# Intel VS AMD help!!!



## nyioo7@hotmail.com (Apr 23, 2005)

I have Athlon xp 3200+ and i want to upgrade it to something faster. so i have two option , to buy pentium 4 3.2 Ghz or to buy Athlon 64 3000+. so i've been looking at all the benchmarks and amd always score the top. but every benchmarks i saw used athlon 64 with 1mb L2 cache and the one i found has only 512kb L2 cache. but p4 3.2ghz has 1mb L2 cache and also the clock speed is way higher than amd. also athlon 64 i found is socket 754 so it doesn't support dual channel and p4 does.    i also found out that HT in p4 is useless unless program is supported. Athlon 64's HT makes the bus speed higher. So which one should i choose?  and what's the different between 32 bit and 64 bit processor? 

AMD Athlon XP 3200+
MSI K7N2 Delta2-LSR
2*256 MB kingston 3200 dual
512 mb kingston 2700
MSI ATI Radeon 9550 128 mb @ 9600 pro 400/250
Maxtor SATA 80 GB


----------



## Jimmy 2004 (Apr 23, 2005)

L2 cache makes very little difference between 512KB and 1MB, so don't worry about that in the benchmarks. Personally I don't inderstand why you are upgrading if you have a 3200+, even if it isn't 64bit. There is definately no point going for the intel as that is probably no better than your current processor. Don't worry about AMD clock speeds in MHz, the 3200+ or 3500+ number is how it would compare to a Pentium 4. I'd say stick with your current processor for a while and then buy a faster 64 bit processor when there are AMD 64 4500+ or somethin. The upgrade you want will have almost no impact on performance.


----------



## wazzledoozle (Apr 23, 2005)

AMD's run at a "slower" clock speed because AMD theoretically do 9 calculations per clock cycle, and intels do 6. Also AMD has a better overall architecture.

Wait for cheap 64 bit dual core.


----------



## 15th Warlock (Apr 23, 2005)

I would go for AMD if I was you, but go for the socket 939 version, the socket 754 is being phased out and chances are, that if you upgrade your mobo to a 939 mobo, it'll be compatible with future dual core AMD processors after a BIOS upgrade.


----------



## wtf8269 (Apr 23, 2005)

nyioo7@hotmail.com said:
			
		

> I have Athlon xp 3200+ and i want to upgrade it to something faster. so i have two option , to buy pentium 4 3.2 Ghz or to buy Athlon 64 3000+. so i've been looking at all the benchmarks and amd always score the top. but every benchmarks i saw used athlon 64 with 1mb L2 cache and the one i found has only 512kb L2 cache. but p4 3.2ghz has 1mb L2 cache and also the clock speed is way higher than amd. also athlon 64 i found is socket 754 so it doesn't support dual channel and p4 does.    i also found out that HT in p4 is useless unless program is supported. Athlon 64's HT makes the bus speed higher. So which one should i choose?  and what's the different between 32 bit and 64 bit processor?
> 
> AMD Athlon XP 3200+
> MSI K7N2 Delta2-LSR
> ...


All 3000's are Newcastle or Winchester cores, which are 512kb L2 Cache. If you want 1mb you'd have to get a 3200 or 3400 socket 754 Clawhammer. Unless you feel like shelling out $1,000 for an FX CPU.


----------



## nightelf84 (Apr 23, 2005)

hmmmm makes me wanna upgrade my current 754 to 939... but think I'll wait for the prices to drop wee bit more  And as for you thread starter, If you really want to upgrade, 939 mobo and a 3200+ winchester


----------



## one2 (Apr 23, 2005)

Jimmy 2004 said:
			
		

> I'd say stick with your current processor for a while and then buy a faster 64 bit processor when there are* AMD 64 4500+* or somethin.



wtf?  ... c'mon now, no comment on that

you wait for *dual-core * ...

AMD will have something like that:
--- CPU ----------- Clock Speed  --L2 Cache-- - Price (USD) 
Athlon 64 X2 4800+ --2.4 GHz--  ---1 MB--- ----- $1001 
Athlon 64 X2 4600+ --2.4 GHz-- ---512 KB--- ---- $803 
*Athlon 64 X2 4400+ --2.2 GHz-- ---1 MB--- ------ $581 * 
Athlon 64 X2 4200+ --2.2 GHz-- ---512KB--- ----- $537 

it's useless to talk 'bout Intel if you're into playing games, so i would probably go for that X2 4400+   ... it should be out in 2-3 months


----------



## forsakentalon (Apr 23, 2005)

Actually the dual cores perform slower in games when compared to the FX athlons.

But I will pick up a dually 4200 in June and get rid of my 3000 s939 winchester


----------



## one2 (Apr 23, 2005)

Actually the FX athlons are not that cheap   
... and yea, this dual-core amds don't have good price either ---> the cheapest dual-core AMD is more expensive than the most expensive dual-core Intel (well first of all we'll have to wait for this CPUs to come out   ) (when did this happend; wasn't Intel always the big one with their prices  )


----------



## 15th Warlock (Apr 24, 2005)

one2 said:
			
		

> (when did this happend; wasn't Intel always the big one with their prices  )



Guess that's just one perk you get when you are the performance leader


----------



## nyioo7@hotmail.com (Apr 24, 2005)

here 's the 2 cpus in my option and that i can effort of - 

Intel p4 socket 478 or 775
3.2ghz for socket 478 and 3.0ghz for socket 775
L2 - 1mb cache
Hyper Threading support
800 mhz fsb

AMD Athlon 64 socket 754 or 939
3000+ @ 2.0Ghz for socket 754 and 3000+ @ 1.8ghz for socket 939 
L2 - 512kb cache can't effort clawhammer/w 1mb cache cuz i don't wanna spend like $200 on cpu 
Hyper Transport
800mhz fsb for 754 and 1ghz fsb for 939


P.S- What is it mean by integrated into chip fsb?


----------



## Jimmy 2004 (Apr 24, 2005)

two things to say:


			
				forsakentalon said:
			
		

> Actually the dual cores perform slower in games when compared to the FX athlons.



Thats probably only because games aren't programmed to make full use of dual core processors yet. They probably still treat it in a similar way to a single core, so are likely to lose performance.


And go for the AMD Athlon64 - the performance is supposed to be very similar between those two and 64bit processors are going to be more future proof, plus you'll benefit from better performance in the 64bit operating systems.


----------



## btk2k2 (Apr 24, 2005)

According to the Anandtech preview of the 2.2ghz X2, its a damn fast cpu, its almost as fast in games as the FX 55 (9% slower) and it is faster in other tasks, it gives the Dual core Pentium Extreme Edition a run for its money, and since it was using an opteron mobo and ECC ram, its only an indicator of how fast it will be, id be willing to say that the real X2 will be about 10% faster than the numbers it was showing in that review, its a sickly fast cpu and all you need is a bios update and the chip to install it on a 939 system .

and if you ever wanna burn a DVD/CD or say, watch a movie and play a game (with a dual monitor setup) then having a dual core will outperform the FX55 which costs a lot more.

To answer the question, if you play games get the A64, but id wait, the setup you got now is pretty good so id save the cash and either wait for the X2's to come out, and get a single core dirt cheap, or put it towards a dual core, and they are only about 6 months away.


----------



## wazzledoozle (Apr 24, 2005)

nyioo7@hotmail.com said:
			
		

> here 's the 2 cpus in my option and that i can effort of -
> 
> Intel p4 socket 478 or 775
> 3.2ghz for socket 478 and 3.0ghz for socket 775
> ...



The athlon 64's have the memory controller on the cpu itself, along with the fsb regulator (hypertransport) so they reach really high speeds.
Go with the athlon 64, it beats out intel easily in games.


----------



## geeman74 (Apr 24, 2005)

get either the 3000+ or 3200+ if you can afford it 
you want socket 939 it has the on chip memory controler 
if you have the money get a fx55 or 57 when it comes out 
its the best thing ive bought alot better than my 3500+ and for gaming what can i say 
no lag in games like i used to


----------



## forsakentalon (Apr 25, 2005)

Yes definitely get the AThlon 64 socket 939 3000 with a winchester core.
I've read reviews of the winchester cores performing just as good as the original FX-51 chip. Plus they're ridiculously cheaper and run insanely cool. Mine ( 3000 winchester s939) tends to be about 1degree celcius below case temp. But I have a monster 120mm fan with a  120 to 80mm fan adaptor to focus it right on the heatsink. Yes I"m even using the stock heatsink.

Okay get the 3000, then hunt for a mobo that overclocks well and overclock that athy. You will have something just as good as the original s940 fx-51 'hammer.

" gonna be sledge hammer, I heard you callin' my name, SLEDGEHAMMA' "


----------



## wazzledoozle (Apr 25, 2005)

The DFI Lanparty are supposed to be good for overclocking, and you dont wanna cheap out on a motherboard if you intend to oc seriously.


----------



## nyioo7@hotmail.com (Apr 25, 2005)

yeh i've decided to go with winchster 939. i found one tht's cheap. but almost all the 939 mobos have only one north bridge. wht's the different between having only north bridge and having both north and south. will the mobo with only north bridge perform the same?


----------



## one2 (Apr 25, 2005)

oky, what's the difference between:

ATHLON 64 3400+/512K (*2.4GHz*) BOX 
ATHLON 64 3800+/512K (*2.4GHz*) BOX S939 
ATHLON 64 4000+ (*2.4GHz*) BOX S939 


how is this possible?   some new stuff with this A64?  it must be some different tehnology so that they can get from 3400+ -> 4000+ with 2'4 GHz?!?!   

& with this X2 ... there will be like two 2'2 GHz & two 2'4 GHz ...  so what will it be?  2*3400+ or 2*4000+    (guess 3400+  )


----------



## nyioo7@hotmail.com (Apr 26, 2005)

ok the first two are newcastle core and winchaster core. And the last one is ClawHammer core. the first two only have 512kb L2 cache and the last one have 1Mb L2 cache which is way faster


----------



## one2 (Apr 26, 2005)

nyioo7@hotmail.com said:
			
		

> ok the first two are newcastle core and winchaster core. And the last one is ClawHammer core. the first two only have 512kb L2 cache and the last one have 1Mb L2 cache which is way faster



well yea 'way faster' ... Intel has 2MB L2 (models with 64-bit) ... 
oky, what does this >L2< do?   is this better for programs, games (i guess not), ...


----------



## djbbenn (Apr 26, 2005)

L2 cache is the same speed of the cpu. So if you have for example a Intel 3GHz, the L2 cache will run at 3GHz. The cache is used for storing information for when the cpu needs them. With a bigger cache the cpu can store more information. When the cpu runs out of space in the cache it has to go to the ram. When this happens the cpu has to slow to speed of the ram, inturn...big loss in performance. So bigger cache is better. Thats one of the reasons that Intel has a cpu called the 3.46 Extreme Edtion, it has a 2mb L3 cache. And the high end AMD's like the FX has a 1mb L2. It is also the reason for buget cpu's, they have little cache like the Celeron(Why they suck too )

-Dan


----------



## forsakentalon (Apr 27, 2005)

Just some funny things about intel procs, Usually they all only have something like 28k to 64k of L1 cache. That's a joke!

AMD's have a total of 128k for L1 on basically all of them. Intel's Extreme Editions tend to disappoint me. They have a L3 cache. That's wonderful you, basically intel cpu's are a memory chip with a processor built in. LOL. 

Honestly Intel is so afraid of the FX series chips that they are using modified P4 Xeon processors and renamed them Extreme Editions. Intel is losing money by selling their Xeons as remarked EE P4's. Xeons are really expensive chips. 

I've learned a lesson and the network administrator at my school says it best. Always spend more money on your motherboard and video card. You can skimp out on the cpu a little and you can make it up easy and fast because they drop in price fast.

You're best of getting a "cheap" 3000 winchester 939 proc. A very decent motherboard nforce4 or something similar. And pickup an Nvidia 6800GT or Ultra or an ATI x800xt. A video card with 16 pipelines. If you DON'T play ANY games you can go with any other cheaper card. But you do not want anything less than that in video card. I know they're expensive. But you'll be happy. Or if you have a system with an AGP 8x port don't bother upgrading any thing else Just put your money into a very expensive video card.

I wish I would have instead of upgrading my whole system. My X700pro over clocked up to 500mhz core from 425 struggles with video games. Get an x800xt or something like that. I wish I would have Because I really don't really any speed difference between my old o'ced 2500 to 3200 Athlon xp and my 3000 athlon 64 winchester.


----------



## obso1337 (Apr 27, 2005)

nyioo7@hotmail.com said:
			
		

> I have Athlon xp 3200+ and i want to upgrade it to something faster. so i have two option , to buy pentium 4 3.2 Ghz or to buy Athlon 64 3000+. so i've been looking at all the benchmarks and amd always score the top. but every benchmarks i saw used athlon 64 with 1mb L2 cache and the one i found has only 512kb L2 cache. but p4 3.2ghz has 1mb L2 cache and also the clock speed is way higher than amd. also athlon 64 i found is socket 754 so it doesn't support dual channel and p4 does.    i also found out that HT in p4 is useless unless program is supported. Athlon 64's HT makes the bus speed higher. So which one should i choose?  and what's the different between 32 bit and 64 bit processor?



i advise you not to listen to allot of people on this subject. im acepted ofcourse. intel processors have a higher operating frequency in trade for their crappy architecture, they are in no way faster. amd64 have low core frequencys and high L2's with superb architecture design that triumphs over any P4. operating frequency isnt everything in a good processor, its about 50% important. granted intels are SLIGHTLY faster in SOME applications their purpose is quite diffrent from AMD's. AMD triumph in gamming and extreme rendering and most number crunching. lets compare the P4 3.4 and AMD 3400+ clawhammer. 

P4 is:
3400 op freq
64+64 L1
512k L2
800fsb max

AMD64 3400+ is:
2200 op freq
64+64 L1
1024 L2
1600fsb max

in comparason the intel may LOOK faster but its really not, with the 1meg L2 and up to 1600 fsb max the 3400+ is far faster than the intel, not to mention the AMD architecture is almost twice as fast as the P4 architecture. since the op freq is lower and have COOL'n'QUITE technoligy, my AMD 3400+ runs at 35c load!!!! P4's are really hot running, if i put my CPU fan on an intel it would run probally 10c higher. the diffrence bewteen the 64 and 32??? OMFG!!! really, seriously... 64bit processors can process 64bit applications, the 32's obviously cant. its kind of pointless now, but in the near future more and more 64 bit programs will apprear (farcry 64bit will own!). if the AMD64 3400+ ran with 32 bits the architecture would still be faster than the intels P4 3.4. it simply has an extra 32 bits with a faster architecture. AMD will make as smooth transition from 32 to 64, as the 16 to 32 was done some time ago.

SUMMARY: the AMD having a higher L2 (twice as fast, moving information lots faster), higher fsb, and better architecture, operating freq is something it can afford to sacrafice when whooping the P4's ass backwards. op freq in a processor isnt KEY, its how the processor is built IN COMBINATION with the op freq. and for the brilliant folks at AMD, they make one good processor. ofcourse again, same with video card comparason, it also depends on the system. if you have a AMD64 in a crappy system not much is gooing to matter. a P4 in a system with a faster motherboard and faster ram and faster video card will outperform the crappy system with the AMD64. BUT if two computers are EXACTLY idenical the AMD64 will triumph. whew, i may have to copy and past this post.


----------



## obso1337 (Apr 27, 2005)

forsakentalon said:
			
		

> Just some funny things about intel procs, Usually they all only have something like 28k to 64k of L1 cache. That's a joke!
> 
> AMD's have a total of 128k for L1 on basically all of them. Intel's Extreme Editions tend to disappoint me. They have a L3 cache. That's wonderful you, basically intel cpu's are a memory chip with a processor built in. LOL.
> 
> ...



yes i love your statments about intel loosing money. they keep putting dumb crap in those DELL (i call them HELL) computers that are really slow!!! compaq has a thing gooing with their AMD64 machines, same with aleinware and HP. although i build all of my computers. yes your x700 is slow, 6600 GT was much faster and was even faster than the 9600pro on drugs XT tripple E or whatever you call them. about video cards in systems there is a concept there too, its called "botleneck". if you put a 6800ultra in a severly crappy system dont expect "performance". now if you do what i  did, which was put a mid-top range card in a awsome system to back it up, you now have a top of the line system, you will get better performance this way. that does not limit the potentials though, i could still put a 6800 GT in my system and boost performance more, but currently im beating some 6800 GT's in benchmarks and games only because some people with them put their high-end cards in low-end systems. making a bad computer. simple eh?


----------



## gR3iF (Apr 27, 2005)

Hey just end up this!
2 things intel cpus work and they are fast!
amd cpus are also fast
u have to buy a new intel board for the new dual core cpus
on amd site u can use the 939 boards with the new dual core cpus

the point is that amds are cooler and intel warmer 
and my choise is a amd 939 but just took the one u like to both are fast
maybe amd is in games a bit faster for that intels are faster in compressing videos are something like that 
so just buy what u think u can handle

but: amd has in the moment the better thing looking in the future


----------



## djbbenn (Apr 27, 2005)

gR3iF said:
			
		

> Hey just end up this!
> 2 things intel cpus work and they are fast!
> amd cpus are also fast
> u have to buy a new intel board for the new dual core cpus
> ...



I agree to this. They both have their advantages and disavantages. While intel being better for encoding and amd for gaming. It all depends on what you are doing on your computer. If you are a heavy multitasker and don't play many games, your best bet is the dual core intels. If your a heavy gamer and do normal computer things when not gaming amd will be the best. As for 64bit... its not really important at the moment. There are very few OS's and programs that use 64 bit at the moment. So 64bit is not much of a priority. Intel can't seem to match amd at gaming. And with amd just releaseing their new core, the venice, amd has hit higher performance in the 3500+ for just a bit more in price. So go by what you do most on the computer and by price. 

-Dan


----------



## gR3iF (Apr 27, 2005)

thats what i mean!
personally i run an amd athlon 64 3800+ venice core for socket 939, works pretty good.


----------



## geeman74 (Apr 27, 2005)

djbbenn said:
			
		

> I agree to this. They both have their advantages and disavantages. While intel being better for encoding and amd for gaming. It all depends on what you are doing on your computer. If you are a heavy multitasker and don't play many games, your best bet is the dual core intels. If your a heavy gamer and do normal computer things when not gaming amd will be the best. As for 64bit... its not really important at the moment. There are very few OS's and programs that use 64 bit at the moment. So 64bit is not much of a priority. Intel can't seem to match amd at gaming. And with amd just releaseing their new core, the venice, amd has hit higher performance in the 3500+ for just a bit more in price. So go by what you do most on the computer and by price.
> 
> -Dan



if you use a a64 clocked @ 2.2ghz and a xp clocked @ 2.2ghz the xp is so slow i couldnt believe it, 
also for intel been faster at encoding your only talking seconds @ the same speeds but a p4 3.8 ee is slower @ encoding than a fx55 but the p4 3.8ee is faster @ encoding music, 
but its the same all the way down the line
so do you mind waiting a few seconds more for 90mins video? and what you gonna do with the time


----------



## forsakentalon (Apr 27, 2005)

obso1337 said:
			
		

> yes i love your statments about intel loosing money. they keep putting dumb crap in those DELL (i call them HELL) computers that are really slow!!! compaq has a thing gooing with their AMD64 machines, same with aleinware and HP. although i build all of my computers. yes your x700 is slow, 6600 GT was much faster and was even faster than the 9600pro on drugs XT tripple E or whatever you call them. about video cards in systems there is a concept there too, its called "botleneck". if you put a 6800ultra in a severly crappy system dont expect "performance". now if you do what i  did, which was put a mid-top range card in a awsome system to back it up, you now have a top of the line system, you will get better performance this way. that does not limit the potentials though, i could still put a 6800 GT in my system and boost performance more, but currently im beating some 6800 GT's in benchmarks and games only because some people with them put their high-end cards in low-end systems. making a bad computer. simple eh?




You can't really compare the x700pro to the 6600GT they're in 2 different classes. X700xt maybe but they're aren't hardly any on the market.I would've bought one of those but couldn't find one anywhere. As far as bottlenecks go, most games and video cards even for that matter don't use even half of the potential bandwidth of AGP 8X spec.

That's why I suggested if he has a 3200 xp with an AGP 8X he should just shell out 500 bucks he was going to use to upgrade his entire system and just upgrade the video card. I wish I would've instead of upgrading to Athlon 64. I even have twin raptors in RAID 0 and I didn't notice a speed improvement but hardly noticeable.

Example I took my 9800xt out of my 3200xp athlon with 1gig of pc3200ram on a 400mhz fsb and put it into my slowest system which is a shuttle with a 1600xp 256mbs of ram on a 266mhz fsb and my 3dmark score and my games stayed the exact same.

My advice and you'll be happier with it is upgrade to a very very good video card now and wait to upgrade your system until next year when socket 1204 is released by AMD. It's going to offer DDR2 support amongst some other improvements. Just get a highend video card now . Otherwise you'll have to upgrade your entire system again next year. Just get a great video card now and wait to upgrade the rest next year.

Even if next year you don't go with socket 1204 the socket 939's will fall a lot in price by then.


----------



## djbbenn (Apr 27, 2005)

geeman74 said:
			
		

> if you use a a64 clocked @ 2.2ghz and a xp clocked @ 2.2ghz the xp is so slow i couldnt believe it,
> also for intel been faster at encoding your only talking seconds @ the same speeds but a p4 3.8 ee is slower @ encoding than a fx55 but the p4 3.8ee is faster @ encoding music,
> but its the same all the way down the line
> so do you mind waiting a few seconds more for 90mins video? and what you gonna do with the time



Well the xp is an older cpu so it will not have the same speeds even at same frequencies. There are K7 and K8 arcitechs. The xp's have a Barton or Thoroughbred core while 64 can have Clawhammer, Newcasttle, Winchester, and Venice core. So alot of it have to do with the architector and core of the porcessor. You can't compair them apples to apples with the xp and 64. Also the socket has impact too. 754 being 1600MHZ and 939 being 2000MHz. And for intel...its not just a bit faster at encoding but if you have a HT enable cpu it will beat amd at multitasking.

-Dan


----------



## forsakentalon (Apr 27, 2005)

Psssst. Hyperthreading (HT) will only help if the software author has wrote the program to take advantage of HT. So HT is about as useful as a 64bit cpu in a 32bit operating system. It's nice to have it, but you're not using it as much as you'd like to.


----------



## obso1337 (Apr 27, 2005)

forsakentalon said:
			
		

> You can't really compare the x700pro to the 6600GT they're in 2 different classes. X700xt maybe but they're aren't hardly any on the market.I would've bought one of those but couldn't find one anywhere. As far as bottlenecks go, most games and video cards even for that matter don't use even half of the potential bandwidth of AGP 8X spec.
> 
> That's why I suggested if he has a 3200 xp with an AGP 8X he should just shell out 500 bucks he was going to use to upgrade his entire system and just upgrade the video card. I wish I would've instead of upgrading to Athlon 64. I even have twin raptors in RAID 0 and I didn't notice a speed improvement but hardly noticeable.
> 
> ...


on the contrary upgrading your system first is ideal. lets not debate adn hassle ourselves about whats comming out when, best thing to do is wait for ALL the newest stuff and get it as quick as you can. i am currently working on a project computer that will surly own, the computer is a bit old and all the newer things comming out it might be a bit behind some of the newer things. here is its specs so far

4 AMD64 opterons socket940 (own it)
tyan quad processor mobo, 4 ddr ram slots per processor, 32 gig max (buying it)
16 gigs corsair PC3500 (own 8gigs)
dual 6800ultras SLI (own 1 6800ultra)
800wattt PSU (still looking for one)

by the time of this computers completion new stuff will already be out. when you buy the newest thing it outdates itself almost.


----------



## 15th Warlock (Apr 28, 2005)

forsakentalon said:
			
		

> Example I took my 9800xt out of my 3200xp athlon with 1gig of pc3200ram on a 400mhz fsb and put it into my slowest system which is a shuttle with a 1600xp 256mbs of ram on a 266mhz fsb and my 3dmark score and my games stayed the exact same.



Somehow I find this statement really hard to believe, unless something is very wrong with your 3200XP


----------



## gR3iF (Apr 28, 2005)

let it be i think this thread can be closed the question is answered


----------



## one2 (Apr 28, 2005)

obso1337 said:
			
		

> P4 is:
> 3400 op freq
> 64+64 L1
> *512k L2*
> ...



wtf?   
c'mon now, where do you live? where did you find this stuff?  y o u   m u s t   b e   m a d ! ! !

well i know i can get *P4 3'4 GHz with 1 MB L2 *  & * P4 64-bit 3'4 GHz with 2MB L2 *  ... so really don't know what are you tryin' to do 'round here


----------



## one2 (Apr 28, 2005)

forsakentalon said:
			
		

> Psssst. Hyperthreading (HT) will only help if the software author has wrote the program to take advantage of HT. So HT is about as useful as a 64bit cpu in a 32bit operating system. It's nice to have it, but you're not using it as much as you'd like to.







Do NOT *BS* 'bout the stuff you don't know


----------



## wazzledoozle (Apr 28, 2005)

This thread is like teh war of the n00b Intel and AMD fanboyz.   

lolz

The amount of bs being thrown around is ridicilous.

Bottom line-
Intel for productivity/multitasking
AMD for gaming

now stfu


----------



## 15th Warlock (Apr 29, 2005)

wazzledoozle said:
			
		

> This thread is like teh war of the n00b Intel and AMD fanboyz.
> 
> lolz
> 
> ...



WORD


----------



## djbbenn (Apr 29, 2005)

Agree

-Dan


----------



## nyioo7@hotmail.com (Apr 29, 2005)

finally i got me an athlon 64 3000+ winchester core and gigabyte GA-K8NXP-SLI mobo with nvidia 6600gt card. oh yah!. i can't believe it. i bought a sound blaster live 24 bit like 2 months ago and now mobo has a build in 8.1 sound. what a waste of money. well tht's wht happen if you don't wait for sometimes. but who would wanna wait. any way this mobo has 4 ddr 400 dual channel support slots. and i have 2 * 256 ddr 400 kingston memory. i wanna put more memory and there it was 2 * 256 ddr 400 memory but it's ocz memory. i want to buy it but i 'm not sure about it. because of this question. ok.
so if i have 4 same speed same capacity memory but 2 different manufactures would those memorys still perform as dual channel? has anybody tried it? 

thanx for the replies. and also thanx for the advices to buy the better cpu. athlon 64 rocks. i even forgot about p4 . compare to my brother's p4 2.8ghz w/ ht . hahahaha

Athlon 64 3000+
gigabyte GA-K8NXP-SLI
2*256mb ddr 400 kingston
nvidia 6600gt pci express
120 GB SATA Maxtor Drive


----------



## forsakentalon (Apr 29, 2005)

one2 said:
			
		

> Do NOT *BS* 'bout the stuff you don't know




Then I don't understand why I've read it before in internet news sites. That HT is only good if a program is written to use it. Much like very few programs support and use dual cpu's unless they're written for it. HT is the same way. If a program is written for dual cpu's it will take advantage of HT. No not a fan boy, I don't believe either is better than the other. They each have their promising points. Just wish they'd work faster at combining them and helping the consumer get faster stuff quicker.

I'm just disappointed that Intel was holding back it's stuff, essentially slowing down pc revolution, until AMD was the first to release a 1ghz chip. Then Intel had to catch up. The other thing I wish is that they would've stayed with the p3 architecture a little while longer. It's proven that it was faster than the P4's originally. Even Intel's own engineers said the P4 was rushed to market and they wanted to spend 6 more months refining it. I just wish they would've.


----------



## one2 (Apr 29, 2005)

forsakentalon said:
			
		

> Then I don't understand why I've read it before in internet news sites. That HT is only good if a program is written to use it. Much like very few programs support and use dual cpu's unless they're written for it. HT is the same way. If a program is written for dual cpu's it will take advantage of HT. No not a fan boy, I don't believe either is better than the other. They each have their promising points. Just wish they'd work faster at combining them and helping the consumer get faster stuff quicker.
> 
> I'm just disappointed that Intel was holding back it's stuff, essentially slowing down pc revolution, until AMD was the first to release a 1ghz chip. Then Intel had to catch up. The other thing I wish is that they would've stayed with the p3 architecture a little while longer. It's proven that it was faster than the P4's originally. Even Intel's own engineers said the P4 was rushed to market and they wanted to spend 6 more months refining it. I just wish they would've.




yea, i know that Intel isn't _the one_ at the moment - they were playing with AMD ... and they've lost   
This HT helps when you have more stuff running ... but still; it doesn't do much - if you have 3 GHz you can't get more than that.  So this is useless for gaming - like _all_ the other stuff from Intel.
But still, you can't say that HT is as useless as amd's 64-bit are/were.

I don't know why won't they do some CPUs like Centrino or M ... technology like that sounds better that this old P4.  & Intel dual-core looks to be another dissapointment


----------



## gR3iF (Apr 29, 2005)

Aggre 2 

but one more thing intel has a problem with the new dual core and so on 
i wonder why i can use my socket 939 board with dual core while intel tells that they cant handle this


----------



## Super XP (May 5, 2005)

*Intel is Desperate because of there Terrible Dual Core Design!!!*



			
				gR3iF said:
			
		

> Aggre 2
> 
> but one more thing intel has a problem with the new dual core and so on
> i wonder why i can use my socket 939 board with dual core while intel tells that they cant handle this




Because AMD designed there Single Core Socket 939/940 with Dual Core in mind. So all AMD has to do is fuse another CPU onto there Single Core architecture connected via Hyper Transport Link @ the CPU Core Frequency & just plug it into your existing or new S 939/940 mobo. 
And that is why AMD has an Integrated Memory controller. 

AMD is one of the safest choices when looking into Dual Core CPU’s. All you need is a Bios Update for your system to recognize the Dual Core CPU & away you go with your S 939 & S 940 mobo's.

Intel is doing a rush job with there Dual Core CPU’s which is badly designed. I mean having ONE FSB feeding your Dual Core CPU is asking for trouble, especially when they will be fighting for bandwidth. And to compensate for this terrible bottleneck they jack up the L2 cache to like 2 MB.

Intel is using there marketing scheme to sell there Dual Core CPU’s & to make people feel that you actually need them. Well, there CPU’s are not of the same high quality & innovative class as AMD’s Dual Core CPU’s. Just simple Fact,


----------



## obso1337 (May 5, 2005)

nyioo7@hotmail.com said:
			
		

> finally i got me an athlon 64 3000+ winchester core and gigabyte GA-K8NXP-SLI mobo with nvidia 6600gt card. oh yah!. i can't believe it. i bought a sound blaster live 24 bit like 2 months ago and now mobo has a build in 8.1 sound. what a waste of money. well tht's wht happen if you don't wait for sometimes. but who would wanna wait. any way this mobo has 4 ddr 400 dual channel support slots. and i have 2 * 256 ddr 400 kingston memory. i wanna put more memory and there it was 2 * 256 ddr 400 memory but it's ocz memory. i want to buy it but i 'm not sure about it. because of this question. ok.
> so if i have 4 same speed same capacity memory but 2 different manufactures would those memorys still perform as dual channel? has anybody tried it?
> 
> thanx for the replies. and also thanx for the advices to buy the better cpu. athlon 64 rocks. i even forgot about p4 . compare to my brother's p4 2.8ghz w/ ht . hahahaha
> ...


stay a noob, its more fun


----------



## gR3iF (May 5, 2005)

the memory would perform in dual mode and i guess u good a pretty good pc


----------



## obso1337 (May 5, 2005)

Super XP said:
			
		

> Because AMD designed there Single Core Socket 939/940 with Dual Core in mind. So all AMD has to do is fuse another CPU onto there Single Core architecture connected via Hyper Transport Link @ the CPU Core Frequency & just plug it into your existing or new S 939/940 mobo.
> And that is why AMD has an Integrated Memory controller.
> 
> AMD is one of the safest choices when looking into Dual Core CPU’s. All you need is a Bios Update for your system to recognize the Dual Core CPU & away you go with your S 939 & S 940 mobo's.
> ...



agreed, intel dual cores are gooing to suck on the same level a P4 did compared to a AMD64. the amd64's are already dual core, but technically, actually 2 32bit cores. unless my sources are wrong (WILLIAM!!!) well im pretty sure of it. anyway amd hasent always whooped intels ass, back in the day everyone (including me) knew that doom ran better on a pentium. intel owned in the old days, now there sad and desprite to catch back up. its actually funny!


----------



## Super XP (May 6, 2005)

*All Dual Core & Single Core Athlon 64's & Opterons are 64-Bit Extended *



			
				obso1337 said:
			
		

> agreed, intel dual cores are gooing to suck on the same level a P4 did compared to a AMD64. the amd64's are already dual core, but technically, actually 2 32bit cores. unless my sources are wrong (WILLIAM!!!) well im pretty sure of it. anyway amd hasent always whooped intels ass, back in the day everyone (including me) knew that doom ran better on a pentium. intel owned in the old days, now there sad and desprite to catch back up. its actually funny!




No, all Dual Core AMD CPU's are 64-Bit extended CPU's x 2. So, who ever told you that they are 32-Bit does not have correct info.

They are 32-Bit/64-Bit compatible Processors 

And AMD is obviously the way to go with there HTT, SSE3, 90nm, SOI etc X 1000


----------



## wazzledoozle (May 6, 2005)

Around 1997-1999 AMD started to beat out Intel at the same clock speeds, and for a long time they had the same clock speeds btu AMD's were always faster. Then AMD decided to just optimize their CPU's and Intel kept craking up the clock speed, driving themselves into a hole.


----------



## Super XP (May 6, 2005)

wazzledoozle said:
			
		

> Around 1997-1999 AMD started to beat out Intel at the same clock speeds, and for a long time they had the same clock speeds btu AMD's were always faster. Then AMD decided to just optimize their CPU's and Intel kept craking up the clock speed, driving themselves into a hole.



Intel will come back with a new & successful CPU architecture in late 2006 to early 2007. So, let's hope AMD has something better up their ally, because new Intel CPU's are going to have 12 to 13 pipelines with there new Bus technology called CSI.

I think AMD is working on an advanced Hyper Transport & a Dual Channel Integrated Mem controller on the chip @ 256MB. We shall see, because, clock speed will be clock vs. clock soon.


----------



## one2 (May 6, 2005)

*Pentium M on the desktop*

*Pentium M*

the best thing ever!


on DFI's motherboard ...

1) it's not OK at the moment (talking 'bout the thing i saw) ... it was 2 GHz ... but only 400 MHz front-side bus!
2) it's like magic when you OC this thing to 2'4 GHz with ONLY 533 FSB! ... BETTER than all P4 EE!!! in games - but because of it's slow fsb (only 133 MHz) isn't the best for some stuff.












LOOK AT THIS   











Well yea, 133 MHz memory ... you see the stuff here:





Power consumption






WorldBench's MS Office test runs multiple applications simultaneously and switches between them, just as most users tend to do. As a result, the Pentium 4 with Hyper-Threading really shines here, and the Hyper-Threading-deprived Pentium M does not.






3) so what more can come?!  if we see this M doing magic with 2'4 GHz & only 533 FSB ...  can they make it ... 2'8 GHz & 800 (maybe 1066)) FSB it would be like 'byebye AMD'   

but now, this guys at Intel are just 2 stupid to do something like that - they HAD a dream 'bout 4GHz P4 ... well it's not happenin'  -so hopefully they will do some desktop stuff with centrino or M tehnology!!!!

i want to buy INTEL in a year!


----------



## wazzledoozle (May 6, 2005)

Intel will probably drop the Pentium D (Non dual core P4) bullshit and come out with a Pentium 5, and base on it the Pentium M.


And how do you know what AMD is going to have in a year? AMD's current chips are still better.


----------



## one2 (May 7, 2005)

*1. Pentium M:*

- 1'3 - 1'7 GHz
- 130 nm
- 77 million transistors
- 1 MB L2
- 400 MHz FSB


*2. Pentium M:* 

- 1'5 - 2'1 GHz (the 2'0 GHz was testet on the photos I posted)
- *90* nm
- *140* million transistors
- *2* MB L2
- 400 MHz FSB


*3. Pentium M:*

- 1'6 - *2'13* GHz
- 90 nm
- 140 million transistors
- 2 MB L2
- *533* MHz FSB

------------------------------------------------------------------

This is WAY better than AMD!!!
There is only one thing we have to wait for ... desktop motherboards!

With 800 MHz FSB this Pentium M will be a monster - you saw, that 2 GHz OC'd to 2'4 GHz is like 3800+ & this M wasn't even ment to be a desktop stuff!

Intel's hitting with 65nm technology ... (+ with more FSB & less pipelines (Pentium M has it 'round 10 and not 20, 30 like P4))  ->  Intel's back in the game


----------



## Super XP (May 7, 2005)

one2 said:
			
		

> *1. Pentium M:*
> 
> - 1'3 - 1'7 GHz
> - 130 nm
> ...



Pentium M's are way better than any 20 & 30 stage Pipeline Pentium 4's. The Pentium M's cost more money for Intel to produce & runs very similar to the Athlon 64.

The Pentium M is based on the Pentium 3 technology which has short pipelines. The 800FSB will probably help a little, but not to the point where it will take out an Athlon 64 @ clock to clock. Close, but not close enough. 

If Intel had Half of a Brain, they would of scrapped the Pentium 4 a long time ago & build there next CPU based on the Pentium M.


----------



## gR3iF (May 7, 2005)

hm i think they should sell only cpus with free multiplikator so every one can in a given guarented clokcrange decide what they want to have 
for me:
i would downclock it for dvd and internet ando so on and raise for games so my pc is even very quiet while surfing and a bit louder while gaming that would be good but they dont want to have it


----------



## 15th Warlock (May 7, 2005)

gR3iF said:
			
		

> hm i think they should sell only cpus with free multiplikator so every one can in a given guarented clokcrange decide what they want to have
> for me:
> i would downclock it for dvd and internet ando so on and raise for games so my pc is even very quiet while surfing and a bit louder while gaming that would be good but they dont want to have it



I know we all want free multipliers back, but, imagine how many ppl would benefit from selling OC procs like in the good ol' pentium 1 days. Two friends of mine payed for P1 200Mhz, and after opening their cases we found out they really had OC'd 166s!  
How about paying for a 3.6 Ghz proc that really is an OC'd 3.2 proc?  
Now, about the Pentium M, a lot of ppl have been claiming for a dual core dothan proc with 64 bits and 1066 FSB support, but so far, Intel keeps rehashing the "Netburst" line of procs  When will they let the Israel guys do the magic and really give as a worthy succesor to the good ol' PIII??


----------



## Super XP (May 7, 2005)

15th Warlock said:
			
		

> I know we all want free multipliers back, but, imagine how many ppl would benefit from selling OC procs like in the good ol' pentium 1 days. Two friends of mine payed for P1 200Mhz, and after opening their cases we found out they really had OC'd 166s!
> How about paying for a 3.6 Ghz proc that really is an OC'd 3.2 proc?
> Now, about the Pentium M, a lot of ppl have been claiming for a dual core dothan proc with 64 bits and 1066 FSB support, but so far, Intel keeps rehashing the "Netburst" line of procs  When will they let the Israel guys do the magic and really give as a worthy succesor to the good ol' PIII??




Hey Warlock I think he meant that they sell CPU's without a clock speed, & when you buy the CPU, you have a ranged choice of programing your own speed, depending upon your cooling solution. 

That is a need idea, but how much do you think that will cost & all CPU's are different by a very small margin. THis is why you get a A64 3200+ OC'ing better than another A64 3200+


----------



## gR3iF (May 7, 2005)

hm but it should be like this there is a price for the cpu and thn u get a free multiplier range at elast to downcklock ut not like cool and qiuet freely!
then i would have 3200+ or something and let it run with multi 2 or soemthing would be enough for internet


----------



## Deleted member 3 (May 7, 2005)

Lower the MP... now I remember why I love Xeons again.


----------



## gR3iF (May 7, 2005)

omg i love the price too
but it would be a great benefit for me. So i would be able to have a one fan system and cool but so running on 10 multi. I am not and when i turn on something like everest it goes from 5 to 10 and i loose about 10 fps in games so good work if the pc is dling something but bad for really cool and quiet performance


----------



## Althon64@2.6GHz (May 8, 2005)

*HT is useful*

Intel HT is useful, WindowsXP has supported this technology quite well.

I have tested two system, they are Athlon64 2.2GHz and a Intel Pentium4 HT 3.0GHz.

Play video file with Mediaplayer, RealyOne, and WinAMP, and Run SUPER PI at the same time. You can see on Pentium 4 HT system, all video playing smoothly, but AMD system is laging.

I am currently use a Athlon64 2.6GHz, I feel it not as smooth as my friend's Pentium 4 3.0Ghz system when run few programs together. Actually your WinXP system run more than one processes all the time. I am guarantee, HT is really help to make system more smooth. Benchmark doesn't show this adventage very quite. But AMD is good for gaming, cheap, easy overclocking, so I still choose AMD. But I just want to correct something---HT is useful.


----------



## blackmonkey (May 8, 2005)

I thought the dual cores were socket 940....thats what it says on gamedude.com.au


----------



## Deleted member 3 (May 8, 2005)

blackmonkey said:
			
		

> I thought the dual cores were socket 940....thats what it says on gamedude.com.au



http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20050505A2004.html


----------



## gR3iF (May 8, 2005)

and i think there will be the new core in dual mode for socket 939


----------



## Super XP (May 8, 2005)

*AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200+, 4400+, 4600+, 4800+ & 5000+*



			
				blackmonkey said:
			
		

> I thought the dual cores were socket 940....thats what it says on gamedude.com.au




No, AMD has Dual Core Desktop & Server/Workstation. The Desktop are called Athlon 64 X2 4200+. All are Socket 939. 

And in Mid 2006 or so, depending on Intel's move AMD is releasing a new Socket 1207 called the Windsor Core which is said to either support DDR2 667 low latencies or DDR3. And will house a better Integrated Dual Channel Memory Controller possibly 256-Bit or 512-Bit (Each Core should have there own 128-Bit or 256-Bit Integrated Mem controller) & there DSL Technology along with a better HTT & SSE3.

Both AMD & Intel R working hard to be on top. But I give full credit to AMD for there Innovation, Hard Dedicated Work in trying to keep compatibility alive to save us money. The underdog rocks.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (May 8, 2005)

Super XP said:
			
		

> No, AMD has Dual Core Desktop & Server/Workstation. The Desktop are called Athlon 64 X2 4200+. All are Socket 939.
> 
> And in Mid 2006 or so, depending on Intel's move AMD is releasing a new Socket 1207 called the Windsor Core which is said to either support DDR2 667 low latencies or DDR3. And will house a better Integrated Dual Channel Memory Controller possibly 256-Bit or 512-Bit (Each Core should have there own 128-Bit or 256-Bit Integrated Mem controller) & there DSL Technology along with a better HTT & SSE3.
> 
> Both AMD & Intel R working hard to be on top. But I give full credit to AMD for there Innovation, Hard Dedicated Work in trying to keep compatibility alive to save us money. The underdog rocks.



http://www.pcpop.com/doc/0/86/86886.shtml
I still count 940, positioned differently


----------



## Super XP (May 8, 2005)

DanTheBanjoman said:
			
		

> http://www.pcpop.com/doc/0/86/86886.shtml
> I still count 940, positioned differently




Well, yes, some are 940 & most are 939,


----------



## gR3iF (May 8, 2005)

but one is fore sure the dual core cpu isnt for fps breaking the best are one core high clocked things


----------

