PDA

View Full Version : P4 3.4Ghz or AMD 64 3.400+?


Pages : [1] 2

rombat
04-07-04, 08:09 PM
Which one will be better a Pentium 4 3.4Ghz or an AMD Athlon 64 3.400+, both are about the same price now. (duel)

Sazar
04-07-04, 08:26 PM
I am partial to the a64 :)

stock performance is excellent and the cool n quiet feature will give you excellent power savings in the long term :)

sxotty
04-07-04, 08:28 PM
Better? For what? Do you already have a pentium4 motherboard so you could just throw it in?

Is this just an attempt at flame bait? Elucidate.

In any case I am partial to amd b/c they have less marketshare and that is important to me if they are the same price.

Sazar
04-07-04, 08:32 PM
marketshare has nothing to do with performance and is no requirement to purchase an item m8...

sxotty
04-07-04, 08:37 PM
Sazar you understand economics, supporting the company with less marketshare means more competition and lower prices it is simple.

Thus if they do have the same price/performance ratio then I will buy the one from the smaller company.

Sazar
04-07-04, 08:42 PM
I don't really care about market share m8...

if I did I would be buying some crappy processors from VIA and video cards from XGI or something...

teh lad asked a question about performance... not marketshare...

imo the a64 processor offers superior performance even if it is more expensive... but then again that is my experience...

Gator
04-07-04, 08:52 PM
Athlon64 EASILY outperforms the P4

it doesn't matter that so few 64bits are apps, it runs 32bit apps faster than anything out there ;)

rombat
04-07-04, 11:05 PM
Sxotty, just asking I am going to make another system just for gaming and thanks guys for the info! Seems like the Amd 64 handles game better than the P4 so I guess I will be saving up for an AMD 64 than. :)

saturnotaku
04-07-04, 11:20 PM
I want an Athlon64 so I can relegate my Barton to be a Linux plaything and a dedicated Folding@Home box.

Riptide
04-07-04, 11:48 PM
Yeah, until a 64bit folding client comes out and you find yourself using the 64 for processing. :)

saturnotaku
04-07-04, 11:49 PM
Yeah, until a 64bit folding client comes out and you find yourself using the 64 for processing.

Oh both machines would be going at the same, you can count on that. :D

Viral
04-07-04, 11:50 PM
Yep, for gaming especially the 3400+ is easily the better choice.

Look at it this way. Most people accepted that the 3200+ and the 3.2GHz P4 were basically equal. Both moved up 200MHz to get to the next model, but for the A64 it was a 10% clock increase, and for the P4 it was a 6% increase. The A64 also seems to scale better with clock increases (performance is closer to the percentage increase) mainly due to the one die memory controller and the fact that it runs at the speed of the CPU.

sxotty
04-11-04, 02:34 PM
Here from the INQ

Inq (http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15270)
Don’t charge different customers different prices for the same products or grant different promotional allowances or benefits to competing customers unless:you document that it was necessary to meet (but not beat) competitive offers from a competitor of Intel

Perhaps that illustrates why I like healthy competition.

Pantherman
04-19-04, 05:31 PM
The AThlon 64 3400+ easily outperforms the P4 3.4GHz in games. However, the P4 wins out in other tasks like video encoding. If you're a gamer, you NEED the Athlon 64. :angel2:

PaiN
04-20-04, 08:08 AM
When I went nuts one night and bought this EE it was only because I already had a P4 platform.....but it was a very tough desicion since I'm a gamer and the FX has the edge..
If I had do it from the gound up.....I'd build an A64/FX system. In fact, IF the FX becomes available for a platform that does not require registered memory...I'll most likely rebuild on that one.

Fatman
04-20-04, 03:44 PM
I don't mean to high-jack this thread, but... is the difference between 3.2EE and 3.2 vanilla that noticeable?

Dazz
04-21-04, 02:24 AM
Yeap, more so the cost ;)

Fatman
04-21-04, 04:44 PM
How about performance? Games in particular? Any noticeable difference?

Dazz
04-21-04, 05:15 PM
Yeah in some case see for yourself http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=808

PaiN
04-21-04, 06:29 PM
A P4EE @ 3.7 is a beast :firedevil ....pure & simple
No matter what the benchies they can't tell the real world story ..of the power of this CPU.
But...you can't think about it......you simply have to impluse click the "submit order" button.....then its over :D

devnull
05-04-04, 08:28 PM
When I went nuts one night and bought this EE it was only because I already had a P4 platform.....but it was a very tough desicion since I'm a gamer and the FX has the edge..
If I had do it from the gound up.....I'd build an A64/FX system. In fact, IF the FX becomes available for a platform that does not require registered memory...I'll most likely rebuild on that one.

I have heard that only the FX53 requires ECC-registered memory. You might want to double-check that info before you go ahead and buy though.

jAkUp
05-06-04, 12:19 AM
i am pretty sure the fx 51 requires registered memory as well

Cota
05-06-04, 12:55 AM
I have heard that only the FX53 requires ECC-registered memory. You might want to double-check that info before you go ahead and buy though.

The FX53 for socket939 will use normal DDR400 memory

Dazz
05-06-04, 02:29 AM
At the moment All Athlon FX CPU's need registered memory.

Lfctony
05-14-04, 10:18 AM
I'm with the Athlon64 on this one, I have an overclocked CPU at 3.36 which is faster than a plain 3.4 due to the higher internal bus, and I score quite lower than some of the Athlon64 scores I've seen. Also, if you play UT2004, you're much better off because of the extremely higher frame rates Athlon64 scores. Or you can read this:
http://www.anandtech.com/printarticle.html?i=2038