P4 3.0C or A64 3200+

T

TerribleTerryTate

n00b
Joined
Jun 23, 2004
Messages
8
Hey

I'm going to be building a new computer for my parents soon and I'm trying to decide between a 3.0C or 3200+. The computer will NOT be used for gaming. It should last at least 3 years. I will barely, if at all, overclock -- I won't be around and don't want to leave a potential mess behind.

Basically, the computer will be used for multitasking with large .pdf files, editing pictures and videos, and light CAD.

I'm not sure if it will be more important to have HT or 64bit capablilities (since this computer should last >3 years). What do you all think?
 
I'm a little behind in my AMD vs. Intel head to head results, but I think Intel still has a slight edge in video editing and CAD work, so I'd recommend Intel.

As for 64-bit, would your parents be looking into installing a 64-bit OS (basically, Win XP-64 unless they are Linux/BSD users) or would they even care? If so, I really don't have any qualms recommending an Athlon 64; the performance between the two is pretty equal in most cases.
 
This one is tough, but I think that I'd have to go with the AMD system. It'll be faster all around, it's 64 bit compatible, and it has an onboard memory controller, which I imagine would help alot with memory intensive multi-tasking. The HT P4 will probaly be just as good at multitasking as the faster AMD with faster memory, but not as future proof.
 
There are pros and cons to the Intel Hyperthreading, but in my experiences it works great. Makes multitasking a LOT smoother, and I can definately tell a difference in multitasking between a non-HT cpu and one with HT.

They're both very capable processors, and if their photo editing and cad software will ever support 64-bit...then the choice would be obvious to me.
 
which one will be cheaper to build? because seriously they will both be obselete in 3 years and will both get the job more than done now...

do you think the a64 would consume less power than the less efficient intel? what kind of energy savings will this give them over the course of 3 years? this is probably all neglibible and woudl just as easily be affected by the quality of the psu used..

just go amd.. because there is a slight chance they would upgrade to a 64bit os.. it also is probably a little cheaper,

also, i just noticed that there have been 4 replies since i opened this window first.. it looks like amd is taking the lead... so i will say intel.. :D jsut to make it a closer race..
 
id go intel for doing heavy multi-tasking. amd for gaming. my next system will be an AMD based system and im going to keep my current one for a LAN server for when i host LAN parties and such and use it as a file server for home use.
 
I would look at the P4 HT, but at a slower speed, maybe a 2.8. It is a lot cheaper than the 3.2, or even the 3200+. Intel has a huge advantage over AMD's when it comes to video editing/converting, as well as photos and CAD. My dad has a P4 2.8 (533mhz bus), and uses it for his building design company - thus uses CAD all day, every day. The P4 is good when it comes to this task, and although I don't exactly know about AMD figures I do know it is better.
Also, if they are going to be multi-tasking, you need Hyper-Threading technology. It increases performance by a huge amount when multi-tasking. I saw a 3.06ghz chip a long time ago being used to encode WAV files into mp3 files while playing a Quake3 Timedemo. It had 512MB of RAM, and while I can't remember the vid card, it still managed to get way over 60fps. So the Intel fits your (their) needs nicely.

I can see the argument for the AMD, but the P4 is better in those departments, and that's what you want, isn't it? :)
 
AMD is better than Intel (and has tied up the video/editing thing for the most part)
however, since you are not going to game, and are going to be doing some multi-tasking, its kinda of a tie up. more of a cost issue than anything else.

Which P4 core are you looking at?
Depending on the P4 core the AMD will take alot less power and run cooler as well.
 
yea, not to thread steal here, but im pretty much in the same situation as this guy and figured it would be best not to post a new thread, so why not ask. Im going to be using mine for gaming and 3dwork etc. Is the amd 64bit future proof and does it hold up good in games compared to the 800 fsb p4 cpus?
thanks
 
ATI9700Pro said:
yea, not to thread steal here, but im pretty much in the same situation as this guy and figured it would be best not to post a new thread, so why not ask. Im going to be using mine for gaming and 3dwork etc. Is the amd 64bit future proof and does it hold up good in games compared to the 800 fsb p4 cpus?
thanks
Click to expand...

nothing is future proof...but a mid to high level 64 cpu will do ya just fine for a long time. it will also run games much better than the P4's. Your biggest investment will need to be in a good video card though...

i had 2500XP @ 3000 speeds with 9800 pro 128Mb
upgraded to amd 64-3200 it was a little better
upgraded to nvidia 6800 GT, and then it smoked
with the 64-CPU huge bandwidth, it really lets the GPU's do its job
 
Well, lets say i dont want to spend THAT incredibly much, but im not going to be a COMPLETE cheepo.
 
If you're looking for affordability, the Athlon 64 3000+ and 3200+ (socket 754 versions) are pretty 'inexpensive' at $160 and $200 respectively. The 3000+ would probably be the least I'd go for for a 64-bit A64 proc, though there is also a 2800+ for $144.

If you want something with more of an upgrade path down the road, you'd be looking at the Athlon 64 socket 939 series, which is the future platform of AMD for the forseeable future. However, I don't think they make equivalent S939 chips, so the lowest end proc there is the Athlon 64 3500+, at around $290 - 300.

Socket 754 would be the best bet right now IMO for a 64-bit A64.
 
Athlon64 3200+ 90nm sckt 939... costs about 215 dollars at Monarchcomputer.com. Can Overclock easily past 2.6 GHz on air.
 
my friend is getting the 2.4c. I have been reading that the 3200+ is going to be much faster than that. Is that true, or what is equivalent to what. thanks
 
BillLeeLee said:
However, I don't think they make equivalent S939 chips, so the lowest end proc there is the Athlon 64 3500+, at around $290 - 300.

Socket 754 would be the best bet right now IMO for a 64-bit A64.
Click to expand...

They have 939 chips that are 3000+, 3200+, 3500+. Lowest prices on Pricewatch (btw, check reseller ratings before buying from the "lowest bidder") are $188, $215, and $316 respectively.
 
Real Answer:

It won't matter. Both will function almost neck and neck in performance, as well as reliability. Buy whichever is cheaper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top