Which would you all rather have? AMD 64 3200+ or P4 2.8OC?

J

jdub12

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 23, 2003
Messages
250
Trying to decide on which to buy, a AMD 64 3200 or P4 2.8 OC'd to a reasonable speed. Anyone care to share their experiences or decisions? Thanks!
 
I would get the athlon, because its comparable speed anyway, and it may also end up being very good that you have the 64bit capability in the future.
 
For gaming, I think an Athlon64 would be the best choice. For anything else, it's depends on how high you can OC that P4
 
doesnt the OC'd 2.8 outdo the 64 in a lot of gaming benchmarks? Maybe im wrong but, im thinking that i might go with the athlon as well. Is the Athlon 64's easy to overclock as the P4's or do I have to do something special with the pins or what not.
 
Athlon 64's really don't overclock at all. Maybe 100mhz or so but that's it, so you'll really only have stock performance with it. I would think if you could get a 2.8 to 3.4 ghz, I'm sure it would be faster than the A64. The A64 3200+ is faster than the 3.2 P4, but not a whole lot more, so I think 3.4ghz would be atleast as fast if not faster.

I don't think the lure of 64bits should be a buying decision, since it will probobly be 2 years before the benefits of 64 bit computer will really start to appear. Plus if you go with the P4 you get hyperthreading which does make a significant difference when multi-tasking and such.

Although if I were you, I'd wait a couple of weeks for prescott to come out to see if the 2.8 model will be faster than the 2.8c.
 
Originally posted by EarthwormJim
Athlon 64's really don't overclock at all. Maybe 100mhz or so but that's it, so you'll really only have stock performance with it. I would think if you could get a 2.8 to 3.4 ghz, I'm sure it would be faster than the A64. The A64 3200+ is faster than the 3.2 P4, but not a whole lot more, so I think 3.4ghz would be atleast as fast if not faster.

I don't think the lure of 64bits should be a buying decision, since it will probobly be 2 years before the benefits of 64 bit computer will really start to appear. Plus if you go with the P4 you get hyperthreading which does make a significant difference when multi-tasking and such.

Although if I were you, I'd wait a couple of weeks for prescott to come out to see if the 2.8 model will be faster than the 2.8c.
Click to expand...
A64's don't O/C much - this is true. But I would bet you that it soundly beats a P4 at the same PR (3400+ vs. 3.4GHz) in any gaming benchmark.

With respect to the question of the usefullness of 64bit computing: Windows-64 should be available with sufficient drivers around Q3 2004. If that isn't soon enough for you, the extra 15ish percent general speed boost that 64bit processing will provide is available now in the 2.6 kernel of a linux dual-boot system.
 
Originally posted by EarthwormJim
Athlon 64's really don't overclock at all. Maybe 100mhz or so but that's it, so you'll really only have stock performance with it. I would think if you could get a 2.8 to 3.4 ghz, I'm sure it would be faster than the A64. The A64 3200+ is faster than the 3.2 P4, but not a whole lot more, so I think 3.4ghz would be atleast as fast if not faster.

I don't think the lure of 64bits should be a buying decision, since it will probobly be 2 years before the benefits of 64 bit computer will really start to appear. Plus if you go with the P4 you get hyperthreading which does make a significant difference when multi-tasking and such.

Although if I were you, I'd wait a couple of weeks for prescott to come out to see if the 2.8 model will be faster than the 2.8c.
Click to expand...

I was over at xtreme systems forum and lots of people there are getting 2400+ mhz out of their A64s on 1.65 vcore andwith stock cooling or just air. Could just be luck of the draw though. Also i would suggest waiting for the prescotts to come out too cause then you would have a few more options and can make the best decision.
 
If you look at most benchmarks, you'll see the Athlon 64 3200+ clearly beats the 2.8C and 3.2C in most gaming benchmarks, even close to, and sometimes better than the extreme edition. The 2.8C is good, however, with anything that has to do with encoding (such as Divx's). Not that the 64 is bad, probably because of the attempted monopoly that Intel is trying to achieve by optimizing most programs for Pentiums. Anyways, it is obvious that at stock speeds the 64 is better, and even if a 2.8C were to be overclocked, you would need a damn good overclock (one that would involve a heavier solution than just the stock heatsink) to beat it. Another thing to consider is cost of ram. In order to achieve an excellent overclock with a 2.8C (to achieve something like a 3.6) you would need ram rated at least PC3700 and above. This definitely costs more than PC3200, the ram you would need for a good enough 64 system. Lastly, we all know the best boards for Intel cost a lot (that being the 875P motherboards or 865's). But most people, who plan to overclock will purchase the 875 (my personal favorite being the Abit Max3's) which would cost anywhere from 130 dollars and up. Not only would you need this motherboard, but you would need 2 modules of Ram in order to take advantage of the dual channel. With the 64, however, you can get an nforce 3 chipset, or VIA chipset for as little as 89 dollars (I know the Leadtek is 89.99 at Newegg) and you wouldn't need dual channel memory. I do have both processors and systems, and I must say the 64 is quite impressive, easily comparable to my 2.4C overclocked to 3.6 on my 875P.

All in all, I spent about 200 dollars more on the pentium system than I did on the 64, and both have the same components.
 
What an informative and well thought-out first post. Good job, and welcome to the [H]!
 
I have always wondered why people still get Pentium CPU:s.

They are still as overpriced as ever and still don´t give the same performance especially in games.

How can Intel charge 2-3 times more for their CPU:s than AMD??
 
Since when has AMD ever outperformed Intel in gaming?
OK, the uber super cooled ORB atm is an FX51 #1 but realistically, an aircooled, moderately overclocked system (majority of the enthusiast community do not phase change :p ) the Intel will give you better performance.

Socket 754 is not going to offer you a great regrade path for the future, whereas most 865/875 boards will at least support prescott etc., so when you get bored of that single channel 3200+ and try to squeeze a few hundred extra MHz out of it, dont be too disappointed, because they aint overclocking well.

At the end of the day, your wallet will decide :)
 
Originally posted by oqvist
I have always wondered why people still get Pentium CPU:s.

They are still as overpriced as ever and still don´t give the same performance especially in games.

How can Intel charge 2-3 times more for their CPU:s than AMD??
Click to expand...

newegg.com

A64 3000+ = $227
A64 3200+ = $270
P4 3.0c = $261

Show me where the hell you see this "2-3 times more" bullshit...
:rolleyes:
 
I'm in this same delemma. Cost is about the same on either, so thats not too much an issue.

I strongly believe that 64bit won't be fully supported for several years. XP64 may be coming out, but who cares about Windows support when it's really the application support that'd make the biggest difference in performance? There used to be different versions of some professional programs made specifically to be run on Alphas, as well as versions of NT that were coded for Alphas. They did kick ass, but they were all specifically coded, and was the best of the time - so companies sprung for them very often to get things done more quickly even with the extra/higher costs. Nowadays the speeds perform so near one another, they're hard to tell apart. My pIII 866 at work here performs like I would expect a 2.0ghz system to perform.

The A64, there is a lot of talk of a socket switch coming soon, as well as a new PCI standard, and I think a few other things. So why buy that now when you will be not only out of date in 2 months, but you won't be able to upgrade that system much further? I suppose the same can be said for the p4's, but AFAIK the prescott's are using the same socket, which'd leave a little more room for ability to upgrade.

Personally, I think it really depends on what you're going to use the system for. I use mine to work (Solidworks) and will more then likely pick up a few games for it -- but I'm a casual gamer, not a serious one. For me, professional applications like I use would appear to run better on pentium systems rather then athlon ones, perhaps it's just traditional thinking, though.

My biggest problem with making up my mind is that I can't find benchmarks or comparisons between what -I- want to see. I want to see a comparison that runs processors (all $150-400 processors out now... 2.8-3.4 or equivalents, plus opterons) in both gaming and professional applications. I also want to see this when it comes to GeForce4 cards -- the only professional testing on video cards I see are ridiculously expensive OpenGL cards like the Quadro and FireGL.


Anyway, pardon the tangent, but at this point the system I am looking at is a p4 3.0c OC'd reasonably, 1gb of ram, and a GeForce 5900 non-ultra. Cooling for the processor will be done by a Zalman all copper cooler, and the rest will remain standard cooling. A simple but very effective setup, and I don't think I'll regret going with a p4 at all.
 
Originally posted by plur
Since when has AMD ever outperformed Intel in gaming?
OK, the uber super cooled ORB atm is an FX51 #1 but realistically, an aircooled, moderately overclocked system (majority of the enthusiast community do not phase change :p ) the Intel will give you better performance.

Socket 754 is not going to offer you a great regrade path for the future, whereas most 865/875 boards will at least support prescott etc., so when you get bored of that single channel 3200+ and try to squeeze a few hundred extra MHz out of it, dont be too disappointed, because they aint overclocking well.

At the end of the day, your wallet will decide :)
Click to expand...
The upgrade path is the only thing about this platform that does bother me. That's why _I'm_ waiting for 939pin FX CPUs to come out and level off at a reasonable price. I still think that an A64 would take a p4 at the same PR (3.2GHz vs. 3200+) in most gaming benchmarks. While the p4 platform may have dual-channel memory, the A64 has an onboard memory controller - this pretty much negates any difference in speed that the p4 got from having dual channel...
 
Originally posted by Big Worm
newegg.com

A64 3000+ = $227
A64 3200+ = $270
P4 3.0c = $261

Show me where the hell you see this "2-3 times more" bullshit...
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Eeeh A64 next gen

P 4 3.0c old gen???

How about P 4 3.0c against 3000+ or even 3200+?
 
Originally posted by dewhite
The upgrade path is the only thing about this platform that does bother me. That's why _I'm_ waiting for 939pin FX CPUs to come out and level off at a reasonable price. I still think that an A64 would take a p4 at the same PR (3.2GHz vs. 3200+) in most gaming benchmarks. While the p4 platform may have dual-channel memory, the A64 has an onboard memory controller - this pretty much negates any difference in speed that the p4 got from having dual channel...
Click to expand...

Since the Barton arrived... :rolleyes: And with the Thunderbirds as well.
 
Originally posted by Big Worm
Insufficient data to complete request:p
Click to expand...

Upgrade to an AMD CPU and complete the request lol :D

No anyway I don´t say Intel do bad CPU:s they are just so god damn overpriced.

Not only high end but budget too.

Take the P 4 2.4c and the 2500+. Both are really good overclockers and perform very much the same both overclocked and not overclocked. But the P 4 2.4c is still priced twice as high.
 
Originally posted by plur
Since when has AMD ever outperformed Intel in gaming?
OK, the uber super cooled ORB atm is an FX51 #1 but realistically, an aircooled, moderately overclocked system (majority of the enthusiast community do not phase change :p ) the Intel will give you better performance.

Socket 754 is not going to offer you a great regrade path for the future, whereas most 865/875 boards will at least support prescott etc., so when you get bored of that single channel 3200+ and try to squeeze a few hundred extra MHz out of it, dont be too disappointed, because they aint overclocking well.

At the end of the day, your wallet will decide :)
Click to expand...

Prescott is debuting on the socket 478 boards but it won't be there for long (unless there are even more problems with the new Intel chipset pushing its released even farther back). It's not what it was desinged for. It was supposed to debut with a new chipset also. But neither of those things have happened as yet. Soon socket 478 will be dead. And it will be dead long before socket 754 for the A64. If I remember correctly, it should have about another year of use yet.
 
Originally posted by SmokeRngs
Prescott is debuting on the socket 478 boards but it won't be there for long (unless there are even more problems with the new Intel chipset pushing its released even farther back). It's not what it was desinged for. It was supposed to debut with a new chipset also. But neither of those things have happened as yet. Soon socket 478 will be dead. And it will be dead long before socket 754 for the A64. If I remember correctly, it should have about another year of use yet.
Click to expand...

But it will take a long time until Prescott arrives. I have heard Trejas will be out before Prescott?
 
Originally posted by Big Worm
newegg.com

A64 3000+ = $227
A64 3200+ = $270
P4 3.0c = $261

Show me where the hell you see this "2-3 times more" bullshit...
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

well considering you will need a P43.2c EE to match the preformence of a Althlon64 3200+.

the 3.2EE will run you upwards of $850 if im correct...
 
Originally posted by I(illa Bee
well considering you will need a P43.2c EE to match the preformence of a Althlon64 3200+.

the 3.2EE will run you upwards of $850 if im correct...
Click to expand...

Nah, you dont.

Unless you run them at stock speeds.. but thats pretty {s}oft.
 
If you do a shitload of video/audio encoding then grab a P4. For everything else, grab the Athon 64. If you're a part time dabbler in video/audio encoding (like myself) then grab the Athlon 64. Socket 754 will be around for atleast another year and will probably handle atleast a 4000+ processor.

For people who say the Athlon 64 doesn't overclock well, you obviously haven't been reading about the new stepping (CAAOC). People are reporting 500mhz overclocks with stock coolers and as little as 1.7volts.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=27906&highlight=caaoc

Like any other chip, it takes a few months/1 year to mature.
 
Originally posted by oqvist

How can Intel charge 2-3 times more for their CPU:s than AMD??
Click to expand...

Because people still buy them. If AMD charged Intel prices for their AXP line, nobody would buy them, in fact, probably if AMD charged any bit higher than what they are at now for Xp's people still wouldnt buy them
 
Originally posted by freeloader1969
If you do a shitload of video/audio encoding then grab a P4. For everything else, grab the Athon 64. If you're a part time dabbler in video/audio encoding (like myself) then grab the Athlon 64. Socket 754 will be around for atleast another year and will probably handle atleast a 4000+ processor.

For people who say the Athlon 64 doesn't overclock well, you obviously haven't been reading about the new stepping (CAAOC). People are reporting 500mhz overclocks with stock coolers and as little as 1.7volts.

http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=27906&highlight=caaoc

Like any other chip, it takes a few months/1 year to mature.
Click to expand...

People report all different speeds. People have reported over 1Ghz overclocks on the Pentium 4's on air but that doesn't mean everyone gets them. The average overclock for an A64 is only 200Mhz.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=1947

The AMD roadmap shows the 3700+ as being the last A64 on the 754 socket. The 4000+ on socket 754 is only a rumor. They will then switch production to the 939 socket and keep the 754 socket for their new budget Athlon XP 32bit processors.

A Pentium 4 @ 3.2Ghz will beat an Athlon XP 3200 in around 60% or more of the benchmarks.

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/2004q1/athlon64-3000/index.x?pg=1

The only area the A64's hold the lead is in gaming. And if you just want the best gaming processor then its the A64. But even in gaming the difference is only a few points. Nothing substantiated.

3.6Ghz is pretty common for high end Pentium 4's and at that speed they will compete with any A64 @ 2.4Ghz.

I would not invest in an A64 until 939 socket. Right now the Northwoods are still the best overall processors IMO cause of their extreme overclockability with ease.
 
People report all different speeds. People have reported over 1Ghz overclocks on the Pentium 4's on air but that doesn't mean everyone gets them. The average overclock for an A64 is only 200Mhz.

True

The AMD roadmap shows the 3700+ as being the last A64 on the 754 socket. The 4000+ on socket 754 is only a rumor. They will then switch production to the 939 socket and keep the 754 socket for their new budget Athlon XP 32bit processors.

Roadmaps don't mean jackshit in this business, but that stuff is probably mostly true.

A Pentium 4 @ 3.2Ghz will beat an Athlon XP 3200 in around 60% or more of the benchmarks.

I think you are having trouble remembering what the point is here. Nobody is contesting that the 3.2GHz P4 will spank the XP3200+ once you factor in overclocking. This is a thread about an A64 vs. a lower stock-clocked P4. I assure you that an A64 3200+ will spank a 2.8GHz P4 at stock clocks. Now you wanna make a bunch of noise about overclocking the P4 while expecting us to just sorta forget about using the A64 in any 64bit capacity.

The only area the A64's hold the lead is in gaming. And if you just want the best gaming processor then its the A64. But even in gaming the difference is only a few points. Nothing substantiated.

If he wants to be the newshit on the block in the gaming arena he's gonna want the A64. If he is into transcoding/number crunching then he could choose to look into Linux for AMD64 and really beat the crap out of a P4 running windows.

3.6Ghz is pretty common for high end Pentium 4's and at that speed they will compete with any A64 @ 2.4Ghz.

I'll again grant you that it would be a pretty well-split decision in 32bit mode. Which begs the question: Why not explore that 10-30 percent boost you're going to get when 64bit processing goes mainstream? (again you can utilize the 64bit advantage now, at your discretion by using linux, or wait for windows-64 after this summer.)

I would not invest in an A64 until 939 socket. Right now the Northwoods are still the best overall processors IMO cause of their extreme overclockability with ease.

Indeed I also would not invest right now either. I am excited as hell about what the 939pin Athlon will be capable of, and I'm holding fast with my 2500+ o/c-ed to usability. But, if you can't wait, the A64 will certainly go a long way towards remaining a viable platform for longer than the current P4 line. Maybe he can wait for the price drops that will come with prescott and tables will be turned somewhat.

All I'm saying, is that you're dogging on a platform for not having a future, while at the same time recommending a platform who's future is now. The P4 is standing in the exit door waving goodbye at us...
 
Originally posted by dewhite
Gotta go with the A64, especially if you do any kinda 3d/heavy math...
Click to expand...

I hope you mean at the stock levels....othewise I see the BS from the AMD crowd is about the same everywhere....

I have a [email protected] with not outstanding 390ddr with a 3:2 ratio yet I have tested it versus 2 different A64 3000+ systems...one was oc'd to 2.2ghz and another one was oc'd to 2.3ghz....

You have about as good a chance of getting a 2.8c to 3.5 as a 3000+ A64 to 2.3ghz


I beat them in

SETI bench WU (using HT and 2 instances) I completed 1 WU with one instance in 2 hours 7 minutes why the best above was 2 hours 4 minutes....OK then I go 2 instance and I finish that in 2 hours and 59 minutes why the A64 took twice as long as its 1 wu for a total of 4 hours plus....

Same numbers are being seen in FH as well...So lets not spread this lie....


I agree scioencemark says A64 is better but in real world number crunching of distributed computing a P4 can be king with the power of the HT.....


POV-Ray and Cinebench CAD rendering software for raytracing...Ht can be enabled on the POV-Ray with a simple 8 character command and saves me 3 minutes and 37 seconds on the benchmark test at POV-Ray's website.....


Then lets talk HT in multitasking.....Boy this is a different world. Until you AMD ppl experience it you wont understand it and the performance it adds....It is like having a corvette and trading it in for a Z28 for you and a Honda accord for the wife.....


I can get FH work units done with the speed of a 2.4ghz P4 still why achieving my main application with the speeds I get at 2.8-3.0ghz P4...it is amazing and I have several test to post numbers if ppl have a site I can link them too.....

Check out my HT thread at www.anandtech.com's cpu forum and you will see the advantages....





I say to the user...gaming??? get the AMD....office apps??? P4 oc'd can be as fast you pickem.....Encoding??? No ocing P4, Ocing P4.....Rendering??? P4 if ocing and maybe if you use HT enabled applications.....Distributed computing....price is similar go with the P4 and run HT and 2 instances, more WU's will get done....
 
I'll admit I didn't give much consideration to HT. I suppose it comes down to what you wanna do with your system...
 
Just patiently waiting for a 64 bit version of Windows to be released. That should even things up in the multitasking area. If you believe there's a perceived problem.

As for comparing your SETI units, did you test the same work unit on both processors?

Also, I don't quite understand the fuss about HT and multitasking. My system runs several programs at once, with good speed and no slow down that I'm aware of. For example, I'm encoding a video in the background with Adobe Premiere Pro right now, SETI is running and I'm typing this of course. Granted I haven't used a P4 much, but what more could you expect from any computer, be it Intel or AMD?
 
A64...i am so pissed ppl still think a64 oc like shit... on amdforums.com alot of ppl are hitting 2.3-2.5 EASY with STOCK freaking cooling... a A64@ 2.4-2.5 will kill ANY p4 unless it's on a prommy or on mpeg/divx.... i hate how intel is STILL overpricing and getting money...i mean cmon people, time to wake up, AMD rules now :)
 
I'm really impressed with how well this thread is going; many Intel and AMD fans are no doubt holding their tongues. I haven't seen such constructive debates on many other forums.
 
Originally posted by Ugly_Jim
I'm really impressed with how well this thread is going; many Intel and AMD fans are no doubt holding their tongues. I haven't seen such constructive debates on many other forums.
Click to expand...
I think that's because it's such a good question...
 
Thanks, and I thought I was gonna get flame city here, but I just wanted some honest opinions about what people thought to help my decision. Either way, thanks for all the inputs fellas.
 
Originally posted by boardsportsrule
A64...i am so pissed ppl still think a64 oc like shit... on amdforums.com alot of ppl are hitting 2.3-2.5 EASY with STOCK freaking cooling... a A64@ 2.4-2.5 will kill ANY p4 unless it's on a prommy or on mpeg/divx.... i hate how intel is STILL overpricing and getting money...i mean cmon people, time to wake up, AMD rules now :)
Click to expand...

not true, an a64 at 2.4-2.5 will get spanked by a 3.8ghz p4 (no prommie needed). A 3.6 p4 would match it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top