AMD 64 or P4 EE?

[Pandaren]

EE = Extreme Edition

 

[vaporize]

thanks for the quick reply, but got another Q:

Difference between AMD 64 & AMD 64 FX (same as FX-51?) ? Which one is faster/more expensive ?

 

[illuminati]

Originally posted by: vaporize
thanks for the quick reply, but got another Q:

Difference between AMD 64 & AMD 64 FX (same as FX-51?) ? Which one is faster/more expensive ?

No offence, but you are a little behind...

AMD Athlon 64 3200+ ~$450
AMD Athlon 64 FX-51 >$700

Those are the two processors that AMD released today.

 

[andreasl]

Originally posted by: dullard
alexruiz and andreasl,
I agree that Anand should have tested more programs, and there were some typo and other problems in his review. BUT you two seem to dismiss it since it shows the P4EE doing average and you like Ace's since it shows the P4EE doing poorly. THAT to me is a horrible reason to like one review and to ignore the rest. I think the spread (ranging from the Athlon FX dominating down to the P4EE dominating) shows that the two chips are quite comparable. Sure one will work better on program X while the other works better on program Y - but on average they were quite close considering the massive differences between the chips.

Some sites are biased and will highlight program X or Y. This may be an intentional bias or an unintentional bias (for example they might not have the license to a particular program). That is why I read all the reviews I can and base my opinions on all of them. Simply throwing out a review since it doesn't support your opinion is idiotic...

This is simply an untrue description of me and the only reason I can think of that you are bringing it up is because you are of the opposite view of what you describe. I already said I don't care how many benchmarks each CPU wins, I am only interested in a COMPREHENSIVE review. Something that tells me about the microarchitecture as well as general performance. Anand only provides the latter because there are so few benchmarks.

 

[PowerMacG5]

Originally posted by: Regs

Originally posted by: JetBlack69

Originally posted by: shady06 i'm not gonna make any decisions til i see prescott

I concur!!!

Are you kidding? I all ready know the prescott is going to blow the AMD 64 away. lol. Will they be cheaper then a 3200?

The Prescott 3.2 GHz will introduce at $417, and the Prescott 3.4 GHz will be at $637 (linky).

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: andreasl
This is simply an untrue description of me and the only reason I can think of that you are bringing it up is because you are of the opposite view of what you describe. I already said I don't care how many benchmarks each CPU wins, I am only interested in a COMPREHENSIVE review. Something that tells me about the microarchitecture as well as general performance. Anand only provides the latter because there are so few benchmarks.

Alexruiz basically said "Anand's article was terrible, it should have been different, it should have been like Ace's since Ace's showed the Athlon 64 in a better light". I said that was quite a biased statement that Alexruiz made. You defended him. Thus I assumed you agreed with his statement - if not, then why did you defend him? I agree with you entirely that more benchmarks is better and Anand didn't have enough.

 

[andreasl]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: andreasl
This is simply an untrue description of me and the only reason I can think of that you are bringing it up is because you are of the opposite view of what you describe. I already said I don't care how many benchmarks each CPU wins, I am only interested in a COMPREHENSIVE review. Something that tells me about the microarchitecture as well as general performance. Anand only provides the latter because there are so few benchmarks.

Alexruiz basically said "Anand's article was terrible, it should have been different, it should have been like Ace's since Ace's showed the Athlon 64 in a better light". I said that was quite a biased statement that Alexruiz made. You defended him. Thus I assumed you agreed with his statement - if not, then why did you defend him? I agree with you entirely that more benchmarks is better and Anand didn't have enough.

I wasn't defending anyone, I was commenting you only. And I also never said Anand's review was bad, only that Aces was better. Aces is one of the few places that does not only benchmark games that come with built in timedemos (any site can do this, it's the easiest thing to do), they also use FRAPS to benchmark other FPS games, and they benchmark other types of games (like Civ3, have you seen that one benched ANYWHERE before?)

Anyway I hope this was just a misunderstanding..

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: andreasl
I wasn't defending anyone, I was commenting you only. And I also never said Anand's review was bad, only that Aces was better. Aces is one of the few places that does not only benchmark games that come with built in timedemos (any site can do this, it's the easiest thing to do), they also use FRAPS to benchmark other FPS games, and they benchmark other types of games (like Civ3, have you seen that one benched ANYWHERE before?)

Anyway I hope this was just a misunderstanding..

I could create a website that benchmarks Photoshop only. And guess what, the Apple computers will look good. But is that an honest overall picture of how they compare to the PC? No. Someone else could do a similar website and choose programs that highlight the PC and not the Apple computers. Again that isn't the best site to base your sole opinion on. If a third party choose to make a website showing both the PCs and the Apples strengths then that is a good website to use if you are going to use just one website.

What do you see wrong with that logic?

It sure think it was a big misunderstanding. I basically said I want to read ALL reviews to get as many benchmarks as possible; but some reviews are biased and thus you need to keep that in mind when reading them. Thus if I were to use just one site (which I don't) I'd be sure to use one of the many websites that is in the middle with as little bias as possible.

 

[Geomagick]

whichever way you go I don't think anyone will be particularly disappointed.

However at the moment the increase in performance isn't high enough to warrant going from a decent P4 or Athlon XP to either the 64/FX or the P4EE.

I think we will really see the battle take off next year, which will be good for us the consumer.

 

[piasabird]

I would wait and see if Asus or someone has a bios update to allow a P4EE chip to work on existing motherboards.

I personally would not pay over $400.00 for any CPU. You can buy a CPU for about $200 that will run any program made in an excellent manner.

I want to see a real benchmarks with mature chipsets, at high resolutions.

 

[Markfw]

One point, you can get the FX51 today on newegg for $765 IN STOCK and the P4EE is just a paper launch. Who knows when you can get one.

 

[Sunner]

I tend to trust Ace's review the most, Johan has always seemed like a very honest and unbiased person to me, and the staff over at Ace's have far more knowledge about MPU/system architecture than most other sites(including AT).
I like Ars as well, I just tend to forget about them most of time since I've never made it a habit to go there.

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: andreasl
This is simply an untrue description of me and the only reason I can think of that you are bringing it up is because you are of the opposite view of what you describe. I already said I don't care how many benchmarks each CPU wins, I am only interested in a COMPREHENSIVE review. Something that tells me about the microarchitecture as well as general performance. Anand only provides the latter because there are so few benchmarks.

Alexruiz basically said "Anand's article was terrible, it should have been different, it should have been like Ace's since Ace's showed the Athlon 64 in a better light". I said that was quite a biased statement that Alexruiz made. You defended him. Thus I assumed you agreed with his statement - if not, then why did you defend him? I agree with you entirely that more benchmarks is better and Anand didn't have enough.

Reason? Aces's and Tech report documented the changes, tried to use hardware as similar as possible, a wide variety of benchmarks to show the real performance (games specially, as the emergency edition was intended for gamers, so let's compete in games....) Accurate comparisons of one benchmark versus another, contrasts of platforms and programs, reasons or possible reasons why a platform performed better, etc..... Also, they usually get good use of the benchmarks tools (Tech repost has been the only one showing plots of framerates over time and minimum framerates in Serious Sam, while stressing that the real killer for playability are the minimum framerates. Not done this time, but done in the past)

Obviously, if a review is done in fair light, the best product will win. Ace's and techreport are well know for being fair and balanced. The majority of the reviews that had a lot of benchmarks gave the new CPU the upper hand...

I liked their reviews not because the Athlon won (AMDzone shows a complete sweep for the green team, but Chris Tom is not exactly the reviewer I like the most.....) but rather on the degree of coverage provided.

It was know that the P4 was going to win media applications, but it has been that way since the willamete era. It has been know that the Athlon is better at more mundane stuff (office and general usage) but it has also been that way since the willamete era. Games have been usually the deciding factor to say "this is the champion". Their reviews were the ones that showed more games, but specially, different kind of games.

 

[nycdude]

Originally posted by: digitalsm
Wait till Q1'04, at that point there should be a pretty clear picture of how things will line up, as of now, there is not.

I say wait also.

 

[SilentZero]

Originally posted by: JetBlack69

Originally posted by: shady06
i'm not gonna make any decisions til i see prescott

I concur!!!

I also agree 100%! First off there is no way I would pay what either manufacturers are asking right now for those 2 chips. If anything ill wait till the first quarter of next year at least, when hopefully the prices start dropping.

As far as the Prescott...the sooner it arrives the better, but I have a feeling we will not see it very soon. Intels decision to release the 3.2 EE chip means to me that its gonna be awhile till we see the Prescott. I am very impressed with the new A64 FX-51, but ill wait for the FX-53. If im going to be spending that much money on a chip...i don't want to buy it and 2 months later a better version is released. Just my .02