DaSwissDude Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 Im just checking what i should get on my next PC :D, im trying to make it as cheap as possible, but as powerfull as possible ;). Id probably rather go for Pentium cause ive had expirience with it... But id like to hear some opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+Dick Montage Subscriber² Posted January 19, 2004 Subscriber² Share Posted January 19, 2004 I used to swear Athlon all the way. However next box will be P4 as they are way cooler and hence quieter. My feeling anyhow! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
csabo2 Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 i got the 3ghz p4 / radeon 9800 and i get 500 fps in q3 on full settings @ 1024x768 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpu killer Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 Oh no, here comes another INTEL VS. AMD thread.. Truth is: For quality,performance, and best DDR results - best gaming, and real life application performance , go Intel. Intel cost more, yes, but the price is well worth it.. Havent ever heard and Intel owner file complaints about their processors.. Intel's the way to go, in my opinion, each to his own tho...mostly AMD fanboys around these parts, so you'll probly get alot of opinions that differ from mine.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RZombie Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 i used to run intel, back in the celeron/p3 days and ive recently built 2 systems with amd, and they have'nt let me down, took me awhile to get there but now its all good, but anways amd is better bang for buck and u can build a cheaper amd system to out perform intel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpu killer Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 (edited) i used to run intel, back in the celeron/p3 days and ive recently built 2 systems with amd, and they have'nt let me down, took me awhile to get there but now its all good, but anways amd is better bang for buck and u can build a cheaper amd system to out perform intel. Sorry to tell ya m8, but I've had two friends who did this: Friend 1's PC: Intel Pentium 4 3.2C @ Stock Radeon 9800Pro Abit IC7-G MAX III 2*512mb Kingston HyperX PC3200 Maxtor 7200rpm DiamondMax 9Plus SATA 150 Standard Beige Case + 400w PSU Friend 2's PC: AMD Athlon 3200+ @ Stock Radeon 9800Pro Abit NF7-S 2*512mb Kingston HyperX PC3200 Maxtor 7200rpm DiamondMax 9Plus SATA 150 Standard Beige Case + 400w PSU ------------- Friend 1's PC led by about 15-50% in just about any benchmark/game you threw at it.. Yes AMD systems are cheaper, but they will not outperform Intel's, I saw this in action...I know. EDIT: some mistakes..hehe, typos.. Edited January 19, 2004 by cpu killer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solarix Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 i neither have the money for either cpu's listed, but id go with AMD Anthlon 64, 3000+ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solarix Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 I used to swear Athlon all the way. However next box will be P4 as they are way cooler and hence quieter.My feeling anyhow! im sorry i didnt know amd chips scream when their turned on, please elaborate what u mean by p4 runs quieter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brewzzin Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 People have to realize the Athlon 64 is a lot different from the Athlon XP. :alien: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpu killer Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 im sorry i didnt know amd chips scream when their turned on, please elaborate what u mean by p4 runs quieter? Less cooling = fans at less RPM = quieter :). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alpoinacan Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 I don't think that Intel is any quieter. Perhaps you have not bought a newer AMD processor and fan lately. I find that Intel has a very annoying high pitch whine after a few weeks of use. At any rate, I think that AMD offers superior value. CPU Killer, You may be correct, but your signature does not lend any credability to your statements. :-) [CPU KILLER - TAKIN' DOWN SILICON VALLEY, 1 CPU AT A TIME!] >>[AMD - ADVANCED MICRO D...HEADS!]<< >>[WHO SAID I WAS TALKING TO YOU?]<< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkmark327 Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 Yeah I think ever since they introduced .13μ AMD's Performance ratings have lost their accuracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpu killer Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 My sig is just to go with my name, the only CPU I ever "killed" was an AMD K6-2 450mhz that simply fried on me... Always been an Intel man, and its been proved ever since the 2200+ AMD's PR do not correspond to Intels that run at that speed.. Theres an article about it at ANAND, take a look there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridgeburner Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 AMD's Cpus overperform Intel's in SOME benchmarks, keyword here being SOME, and yes, I've seen proof of this with my own eyes. Personally myself, I get about 363 fps in Quake3, (with my $80 processor overclocked to 2.3 ghz) but if you'd like to buy a $700-$1000 CPU and get an extra 137fps in Quake3, be my guest. If you're heavy into audio and video work/encoding/decoding, I'd probably say go Intel, as biased as I am in favor of AMD, I can comfortably say that Intel would be your best bet if you have ample cash and if you're into that line of work. If you're a gamer, and on a budget, buy a nice AMD cpu , either an XP 2500 and overclock it, or jump the bandwagon and go to the Athlon 64, and buy yourself a top of the line video card, i.e. 9800 pro or 9800XT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
threetonesun Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 I can almost guarantee you won't notice the difference either way. HENCE, get the cheaper one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ridgeburner Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 (threetonesun @ Jan 19 2004, 17:41) I can almost guarantee you won't notice the difference either way. HENCE, get the cheaper one. That's basically what the point of my post was :laugh: thanks for clarifying ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darkmark327 Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 Oh no, here comes another INTEL VS. AMD thread..Truth is: For quality,performance, and best DDR results - best gaming, and real life application performance , go Intel. Intel cost more, yes, but the price is well worth it.. Havent ever heard and Intel owner file complaints about their processors.. Intel's the way to go, in my opinion, each to his own tho...mostly AMD fanboys around these parts, so you'll probly get alot of opinions that differ from mine.. The 2.8C offers the best bang for the buck, but I'd wait a little bit, there's a lot of hardware changes coming in a couple months which will make all your stuff unupgradable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTX Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 Most games these days run well on a system that has more than 2.0Ghz. So, in the poll, if you want to keep it a tad cheaper, go with the P-4 2.8Ghz. If you want to go even faster, then get the AMD 64-Bit 2000 :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANova Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 The Athlon 64 3000 and the P4 2.8C both offer the best price/performance ratio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MxxCon Posted January 19, 2004 Share Posted January 19, 2004 you should REALLY research athlon64. it's a new cpu, new chipset. there could be compatability problems... A close look at all the benchmark results reveals that the new Athlon64 just barely earns the performance rating 3400+. Out of 32 benchmarks, only 13 were decided clearly in favor of AMD's new contender. If you were to evaluate each of the 41 individual disciplines, the result would be even poorer.Two things should be considered here, however: for one, the big "64 bit" unknown remains a non-factor and for another, the benchmarks in which the Athlon64 shines are significant. In practically all of the gaming benchmarks, the 3400+ is able to beat its archrival Pentium 4 - sometimes soundly. X2, Warcraft III, Unreal Tournament 2003, Splinter Cell, Serious Sam, Gunmetal, Comanche and Aqua Mark: the Pentium 4 has to concede victory in all of them. Meanwhile, thanks to its higher clock speeds, the Pentium 4 comes out on top for encoding tasks such as creating MPEG-4 and MPEG-2 video or MP3 audio as well as for data compression with WinRAR 3.2 - although sometimes only by a hair. It also dominates in the case of professional tasks with 3D Studio Max or Cinema 4D, while the Athlon64 outperforms the Pentium with Lightwave 7.5. That leaves us with a clear description of the Athlon64 3400+: it's a top quality CPU that's especially suitable for games and that also lives up to its model name - albeit only in this category. At the end of the day, it still lags slightly behind the Pentium 4, a deficit that the 64-bit architecture could compensate for in the medium term, however. In the short term, Cool & Quiet could do the job, as Intel doesn't offer this type of energy management for desktop processors yet. We can only hope that the motherboard makers take note. full article: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040106/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chode Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 In my experience I'd go with AMD, the only catch with them is the heat, but all of my heat issues were solved with one Thermaltake Volcano 9 :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Floyd Veteran Posted January 20, 2004 Veteran Share Posted January 20, 2004 amd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecowgoesmoo207 Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 As stated before, the performance difference between AMD and Intel is minimal, but AMD is often cheaper so I'd go with AMD. Unless you really need that 5-10% difference. I know I don't, but if you're really hardcore I guess you can go with Intel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liquid Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 I would have said AMD if u had the Athlon 64 FX. The plain 64 isn't that great. But the FX pwz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
uniacid Posted January 20, 2004 Share Posted January 20, 2004 Its all personal preference, like me I like Intel and AMD, but for gaming I prefer Intel as they have more power Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts