Hmm...AMD or Intel

[speeddude2000]

ok, jaybee, about your 3400+amd 2.4ghz/3.4ghz question:

the "3400+" is the mhz equivalent. however, it operates at 2.4ghz. its able to be equal to 3.4ghz because it performs more operations per cycle than the intel, which gives it the equivalent. hope that made sense to you.

anyways, the card wont work because you have to have a pci express slot available(new technology, not available on your mobo. im not sure if theres an AGP version of that vid card, dont think so though)

[JayBee]

Hmm...that sucks. I think upgrading my full pc is too expensive for a x-mas gift, which is why I wondered about the vid card...

Now Im stuck....

[Moose on the Loose]

Originally Posted by JayBee Hmm...that sucks. I think upgrading my full pc is too expensive for a x-mas gift, which is why I wondered about the vid card... Now Im stuck....

You can just buy a new AGP graphics card yes. Between the x800 pro and the 6800 GT, the 6800GT is probably better value, unless you use the pipeline-unlocking method I pointed out for the x800. However, I don't know if you will be able to run a 6800GT on a 350W PSU. An x800 would probably work on that, but 6800's are known to be large power hogs.

Just my 2 cents.

[Doopa]

Originally Posted by palloco dude, if you wanted a cheaper machine choose AMD. You will have the same performance for less price. And I would bet AMDs would have lower temperature, since that intel is reaching its speed limits.

Do your research before you post. Look at the bench marks, it is a proven fact Intel Processors run at coolor temperatures.

Are you willing to make tha bet.

And when choosing a mobo, I highly reccomend ASUS as the manufacturer. I have built 4 machines with ASUS motherboards and satisfied would be a understatement.

Are there even PCI Express 16x motherboards for AMD yet???

[Moose on the Loose]

Yes there are motherboards with AMD and PCI-E. Just out, nForce4.

[JayBee]

Well guess I have some thinking to do... on whether or not I will upgrade most of my parts now, or just upgrade one or two things

[vadim]

GO AMD 64 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i got
AMD 64 3200+
1GB PC3200
250GB+80GB+80GB=410GB SATA HDD
256MB 6800GT
K8NS-PRO GIGABITE MOBO

AND ABOUT TO GET SOUND BLASTER WITH 5.1 SURROUND (520W)
GOTTA LOVE MY PC

[JayBee]

How much did that all cost ya?

[Moose on the Loose]

Originally Posted by vadim GO AMD 64 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i got AMD 64 3200+ 1GB PC3200 250GB+80GB+80GB=410GB SATA HDD 256MB 6800GT K8NS-PRO GIGABITE MOBO AND ABOUT TO GET SOUND BLASTER WITH 5.1 SURROUND (520W) GOTTA LOVE MY PC

What exactly is the point of this post?

[JayBee]

Couldn't tell ya, but I was interested on how much that build cost him.

[palloco]

Well doopa, I cannot know if that is a proven fact, but googling a bit (again...) made me reach the conclusion that around 20% agree with you and that 80% dont. Maybe intel is selling some wrong chips or whatever but most people out there says prescott reaches around 70ºC while amd64 stays on 52ºC in same conditions.

http://www.techreport.com/reviews/20.../index.x?pg=15
http://forum.pcmech.com/showthread.php?t=117667&page=2
http://www.bytesector.com/data/bs-ar...?ID=278&page=4
http://forums.devhardware.com/t29703/s.html
http://forums.devhardware.com/archive/t-29703

[HAL9000]

I am an Intel guy and I will verify that yes, the high end Intels run hot, yes, they're reaching the end of the speed limits with their current technology.... BUT, the thing to keep in mind with an Intel is that it has a far superior thermal protection than an AMD. AMD has made strides in thermal protection, but it isn't foolproof and you can still fry their chip with something as simple as the heatsink not sitting quite flat. The Intel will simply throttle down to cool off.

[ric449]

The argument on heat isn't really necessary. Prescotts are hot, simple fact, and the Athlon 64s are cooler. Are you overclocking? If not, it doesn't matter.

Now, AMD or Intel. You said its mostly games you wanted to do with the machine. In this case the best choice would be an AMD Athlon 64. But, make sure you wait until Nforce 4 appears. It has PCI Express, which is the next technology. You don't want to be left behind. It also has higher performance than any other A64 chipset.

[kram 2.0]

Originally Posted by ric449 Now, AMD or Intel. You said its mostly games you wanted to do with the machine. In this case the best choice would be an AMD Athlon 64. But, make sure you wait until Nforce 4 appears. It has PCI Express, which is the next technology. You don't want to be left behind. It also has higher performance than any other A64 chipset.

I don't see how this comes to play - how can one establish that the AMD Athlon 64 will play better in games. How do we figure that out? Synthetic Benchmark numbers that the computer feeds us?

To me, I agree with HAL - another nice thing about the Intel processor is that even if you try, it won't catch on fire, at least unintentionally. I have built with the AMD Athlon XP before (I admit it - it was better than the Celeron non-D), and one thing I DID tell my customer to do as he used his processor is to keep a periodic watch on his processor temperature. Although Barton Core CPUs didn't run particularily hot, I WAS worried of that instance where it might malfunction somehow.

Not many people here are going to state as a given fact that one is better than the other thorugh a series of just facts and no personal judgements. What was all posted from here up have been personal preference - each processor has its arguments. The phrase "Athlon 64 run better in games" and "Athlon 64 is better because it supports 64-bit extension" drives me nuts...as an Intel guy, I feel those are not doing justice to the other side, which is simply that the former statement, you won't know for sure, the latter, it's worthless now.

kram

[ric449]

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=9
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/2004...16.html#opengl

I know you like Intel, but you can't deny that games favour the A64. Its just the way it is, Intel have the lead in prfoesssional apps, AMD are leading the gaming front.

[HAL9000]

This is a situation of only seeing "better" in synthetic benchmarks. I'm sure I could find a LOT of posts from AMD users on this board where when Intel was better performing in games, they argued about synthetic benchmarks and that your eye can only see 60fps.... well... when the synthetic benchmarks show AMD ahead, does the same no longer apply?

Be realistic... either CPU combined with a high end video card is going to perform VERY well in today's games.

[ric449]

Looks at this from a price point of view. Right now, there isn't much difference between the P4 and the Athlon 64s in gaming. Theres a difference, but its not earth shattering. Now, look at prices. From these benchmarks:

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2242&p=7

I would say in gaming, a skt 939 3500+ A64 is around equal to the 3.6GHz P4, with the A64 usually coming out on top. Lets look at prices now (Newegg):

3500+: $259 (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduc...103-460&depa=1)

3.6GHz P4: $450 (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduc...116-181&depa=1)

Now, consider that the price difference is huge, and the A64 usually performs better. Its obvious what the wise decision is.

[kram 2.0]

Originally Posted by HAL9000 This is a situation of only seeing "better" in synthetic benchmarks. I'm sure I could find a LOT of posts from AMD users on this board where when Intel was better performing in games, they argued about synthetic benchmarks and that your eye can only see 60fps.... well... when the synthetic benchmarks show AMD ahead, does the same no longer apply? Be realistic... either CPU combined with a high end video card is going to perform VERY well in today's games.

Well said. I guess it is a true paradox to say that benchmarks are the insufficient measures of performance. I've personally ran an Intel System, played games on it, and multitasked on it, and all of the above were perform very well (except for the multitask, which ran out of memory ). I guess to go back to my second to the last post before this - my point proven. Intel and AMD compete in a capitalistic society, where the measure of success is directly related to their efforts to try to outpass the other. In such case, both sides will try very hard to be its best - I can say both are very good. It's personal preference - HAL and I, as seen, prefer Intel due to what we think. Ric and Vadim obviously prefer AMD Athlon 64 - it's what they think. It's all personal preference.

Now, never have I ever said that Intels are better than AMD processors...I have to say that I've never tried an Athlon 64 processor so honestly, I cannot say anything from first hand. I'm sure the same applies to a sizable majority of us - not many people have both the Athlon 64 and an Intel P4 CPU that corresponds to each other.

At the same time, I consider the benchmarks to only show a general direction of how they will perform - in such case, we can say that all of them will perform well. What I meant in my previous post, Ric, is exactly as HAL stated in his second paragraph.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by ric449 I would say in gaming, a skt 939 3500+ A64 is around equal to the 3.6GHz P4, with the A64 usually coming out on top. Lets look at prices now (Newegg): 3500+: $259 (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduc...103-460&depa=1) 3.6GHz P4: $450 (http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduc...116-181&depa=1) Now, consider that the price difference is huge, and the A64 usually performs better. Its obvious what the wise decision is.

That's the OEM processor of the older 754 compared to the Newer LGA775 3.6Ghz processor. Obviously, the older 754 socket would be cheaper. And if you accord the "around equal" to mean according to the benchmarks you posted about THG, the AMD corresponding CPU would be the AMD Athlon 64 3700+ Socket 754 (there is no Socket 939/940). Look here - take the link from the LGA775 Intel CPU compare them to this.

http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProduc...103-464&depa=1
That one, retail, is 461 USD. Intel P4 560 is 450 USD. How is this a scaled price?



Hope that ties things together...

kram

[HAL9000]

Originally Posted by ric449 Now, consider that the price difference is huge, and the A64 usually performs better. Its obvious what the wise decision is.

Well... like I said... "performs better" is a relative statement... why is it acceptable when AMD proves better in synthetic benchmarks than Intel, but not vice versa? It's a moot point really.

As for it being a "wiser" decision.... I don't think so either... am I not wise because I prefer an Intel over an AMD? It does everything I need it to do and it's my preference.

I've always liked "selective" price comparisons... you easily found a $200 USD difference... but I look through my price lists and find a 3.4 and a 3400 and it's only $70CDN difference... about $50USD... not such a huge difference anymore.... and comparing a 3.6 to 3500? Turn the scales and compare 3.6 to 3800... the Intel is clearly a price winner.

[Yuanji]

kram, the 3500+ Socket 939 retail is selling on newegg for 260. while i am an avid intel fan, this is how i see it in terms of gaming: a64 > northwood > prescott. now you take a 3500+ and you see 70 FPS then you take a 3.2ghz P4 at roughly the same price +- 30 dollars, and you only get mabye 62 FPS. the difference is 8 frames in synthetic benchmarks but what are you honestly going to get? probably around 50-65 in the end. i have found synthetic benchmarks almost always give higher frames then real life performance gives. is that a huge difference between the 2? no is there a difference in the numbers? yes. it is human to want the highest number possible but you have to take into account that you won't see a difference, you just will feel like you have one.

[kram 2.0]

Originally Posted by Yuanji kram, the 3500+ Socket 939 retail is selling on newegg for 260. while i am an avid intel fan, this is how i see it in terms of gaming: a64 > northwood > prescott. now you take a 3500+ and you see 70 FPS then you take a 3.2ghz P4 at roughly the same price +- 30 dollars, and you only get mabye 62 FPS. the difference is 8 frames in synthetic benchmarks but what are you honestly going to get? probably around 50-65 in the end. i have found synthetic benchmarks almost always give higher frames then real life performance gives. is that a huge difference between the 2? no is there a difference in the numbers? yes. it is human to want the highest number possible but you have to take into account that you won't see a difference, you just will feel like you have one.

What I mean, though I overstated it in my previous post, is that in the end, what matters most if the graphics card - in this case, get a ATI Radeon X800 XT PE and any one of those processor would do very well on gaming. I was just posting to prove the point that even with benchmarks, they can be equal - THG, in the benchmark perspective as was repetitively mentioned here, gives the Intel P4 560 (3.6) the lead even over the AMD Athlon 64 3800+ in some cases. The prices look in the favor of Intel there if you want to use price as a reason to get Athlon 64. I don't think that is a fair way to measure things - if yes, doesn't Intel have a pretty good hand at it there?

Looking at the OpenGL measures, which I would presume is more gaming oriented benchmarks, it has the processor as performing very well. Now, my point in comparing them is to try to come to a statement stating that they are all good - the phrase "better" is very ambiguous as you can see through the varieites of benchmarks in many measures.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/200...11.html#opengl

kram

[kram 2.0]

Originally Posted by JayBee What if I were to just go with a new vid card? Would the 6800GT/x800 Pro work with my current system (listed in my sig).

That migiht be the best idea. This discussion over Intel or AMD has turned into a debate, which I am part to blame, and you can clearly see that we have preferences. In the case of Radeon X800 Pro or GF6800GT, I might suggest the latter - the GeForce 6800GT. Clearly, ATI has figured out that the X800 Pro isn't very matched up with the GF6800GT - hence their release of the X800 XL at the beggining of next year.

EDIT: Sorry about the double post - I thought someone already replied when I saw the first page instead of the second...my apologies.

kram

[HAL9000]

Personally... I think people are spending WAY too much time worrying about a synthetic number than enjoying their computers.

[kram 2.0]

Originally Posted by HAL9000 Personally... I think people are spending WAY too much time worrying about a synthetic number than enjoying their computers.

That reminds me of the phrase relevant here, that glc has stated so well. "Benchmarks don't play games...YOU do". I like my processor, and I will go play HL2 on it now. Good day to you all...and thank you for dealing with me on this debate/discussion.

kram

[Moose on the Loose]

Wow, cool down.

Every benchmark proves it, its pretty much unanymous : As far as gaming is concerned, right now at this point in history, the AMD is better value than Intel. The fact that Intel CPU's throttle down when they are overheating is true, but unless you're overclocking it doesn't matter anyway. Everyone here agrees that Intel makes great CPU's, but - RIGHT NOW - if you buy an AMD CPU that is the price equivalent of an Intel one, you will get higher FPS with the AMD CPU.

[HAL9000]

Ya... exactly as we have stated.... higher FPS in SYNTHETIC benchmarks... an argument AMD users use against Intel when they are ahead in the game. Visually, you're not gonna see it.

[nubbler]

Originally Posted by HAL9000 Ya... exactly as we have stated.... higher FPS in SYNTHETIC benchmarks... an argument AMD users use against Intel when they are ahead in the game. Visually, you're not gonna see it.

I agree, the human (who is gonna be using the computer BTW) is not gonna notice this difference.

[JayBee]

Well all I wish is pc componets weren't soo expensive .

Anywayz, so if I were to get a new 6800GT for this mobo (system I got now) it would be compatible? What if I were to upgrade everything else in the time to come, and I just wanted to take that card and put it with the new system, would that work? Or would I find myself getting a "not so new" motherboard so that vard will work, rather than going with a new mobo with PCI-e, etc.?

Last question... someone wanna help pay for a new system .
hehe, just kidding.

[Yuanji]

6800Gt comes in 2 flavours, AGP and PCI Express. PCI Express one costs 500 and AGP one costs 400 simply because PCI Express is the newer.

[nubbler]

Originally Posted by JayBee someone wanna help pay for a new system

Sure, how much do you want?

j/k of course.