| Intel | 40% | 40% - 28 | ||||
| Amd | 59% | 59% - 41 | ||||
| Total: 69 | ||||||
yea I read it didn't tell me anything new. doesn't help me figuring out what is comparable to a p4 3.2GhzMaj.Do wrote:
If u dont understand the amd speed and intel spped go the tech section and look for a thread named " intel vs amd" in there is a link not to far down about the differences.
and i aint ashamed to say i have a p4. I also own a amd system.
so FX-57 is comparable to mine?4lter_3go wrote:
Fx-57
I am ashamed but when your uncle works for Intel and asks how your Intel based rig is running every time you see them, you kind of don't have much say in the matter. I would like nothing more than to have an AMD based rig as my primary gaming system.-_{MoW}_-Assasin wrote:
They should be ashamed to say they have a P4Herbmaster007 wrote:
Unfortunately, some people haven't experienced the benefits of shorter, fatter pipelines offered by AMD. The P4 is like a dragster, it's great in a straight line, but in real world conditions it's no different to the Athlon. The AMD offers more performance to cost ratio and is generally preferred as a result.-_{MoW}_-Assasin wrote:
why are people voting for intel?
Last edited by =ST6=SewerMaster (2006-01-08 22:06:12)
In terms of memory read/write times and latency, an AMD Athlon 64 3500+ (939 pin) is about equal. Even though the ACTUAL clock speed is only about 2.4GHz. But the emphasis has to be on the graphics card. If you can afford a top of the range graphics card and an FX or X2 processor then great, but I'd say go for at least a 3500+ AMD and work up from there.LT.Commander_DATA wrote:
so FX-57 is comparable to mine?4lter_3go wrote:
Fx-57
Thanks I think that's the best advice I've gotten so far, but as always I'll need to do more reacher into it. but you've given me a place to start.Herbmaster007 wrote:
In terms of memory read/write times and latency, an AMD Athlon 64 3500+ (939 pin) is about equal. Even though the ACTUAL clock speed is only about 2.4GHz. But the emphasis has to be on the graphics card. If you can afford a top of the range graphics card and an FX or X2 processor then great, but I'd say go for at least a 3500+ AMD and work up from there.LT.Commander_DATA wrote:
so FX-57 is comparable to mine?4lter_3go wrote:
Fx-57
No. For the most part, the 3200+ is equivalent to your 3.2C. AMD names their chip according to the intel counter part (as far as MHz go).LT.Commander_DATA wrote:
so FX-57 is comparable to mine?4lter_3go wrote:
Fx-57
Last edited by jnick (2006-01-09 18:29:05)
where can I find info on where they name the chip according to intel counter parts. and yes I have never overclocked CPUs before and I don't think I'll be starting that anytime soon. So I'm guessing Venice core is the way to go.jnick wrote:
No. For the most part, the 3200+ is equivalent to your 3.2C. AMD names their chip according to the intel counter part (as far as MHz go).
64 3200+ = 3.2
64 3500+ = 3.5
64 4000+ = 4.0
This ONLY goes for the 64 xx00+ series.
Ziggy - Yes, the Venice core is much better due to it's overclocking capability . . . however, who says commander is going to overclock? Maybe he wants something stable out of the box.
Last edited by ifixphns2 (2006-01-11 22:13:19)
Aswome links thanksHerbmaster007 wrote:
Basically, the number that AMD attach to the processor is the speed of the equivalent Intel P4 processor. So if you're running a 3.2GHz P4, then the AMD 64 3200+ would be about equal. Make sure it's the 90nm core (San Diego or Venice) also buy the retail boxed version NOT OEM and get a motherboard that supports Dual Channel Memory to take full advantage of the 128-bit memory bus. If you need anymore help, check out a few hardware forums such as Major Geeks; Hot Hardware; Tom's Hardware; Firing Squad; Guru3D; or VR-Zone. Search through the posts on there and see what the experts say. If you can't find an answer there, post on a couple of forums or check out The Mother of All CPU Charts 2005. But most say, if you're building a PC for gaming, spend what you can on a graphics card then build the rest of the system around your left over budget.
Have fun with it and good luck.
Is yours a 478 pin P4 chip? if so youhave agp right? how is your agp x850xt( I'm sure it's good) what brand is it? if it's not 478pin ignore this post.Adonlude wrote:
Intel P4 3.0GHz 800MHz FSB
P4C800 Deluxe MBoard
2.0Gb Kingston Hyper X Ram
ATI Radeon X850XT Platinum
I have always gamed using Intel and I have always been happy. Intel invented the PC and helped and nurtured AMD in its infancy so that Intel could avoid anti trust laws. AMD took Intel's invention and is now trying to compete with intel. Intel has the pricing power to walk all over AMD and there is nothing that AMD can do about it. I will never buy an AMD chip just because they marginally outperformed Intel chips in the field of gaming in the recent past. The tides will probably change in the near future anyway, maybe with their Viiv chips and 65nm designs.
Intel has my vote!
I began gaming with a 486SX Intel, and switched to AMD after my (free and faster w/ an accompanying motherboard) 486DX. At the time, AMD was freshly sloughing off a (mostly competitor-induced) reputation as a buggy chip, so I decided to give them a shot. It worked marvelously, and I have consistantly built AMD systems since then.Adonlude wrote:
Intel P4 3.0GHz 800MHz FSB
P4C800 Deluxe MBoard
2.0Gb Kingston Hyper X Ram
ATI Radeon X850XT Platinum
I have always gamed using Intel and I have always been happy. Intel invented the PC and helped and nurtured AMD in its infancy so that Intel could avoid anti trust laws. AMD took Intel's invention and is now trying to compete with intel. Intel has the pricing power to walk all over AMD and there is nothing that AMD can do about it. I will never buy an AMD chip just because they marginally outperformed Intel chips in the field of gaming in the recent past. The tides will probably change in the near future anyway, maybe with their Viiv chips and 65nm designs.
Intel has my vote!
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2006-01-12 20:20:19)
I would think that it has everything to do with money. Dell sells computers to those huge corporations for so cheap, AMD, or for that matter, any other company, can't keep up. It has nothing to do with confusion, speed, ease of use, or anything else. It has everything to do with the bottom line.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
These corporations are merely nervous that their consumer base and sales reps will be confused by their offering both AMD and Intel series systems.
Yes mine is 478. I just upgraded to the ATI Brand X850XT PE this week from a 9800pro. My 3DMark05 score went from 2724 to 6050. However, BF2 is not that much better. I used to play with lighting, dynamic lighting, dynamic shadows on medium, rest on high with no AA and NO filtering. Now I can play with 4xAA and Medium filtering but If is put the rest to high then it gets all choppy. I am actually really dissapointed and If I could return the card I would probably do so and buy some no name X800XT or X850XT for $250 instead of this top of the line ATI Brand card for $400.LT.Commander_DATA wrote:
Is yours a 478 pin P4 chip? if so youhave agp right? how is your agp x850xt( I'm sure it's good) what brand is it? if it's not 478pin ignore this post.
Last edited by Adonlude (2006-01-16 09:31:14)
Your moms computer must blow then...our whole office uses P4's and they run great. Also, if you look at scores run by tomshardware....AMD is usually better for gaming while Intel is better when multitasking. But, there is nothing wrong with buying an intel card for gaming.Herbmaster007 wrote:
Unfortunately, some people haven't experienced the benefits of shorter, fatter pipelines offered by AMD. The P4 is like a dragster, it's great in a straight line, but in real world conditions it's no different to the Athlon. The AMD offers more performance to cost ratio and is generally preferred as a result.-_{MoW}_-Assasin wrote:
why are people voting for intel?My system entails:atlvolunteer wrote:
The question was "What CPU do you have in your system?" not "What should I get?"
AMD Athlon 64 3400+ (754 pin)
MSI nForce 3 250Gb Mobo
1GB Kingston RAM
XFX Geforce 6800 Ultra
This seems to run BF2 alright, benchmarks pretty well but lacks the dual channel (128 bit) memory bus that a 939 pin processor offers. (That speeds it up by 3-4 times when you use 2 sticks of RAM by the way)
Unfortunately, although my system is only 18 months old now, most of it's obsolete. I recently built a system for a friend of mine using the spec I listed in my previous post, only using a 4800+ X2 (dual core) processor, MSI K8N nForce 4 Diamond Skt 939 motherboard, 2 x 1GB + 2 x 512MB Corsair TwinX 3200 RAM (Windows XP will only handle up to 3GB of RAM by the way) and a 7800GTX graphics card, and it's awesome. Although the benefits of the dual core aren't obvious as nobody's found a way to utilise it fully yet, hence spend more on your graphics card than you would on your processor as your processor will be out of date, or at least half the price, within a day or 2.
Anyway, good luck with your project.
P.S. My mum runs a P4 system at her office, and it sucks. My old Athlon XP 2600+ nForce 2 Ultra 400 system whoops its' rear end.