<div class="IPBDescription">i need to know which is better</div> Hello,
im getting a new compy next week and i am leaning toward a AMD 3000+ Barton processor. But im also thinking about the P4 2.8 GHZ which is in the same price range.
which is better and why
0
Comments
That's an endorsment for me. Don't ask why. All my PC's have been AMD though <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Pentium 4s on the other hand have non confusing numbers <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> and have a longer life due to the less heat, and youll need less fans. The Pentium 4 3.2GHZ Hyperthreading processor is the best Pentium processor out IIRC.
Go with a Pentium 4.
[/Biased] [/Salesmanness]
Clocks in at 2.13GHz
AMD = j00r 1337
Clocks in at 2.13GHz
AMD = j00r 1337 <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
roger. Best performance/value processor you can get.
Yea i was probably getting the AMD 3000+ XP Barton with a Gig of ram and an Asus A7N8XDX Mobo
Yea i was probably getting the AMD 3000+ XP Barton with a Gig of ram and an Asus A7N8XDX Mobo <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Just get a 2600+ and overclock it. You'll never be able to tell the difference.
AMD is the consumer type cpu; it has the most bang for the buck, plays games well. AMD also performs well in Multimedia tasks (no that playing music but rendering, etc) I have a AMD workstation for Multimedia work and I can tell you it straight out blows equivelent Xeons (Mhz being the same). AMD is great for this,
INTEL is the SERVER machines, they generate little heat (perfect when you have 500 such machines in a small room) It may cost twice as much but it does it's SERVER tasks extremely effectively. With up to 8 MB cache instead of up to 333 (AMD) it can run countless MySQL queries and other server processes without breaking a sweat. A INTEL machine is much more cost effective for SERVERS, a AMD much more cost effective for HOME USE.
The fact he supports RDram, doesn't know what he's talking about and is just overall standing without any concrete proof makes this totally wrong
Stability: my AMD's never crashed on me. I take care of my equipment and know what it can do/cannot do
Power Use: Sure, they dissipate a lot of heat. I agree with him, but as long as you have a good fan to go along, there's no problem. If you can't afford the money whatever more power the Athlon needs over the P4, then you can't afford a P4
AMD Performance: he's basically proving how a 3000+ turning at 2.2 Ghz is worse than a 3.0 P4 by saying how his Cyrix 133 was worse than a Pentium 90 Mhz and accusing AMD of using its performance rating to actually show performance. He uses only one benchmark (Quake3) to prove his very bad point
But you can over clock it! Wh ever heard of overclocking a P4? They got a good OC capacity, if not better than AMD
Cost: I don't know what he's saying... hge's mixing up everything. He's basically saying "ok amd is cheap, but that's not always good because I say it's bad."
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> but it is not always a good title.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
what do you know? in this case it is
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have to guess, from my experience, that about 80% of the "My computer crashes all of the time, it must be the OS's fault" are running AMD and (usually) VIA chipset boards...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have to guess you don't know what you're talking about
per clock cycle, amd's run hotter
per clock cycle, amd's do more
per dollar, amd's do more
amd's are best for games
pentiums are best for apps (especially photoshop)
and unless your motherboard supports it, an amd will NOT slow down or shut off if it overheats, a pentium will
somne people have said that amd is less reliable, but i have yet to see any evidence of that. ever.
both of their newer chips seem to overclock similarly well, with the new bartons being locked multipliers.and a lot of people dont seem to care about overclocking anyway. (a few months ago i coulda said that amd overclocks a million times better than intel, with the barton 2500 ramping to 2.6ghz!!)
but i strongly suggest you get a barton cored amd chip. a barton 2500 will overpower a thoroughbread 2600, so make sure that amdxp3000+ youre looking at has 512 cache and 400 fsb.
a 2nd question just quickly, i got a radeon 9600 for christmas should i exchange it and use like 120 dollars to get an xt now or wait like 4 months when hl2 comes out and have it be like 100 dollars
The athlon XP has a smaller die than a p4, it doesn't consume more power than a p4(infact, the ~ equivalent performance p4 consumes slightly more power). The athlon XP has a smaller die because it has fewer transistors.
In photoshop specifically and most 3d rendering apps and encoding and such(they tend to be SSE-2 optimized and like memory bandwidth) the athlon XP tends to get slaughtered.
I have noticed that the athlon XP often outperforms the p4's in older/unoptimized applications as well as general usage/office applications quite a bit.
Unless you really must have the best performance in photoshop and some 3d rendering applications you will be happy with either processor. I would look at the price of a good motherboard for a p4 system with 800 MHz FSB and a good motherboard for an athlonXP system.
I would _REALLY STRONGLY, CANNOT OVEREMPHASIZE THIS!!!!1111_ consider getting a low end athlon64 though, they are available in the same price range as the athlonXP 3000+ and they kick some serious **** in gaming. The athlon64 3000+ pretty much beats/equals the p4 3.2 GHz at pretty much everything and costs ~200$. The only thing it still hasn't caught up on is encoding and heavily SSE-2 optimized stuff. It might not be easily available everywhere yet though...
What are the advantages of bringing out a 64 bit processor, when games won't be utilizing them until 2005? Amd did this by bringing out the FX, but that just gives Nvidia more time to come out, perhaps at a better time, with a processesor better than what the FX can muster. Maybe it is good for everyone that AMD jump into the game ahead a bit.