Question about AMDs...

[fedshark]

So I've decided to go all out and upgrade my computer to a system that can run the next gen video cards since I saw this 7800 gt and evga n4force sli amd mobo combo.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16813188002

Trouble is, I know next to nothing about AMDs.... So I ask, what is simliar as far as AMDs go to, say, a 3 gig 800 mhz 1mb cache hyper threaded processor made by intel? I already figured as much as semprons+celerons, so those Im staying away from. The mobo can use athlon 64s and athlon 64 FXs, and looking at both I see low clock speeds for alot of money. What exactly would a good processor be of those two types that would cost around $220 or less?

 

[pat]

going with AMD is quite simple. You decide how much money you want to spend, and decide if you want an X2 (dual core) or an A64 single core.

In general, the 3000+ will perform better in some apps and worst in some other than the 3.0 Ghz from Intel. Hyper threading could advantage the Intel sometime, but efficient architechture the AMD other time. This is a mostly even match for performance, except gaming where the AMD will have a considerable advantage.

But, the main advantage right now is having a fully loaded 3000+ running below 40C degree or an idling 3.0GHz running near 50C

 

[Tattysnuc]

.... and that amongst other things can lead to a much quieter PC. The AMD overclocks better (ie the performance gain on a A64 3000+ on stock cooling will GENERALLY be a better peformance gain than an Intel on it's stock cooling).

Have a shop around. I've had all the platforms except LGA775 and my athlon 64 X2 4200+ is the best core I've had stability wise, and performace wise.

Very very happy

 

[fedshark]

So, would a AMD Athlon 64 3500+ Newcastle Processor (2.2GHz, 512KB, 1 GHz FSB, Socket 939 - SKU: ADA3500AWBOX) be actually a bit better than a 3 gig ht intel processor for gaming?

 

[weilin]

dont get newcastle.. its still 130nm.. Go fo Venice its not much more (give or take 5 bucks) Venice is 90nm and also has the SSE3 instructions set. it should match a p4 3.2-3.4ish.

 

[fedshark]

turns out a venice is actually alittle cheaper, too. Thanks

 

[scoyle]

Newcastle cores are old. Go for a new Venice core chip, as the price you stated rules out San Diego cores. I'm not sure if there are any major architectural differences besides the difference in L2 cache, but cache seems to play an important role in processor performance.

Stay away from Newcastle cored Athlon 64s, but opt for an Athlon 64 with a Venice core instead.

 

[Henrik]

I used to be a die hard Intel guy... but after switching to AMD I will NEVER go back. AMD used to have a bad reputation (like 8 years ago)... but now they run circles around Intel like it's nobodies business.

AMD's are better for the following reasons (not all listed): They run cooler, less power consumption, better architecture, better benchmarks when compared to a comparable Intel chip, much better for gaming.

AMD's downfall: Just a little more expensive... but well worth the extra few buck.

I find AMD's recient work with ZRAM rather interesting. As if their power consumption wasn't good enough in comparisson to Intel... this should not only make their chips faster but even less power hungry. Intel is already in a world of hurt as of last quarter... and AMD just keeps gaining market share. And for good reason!!!... their chip is simply better. End of story. 😀

Just make sure you buy the right AMD core. I'm sportin a San Diego and I couldn't be happier. 😀