Best processor

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
wow, im reading alot of bias there. pc world has to be the worst of them all. the dont want to give any credit to the ahtlon 64, no mention that it kills in gaming. Dixons is outright lieing ,saying that the p4 is faster in gaming, thats just not acceptable. Curry makes no sense to me, what do they mean p4 is uspported by windows xp? lol thats hilarious, what a selling point. The other two places are a bit more balanced, but still they focus on the wrong thing. It is true the 64bit bonus will be a boost later on once windows 64bit is relased with full driver support, but at this moment in time it should not be a sole selling point. There are many other things you can use as reason to buy an ahtlon 64, gaming, compiling, office tasks, etc. All those areas the athlon 64 excels in. I have no problem with them saying the p4 is better for encdoing and rendering, becuase it is, but its obvious these other ppl either dont look into amd at all and just assume p4 is better or are outright lieing to you to get you to buy an intel chip. In either case its pretty bad. your best bet is to talk to as many ppl as you can, get a concensus using many sites and reviews, then decide.
 
I have always stayed faithful to AMD but the only really compelling reason to go to Intel is if I wanted to stuff gaming and just use the PC for Video/Music Encoding and Excel Spreadsheets. How much more performance does Intel give in these areas over A64? On the other hand, how much better is the performance of AMD in games over Intel? If AMD Kicks ass in games and Intel is marginally faster in video encoding, and you wanted a system for video encoding then I believ there is no point in forking out in excess of £200 just for a matter of a few seconds when encoding videos. Why not save £200, get AMD and get kick ass performance in games so you can treat yourself after encoding videos or working on a spreadsheet?

Then again surely when Windows 64 comes out the A64 will then kick ass in spreadsheets and encoding once the respecive manufacturers pull their socks up and release the neccessary updates? What do you think the future holds?

PC Spec: AMD Athlon XP 2000+ running at 1.25ghz, ECS K7S5A Motherboard, 768MB SDRAM PC133, Sparkle nVidia Riva TNT2 M64 32MB AGP Graphics Card, Creative Sound Blaster Audigy 2 6.1, Windows Me
 
Well its possible that the move to 64bit will help on the encoding end, but there is no concrete proof so I would say it owuld be a boost int he future, but dont count on it now. As far as how much intel beats amd out, it actaully isnt a total sweep, some programs favor amd, such as canopus pro coder for mpeg 2. In the areas intel leads in encoding your talking 20-40 seconds faster depending on app or an extra 10-15 fps in things like divx. Wether that is enough for you or not is up to you.
 
The only problem i have with the video editing statement is the normal person doesn't do digital video editing. They do cut and paste editing.. Things like photoshop aren't true editing in my opinion and although of course a p4 is a bit faster still at almost everything your not really gonna notice the difference.
Now if we were talking about full all out digital workstation for actual 3d rendering and a CAD type system, then hands down i wouldn't choose an AMD for that task.
Unless of course we go dual cpu system and i would actually consider an A64.

<A HREF="http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?run=610166081" target="_new">http://arc.aquamark3.com/arc/arc_view.php?run=610166081</A>
Figured i'd do it too..reality my ass.
 
Sorry for the late reply. I have looked in my BIOS settings and the ECS K7S5A is rather confusing. When it starts up I press Delete to go into the BIOS. Then I choose CPU PNP Setup. Finally I select CPU Speed and I am given the following options

CPU Frequency - 100 DRAM Frequency - 100 - this is the one I have my current settings on
CPU Frequency - 100 DRAM Frequency - 133
CPU Frequency - 133 DRAM Frequency - 133

The values are represented in the BIOS respectively as:

100/100
100/133
133/133

Which option should I choose?


PC Spec: AMD Athlon XP 2000+ running at 1.25ghz, ECS K7S5A Motherboard, 768MB SDRAM PC133, Sparkle nVidia Riva TNT2 M64 32MB AGP Graphics Card, Creative Sound Blaster Audigy 2 6.1, Windows Me
 
I'm quite sure the 2000+ is a 133mhz x 2 chip. Your speed should be set at 133 not 100, hence the slower than normal post at 1.25ghz. Doesn't this board auto-detect?
 
WOW, You guys can argue all day about "which processor is better". There realy is not much of a difference in performance either way. Just get a mobo/chipset that you like and get the processor that goes with that. At least thats what I do. I dont listen to the garble about AMD is better for this and P4 is better for that. Pointless. It will be hapening for years. There prety close the two. Go with your gut feeling on this.

"If youre paddling upstream in a canoe and a
wheel falls off, how many pancakes fit in a doghouse? None! Icecream doesn't have bones!!!"
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Clob on 02/28/04 03:53 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 
There should be a 25% gain in performance right there! Her PC-133 memory is even defaulted to 100mhz right now! I would not recommend this person attempt to build another PC unless Crashman is her uncle! LOL!
 
OK I'll give that a try. Is there a possibility of the actual PC feezing on startup if I put the setting at 133/133?

PC Spec: AMD Athlon XP 2000+ running at 1.25ghz, ECS K7S5A Motherboard, 768MB SDRAM PC133, Sparkle nVidia Riva TNT2 M64 32MB AGP Graphics Card, Creative Sound Blaster Audigy 2 6.1, Windows Me
 
Absolutely not! You have a processor and memory designed for a 133mhz bus, why not use it? Apparently, you got the default values because this board does not auto-detect. You are going to see a dramatic increase in performance now! The last Athlon chip designed for a 100mhz bus was the T-bird 1400. All the XP's run at least 133mhzx2. Have fun!
 
I hate to say this but like I thought the PC would not start on this setting. I am not sure whether it is the fact that I am using PC133 SDRAM. I have to stick with 100/100 just for the machine to start! Should I try the 100/133 setting?

In order to use the 133/133 setting will I need to change my SDRAM to DDR RAM?

PC Spec: AMD Athlon XP 2000+ running at 1.25ghz, ECS K7S5A Motherboard, 768MB SDRAM PC133, Sparkle nVidia Riva TNT2 M64 32MB AGP Graphics Card, Creative Sound Blaster Audigy 2 6.1, Windows Me
 
The 100/133 setting is for running a 200 bus chip with the memory set to 133. So that won't help you if you have a 266 bus chip and PC100 memory. From my exprience with those boards, running a 200 bus TBird or Duron and either PC133 or DDR266 by using the 100/133 setting is when gaming issues start to appear. I've only had luck with 100/100 or 133/133 on that board. Sounds like you need to read your memory chips and figure out what memory you have. If it's PC100, it isn't going to work with a 266 bus TBird. You may want to buy or borrow some PC2100 DDR and then try the 133/133 setting.

EDIT:
You can use the 133/133 setting with either PC133 SDRAM or PC2100 DDR. Is there a chance that 1 of your memory sticks is PC100? I'd try looking at the chips and comparing them. But also try just running 1 stick of definate PC133 and pulling the other stick. If it works, experiment with the other one and see if it runs 133.

ABIT IS7, P4 2.6C, 512MB Corsair TwinX PC3200LL, Radeon 9800 Pro, Santa Cruz, TruePower 430watt<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Pauldh on 03/06/04 07:49 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom