A64 v P4 HT

[okietex]

I searched on the CPU board some and went back many pages and never found anything about this yet. I'm sure it's been discussed but going to ask anyway.

I have a P4 2.8 w/HT -- and I'm wondering if I build a system with the AMD A64, how does it compare to the P4 w/HT? I notice my system really performing well doing any tasks and can watch the virtual cpus work really well together.

I'm just curious what the A64 handles those same things or would the P4 just really be a smokescreen and it looks cool on my task manager watching the cpu split and jumping around separately.

TIA

 

[Cybercraig]

With the right set-up there is nothing wrong with a 2.8C. It will get crushed by the A64's in gaming and will hold it's own in encoding apps. With a good GPU and a nice overclock to 3.4ghz or so you will be good for a while.

Abit IS7 - 3.0C @ 3.6ghz - Mushkin PC4000 (2 X 512) - Sapphire 9800Pro - TT 420 watt Pure Power
Samsung 120gb ATA-100 - Maxtor 40gb ATA - 100
Sony DRU-510A - Yellowtail Merlot

 

[phial]

Agree, a 3.4ghz P4C will be fine for like another year if you had patience (or longer if you can stand not having a top end processor)

-------
<A HREF="http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/you.html" target="_new">please dont click here! </A>

 

[okietex]

Well, what I'm really asking is about a new system -- not really to replace my P4 2.8 -- but if I'm looking at an A64 or a P4 w/HT ... and not doing any OC'ing ... doing *some* gaming but mostly for business/work stuff but want it to be stable & fast. How does the Intel HT match up with an A64 that doesn't do HT? Is there any difference that a user would be able to tell? Or by pulling up a task manager and watching your CPUs the only way to know ...

that make more sense on what I'm trying to understand?

 

[pat]

"mostly for business/work stuff "

Even a Celeron is good at those thing..dont waste your money now. Hyperthreading help at some place but can degrade performance at other, so I guess that it is about the same.

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!

 

[okietex]

Thanks Pat.

Well, here's an example -- I have my current P4 machine sitting here with ServersAlive on it monitoring about 20 servers. Well, the machine handles it nicely -- and I can work on it doing other apps -- graphics progs, web dev apps etc.

However, if I turn on my notebook with a Pentium M on it-- and run ServersAlive .. CPU goes way up as well as RAM.

So, I might have been more bland in saying "mostly for business/work stuff" than what it really does - it probably works harder than I do!

Thanks.

 

[pat]

well, if you want to see how HT helps in your current config, just disable it a see how the machine does... that would be your best way to compare, imho.

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!

 

[jammydodger]

On the benchmarks I have seen HT didnt really make a whole lot of difference performance-wise. But these benchmarks were from a while ago, more programs might have been optimised to use it now.

 

[peteroy]

HT doesn't make a difference on benchmarks, you will feel it more when you have 2 demanding programs running, like 2 games running at the same time or a game and video encoding/antivirus scan/etc.

<A HREF="http://www.clancas.net" target="_new">clan CHAOS</A>

 

[RichPLS]

Any program that is multithreaded will get performance boost from hyper-threading CPU's.
Some more than others, and it will also help with multi-tasking...

<pre><font color=red>°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°`°¤o \\// o¤°`°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°
And the sign says "You got to have a membership card to get inside" Huh
So I got me a pen and paper And I made up my own little sign</pre><p></font color=red>

 

[darth_farter]

I myself would if given the choice take both, as in If i had a A64 I would get a P4 instead of another A64, just because I can then finally compare the two systems personally and have a bit more sound opinion then any stranger suggesting me a certain system. besides, I can then optimize both machines for specific tasks at which they are better at.

BTW: I own a last generations: AthlonXP, P4-Willamette, P3 mobile, Axp Tbred-B. And each has their own specific purpose and is best at doin it.
So in your case I think an A64 would broaden your horizon of knowledge & computing further.

 

[RichPLS]

and may the farts be with you...

<pre><font color=red>°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°`°¤o \\// o¤°`°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°
And the sign says "You got to have a membership card to get inside" Huh
So I got me a pen and paper And I made up my own little sign</pre><p></font color=red>

 

[endyen]

work stuff but want it to be stable & fast.

It doesn' make much difference really. The A64s do multitasking very well. If the prog is not optimized for HT, chances are, the A64 will be faster. As to stability, the rumours are silly. The Intel system is not that unstable. Rather than crashing, it will usually just throttle. It may slow down some, but, if you use a good Intel chipset, it is still almost as stable as an A64 system with the nforce chipset.

 

[geminiguy]

Endyen,

Which mobo are you using on your A64, curious for a new system build. I would rather go with an Asus, but it all depends on which mobo supports it better.
Are you running DDR or DDR2 on it?

Thanks in advance for the info,

GEM

Equal is equal, or is it?

 

[endyen]

I'm using the Asus K8N-E Deluxe. The newer, non-deluxe version is a better deal if the nforce raid is all you need. (If I could have got one, when I bought mine, I would have gone non-deluxe)
No A64 mobos support DDR2 at this point. The odmc gives ultra low latencies, why take that away with DDR2? When DDR2 hits 666 speeds, or better, it will become a viable alternative to DDR, if the prices drop like a stone.