Hello,
I was just shopping around for a new machine and the only thing I am
left to decide on is which one of these processors I should choose.
Today I almost bought a very nice HP Pavillion T680 with a AMD Athlon 64
3200+ processor.
It was only when I got home, I learnt that 3200+ doesn't mean 3.2ghz and
that this processor is actually 2.0ghz.
This has now put me in a confusing situation to whether or not I buy this
machine or go for a Pentium 4 3.2ghz or faster.

Does the Athlon 64 3200+ actually show the same performance as a Pentium
3.2ghz ?
What would the readers of this recommend for me to do?

I use my computer mainly for Internet related tasks, Communication, MS
Office; but recently I have started wanting to use it for video editing and
using Flight Simulator 2004, which I have bought but hardly used as my AMD
Duron 800mhz with 192MB RAM doesn't work too well with! lol

Thanks for any help.

Simon

Simon Lee wrote:

> Hello,
> I was just shopping around for a new machine and the only thing I am
> left to decide on is which one of these processors I should choose.
> Today I almost bought a very nice HP Pavillion T680 with a AMD Athlon 64
> 3200+ processor.
> It was only when I got home, I learnt that 3200+ doesn't mean 3.2ghz and
> that this processor is actually 2.0ghz.

The clock speed doesn't matter. What matters is how fast it runs programs.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=6

Think of the clock speed of a processor as being like how many steps
per minute an animal makes. Even though a centipede makes many
more steps per minute than a race horse, you know that the race horse
can move much further than the centipede in a certain amount of time.
Why? It is because the horse makes so much more progress with each
step than the centipede. AMD processors also make a tremendous
amount of progress per clock cycle.

An important thing to remember is that the review of the Athlon 64
I posted a link to is for use of the Athlon 64 with a 32 bit operating
system(Windows XP) and 32 bit software. One should expect
even greater performance running 32 bit software using a 64 bit
OS(it can run 64 bit software side by side with 32 bit software when
a 64 bit OS is used), and even better performance running 64 bit
software with a 64 bit OS. The typical Pentium 4 chip is a 32 bit
chip.

>
> This has now put me in a confusing situation to whether or not I buy this
> machine or go for a Pentium 4 3.2ghz or faster.

Go for the Athlon 64.

>
>
> Does the Athlon 64 3200+ actually show the same performance as a Pentium
> 3.2ghz ?

In many cases the Athlon 64 is much faster. This includes business software
and games. The important thing to remember is that the Athlon 64 allows
future upgrades to 64 bit software.

>
> What would the readers of this recommend for me to do?

Buy an Athlon 64 system. Make sure to get a good video card since
you want to play games. In Doom 3 for example, a $160 Athlon 64 3000+
chip beats an $825 Pentium 4 3.2 ghz EE chip.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2149&p=7

For Business Winstone 2004, a $190 Athlon 64 3200+ beats a
$1,000 Pentium 4 3.4 EE chip.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=6

Another reminder. all the benchmarks I have referenced were for 32 bit
software using a 32 bit OS. The Athlon 64 can run 64 bit software when
a 64 bit OS is used.

Here is one example using 64 bit software(with the beta edition of Windows 64
bit) compared to the 32 bit version running on an Athlon 64. The 64 bit version
finished the task in 25% less time.

http://www.short-media.com/review.php?r=257&p=1

Other applications might have a much larger performance boost when moved to 64
bit. Keep in mind that the 64 bit results are in comparison to the already
great 32 bit results for the Athlon 64.

>
>
> I use my computer mainly for Internet related tasks, Communication, MS
> Office; but recently I have started wanting to use it for video editing and
> using Flight Simulator 2004, which I have bought but hardly used as my AMD
> Duron 800mhz with 192MB RAM doesn't work too well with! lol
>
> Thanks for any help.
>
> Simon

JK,
Thankyou very much for that information. It was very helpful.
I think I might go for the T680 Athlon 64 depending on one other factor,
room for wireless netowrking hardware.

Simon

Simon Lee wrote:
> Hello,
> I was just shopping around for a new machine and the only
> thing I am left to decide on is which one of these processors I
> should choose.
> Today I almost bought a very nice HP Pavillion T680 with a AMD Athlon
> 64 3200+ processor.
> It was only when I got home, I learnt that 3200+ doesn't mean 3.2ghz
> and that this processor is actually 2.0ghz.
> This has now put me in a confusing situation to whether or not I buy
> this machine or go for a Pentium 4 3.2ghz or faster.

They call it a 3200+ precisely because it's more or less equivalent to a
Pentium-4 3.2Ghz. Actually, AMD is being highly conservative because usually
it's closer to a 3.4Ghz Pentium 4. The Athlons are generally faster at
games, while the P4's are faster at video/audio conversions (converting from
one format to another). Typical office and Internet activity are a wash-out
between the two of them.

Yousuf Khan

Bitstring <(E-Mail Removed)>, from the wonderful person JK
<(E-Mail Removed)> said
<snip>

>> It was only when I got home, I learnt that 3200+ doesn't mean 3.2ghz and
>> that this processor is actually 2.0ghz.
>
>The clock speed doesn't matter. What matters is how fast it runs programs.
>
>http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets...spx?i=2065&p=6
>
>Think of the clock speed of a processor as being like how many steps
>per minute an animal makes.

I prefer 'the rev counter in your car'. Yeah, it measures something, but
nothing you really care about comparing between different brands.
Roadspeed and gas consumption are much more interesting.

>> This has now put me in a confusing situation to whether or not I buy this
>> machine or go for a Pentium 4 3.2ghz or faster.
>
>Go for the Athlon 64.

Seconded. The number of things a P4 beats an Athlon at is quite small,
and (at least until recently) the price premium for ;buy Intel' was
pretty steep.

--
GSV Three Minds in a Can
Outgoing Msgs are Turing Tested,and indistinguishable from human typing.

Trying to steal the thunder from Arnold, "Simon Lee" <(E-Mail Removed)> on Sun, 12 Sep 2004 18:00:43 +0100
spoke:

>Does the Athlon 64 3200+ actually show the same performance as a Pentium
>3.2ghz ?

In a word, yes.

>I use my computer mainly for Internet related tasks, Communication, MS
>Office; but recently I have started wanting to use it for video editing and
>using Flight Simulator 2004, which I have bought but hardly used as my AMD
>Duron 800mhz with 192MB RAM doesn't work too well with! lol

For FS2004, other games, and most 'office' stuff, the AMD will be faster.

For video and audio editing and a few other things, the P4 will be faster.

The choice is yours.






--

The truth is out there,

but it's not interesting enough for most people.

> For video and audio editing and a few other things, the P4 will be faster.

When you say faster, how much faster?
If it's quite a tiny difference, I can live with that.

Simon

I am very interested in that computer. It must be a very new model,
as the Athlon 64 3200+ at a 2 ghz clock speed is a chip made on
the new 90 nm process, and uses two on chip memory controllers,
and the newer socket 939 motherboard. This website indicates
an October release for the chip. Is that system in stores already
(if so what country?), or is it a built to order system to be shipped
in a week or two? I couldn't find information on the net under that
model number.

http://www.c627627.com/AMD/Athlon64/



Simon Lee wrote:

> JK,
> Thankyou very much for that information. It was very helpful.
> I think I might go for the T680 Athlon 64 depending on one other factor,
> room for wireless netowrking hardware.
>
> Simon

Here is a link to performance running an Opteron(basically an Athlon 64,
but intended for servers that works with registered ECC memory, a different
form of memory than the Athlon 64 works with) using a 64 bit version of Linux
compared to an Intel 64 bit chip(Intel's 64 bit chips are very expensive).
It shows the Opteron beating the 64 bit Intel chip(which is much more expensive)

when running 64 bit software, even when running rending.

http://www.anandtech.com/linux/showdoc.aspx?i=2163&p=4

It is hard to find 64 bit benchmarks run under Windows 64 bit, however we
will probably see many more before the end of the year. I presented one
in a previous post. It will be interesting to see 64 bit benchmarks for
video using Windows 64 bit.

Simon Lee wrote:

> > For video and audio editing and a few other things, the P4 will be faster.
>
> When you say faster, how much faster?
> If it's quite a tiny difference, I can live with that.
>
> Simon

Trying to steal the thunder from Arnold, "Simon Lee" <(E-Mail Removed)> on Sun, 12 Sep 2004 20:29:18 +0100
spoke:

>
>> For video and audio editing and a few other things, the P4 will be faster.
>
>When you say faster, how much faster?
>If it's quite a tiny difference, I can live with that.

It can be as much as 20-30%, in several things.
In other places, it might only be 5%.

The AMD will be that much faster in many games,
and almost that much faster in most office apps.






--

The truth is out there,

but it's not interesting enough for most people.