Tough choice Amd or Intel?

tasey

Distinguished
Apr 4, 2004
36
0
18,530
Ok, i'm sure this is going to spark some debate (been reading other posts). But I'm looking for a good processor for gaming, Intel seems to be a good choice (picked out the p4 2.8c, IC7 mobo and a kit of Geil 256 x2 ram). As far as AMD is concerned looks like the AMD 64 3000+ would be a good choice. What i'm not sure of really (not being very knowledgable in this area), what would be the best choice for gaming? I'm only willing to spend at the very most $250 on a proc, but would rather stay somewhere below $200. Also what board would go well with the AMD Proc? Thanks!

BTW, I just picked up a Asus 9800 xt video card, which i'm very happy with but i'm running it with a 2.7 celeron proc (not sure what I was thinking buying celeron), so things can be a bit choppy, wanna upgrade to a good processor specifically for gaming.
<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by tasey on 04/06/04 11:20 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
 

Piccoro

Distinguished
Feb 4, 2004
70
0
18,630
Either one would be good along with your 9800XT.
I would perfer the AMD Athlon 64 3000+ because
1)it does better in games. Sometimes they are close while other times A64 pulls ahead by a good chunk.
2)cost less than the P4 3ghz and close to the P2.8ghz price
3)the low latency ondie memory controller helps tons more than Hyperthreading in games

Although I would probably settle for the A64 2800+ before picking up the P42.8ghz too. Have to do a little research though. These would be a lot closer for average performance.

The A643000+ is very close to the 3200+ performance also.
Considering you have a 9800XT, the price difference is probably not an issue but performance is.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Piccoro on 04/06/04 01:23 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 
Yeah, it's a tough choice. But if you've waited awhile for an upgrade, a couple more weeks won't hurt. I was checking out one of the new nforce3 250 boards, the epox 8kda3+, a new listing on their website. It should work well with the athlon 64 3000.
 

TheRod

Distinguished
Aug 2, 2002
2,031
0
19,780
GAMES = AMD

AMD processors are better in games. Your best choice right now is Athlon 64 (Socket754) with a VIA Chipset based MB.

And for under 250$ you have the choice :
Athlon 64 2800+ (173$US)
Athlon 64 3000+ (207$US)
Athlon 64 3200+ (<font color=red>263$US</font color=red>)

If I were you, I would consider the 3200+, because it has 1Megs of cache instead of 512Kbytes (the 2800+/3000+ only have 512K of cache). It's only 13$ over your budget if you don't consider shipping. And for the MB choice... It's up to you! At least, don't get an overpriced MB with features that you don't need or plan to use.

The 2800+ is not a bad choice either, it will perform well in games, and you would save 35$. You have to ask yourself if you are willing to spend more on the CPU for little increase in performance? Because, you already have a kick-ass GPU, so your CPU will be the bottleneck.

If you can wait 2-3 months there will be Socket939 Athlon 64 processor that will offer dual channel and better long term value. And the nForce3 250Gb is a very promising chipset for Socket939/940.

--
Would you buy a potato powered chipset?
 

tasey

Distinguished
Apr 4, 2004
36
0
18,530
Well I guess what I don't quite understand is, why wouldn't I go with the p4 2.8c proc instead of the AMD and loose all that clock speed? Or does the AMD Bus/Cache, ect., more than make up for the clock differance?
 

Piccoro

Distinguished
Feb 4, 2004
70
0
18,630
Think of it like this.
Is there a difference between a truck that can hold 6 tons of dirt and do 2 trip per min (Athlon) and a truck that can hold 4 tons of dirt and do 3 trips a min (P4).
Both move 12 tons of dirt each min.
# trips/min = speed/ghz

Obviously this is a very very basic analogy.

MHZ/GHZ is not the only measure of performance.
 

tasey

Distinguished
Apr 4, 2004
36
0
18,530
Well it seems I won't be needing to upgrade right this second as much as I thought. Currently I have a 2.7 Celeron (arg) processor, but would still like to at least get out of the celeron and actually get a p4! I'm looking at a P4 2.4 (core?) 533mhz fsb (my motherboard won't take 800mhz), I hear these 2.4's are great oc! Which core should I look into? I have a Soyo Dragon Lite board, with only one stick of 512 mb crucial ram (didn't realize it's good to run ram in pairs for dual to work) but I do have another 512 (same ram) that I could pull and put in my current computer.
 

DonnieDarko

Distinguished
Mar 25, 2004
653
0
18,980
with a celeron i would consider updating soon. If you want cheap go with the xp-m 2500+ it will overclock just as good if not better then the 2.4c or 2.4e and it's alot cheaper. you can also get a nice socket a mobo for pretty cheap. If you do go with the p4 choose the 2.4c unless you have good cooling then get the 2.4e(but anint it lacking ht?)it will overclock pretty high with a good hsf.
 

tasey

Distinguished
Apr 4, 2004
36
0
18,530
yeah, unfortunatly the dragon lite doesn't support HT, I believe. so i'll probably just go with the 2.4c for now and overclock that sucker a bit, it will get me by. would it be worth throwing in the other stick of ram? (512mb ddr x1 with another in another machine)
 

Cybercraig

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,058
0
19,780
I don't like that choice at all. Why buy a low buck CPU that you are going to cripple? A few months down the road you are going to be selling it on E-Bay! Save your bucks for an A64 and Nforce 250 board if you AIM to Game.

"I am become death, the destroyer of worlds. Now, let's eat!
 

Coop

Distinguished
Nov 27, 2003
217
0
18,680
I must agree, AMD64 is the best CPU for the moment, and its future ready(windows XP 64bit)
Also does it have Cool&Quit, so it will clock itself back to 1000MHz when your just surfing, typing a letter, watching a movie, so the CPU cooler can fall out.


Toms Hardware Site is a joke !
 

DonnieDarko

Distinguished
Mar 25, 2004
653
0
18,980
yeah it's worth it if you play current games and do alot of muiltitasking, just make sure you get the same kind that your already running so you can run dualchannel(unless your mobo doesn't support it).
 

kinney

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2001
2,262
17
19,785
My current pick is the Intel Pentium 4 2.4A Prescott or 2.8C.

Reasoning as follows, the A64 while good doesnt have as good as platform, nor is it as mature as the Intel P4 platform (referring to the chipsets).

Also, you must realize that you are buying a chip for its 32bit capabilites as 64bit is irrelevant in current apps.
Paying extra for that is silly.

I'd take SSE3 and Hyperthreading over 64bit.
This is comparing my 2.8C choice to the A64.

If you chose to go 2.4A then I'd say that still-
SSE3 > AMD64

At minimum, at LEAST HT in the "C" revisions is used in SOME apps and Windows.. and to some degree that could be said about SSE3.
While 64bit is useless.

Plus, the 2.4A (which has SSE3 but not HT) is the cheapest of the 3 (A64, 2.8C, 2.4A).. I am personally buying this one for myself because its
1. Cheap
2. Overclocks madly
3. Has the most stable consumer platform on the planet
4. That platform is also mature and much cheaper than A64s
4. Has the option of upgrading in the future when Intel unleashes 64bit on the world and Prescotts get even better and drop in price

All of these reasons are more important versus the ONE reason to go A64- which is a bit more STOCK speed.
Overclock both and expect to see the 2.8C (and prob 2.4A) overtake an o/c'd A64.


So to summarize, you have to look at both CPUs as 32bit processors.
Both perform very well with A64 having the STOCK- non o/c'd lead.
But only one has a cheap, mature and superior platform.
You also get instructions that improve performance to at least SOME degree.
While 64bit does nuttin.

64bit will not take hold until Intel releases it in their chips and its in every Dell being sold.
Period.
And prelimary results have not been favorable to AMD64, regardless. And those are the ONLY results we have to go by if you are going to go by anything at all.

Its nice and cute that AMD took the initiative for this- but its more of a bragging right like hitting 1ghz first was.
It is as meaningless in the real market just as hitting 1ghz first was.

So get yourself a 2.4A or 2.8C (if you value HT and want better O/C results for about $40) and rest assured you will have the best plaform and will be ready for the 64bit future when Intel decides its going to happen.

I'm a former AMD fanboy, and many of my former comrades will flame the crap out of me.. but I hope this all makes sense to you and helps you in your buying decision.

2sense.

____________________________
:evil: <b>RESIDENT FORUM WARRIOR :evil:
<font color=purple>I just neutered the cat.
Now he's a liberal.</font color=purple></b>
 

Spitfire_x86

Splendid
Jun 26, 2002
7,248
0
25,780
If I were you, I would consider the 3200+, because it has 1Megs of cache instead of 512Kbytes (the 2800+/3000+ only have 512K of cache).
I would pick 3000+. Spending 25% extra money for only 1% to 3% extra performancne is HIGHLY NOT RECOMMENED.

------------
<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A>

<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig</A> & <A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/benchmark.html" target="_new">3DMark score</A>
 

Piccoro

Distinguished
Feb 4, 2004
70
0
18,630
All but one did not mention 64bit. Oh and you.
Hyperthreading is not used in games but other apps.
Ondie memory controller has very low latency (which games love)
and it frees the bottle neck of the old FSB system.
You are not paying for 64bit.
A64 3000+ Retail @ newegg = 223$
P4 3.0c Retail @ newegg = 224$
For the performance of A64 in games we really should be comparing it with the P4 3.2c Retail which is 288$ @ newegg.

Those who bring up 64bit are thinking that if they got a chip today,it would be nice if it had a refreshing advantage in a year or two when that really cool yet demanding game comes out in 64bit and 32bit they will have the 64bit chip capable of a better experience, either increased detail or holding the high detail while expanding the environment of the game.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Piccoro on 04/06/04 06:23 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 

Spitfire_x86

Splendid
Jun 26, 2002
7,248
0
25,780
SSE3 brings no performance advantage.

Socket 478 is limited to P4 3.4C GHz

Socket 754 is upgradable upto at least A64 3700+

------------
<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86" target="_new">My Website</A>

<A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/myrig.html" target="_new">My Rig</A> & <A HREF="http://geocities.com/spitfire_x86/benchmark.html" target="_new">3DMark score</A>
 

Snaggle

Distinguished
Dec 10, 2003
176
0
18,680
Hi,for gaming ram is a larger bottleneck than your cpu,upgrading to a gig of ram in dual channel or to a gig with the amd 64's in single channel is the best thing to do.Costwise the amd64 with cheap but reliable crucial,mushkin or corsair is the way to go.Your real choices are:p4c with a gig dual pack;amd xp with a gig dual pack or an amd athlon 64 with two 512mb sticks.P4 c's boot faster,are less choosy about ram and are better than the amd xp line because of the fsb of 800;the xp are cheaper;the amd 64 have the best performance without an overclock and use the cheaper single channel ram(but are choosy about it).if you don't overclock get an amd64 with crucial ram;really any of these solutions will be fine as long as you've got the golden gig of ram with your cpu.
 

kinney

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2001
2,262
17
19,785
I dont know about the relevancy of this to what I stated.

SSE3 brings no performance advantage.

SSE3 might and might not in the future.. but it is at least in USE by ONE Windows app.
While you wont see broad 64bit acceptance until Windows64, and you wont see Windows64 being supported and promoted until Intel supports Windows64.
It wont be on every Tom, Dick and Harry's desk until that point.. and companies will not dedicate resources to mass development without Tom, Dick and Harry having this.
If they dont have a 64bit CPU, they wont want this. Nor are companies going to waste money to provide this.

This is undoubtably true because if AMD had the clout to change the market without Intel, then everyone wouldve ran out to buy their A64.
But its still an enthusiast curiousity.

Companies worry about $, and supporting AMDs little 64bit charade wont give them anything but a warm feeling in their bellies.
Which is better filled, and exponentially more likely to be filled by working with numero uno, padre Intel.

Socket 478 is limited to P4 3.4C GHz

Socket 754 is upgradable upto at least A64 3700+

S478 is limited, as all are including the ill conceived, single channel, S754 that was dead before it was even born.
While that is useful information...
we are talking about the best choice for this individual and I was merely pointing out how the Pentiums offer a better choice over A64, with its useless 64bit support (which you are paying for), its stock performance benefit and crappy platform support.
The good platform isnt coming until a bit from the new NV, and dont expect it to be going for <A HREF="http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=13-137-041R&depa=0" target="_new">$39</A> like a rock-solid, 865 Intel.
Refurbed or not, the Intel chipsets are cheaper and superior. While at least their CPUs features are in use in SOME of todays applications.

____________________________
:evil: <b>RESIDENT FORUM WARRIOR :evil:
<font color=purple>I just neutered the cat.
Now he's a liberal.</font color=purple></b>
 

kinney

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2001
2,262
17
19,785
Hyperthreading is not used in games but other apps.

But if you do happen to have other apps running with games, the P4 is going to handle it better.
I've done this MANY times in HT-enhanced games such as Everquest.. when I have downtime I will task out and do other things on my PC like Photoshop tasks ect.

You are not paying for 64bit.
A64 3000+ Retail @ newegg = 223$
P4 3.0c Retail @ newegg = 224$

It appears that you are paying for 64bit.
AMD has always been cheaper than Intel, now they are about the same.
Reason for this price increase?
No one knows for sure, but 64bit development/implementation is as good as any.

Those who bring up 64bit are thinking that if they got a chip today,it would be nice if it had a refreshing advantage in a year or two when that really cool yet demanding game comes out in 64bit and 32bit they will have the 64bit chip capable of a better experience, either increased detail or holding the high detail while expanding the environment of the game.
This would be nice, if true.

But reality says that by the time 64bit takes hold (or, when Intel enters the consumer 64bit marketplace)..
current Athlon 64s wont have near the power to run that generation of 64bit applications.

Other than that, all preliminary testing that we have to go off of have shown that AMD64 might not bring the performance increases some were hoping.

____________________________
:evil: <b>RESIDENT FORUM WARRIOR :evil:
<font color=purple>I just neutered the cat.
Now he's a liberal.</font color=purple></b>
 

Piccoro

Distinguished
Feb 4, 2004
70
0
18,630
Athlon XP proccessors remained lower priced because while they were good in games they didn't dominate, infact the P4 held most the wins especially in video creation performance with 800FSB models.
AMD kept those prices lower to add value as a benefit to draw buys.

Athlon 64 CPUs basicly have taken the performance in many more benchmarks and have challenged Intel in their video creation area even when a P4 has HT. <A HREF="http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/intelamdcpuroundupvideo/index.html" target="_new">Link</A>
Dual Opterons win vs dual xeons in most of the benchmarks except 3d rendering.
<A HREF="http://www.sudhian.com/showdocs.cfm?aid=487" target="_new">Link</A>

You are paying for solid CPU that wins benchmarks based on its 32bit performance. AMD does not need to lower prices as they stick out more than Intel as a buy at the current pricing. I'm not sure why you think they need to and keep pointing to 64bit.
Also if Multitasking/SMP was of that much interest to consider you can get an AMD Opteron SMP system for a lot less than you think (pretty close to the cost of a top end P4 system w/HT) and do better in SMP/Multitasking + Gaming etc. Hell, even early benchmarks of the Opteron 240 (as a single CPU) showed it challenged a 3ghz P4 in gaming. Look em up.
*update
<A HREF="http://www.hardwarezoom.com/viewcontent.jsp?ReviewID=161&PageNo=13" target="_new">Opteron 240 (1.4ghz) vs P4 3.0ghz vs P4 3.06ghz</A>

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by Piccoro on 04/06/04 10:04 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 

kinney

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2001
2,262
17
19,785
I think we can agree to disagree.

You are paying for solid CPU that wins benchmarks based on its 32bit performance. AMD does not need to lower prices as they stick out more than Intel as a buy at the current pricing. I'm not sure why you think they need to and keep pointing to 64bit.
Because their platform is immature and not on par with Intels, that is why.
As well as being more expensive.

The stock 32bit performance lead just doesnt add up to enough considering all the factors in the Pentiums favor.

I was merely showing how 64bit was absolutely useless, and I wanted to make that clear. Its not a bonus, but rather a cost-adding "feature".

One that will not be useful until Intel implements it.
Once that happens, then software will take a while to catch up.
Their target 64bit chip that they will base their software off of will be Intels 64bit chips, which are likely to be much faster than a A64 3000+ in 64bit mode.
So AMD has a cost-adding feature that is useless, and will likely remain useless in the future due to the likely scenario.

It would be irresponsible and unfounded to claim that AMDs 64bit R&D has no effect on their chip pricing.
Everything else both Intel and AMD research affects their CPU pricing so I dont know why this would be any different.

____________________________
:evil: <b>RESIDENT FORUM WARRIOR :evil:
<font color=purple>I just neutered the cat.
Now he's a liberal.</font color=purple></b>
 

trooper11

Distinguished
Feb 4, 2004
758
0
18,980
you must know something everyoen doesnt. where are these signs that an intel 64bit chipp wil outperform an amd 64bit chip? This is what you assume, not based on any facts, unless you have access to some. You also assume intel will drive the development and adoption of 64bit, I have to disagree, but there isnt much way to convince one way or another, so we have to wait. I mean I can understand where your coming from, in the past intel has driven such things, either to thier destruction or fully embraced. I just get the feeling its not so cut and dry anymore. I mean it took a long time to transition from 16bit to 32bit, you cant expect that at this point youd seem more apps or drivers this soon. I also dont htink the MS delay is becuase of intel, MS always delays. Its certianly possible intel could steal the fire of amd's move, but if amd plays it right, I dont think it will be as black and white as you assume. Dont forget, intel had to change its plans to move up its adoption, at least on paper anyway, to respond, so I think amd has a fighting chance.
 

Cybercraig

Distinguished
Dec 31, 2007
2,058
0
19,780
"I can think on NO good reason to buy Intel now!"

Posted by Kinney one week ago! Granted, it was after a late nite binge in an afterhours joint. Kinney was served up a thick blue liquor by a waitress with stitches in her face. He leaned over the table and slurred, "I'm going to marry that girl some day!" Tomorrow he will argue FOR AMD. LOL!

MSI 875 Neo-FIS2R - Ready, Captain!
P2.8 C - Ready, Captain!
PC-3500 OCZ 2.5-3-3-6 - Ready, Captain!
CoreCell Temps - 39C - Ready, Captain!
Mr. Sulu, prepare for overclock!

"I am become death, the destroyer of worlds. Now, let's eat!
 

pauldh

Illustrious
Is the Celeron system playing your games OK now, or are you so ready to upgrade right away?

What are your plans for the current mobo/cpu? Selling them, using them as a spare system? Etc.


Is your current rig nice and stable? Just not fast enough?


Have you considered upgrading your current motherboard to a 533 bus P4? Not the fastest option, but the cheapest and easiest to upgrade. No need to buy a new mobo and ram. No need to reinstall Windows or your programs, settings & data. Not sure if the 2.4A works on your mobo or not. It is $141 retail. The 2.8B is $167 retail. The 3.06B is $222 retail. Quick easy cheap upgrade that will blow away the celeron. Of course double check your motherboards max supported cpu before buying one. If the current rig isn't going to be used as a spare, this might hold you off further upgrades for quite a while. By the time a 2.8B or 3.06B is obsolete in gaming, all 64 bit choices will look much different than today. Also, they'll be cheaper and faster by far then. Maybe you'll still buy A64. But it would be a socket 939 with PCI express and other nice features. Shoot, maybe even be a generation beyond that or Intel 64 Bit. I agree with kinney that there is no real benifet to buying a 64 bit cpu now. A64's only benifet to me is a little more speed in games than the p4's. But your system with a 2.8B or 3.06B paired with all your ram and that 9800XT will game very well for you. And the upgrade will cost ya no more than $167 - $222. EDIT: and only 15 minutes of your time. :smile:


Honestly, my thought is that you should have bought a R9800 pro 128MB card and saved $200. (unless the 9800XT was a steal) That $200 could have upgraded the Celeron 2.7GHz to the fastest P4 your mobo supports. Then you could have sold the celeron and bought a nice game or two.

Sure the 800 bus P4's are faster(I'm still a huge supporter of these as they have been so rock solid stable and problem free for me), as are the A64 options. But how much faster and at what cost. If your system is stable, wouldn't it be nice to just pop in a speedy P4 3.06GHz and go about your gaming?



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 04/06/04 11:18 PM.</EM></FONT></P>
 

TRENDING THREADS