AMD <> INTEL

[faye]

Dear all,

i want to know how does the following cpu equivalent to intel cpu:

Althon XP 3000+
Athlon 64 2800+
Athlon 64 3000+
Athlon 64 3200+

and what is the mhz does each cpu has?

 

[Dman877]

Originally posted by: faye
Dear all,

i want to know how does the following cpu equivalent to intel cpu:

Althon XP 3000+
Athlon 64 2800+
Athlon 64 3000+
Athlon 64 3200+

and what is the mhz does each cpu has?

xp3000 is 2.133 ghz I think and is about as fast as a 2.66 p4
64 2800 is 1.8 ghz and the same as ^^^ except better in games, prolly 2.8/3.0 p4 in games
3000 and 3200 (3200 has 2x cache of a 3000, useful in some applications, not in others) are 2 ghz, as fast as a 3.0/3.2 p4 in games

P4 = good encoding
A64 = good gaming

In the high end market you can't go wrong with either brand right now, price/performance is really close between the two.

 

[Duvie]

Check out anandtechs latest reviews and you will see how they place with performance...amd PR Ratings don't make much sense anymore these days so it is hard to tell you what each means to an intel cpu as applications can vary widely......

Each has strengths and pick accordingly.....Think upgrade potential as both are near end of product cycles in terms of socket sie and motherboard compatability.

 

[myocardia]

Okay, an Athlon64 2800 is 1.8ghz, and is roughly the equivalent of a P4 2.8C at gaming, and the equivalent of somewhere between a 2.0B and a 2.4B when it comes to encoding video. An A64 3000 runs at 2.0ghz, and is roughly the equivalent of a P4 3.0C at gaming, but the equivalent of a 2.4C at encoding video (the P4's specialty). The A64 3200 also runs at 2.0ghz, but it's got 1MB of L2 cache, which makes it faster at encoding video, but not faster at anything else, than the 3000. And the 3400 is the fastest of the group, at 2.2ghz w/1MB of L2 cache, and is the equivalent of a 3.4ghz P4C at gaming, and about the equivalent of a 2.8C at video encoding.

I have to disagree with Duvie here, though, on the upgrade potential. Most people only upgrade their computers once a year, at the most. When you don't upgrade processors often, you have to buy a new motherboard anyway, when you get a new processor (well, more often than not, anyway). And if you were to buy/build yourself either a fast P4C-based system, or an A64-based system, either would not start feeling slow/needing to be upgraded for quite some time. And although the A64's are 64-bit ready, I wouldn't let that make a big part in my decision for upgrading, since it's going to be quite some time before 64-bit becomes the norm, and even then, 32-bit software will still be widely available, because over 95% of the computers in existance now are only 32-bit capable. The software companies aren't just going to abandon 95% of their buying market, just because Microsoft finally got a 64-bit OS to market. And even then, you'll still have to wait until all of the equipment you have gets 64-bit drivers, etc, etc. Well, good luck, and if you need any advice getting it up and running, we'll still be here.

 

[Gamingphreek]

The 2 highend Athlon 64 chipes 3000+ and 3200+ will be all intel chips except the Extreme Edition. EE is comparable but the 64 is still a better choice. However once the Prescotts start hitting like 4 GHZ then it will get interesting.
-Kevin

 

[faye]

i see too many people using an AMD setup...(even here 4 posts, 3 uses amd, please exclude me, i am outdated)

I am confused, if a A64 3000+ = P4-3.0C in gaming and 2.8C in encoding, why not i get a 3.0C? same price i guess.

Also, if i get a prescott, 2.8E or latter, is it very wrong? I only see people suggesting Northwood. I know very brief about prescott, i know it has 1mb L2 cache, a 512kb more than Northwood, how can i be slower than Northwood. I know L2 cache is not the only thing that makes a CPU faster or slower, but this is what one of the Prescott's selling point.

Xplaya91, "once Prescotts hit 4Ghz", when will it happen? Before Prescott is anounced, i heard it could hit 5ghz.

My concern for now has nothing to do with 64bit software yet, performance, compatability(future upgradability) and most of all, PRICE.



oh, off topic here, i have a feeling people here are being nicer than before. Sometimes I got hit on my head all because i asked a dumb question.

 

[Mik3y]

actually, the amd's are better in gamings then the p4's. the intels are just better at encoding, so depending on what you really want. gaming? or encoding? i, myself, would prefer the amd, though i still like intel.

 

[bdjohnson]

in general intel's philosophy is pure speed while AMD accomplished more with a slower speed. I got a similar gain oc'ing 200mhz with my bartin 2500+ to the 1ghz gain on my friend's p4 2.4ghz.

 

[Rellik]

In general, if one is to take all games and encoding apps into account, the folowing rule of thumb applies:

For gaming:

The Northwood C CPU´s (800FSB, HT 2.4-3.4) are faster then the rated Athlon XP. A 2.8Ghz P4 will beat a 3000+ XP.

The Athlon 64 is better for gaming and thus a 2800+ is betwenn a 2.8 and a 3 Ghz P4. In some games, it even can hold against the 3.2 P4.

For encoding:

Lame mp3: Here the Athlon64 is a bit worse then the Athlon XP and the Intel. In Divx encoding, the P4 is
way faster (2.8 beating the 3200+ and the 3200 Athlon 64)

I own a P$ and a dual Athlon rig so I am not biased. I think at the moment, gamers building a new rig
are better of with a Athlon 64 (I recommend the 3000) and ppl looking for a well featured mobo and a good-for-all cpu should go with a 865/P4 Northwood 3 Ghz setup.

hope this helps

 

[justly]

Faye,

You are right to question some of this information, most people and even review sites will skew things even if it is unintentional.

To try and compare any Intel and AMD processor without providing any idea of what you intend to use it for is pointless, as all have their strong points.

The Athlon XP is a strong processor and is well suited for older code and low budget. It is also a strong gamming processor but not as good as the 800 FSB P4 or the Athlon 64. The Athlon XP does have its drawbacks, mostly in its memory latency, bandwidth and lack of SSE 2 support. It may also have slight delays when multitasking heavily.

The P4 is the industry leader in regards to streaming code due mainly to its high frequency and bandwidth. It also a good gaming solution, and boasts Hyperthreading, a feature that can make multitasking more fluid and accelerate some programs. HT can make two concurrently running programs share processor capabilities more efficiently resulting in more performance. The P4 also has support for most commonly used instructions like SSE and SSE 2.
The P4 also has some drawbacks, mostly in older code that doesn?t use SSE or SSE 2, and that HT gives varying degrees of benefit. The other drawback is its higher price for both the processor and motherboard.

The Athlon 64 improves on the Athlon XP by reducing its latency and bandwidth limitations, and adding SSE 2 and 64 bit support. It is the best solution (in most cases) for games and general computing. Due to its low latency and powerful core it should feel just as fluid as the P4 with HT even when multitasking heavily.
It to has its drawbacks, it does lack the high frequency and HT that the P4 has so streaming code such as encoding is still slower (although not as significant as the Athlon XP). Its price is about the same as a P4 (although I think the motherboards may cost a little less). Lastly, there is no finalized windows operating system, so to be able to use the 64 bit feature Linux would have to be used.

If you still have questions after reading all the replies to your post you may need to explain what primary tasks/goals you have in mind for this upgrade, or do a little research for yourself.

Good luck

 

[Anubis]

how do the AMD FX-51 and FX-53 factor into that mess of CPUs?

 

[myocardia]

Originally posted by: Anubis
how do the AMD FX-51 and FX-53 factor into that mess of CPUs?

They are overpriced, and don't provide any speed benefits over their comparable-speed A64 brethren, except when it comes to overclocking-- they have an unlocked multiplier (in both directions, the socket 754 chips are only unlocked for making the multi lower).

 

[Gamingphreek]

Woah hold on there. The FX-51 might not be a wise choice and more but the FX-53 is still a good buy. If you have the money. Right now the FX-53 is the fastest chip on the market. Yes, they do offer better performance than the regular A64's (128bit memory controller and i think larger L2 Cache). They are not that much better than the A64 but they are still better. Only buy it if you got too much money and dont know what to do with it all. Just not fast ENOUGH to warrant that much of a price increase tho so again id stick with A64 regulars at least until 939 comes out.
-Kevin

 

[faye]

FX series is kinda like another step. the price is $700+
couldn't afford it for now and if i could, i won't la... because spending too much on just one part of the system isn't money wise.

i don't see enough advantage for a 64bit cpu for now, more of the programs/softwares are still under 32bit format, still need more time for them to translate to 64bit, by then i will get a 64bit cpu definitely

justly, i have some questions... I do a lot of multitasking, i will open excel, photoshop, IE(x5), icq, mp3, wmp all at once... INTEL has something called Hyperthreading(HT), Is this only made for multitasking users so they won't notice lag when too many windows are opened? secondly what is this technology in AMD called?

So i just start touching AMD stuffs for these 2 weeks, my understand to it is 2weeks or less.

thanks

 

[Gamingphreek]

They dont have it dude...
-Kevin

 

[justly]

Faye,

AMD doesn?t use a catch phrase name for there multitasking ability because it is basically being done the same as it has been for years, much like your PIII.

Answering your question about HT isn?t really that simple. Let me first say that all PCs multitask by using a ?time slice?, this is where a processor runs a task for a fixed period then moves to another task. HT allows for 2 tasks to run concurrently (while time slicing is still going on). The thing is HT provides two benefits, one is to make the most use of the P4s abilities (making it more efficient), sometimes this is done by using multithreaded applications, other times by running programs that don?t respond well the more they have to deal with time slicing (like encoding or distributed computing). The other is to mask the P4s multitasking deficiencies, if only one task at a time could be processed (as with HT disabled). While both smoother operation and being more efficient will make for a better experience, I believe HT may be over hyped on how much it can do for both of these at the same time. All in all HT is very useful when combined with the P4s design, its just that the Athlon 64 doesn?t need it in the same way or as much as the P4 does.

I do a lot of multitasking, i will open excel, photoshop, IE(x5), icq, mp3, wmp all at once...

you should be able to do this with your PIII so anything newer should be able to do this also.

i don't see enough advantage for a 64bit cpu for now, more of the programs/softwares are still under 32bit format, still need more time for them to translate to 64bit, by then i will get a 64bit cpu definitely

some software may never get ported from 32 bit to 64 bit. Software will only be ported if it will be beneficial to do so. Even if programs are not ported switching to a 64 bit operating system could give 32 bit programs a boost in performance. If it makes you feel better call it an Athlon 64 -32 since it does just fine with 32 bit code

I also want to point out that as much as I try to be objective and neutral in regards to CPU preference I may have inadvertently put my own bias into this post, so if anyone else believes I am incorrect or have missed something please comment.

 

[irenealan]

just want to chip in. I was deciding whehter I should get a P42.8C or A64 3000+ (I figure these chips are almost comparable in price) few weeks earlier and now I ended up getting the A64 3000+ retail refurb in Newegg for $180 shipped (which is cheaper than the P42.8C retail new shipped).

Personally I had tried the P42.8C and I think it works fine for multi-tasking. I don't see any lock up when I ran Winrar, Par, IE, Nero, Windows Media and download files all at the same time. However, the only thing I don't like about it is the temp. It ran around 42C at stock when idle (under my setup environment) and when I OC it to 3.2, it's running 52C idle and could get almost 60C when loaded. Since I don't plan to use any sophisticated cooling on the chip other than the stock fan, I stayed away from it as not too good an option for OC.

Now I got the A64 3000+ which runs around 32C at stock with stock fan and 40 when loaded. I tried to OC it to 2.2ghz (same speed as 3400+) and it still runs around 46C when loaded. That's much better in temp then P42.8C at stock. The A64 chip does run application when fast, there's hardly any wait when I open any application (I don't get to see the logo of an application most of the time, just straight into the application). So I am pretty happy with a chip that's around the price of a P42.8C and works like a P43.2C without the high temp. However, recently I started to run more and more applications (as I feel more confident with the chip), the system started to lockup. I was running Par, Winrar, IE, ICQ and Newsbin and refresh rather slowly between programs and sometimes lockup (especially when I am moving and deleting files from the Window Explorer window while running all other applications). I don't know if that's the short fall of A64 since it doesn't have HT but I also think that the HyperTransport of A64 should help when page in page out from Cache, Memory and Hard Disk! Actually I think the system should run better than a P4 setup since it's running 1600mhz FSB as shown on Sandra (this doubles the P4 800 FSB). Someone please hit me if I did or said something wrong here as I don't want to give an impression that A64 is weak only because of things I have done wrong!

Well I guess you lose some and gain some but I would strongly suggested the A64 since it runs most apps fine except when you run too many at the same time!

 

[justly]

Someone please hit me if I did or said something wrong here as I don't want to give an impression that A64 is weak only because of things I have done wrong!

I don't think you need to invite someone to hit you, but you might want to ask for some help with your problem if it continues.

 

[irenealan]

sorry I don't know why I put that word but I mean anyone please comment or provide me help as I just want to tell from my experience as an example to compare AMD and Intel in real world usage. I read different articles and sometimes those figures don't explain everything until I really get to use those chips for the tasks I do under my setup.

Sorry.

Originally posted by: justly

Someone please hit me if I did or said something wrong here as I don't want to give an impression that A64 is weak only because of things I have done wrong!

I don't think you need to invite someone to hit you, but you might want to ask for some help with your problem if it continues.

 

[faye]

Originally posted by: irenealan
just want to chip in. I was deciding whehter I should get a P42.8C or A64 3000+ (I figure these chips are almost comparable in price) few weeks earlier and now I ended up getting the A64 3000+ retail refurb in Newegg for $180 shipped (which is cheaper than the P42.8C retail new shipped).



Personally I had tried the P42.8C and I think it works fine for multi-tasking. I don't see any lock up when I ran Winrar, Par, IE, Nero, Windows Media and download files all at the same time. However, the only thing I don't like about it is the temp. It ran around 42C at stock when idle (under my setup environment) and when I OC it to 3.2, it's running 52C idle and could get almost 60C when loaded. Since I don't plan to use any sophisticated cooling on the chip other than the stock fan, I stayed away from it as not too good an option for OC.



Now I got the A64 3000+ which runs around 32C at stock with stock fan and 40 when loaded. I tried to OC it to 2.2ghz (same speed as 3400+) and it still runs around 46C when loaded. That's much better in temp then P42.8C at stock. The A64 chip does run application when fast, there's hardly any wait when I open any application (I don't get to see the logo of an application most of the time, just straight into the application). So I am pretty happy with a chip that's around the price of a P42.8C and works like a P43.2C without the high temp. However, recently I started to run more and more applications (as I feel more confident with the chip), the system started to lockup. I was running Par, Winrar, IE, ICQ and Newsbin and refresh rather slowly between programs and sometimes lockup (especially when I am moving and deleting files from the Window Explorer window while running all other applications). I don't know if that's the short fall of A64 since it doesn't have HT but I also think that the HyperTransport of A64 should help when page in page out from Cache, Memory and Hard Disk! Actually I think the system should run better than a P4 setup since it's running 1600mhz FSB as shown on Sandra (this doubles the P4 800 FSB). Someone please hit me if I did or said something wrong here as I don't want to give an impression that A64 is weak only because of things I have done wrong!



Well I guess you lose some and gain some but I would strongly suggested the A64 since it runs most apps fine except when you run too many at the same time!

what motherboard did u use to go with that A64 3000+?

also, u can't always find a good refub cpu.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: irenealan
just want to chip in. I was deciding whehter I should get a P42.8C or A64 3000+ (I figure these chips are almost comparable in price) few weeks earlier and now I ended up getting the A64 3000+ retail refurb in Newegg for $180 shipped (which is cheaper than the P42.8C retail new shipped).



Personally I had tried the P42.8C and I think it works fine for multi-tasking. I don't see any lock up when I ran Winrar, Par, IE, Nero, Windows Media and download files all at the same time. However, the only thing I don't like about it is the temp. It ran around 42C at stock when idle (under my setup environment) and when I OC it to 3.2, it's running 52C idle and could get almost 60C when loaded. Since I don't plan to use any sophisticated cooling on the chip other than the stock fan, I stayed away from it as not too good an option for OC.



Now I got the A64 3000+ which runs around 32C at stock with stock fan and 40 when loaded. I tried to OC it to 2.2ghz (same speed as 3400+) and it still runs around 46C when loaded. That's much better in temp then P42.8C at stock. The A64 chip does run application when fast, there's hardly any wait when I open any application (I don't get to see the logo of an application most of the time, just straight into the application). So I am pretty happy with a chip that's around the price of a P42.8C and works like a P43.2C without the high temp. However, recently I started to run more and more applications (as I feel more confident with the chip), the system started to lockup. I was running Par, Winrar, IE, ICQ and Newsbin and refresh rather slowly between programs and sometimes lockup (especially when I am moving and deleting files from the Window Explorer window while running all other applications). I don't know if that's the short fall of A64 since it doesn't have HT but I also think that the HyperTransport of A64 should help when page in page out from Cache, Memory and Hard Disk! Actually I think the system should run better than a P4 setup since it's running 1600mhz FSB as shown on Sandra (this doubles the P4 800 FSB). Someone please hit me if I did or said something wrong here as I don't want to give an impression that A64 is weak only because of things I have done wrong!



Well I guess you lose some and gain some but I would strongly suggested the A64 since it runs most apps fine except when you run too many at the same time!

My 2.6C @ 3.46ghz runs at 45C at load on air. The wait time for applications has a lot more to do with hard drive than cpu. Also the Athlon-64 doesnt have a front side bus.

 

[irenealan]

I am using the Gigabyte K8N Pro and now I just switch to the MSI K8T FSR.

I agree with Acanthus that's why I pointed out that I am having problem running my applications since my tasks do a lot of hard disk operations. Thus even the CPU is fast but then the memory or hard disk is the part that may slow it down when loaded with my tasks.

I think the A64 is very comparable to P4 when running most applications. Just that I wonder if the P4 HT really happens multi-task that much since I have better experience with P4 when running different applications. The system doesn't get lock up at all.

Just wonder Acanthus what mobo you use with your P4 since I was using the Abit IS7 and it gives very high temp! Just wonder if it's my setup or some other parameter! Plus do I have to have a very good case with lots of fans? Just with my experience I use the same case with two fans and the A64 gets 42 loaded and the P4 get 52C when loaded. Very strange!

For the FSB part I think I am referrable to the 1600 FSB from the A64 HyperTransport. Everyone says there's no FSB for A64 but still under Sandra you can still see the same FSB listed for P4 has a higher value. With P4 Sandra shows the FSB is 800 and with A64 the same value shows 1600! Thus I wonder if the A64 should communicate better between CPU and memory. That's double the rate of P4 and should be very fast! But I don't see much a difference between the P4 and A64 with the same ram and setup except the CPU and Mobo!

Again please comment or help! I don't mean to steal the thread but hope my experience will help everyone chooses between P4 and A64 (or Athlon). Thanks.

 

[faye]

nice to see this thread is popup everyday.

"Again please comment or help! I don't mean to steal the thread but hope my experience will help everyone chooses between P4 and A64 (or Athlon). Thanks. "

irenealan, this is exactly what i am trying to do. I need to decide which to get. I can see that A64 is more expensive than P4.(cpu + motherboard setup)

 

[justly]

Originally posted by: irenealan

For the FSB part I think I am referrable to the 1600 FSB from the A64 HyperTransport. Everyone says there's no FSB for A64 but still under Sandra you can still see the same FSB listed for P4 has a higher value. With P4 Sandra shows the FSB is 800 and with A64 the same value shows 1600! Thus I wonder if the A64 should communicate better between CPU and memory. That's double the rate of P4 and should be very fast! But I don't see much a difference between the P4 and A64 with the same ram and setup except the CPU and Mobo!

HyperTransport has nothing to do with the CPU and memory in a single processor Athlon 64. On a Athlon 64 the HyperTransport is only used for communication with the rest of the system, the memory interface is handled by the integrated memory controller operating at processor speed while the actual memory bus is limited by the actual speed of the memory.

Also after looking at some of your other threads it appears you are trying to build a high performance system, overclock and save money all with minimal experiance/knowlage, not a good combination in most cases. All I can say is good luck, becase I think you will need it.

 

[faye]

HyperTransport is something to do with Network, nothing to do with cpu speed. and of course nothing to do with HyperThreading.