AMD/INTEL Processer problem - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > Monitors, Printers and Peripherals
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 09-19-2004, 07:57 PM   #1 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,446
Send a message via AIM to Alex81388
Default AMD/INTEL Processer problem

I'm sure you've all heard this a bunch here but I need some help:

I've been an Intel user my entire life, whether right or wronge I felt like I never had a problem with them. But, I'm looking at a new PC. Currently I have a Intel 2.4 P4.

It does decent, but I'm getting to the point That I might pass that one down the family and upgrade. I'm an additcted gamer, and anything I can do to reduce latency or process times I will do. Lately, these 64bit processers have intreged me, and I want some imput from you guys.

Anyways heres the choice, I was either looking at:
-AMD Athlon 64 3500+ 1600fsb socket939
-AMD Athlon 64 3700+ 1600fsb socket754
-Intel P4 3.4 800fsb socket 755

Now there is a decent price jump between the two AMDs, but if it is that much of a difference in performance, then I might do it.
A big problem I'm concerned with, is although the AMDs are 64 bit, there not high on the speed(like 2.2-2.4), but I'm not sure if thats a correct statement, I am uneducatied with the AMDs.

I considered using the ATI 9800 pro with whatever choice I decided on, but if you guys have any suggestions there I'd love them as well.

ANY HELP would be greatly appreciated, money is one of the issues, any recommendations you give please keep that in mind.

THANK YOU!
__________________

Alex81388 is offline  
Old 09-19-2004, 08:07 PM   #2 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,842
Send a message via AIM to lazerman Send a message via Yahoo to lazerman
Default

AMD is way better for gaming, and get socket 939, that's what AMD will be basing there chips off of for a while...

Also socket 939 supports dual channel ram and socket 754 doesn't.
__________________

__________________
The Stargate MMORPG
lazerman is offline  
Old 09-20-2004, 07:22 AM   #3 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,446
Send a message via AIM to Alex81388
Default

Yeah if 754 doesn't support dual channel I definatly will stay away form it.
Alex81388 is offline  
Old 09-20-2004, 07:03 PM   #4 (permalink)
Techie Beyond Description
 
Nubius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 11,600
Default

Quote:
-AMD Athlon 64 3500+ 1600fsb socket939
You definitely want that...


Quote:
A big problem I'm concerned with, is although the AMDs are 64 bit, there not high on the speed(like 2.2-2.4), but I'm not sure if thats a correct statement, I am uneducatied with the AMDs.
And this is how intel makes their money...by people not educated on the clockspeeds. AMD's do more in one cycle than an Intel does.....thats why you go by the chip name...like mine is an AMD 2400+ XP-M....my speed is 2.0GHz but the name of the chip means that it is equivelant to about 2.4GHz+ as far as intel is concerned. The 64bit chip will easily beat out probably any 3.4GHz intel you throw at it simply because they already do more per clock cycle as it is muchless with the 64bit processor to back it up....

This was what I was pointing out to another guy...Intel uses their numbers as a marketing strategy to people such as yourself who don't know much about AMD....all you see is 3.4GHZ!!! WHOA INTEL!!! and 2.4GHz amd?? that chip must be crap......so see it's just a marketing ploy if you look at it, because the Gigahertz of a system no longer determine how good of a system you have...There are many factors in determining a good computer. Trust me....that 64bit processor will handle what you can throw at it... Just think about the AMD64 processor in socket 939 that isn't an FX is the 3500+.....that means it's roughly equivelant to the best 3.5GHz+ chip out there....muchless when you step up from that to the FX-53 and FX-55....I don't even know what those are equivelant too...but yeah you can't just compare clockspeeds...with AMD and Intel you're looking at two different things....that's why I personally think it's better to go with AMD....you aren't hiding under the shadows of Intels marketing numbers and you wind up learning a lot more in the end I think.....Intels used to be top but it seems like they just want have computers to be put together for people that don't really know what they are doing and just see 3.4GHz! and basically thats it. AMD almost forces you to do research and learn just why exactly they have 'slower clockspeeds'

Intel has fatter and longer pipes that allow them to have those clockspeeds....AMD's are shorter and thats why they have slower clockspeeds but can do more instructions.

Hope this was informative for ya

GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO AMD!
Nubius is offline  
Old 09-20-2004, 07:07 PM   #5 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,446
Send a message via AIM to Alex81388
Default

O god yes it was GREATLY informative.

And thank you for pulling me out of what I thought was a Intel pithole.

I origionaly thought about the FX53 - but it is just So expensive, Maybe if they knocked it down a notch Id consider it.
Alex81388 is offline  
Old 09-20-2004, 07:28 PM   #6 (permalink)
Techie Beyond Description
 
Nubius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 11,600
Default

Quote:
I origionaly thought about the FX53 - but it is just So expensive,
Yeah and you can expect to pay atleast $200 more for the Intel equivelant, but yeah I hear ya.....$700 just for the processor is a bit steep lol
Nubius is offline  
Old 09-20-2004, 07:32 PM   #7 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,446
Send a message via AIM to Alex81388
Default

I'm looking around, and the only 3500+ i can find have 512K cache, i was wondering if they offer in 1mb.

If not is it worth going to 3400?
Alex81388 is offline  
Old 09-20-2004, 07:33 PM   #8 (permalink)
ag3
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,536
Default

Just for your information - There is not one AMD64 that actually has a 1600 Mhz FSB.
ag3 is offline  
Old 09-20-2004, 07:41 PM   #9 (permalink)
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,446
Send a message via AIM to Alex81388
Default

Then why are they all labled with 1600?


is it 800fsb?
Alex81388 is offline  
Old 09-20-2004, 07:45 PM   #10 (permalink)
ag3
Monster Techie
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,536
Default

1600 Mhz is only a comparison. You can read about it here.
__________________

ag3 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.