If you are going to swallow "the bull" then AMD 3200 is equivalent to 3.2 P4...but that's what I'm afraid it is...."bull" and really good advertising. Now does the AMD outoerform a 2.4 P4 well yes it does but it is not as quick as a 3.2 P4...no way! But let's also not lose sight of the fact the builder here has mentioned graphics (video rendering)and take it from a pro photographer, P4 blows AMD away in this category, that's why AMD "heads" are avoiding comments.
AMD 64 3200+ VS. P4 HT (640) 3.2Ghz 2mb Cache
- Thread starter Rixx
- Start date
- Status
1st of all, you can't compare clock speeds, they mean nothing. AMD cpus do more work per clock cycle. Both AMD and Intels will work for gaming. You willg et better performance with the amd, and it will overclock very nice, especially with the venice core. Intel used to be known for all rendering and photoediting, and video editing, but AMD is now catching up and is not far behind, take a look at benchmarks...
uzi9mm
Fully Optimized
- Messages
- 2,553
- Location
- Horseheads, NY
Intel is still is known for video editing, almost all of the certified AVID workstations are Intel on the PC platform. The longer pipelines and the large L2 cache speeds up the performance of rendering and realtime effects.
SHAWN
Field Engineer
- Messages
- 4,695
- Location
- Long Island, NY
Rich M said:
Ignorance is treatable Rich.
The 3200 outperforms the P4 3.2ghz in many situations...if AMD advertised the same way Intel did, everybody would be saying AMD, AMD, AMD! And as U Toast stated, clock speeds mean nothing. I would take a 2.0ghz AMD over a 3.2ghz Intel any day. In fact, i did
- Status
