• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Right processor?

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

chockomonkey

[H]F Junkie
2FA
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
8,434
Untill just about 10 minutes ago, i thought that when it comes to processors, the more the amount of GHz was all that mattered. Then, one of my friends says that that isn't all that matters, and i get to thinking... 'cause i was browsing at newegg and stuff just didn't add up. can someone explain to me about processors? I'm confused off my ass.
 
procesors add 1's and 0's. The problem with adding things is that you have a large number of calculators (transistors) which can only do one addition. The results have to be put together in a coherent way otherwise you get jibberish. Thus the clock cycle was born. That is, the cpu is designed to output a certain number of calculations per second. This is the gigahertz of which you speak. The thing is, some calculations are always "wasted" 'cause part of the CPU is waiting for something to do so it doesn't get ahead of the rest of the CPU. Also, AMD CPU's do more computations per cycle than Intel CPU's (6v4). SOOOO...even though my cpu is running at 2.4 GHz, it can keep neck-and-neck with an Intel one running at ~3.4GHz because mine is more "efficient".

This is obviously simplifying things some, but you can google around if you want more detailed info. ;)
 
Originally posted by chockomonkey
Untill just about 10 minutes ago, i thought that when it comes to processors, the more the amount of GHz was all that mattered. Then, one of my friends says that that isn't all that matters, and i get to thinking... 'cause i was browsing at newegg and stuff just didn't add up. can someone explain to me about processors? I'm confused off my ass.
Click to expand...

Another victim of the "Megahertz Myth" that Intel perpetrates.

If megahertz was all that mattered, buy yourself a Celeron 2.8Ghz and be happy you got all that megahertz for such a low price. At any rate, there is far too many issues to go through to put them here. Suffice it to say, the performance of a processor depends on a few things. To find out more, just read more on AMD versus Intel. You can google that information or go to one of the many hardware enthusiast web sites.
 
AMD processors [ignore the Pentium-M for the time being] have a higher IPC than Intel processors. This means thatthey get more work done per cycle. However, Intel processors have a higher frequency, so have more cycles. This means that in number crunching apps, the two are pretty much neck and neck, with the AMD64s winning often.
 
For processors, cache is also important. You'll notice that in comparisons between Athlon XPs, Athlon 64s, Pentium 4s, and really 'fast' Celerons, the celeron gets its ass whipped even though it has a really high clock speed. That's all fine, but it has a crappy 128 K of L2 cache, whereas the others have 512K (older ones have 256K, the Ath64 has 1 MB and so does the Prescott).

Pentium 4s are faster in terms of clock speed because it has a much longer pipeline than Athlons (20 stages for NOrthwood, 31 for Prescott compared to Athlons' 10). With 20+ stages, the P4 has to keep saturating the pipeline with cycles in case of things like branch mispredictions. Since the Athlon has 10 pipeline stages, each clock cycle does more work (think of it like an assembly line with 10 people vs. 20 people; a 10 person assembly line has people doing more work per person than in a 20 person assembly line).

So, Athlons, while being slower in clock, do more per cycle. Pentium 4s have to be faster to take advantage of the pipeline. The performance differences between the two only matter when when you start entering specifics, like floating point numbers.

The Athlons have a double pumped floating point unit (can do 1 multiplication and 1 addition floating point calculation at the same time) whereas the Pentium 4 can only do one FP calculation at a time; in short Athlons kick P4's ass in FP calculations.
 
Yes, everyone has their own opinions. For most anything you do, they'll basically be the same.

When you start specializing, things change. Stuff that requires a lot of floating point calculations is better on the Athlons; stuff that requires more memory bandwidth (like video editing) is generally better on Intels.
 
Originally posted by chockomonkey
jesus... i'm still confused... which is better amd or intel?
Click to expand...

Depends on what you want to do. Since your obviously just starting out here and i guess your planning to buy a processor i would go with something from Intel because it will be easier to build and alot less compatibility issues to worry about.

As far as performance goes the A64 and Pentium 4 are pretty close in every area. The A64 is a little better gaming processor and does well in compression and office apps. The Pentium 4 is a better overclocker and performs better in encodeing, rendering, and multitasking.

Both are good gaming processors and the Pentium 4 is somewhat better overall in terms of performance because of its stronger leads in certain areas.

Prices are pretty much the same between A64's and relative speed Pentium 4's. Pentium 4's have better chipsets and more stable motherboards.

A64's are something new and interesting but have several areas especially with motherboards that need to be ironed out before they are a really good mainstream product.
 
CPU's have greatly diverged in how much performance is offered per mhz, and CPU's have even changed to the point where CPU's perform quite differently in some real world tasks while performing similiarly in others.

Which CPU is better totally depends on what you're doing with it. Others will let you in on the relative strengths and weaknesses of all of them.

For me personally, I evaluate a CPU based on gaming performance vs cost, including potential overclocks (because I always overclock). I also don't buy anything unstable, but this hasn't kept me away from a purchase since the original Slot-A Athlon.

This works out just fine for me, because gaming is my primary concern with a PC: other activities are secondary, and so long as my CPU is 'sufficient' in those other activities I'm happy.

This mentality has over the years led me to use a number of different types of both Intel and AMD cpu's, and I've always been happy with my purchases.

So that's how I would suggest comparing them. Decide what you want to do with your computer, then compare different CPU's at that are at the same price --including memory and motherboards, as sometimes those throw things off. Buy whichever one offers YOU more performance for your money.

Sites like hardocp, firingsquad and arstechnica really help for this sort of thing.

Erik
 
Originally posted by chockomonkey
Untill just about 10 minutes ago, i thought that when it comes to processors, the more the amount of GHz was all that mattered. Then, one of my friends says that that isn't all that matters, and i get to thinking... 'cause i was browsing at newegg and stuff just didn't add up. can someone explain to me about processors? I'm confused off my ass.
Click to expand...

What everyone saying is right. Intel likes to say megahertz (now gigahertz) is the only thing that matters. The fact is, the amount of calculations per second is really important. This is where AMD really has the advantage, and that is why they call their processors names that aren't their clock speed (eg. 2400+, as it can and will outperform any chip running at 2400 mhz). The amount of cache is also important, as cache is like RAM, only it is stored on the chip itself and can be accessed much quicker than normal RAM. Usually the more cache, the better. I hope this helps to clear the air.
 
Originally posted by burningrave101
Depends on what you want to do. Since your obviously just starting out here and i guess your planning to buy a processor i would go with something from Intel because it will be easier to build and alot less compatibility issues to worry about.

As far as performance goes the A64 and Pentium 4 are pretty close in every area. The A64 is a little better gaming processor and does well in compression and office apps. The Pentium 4 is a better overclocker and performs better in encodeing, rendering, and multitasking.

Both are good gaming processors and the Pentium 4 is somewhat better overall in terms of performance because of its stronger leads in certain areas.

Prices are pretty much the same between A64's and relative speed Pentium 4's. Pentium 4's have better chipsets and more stable motherboards.

A64's are something new and interesting but have several areas especially with motherboards that need to be ironed out before they are a really good mainstream product.
Click to expand...

P4 has better chipsets? Thats opinion.

P4 is much slower as a gaming processor. Rendering the A64 is faster & multitasking its about even. P4 encodes a bit faster.

A64 also supports 64 bit windows & will slay a P4 in a 64 bit os.
 
Woo hoo, AMD fanboy.

Considering that Windows 64-bit is not out yet, and there are no 64-bit apps out today either, can't really say anything about how a 64-bit AMD stacks up against 32-bit Intels in 64-bit apps. :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by ZigZagZeppelin
P4 is much slower as a gaming processor. Rendering the A64 is faster & multitasking its about even. P4 encodes a bit faster.
Click to expand...

Yes this comes down to calculations per second or operations per secong. The AMD is superior, only just, but as far as games go, it certianly wins over the P4.
 
Originally posted by BillLeeLee
Woo hoo, AMD fanboy.

Considering that Windows 64-bit is not out yet, and there are no 64-bit apps out today either, can't really say anything about how a 64-bit AMD stacks up against 32-bit Intels in 64-bit apps. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Anytime u wanna bench me let me know.....

64 bit Windows beta is out & my rig sure kix the crap outta any p4 rig its gone up against.

Fan boy my ass, Junior.
 
Originally posted by BillLeeLee
Woo hoo, AMD fanboy.

Considering that Windows 64-bit is not out yet, and there are no 64-bit apps out today either, can't really say anything about how a 64-bit AMD stacks up against 32-bit Intels in 64-bit apps. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

A64 destroys a p4 in a 32 bit os the disparity will be greater in a 64 bit environment.

No wonder u rig is poorly configured, u seem to lack common sense AND THE ABILITY TO GOOGLE SEARCH.
 
Okay, so you're running a 64-bit OS. How exactly is that A64 going to "slay a P4 in a 64-bit OS" when you're comparing a 64-bit proc to a 32-bit P4 which, by the way, doesn't run the 64-bit OS?

Christ, don't need to get all testy.
 
Originally posted by BillLeeLee
Okay, so you're running a 64-bit OS. How exactly is that A64 going to "slay a P4 in a 64-bit OS" when you're comparing a 64-bit proc to a 32-bit P4 which, by the way, doesn't run the 64-bit OS?

Christ, don't need to get all testy.
Click to expand...

Testy? Who called who a fan boy?

I'm not running the 64 bit beta version, btw. But it is available.

Ya got me on the 32 bit cpu not being able to run 64 bit Xp, lol. We all make mistakes.
:D

But don't label me as I don't bother with that stuff (labeling people).
 
Sorry, ZigZag.

I saw the line "will slay a P4 in a 64 bit os." and I just thought to myself "Can't really compare that, sounds like a fanboy." I don't like to label either.

Buddies? :D
 
Originally posted by BillLeeLee
Okay, so you're running a 64-bit OS. How exactly is that A64 going to "slay a P4 in a 64-bit OS" when you're comparing a 64-bit proc to a 32-bit P4 which, by the way, doesn't run the 64-bit OS?

Christ, don't need to get all testy.
Click to expand...


ok then, itd kick its ass in a 32 bit OS. happy?
 
Originally posted by BillLeeLee
Sorry, ZigZag.

I saw the line "will slay a P4 in a 64 bit os." and I just thought to myself "Can't really compare that, sounds like a fanboy." I don't like to label either.

Buddies? :D
Click to expand...

NP,dude
:)
 
Originally posted by ZigZagZeppelin
P4 has better chipsets? Thats opinion.

P4 is much slower as a gaming processor. Rendering the A64 is faster & multitasking its about even. P4 encodes a bit faster.

A64 also supports 64 bit windows & will slay a P4 in a 64 bit os.
Click to expand...

I see that this discussion has went from a halfway intellectual discussion to another idiotic flame war.

You obvisouly know nothing about chipsets. Why dont you go talk to an engineer and ask them which chipsets are more stable and compatible, AMD or Intel. Unless he's a total idiot he will say Intel. AMD doesn't even make their own chipsets. They have to have someone else do it. Yes i know AMD has a chipset but nobody uses it for the Athlon XP's or A64's. Via and nVidia are their primary chip makers. The A64 boards have some of the worst memory compatibility ever. They dont even want to run with over 1GB of RAM on alot of the boards and yet they house a processor designed to break the 4GB barrier lol.

How can you say the Pentium 4 is a much slower gaming processor? Do you have one? I seriously doubt it from your unsupported comments. The Pentium 4 is rarely behind more then 2-10 fps in most all games and several games they are tied and a few games like Comanche 4, Quake III, Jedi Knight 2 and others the Pentium 4 is even ahead. Considering that little of a difference in gaming, its hardly something to base your buying descision off of unless the only thing you do is game.

As far as rendering goes your full of it. The only applications whether the A64 does well is SINGLE threaded rendering programs and shading. And why do you ask? Because Hyper Threading does not work at all in a single threaded application. But thankfully most popular rendering programs like 3ds max, photoshop, adobe premier, and others are all multithreaded and the Pentium 4 performs much better.

Multitasking is not just about even ither. Hyper Threading gives the Pentim 4 the ability to perform 15-30% better than a single processor. SMP gives around 50% or more. The A64 is a single processor with no logical SMP abilities at all so it cannot possibly multitask as well as a processor with Hyper Threading unless you are only opening a very few single threaded programs at once.

That A64 in a 64-bit OS has already proven in benches out now that 32-bit games and alot of 32-bit applications run like crap. According to the current 64-bit benches on several sites like Anandtech, the Pentium 4 would kill the A64 in a 32-bit game if you were running that 64-bit OS.

A64 destroys a p4 in a 32 bit os the disparity will be greater in a 64 bit environment.
Click to expand...

The Pentium 4 dominates in encoding, rendering, multitasking, compiling and overall application usage. It always wins in PC Mark and most other application suites. And you can say those benches are optimized for the Pentium 4 but their not lol. They are optimized for SSE2 and the other instruction sets in which the A64 also has SSE2 so i can hardly see how the Pentium 4 would have some sort of "advantage" to optimizations.

Its true yes that the A64 is also good in rendering, compression, shading, compilation and overall application usage and noone said it wasn't. But the Pentium 4 is much stronger in these areas and wins the majority of the time.

And the only reason the A64 is ahead in gaming is because of its on-die memory controller. Now that Intel has announced to use an on-die memory controller in their upcoming processors and plans to also include 64-bit extensions i seriously doubt the gaming performance of the A64 will stay ahead much longer. Espeically since games and multimedia run best with deeper pipelines. If you dont believe me just look at the Pentium 4 and Athlon XP. The Pentium 4 OWNZ the Athlon XP and noone can dispute that other then an Athlon XP is cheaper and i'm getting ready to start building my Athlon XP backup rig just for that reason.

Prescott is ALREADY on 90 nano, and moving ahead to break the 4Ghz mark before the end of the year. AMD is pretty much done till towards the end of the year. The FX-53 and 3700+ will be their fastest processors out. AMD is going to try and move everything to socket 939 except the problem is they aren't expected to get out more then 10,000 of them on 130 nano and 90 nano wont be showing up till the end of the year. And since everyone likes to joke about how hot the Prescott is i suggest you stop and think that more then likely the A64 on 90 nano will be just about as hot especially since alot of the time Athlon processors run hotter then Pentium 4's. The smaller the die size shrinks the more transistor leakage there will be and that causes alot of heat. 130 nano was bad enough and 90 nano is going be worse and 65 nano will be horrible. Intel is already perfecting their process with ways to keep it cool. AMD's release date on their 90 nano chips keep getting pushed further back.

I'm not saying the A64 doesn't give the Pentium 4 a run for its money and there are alot of areas that favor the A64 and its low latency on-die controller but considering the Pentium 4 is old technology on older motherboards and the A64 is only stonger in gaming and menial office tasks, i wouldn't be getting to excited. Prescott will climb over 4Ghz and start nearing 5Ghz by early next year along with Teja rolling out by the end of this year and early next and once Prescott gets at higher frequency's its performance loss from a 31 stage pipeline will no longer be in effect.

Athlon XP was ahead of the Pentium 4 when it released. You guys were going on about it then just like you are the A64 now. Only problem is that once the Pentium 4 ramped up high enough to take advange off more pipelines the "more efficient" Athlon with fewer stages no longer competed with the Pentium 4 over 3Ghz.
 
not to start trouble or anything, but i recently visited the AMD forum and there are quite a few, "tell me how i can put it to the intel guy or kick their ass in a flame war" posts. ( I mean even 1 is too many). Can't we all just get a long.
 
Originally posted by chockomonkey
jesus... i'm still confused... which is better amd or intel?
Click to expand...
Tell us your budget and what you'll be using the computer for.
 
Originally posted by burningrave101
That A64 in a 64-bit OS has already proven in benches out now that 32-bit games and alot of 32-bit applications run like crap. According to the current 64-bit benches on several sites like Anandtech, the Pentium 4 would kill the A64 in a 32-bit game if you were running that 64-bit OS.
Click to expand...
Yes I remember the benches over at Anandtech on the 64 bit XP and the the A64 got violated, which will continue until the 64 bit drivers are as good as the 32 bit ones.
 
Tell us your budget and what you'll be using the computer for.
Click to expand...

My budget is... well, i don't know. i don't want to end up spending too much on just a processor... i mainly want to know what's out there so that i can make a good judgement as to what exactly i want... as of right now, i would say that my budget is somewhat nonexistant in that, if neccessary, i can put for a little extra money for a better part.

I'm not really into all that video editing, photoshop, and whatnot... my primary use is gaming i would suppose. Other than that, the usual computer stuff.. office type stuff... ya know.
 
Oh yeah...
Multitasking is not just about even ither. Hyper Threading gives the Pentim 4 the ability to perform 15-30% better than a single processor. SMP gives around 50% or more. The A64 is a single processor with no logical SMP abilities at all so it cannot possibly multitask as well as a processor with Hyper Threading unless you are only opening a very few single threaded programs at once.
Click to expand...
what exactly is this threading stuff? Hyperthreading, singlethreading... the different prgrams that use different threading...?
 
Originally posted by chockomonkey
Oh yeah...

what exactly is this threading stuff? Hyperthreading, singlethreading... the different prgrams that use different threading...?
Click to expand...

With Hyper Threading enabled, a Pentium 4 is able to act like there are two processors when there is actually only one. One physical plus one logical. This isn't as good as actually having dual processors though. But it gives a good 15-30% boost most of the time. Hyper Threading really only works if the applications is multithreaded. Mulithreaded means the application was coded to take advantage of having two processors like in a server or workstation.

You can see the performance difference between Hyper Threading enabled and disabled on a Northwood and Prescott core here:

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040201/prescott-25.html
 
Okay okay let's answer his question!

An excellent CPU and an ubelievable price right now is the P4 2.4C which is saw for $173 at newegg.com yesterday. if its your first computer, i'd recommend P4 since its harder to destroy on accident (my friend cracked and amd cpu trying to build a computer). AMDs are great processors as well, but can be a little more of a headache with heat issues, instability, and some other random problems that i've noticed with every amd system i've ever built or dealt with. not flaming amd, but just saying that P4 is better suited for somebody who is learning. also, P4 is good to practice overclocking since it's less likely to overheat than an AMD processor, and the clock speed can scale a lot higher.

So P4 gets my vote.

good luck.
 
Then, is having dual processors worth getting? and does it cost much more than just the price of 2 processors?
 
Nowadays I would have to say core strength (physical strength, ie, how hard is is to break the core) is the only real strength the P4 has over athlons. For software it's really just a matter of what programs you run. Some are faster on one, some on the other.

Hardware compatibility/instability issues have in my experience went away with the original Athlon.

Mind you, ANY computer can be unstable if you build it with low quality parts, like cheap ass motherboards.

This is from someone who builds, uses, and services Intel and AMD based systems regularly.

Erik
 
Originally posted by chockomonkey
Then, is having dual processors worth getting? and does it cost much more than just the price of 2 processors?
Click to expand...

No. I somewhat doubt your doing anything to need dual processors and it would be very expensive. You would have to get the real expensive ones because a single high end Pentium 4 would outperform two Opteron 240's. You would have to get like 246 or 248's to have a really killer dual processor rig. Xeons are expensive also.

I would just get a 2.8c or 3.0c Pentium 4 and overclock it. They are easy to overclock and will make for good practice.

Although if your on a strict budget i would go with the Athlon XP cause you'll be able to save at least a $100-$150 that way but it wont be quite as fast as a Pentium 4.
 
omg... there are so many different opinions are this stuff... when i first posted this thread, i was convinced that i would get an a64... then more people wrote in the contrary, and i figured i would get a p4... and now, jesus... i don't know one way or the other again...
 
Originally posted by chockomonkey
omg... there are so many different opinions are this stuff... when i first posted this thread, i was convinced that i would get an a64... then more people wrote in the contrary, and i figured i would get a p4... and now, jesus... i don't know one way or the other again...
Click to expand...

I already wrote the really simple solution to this:

-Decide what software you like running
-Find a website that compares the different CPU's when running this software
-Buy the one that has the best performance for price.

Erik
 
Originally posted by Dem
I already wrote the really simple solution to this:

-Decide what software you like running
-Find a website that compares the different CPU's when running this software
-Buy the one that has the best performance for price.

Erik
Click to expand...

Yea thats about the only way your going to get the best processor for what you wanna do chockomonkey. Just remember you need to factor in other things besides just benchmarks because benchmarks are only about 50% of it. You have to take into consideration which will be the easiest for you to put togethor as a beginner. You have to consider which will overclock best if your an overclocker or which will overclock the easiest if your trying to start out. And with motherboards especially you have to find the one that has all the features you want and doesn't have alot of memory compatibility issues and other things of that nature.

People will tell you which is the best overall and you'll have to look at their reasons for thinking that and decide for yourself.
 
Originally posted by bjornb17
Okay okay let's answer his question!

An excellent CPU and an ubelievable price right now is the P4 2.4C which is saw for $173 at newegg.com yesterday. if its your first computer, i'd recommend P4 since its harder to destroy on accident (my friend cracked and amd cpu trying to build a computer). AMDs are great processors as well, but can be a little more of a headache with heat issues, instability, and some other random problems that i've noticed with every amd system i've ever built or dealt with. not flaming amd, but just saying that P4 is better suited for somebody who is learning. also, P4 is good to practice overclocking since it's less likely to overheat than an AMD processor, and the clock speed can scale a lot higher.

So P4 gets my vote.

good luck.
Click to expand...

Keep current. A64 blows away the P4. Faster & runs cooler.

Has a heatspreader that is indestructible.
 
Originally posted by burningrave101
I see that this discussion has went from a halfway intellectual discussion to another idiotic flame war.

You obvisouly know nothing about chipsets. Why dont you go talk to an engineer and ask them which chipsets are more stable and compatible, AMD or Intel. Unless he's a total idiot he will say Intel. AMD doesn't even make their own chipsets. They have to have someone else do it. Yes i know AMD has a chipset but nobody uses it for the Athlon XP's or A64's. Via and nVidia are their primary chip makers. The A64 boards have some of the worst memory compatibility ever. They dont even want to run with over 1GB of RAM on alot of the boards and yet they house a processor designed to break the 4GB barrier lol.

How can you say the Pentium 4 is a much slower gaming processor? Do you have one? I seriously doubt it from your unsupported comments. The Pentium 4 is rarely behind more then 2-10 fps in most all games and several games they are tied and a few games like Comanche 4, Quake III, Jedi Knight 2 and others the Pentium 4 is even ahead. Considering that little of a difference in gaming, its hardly something to base your buying descision off of unless the only thing you do is game.

As far as rendering goes your full of it. The only applications whether the A64 does well is SINGLE threaded rendering programs and shading. And why do you ask? Because Hyper Threading does not work at all in a single threaded application. But thankfully most popular rendering programs like 3ds max, photoshop, adobe premier, and others are all multithreaded and the Pentium 4 performs much better.

Multitasking is not just about even ither. Hyper Threading gives the Pentim 4 the ability to perform 15-30% better than a single processor. SMP gives around 50% or more. The A64 is a single processor with no logical SMP abilities at all so it cannot possibly multitask as well as a processor with Hyper Threading unless you are only opening a very few single threaded programs at once.

That A64 in a 64-bit OS has already proven in benches out now that 32-bit games and alot of 32-bit applications run like crap. According to the current 64-bit benches on several sites like Anandtech, the Pentium 4 would kill the A64 in a 32-bit game if you were running that 64-bit OS.



The Pentium 4 dominates in encoding, rendering, multitasking, compiling and overall application usage. It always wins in PC Mark and most other application suites. And you can say those benches are optimized for the Pentium 4 but their not lol. They are optimized for SSE2 and the other instruction sets in which the A64 also has SSE2 so i can hardly see how the Pentium 4 would have some sort of "advantage" to optimizations.

Its true yes that the A64 is also good in rendering, compression, shading, compilation and overall application usage and noone said it wasn't. But the Pentium 4 is much stronger in these areas and wins the majority of the time.

And the only reason the A64 is ahead in gaming is because of its on-die memory controller. Now that Intel has announced to use an on-die memory controller in their upcoming processors and plans to also include 64-bit extensions i seriously doubt the gaming performance of the A64 will stay ahead much longer. Espeically since games and multimedia run best with deeper pipelines. If you dont believe me just look at the Pentium 4 and Athlon XP. The Pentium 4 OWNZ the Athlon XP and noone can dispute that other then an Athlon XP is cheaper and i'm getting ready to start building my Athlon XP backup rig just for that reason.

Prescott is ALREADY on 90 nano, and moving ahead to break the 4Ghz mark before the end of the year. AMD is pretty much done till towards the end of the year. The FX-53 and 3700+ will be their fastest processors out. AMD is going to try and move everything to socket 939 except the problem is they aren't expected to get out more then 10,000 of them on 130 nano and 90 nano wont be showing up till the end of the year. And since everyone likes to joke about how hot the Prescott is i suggest you stop and think that more then likely the A64 on 90 nano will be just about as hot especially since alot of the time Athlon processors run hotter then Pentium 4's. The smaller the die size shrinks the more transistor leakage there will be and that causes alot of heat. 130 nano was bad enough and 90 nano is going be worse and 65 nano will be horrible. Intel is already perfecting their process with ways to keep it cool. AMD's release date on their 90 nano chips keep getting pushed further back.

I'm not saying the A64 doesn't give the Pentium 4 a run for its money and there are alot of areas that favor the A64 and its low latency on-die controller but considering the Pentium 4 is old technology on older motherboards and the A64 is only stonger in gaming and menial office tasks, i wouldn't be getting to excited. Prescott will climb over 4Ghz and start nearing 5Ghz by early next year along with Teja rolling out by the end of this year and early next and once Prescott gets at higher frequency's its performance loss from a 31 stage pipeline will no longer be in effect.

Athlon XP was ahead of the Pentium 4 when it released. You guys were going on about it then just like you are the A64 now. Only problem is that once the Pentium 4 ramped up high enough to take advange off more pipelines the "more efficient" Athlon with fewer stages no longer competed with the Pentium 4 over 3Ghz.
Click to expand...

Dream the fuck on, knob (knob, noob)



http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1946&p=4


http://www.ananhttp://www.anandtech...1946&p=5dtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1946&p=5


http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1946&p=6


A 3.2 EE beats an A64 3400+ in TWO of about TWENTY benchmarks. They are $900 & lose 18 of 20 benchmarks.

Please, are u completely mad?


:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top