Pentium4 users. Are you upgrading to AMD ??

ShePearl

ShePearl

Limp Gawd
2FA
Joined
Apr 16, 2004
Messages
429
I've been using Pentium4 3.4 GHz (Northwood) with 875P chipset for quite sometime now, and I've been generally happy with the performance. Especially, Hyperthreading when it comes to multi-tasking. Responsive & smoothness of Windows XP was, and still is very good.

But I cannot deny the fact that when it comes to gaming, Pentium4 is very disappointing compared to AMD64.

Recently, I've been considering to buy an Athlon64 based system. (939 socket 3800+ or FX-53)

http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=33
According to this benchmark, even the lowest Athlon64 2800+ has an edge over the Pentium4 3.4 GHz. One thing as expected. at 1600x1200 (or higher) resolution, it almost always becomes VPU bound... so there's virtually no difference in performance between Pentium4, and Athlon64 systems. This is quite important factor for some people including myself. Because I always try to game at 16800x1200 or higher resolution with AA+AF enabled. This is my main reason I have an ATI X800XT PE pre-ordered.

I'd like to hear you guys' opinions.

Cheers.
 
Well, I wouldn't necessarily call it upgrading to an AMD, but for gaming purposes then yes an AMD64 is going to in almost all scenarios outperform a p4 considerably. So if that is the primary use of your rig then that's the cpu u should build it around. Don't know about an fx-53, but if u have the cash to burn then by all means.
If u are seriously considering the switch just be aware that you may be getting a Newcastle core rather than a Clawhammer core. Thus less cache, but supposedly performance shouldn't really differ.
 
If you go with an FX-53, then you WOULD be upgrading from the 3.4. Last Intel I ran was a 2.53, since then I've been using AMD and don't regret it at all. This FX-53 is insanely fast and presently, there are NO Intel setups I would take over it.
 
I've heard that because of hyperthreading, overall system performance is better with a P4. That plus it seems like all mobos for the A64 platform have some bugs or problems of some kind. I thought about going to the A64, but upgraded my Abit BH7 i845PE system with a 2.8B processor to an Abit IC7 MAX3 with a 3.2C.
 
ShePearl said:
But I cannot deny the fact that when it comes to gaming, Pentium4 is very disappointing compared to AMD64.
Click to expand...
As you yourself mentioned, anyone who enjoys decent 3D graphics is running high-res with AA and AF so it doesn't matter if you're running Intel or AMD. You could change if you're interested in benchmark bragging rights (@1024x768 0xAA 0xAF) but you wouldn't be able to tell the difference in your games.

Don't get me wrong, I think the new AMD chips are awesome performers (and I'm a performance whore, not a fanboy). But with the system you've got right now you'd be disappointed in the difference the upgrade makes. Maybe you should wait for some 90nm AMD chips to appear and make the upgrade worthwhile? :)
 
hmmmm....strong the power of the dark side is.
Seriously, when in the world did all the AMD users start lurking over in the Intel seciton lol. *shakes head* jehova's witnesses.
Anyways, I concur with coz in that AMD64s are superb in gaming benchmarks, but you likely won't and possibly might notice a performance difference. Overall though I don't think you will be satisfied with the price to performance boost to switch over to an fx-53 especially. You're current rig should haul you over for the next couple of quarters when some new chips will be coming out and then u could do some real damage with that money.
 
The AMD platforms seem to do single tasks faster - but with the Intel when you have a ton of stuff open and crunching in the background the AMD can't keep up.

I just had a 3200+ A64 on the bench for two weeks solid. I was really excited to get it in but after having it for a week I couldn't wait to sell it. Like I said above, the single application use and response time was great, but when I started multi-tasking and hammering the OS the AMD would choke when the Intel was still very responsive.

So... if you spend more time inside of a game than you do managing files, surfing the net, unzipping files, encoding DVD's or even listening to Win Amp, grab the A64...
 
I thought the new ones were 90µ? Or not... scaling wasn't dead at 130µ for AMD, only for Intel. Still isn't, I think.
 
The only stock processors I've ever had die are AMD. XPs/K6s/K7s none were immune to random death. I'll stick with my trusty P4.
 
I'm going to ride out this P4 Northwood for awhile.
Get a new Video card [still using a Ti4200! ] in the fall..
By then I'll decide what I like.
I am very open towards an AMD solution though, we'll see.
 
useful said:
The only stock processors I've ever had die are AMD. XPs/K6s/K7s none were immune to random death. I'll stick with my trusty P4.
Click to expand...
Did you touch the pins?
 
useful said:
The only stock processors I've ever had die are AMD. XPs/K6s/K7s none were immune to random death. I'll stick with my trusty P4.
Click to expand...

I too have experienced this and no I never touched the pins.
 
I'm one of these people that always has a ridiculous amount of windows open. I'll have a song playing, 3 messenger services running, maybe a P2P, and possibly some kind of archiving task going on. I'll gladly take my 3.15 ghz HT P4 over my friend's 2.4 ghz 3400+ for general usage anyday. His system will be unusable when it's hashing a file on BT++, but mine, although slowed down some, remains usable.
 
wtburnette said:
I've heard that because of hyperthreading, overall system performance is better with a P4. That plus it seems like all mobos for the A64 platform have some bugs or problems of some kind. I thought about going to the A64, but upgraded my Abit BH7 i845PE system with a 2.8B processor to an Abit IC7 MAX3 with a 3.2C.
Click to expand...


I wonder how many people actually have a good understanding of what a thread is
 
Although I've considered swapping my system for an early S939 AMD setup, why bother when the Winchester 0.09 S939 CPU's are right around the corner and will probably O/C better than the Newcastle/Clawhammers of now. When the second stepping comes out of those and the NForce 3 250GB has matured slightly, I'll seriously consider replacing my system.

Until then, this system will have to do. :)
 
Your system's pretty modern ShePearl; you really wouldn't be upgrading much, and be getting an incremental increase in performance at best.

I have a 2.4 C and it's way faster than the Willamette I was using, and while I like the numbers posted by the Athlon 64s, I don't have the kind of money to be throwing around buying a new proc and mobo, and since I don't game, it probably wouldn't matter to me yet.

Though, next time, I'm hoping for my dual core CPUs to be out by then...or I'll get a dual Opteron otherwise. :)
 
I'm currently on my first AMD rig (A64 3000) and am quite impressed with it... I generally also have a bunch of stuff open, emule and gaim (open source instant messaging, kicks the crap out of AIM, plus no spyware) run more or less 24/7, usually at least 2 or 3 webpages open, and I can run pretty intensive games (NFS:Underground, Unreal 2, Halo) without noticing any major drops. But then again I came from a 1.8 P4, so I've never really had hyperthreading. I like my A64.... but I think in your case you won't need to upgrade for awhile, 3.4 ghz seems like more than enough to me. At least wait until the later wave of 939 chips and mobos, so you can hopefully get PCI-e and DDR2 when you upgrade.
 
i had a 3.0c @ 3.6ghz due to car problems i had to sell it. then i got a Amd shuttle. its a 2600 Mobile at 2.3ghz. im not gonna lie. i miss the intel. specially at multitasking. i "back-up" alot of dvd's and i do other things all at the same time. and the Amd does not keep up period. so right now im tryin to go back to Intel. sorry :p
 
Mushroom Prince said:
I wonder how many people actually have a good understanding of what a thread is
Click to expand...

Well, I've worked with NT/Win2K/WinXP for about 5 years now and I'm an NT 4 MCSE so I have a pretty good understanding of what threads are... :rolleyes:
 
I did, but not because I was unhappy with the P4. I just wanted to ditch my current hardware while it still had value (30cap P4 3.0C, Dell 400SC server).

One thing I was disappointed in was how slow Intel is going to roll out EMT64 for the desktop. But even that isn't a big deal right now... it's just that there will only be a couple of speed grades for desktop EMT64 processors since Intel cancelled Tejas in favor of the P-M architecture. Plus those are going to be expensive. What that also means is that 64-bit P-M derived cores are a long way off. Dothan doesn't contain 64-bit entensions. Prescotts are going to have to fill that role for more than a year. We'll see Monday how EMT64 performs. I have a feeling it will mirror the performance of P4 vs Athlon 64: about the same speed between P4 GHz and A64 + rating (i.e. a huge delta in clock speed). :(

In the strange pricing available right now, I sold my P4 3.0C for about the same price as I paid for a A64 2800+ and motherboard ($223 @ newegg w/ free Far Cry). The "upgrade" put over $150 in my pocket. :p
 
MemoryInAGarden said:
I'm one of these people that always has a ridiculous amount of windows open. I'll have a song playing, 3 messenger services running, maybe a P2P, and possibly some kind of archiving task going on. I'll gladly take my 3.15 ghz HT P4 over my friend's 2.4 ghz 3400+ for general usage anyday. His system will be unusable when it's hashing a file on BT++, but mine, although slowed down some, remains usable.
Click to expand...
That's strange, because I am perfectly able to do all those things at once on my 466 Celeron2. Looks like someone's a bit paranoid...
 
Same here, I've done the same stuff and more with a P3 500, P2 450, P4 1.3 Willamette.
 
M4d-K10wN said:
I thought the new ones were 90µ? Or not... scaling wasn't dead at 130µ for AMD, only for Intel. Still isn't, I think.
Click to expand...

90µm is huge for a die size. 90nm is correct. big difference-- 1000 nanometers (nm) = 1 micrometer (µm)
 
Its totally ridiculous that anyone can say they would be disappointed in a P4 3.4's performance in games....

unless you are purely a 3dmark benching retarded noob.

If you have a 3.4 P4, games are gonna fly, upgrading to an FX xhip would get you ZERO noticable difference in games performance. :rolleyes:
 
Again maxxo is correct in the 90 nm process which has switched from the .13 micron process, which allows cheaper production costs where more can be made from the 300mm wafers. Obviously the electron migration issue has be well documented and this has me worried because we're going to have this pushed to the consumer pretty soon by both Intel and AMD simply because it's more cost effective to produce. I've heard AMD is having a bit more luck in their research and development process, but as u know the more complex, power and smaller these cpus get the harder for engineers to fix problems and forsee issues prior to rigid release times.

Anyways, I'm happy to see competition between Intel and AMD growing, but I am very disappointed with what appears like half ready tech being pushed to the consumers.

Lastly, all u can do is give them stern advice one time. however, hey if he's got an extra $1000 laying around to blow on a new system for a few fps then great. It's great to love the latest and greatest, but don't go out searching for every blue crystal item u find and pay premiums for it.
 
maxxo said:
90µm is huge for a die size. 90nm is correct. big difference-- 1000 nanometers (nm) = 1 micrometer (µm)
Click to expand...
I hate to be pedantic (ok, that's a lie), but 90nm refers to the feature size, not the die size. 90 square micrometres is *tiny* for a die size, considering the Prescott's die is about 112 square millimetres (1µm=1/1000th of a millimetre).
 
mayakindaguy said:
90 nm refers to the transistors I believe, just to clear it all up.
Click to expand...
Actually, the transistor gate length is 50nm......
Intel's new 90-nm process features the smallest, highest performing transistors in production today: low-power transistors only 50-nm in size.
Click to expand...
 
gentlemen, thanks for your opinions. They're greatly appreciated.

Now, when is 90nm AMD64 chips scheduled to be released ??
 
ShePearl said:
Now, when is 90nm AMD64 chips scheduled to be released ??
Click to expand...
Roadmap

Looks like later this year. I like the look of the 90nm low-power mobile core.....Oakville. It seems there's some 90nm low-power Opterons too. I wonder if AMD have a solution to the increased current leakage problems with 90nm that Intel encountered? They found that current leakage was 80% worse than they'd anticipated - that's pretty significant. Then again, 90nm strained silicon is probably quite different than a 90nm SOI process. I just hope AMD fare better with their 90nm process, I'd love to see the A64 scaling up to much higher speeds, a 3GHz+ A64 would be awesome. :D
 
come correct and get both - ya :p
ok tasking HT etc rocks.
but clock for clock my o/c'd A64 3200@ 2.25 outperforms my o/c'd Intel 3n @3.75 in gaming benchmarks. tested with exact same video/ram then tested without, same results.
 
Darn...foiled again. Sorry for the misinfo and thanks for clearing it up coz, but then wtf is the 90 nm process?
 
Hmm... just found an interesting thing. Pentium4 is dominating 3DMark03 Hall of Fame. :confused:
 
mayakindaguy said:
wtf is the 90 nm process?
Click to expand...
90nm refers to the feature size of the manufacturing process - the smallest 'feature' that can be etched (by Lithography) onto the silicon wafer using the fab's equipment. The reason you can have a transistor smaller (50nm) than the feature size (90nm) is thanks to certain post-Lithography techniques. I haven't a clue what those techniques are but my Intel chum might know. :)
 
mayakindaguy said:
Darn...foiled again. Sorry for the misinfo and thanks for clearing it up coz, but then wtf is the 90 nm process?
Click to expand...

too late. look above
 
Sepal said:
come correct and get both - ya :p
ok tasking HT etc rocks.
but clock for clock my o/c'd A64 3200@ 2.25 outperforms my o/c'd Intel 3n @3.75 in gaming benchmarks. tested with exact same video/ram then tested without, same results.
Click to expand...


My old roommate has an a64 3200 oc'd to the highest he could get it, not sure what the specs on it are, we ran benchmarks in games with everything the same except for mobo and processor. He marginally beat me in some games, other than that, nothing our eyes even noticed.

But in the future I will probably get a 939 fx-53, i'm not too happy about intels new line.
 
I dunno where you are commin from.

I am in love with my current setup comming from a AXP2500+ OCed to about 3000+ same vid card


so... i dunno...

This P4C has been god for me as soon I as figured out Intel Application Accelerator is important :)
 
This is a personal opinion, but it sounds like to me you are getting too wrapped up in benchmarking numbers. If you game at the high res and settings you have mentioned then the best money you could spend to help your gaming situation over your current setup would be the purchase of the x800XT or 6800U, that is as long as you have 1 Gig or more of RAM as well. Will the A64 come out on top in most real gaming benchmarks, yes. Is it worth the cost to go from a P4 3.4 to any A64 platform, only if you want some kind of bragging rights when comparing benchmarking numbers, but as far as look, feel and gaming experience, it would be a waste of cash that could be better spent elsewhere. I see folks spending a lot of cash on upgrading to A64 FX or the new 939 pin A64s and keeping their existing video cards and then someone with a slower CPU platform goes and buys an x800XT and blows them out of the water in gaming frame rates and 3D Mark.
BTW I'm currently running a A64 3400+ so I'm by no means anti AMD, but what you are considering isn't what I would recommend to anybody.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top