P4ee

S

sm0k3d

n00b
Joined
Jan 10, 2005
Messages
47
is it really that much a difference between AMD 64FX and P4EE for gaming?
 
The FX hands the P4EE's ass to it. It blows it out of the water. The FX series, man no competition.

For the price the P4EE doesn't really seem worth it, so you get L3 cache, where are you going to find that usefull gaming? Not really anywhere. Just search anandtech, hardocp, overclockers, tomshardware, etc.. All the benchies show the FX series blows away all intel's lineup.
 
The extra cache ram actually helps the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition in a few applications vs. the standard Northwood and Prescott cores. However as mentioned before, it doesn't beat the Athlon FX series, at least not in gaming.

There are usefull applications for that extra cache memory.
 
I run the 3.4EE and I did notice a difference between that and my old 3.2 P4 in gaming and apps in general. I got it pretty cheap so decided to upgrade. It doesnt overclock as well as the std. P4, but its not horrible. FX is definately a nice cpu, but from what I have read before it doesnt multi task as well as the P4. Since I game and use Mastercam,Solidworks and have a bunch of windows open @ the same time etc. on my pc the 3.4EE serves me well, but if you are only gonna be using it for gaming I would go with the FX.
 
D4hPr0 said:
I run the 3.4EE and I did notice a difference between that and my old 3.2 P4 in gaming and apps in general. I got it pretty cheap so decided to upgrade. It doesnt overclock as well as the std. P4, but its not horrible. FX is definately a nice cpu, but from what I have read before it doesnt multi task as well as the P4. Since I game and use Mastercam,Solidworks and have a bunch of windows open @ the same time etc. on my pc the 3.4EE serves me well, but if you are only gonna be using it for gaming I would go with the FX.
Click to expand...

Good advice. That about sums it up.
 
My FX hands any P4 I've ever owned or come across it's ass. Hyper-threading is nice, but not nice enough to sacrifice the amount of performance you lose when going P4 over an A64.
 
ScHpAnKy said:
My FX hands any P4 I've ever owned or come across it's ass. Hyper-threading is nice, but not nice enough to sacrifice the amount of performance you lose when going P4 over an A64.
Click to expand...

Have you owned a P4EE???? There is a big difference between the Northy and Gallatin. At least I noticed a huge improvment. I can burn DVD's process complex tool paths in MasterCam and have Illustrator, AutoCad, Outlook, and a bunch of IE windows open all @ the same time and I barely feel the difference. Granted my EE is running close to 3.9Ghz with 2 gigs of ram, 2 x 37Gb 15K cudas and 2 x 74Gb raptors, but I remember when I use to run AMD and it just sucked @ multitasking.
Most game benches I have seen FX wins over the 3.4EE, but it doesnt kick its ass like you stated.
I also had couple discussions with people on engineering forums I belong to that run the FX chips and they noticed a huge improvment in rendering images in AutoCad and Solidworks, but are not happy with the FX chips when it comes to multitasking compared to regulaer nothy chips they have in their other workstations.
I think the EE is a better all around chip and its more my cup of tea because of what I do, but you milage may vary.

Here is a quote from Kyle's review on the FX chip and he noticed the same thing.

"Multitasking

Every time I write about how Intel Pentium 4 CPUs with HyperThreading dominate in multitasking, I get mad email from AMD fans telling me otherwise. I have had a Pentium 4 CPU in my main work system, which is used for everything I do including gaming, for a couple of years till back in July. I put in an Athlon 64 FX-53 to compare real-world experiences. The difference in how multitasking is handled is much like night and day. Intel’s HyperThreading makes easy work of multitasking where the Athlon 64 simply flounders. I was used to encoding movies and music while I went about my normal work tasks and the Athlon FX system was having none of that. I found many places where the system would “chug” due to the CPU handling one task while I had another one I wanted to focus on. Sure, you can go in and change the way the CPU handles the particular tasks you have open, but that is simply a pain to get done every time you want to use certain combinations of software. "
 
Sir-Fragalot said:
The extra cache ram actually helps the Pentium 4 Extreme Edition in a few applications vs. the standard Northwood and Prescott cores. However as mentioned before, it doesn't beat the Athlon FX series, at least not in gaming.

There are usefull applications for that extra cache memory.
Click to expand...

yes it does, the 3.4EE beats the FX-53 in games. but the FX-55 wins for game's compared to the 3.46EE.
 
The whole AMD sucks at the multitasking thing I just dont get.

I can run a development environment (Lotus Notes server/client or Visual Studio 2003) and multiple browsers (IE and Mozilla, multiple windows) and play music or watch TV on a second monitor and have no slow downs or unresponsiveness.

I beleive people when they say HT is a good thing, and it makes the PC feel more responsive...but I just dont see a problem.
 
D4hPr0 said:
Have you owned a P4EE???? There is a big difference between the Northy and Gallatin. At least I noticed a huge improvment. I can burn DVD's process complex tool paths in MasterCam and have Illustrator, AutoCad, Outlook, and a bunch of IE windows open all @ the same time and I barely feel the difference. Granted my EE is running close to 3.9Ghz with 2 gigs of ram, 2 x 37Gb 15K cudas and 2 x 74Gb raptors, but I remember when I use to run AMD and it just sucked @ multitasking.
Most game benches I have seen FX wins over the 3.4EE, but it doesnt kick its ass like you stated.
I also had couple discussions with people on engineering forums I belong to that run the FX chips and they noticed a huge improvment in rendering images in AutoCad and Solidworks, but are not happy with the FX chips when it comes to multitasking compared to regulaer nothy chips they have in their other workstations.
I think the EE is a better all around chip and its more my cup of tea because of what I do, but you milage may vary.

Here is a quote from Kyle's review on the FX chip and he noticed the same thing.

"Multitasking

Every time I write about how Intel Pentium 4 CPUs with HyperThreading dominate in multitasking, I get mad email from AMD fans telling me otherwise. I have had a Pentium 4 CPU in my main work system, which is used for everything I do including gaming, for a couple of years till back in July. I put in an Athlon 64 FX-53 to compare real-world experiences. The difference in how multitasking is handled is much like night and day. Intel’s HyperThreading makes easy work of multitasking where the Athlon 64 simply flounders. I was used to encoding movies and music while I went about my normal work tasks and the Athlon FX system was having none of that. I found many places where the system would “chug” due to the CPU handling one task while I had another one I wanted to focus on. Sure, you can go in and change the way the CPU handles the particular tasks you have open, but that is simply a pain to get done every time you want to use certain combinations of software. "
Click to expand...

wow dude nice cpu, and yes i do agree. the FX does not beet the P4EE at all. your P4EE at 3.9GHz will proboly blow it out of the water. nice cpu again :)
 
Redefined said:
wow dude nice cpu, and yes i do agree. the FX does not beet the P4EE at all. your P4EE at 3.9GHz will proboly blow it out of the water. nice cpu again :)
Click to expand...

So whats its like on your planet?
 
well id like to start off by saying i dont care if i get flamed!!!! according to MY own experiences: i had a 2.8c @ 3.5, and everyone was making a big fuss about the s939 winchester cpu's. so i decided to sell alla my stuff and get a 3500+ 90nm. once i got it all together i was severely disappointed. my old system running at stock speeds seemed to be much more responsive and stable. let alone overclocked to 3.5ghz. so my vote goes to intel... i put all of my amd stuff for sale and got me a new board, 550 lga775, and a gig of ddr2. still gotta find me a pci-e gcard tho... ill let you all know how it turns out.

got me a fire extinguisher ready for the flames.... ;) bring em on!!!

i love intel
 
Porn_Star said:
well id like to start off by saying i dont care if i get flamed!!!! according to MY own experiences: i had a 2.8c @ 3.5, and everyone was making a big fuss about the s939 winchester cpu's. so i decided to sell alla my stuff and get a 3500+ 90nm. once i got it all together i was severely disappointed. my old system running at stock speeds seemed to be much more responsive and stable. let alone overclocked to 3.5ghz. so my vote goes to intel... i put all of my amd stuff for sale and got me a new board, 550 lga775, and a gig of ddr2. still gotta find me a pci-e gcard tho... ill let you all know how it turns out.

got me a fire extinguisher ready for the flames.... ;) bring em on!!!

i love intel
Click to expand...

How long did you use the AMD? I went from a 2.4GHz P4 to a 1.8GHz A64 and thought "gee wiz, I'm disappointed." Then I started to game more and realized that it simply murdered the pentium 4.
 
Everytime I've strayed from Intel I've been dissapointed. Either in the stability of the machine or some random weird problems I get with VIA or some other non-intel motherboard chipset.

I agree with the smoothness feeling. But by no means do AMD's suck at multi-tasking. Right now I am considering the P4 3.74EE, but the cost is just too high.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top