Pentium 4 HT vs Athlon 64

[huze5]

Hi. I have a spare computer and i was wondering which is better, the Intel Pentium 4 HT 3.06 GHz or the Amd Athlon 64? (not the dual core AMD)

 

[Upendra09]

the athlon 64 beats the P4 in its sleep, the p4 sucks and the AMD 64 got the performance crown for AMD

why are you worried about the processor?

 

[Upendra09]

^+1

 

[joefriday]

^^The both of you suck.
How 'bout asking the OP what Athlon 64 it is? I guarantee you, the 3.06GHz Ht enabled P4 would walk all over an Athlon 64 2800. Not back when both were new, but today, when multithreaded apps are so ubiquitous. Hyper Threading actually means a lot for today's apps. So, it matters quite a bit how fast the A64 is.

To the OP: If the Athlon 64 is built for socket 939, 940, or AM2, it should be the better processor. If it is built for socket 754, it should be at least a 3200 or higher processor rating to be considered better than the 3.06GHz P4.

 

[blackwidow_rsa]

Good point but I'd still take the A64. The P4 were usually faster at media encoding if I recall correctly. My sister's pc has a P4 630 in it and it sounds like a jet at take off. Only the 65nm P4 are decent, my old one undervolts like a dream.

 

[megamanx00]

Athlon 64, especially if it's faster than an Athlon 64 3000+

 

[huze5]

^^The both of you suck.
How 'bout asking the OP what Athlon 64 it is? I guarantee you, the 3.06GHz Ht enabled P4 would walk all over an Athlon 64 2800. Not back when both were new, but today, when multithreaded apps are so ubiquitous. Hyper Threading actually means a lot for today's apps. So, it matters quite a bit how fast the A64 is.

To the OP: If the Athlon 64 is built for socket 939, 940, or AM2, it should be the better processor. If it is built for socket 754, it should be at least a 3200 or higher processor rating to be considered better than the 3.06GHz P4.

The AMD is the 3500+ version

 

[warmon6]

^^The both of you suck.
How 'bout asking the OP what Athlon 64 it is? I guarantee you, the 3.06GHz Ht enabled P4 would walk all over an Athlon 64 2800. Not back when both were new, but today, when multithreaded apps are so ubiquitous. Hyper Threading actually means a lot for today's apps. So, it matters quite a bit how fast the A64 is.

To the OP: If the Athlon 64 is built for socket 939, 940, or AM2, it should be the better processor. If it is built for socket 754, it should be at least a 3200 or higher processor rating to be considered better than the 3.06GHz P4.

i think they both know what an athlon 64 is..... You might want to study why there saying the p4's suck BEFORE you say they suck.

Yes Athlon 64 are better than the p4's. Due to the p4's deep pipelines, a 2.2 ghz athlon 64 was able to keep up (and sometimes surpass) a p4 3.2+GHz ee cpu.

As for hyper threading.... the p4 ht is not the same as the core i7 ht (if thats what your basing it off of). The i7 ht is designed differently so that they run better than the p4's.

For the p4's HT, i really don't see a difference between Ht on and off, even though i use plenty of programs are designed to use 2+ threads. The HT in the p4 were not designed all that well.

 

[joefriday]

i think they both know what an athlon 64 is..... You might want to study why there saying the p4's suck BEFORE you say they suck.

Yes Athlon 64 are better than the p4's. Due to the p4's deep pipelines, a 2.2 ghz athlon 64 was able to keep up (and sometimes surpass) a p4 3.2+GHz ee cpu.

As for hyper threading.... the p4 ht is not the same as the core i7 ht (if thats what your basing it off of). The i7 ht is designed differently so that they run better than the p4's.

For the p4's HT, i really don't see a difference between Ht on and off, even though i use plenty of programs are designed to use 2+ threads. The HT in the p4 were not designed all that well.

Nope, actually, I'm basing my post on facts from my own extensive research. I've been here longer than you, I lived through the times when both were brand new, and I know what I'm talking about.

 

[ElMoIsEviL]

I would be inclined to agree with joefriday if the Pentium 4 in question was a Northwood C based (800MHz FSB) model.

The 3.06GHz is stuck on a 533MHz front side bus. I recall something to the order of 10-20% performance boost going from 533MHz to 800MHz FSB (if memory serves me right).

 

[theonerm2]

i think they both know what an athlon 64 is..... You might want to study why there saying the p4's suck BEFORE you say they suck.

Yes Athlon 64 are better than the p4's. Due to the p4's deep pipelines, a 2.2 ghz athlon 64 was able to keep up (and sometimes surpass) a p4 3.2+GHz ee cpu.

As for hyper threading.... the p4 ht is not the same as the core i7 ht (if thats what your basing it off of). The i7 ht is designed differently so that they run better than the p4's.

For the p4's HT, i really don't see a difference between Ht on and off, even though i use plenty of programs are designed to use 2+ threads. The HT in the p4 were not designed all that well.

Actually intel thought about rebranding the hyperthreading in the core i7 to Hyperthreading 2 but did not because it hasn't changed any since the Pentium 4 prescott. However 8 logical cpu's vs. 2 logical cpu's make a huge difference not only that but the core brand cpu's are much more efficient than the pentium 4 brand. So sure you would see quite a difference compared to the pentium 4 with htt but the hyper threading technology itself is unchanged. Hyperthreading has much more benefit now than ever before and probably make each core up to 30% faster than normal. Now you probably wouldn't notice the difference of HTT in real world use on a pentium 4 but benchmarks do show the difference is there.

Also the athlon 64 cpu's are no better than the intel pentium 4 cpu's in reality. Some programs worked better with AMD and others worked better with intel. The Athlon 64 3200+ did not run at a clock speed of 3.2GHz but it was able to do enough work per clock cycle to keep up with or surpass a pentium 4 at 3.2GHz. Intel only wanted to make cpu's with higher clock speeds as a marketing gimmick. People would see the lower clocked athlons and think they were far weaker than the higher clocked pentium 4's when actually they were equal. Most people were ignorant back then and thought bigger numbers equals bigger performance. AMD cpu's however have always been the best bang for the buck processors and that's one reason why people think they are better. Also for quite some time AMD held the gaming performance crown until the Core 2 series were released.

Now though it is silly to consider either an athlon 64 or a pentium 4 for gaming unless you only want to play old games or games that aren't too heavy on system resourses. However if you want a cheap $150 or less PC for web browsing and multimedia use then a Pentium 4 at 3.2GHz is an excellent choice and is no worse than even the intel core i7. It all depends on what you want to do and how fast you want it done.