AMD 64 3200+ VS. P4 HT (640) 3.2Ghz 2mb Cache

Status
Not open for further replies.
Im building a new rig also and if you can afford it jump up to the Athlon 3500+ its not much more expensive and youll get quite a performance boost.. stay with the 939 chipset architecture the price difference between those is even less of a difference. The Venice is a great processor like mentioned before. Nforce3 boards are way cheap right now and can run an amd fx processor if you wanted to upgrade later on. I dont see any reason to go nforce4 yet unless you need a pci-e slot and HAVE to have SATA hard drives. Ive heard the dfi lanparty boards are pretty good. That might be an option to think about also. Well amd is 64bit and it doesnt really mean jack right now but later on down the road.... 64 bit windows will take off. The new windows OS longhorn I think its called is 64 bit. Its supposed to be a huge upgrade from xp. Im not 100 percent sure on this Im just going from what I heard.
 
If your going to buy the P4 640, just spend the extra $10 for a pentium D dual core @ 2.8ghz each. They also support 64-bit technology.
 
madmunki said:
The AMD 3200 is like a 2.4ghz, and is much slower then the P4 3.2ghz.

I would stay away from AMD, cause there is so many problems with AMD and gaming, like look at the World of Warcraft support forum, the number one issue (error 131) only happens with AMD processors.

Most gaming companies develope games on Intel systems, and are only tested with AMD. I would rather have a CPU that games were written for, not ported to.


This is coming from a person who owns a Dell :p. Its ok guys!
 
I would take the AMD Athlon 64 3200+ over the P4 any day. That P4 is as good as the 540 with the 1MB cache, going from 1MB to 2MB is like going from 1GB to 2GB, it hurts performance or gives minimal increase.

Secondly, Intel's next processor is going to be a desktop version of the Pentium M. Intel admits that the NetBurst architecture is horrible and maxed out in terms of MHz.

The A64 is better, look at benches, right now, AMD is better at rendering also. AMD wins nearly 75 to 80% of all benchmarks, and the rest it ties or loses by a small margin.
 
Megadeth2 said:
I would take the AMD Athlon 64 3200+ over the P4 any day. That P4 is as good as the 540 with the 1MB cache, going from 1MB to 2MB is like going from 1GB to 2GB, it hurts performance or gives minimal increase.

He will not have 2mb of l2 cache. He will have 1mb on each core. Both cores will only be utilized when he is using a programs that supports SMP or if he sets the affinity to certain processes. But still he will only using 1mb on each affinity.
 
Hello,

Thank you for all of your views. I am still a little confused. From what I can see from the benchmarks, the AMD is better for games right across the board, but the P4 is better for video rendering and the like.

Ive been spending about 2 weeks tweaking the hell out of Windows x64 Edition and have been getting nowhere with the AMD. Im am veering toward the P4, but then I think my lack of sleep is affecting my decision!

Thanks again for all of your views.
 
uzi9mm, where are you?

Your understanding of the sequence on Intel procs is totally off.
3xx=Celeron D
5xx=P4 Prescott 32-Bit 1MB L2 Cache
5x1=As Above with 64-Bit
6xx=As Above with 64-Bit 2MB L2 Cache
8xx=Dual Core

AMD is across the board better and what difference does it make if you save 2 seconds on the Intel? Show me those benchmarks, and on a side not you might want to show the board you're getting with the 640 because if it is not on the 940 or 955 chipsets, then you will not be able to get a dual core Pentium D. With AMD, socket 939, you can upgrade on any board to the Athlon 64 X2.

Think about it, money goes down the drain with an Intel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom