What would be an AMD equivalent of this:
Intel� Pentium� 4 640 Desktop Processor w/ HT Technology 3.0GHz 800MHz FSB 2MB
???
And which of these would you recommend for the best cost/performance?
AMD Athlon™ 64 FX-57 with HyperTransport Technology
AMD Athlon™ 64 FX-55 with HyperTransport Technology
AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 4800+ with HyperTransport and Dual Core Technology
AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 4600+ with HyperTransport and Dual Core Technology
AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 4400+ with HyperTransport and Dual Core Technology
AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 4200+ with HyperTransport and Dual Core Technology
AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 3800+ with HyperTransport and Dual Core Technology
AMD Athlon™ 64 4000+ with HyperTransport Technology
AMD Athlon™ 64 3800+ with HyperTransport Technology
AMD Athlon™ 64 3500+ with HyperTransport Technology
AMD Athlon™ 64 3200+ with HyperTransport Technology -
Intel® Pentium® 4 670 Desktop Processor w/ HT Technology 3.8GHz 800MHz FSB 2MB
Intel® Pentium® 4 660 Desktop Processor w/ HT Technology 3.6GHz 800MHz FSB 2MB
Intel® Pentium® 4 650 Desktop Processor w/ HT Technology 3.4GHz 800MHz FSB 2MB
Intel® Pentium® 4 640 Desktop Processor w/ HT Technology 3.2GHz 800MHz FSB 2MB
Intel® Pentium® 4 630 Desktop Processor w/ HT Technology 3.0GHz 800MHz FSB 2MB
AMD vs. Intel
Kool Pajamas
Narada
I don't know about a cost/performance ratio, but I'll tell you from experience that every AMD processor I've seen easily outperformed its Intel equivilant. I'd recommend going with one of the Athlon64 X2's if money isn't an issue.
*waits for pro-Intel flames*
*waits for pro-Intel flames*
dargon
I'm an AMD guy myself, but in all honesty, you won't really notice a difference between any of the similar processors outside of price unless you run a crapload of benchmarks or run them side by side. People here will tell you what they like, what they like isn't necessarily what is best for you. Think about what you plan to do with it and then do some research on which processor best suits your need and what you're willing to pay for it.
Kool Pajamas
I was thinking of getting this one:
AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 3800+ with HyperTransport and Dual Core Technology
Is that plenty good? These numbers confuse me. Why cant they just do GHz like Intel does...
And I need answer to first question. My current computer has, Intel® Pentium® 4 630 Desktop Processor w/ HT Technology 3.0GHz 800MHz FSB 2MB, and I'd like to go a little faster but with AMD instead. Or at least consider it, I havent decided officially yet.
This is for gaming.
AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 3800+ with HyperTransport and Dual Core Technology
Is that plenty good? These numbers confuse me. Why cant they just do GHz like Intel does...
And I need answer to first question. My current computer has, Intel® Pentium® 4 630 Desktop Processor w/ HT Technology 3.0GHz 800MHz FSB 2MB, and I'd like to go a little faster but with AMD instead. Or at least consider it, I havent decided officially yet.
This is for gaming.
Bubba Lips
AMD>Intel @ gaming
AMD<Intel @ encoding
AMD<Intel @ encoding
ShadowStorm
It's been my experience, if you want to run games of any kind on your computer, you're better off using an AMD processor. If your computer is going to be for anything else, use an Intel processor.
Edit: Dang it. Bubba Lips basically said the same thing.
Edit: Dang it. Bubba Lips basically said the same thing.
Bubba Lips
l o l
Kool Pajamas
I think I've found my answer. From what I read a:
AMD Athlon™ 64 3200+ with HyperTransport Technology -
is about the same as a
Intel® Pentium® 4 640 Desktop Processor w/ HT Technology 3.2GHz 800MHz FSB 2MB
or with the Athlon XP's anyway. I didnt find anything about the 64's
?????
AMD Athlon™ 64 3200+ with HyperTransport Technology -
is about the same as a
Intel® Pentium® 4 640 Desktop Processor w/ HT Technology 3.2GHz 800MHz FSB 2MB
or with the Athlon XP's anyway. I didnt find anything about the 64's
?????
Detis Zan
Just because Intel is something for everything else. That wouldn't mean thatr AMD can't perform/do good at it all right?
Basically if you do some pretty low "other" stuff (e-mail, internet, etc) then between the two processors there's no real "difference" (like said before) if you put them through some real testing.
The processor you're thinking on getting is just as good (maybe better) than the intel's level.
I'm buying a Athlon 64 3200+ 1 GHz (But they're two different processors so it's actually like an intel 3GHz I believe)
Your 3800 would actually be... like the 3.4 GHz Intel.
Blah you posted faster lol
-If I'm way off please tell me so I'm not an expert, going by what others say/logic-
Basically if you do some pretty low "other" stuff (e-mail, internet, etc) then between the two processors there's no real "difference" (like said before) if you put them through some real testing.
The processor you're thinking on getting is just as good (maybe better) than the intel's level.
I'm buying a Athlon 64 3200+ 1 GHz (But they're two different processors so it's actually like an intel 3GHz I believe)
Your 3800 would actually be... like the 3.4 GHz Intel.
Blah you posted faster lol
-If I'm way off please tell me so I'm not an expert, going by what others say/logic-
derrtyboy69
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bubba Lips
AMD>Intel @ gaming
AMD<Intel @ encoding |
Kool Pajamas
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by derrtyboy69
bam thats about how it goes
|
Detis Zan
Are you just getting a new processor for your computer or planning to buy parts to make one?
Kool Pajamas
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Detis Zan
Are you just getting a new processor for your computer or planning to buy parts to make one?
|
and no, I dont want a desktop instead
Akilles
dude, honestly, both are good, AMD is better for gaming if that is your main focus, but if you read the benchmarks out there, they both perform at almost equal levels, I mean within a few frames per second of each other when gaming, if you just want to say damn the man to big corporate america, then go AMD, but both are very very good CPUs. Unless your a tweaker who will overclock and watercool, i doubt you will care or notice the speed diffrences.
Kool Pajamas
ok then. But what about DDR2 memory? I've heard its better and will be the new standard, but AMD doesnt support it, yet. If they are both about the same, would it be better to get Intel since it supports the DDR2?
Loviatar
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Detis Zan
Are you just getting a new processor for your computer or planning to buy parts to make one?
|
that is a key question as AMD does not fit an intel socket.so you will need a motherboard as well as a matching processor.
newegg.com has good choice excellent prices/service
also make sure the ram will swap over as well
Detis Zan
First off. Are you going to be gaming or not? Akilles basically said it. Plus just because it going to be the new standard you don't HAVE to get it.
Kool Pajamas
Yes, this will be mainly for gaming.
And no, no desktops. (People always ask me about this)
And no, no desktops. (People always ask me about this)
Detis Zan
Okie Dokie.
So far that's out and good.
So Laptop (Mainly Gaming)
Well if you're a tech geek and into getting the BEST thing. Then go ahead and b*tchslap Intel and go AMD.
But in all reality My fiance's laptop she got from her grandfather (Who makes comps) can play pretty much any game on high graphics and runs smoothly and it's an intel.
You're building the laptop (or have someone else build it) or just looking for a already made good lappy?
So far that's out and good.
So Laptop (Mainly Gaming)
Well if you're a tech geek and into getting the BEST thing. Then go ahead and b*tchslap Intel and go AMD.
But in all reality My fiance's laptop she got from her grandfather (Who makes comps) can play pretty much any game on high graphics and runs smoothly and it's an intel.
You're building the laptop (or have someone else build it) or just looking for a already made good lappy?
Kool Pajamas
I'm customizing it from Alienware (Yes its expensive, I dont care)
Detis Zan
Oh I see you have the cash.
*Eye twitch at the word Alienware*
Alright I'll look on there as well what's your price range?
*Eye twitch at the word Alienware*
Alright I'll look on there as well what's your price range?
Bubba Lips
Alienware = u pay for looks
Detis Zan
Indeed..
Well looking at the AMD notebook it comes to 2,894 monies.
That's with the best graphics card and is the Aurora m7700 version the whole two processors on one chip.
-And 1gb of the dual Ram
Well looking at the AMD notebook it comes to 2,894 monies.
That's with the best graphics card and is the Aurora m7700 version the whole two processors on one chip.
-And 1gb of the dual Ram
Dex
IMO, this would be more accurate:
Intel > AMD @ Encoding
Intel < AMD @ Almost Anything But Encoding
A lot of Intel's encoding advantage lies in industry standards and software optimizations as well. I would say that you're only going to see a difference in benchmarks, but that's not entirely true. AMD processors still offer (in most cases) better bang-for-the-buck, and the Pentium 4 Prescott cores just run way too hot. The heat issue is a big one as far as I'm concerned. The higher clockspeed P4 Prescotts are like little space heaters.
However, since the original poster stated that he/she is buying a laptop it changes the argument entirely. The Pentium M CPU is based on the Pentium III Coppermine core design, which to this day is one of Intel's best design achievements. The Pentium M runs cool, consumes little power, and is quite powerful for a mobile CPU. In fact, look for Intel to take a step backwards and to start making new CPU designs that look more like Coppermine cores.
If you're getting a laptop go for the Intel Pentium M hands-down.
Hope that helps.
Intel > AMD @ Encoding
Intel < AMD @ Almost Anything But Encoding
A lot of Intel's encoding advantage lies in industry standards and software optimizations as well. I would say that you're only going to see a difference in benchmarks, but that's not entirely true. AMD processors still offer (in most cases) better bang-for-the-buck, and the Pentium 4 Prescott cores just run way too hot. The heat issue is a big one as far as I'm concerned. The higher clockspeed P4 Prescotts are like little space heaters.
However, since the original poster stated that he/she is buying a laptop it changes the argument entirely. The Pentium M CPU is based on the Pentium III Coppermine core design, which to this day is one of Intel's best design achievements. The Pentium M runs cool, consumes little power, and is quite powerful for a mobile CPU. In fact, look for Intel to take a step backwards and to start making new CPU designs that look more like Coppermine cores.
If you're getting a laptop go for the Intel Pentium M hands-down.
Hope that helps.
Kool Pajamas
I want to keep at/under $4,000
Alienware only offers AMD 64 or P4.
And Alienware is only about $400 more than Hp with the same stuff.
Alienware only offers AMD 64 or P4.
And Alienware is only about $400 more than Hp with the same stuff.
Bubba Lips
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dex
IMO, this would be more accurate:
Intel > AMD @ Encoding Intel < AMD @ Almost Anything But Encoding A lot of Intel's encoding advantage lies in industry standards and software optimizations as well. I would say that you're only going to see a difference in benchmarks, but that's not entirely true. AMD processors still offer (in most cases) better bang-for-the-buck, and the Pentium 4 Prescott cores just run way too hot. The heat issue is a big one as far as I'm concerned. The higher clockspeed P4 Prescotts are like little space heaters. However, since the original poster stated that he/she is buying a laptop it changes the argument entirely. The Pentium M CPU is based on the Pentium III Coppermine core design, which to this day is one of Intel's best design achievements. The Pentium M runs cool, consumes little power, and is quite powerful for a mobile CPU. In fact, look for Intel to take a step backwards and to start making new CPU designs that look more like Coppermine cores. If you're getting a laptop go for the Intel Pentium M hands-down. Hope that helps. |
Oh and if you're looking to play GW on ur laptop go AMD.
Dex
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kool Pajamas
I want to keep at/under $4,000
Alienware only offers AMD 64 or P4. And Alienware is only about $400 more than Hp with the same stuff. |
Kool Pajamas
Its going to stay mostly in my room. It has to be a laptop because of the arrangement of my room. Its too complicated to have a desktop. And I just like the convenience of being able to move it wherever whenever.
Dex
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bubba Lips
Already said, ty for the extra info to explain my theory.
Oh and if you're looking to play GW on ur laptop go AMD. |
I understand your enthusiasm for AMD products. The last 6 CPUs I've purchased have been in the AMD Athlon series of processors. However, take a look at some of the benchmarks for Pentium M CPUs using some of the new adapters for desktop motherboards.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...oc.aspx?i=2382
Combine the near-AMD performance with the lower power consumption and you get a much better solution for a mobile system. A friend of mine has a laptop with a Pentium M and it runs GW beautifully and he can actually play on battery power for more than 20 minutes without having to plug in.
Not trying to be argumentative. Just trying to help our friend make the right decision.
Loviatar
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kool Pajamas
I want to keep at/under $4,000
Alienware only offers AMD 64 or P4. And Alienware is only about $400 more than Hp with the same stuff. |
go AMD
http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/4520-10...tml?tag=promo2
Kool Pajamas
But...I cant get Pentium M.....
Alienware only offers AMD 64 or P4.
Alienware only offers AMD 64 or P4.
Dex
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kool Pajamas
But...I cant get Pentium M.....
Alienware only offers AMD 64 or P4. |
If you must go Alienware then choose the AMD. If mobility is not an issue then disregard what I said about power problems. The only downside to a laptop in that case it that you can't upgrade later.
Good luck with your purchase!
Old Dood
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kool Pajamas
But...I cant get Pentium M.....
Alienware only offers AMD 64 or P4. |
Kool Pajamas
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Loviatar
on the AMD/INTEL dual core debate intel didnt win a single benchmark in this 7 round test
go AMD http://reviews-zdnet.com.com/4520-10...tml?tag=promo2 |
Dex
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kool Pajamas
Oh snap. That makes things a little easier. Although I'm going to have to spend a slight more now....
|
But, why listen to me? I'm just a computer engineer and hardcore gamer...
Kool Pajamas
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dex
Also keep in mind that while dual-core is cool, GW is a single-threaded application. That means that it will only use one of your CPUs/cores at a time. The only advantage to dual-core in gaming is if you have other CPU-hungry apps running the the background while you're gaming. An Athlon64 X2-3800 will not run GW faster than a single-core Athlon64-3800.
But, why listen to me? I'm just a computer engineer and hardcore gamer... |
True, but this laptop will be one for the next 5 years (hopefully. I know it will be considered weak at the end of its life, but thats the plan), so I'm sure there will be some dual core games out in that time.
Here it is so far:
AMD Athlon™ 64 X2 3800+ with HyperTransport and Dual Core Technology
Microsoft® Windows® XP Home Edition with Service Pack 2
3-Year AlienCare Toll-Free 24/7 Phone Support with Onsite Service Bundle with AlienAutopsy and Respawn - Great Value
17" WideUXGA 1920 x 1200 LCD Clearview Display with Built-in Camera
2GB Dual Channel DDR SO-DIMM at 400MHz - 2 x 1024MB
256MB NVidia® GeForce™ Go 7800 GTX
160GB (80GB x 2) 7200 RPM SATA
8X Dual Layer DVD+/-RW / 24X CD-RW Combo w/Software
24x10x24 CD-RW / 8X DVD Combo w/Software MPEG2 Decoder
Creative Sound Blaster® Audigy® 2 ZS PCMCIA
Internal Wireless 802.11b/g miniPCI Card
For only $4,234.00
Dex
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kool Pajamas
True, but this laptop will be one for the next 5 years (hopefully. I know it will be considered weak at the end of its life, but thats the plan), so I'm sure there will be some dual core games out in that time.
|
I'll tell you this much: we probably won't see more than a handful of titles that are multi-threaded in the next 2-3 years. If I'm wrong about that I'll eat my hat, boy howdy...
lord_shar
Quick food for thought:
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/index.html
In a nutshell, the above article describes how the P3's old Dothan core, now used on Pentium-M's/Centrino processors, smoked both Intel P4 EE's and AMD 64-FX flagship processors when overclocked from 2.13 ghz to 2.56. This gives us an idea of just how well the Centrino scales with clock speed, especially as a gaming processor. No, this doesn't mean that we should overclock laptop CPU's.
Since the OP mentioned laptop, Pentium-M/Centrino's are definitely the way to go, especially since power-management will be an issue. I'm looking at the the Dell XPS M170 w/ Nvidia 7800GXT 256MB video card as my next possible PC...
http://www1.us.dell.com/content/prod...=19&l=en&s=dhs
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050525/index.html
In a nutshell, the above article describes how the P3's old Dothan core, now used on Pentium-M's/Centrino processors, smoked both Intel P4 EE's and AMD 64-FX flagship processors when overclocked from 2.13 ghz to 2.56. This gives us an idea of just how well the Centrino scales with clock speed, especially as a gaming processor. No, this doesn't mean that we should overclock laptop CPU's.
Since the OP mentioned laptop, Pentium-M/Centrino's are definitely the way to go, especially since power-management will be an issue. I'm looking at the the Dell XPS M170 w/ Nvidia 7800GXT 256MB video card as my next possible PC...
http://www1.us.dell.com/content/prod...=19&l=en&s=dhs
EternalTempest
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dex
Also keep in mind that while dual-core is cool, GW is a single-threaded application. That means that it will only use one of your CPUs/cores at a time. The only advantage to dual-core in gaming is if you have other CPU-hungry apps running the the background while you're gaming. An Athlon64 X2-3800 will not run GW faster than a single-core Athlon64-3800.
But, why listen to me? I'm just a computer engineer and hardcore gamer... |
I would get a dual core for more future proof, I only upgrade every 3-5 year.
Here's Cnet article with dual core AMD vs Intel (same result AMD killed Intel in most of the tests) http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10442_7-6389077-1.html
Kolohan Deku
Yeah, it really comes down to it, Intel processors really aren't much better than AMD's offerings. Intel has the EM64T that competes with AMD64 technology, but those aren't really used in gaming that much. I would say that the dual core processors are the better bet for anyone who wants to get a jump on the technology of tomorrow. As far as gaming goes, with anything Geforce 6800GT/X850 graphics or higher, the CPUs of today will create a ceiling for the graphics. So if you are planning on getting anything higher than those, get a dual-core processor. As far as Intel v.s. AMD goes... it's whose logo you like better and what notebook has better features.
Good luck, and happy shopping.
Good luck, and happy shopping.