I've been on my Athlon 64 for a year now, and while I guess it games OK, the lack of HT in Windows makes the system feel sluggish. I found someone to buy most of my computer parts, and I'm looking to make a move to a PCI-E based system, but AMD vs. Intel is still up in the air. I can't afford an X2, so this led me back to Intel...I'd probably be looking at the 3 GHz 6 series, which I understand to overclock decently well. Exactly how far would I need to overclock the CPU to get equivalent performance to a 2.5 GHz Athlon in most games? Do I need to be praying for 4.x GHz, or will something more reasonable accomplish this?
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Intel MHz vs. AMD MHz
- Thread starter truffle00
- Start date
Eva_Unit_0
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2005
- Messages
- 1,991
For comparable performance you'd be looking at the 4.0ghz range. Equivalent performance? I hate to sound pessimistic but it's just not going to happen. They are radically different architectures and netburst just isn't capable of competing with K8 in games. Of course, the more video card limited a game is the closer they'll end up being.
But ultimately, in choosing an intel cpu you're accepting the fact that it's just not going to be as fast in games. It'll do better in other things, but gaming is not the P4's strength at all anymore. Really though, to be honest, the difference is marginal. 120fps or 90fps it's still fast...a 3.0ghz+ p4 is going to be more than enough for any modern game...just dont' expect to bench well against A64's.
But ultimately, in choosing an intel cpu you're accepting the fact that it's just not going to be as fast in games. It'll do better in other things, but gaming is not the P4's strength at all anymore. Really though, to be honest, the difference is marginal. 120fps or 90fps it's still fast...a 3.0ghz+ p4 is going to be more than enough for any modern game...just dont' expect to bench well against A64's.
Well, I think I can answer this. I was using a Pentium 4 550@3.9GHz and that machine couldn't beat an Athlon 64 3200+ in benchmark tests if we had the same video card. If that gives you some idea.
I read an article showing the a Pentium 4, OC'ed to over 5GHz. At 5GHz, the machine still couldn't beat an Athlon FX-55. Although it was close. Meaning that you'd nearly need to double it's clock speed to equal the A64's. In the grand scheme of it all, an A64 2800+ or 3000+ can be beat by a pretty nicely overclocked Pentium 4. However, the 3200+ is harder to catch. But, the guys pushing 4GHz or so can sometimes do it. The 3500+ on up, you can just about forget about beating. Now these aren't results I've tested. Obviously I don't have a liquid nitrogen setup to test with. I do know that I was really sick of the lower end A64's kicking my Pentium 4's overclocked ass in gaming benches, and in general performance. I went with an A64 3800+ and never looked back. I've been AMD ever since. That wasn't all that long ago mind you. About a year ago. My A64 3800+ was MUCH faster in games than my P4 @3.9GHz. It was a difference I could feel. Then again, I am more sensitive to the performance of my computer than most people are. Some might not really notice.
Granted, a Pentium 4 can provide a good gaming experience. If you want to spend more money on the motherboard, memory and processor. The A64's are simply better for gaming. Not by small amounts either.
The Pentium EE is sort of an exception as its extremely large L2 cache can boost performance in games and video editing applications by quite a bit. The Pentium 4's cache memory is VERY well designed. That's probably one of the strongest points about the P4's architecture. These chips are simply so overpriced, that getting one is just not cost effective. Especially in light of superior A64 chips. If your a gamer, the A64 is simply the best choice. I'd recommend saving up, until you can get ahold of an X2 3800+. Then OC that.
I read an article showing the a Pentium 4, OC'ed to over 5GHz. At 5GHz, the machine still couldn't beat an Athlon FX-55. Although it was close. Meaning that you'd nearly need to double it's clock speed to equal the A64's. In the grand scheme of it all, an A64 2800+ or 3000+ can be beat by a pretty nicely overclocked Pentium 4. However, the 3200+ is harder to catch. But, the guys pushing 4GHz or so can sometimes do it. The 3500+ on up, you can just about forget about beating. Now these aren't results I've tested. Obviously I don't have a liquid nitrogen setup to test with. I do know that I was really sick of the lower end A64's kicking my Pentium 4's overclocked ass in gaming benches, and in general performance. I went with an A64 3800+ and never looked back. I've been AMD ever since. That wasn't all that long ago mind you. About a year ago. My A64 3800+ was MUCH faster in games than my P4 @3.9GHz. It was a difference I could feel. Then again, I am more sensitive to the performance of my computer than most people are. Some might not really notice.
Granted, a Pentium 4 can provide a good gaming experience. If you want to spend more money on the motherboard, memory and processor. The A64's are simply better for gaming. Not by small amounts either.
The Pentium EE is sort of an exception as its extremely large L2 cache can boost performance in games and video editing applications by quite a bit. The Pentium 4's cache memory is VERY well designed. That's probably one of the strongest points about the P4's architecture. These chips are simply so overpriced, that getting one is just not cost effective. Especially in light of superior A64 chips. If your a gamer, the A64 is simply the best choice. I'd recommend saving up, until you can get ahold of an X2 3800+. Then OC that.
Well, since I have someone that wants my parts now, saving up isn't an option (I can't be without a computer). 
However, thanks for the replies, you guys have made my choice pretty clear. I stumbled upon a few deals that would make it preferable for me to go A64 anyway, so I guess that's what I'll do.
However, thanks for the replies, you guys have made my choice pretty clear. I stumbled upon a few deals that would make it preferable for me to go A64 anyway, so I guess that's what I'll do.I recently sold my p4 northwood socket 478 3.2ghz ht cpu and mainboard (asus p4p800 deluxe) system that had been oc'd to 3.51ghz. It was pretty quick but my new athlon 64 3500+ venice at 2.53ghz feels much snappier to me in windows. My previous athlon xp 2600+ also seemed snappier in windows then my p4 did. My p4 system was not slow.. just seemed to have that second of hesitation when opening apps.. or I could be crazy.
doox00 said:
You are pretty much the exception to the rule. Most people find if any difference is noticed at all, that the Pentium 4 feels smoother and more reponsive. I don't know why this wouldn't have the case with your Pentium 4, unless Hyperthreading were turned off.
delusion_2005
Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2005
- Messages
- 805
Sir-Fragalot said:
you can't compare a normal P4 to a top of the range AMD CPU which is specifcally made for gaming, by saying this yes AMD cpu are alot better then gaming then p4's, but you can't tell the difference with out a benchmark, and these day game are mostly graphic card dependant, but the P4 will be alot snappier in windows due to HT.
Unknown-One
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2005
- Messages
- 8,909
I realy hate wen people say that. Yes, it is trrue that its hard to be outrageously CPU limited with a moderatly modern processor, but try out Doom3, BF2, or Half Life 2 on an Athlon XP 1500+ (1.3GHz) and a 6600GT or higher, and you'll change your opinion real quickdelusion_2005 said:
And I'll tell you that its HIGHLY disheartening to get no better game performance in Doom 3 after swapping an FX 5200 for a 6600GT. (Doom 3 time demo on the FX5200 Came up at 12 FPS, the 6600GT pulled out 16 FPS)
An Athlon 64 fixed that though (Pulled out more than 60FPS on average)
S
SirKenin
Guest
Seemed seemed seemed. Felt felt felt. YAWN. All subjective nonsense with no substantiating facts whatsoever, and you're going to make a purchasing decision based on this drivel? Power to you man, but I have some land in Florida to sell you.
The fact is, it doesn't matter how fast the CPUs go anymore. They have developed WAYYY beyond the capabilities of today's GPUs, so the game, at high resolutions, will ALWAYS be VGA limited. ALWAYS. The two will pull up beside each other at high resolutions.
Anyone that tells you any different is feeding you a line, to be honest with you.
The fact is, it doesn't matter how fast the CPUs go anymore. They have developed WAYYY beyond the capabilities of today's GPUs, so the game, at high resolutions, will ALWAYS be VGA limited. ALWAYS. The two will pull up beside each other at high resolutions.
Anyone that tells you any different is feeding you a line, to be honest with you.
i don't know about you guys, but intel can game. sure, you miss out on some frames per second, but really, who cares? i game with a 3.2ghz 500 series cpu and a 6600GT PCIe. do i get respectable frame rates in bf2 with 2xAA on and everyting at medium? hell yeah! in the fear demo, do i run almost everything on maximum/high without 2xAA and get over 50fps? hell yeah! i wouldn't trade my intel system for any amd system. so what that they run cooler and do better in games. i lover hyper threading, it has to be the greatest feature on intel (and the cache) and it just multitasks like a beast! maybe my next pc will be amd, i am not quite sure, but all i know is that there is nothing wrong with gaming on a intel system. it still plays the game, it still plays smoothly, it's all dealing with your go damned gpu! i just think that the gpu is the most important part to consider. as long as your not bottle necking your cpu and gpu, you will do fine in games.
robberbaron
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2004
- Messages
- 6,101
SirKenin said:
Meh, the AMD's are cheaper, get more overall performance for the money, and thus allows you to save for a better video card that's more important to begin with.
Project_2501
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2005
- Messages
- 1,170
A mediocre Intel: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116196
Slightly better but still not so hot: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116195
Now an AMD that will wipe the floor with either: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103562
Notice how it's cheaper than the 3.6? And now notice that it's faster in games: http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/half_life_2_cpu_shootout/page4.asp As seen here using HL:2 for reference. Substitute the 3800 X2 in for the 3500+, as they run the same in games, 2.2 ghz and all that jazz. The 570J doesn't even beat the 3500+, and barely eeks past the 3200+. The 570J (3.8) is here: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116190 For twice the price of the X2, and doesn't even do anything as well... You decide...
Slightly better but still not so hot: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116195
Now an AMD that will wipe the floor with either: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819103562
Notice how it's cheaper than the 3.6? And now notice that it's faster in games: http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/half_life_2_cpu_shootout/page4.asp As seen here using HL:2 for reference. Substitute the 3800 X2 in for the 3500+, as they run the same in games, 2.2 ghz and all that jazz. The 570J doesn't even beat the 3500+, and barely eeks past the 3200+. The 570J (3.8) is here: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16819116190 For twice the price of the X2, and doesn't even do anything as well... You decide...
robberbaron
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2004
- Messages
- 6,101
Didn't Intel cancel the 570 because theres no compelling reason for any sane person to buy one?
S
SirKenin
Guest
I believe the money should be sunk into the video card today. Any of today's CPUs can game beyond the capabilities of the VGA or the monitors anyways. Today's benchmarks are 100% meaningless and reserved for fan boys anyways. They mattered five years ago when games were still in the 30-50 FPS range. The only benches that matter, those of 1600x1200 and above, show the game to be VGA limited anyways. The stronger the GPU, though, the more polygons, the higher the framerates at high resolutions, just the more it can do period.robberbaron said:
sabrewolf732
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,776
SirKenin said:
actually ALL CPU's are limitng the 7800 series cards. Look at halflife 2..... and doom 3.... and several other games. Look how there is almost no differance between sli and no sli in alot of games. And keep in a mind a 1.8GHz 3000+ is equal to a 3.6GHz p4 in half life 2. Idk but unless you're hitting 4GHz+ pentium4 isn't a viable option for a gaming system IMO
S
SirKenin
Guest
He's only right in theory, and only partially. Not in practice. The reality is that we can not perceive these so-called differences.Sir-Fragalot said:
So, all it does is buy you e-penis. Is that how you spend your money? Or are you worried about more important things like actually having a girlfriend, a job, house, you know. Stuff that actually matters besides a bunch of tests performed in resolutions that nobody uses.
Believe me, that pretty girl at the school dance doesn't give a damn that your computer benchmarks at 120FPS even though your eyes can only perceive about 2/3 of that, give or take a few. hehe. So how about sticking to investing money where it actually matters and stop trying to mislead the guy with subjective nonsense. Hmm?
S
SirKenin
Guest
Don't worry about comparing SLI and non-SLI. That just confuses things. Compare the different processors using one VGA at 1600x1200. You'll see what I mean.sabrewolf732 said:
S
SirKenin
Guest
Anyways, I was typing to you as I was talking to one of my suppliers, so I forgot an important point. SLI is not working out, but not because of the CPU. It has absolutely nothing to do with the CPU. That is why I told you to do a comparison with a non-SLI card only.sabrewolf732 said:
The SLI tech is very limited and very few games can even make use of it. It is overpriced nonsense that will most likely not go anywhere. We can look into the past to see how successsful the V5-5500 was, another SLI card. V2s were pretty good, but they still didn't make this amazing difference that made everyone just have to go run out and buy a set.
I honestly believe that nVIDIAs current joke isn't going to make much of an impression on the mainstream either. They should have learned from 3DFX. 3DFX releases a $500 bombshell, these losers drop a $1300 bomb on everyone and expect it to take off like wild fire. Not likely.
sabrewolf732
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,776
SirKenin said:
My point is, comparing sli to non sli shows a limit in the CPU as their is almost no improvement in a few games showing the CPU's limit. And all these games that the limit is displayed in are sli compat and showed very large increases with 6800u sli. We aren't debating over sli. We're debating over cpu's bottlenecking video cards.
S
SirKenin
Guest
And my point is that dropping in an SLI kit after a non-SLI card does not demonstrate the CPU's bottleneck because SLI does not make that much of a difference for several reasons. IF you told me that a non SLI 7800 and non SLI 9800 (which obviously doesn't exist, but I use the numbers to make a point) showed no difference, then you would have a point. As it stands, you don't. IMHO SLI is a waste of money and time.sabrewolf732 said:
S
SirKenin
Guest
If benchmarks showed a difference then, they would show a difference even moreso now, wouldn't they? You claim they showed a difference then, where the CPU would have been even more of a bottleneck than it is now. You just don't know what you are talking about.sabrewolf732 said:
S
SirKenin
Guest
Not really. Do the math.Mav451 said:
He claims that the reason there is no difference in the benchmarks between SLI and non-SLI is because the CPU is the bottleneck.
I tell him there is virtually no difference between SLI and non-SLI performance (big waste of money).
He says that on SLOWER CPUs there was a difference between SLI and non-SLI, indicating that the CPU is not the bottleneck.
I remind him that faster CPUs provide LESS bottleneck than slower CPUs, not more.
I say he hasn't a clue in the world what he is talking about. All he did was back up my point, not refute it.
Not even an FX CPU, although I'm sure it is a fine CPU, is going to change the fact that the VGA is in fact the bottleneck. Hell, put a Cray supercomputer on it for all I care. The VGA is still the bottleneck.
sabrewolf732
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2004
- Messages
- 4,776
SirKenin said:
God you're a moron. Look at sli 6800 ultra benchies genius
there is a 30-70% increase in games that support sli. Look at 7800 sli benchmarks compared to 7800 non sli, there is almost no increase thus it is being bottlenecked. God, you're really dense\USMC2Hard4U
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2003
- Messages
- 6,157
Whatever setup you go with, will not be slow. Period.
I can assure you that there is a difference between a single 7800GTX and 7800GTX's in SLi. I would know. I run that exact setup. I've also had two 6800GT's in SLi.
I saw a pretty massive increase in frame rates when I went from dual Opteron 246's to dual Opteron 254's. 2.0GHz w/1MB L2 to 2.8GHz w/1MB L2. The CPU is infact a large bottleneck. To a degree all CPU's are a bottleneck.
If you're CPU is really slow, then obviously your gaming performance will be limited. Even if you had a 7800GTX SLi setup in your machine. Likewise, an Athlon FX-57 OC'ed to 3.2GHz won't be enough to make a Geforce FX 5200 handle Far Cry at 1920x1080 w/8xAA and 16x AF.
IF you buy the fastest video card setup, and the fastest CPU available, you will be gauranteed the best gaming performance available for today's games.
I saw a pretty massive increase in frame rates when I went from dual Opteron 246's to dual Opteron 254's. 2.0GHz w/1MB L2 to 2.8GHz w/1MB L2. The CPU is infact a large bottleneck. To a degree all CPU's are a bottleneck.
If you're CPU is really slow, then obviously your gaming performance will be limited. Even if you had a 7800GTX SLi setup in your machine. Likewise, an Athlon FX-57 OC'ed to 3.2GHz won't be enough to make a Geforce FX 5200 handle Far Cry at 1920x1080 w/8xAA and 16x AF.
IF you buy the fastest video card setup, and the fastest CPU available, you will be gauranteed the best gaming performance available for today's games.
S
SirKenin
Guest
Can you describe the exact upgrade path for us please? Something doesn't sound right, but I can't quite put my finger on it. Did you upgrade the CPUs before or after the single 7800GTX? Is It VGA > CPU > VGA? That's what it sounds like you are trying to tell us.Sir-Fragalot said:
SirKenin said:
I had Opteron 246's and two 6800GT's@Ultra speeds. I then upgraded to a single 7800GTX. Which performed the same as the two 6800GT's in SLi did. Give or take in some games.
I then added a second 7800GTX for SLi. I saw some performance increase in a few games. But not earth shattering amounts except in some games like Farcry when I enabled HDR. I still had issues with higher levels of AA and AF that I knew a pair of 7800GTX's could do from benches I've seen. Alot of people could use 16x AA and 16x AF and I couldn't.
I then upgraded to two Opteron 254's and my performance went up across the board. I can now use higher levels of AA and AF. In Farcry, I can now do 1600x1200 with HDR where I had horrible performance at 1600x1200 with HDR on the previous CPU's. I had to drop my resolution to 1280x1024 when HDR was enabled on the Opteron 246's.
My point is, that you need to pair video cards with appropriate CPU's whenever possible. However, if you have to chose between a lower end CPU and higher end video cards, chose the higher end video card. It makes more of a difference, but a lower end CPU, like an A64 3000+ will starve 7800GTX's at high resolutions, especially when high levels of AA and AF are applied.
S
SirKenin
Guest
Ah. Now I gotcha. Ok, makes sense.Sir-Fragalot said:
Yeah, I agree here, if not for perhaps a slightly different reasoning, I do agree.
chrisf6969
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2003
- Messages
- 9,011
Multi-tasking smoothness is hard to show in benchmarks.
If I were building a system it would be a very hard choice for me right now.
My options would be either a system with an Intel 630 processor overclocked to 4+Ghz.
Or an AMD system with a 3800+ dual core (oc'd too). Obviously, I'm an Intel fan and would probably go with that b/c a 4Ghz Intel will play ANY game you need to. (granted an A64 system especially overclocked could beat it)
Anyway, luckily I don't have to choose yet. BF2 plays fine with my system as is.
Though I do wish there was a 7800GTX in AGP!
If I were building a system it would be a very hard choice for me right now.
My options would be either a system with an Intel 630 processor overclocked to 4+Ghz.
Or an AMD system with a 3800+ dual core (oc'd too). Obviously, I'm an Intel fan and would probably go with that b/c a 4Ghz Intel will play ANY game you need to. (granted an A64 system especially overclocked could beat it)
Anyway, luckily I don't have to choose yet. BF2 plays fine with my system as is.
Though I do wish there was a 7800GTX in AGP!
Sir-Fragalot said:
I've actually noticed this same thing. As a matter of fact, my P4 with HT on lags really bad, so I have to turn it off to do anything. The system with HT turned off is more responsive and apps don't hang as much as they do with HT on. Of course I don't do video editing, so I have no idea how it works with that and other apps. I do know that when I'm listening to music and doing my dev stuff that the system just lags really bad, but it's worse with HT on. My A64 hasn't had laggin issues unless I'm transfering files and un-raring huge files.
Would anyone know why my P4 lags with HT on?
Lethal
ViragoAdmin Emeritus
- Joined
- May 27, 2000
- Messages
- 28,704
If you keep making comments like these, you'll find your posting privileges revoked here. Consider yourself warned.sabrewolf732 said:God you're a moron. Look at sli 6800 ultra benchies genius
Words of wisdom.TheJackal= you guys better not turn this into a flame war, i forsee this coming.
Any threads containing: something VS. something often do.
Since this thread now involves video cards as well as two separate cpu architectures Intel and AMD, and never the twain shall meet; a subject that seemingly cannot be discussed in a civilized manner within the cpu forums; Ive moved the topic to General Hardware.
Any off topic, flaming, or any other violation of the Hard Forum rules: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=760666
contained in posts here after will result in the thread being closed...... this in addition to the most severe warning posted by a
[H]ardforum Administrator.