[AMD 64 3200+ VS. P4 HT (640) 3.2Ghz 2mb Cache] -
AMD 64 3200+ VS. P4 HT (640) 3.2Ghz 2mb Cache
Discuss AMD 64 3200+ VS. P4 HT (640) 3.2Ghz 2mb Cache
Posted by: Rixx
hi all,
I'm planning to buy a new system based on one of the two processors:
- AMD Athlon 64 3200+
- Pentium 4 (new 640) 3.2Ghz 2mb Cache with HT
Im choosing only one of these processors due to budget. However, I have no idea which one to go for! I want to use the PC for Gaming and Video rendering and Web authoring. Ive heard all sorts of things and have looked at a few reviews, however would really appreciate any opinions people could give me.
Thanks in advance,
RickyS
Posted by: PZEROFGH
i would go with the 3200 for gaming...for video rendering...??..i really dont know.. but the athlons are better for gaming
Posted by: DJ-CHRIS
Okay for most tasks, these processors are pretty even in peformance.
However AMD has a large advantage in gaming, Intel has a large advantage
Try to read some benchmarks. Personally I would go for the AMD as both will be able to handle rendering, and I do alot of gaming.
Posted by: timmer
yea it depends on what your doing. playing 1 or 2 games go intel. playing a lot more games go amd.
Posted by: timmer
yea it depends on what your doing. playing 1 or 2 games go intel. playing a lot more games go amd.
i pearsonaly like intel and thats a nice 64 bit one so go intel
Posted by: madmunki
The AMD 3200 is like a 2.4ghz, and is much slower then the P4 3.2ghz.
I would stay away from AMD, cause there is so many problems with AMD and gaming, like look at the World of Warcraft support forum, the number one issue (error 131) only happens with AMD processors.
Most gaming companies develope games on Intel systems, and are only tested with AMD. I would rather have a CPU that games were written for, not ported to.
Posted by: truebe
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by madmunki [/i]
[B]The AMD 3200 is like a 2.4ghz, and is much slower then the P4 3.2ghz.
I would stay away from AMD, cause there is so many problems with AMD and gaming, like look at the World of Warcraft support forum, the number one issue (error 131) only happens with AMD processors.
Most gaming companies develope games on Intel systems, and are only tested with AMD. I would rather have a CPU that games were written for, not ported to. [/B][/QUOTE]
What are you talking about? AMD beats Intel for gaming no problem. Yes, The AMD mgiht be 2.4ghz but you obviously dont know much about amd becasue that doesnt matter, the architecture is different, thats why its called the 3200+, because it matches the p4 3.2ghz and exceeds it in gaming.
Posted by: vaderpro
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by madmunki [/i]
[B]The AMD 3200 is like a 2.4ghz, and is much slower then the P4 3.2ghz.
I would stay away from AMD, cause there is so many problems with AMD and gaming, like look at the World of Warcraft support forum, the number one issue (error 131) only happens with AMD processors.
Most gaming companies develope games on Intel systems, and are only tested with AMD. I would rather have a CPU that games were written for, not ported to. [/B][/QUOTE]
This will get you into trouble. Dont look at the clock speeds differences. The 3200 venice is comparable to 3.2ghz prescott. Personally i would go with the P4, but Amds are better for gaming. You will be happy with either one so you will have to choose yourself...
Posted by: grego
Heh, you guys are funny. The socket 939 3200+ runs at 2.0ghz, not 2.4. Comparing Intel clocks to AMD clocks is a retarded act to say the least.
If I were you I'd go with the AMD 3200+ and get a venice core. It is a very good core all around, and solid for overclocking. I have mine overclocked to 2.45ghz, making it roughly equal to a 4.2ghz pentium 4 if I remember correctly.
The 3200+ already has an edge in games, and if you OC it even a little bit it will probablyl gain the edge in applications, too. Plus, its probably cheaper at $190, but I could be wrong about that.
Posted by: vaderpro
Ya its $100 cheaper...
Posted by: grego
If it's $100 cheaper I'd say its a no brainer then.
Posted by: mikeaaronc
Im building a new rig also and if you can afford it jump up to the Athlon 3500+ its not much more expensive and youll get quite a performance boost.. stay with the 939 chipset architecture the price difference between those is even less of a difference. The Venice is a great processor like mentioned before. Nforce3 boards are way cheap right now and can run an amd fx processor if you wanted to upgrade later on. I dont see any reason to go nforce4 yet unless you need a pci-e slot and HAVE to have SATA hard drives. Ive heard the dfi lanparty boards are pretty good. That might be an option to think about also. Well amd is 64bit and it doesnt really mean jack right now but later on down the road.... 64 bit windows will take off. The new windows OS longhorn I think its called is 64 bit. Its supposed to be a huge upgrade from xp. Im not 100 percent sure on this Im just going from what I heard.
Posted by: uzi9mm
If your going to buy the P4 640, just spend the extra $10 for a pentium D dual core @ 2.8ghz each. They also support 64-bit technology.
Posted by: SHAWN
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by madmunki [/i]
[B]The AMD 3200 is like a 2.4ghz, and is much slower then the P4 3.2ghz.
I would stay away from AMD, cause there is so many problems with AMD and gaming, like look at the World of Warcraft support forum, the number one issue (error 131) only happens with AMD processors.
Most gaming companies develope games on Intel systems, and are only tested with AMD. I would rather have a CPU that games were written for, not ported to. [/B][/QUOTE]
This is coming from a person who owns a Dell :p. Its ok guys!
Posted by: dhw200
This is so gonna get a lock
Posted by: Megadeth2
I would take the AMD Athlon 64 3200+ over the P4 any day. That P4 is as good as the 540 with the 1MB cache, going from 1MB to 2MB is like going from 1GB to 2GB, it hurts performance or gives minimal increase.
Secondly, Intel's next processor is going to be a desktop version of the Pentium M. Intel admits that the NetBurst architecture is horrible and maxed out in terms of MHz.
The A64 is better, look at benches, right now, AMD is better at rendering also. AMD wins nearly 75 to 80% of all benchmarks, and the rest it ties or loses by a small margin.
Posted by: uzi9mm
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Megadeth2 [/i]
[B]I would take the AMD Athlon 64 3200+ over the P4 any day. That P4 is as good as the 540 with the 1MB cache, going from 1MB to 2MB is like going from 1GB to 2GB, it hurts performance or gives minimal increase.[/B][/QUOTE]
He will not have 2mb of l2 cache. He will have 1mb on each core. Both cores will only be utilized when he is using a programs that supports SMP or if he sets the affinity to certain processes. But still he will only using 1mb on each affinity.
Posted by: HAVOC
If your not a benchmark whore, then either of those processors will suite your needs nicely...
Posted by: Rixx
Hello,
Thank you for all of your views. I am still a little confused. From what I can see from the benchmarks, the AMD is better for games right across the board, but the P4 is better for video rendering and the like.
Ive been spending about 2 weeks tweaking the **** out of Windows x64 Edition and have been getting nowhere with the AMD. Im am veering toward the P4, but then I think my lack of sleep is affecting my decision!
Thanks again for all of your views.
Posted by: Megadeth2
uzi9mm, where are you?
Your understanding of the sequence on Intel procs is totally off.
3xx=Celeron D
5xx=P4 Prescott 32-Bit 1MB L2 Cache
5x1=As Above with 64-Bit
6xx=As Above with 64-Bit 2MB L2 Cache
8xx=Dual Core
AMD is across the board better and what difference does it make if you save 2 seconds on the Intel? Show me those benchmarks, and on a side not you might want to show the board you're getting with the 640 because if it is not on the 940 or 955 chipsets, then you will not be able to get a dual core Pentium D. With AMD, socket 939, you can upgrade on any board to the Athlon 64 X2.
Think about it, money goes down the drain with an Intel.
Posted by: uzi9mm
Ok, what do you mean??????? How is my understanding of Intel CPU's off?
Posted by: Megadeth2
Wait, why did you bring up dual cores in your post above when I was talking about single cores?
The 5xx with 1MB L2 cache performs the same as the 6xx with 2MB L2 cache. There is hardly any difference.
Posted by: uzi9mm
yeah, but the 8xx series does not have 2mb of true l2 cache.
It has 1mb of l2 cache on each core. that is what i am talking about.
Edit: Ohhh i see what you mean, you were not talking about the 8xx series cpu's....... Well I still know what i am talking about lol :D
I mixed this thread up for another one i was posting in about dual cores and video editing.
Posted by: desiboi
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by madmunki [/i]
[B]The AMD 3200 is like a 2.4ghz, and is much slower then the P4 3.2ghz.
I would stay away from AMD, cause there is so many problems with AMD and gaming, like look at the World of Warcraft support forum, the number one issue (error 131) only happens with AMD processors.
Most gaming companies develope games on Intel systems, and are only tested with AMD. I would rather have a CPU that games were written for, not ported to. [/B][/QUOTE]
Who the **** is this fruit?
Posted by: Counter-Strike
Some guy who has no idea what is he talking about, maybe he works at Best Buy :D
And let me respond to that anyways. A 3200 is comparable if not better to the P4 3.2 Ghz, because AMD has a different architechture they can have more powerful CPU's at the lower frequencies than Intel, w/ a higher FSB to top it off :D
Posted by: uzi9mm
well to set the fact stright... They do not base those model numbers off of Intel clock speeds..... I know people are going to disagree with me.... :(
Posted by: idiotec
[QUOTE]From what I can see from the benchmarks, the AMD is better for games right across the board, but the P4 is better for video rendering and the like. [/QUOTE]
Correct. So all you can do is take that information and think about what factors are more important to you and make a decision.
Posted by: Counter-Strike
Well see I went from a 1.8 Ghz P4 to a 1.8 Ghz 3000+ lol, so no wonder I like AMD *drools*
Posted by: AEagle20
I work at best buy, and I dont ask obvious questions about I/O, Counterstrike =). And you thought we were stupid!!
Biased opinion here, go with the 3200+ if you are going to be gaming. I just threw it in and bzzooom. Hey intel guys, I'm way up here hurry up.
Posted by: zynx23
if you want to set your self up for 64 bit then try and go with AMD and find a compatabile Mobo that way you can just upgrade the CPU and not both the CPU and mobo. if not then intel. personally Intel all the way for me. ^^
Posted by: Rich M
If you are going to swallow "the bull" then AMD 3200 is equivalent to 3.2 P4...but that's what I'm afraid it is...."bull" and really good advertising. Now does the AMD outoerform a 2.4 P4 well yes it does but it is not as quick as a 3.2 P4...no way! But let's also not lose sight of the fact the builder here has mentioned graphics (video rendering)and take it from a pro photographer, P4 blows AMD away in this category, that's why AMD "heads" are avoiding comments.
Posted by: U-Toast
1st of all, you can't compare clock speeds, they mean nothing. AMD cpus do more work per clock cycle. Both AMD and Intels will work for gaming. You willg et better performance with the amd, and it will overclock very nice, especially with the venice core. Intel used to be known for all rendering and photoediting, and video editing, but AMD is now catching up and is not far behind, take a look at benchmarks...
Posted by: uzi9mm
Intel is still is known for video editing, almost all of the certified AVID workstations are Intel on the PC platform. The longer pipelines and the large L2 cache speeds up the performance of rendering and realtime effects.
Posted by: SHAWN
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Rich M [/i]
[B] Now does the AMD outoerform a 2.4 P4 well yes it does but it is not as quick as a 3.2 P4...no way [/B][/QUOTE]
Ignorance is treatable Rich. :umm:
Posted by: dhw200
The 3200 outperforms the P4 3.2ghz in many situations...if AMD advertised the same way Intel did, everybody would be saying AMD, AMD, AMD! And as U Toast stated, clock speeds mean nothing. I would take a 2.0ghz AMD over a 3.2ghz Intel any day. In fact, i did