.6Ghz or higher on air.

Rendering will be quite a bit better on the Pentium 4 because of Hyperthreading but Gaming will be better on the 3000+ especially if your not overclocking.

Facts are Pentium 4's w/ hyperthreading are the best for encodeing, rendering, multitasking, and most applications while the A64's are best for gaming and several office style applications.

BTW Windows 2000 supports Hyperthreading.
 
Yeah, from what I have gathered 2000 does support hyperthreading but it isn't as good as XP... Check this thread out...

http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=724765&perpage=15&pagenumber=1

Anyway, you have confirmed everything I know about the 2 processors... However, which would be the best buy? I mean, I have yet to really find the "definitive" reason to go with one over the other... and I have been searching to no avail. They both seem to be really good. :confused:

Yeah, I am pretty indecisive. :rolleyes:
 
The Athlon 64 is a very good choice if you game a lot and if you're not going to overclock like crazy. I think it still lags behind the P4s in 3D rendering performance because of the P4's HT, but if you game a lot more than you bring your work home, I'd go with an A64. Even if you do your 3D rendering and such on the A64, you could always play solitaire on it.

As for the Pentium 4, yeah, you don't need to get Windows XP for it to use HT. HT will run better in XP though, but 2000 will still recognize the "dual" processors, although it won't utilize them as effectively as if you had XP.

Since every other part besides and mobo and CPU would probably be the same, I think it depends on how much you will actually want to spend.

Both would last for a few years.
 
Originally posted by gigabyte1024
Win2K does support the HT feature, however XP uses more efficiantly.
Click to expand...

Intel's own site clearly stated that only XP (Home and Pro) supports HT.
 
Originally posted by djnes
Intel's own site clearly stated that only XP (Home and Pro) supports HT.
Click to expand...

Yea but thats not true. Microsofts site says its OPTIMIZED for Windows XP and doesn't RECOMMEND using a different OS but of course they are going to say that to get you to buy Windows XP. Hyperthreading emulates dual processors. Any OS that supports dual processors should work with Hyperthreading i believe.

Anyone know about Windows XP Home? Its only suppost to support 1 processor and i've seen alot of sites say that Hyperthreading doesn't work with it. Is there an update that makes it possible?
 
It means both are awesome. An added bonus with the Athlon 64 is if you're gonna be using it for the next 3, 4, or even 5+ years, you can utilize 64-bit applications when they actually come out (don't know how much you care, but it's there).

For the record, I run Intel, but I want an Ath64. :p
 
Yea but in 1-2 years when 64-bit MIGHT start going mainstream you'll have the slowest 64-bit processor on the market so you shouldn't buy it for that reason lol.

For gaming i would get an A64 for sure. But if i did alot of other stuff with gaming i would stick with the Pentium 4. Hyperthreading really cuts down in time spent in multithreaded applications.

If you get the Pentium 4 i would strongly suggest trying a hand at overclocking. The stupidest of nOObs do it all the time so anyone can learn and if you test the system with Prime95 and Memtest86 and everything is stable then the system is just as stable at say 3.6Ghz as it is at 2.8Ghz.

And for the record im gonna probably try and build me a socket 939 A64 to sit on the other side of my Pentium 4 and run them both with a KVM switch so i can get the best of both worlds :).
 
burningrave101-- I meant that I had the impression you were suggesting the 2.8C in your first post but you really didn't come out and say it. ;)


I have OC'd my P3 but my systemboard CUSL2-BP would knock my AGP down to 2x if I went over 140Mhz on my FSB. So I didn't really see signifigant gains... I am simply cautious when it comes to overclocking... So I'd rather not do it, unless I can see a nice perfomance gain. To reiterate, I am not a newb. Hell, I used to work the assembly line at compaq in the mid 90's. Nowadays, I create the 3D graphics for HP/Compaq hardware documention. ;)
 
Originally posted by sc4r4b
burningrave101-- I meant that I had the impression you were suggesting the 2.8C in your first post but you really didn't come out and say it. ;)


I have OC'd my P3 but my systemboard CUSL2-BP would knock my AGP down to 2x if I went over 140Mhz on my FSB. So I didn't really see signifigant gains... I am simply cautious when it comes to overclocking... So I'd rather not do it, unless I can see a nice perfomance gain. To reiterate, I am not a newb. Hell, I used to work the assembly line at compaq in the mid 90's. Nowadays, I create the 3D graphics for HP/Compaq hardware documention. ;)
Click to expand...

Oh sorry dude lol. I didn't even recognize your name in the post and i just thought you were some AMD fanboy chipping in his worthless 2 cents :p. My bad.

You'll see a big performance gain from pushing a 2.8 to 3.5 or 3.6Ghz. And even though they say it cuts down on life expectancy some, you will be ready to replace the CPU long before it quits working. At least thats the way i am. After all, these processors are designed to run at 3.2 and 3.4Ghz anyways, Intel just raises the Multi and we raise the FSB.
 
Originally posted by burningrave101
Yea but thats not true. Microsofts site says its OPTIMIZED for Windows XP and doesn't RECOMMEND using a different OS but of course they are going to say that to get you to buy Windows XP. Hyperthreading emulates dual processors. Any OS that supports dual processors should work with Hyperthreading i believe.

Anyone know about Windows XP Home? Its only suppost to support 1 processor and i've seen alot of sites say that Hyperthreading doesn't work with it. Is there an update that makes it possible?
Click to expand...

It doesn't emulate dual processors...it create a virtual processor. Totally different. If what you said is correct, than NT4.0 would support HT, and it doesn't. XP is the only os to date (maybe Win2003 Server) that supports HT. It is not a dual processor setup.
 
Well, here is what I am looking at...

Miscellaneous parts-
COOLMAX 2-Head SATA Cable(x2)-$7.80
ANTEC Serial ATA Power Adapter -$9.99
ANTEC ALUMINUM SERIES SUPER LAN BOY -$67.00
Maxtor 80GB 7200RPM SATA HDD(x2) -$167.00
Mushkin 1GB(512MBx2) DDR PC-3200 -$203.00
Antec 480W Power Supply with Blue LED -$78.00
Total- $532.79

Intel
Intel Pentium 4/ 2.8C GHz - $187.00
ASUS 865PE P4P800 - $106.99
Microsoft Windows XP Professional - $137.00
Total- $430.99
Total w/Miscellaneous Parts $963.78

AMD
ASUS K8V Deluxe - $159.99
AMD Athlon 64 3000+ - $227.00
Total- $386.99
Total w/Miscellaneous Parts $919.78

The difference is about $44 bucks, or the price of a game.

Feel free to comment... I'm open to suggestions.
 
Originally posted by djnes
It doesn't emulate dual processors...it create a virtual processor. Totally different. If what you said is correct, than NT4.0 would support HT, and it doesn't. XP is the only os to date (maybe Win2003 Server) that supports HT. It is not a dual processor setup.
Click to expand...

Dude emulate means the same thing. Google Hyperthreading and emulate if you dont believe me lol.

http://www.tyan.com/support/html/cpu.html

Here is a chart that shows how many processors each OS can support. Under XP Home is says 1 physical processor but 2 logical so i guess that means it can only handle a single processor but is able emulate 2.

http://www20.tomshardware.com/graphic/20030123/opengl_nv28_fgl9700-11.html

Hyperthreading (HT) is the rallying slogan Intel is using to promote its new Pentium 4s starting with 3 GHz. Behind this term is a new system. One physical CPU can trick the operating system into believing it is dealing with two virtual CPUs. The computer then behaves similarly to a dual processor system. Under certain circumstances, HT can improve overall performance. It is clear from Intel reports that HT generally works with any operating system that supports several processors. While Windows 98 and Windows Me are out of the question, Hyperthreading is generally possible with Windows 2000 or Windows XP. But here, too, we smelled a rat. Intel published examples in its reports that were produced solely under Windows XP. The charts above reveal the dilemma: if the multiprocessor core is activated under Windows 2000, performance using HT drops dramatically. With Windows XP, the opposite usually happens. Nevertheless, it's important not to lose sight of the whole picture. Windows 2000 is simply quicker with today's OpenGL workstation applications than Windows XP. Hyperthreading changes nothing here.
Click to expand...

Hyperthreading doesn't work that well with windows 2000 compared to XP but it DOES work.
 
I'd say the 2.8c from my experience.

my 2.6c seems faster than my athlon64 3000+...that hyperthreading helps. (so does the OC, but w/o OC, the HT helps in general use)
 
Originally posted by burningrave101
Hyperthreading doesn't work that well with windows 2000 compared to XP but it DOES work.
Click to expand...

I can kinda back that statement up with my own experience... Here at work we have a render machine running 2000 with a P4 3.0C Ghz The task manager shows 2 processors and Maya will perform multi-threading batch renders. However, I do not know if there is a signifigant performance increase with HT enabled vs disabled... Personally, I would rather have XP and know for a fact that it is utilizing HT.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents, for what it's worth.
 
Originally posted by NecessaryEvil
I'd say the 2.8c from my experience.

my 2.6c seems faster than my athlon64 3000+...that hyperthreading helps. (so does the OC, but w/o OC, the HT helps in general use)
Click to expand...

Hey Evil, looking at your sig, do you think that it is possible that your 2.6C seems faster because the RAM is PC3200 vs your PC2700? Not to mention your main rig has more RAM...
 
Originally posted by sc4r4b
Well, here is what I am looking at...

Miscellaneous parts-
COOLMAX 2-Head SATA Cable(x2)-$7.80
ANTEC Serial ATA Power Adapter -$9.99
ANTEC ALUMINUM SERIES SUPER LAN BOY -$67.00
Maxtor 80GB 7200RPM SATA HDD(x2) -$167.00
Mushkin 1GB(512MBx2) DDR PC-3200 -$203.00
Antec 480W Power Supply with Blue LED -$78.00
Total- $532.79

Intel
Intel Pentium 4/ 2.8C GHz - $187.00
ASUS 865PE P4P800 - $106.99
Microsoft Windows XP Professional - $137.00
Total- $430.99
Total w/Miscellaneous Parts $963.78

AMD
ASUS K8V Deluxe - $159.99
AMD Athlon 64 3000+ - $227.00
Total- $386.99
Total w/Miscellaneous Parts $919.78

The difference is about $44 bucks, or the price of a game.

Feel free to comment... I'm open to suggestions.
Click to expand...

2 things here.......

If I was going to build a new system today it would the an Athlon64. I notice you have chosen the 3000. For an additional $56 you can get the 3200 and it has 1MB L2 cache.

The Antec Super LanBoy would not be a good choice. It turns out the PSU sits right on top of the socket. It's just too damn close and may be the cause of a heat issue I have. Take a look at the Sonata. Awesome case with lots of room and side mounted drive bay.
 
I wasn't aware of the Lanboy issue, thanks. I have read that the Sonata is nice but fingerprints are hard to remove and the paint scratches easy... Not to mention, it comes with a PSU which I do not need... Unless, you all think that the Sonata's 380W PSU is sufficient enough to power the machine? Then I could remove the LANboy and the Antec True 480W and put the cash toward the A64 3200+ or Windows XP and get the 2.8C. Yeah, I am still undecided...
 
Just remeber, it's the Super Lanboy. Nice lookin case but too small for my liking. Go with the 3200 already!:D
 
Originally posted by misfitsfiend
the amd 64 is more future proof and thus is better for you.
Click to expand...

If your going to buy the A64 buy it cause its better for gaming. Not cause its more future proof. In a year or two when there are 64bit games and applications then it will be worth it to have a 64-bit OS. Currently 32-bit applications run worse in 64-bit Windows then 32-bit and since nearly everything is 32-bit and there are very few 64-bit drivers 64-bit is going to take quite a while to move in. And when it does i dont know about you but i would rather have a new 4000+ or 4Ghz Pentium 4 or faster that would be out around then. Socket 754 isn't future proof because the 3700+ is the cut off line for the A64's. After that everything is 32bit. Best to buy whichever processor works best in the main area your looking for and not worry about future-proof right now.

If your not overclocking though i would go with an A64 or a little faster Pentium 4. The 3.2Ghz Pentium 4 is the same price or cheaper then the 3200+ now. 3200+ will net you 10-20 more FPS in alot of games while the 3.2Ghz will be better for multitasking, encodeing, rendering, and your graphics work you was talking about.

To me a few extra frames per second dont usually mean much cause alot of the time you dont even notice it, especially if your already getting around 60 fps in the game your playing. I'm more worried about the time it takes me to rip and encode a dvd or load a graphics program like 3ds max and photoshop with what im working on or how many programs i can multitask fluently with at once.
 
Just remeber, it's the Super Lanboy. Nice lookin case but too small for my liking. Go with the 3200 already!
Click to expand...

Lanboy, super lanboy, you know what I meant. ;) And no I will not choose the 3200 just yet. Thanks for the reply though...

If your going to buy the A64 buy it cause its better for gaming. Not cause its more future proof. In a year or two when there are 64bit games and applications then it will be worth it to have a 64-bit OS. Currently 32-bit applications run worse in 64-bit Windows then 32-bit and since nearly everything is 32-bit and there are very few 64-bit drivers 64-bit is going to take quite a while to move in. And when it does i dont know about you but i would rather have a new 4000+ or 4Ghz Pentium 4 or faster that would be out around then. Socket 754 isn't future proof because the 3700+ is the cut off line for the A64's. After that everything is 32bit. Best to buy whichever processor works best in the main area your looking for and not worry about future-proof right now.
Click to expand...

I agree... I learned that lesson with my first PC.
 
I agree with the above advice about going with the A64. However, I think the 2.8C might be a little cheaper right now...plus, the 875 chipset is staying...AMD is altering their chipsets soon. If your like most people on here, you ugrade fairly often. So, you could get the Intel system now, save a few bucks, and then later this year, see how the A64 boards are. Buying the A64 now because of it's 64 bit support is pretty stupid (if that's your main reason). It will be quite sometime before 64 it is seen on a desktop...in terms of the OS along with games/apps, etc. You'll probably upgrade several times by then. However, it does do very well in 32 bit stuff, so if your not one to upgrade often, get the A64 now, and it will surely last longer.
 
Originally posted by sc4r4b
Hey Evil, looking at your sig, do you think that it is possible that your 2.6C seems faster because the RAM is PC3200 vs your PC2700? Not to mention your main rig has more RAM...
Click to expand...

it's possible, but I'm talking about apps that are CPU intensive rather than memory intensive.

I'm sure there is a significant performance increase with the 3200 vs the 2700...and the 1gb of RAM vs 768.

But if an app, say Norton AntiVirus is scanning my PC, or any other app for that matter, my CPU utilization under the P4C is about 51-60 %.

on the Athlon 64, and all other non-HT CPUs, it tends to stick close to 100%.

In those circumstances, and generally if i have a lot of apps open (a dozen browser windows, winamp, a game server, whatever), the P4C doesn't give the perception of a performance hit the way the Athlon does.


Even if yuo set them to the same speed RAM & same amount...the P4C would probably perform better as a general workstation.

I'm not sure what the performance delta is for games, although it's something I do a lot of...I don't care about benchmarks any more either...

Just telling you what I've noticed.

For some things, the Athlon 64 will be faster. For some the P4.

I noticed the difference more to the P4's favor...then again...there's a lot of factors for that, including a 10k rpm hdd rather than a 54.

Hence my basing things only on how things reacted under high CPU Utilization.
 
I am starting to lean toward Intel, for the simple fact that Maya will really like the HT... :p
 
Originally posted by djnes
plus, the 875 chipset is staying...AMD is altering their chipsets soon.
Click to expand...
What kind of bullshit is that? What difference does a chipset change make? Do you even know that the Athlon64 does not use a "chipset"? What does having 875 on the market longer do for him? If you're talking about sockets, then the AMD Socket 754 is purported to stay until 4000+ while the Intel Socket 478 will have had at least one socket and one chipset change by then.

If your like most people on here, you ugrade fairly often. So, you could get the Intel system now, save a few bucks, and then later this year, see how the A64 boards are.
Click to expand...
The man has dual P3s. You draw your own conclusions. I say that he doesn't upgrade too often.

Buying the A64 now because of it's 64 bit support is pretty stupid (if that's your main reason). It will be quite sometime before 64 it is seen on a desktop...in terms of the OS along with games/apps, etc.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and he can run 32-bit till then, which is still faster than the P4.

You'll probably upgrade several times by then. However, it does do very well in 32 bit stuff, so if your not one to upgrade often, get the A64 now, and it will surely last longer.
Click to expand...
That's the point i am making.

sc4r4b: Maya (the latest version) is a really good choice for a P4 - it was compiled recently, and Alias|Wavefront used Intel's own compiler. If that's what you do all day, then get a P4. There is no better choice. Otherwise, if you use apps that aren't optimized for SSE2 and/or HT, get the Athlon64. It still is the best for legacy apps.

Obligatory: Better still, get dual Opterons! :D
 
Originally posted by Mark Larson
Do you even know that the Athlon64 does not use a "chipset"?
Click to expand...

Do you prefer the term socket design? Does your feeble mind compute that better? Do you realize most industry people, including those on staff of TechTV recommend waiting to be an A64 system because the "socket" is changing soon? Dude, seriously...don't open your mouth and spew old bullshit. You have a long history in many other threads I've read of yours making stupid ass comments, and then having all posters in the same thread unite against you.
 
Originally posted by djnes
Do you prefer the term socket design? Does your feeble mind compute that better?
Click to expand...
Since when does socket equal chipset? You're the one spouting BS here, not me.

Do you realize most industry people, including those on staff of TechTV recommend waiting to be an A64 system because the "socket" is changing soon? Dude, seriously...don't open your mouth and spew old bullshit. You have a long history in many other threads I've read of yours making stupid ass comments, and then having all posters in the same thread unite against you.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised you didn't drop in anything about HPaq in there, with your history of rallying for that shit manufacturer. Don't start a flame war, since it will not end well.

Oh, and TechTV has credibility? I don't know, i don't own a TV.
 
Originally posted by Mark Larson
Since when does socket equal chipset? You're the one spouting BS here, not me.

I'm surprised you didn't drop in anything about HPaq in there, with your history of rallying for that shit manufacturer. Don't start a flame war, since it will not end well.

Oh, and TechTV has credibility? I don't know, i don't own a TV.
Click to expand...

I trust TechTV, MaxPC, and CPU magazine a lot. And they've al said the same thing. And don't worry about the HP comments...I'm don responding to people who can't hide their jealous over not working for a top notch company. Calling it a shit company shows you know nothing about the tech business. I get some good laughs over AIM with many other [H]'s about your respones in threads, so by all means, please keep them coming...we're enjoying them immensly.
 
I'm in sort of the same situation.

THis sounds stupid but, I really want one of them Jet HSFs from Cooler Master and they don't make one for the a64.

Ok so that is not going to sway my buying decision but you know its one of those intangibles that would be nice to have cuz it just looks so cool!

So here is my decision....

System constants:
WaveMaster Case
ThermalTake 480W w/PFC
2xMaxtor SATA 120GB @RAID0
ATI AIW 9800PRO

System A:
I want to overclock this one.

Asus p4c800E dlx
p4 2.8c
Cooler Master Jet Fan
corsair TWINX1024-3700 2x512MB pc3700 -or- OCZ pc3700 512x2 CAS 2.5

or please reccommend a better ram for overclocking.

System B:

Asus K8V or chaintech zf3
Athlon64 3200
stock HSF
corsair TWINX1024-3200 2x512MB


Will the overclocked p4 beat the stock 3200 in gaming or at least equal it?
 
Originally posted by essfor
Will the overclocked p4 beat the stock 3200 in gaming or at least equal it?
Click to expand...
You're already biased towards the P4 and it would make you unhappy to go with the Athlon64. You'll keep thinking you made a bad choice, consequently you'll end up hating AMD and yourself, and become xessforx.

Go with the P4 so you don't think you got the inferior CPU because of money.
 
I think you already made your decision. Since you want to overclock your cpu, you have to go with the P4. It overclocks a lot better than the A64. Also, if you are going to use Maya and the newest version is optimized for HT, that's just another reason to get the P4 :)
 
Ummm, actually I've only ever had one Intel CPU ever, everything else has been AMD.

The question is, can an OC'd p4 2.8c, air cooled in my listed prospective system, out perform the 3200??

I'm not biased towards any particular brand, I like Civic's and Neon's equally!
 
Originally posted by essfor
Ummm, actually I've only ever had one Intel CPU ever, everything else has been AMD.
Click to expand...
The way you worded your post looks like you're biased toward the P4.
The question is, can an OC'd p4 2.8c, air cooled in my listed prospective system, out perform the 3200??
Click to expand...
Depends on the software.

I'm not biased towards any particular brand, I like Civic's and Neon's equally! [/B]
Click to expand...
:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top