Nforce2 vs 875p?

[RatBastrd]

Has anyone ever done a mobo comparison, both features as well as speed(with comparable CPUs), comparing the Nforce2 chipset(AMD) and the 875p chipset(Intel)??

I am interested in a new system and like both of these chipsets. The NForce2 has the Soundstorm 5.1 encoding(thx to Dug in the SPDIF Confusion/Question thread) that seems great and the 875p SEEMS to have a ton of built in features(gigabit LAN(CSA), TON of OCing potential with the P4's, DUAL DDR).

I dont want this to turn into an AMD vs Intel war, although I think these forums are above that kind of crap. I just want the best, fastest system available. Even though it will still be obsolete a few dasy after being assembled.

Thanks in advance!
Rat.

 

[Vette73]

Well a 875/865 with the fastest P4 will be slightly faster than the fastest nForce2 and Athlon. But it will cost a lot more to get a couple more %.

I went for the nForce2 and Athlon very close to the same P4 but a lot cheaper.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Depends on the application. For gaming, you really should look at the Tomshardware and Anandtech reviews of the P4 3.2, both compare various P4 and XP up through 3.2 & 3200+, and for gaming the P4's are much faster.

 

[Aenslead]

I agree with DaveSimmons

If you wish fast multitasking, and a light Windows enviroment, no matter how many programs/processes running at the same time, as well as excelent office power, then Athlon XP is the one for you.

If you are a benchmark fan and love fast framerates, then P4 is for you.

Budget must be a tad higher for P4 systems, nonetheless...

I beleive i875/i865PE is a far better chipset, much more optimized for the processor it runs for.

 

[RatBastrd]

Thanks to all of you for replying.. Thanks to DaveSimmons for the name of the article.. Not sure how that one slipped by.

That is EXACTLY the kind of article I have been looking for.

Being a huge gamer, it looks as though the P4 is the way to go for me. Although I would be giving up the DD 5.1 encoding that can be done with the Nforce2. Can this be done with an add-in card on an Intel system?

 

[Corporate Thug]

whoever get a 3200+ or a 3.2 P4 is an idiot or has too much money to speed

 

[pelikan]

Here's an excellent comparison.

 

[gagaliya]

/rant on

My last system was the only one with amd in it. And frankly i hate it so much. I bought it when the new epox 8kha+ mobo and amd xp 1800(?) just came out, with matchin crucial ddr and the best components at the time. It is LOUD, HOT, and unstable. With just over 1.5 years of use, my system is pretty much dead. Randomly crashes in 3d games, graphic infinite loop bugs, bsod.

On the other hand, my old pentium3 is still running rock solid and with no noise. I am happily using it as a server atm. And wayyy before that, i still have the pentium1 and it runs win95 just fine..

My personal conclusion:

Amd + VIA = avoid at all cost
Intel = good
Geforce = good
latest ati radeon = didnt have a chance to try yet
sound blaster live and before = good
audigy = a big drop in stability and bad drivers, not very good.

/rant off

gaga

 

[DAPUNISHER]

^Flame bait

 

[First]

When you talk about best gaming "CPU", it's not entirely accurate to say "P4 is better than Athlon". Sure, at 3.2GHz, the P4 is consistently faster than a 3200+ Athlon on average of about 10%. But basically anything below 3.2GHz/3200+ is where Athlon CPUs shine, due entirely to their prices. The cheapest latest and greatest budget P4 CPU (2.4C) is still $165+, while you can buy a 2500+ Athlon CPU and board for exactly the same cost of that single P4 CPU, which is obviously worthless without a board and will end up costing you an extra $100. Gaming performance will be identical, meaning you won't notice the tiny differences between these two systems.

 

[txxxx]

mmmm 5% performance increase = $200+ more? No thanks

But I guess whatever rocks your boat

 

[Aenslead]

The Master has spoken.

I agree... which is the reason why I have always gone for AMD.

If you'd like some more options, why not try Sharky Extreme's guide to Extreme or High-End machines?

By the way, Evan... why havent you guys published more guides? I enjoyed them quite a bit.

 

[gagaliya]

Originally posted by: txxxx
mmmm 5% performance increase = $200+ more? No thanks

But I guess whatever rocks your boat

I have been building/running PCs long enough to realize a 5-10% performance gain means almost nothing, that is never the reason to pick intel over amd (or geforce over ati etc). However stability does. When i build a pc I want it to be rock solid and able to run thing without crashing, i am not one of those people who have their case panel open everyday trying to tweak this, overclock that. And the bottom line is amd cpus are not as stable or reliable as intel, especially paired with the VIA junks. If you love tweaking with the pc everyday then by all means amd is perfect, but if you are like me who just want to turn it on and play games and code i suggest you get intel from my personal experience.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: gagaliya

Originally posted by: txxxx
mmmm 5% performance increase = $200+ more? No thanks

But I guess whatever rocks your boat

I have been building/running PCs long enough to realize a 5-10% performance gain means almost nothing, that is never the reason to pick intel over amd (or geforce over ati etc). However stability does. When i build a pc I want it to be rock solid and able to run thing without crashing, i am not one of those people who have their case panel open everyday trying to tweak this, overclock that. And the bottom line is amd cpus are not as stable or reliable as intel, especially paired with the VIA junks. If you love tweaking with the pc everyday then by all means amd is perfect, but if you are like me who just want to turn it on and play games and code i suggest you get intel from my personal experience.

Nice story fanboy, to bad its untrue

 

[yodayoda]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
When you talk about best gaming "CPU", it's not entirely accurate to say "P4 is better than Athlon". Sure, at 3.2GHz, the P4 is consistently faster than a 3200+ Athlon on average of about 10%. But basically anything below 3.2GHz/3200+ is where Athlon CPUs shine, due entirely to their prices. The cheapest latest and greatest budget P4 CPU (2.4C) is still $165+, while you can buy a 2500+ Athlon CPU and board for exactly the same cost of that single P4 CPU, which is obviously worthless without a board and will end up costing you an extra $100. Gaming performance will be identical, meaning you won't notice the tiny differences between these two systems.

why buy a 2500+ when you can get a 1700+ for $50 and hit 2600+ speeds at stock voltages? my 1700+ is at 10x200 with stock voltage and decent cooling. makes the "bang for the buck" argument even stronger.

 

[Aenslead]

He's not a fan boy, and he's got a point.

It is unfortunate that AMD is considered as an enthusiast's product or as a low-cost solution.

I am quite sure that 7/10 enthusiasts have AMD.

AMD has known this for the longest time, since Athlon appeared. Their first attempt to make it into the Joe Sixpack market, was to start their "AMD Assured" program, with ASUS' A7N266-VM motherboard certified to work as stable and as fast as an 845G solution for Intel, and has had upgraded it to nForce II systems since its launch.

They are working on it. VIA has attributed much of Athlon's enthusiast's success, but a great part of mainstream market failure.

After all, imagine issuing in a weekly bases for OEM clients with VIA+AMD plataforms that they had to upgrade their drivers. Unnified drivers for nForce are tackling that problem, and its working quite well.

nVidia is helping out, and it is expected that when Athlon 64 is launched, the 64-bit marketing + optimized plataform will help counter Intel's fame of being highly stable, hence, suitable for mainstream market. Soon, the Joe's that went to best buy will not ask anymore for "the Pentium that appeared on TV", but also for the "64 thing they also heard of",

Its a marlketing world after all.