AMD Barton 3200+ vs Intel P4 2.8

[Eagle 101]

AHHHHH!

I just can't make up my mind. It seems intel has the huge advantage here. These two processors are both about 175 but intel has 2.8 ghz while AMD has only 2.2 ghz. To me there is no comparison, I would go with intel. Am I missing something here? It's driving me nuts going intel, no, AMD, wait intel, so on. Yes I have read icallmedan's thread on AMD or intel. But that doesn't seem to decide this factor. Plz help me out here,

Eagle

[kram 2.0]

There is something more than just the clockspeed when it comes to the quality of the processor - the pipelining architecture comes into play as well as cache. That is why AMD has the name "2800+" or "3200+" after it, denoting a rough Intel equivelant. To tell you the truth, either of them would do right now - I'm sure some here are ademantly stuck with AMD because of the "64-bit extension" which right now is rather useless due to no use of it for a full year or two. But comparing 32-bit capabilities, they are both very powerful - if anything, minute difference here and there.

kram

[Eagle 101]

I looked at your specs and you own a P4 2.8 for your computer. Just what you think, since you already own a Intel 2.8, how would you compare it to the AMD 3200+?

[Tin]

you can get an Athlon 64 2800+ for $175 at newegg, and it wipes the floor with both of those processors. go read some reviews on it, youll be pretty impressed .

EDIT: Here you go man....AMD 64 socket 939 3000+, AMDs newest architecture, built on a 90nm process...which means less voltage...plus it supports dual channel memory . can you say goodbye 2.8C and eat my shorts to the 3200+? this thing will do that and more...for $179. youd be very wise to jump on it. http://www.monarchcomputer.com/Merch...ory_Code=AMD64
heres a mobo for ya too http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduc...131-510&depa=1

[kram 2.0]

Originally Posted by Eagle 101 I looked at your specs and you own a P4 2.8 for your computer. Just what you think, since you already own a Intel 2.8, how would you compare it to the AMD 3200+?

I can say I'm very happy with my Intel P4 2.8C...I cannot say much against AMD, because of all fairness, I have never tried one. All I can say is that Intel has always worked brilliantly for me (especially at multitasking - its specialty) and that I have never felt compelled to change from something that already works so well. That being said, you should consider its counterpart, the Athlon 64 as well, as you may find that to be just as good as I may find this Intel Processor. It's all up to you, I guess - I won't say one processor "sweeps" the other, since if so, I would have bought an AMD Athlon 64 Processor.

kram

[jimmyrules712]

Originally Posted by Tin Canary you can get an Athlon 64 2800+ for $175 at newegg, and it wipes the floor with both of those processors. go read some reviews on it, youll be pretty impressed . EDIT: Here you go man....AMD 64 socket 939 3000+, AMDs newest architecture, built on a 90nm process...which means less voltage...plus it supports dual channel memory . can you say goodbye 2.8C and eat my shorts to the 3200+? this thing will do that and more...for $179. youd be very wise to jump on it. http://www.monarchcomputer.com/Merch...ory_Code=AMD64 heres a mobo for ya too http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduc...131-510&depa=1

dont needto say more. unless you already purchased your motherboard, go with an A64 for he same price, the others cant be compared to it.

[Vladiator16]

Originally Posted by Tin Canary EDIT: Here you go man....AMD 64 socket 939 3000+, AMDs newest architecture, built on a 90nm process...which means less voltage...plus it supports dual channel memory . can you say goodbye 2.8C and eat my shorts to the 3200+? this thing will do that and more...for $179. youd be very wise to jump on it. http://www.monarchcomputer.com/Merch...ory_Code=AMD64 heres a mobo for ya too http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduc...131-510&depa=1

Hmm. I haven't seen anything of late announcing a Socket 939 3000+. Is it possible that Monarch has the wrong socket listed and it is actually a Socket 754? Anyone have any links to any announcements or reviews on a Socket 939 3000+? If it is true that AMD has released a Socket 939 3000+, that would be a great entry level processor for the Socket 939.

[Moose on the Loose]

No, these are the new 90 nm s939 lower end AMD64's. Get em while you can

[kram 2.0]

90nm AMD Processors? I wouldn't purcahse it right away...remember what happened with the Prescott Core Processors on the Intel side? It turned out to be somewhat a disappointment, in that the new technology didn't provide for the vast advancement in processing. I would wait up on that for a while, until reviews are out and performances are recorded. If I can tell you just personal preference, I would go Intel. If I can tell you performance comparisons without bringging in personal biases...not many here can do, most certainly not me.

kram

[Cricket]

Originally Posted by kram8806 I wouldn't purcahse it right away...remember what happened with the Prescott Core Processors on the Intel side? It turned out to be somewhat a disappointment, in that the new technology didn't provide for the vast advancement in processing.

That happens with almost every new core introduction, AMD or Intel. I always wait for a few core revisions to come out before I buy a CPU that's going into a build I'm doing for someone.

Cricket

[ric449]

According to reviews, the 90nm versions are supposed to provide the same performance as the .13m versions, with a little more heat of course that always seems to follow 90nm technology. But, there are only slower versions of the Athlon 64 available on 90nm technology, AMD are having trouble making fast 90nm chips so they are having to start on the slower versions and push .13m as far as it can go.

[kram 2.0]

Originally Posted by ric449 According to reviews, the 90nm versions are supposed to provide the same performance as the .13m versions, with a little more heat of course that always seems to follow 90nm technology. But, there are only slower versions of the Athlon 64 available on 90nm technology, AMD are having trouble making fast 90nm chips so they are having to start on the slower versions and push .13m as far as it can go.

That's basically the trade off that AMD has gone with. AMD grabbed 64-bit technology off the shelf, and Intel went for 90nm Processes - AMD is generally agreed to have the upper hand on this, but as Intel does develop the 64-bit processor, it is after AMD has seen how it works, and should be realistically improved. Same with the 90nm process on the AMD part - they were having trouble getting it to work but controlling the heat. It seems that they are working decently, but the problem is nonetheless unfixed.

kram

[Eagle 101]

I think I'll go with Tin Canary's advice. I've heard a lot of good things on AMD and I've been really tempted to get one and compare it to my dad's P4 2.8. Thanks for the help!

Eagle