DOOM 3 intel or amd?

I am not saying the A64 mortally destroys the P4. But what I am saying is; in a question about how a GAME will work on a platform, answers about a CPU's merrit in video encoding don't mean shit. You try to downplay the fact that A64 is better in almost all games, no problem, because the P4 does have some damn nice qualities. But coming into the GAME FORUM and into a specific GAME THREAD and trying to downplay GAME PERFORMANCE is pretty damn weak.
 
How the hell did i downplay the gameing performance. I said the A64 is the best gaming processor. What the hell does that mean lol? And the performance difference in the majority of games between an A64 and Pentium 4 of equal speeds is usually only a few FPS. I was only trying to give a larger overview of both processors and their strong points. You dont have to turn this into an argument just cause you love AMD. Its not like im stateing BS that isn't true like you'll get from alot of others on this discussion.

And its impossible to say how DOOM3 will work on an A64 or Pentium 4 ither one. Its doesn't matter how current games perform. Things could change. Its best to only comment on which to buy AFTER the game is released. By the time its released there could be a whole slew of new processors out.
 
Yes the A64 beats the P4 3.2 EE in the waste majority of games so there is no reason to say that they run neck to neck and you can´t choose the right one.

Especially since the A64 is the better performer and the cheaper of those two by a fair margin.

And AMD has showned since long that Mhz numbers isn´t all that matters. Nice strategy. First they scare the hell out of Intel by being first to 1 gig then they start their new strategy with more operations/clock cycle and let Intel do the Megahertz hysteria for themself :D

But I don´t understand why this is a question really. A64 being the faster... A64 being the cheaper... A64 being more future proof...

Why get the P 4 3.2 EE for DOOM 3 especially since we have no benchies on it the best you can do is see which performs better in games today isn´t it?
 
I dont know about everyone else but i sure didn't recommend getting the Pentium 4 3.2EE lol. I was talking about the regular Northwoods. The 2.8Ghz Pentium 4 is cheaper then the A64 3000+ and they are an easy overclock to 3.5-3.6Ghz. The Pentium 4 2.8Ghz has been named the best price/performance processor on several sites lately cause it is because of its overclockability. Just like the AMD Barton 2500+ was.

The performance difference between an A64 3200+ and a 3.2Ghz Pentium 4 by an average of several gaming benchmarks is very small. Matter of just a few FPS. Something you'll probably never notice in-game. Does that mean the A64 is not the best gaming processor? NO. Does that mean the A64 kills the Pentium 4 in gaming benchmarks? No again. Its best just to pick the processor that does the best overall for you.

I'm not bashing on AMD or not recommending someone getting one but i get tired of the one sided debates where the majority always recommend the processor that is all the hype without first stopping and looking how much it actually even beats a predecessor by. And to me if the Pentium 4 is just a few FPS slower in gaming thats ok because it makes up for being quite a bit faster in encodeing and rendering which i do quite a bit of. You just have to be able to understand that nither processor is going to bring everything to the table. And currently a few FPS that can be remedied with more expensive RAM or a better motherboard most of the time isn't enough to sway me into the purchase of an A64. I may get a socket 939 though :).

This is one of the newest reviews on the A64 3000+ from one of the most un-bias sites on net. 3.2Ghz Pentium 4 beats the A64 3200+ in around 68% of the benchmarks.

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2004q1/athlon64-3000/index.x?pg=1

Of course you have to take several reviews and not base how well the processors perform on just a couple like alot of people do and i've taken 30+ reviews and the Pentium 4 wins in a larger majority of benchmarks. The A64 of course almost always wins in the gaming area though but its a matter of a few FPS.

So what i base my buying descision off of is overall productivity, price, overclockability, and gaming performance. The Pentium 4 wins in the first three so a slight hit in gaming performance isn't enough to get me to buy one. But for someone in this thread that wants the very best gaming processor then look no further then the A64 because of its on-die low latency controller.

Its time for people to grow out of the fanboy stage and take a look at the real performance and realize what one processor is good for another is better at something else.
 
Damn, this thread turned into my dick is bigger than yours:rolleyes:

The intel and amd both make a great platform that is great for gaming and the such. If I wanted an all-out gaming rig, I would have an amd system.

I bought a p4 this time around because-
-The a64 is pretty new, I will wait til it matures
-There is no software/hardware support for 64bit quite yet.
-There is no guarantee that it will be faster/more stable in 64bit mode then 32 bit mode, we really don't quite have a way to test it with a 64 bit game.
-The p4 has been around, intel has always been stable.

I played the hardware incompadibility game too many times, and it has caused me a great deal of stress and a lot of time and money.

Reguardless, both platforms are going to be a great platform for doom3. Dom 3 will most likely have a min sys req of something in the 1-1.4ghz range, so, anyone running a p4/afx will be more then prepared for the game. I am willing to bet that the game will not have a cheat for 1 platform or the other.
 
Originally posted by sc0tty8
Damn, this thread turned into my dick is bigger than yours:rolleyes:

The intel and amd both make a great platform that is great for gaming and the such. If I wanted an all-out gaming rig, I would have an amd system.

I bought a p4 this time around because-
-The a64 is pretty new, I will wait til it matures
-There is no software/hardware support for 64bit quite yet.
-There is no guarantee that it will be faster/more stable in 64bit mode then 32 bit mode, we really don't quite have a way to test it with a 64 bit game.
-The p4 has been around, intel has always been stable.

I played the hardware incompadibility game too many times, and it has caused me a great deal of stress and a lot of time and money.

Reguardless, both platforms are going to be a great platform for doom3. Dom 3 will most likely have a min sys req of something in the 1-1.4ghz range, so, anyone running a p4/afx will be more then prepared for the game. I am willing to bet that the game will not have a cheat for 1 platform or the other.
Click to expand...

LOL if you ask for the best CPU you don´t want to hear the ambidextrous "both is good". You want the best don´t you? Regardless if it´s a matter of 1 fps or 10 fps difference .:cool:
 
Yeah, lots of fanboys in this thread. I called it on the second page and now it is total fanboy mania. I think AMD fanboys win because there are more of them.
 
Originally posted by Staples
Yeah, lots of fanboys in this thread. I called it on the second page and now it is total fanboy mania. I think AMD fanboys win because there are more of them.
Click to expand...

Yea i'd definately say thats the truth. I think its primarily cause of the Athlon XP's and not the A64's. The Athlon XP's were so damn cheap for such a long period of time that they were a very viable solution. It wasn't till the Pentium 4 "c"'s did intel really have a top offering. Pretty much all of 2003 was Intel because of them. Their extreme overclockability, especially with the 2.4c was hard to beat with an Athlon XP when they were hitting well over 3.2Ghz. The Barton 2500+ was still a very good buy though because of it being less then $100 and able to overclock to 3200+ speeds. I really dont think very many have A64's yet and their fanboyism is still hanging onto the cheap prices from the Athlon XP's cause the A64's now are great gaming processors but their only slightly better then a Pentium 4 in 32-bit computing and they are more expensive for the most part.

I wouldn't mind having an A64 setup myself but i do alot of DVD and Game ripping along with 3ds max 5 and photoshop work so the Pentium 4 gives me a good overall performance, especially overclocked to 3.6Ghz :).
 
I was an amd fan boy, but, what it comes down to is what you want. I went with intel for stability. If I want to be all out gamer, and nothing else, I would for sure say AMD. Either way, both will hold thier won. And the fps argument, d3 will be maxed at 60, and I am sure most systems these days will have no probs with that, as long as you do dot demand all out 1600x1200 everything maxed details.
 
On a side note, I find AMD fanboys to be quite annoying. The P4C was faster then an XP and was easy to see but these fanboys still preached that the XP was faster and better, etc. I never realized just how blind their fanboyism was when I bough my current setup. When the Barton came out, I said what the hell and bough one. All benchmarks were always done on the P4B with Rambus. I figured that the P4B with DDR DRAM and the Barton dual channel memory were pretty close in performance and I thought something new would be pretty cool to have so I got a Barton. Anyway, my next system will probably be a P4 Prescott once they get the speed up to 3.6Ghz. I will go with Intel just because I do not want to be associated with the blind AMD fanboys out there.
 
Originally posted by Staples
On a side note, I find AMD fanboys to be quite annoying. The P4C was faster then an XP and was easy to see but these fanboys still preached that the XP was faster and better, etc. I never realized just how blind their fanboyism was when I bough my current setup. When the Barton came out, I said what the hell and bough one. All benchmarks were always done on the P4B with Rambus. I figured that the P4B with DDR DRAM and the Barton dual channel memory were pretty close in performance and I thought something new would be pretty cool to have so I got a Barton. Anyway, my next system will probably be a P4 Prescott once they get the speed up to 3.6Ghz. I will go with Intel just because I do not want to be associated with the blind AMD fanboys out there.
Click to expand...

Oh you Intel fanboy :p
 
Okay, that was 20 minutes of my life gone. I'd still like to know how 1-2 FPS makes A64 the undisputed king of gaming. Because, when your frame rate dips from 60 to 59 the lag...the lag...it's just...so horrible...it's like...this...sentance...with....all....these....damned....e...l...l..i...p...s...e...s.
 
Originally posted by Vagrant Zero
Okay, that was 20 minutes of my life gone. I'd still like to know how 1-2 FPS makes A64 the undisputed king of gaming. Because, when your frame rate dips from 60 to 59 the lag...the lag...it's just...so horrible...it's like...this...sentance...with....all....these....damned....e...l...l..i...p...s...e...s.
Click to expand...

Because there is nothing better out there for that price. It´s as simple as that really.

Take the 5900 series. They aren´t all that bad really but then people like to crap on it? Why? Because they are pricey and don´t perform the best.

What is the reason buying a high end CPU or video card if you can have another faster one for the same amount of money???

It´s another thing if the question is should I upgrade my P 4 to an A64. But that is a totally different situation really.

The A64 beats the current fastest Intel gaming CPU P 4 3.2 Extreme edition in most tests and then it doesn´t matter if it´s 1 or 10 fps. Since it´s cheaper and is faster so it wins both bang for the buck and pure bang :)

Divx encoding or apps performance don´t mean anything really since this thread is all about GAMING. How DOOM 3 will perform we can only assume of course but that is what these threads are there for.
 
Sure the EE are the fastest of all the Intel processors right now, but how many of those are actually being sold to consumers? Not many people can or will fork over one grand for a processor, which makes the EE pretty much worthless in a comparison. Most people are running Athlon XPs/P4s/A64s, those are really what people are probably focusing on. Not the high dollar Athlon-FX and EE.
 
Originally posted by MemoryInAGarden
Sure the EE are the fastest of all the Intel processors right now, but how many of those are actually being sold to consumers? Not many people can or will fork over one grand for a processor, which makes the EE pretty much worthless in a comparison. Most people are running Athlon XPs/P4s/A64s, those are really what people are probably focusing on. Not the high dollar Athlon-FX and EE.
Click to expand...

But it isn´t more than fair to compare the Intel latest against the AMD latest isn´t it. None of these are budget choices. The one who get the P 4 3.2 EE or A64 is out for the performance not bang for the buck.
 
I noticed the last few posts where about which one is faster, how about someone show some benches showing which one is indeed faster.
 
I think people put far too much emphasis on frames per second in games. They dont understand that anything over around 75 frames per second and your eyes can no longer notice a difference. Some of these game benches are up around 200+ FPS.

Does this mean that more than 30 fps is useless ?

Well no... the important words in the conclusion is : ...see the difference between... The human eye can not see the difference, this means that if you display 60 different frames per second you can only see the difference between half of them. You can understand it like this : the first image is written to the monitor. Now our eyes and brain start to study that image... But the new image appears way to fast for our brain... the result is that this second image is combined with the first one. You could say that the first two frames are blended together by our brain. The third and fourth image are also blended together and so on. Now the effect of this is similar to what we know as motion blur : when you quickly move your hand in front of your eyes it looks like several copies of your hand are chasing each other. The effect is the same : your hand moves so fast that our brain can not follow it : so while interpreting one frame (position of the hand) a new one is physically created... so what does the brain do : it mixes the various positions and the results is several positions of your hand blurred together. Important to know is that the eye and brain are not scan line based, so our brain doesn't start at the top left and moves zigzag to the bottom like a television or monitor (motion of the electron beam)... if the brain would work like that we would suffer from tearing ;) ( Tearing is when only part of the image is updated ) How eyes and brain actually work together... well bit of a mystery.. lets say : it just works ...

So when your game is running at 60 fps or more you will get some kind of limited motion blur effect through several frames that are blended together by our brain. This effect is very similar to what happens in nature and that is why so many people claim that a game running at 60 fps looks/feels better than that same game running at just 30 fps.
Click to expand...

FrameRates are nice to compare the performance of 3D accelerators. In general the higher the better, higher than 30 fps is an added bonus. It looks/feels better since it results in several frames being blurred together by the brain that can only handle about 30 frames per second. If you have a heigh frame rate it also means that your card will still be able to perform well with future, more complex games.
Do we need 30+ fps for enjoyable gameplay ... no... most people are happy with much lower framerates but since the huge hyping of 30+ fps a lot of people think or are influenced by the counter to think that 30 is a minimum... the only minimum is what you feel is unplayable... keep in mind that software engines are often running at between 10 and 20 fps and they are playable too... so framerate numbers are nice for benchmarking but not for judging playability.

If a card delivers more than 60fps in a game then you really should consider turning up the detail... try a higher resolution or turn more features on if its possible.
Sooner rather than later the image quality will start to become more important than the speed... same with cars : speed is nice but there are legal limits so comfort and looks start to become more important... same with 3D acceleration for the first generation speed has been very important but once you reach 60+ fps something else starts to matter and that is looks... in this second generation and even more in the next generation of 3D accelerators the image quality will start to become important... more features at a single clock, bump mapping, better filtering, phong shading, ...
Click to expand...

http://www.ping.be/powervr/fps_discus.htm

We as humans have a very advanced visual system. While some animals out there have sharper vision, there is usually something given up with it (for eagles there is color, for owls it is the inability to move the eye in its socket). We can see in millions of colors (women can see up to 30% more colors than men, so if a woman doesn’t think your outfit matches, she is probably right, go change), we have highly movable eyes, and we can perceive up to and over 60 fps. We have the ability to focus as close as an inch, and as far as infinity, and the time it takes to change focus is faster than the fastest, most expensive auto-focusing camera out there. We have a field of view that encompasses almost 170 degrees of sight, and about 30 degrees of fine focus. We receive information constantly and are able to decode it very quickly.

So what is the answer to how many frames per second should we be looking for? Anything over 60 fps is adequate, 72 fps is maximal (anything over that would be overkill). Framerates cannot drop though from that 72 fps, or we will start to see a degradation in the smoothness of the game. Don’t get me wrong, it is not bad to play a game at 30 fps, it is fine, but to get the illusion of reality, you really need a frame rate of 72 fps. What this does is saturate the pipeline from your eyes to your visual cortex, just as reality does. As visual quality increases, it really becomes more important to keep frame rates high so we can get the most immersive feel possible. While we still may be several years away from photographic quality in 3D accelerators, it is important to keep the speed up there.
Click to expand...

http://personal.inet.fi/atk/kjh2348fs/30fps_vs_60fps_03.htm

Now increase the refresh rate until you can no longer see those scan lines. Chances are that for Joe average it will be 72Hz or higher. Now remember, this means that the screen is refreshing 72 times every second, or if you like at 72 fps. So it's safe to say that Joe Average needs to get a MINIMUM of 72 fps of perfect pictures streamed to the eye to maintain the illusion of smooth moving imagery. This is the minimum, not the average or the highest, but the minimum. This is why your games have all sorts of options to tweak the graphic details to suit. This is why everyone is out there furiously tweaking and buying new components to increase there frame rates in games. This is why people jump onto the latest drivers for there components, all in an attempt to squeeze out those extra few frames.

As technology and games progress the need for more powerful, faster components grows, and as such websites like this one are testing these components to see just how much of an impact they make to average frame rates in various games. Anti Aliasing, 32bit colour, Anisotropic filtering, Screen Resolution, not to mention the simple fact that everyone is unique and will want to display there game to there own preferences, will all take a toll on your computer's ability to maintain a smooth, high frame rate. That frame rate for Joe average we know to be 72fps or higher.
Click to expand...

http://www.viperlair.com/articles/editorials/misc/fps/p3.shtml

In the gaming sector, many processor makers are dogged by the fact that only a few programs need really fast CPUs. One reason for this development is the displacement of graphics-intensive operations to the graphics card; another is the ongoing tense competition between AMD and Intel that long ago outstripped the requirements of modern standard software in terms of performance. It's true that in the professional area things look quite different. Where a certain level of demand exists, more performance is the only answer.
Click to expand...

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20031223/cpu-guide-22.html

Games are primarily video card itensive. If your worried about frame rates then i would buy the biggest fastest video card and overclock it and not worry as much about the processors ability to push out 1-5 FPS or even 10-30 FPS more depending on the game. The AMD A64 is definately the top performer in games though yielding on average a good 10-20 FPS more in alot of games. But to me, as long as i can get between 60 and 70 frames per second with the eye candy all turned on then thats more then fast enough.

Also alot of you are going to LCD's now. The next generation of panels should sport around 12ms but the current top ones are 16ms while the larger ones are only 25ms except for a few panels like the 20.1" Dell and Viewsonic that share a 16ms response time.

60Hz = 17ms

Even with 16ms which are the top LCD panels your only going to get to see around 65FPS max. I believe ghosting occurs when your getting more FPS then the LCD can handle but im not certain on that. Thats just a guess.
 
The reason they test this is of course they want the games to be CPU driven so they turn down on the res or detail to take the video card performance out of the picture.
 
Dead horse subjects:

  • AMD vs. Intel
  • Release dates for delayed games
  • Frame rates vs. human eyesight
  • Game 1 better than Game 2
  • No, Game Two better than Game One
  • Intel vs. AMD
  • Can my machine run Game X?
Really, at this point the thread should be moved over to a hardware thread since it ceased to be about gaming and more about framerate and processor theory.
 
Originally posted by Torgo
Dead horse subjects:

  • AMD vs. Intel
  • Release dates for delayed games
  • Frame rates vs. human eyesight
  • Game 1 better than Game 2
  • No, Game Two better than Game One
  • Intel vs. AMD
  • Can my machine run Game X?
Really, at this point the thread should be moved over to a hardware thread since it ceased to be about gaming and more about framerate and processor theory.
Click to expand...

Wait wait! We have not got to the folloing topics yet.

  • Nvidia vs. ATI
  • Warez vs. Legit (AKA, I lost my cd-key, can I borrow someones?)
 
Originally posted by burningrave101
Also alot of you are going to LCD's now. The next generation of panels should sport around 12ms but the current top ones are 16ms while the larger ones are only 25ms except for a few panels like the 20.1" Dell and Viewsonic that share a 16ms response time.

60Hz = 17ms

Even with 16ms which are the top LCD panels your only going to get to see around 65FPS max. I believe ghosting occurs when your getting more FPS then the LCD can handle but im not certain on that. Thats just a guess.
Click to expand...
Ghosting occurs because it takes a bit of time for the liquid in the LCD to change state. I don't know if purity is the difference, I would assume so. More FPS than the LCD can output causes tearing, not ghosting.
All LCD's ghost, its just a matter of whether it is noticable or not.

On older laptops ghosting wasn't as much of an issue. 45fps @ 1024x768 with my Geforce 2 Go looks as good as 1024x768 w/AA @ 60fps on my desktop.
Its when ghosting starts causing blurs that it really becomes irritating.
 
I've just been reading through this whole thread and thought I'd ask a couple of points of clarification.

When AMD guys talk about the A64 what r u referring to: just any A64 like the 3400+ or the A64FX51.

Cause I'm a little confused - as far as I remember reading thru a couple of bechies not every A64 beats P4 3.2EE - I thought only FX51 was superior to EE from Intel!!?? (once again I could b wrong).

From the pricing point of view - I think I'd like to live where u guys live cause where I'm from AMD FX51 sets u back $1390 and P4EE around $1350. Next closest CPU alternatives are the A64 3400+ at $665 and P4 3.2 at $455.

When ppl talk about A64 crapping all over P4EE in price surely u're talking about the A64 3400+ right??
And if so - is just the normal A64 3400 really faster in all the game benchmarks than P4EE??? I thought it wasn't..........I could b wrong.

Forgive me for my ignorance I thought since there's a few ppl from each camp contributing to this you may be able to clear up this thing for me - saving me the time to go search diff sites for benchies and stuff (I am at work and shouldn't waste too much time after all).

I'm not advocating either AMD or Intel just wanted to know what ppl were referring to in this thread.
 
Damn bud, that must not be US currency, because those prices suck.

Most people around here base the price comparison from what can be found on newegg.com. Of course if you are not in the US, It will not help you much. At least you will see where people are coming from though.
 
Thanx man.....well yes of course - there's some $200 bucks diff between FX51 and P4EE over there for u guys!! WOW
As you can see by the prices I quioted down here in Australia the price diff isn't great - in fact its slightly the other way around. I think we're getting ripped off.

Now I c what ppl r saying - if A64 3400+ is indeed faster than a P4EE in games then I don't think its much of a contest cause the price diff is quite large both in US and here. Hmmm, interesting.

However - as someone already pointed out - I think this thread drifted into belonging to the 'hardware section' some time ago :)
 
Originally posted by oqvist
Well MAC CPU:s are generally faster than PC CPU:s :D
Click to expand...

so why not buy a SPARC? i have a higher opinion of a SPARC processor than of a PPC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top