Increase from 2.8C to 3.4E?

N

n64man120

2[H]4U
Joined
Jan 11, 2004
Messages
3,498
Well I'm building a new rig for college, so keeping the old system isnt an option. How much of a performance gain will I see going from my 2.8C overclocked to 3.3Ghz on air, to a 3.4E Pressy that I'll be overclocking and watercooling?

I'm torn between an AMD 3500+ or a 3.4E since both have their benifits, but when I think of a 3.4Ghz Intel... it doesn't seem like much of a leap from my 2.8 considering its 2 years old already. How big of a change do you think it will be? I do small time video editing in premiere, general desktop usage, and gaming. I'm attracted to Intel since it's supposed to be smoother at desktop level than AMD.
 
Well with water you will probably take a 3.4E to 4ghz or thereabouts, if the water setup is decent I might add. So I say go for the 3.4E, especially if you like the HT. If it wasn't for the fact that you were using water I wouldn't recommend going from a 3.3C to 3.4E, theres just no real difference.
 
just watercool your 2.8c and hit 4ghz...waste of money to upgrade
 
You guys are really killing me...

n64man120 said:
Well I'm building a new rig for college, so keeping the old system isnt an option.
Click to expand...

I definitly have to get a new proc, but since I'm not familiar with AMD, a 3500+ 64bit seems faster than a measly 3.4E or so. I only think 3.4E is measly since I can relate it to my other proc. I was askin how they compare and what I could expect from the 3.4E. 4Ghz on water is what I expected, even though it may be a SFF H20 Setup.
 
So you're comparing an Athlon 64 @ 2.6 to a P4 @ 4.0. Even at that speed they are very similar in performance with the processers swapping wins in everything except gaming. In responce to your original question, A P4E @3.4 is likely to run at about the same speed as the [email protected]. At stock speeds, you won't notice any speedup except in Divx maybe and a couple of other programs and a slight slowdown in some different ones. But you probably knew that already.

Edit. One thing you may wish to consider is that early benchmarks show AMD gaining more from transitioning to 64bits than intel in most applications. (In WinXP 64)
 
So my suspicion that my 2 year old proc is still holding it's own in desktop benches... rather interesting ;)

Regarding your edit, are you saying that in XP64... AMD 64 is doing bettter than INTEL 64's are? Or what exactly
 
a64 is the way to go, if you do decide to go a64, wait for the venice cores, they are very promising and are supposedly better overclockers then the winchesters out now. if you get a 3500+ venice, id say youll get atleast 2.6ghz, and you wont even break a sweat while watercooling it. with water, id say the max you might get is 3.0ghz and thatll be more then enough to do a little encoding and itll own in games
 
Blinkme323 said:
Just get an A64.
Click to expand...

Posts like this are useless since they have no explanation.

If we're going to discuss AMD vr Intel, from what I've come to understand... Intel with Hyperthreading makes a big difference in desktop speed, encoding, etc... while AMD makes a much more negligable increase in gaming performance.

Anyone care to critique this statement?
 
Ballz2TheWallz said:
3C and oc it to 4ghz :p northwood owns deh prescott
Click to expand...

Until you get in to the 4.0ghz ranges where the Prescott will out preform the Northwood. It all depends on the hardware you have behind you on how far you can push it and the performance you will get out of it.
 
I would say .. go with the A64 .. But wait till the Venice core is released next week or so

First of all all athlons kick Intel ass in gaming and since you're going to college I doubt you will need the HT that Intel offers. If you're gonna be doing anything it's gonna be gaming.

Go with the A64. Venice core or San Diego. It's up to you.
 
n64man120 said:
Posts like this are useless since they have no explanation.

If we're going to discuss AMD vr Intel, from what I've come to understand... Intel with Hyperthreading makes a big difference in desktop speed, encoding, etc... while AMD makes a much more negligable increase in gaming performance.

Anyone care to critique this statement?
Click to expand...

I think the difference in games is much more than "negligible". More like 10-20% depending on the processor and game.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2275&p=10
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2330&p=2
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjgyLDU=

Not trying to bash Intel or anything like that. But it's simply a fact that a 3500+ AMD can beat Intel's EE's on a regular basis in gaming for 1/4 of the price. And it's not like the desktop speed and encoding is slow either :).
 
kirbyrj said:
I think the difference in games is much more than "negligible". More like 10-20% depending on the processor and game.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2275&p=10
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2330&p=2
http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=NjgyLDU=

Not trying to bash Intel or anything like that. But it's simply a fact that a 3500+ AMD can beat Intel's EE's on a regular basis in gaming for 1/4 of the price. And it's not like the desktop speed and encoding is slow either :).
Click to expand...

With the resolution cranked up, I don't think you will notice a bit of difference. At 1600x1200, my celeron D doesn't feel any slower than my old 2.4C @ 3.4
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top