hi guys im back and i have a question that could change the plans for my new computer as i know them

which is better the Intel LGA 775 Pentium 4 630 or the AMD Athlon 64 3500+

from what those links say it looks like the intel is way better and correct me if im wrong but the intel does not have an onboard memory controller which means that i won't have to worry about ram like i would with the amd and also again correct me if im wrong but the intel does not have a locked multiplyer to me it seems the intel wins out in all areas including price but i want to know what you guys think

and this might help out- i love games but i dont play half life or anything and i rarely get to play them, i want this computer to be a media center really but i still want to do my CAD work and i spend hlaf the time my computer is up on the internet

hope that helps

thanks

well, price wise your doing it all wrong

your comparing a 3.0GHZ Intel to a 3500+ AMD, it doesnt work that way

a 3500 AMD is the same as a 3.5GHZ Intel, so to compare prices, youd want to select a 3000 AMD (which is way, way cheaper)
just thought id clear that up, because price wise, AMD is always cheaper


second, as you can see, the Intel only supports up to 800mhz FSB, but with onboard FSB, you can get unbeleivable speeds (up to 1600), and ive never had a memory issue with my AMD (ive used off brand Crucial, and low quality Kingston)

third, the multiplier thing doesnt matter, and besides, your looking at the wrong core for AMD, if you get a Winchester core AMD, you can easily overclock them by .3 or .4 GHZ, (so instead of 2.2, people have easily gotten thiers to 2.5, 2.6GHZ)


and on top of that all, AMD is going to lead the way once 64 bit is ready, and AMD rules all

well the amd is 64 bits that's why it's priced a little more

thomes08

i just bought a Gateway laptopn with mobile amd 64bit 3400+ and it cranks along with a gig of ram. I also too wonder how the AMD's preform against the intels.

The P4 he has linked to is of the new 6X0 P4 series that has 64 bit extension support just like the Athlon 64.

I would go with the Athlon 64 3500+ hands down.


Here are two links that have benchmarks that you should check out since you are in the market.

http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050221/index.html

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2353&p=1

cool thanks i didn't know those were out yet. My friend who is helping me build it over the summer is pressuring for me to go with AMD. I've always done intel but i'm thinking i'm finally gonna make the switch in the comming months

thomes08

I've always had AMD and have always been very satisfied with their processors and one of the main reasons I used to go with them was the huge price difference between AMD and Intel and both of them are pretty much the same. It's kinda like the Chevy vs Ford....both are good cars but it's really whatever your personal preference is.

not really there are some real performance differences and thats why i am asking this question i mean the intel is cheaper and looks much much better on paper but the amd is what i was already looking at and i know they are very good but they have problems with the ram and the clock speed is lower

if it was as simple as go with what i like it would be the amd because i already know about them but i dont really care what i know right now i just want to simply know which one is better performance wise its all in the numbers for me i dont really care whats in the socket as long as it works and is the best performer

the AMD will be ur best bet

Just to clarify... the implication that the intel is 64 bit in the title is wrong... it isnt.

thank you now i know i'm not completely retarded. I'll admit i don't know much about this stuff at all, but since i am in the market i have been doing some research as of late and i'm always kinda keeping up. From what i've read online (including the links thepissedoffman posted) the 64 bit intel chip should be A LOT more expensiev than the one posted. Like upwards to 600 dollars. In fact the biggest gripe about the Intel 64 bit chips from all the places i've read is that they are a lot more expensive than the AMD 64 bit'ers..... so something doesn't add up and i'd like someone who knows what they're talking about to tell me the difference, pleeeeaaaasse

thomes08

see that em64t well thats intels version of the 64-bit amd tech

and THIS is what i was linked to when i saw the ad

so see it is 64-bit


EDIT: i also found THIS which you might want to take a look at

I don't know why you think the price of the P4 you posted is wrong but it is not. That P4 has the 64-bit extensions.

just get an amd, cheap and awesome

actually the p4 is cheaper thats why this is coming up well that and on paper it looks way better

its only cheaper because ur comparing the wrong makes of CPU's

to accurately compare prices, u need to compare a 3.5GHZ intel to the 3500 AMD

because, in case u didnt know, AMD and Intel classify thier CPU's differently, so the name of the AMD CPU (ie, 3200, 3500, 4000) is actually the number u use to compare to the operating frequency of an Intel

so, if ur buying a 3.0GHZ intel as u have listed, you would chose an AMD 3000 to compare prices, which i can tell u right away, the AMD is much cheaper

so, to expand on this, a 3.4GHZ Intel is comparable to a 3400 AMD, and so on

heh that 3500+ will show that 3.0ghz p4 its ass in any gaming.. shit.. even the 3000+ shows the 3.0ghz its ass.. and the winchester core amd64's overclock like a motherfucka

!-AMD-!

yeah but they are also $50 more than the newcastle core version i posted and chances are im not gonna oc i mean the computer im typing this with is only a 533mhz POS so the jump from 0.5ghz to 2.2ghz should be enough but 3 would be great

i just noticed the 3500+ went up in price from $270 to $290 even more of a reason for me to go to the 3ghz

i just dont know i want the fastest one i can get like i sadi i dont care about brands and if there are porblems there are warrenties so i want you guys to forget about the brands and everything and just tell me what the better performer is include all factors

The rule of thumb for getting a new PC is to figure out the max amount of money you are willing to spend and then buy as much PC as you can for your money.

If you can afford to get the 3500+ get it.

well this will be built over a period of time just buying one thing at a time so far i have both my dvd drives and a 56k modem that im gonna reuse as well as the case i baught and my 600watt psu so really all i need is the mobo memory cpu and graphics card thats all i really need to get this thing up and running since i already have an old 20gb ide quantum* (the hd im running right now) its from 98 so its pretty loud and slow but it will work until i can get my new hd(s)

so really if i can save money i would like to but hey i would much rather have performance (wouldn't we all )

so i guess no matter what your all gonna say amd

noone here runs intel i guess



okay one last thing how does amd know if you put on a different hsf or thermal compound/paste

do they do chemical tests before they send you a new one/repair it

i mean wtf thats the only way i can think of

I run them at work because thats what my work bought me. But If I am spending the money I am going to get the best I can for the money. And from what you have told us the 3500+ is your best option.

It sounds like you want a P4. If you want one buy one. After all it is your money and it will be your PC.



What are you talking about?

why are you comparing that 3.0ghz to the amd 64 3500+.. the 3500+ far outclasses the 3.0ghz.. its not even a fair comparison..

http://www.newegg.com/app/viewproductdesc....-103-502&DEPA=0

look! $191.. see the GHZ difference between that and the 3500+? oh yes thats right... its 0.2GHz... which is why i said they can be overclocked easily.. you can far out perform that 3500+ with a 3000+ or 3200+ with no second thought.. and is the 0.2ghz stock worth the extra $100? NO.. so next time your going to compare 2 processers.. do so by performance and not price..

I'm suprised nobody mentioned this...AMD hands Intel their ass in the Thermal Dissipation department. The current P4s have a thermal dissipations of ~130 Watts (!) while the AMD64 CPUs are ~110 Watts or less (mind you this is at maximum load). Intel has had this problem since the Northwood core P4 (maybe even the Williamette core, I don't remember), and ever since AMD moved past the Palomino core and into the T-bred core Athlons, they have been the leaders in the TD area with their CPUs having lower TD requirements.

Since you are wanting to build a media center (I believe you said this would be the primary function), you want a setup that is as quiet as possible (including noise coming from a fan on a heatsink), so your best bet more likely is AMD...not to mention that AMD has had time to at least iron out some of the bugs in their 64-bit lineup.


BTW, what memory problems with the Athlon64s?

Since I can't edit my last post...

Regarding AMD's rating label: The "speed" label actually denotes what that CPU is an equivalent to for the Barton (?) core (e.g., Athon64 3500+ would be an equivalent to an Athlon Barton (?) core 3500+ CPU), but seems to have worked out to "showing" what equivalent Intel CPU speed it is.

what's the difference between hyperthreading(intel) and hypertransport(amd).... and could you give a brief desciption of what they are?
thanks

thomes08

found on another forum

"Hyperthreading is a technology which allows the computer to be working on more than one program (called a thread) at the same time. This differs from the traditional concept of "multi-tasking" because of the following: whereas in a multi-tasking operating system (Windows, Linux, etc.) it appears that multiple programs are running at the same time, they're really not. What's happening is the computer is working on one program for 1/1,000th of a second, then it switches to another and runs it for 1/1,000th of a second, then it switches to the third, etc. So, typically only a few dozen programs are running so each of them receive a large amount of the timeslice per unit time. That makes it appear like they're all running at the same time.

What HyperThreading does is actually run more than one thread at the same time. This has an advantage over single-thread machines (ones without HyperThreading--including AMD's chips), because it is recognized that even in running the most optimized bits of code using all of the resources today's out-of-order execution engines can throw at the it, there are still unused functional units within the processor core. These unused functional units could potentially be used by a second thread. Not always, but potentially. Even if the leftover units are only able to be used 10% of the time, that's a 10% increase in performance.

HyperThreading typically doesn't add much to most code, and it usually eats some overhead to maintain (internally, the operating system must keep track of where each thread is, where it's running, how long to schedule, etc.). It's generally a wash. But, there are instances where it provides significant performance increases (70%+ increase), and other instances where it hurts performance (by 30% or more).

HyperTransport is a bus technology. It is used to transfer data from a chip to other chips or other parts on the motherboard. HyperTransport is multi-ported, meaning that it can be operating several buses simultaneously at full bandwidth.

Generally speaking, a faster FSB speeds up everything. Faster processors only take you so far because nearly everything processor does is fed by external sources, thereby requiring the bus. "

shows why Intel is better for video encoding, while AMD64 smacks intel around like its bitch in gaming



look @ where the 3.0GHz intel is on the list.. it even gets smacked around by a AMD64 2800+...

for a gaming pc.. the S939 3200+ is the absolute best value.. as a 200mhz increase turns it into a 3500+.. and you can still go much much farther without breaking a sweat

Easiest example of showing the HyperTransport bus is to look at the Xbox motherboard and look at the path between the Northbridge/GPU and MCPx. In this case, the HyperTransport bus is an 8-bit bi-directional (sending and receiving lanes) serial bus running at 200MHz (effectively 400MHz since it also uses DDR principles).

HyperTransport is an open standard, while HyperThreading is an Intel IP.

no i dont want to build an intel machine i want to build the best machine i can for the money and im only going to spend a max of $400 on my mobo/cpu combo and my board is $130 so that leaves $270 for the cpu


im talking about the heatsink and fan how does amd know if you changed it out for a different one and how do they know if you used different thermal paste

oh and i thought about another thing while reading what you guys said; how does amd know if you overclock your cpu


i am not using it like you think you took it that i was going to use it with my enterainment (well atleast thats how it came across) system when really its going to be a desktop used for some entertainment purposes but yes i do want it somewhat quiet but thats what fan controllers are for (yes i know bout cool and quiet)


yeah thats one thing that i thought about


well its not really a memory problem its the fact that since the memory controller is built into the chip (so amd says whats what ) there are compatability issues with certain brands of memory (but its mainly the cheaper brands)



okay now the thing is i dont really want to lose a warrenty for one of the most important things in my case (hense the hsf q's)

what speed could i get that 3200+ up to because i have heard the 3500+ cpu's can easily be overclocked to the 3800+ spec

im prolly gonna get that 3200+ (win. core) but i dont know about overclocking it

if i do overclock what is the best hs (or hsf) i can get to cool it off

This isn't even a contest. Check these comparisons.

http://www.linuxhardware.org/article.pl?si...&mode=nocomment

http://www.tbreak.com/reviews/article.php?id=356

The Intel EMT64 processors are 32-bit bit chips that are capable of handling some 64-bit instructions. The AMD 64 processors are true 64-bit processors that beat Intel to market by nearly 2 years, while Intel pursued the failed Itanium line. AMD is the only processor that is true 64-bit, and also runs 32-bit code just fine.

The Intel processor actually runs SLOWER on a 64-bit operating system. The Intel processor still uses a standard FSB.

Most of the benchmarks I've seen have the AMD's still spanking Intel of gaming, and cost considerably less. If you compare the entry level AMD 64 3000+ against Intel's entry model, AMD is $80 cheaper, and yet runs considerably faster.

There is also the heat problem mentioned in that first comparison. Without any overclocking, the Intel processor was overheating in a system with 4 fans configured properly. Yet, I know guys who have an Athlon 64 3000+ overclocked with a stock heat sink, running 2.6 gHz (a 30% overclock) on stock voltage.

planetamd64.com has plenty of these stories with screenshots as proof.

Lastly, many of those benchmarks use older AMD chipsets where the effective FSB is 800/1600. The newer NForce chipsets offer 1000/2000 effective FSB. So, I imagine if they were tested again on the faster chipsets you'd see an ever bigger lead for AMD.

So, one is true 64-bit, runs faster with a 64-bit operating system, has HyperTransport, runs cooler, kicks ass in gaming, and is cheaper.

How is that really a debate?

If you want a cheap, fast system here's what I recommend for those on a budget.

Kingmax SuperRAM Series Dual Channel Kit 184-Pin 1GB(512MBx2) DDR PC-3200 - $103 for dual-channel PC3200 with good overclocking, and fast timings.
FOXCONN "NF4UK8AA-8EKRS" NVIDIA nForce4 Ultra Chipset Motherboard For AMD Socket 939 CPU - $114, which is $10 up from what I bought it at. This supports PCI-E, 939, 8 channel sound, firewire, 10 USB, NForce 4 (1000/2000) with built in gigabit LAN and built in firewall, SATA RAID (4 devices) and IDE RAID (4 devices). It comes with SATA cables and power adapters for all 4 devices, a hefty manual, and a mighty impressive BIOS.
AMD Athlon 64 3000+, 512KB L2 Cache, Socket 939 64-bit Processor - $155.

For a budget system, the 3000+ is more than enough. I was just looking at benchmarks talking about overbuying your CPU. With a 6600GT, a 3000+ is more than enough processor. If you buy anything faster, you get diminishing results where you are throwing away money unless you've got a top end card.

Memory, board and proc come to $372.

Now, price a comporable Intel system. It will be much more expensive, and give worse performance for a gaming machine.

okay so that mobo and ram with the win. core 3200+

now can you guys answer my questions from my previous post

come on guys i need answers



here are the questions again:

how does amd know if you changed the heatsink and fan out for a different one and how do they know if you used different thermal paste

how does amd know if you overclock your cpu

what speed could i get the winchester core 3200+ up to because i have heard the 3500+ cpu's can easily be overclocked to the 3800+ specs

if i do overclock what is the best hs (or hsf) i can get to cool it off

If you need to send it in for whatever reason they might know




again, if you need to send it in for whatever reason and they test it then they might know




It depends on that particular processor. Each one is made differently and can have varied oc'ing success or none at all.





You can always go the watercooling route which has the best cooling effects but if you don't feel comfortable doing that then the best option (IMO) would be to get a high quality hsf that will support the speeds you want to achieve.