Hello,

I have a couple of Asus motherboards with their respective CPUs. One of
the boards is an Asus P4C800E Deluxe with an Intel P4 3.0 GHZ CPU. The
other board is an Asus A8V Deluxe with an AMD Athlon 64 3500+ (Newcastle
core). I would like to build a system for home use (gaming and some video
editing) from one of these boards. Which would be the better performer (the
AMD board or the Intel one) to base the new PC on?

Thanks,
Shane

The truth is either would do. When it comes to gaming the biggest thing
is your video card and system memory.

When it comes to video editing you going to want a pair of RAID-0
arrays and system memory.

I currently do both on my P4P800E Deluxe and like the system. I have
two RAID-0 arrays using SATA hard drives, 2 Gig of DDR400 memory and an
ATI X800 Pro video card. There isn't much difference between the P4P800
series and the P4C800 series, the biggest is that my board uses the 865
chipset and the P4C800 uses the 875 chipset.

Now the Intel socket 478 is at an end when it comes to any newer cpu's
coming out for it. The AMD socket 939 isn't there yet so you could see
a slight advantage there with new cpu's becoming avalible for it. But I
have heard that AMD is planning on ending it soon by changing pin
layout.

In article <438c6fc0$0$25858$(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) says...
> Hello,
>
> I have a couple of Asus motherboards with their respective CPUs. One of
> the boards is an Asus P4C800E Deluxe with an Intel P4 3.0 GHZ CPU. The
> other board is an Asus A8V Deluxe with an AMD Athlon 64 3500+ (Newcastle
> core). I would like to build a system for home use (gaming and some video
> editing) from one of these boards. Which would be the better performer (the
> AMD board or the Intel one) to base the new PC on?

The more CACHE the CPU has the better performance you'll get for Video
Editing, won't mean much for Games.

If you are doing large video editing, dual drives make a bigger
difference than RAID-0 or RAID-1. What I means is that you have your
source files on Drive X and your output files on Drive Y so that when
you spool the video out it doesn't have the head-movement lag you see on
single drive systems. In fact, you might try a 3 drive system if you are
into serious editing - the OS and Apps and source file on a MIRROR or
STRIPE (R/0) and the destination location on drive 3 - this method
screams performance.

As for what you should be considering, A video card with at lest 256MB
RAM, 2+ GB RAM for video editing, 10K or 15K drives, DVD-+RW drive, and
if you really want to get serious about performance, get a Dual CPU
board. Dual CPU boards are not that expensive, but the second CPU does
cost about $500 depending on the type you get.

I use Pinacle 9 on a Dual Xeon system with Dual RAID-1 arrays (250GB
each) and a controller that has 128MB of cache (not the onboard RAID
controller), and find that it works about 350% faster than my single
Hyper Threaded P4 system with just single drives.

--

(E-Mail Removed)
remove 999 in order to email me

In article <438c6fc0$0$25858$(E-Mail Removed)>, "nospam"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I have a couple of Asus motherboards with their respective CPUs. One of
> the boards is an Asus P4C800E Deluxe with an Intel P4 3.0 GHZ CPU. The
> other board is an Asus A8V Deluxe with an AMD Athlon 64 3500+ (Newcastle
> core). I would like to build a system for home use (gaming and some video
> editing) from one of these boards. Which would be the better performer (the
> AMD board or the Intel one) to base the new PC on?
>
> Thanks,
> Shane

In terms of memory driving capabilities at stock speeds, the Intel
board will likely be less cranky. Specifically, driving four sticks
of memory on the Intel will cause fewer headaches than on the Athlon64.
(The Intel side, relies on the Northbridge on the motherboard to
drive memory. The Athlon64 processor drives the memory itself.)

There are plenty of benchmarks around the net. This one is not
as complete as it could be (I don't see Venice here - Venice has
SSE3 support), but it is very easy to use. Try the different tasks,
from the right hand menu. For some things the Athlon64 will be
faster, and depending on the application, the Intel might win
(it depends on how an application is coded, and whether the
extensions the Athlon64 offers, are used by the software).
More recent benchmarks on the web, are showing more wins for
the Athlon64, but you should keep an open mind about this,
and find benchmarks representative of the applications that
you use. (A fanboi site will only use apps where the Athlon64
is a big winner.)

http://www23.tomshardware.com/index....l2=62&chart=21

To put it another way, I own the P4C800E, and if I was
purchasing now, would buy the Athlon64 plus 2x1GB of memory.
(The 1GB sticks might be cheaper after New Years day.) I
would buy memory with the 64Mx8 chips on it, and not the
super-cheap memory. By buying two sticks, I would be hoping to
avoid problems that might happen with four sticks (if you
consider running command rate 2T to be a problem or not).
A purchase of 2x512MB will be even less hassle, as there is only
one practical way to make the 512MB DDR modules, and so you won't
have to guess at whether the module uses "nice" chips or not.

To consider pathological cases, the Athlon64 runs at 2.2GHz. The
P4 in your example at 3.0GHz. Someone here had a scientific application,
and found the Athlon64 behaved more like its 2.2Ghz clock
speed, than its "AMD 3500+ P.R." rating. If a particular piece
of code does things that don't agree with the Athlon64, then it
becomes slower than the P4. If you are a gamer, there is no
contest, and for games the Athlon64 will blow the doors off the
P4. All I can honestly say, is if your main purpose is gaming,
the Athlon64 is the way to go. For any other usage, you had
better find more benchmarks on the web, to help you make a
decision.

HTH,
Paul

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 17:56:58 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) (Paul) wrote:

>In article <438c6fc0$0$25858$(E-Mail Removed)>, "nospam"
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have a couple of Asus motherboards with their respective CPUs. One of
>> the boards is an Asus P4C800E Deluxe with an Intel P4 3.0 GHZ CPU. The
>> other board is an Asus A8V Deluxe with an AMD Athlon 64 3500+ (Newcastle
>> core). I would like to build a system for home use (gaming and some video
>> editing) from one of these boards. Which would be the better performer (the
>> AMD board or the Intel one) to base the new PC on?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Shane
>
>In terms of memory driving capabilities at stock speeds, the Intel
>board will likely be less cranky. Specifically, driving four sticks
>of memory on the Intel will cause fewer headaches than on the Athlon64.
>(The Intel side, relies on the Northbridge on the motherboard to
>drive memory. The Athlon64 processor drives the memory itself.)
>
>There are plenty of benchmarks around the net. This one is not
>as complete as it could be (I don't see Venice here - Venice has
>SSE3 support), but it is very easy to use. Try the different tasks,
>from the right hand menu. For some things the Athlon64 will be
>faster, and depending on the application, the Intel might win
>(it depends on how an application is coded, and whether the
>extensions the Athlon64 offers, are used by the software).
>More recent benchmarks on the web, are showing more wins for
>the Athlon64, but you should keep an open mind about this,
>and find benchmarks representative of the applications that
>you use. (A fanboi site will only use apps where the Athlon64
>is a big winner.)
>
>http://www23.tomshardware.com/index....l2=62&chart=21
>
>To put it another way, I own the P4C800E, and if I was
>purchasing now, would buy the Athlon64 plus 2x1GB of memory.
>(The 1GB sticks might be cheaper after New Years day.) I
>would buy memory with the 64Mx8 chips on it, and not the
>super-cheap memory. By buying two sticks, I would be hoping to
>avoid problems that might happen with four sticks (if you
>consider running command rate 2T to be a problem or not).
>A purchase of 2x512MB will be even less hassle, as there is only
>one practical way to make the 512MB DDR modules, and so you won't
>have to guess at whether the module uses "nice" chips or not.
>
>To consider pathological cases, the Athlon64 runs at 2.2GHz. The
>P4 in your example at 3.0GHz. Someone here had a scientific application,
>and found the Athlon64 behaved more like its 2.2Ghz clock
>speed, than its "AMD 3500+ P.R." rating. If a particular piece
>of code does things that don't agree with the Athlon64, then it
>becomes slower than the P4. If you are a gamer, there is no
>contest, and for games the Athlon64 will blow the doors off the
>P4. All I can honestly say, is if your main purpose is gaming,
>the Athlon64 is the way to go. For any other usage, you had
>better find more benchmarks on the web, to help you make a
>decision.
>
>HTH,
> Paul

I've been running 4 sticks of 1GB Samsung memory on a P4C800E Deluxe
for a couple of months with no problem. So far the system has been
very stable but I'm keeping my fingers crossed since this particular
board appears to be a bit quirky.

In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, justindavid
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> I've been running 4 sticks of 1GB Samsung memory on a P4C800E Deluxe
> for a couple of months with no problem. So far the system has been
> very stable but I'm keeping my fingers crossed since this particular
> board appears to be a bit quirky.

I used 4x512 on mine for a short time, but had to put two of the
sticks back in another computer. I've also been blessed with zero
significant quirks. (One irritant is the clicks and pops from the
AC97 codec on the board, and I expect they'll never fix that.
There must be a hardware bug somewhere, either on the Intel side
of the AC97 link, or with the AD1985. The last driver update I did,
helped a bit, but the problem is still there.)

Have you been trying different BIOS versions on the board, to
eliminate the quirks ?

I don't like how overclocking works on the board, and had
way more fun with my A7N8X-E. If you want an example of
fun on the P4C800-E, if you reverse the PS/2 mouse and
keyboard while assembling your system, the computer won't
boot (which is fine) and all your settings will be lost
(which is not fine). I've had to reenter my BIOS settings enough
times, that I'm sick of it. But once everything is set up on
the P4C800-E, it's been behaving itself.

I'm just crossing my fingers that I won't end up with the
"latchup" problem.

Paul

"Paul" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message news:nospam-2911051958160001@192.168.1.178...
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, justindavid
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >
> > I've been running 4 sticks of 1GB Samsung memory on a P4C800E Deluxe
> > for a couple of months with no problem. So far the system has been
> > very stable but I'm keeping my fingers crossed since this particular
> > board appears to be a bit quirky.
>
> I used 4x512 on mine for a short time, but had to put two of the
> sticks back in another computer. I've also been blessed with zero
> significant quirks. (One irritant is the clicks and pops from the
> AC97 codec on the board, and I expect they'll never fix that.

I thought they had found that problem.. Anyway, try muting
the microphone input in your audio mixer (or at least turn the
volume down all the way) and see if it helps.

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 00:58:48 GMT, (E-Mail Removed) (Paul) wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, justindavid
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>> I've been running 4 sticks of 1GB Samsung memory on a P4C800E Deluxe
>> for a couple of months with no problem. So far the system has been
>> very stable but I'm keeping my fingers crossed since this particular
>> board appears to be a bit quirky.
>
>I used 4x512 on mine for a short time, but had to put two of the
>sticks back in another computer. I've also been blessed with zero
>significant quirks. (One irritant is the clicks and pops from the
>AC97 codec on the board, and I expect they'll never fix that.
>There must be a hardware bug somewhere, either on the Intel side
>of the AC97 link, or with the AD1985. The last driver update I did,
>helped a bit, but the problem is still there.)
>
>Have you been trying different BIOS versions on the board, to
>eliminate the quirks ?
>
>I don't like how overclocking works on the board, and had
>way more fun with my A7N8X-E. If you want an example of
>fun on the P4C800-E, if you reverse the PS/2 mouse and
>keyboard while assembling your system, the computer won't
>boot (which is fine) and all your settings will be lost
>(which is not fine). I've had to reenter my BIOS settings enough
>times, that I'm sick of it. But once everything is set up on
>the P4C800-E, it's been behaving itself.
>
>I'm just crossing my fingers that I won't end up with the
>"latchup" problem.
>
> Paul

I've been running with bios 1019 which came with the board. I also
installed a USB2 card instead of using the board's ports because I
want to eliminate the possibility of the board burning out. Things
have been running well for several months, so if I do run into a
problem I will update the bios. My cpu runs between 48 and 51C with
the retail fan from intel for a P4 3.2Ghz so I haven't done much in
the way of overclocking. I need to do something about lowering the
temp before I jump into overclocking since I'm not sure how much that
would increase the temp.