AMD Athlon 64 3400 vs Intel® Pentium 4 3.4GHz HT

steveb_1987 · Sep 3, 2004

ok ppl,

which is better??

AMD Athlon 64 3400 vs Intel® Pentium 4 3.4GHz HT

never had an amd so i dont know what there like.

let me know what u think of both and which is better.

Reefsmoka · Sep 3, 2004

The Intel chip would win in performance and overclocking ability, but the AMD should be cheaper.

floppybootstomp · Sep 3, 2004

Games and amazingly SYSmark 2004 ran faster on the FX-53 (AMD) and was one aspect of the tests that really impressed me as usually AMD has always historically been beaten by the Intel platform for some reason or another.

If you are building a new system and do not own a board for either the AMD or Intel platform the AMD FX-53 is a better buy when doing dollar to dollar comparisons and is a bit faster in many tests.

One test

muckshifter · Sep 3, 2004

Intel supposedly still has no real-time plans for a desktop 64-Bit solution in a CPU and this is what really separates these CPUs other than a few trademarked technical differences.

There are those who are loyal to their respective favorite and who bash one side or the other regardless of the true nature of the CPU being tested, and this is all okay I guess but the truth of the matter is it is great to have two companies to choose from.

I choose AMD

Reefsmoka · Sep 3, 2004

.

floppybootstomp · Sep 3, 2004

Direct X 8?

Intel 3.2 vs AMD XP3200 From June 2003?

Mr reef, if you must provide links, at least make them relevant to CPU's that are up to date.

We're talking 64 bit XP3400 vs Intel 3.4Ghz here, not old AMD 32 bit processors vs Intel 3.2Ghz.

And btw, some of those links didn't work for me.

Reefsmoka · Sep 3, 2004

floppybootstomp · Sep 3, 2004

Who me? Cry? Nah, I just like things balanced and truthful, is all. If the Intel chip's better, great, I couldn't give a monkeys. I ain't got no brand loyalties, whichever is best bang for the buck is fine by me.

But as I've said before, if AMD hadn't made great strides forward in the last four years or so, you'd still have no choice but to pay £700.00 for the latest 2.2Ghz Intel chip. Probably

As for those links, sorry mate, but for most all I'm getting is the Tom's logo and a blank sheet (see attached pic) so I'll take your word for it about those benchies.

Reefsmoka · Sep 3, 2004

Sorry about the links flopps

. I dont know whats wrong with them, they work fine for me still.

I agree with ya on the AMD part, if it wasnt for them, i doubt computers would be at the 3.4-3.6 ghz mark, becuase Intel would try and do as slow a job as possible, releasing a 500Mhz faster chip once a year

(well you know what i mean) and you couldnt blame them for taking advantage.

floppybootstomp · Sep 3, 2004

Fair do's.

To get back to the original question, from what we've seen above, there really isn't a great deal of difference between those two top end chips, what difference there is, is negligible.

If I were were making a choice I'd go for the AMD for two reasons: It costs less and it's 64 bit.

I also like the way the 64 bit AMD chips have a wide surface area to mount the cooler, just like the Pentium 4's. Nothing worse than worrying about crushing the dies on those old style Athlons.

Reefsmoka · Sep 3, 2004

They both cost around the same, The AMD 64 3400+ will be around £203 where the Inter Pentium 4 3.4 will be about £205.

floppybootstomp · Sep 3, 2004

Reefsmoka said:
They both cost around the same, The AMD 64 3400+ will be around £203 where the Inter Pentium 4 3.4 will be about £205.

Uh-oh. I didn't realise that, I don't often check out Intel CPU prices, I must admit I just assumed it would be more expensive as they always have been in the past.

That kinda puts a different slant on it then, don't it?

OK, here's the choice: a 64 bit future proof CPU or some exaggerated CPU frequency. I mean, come on, 3.4Ghz will surely give you a warm fuzzy feeling, even if it is only 32 Bit.

Toss a coin

Spooky Mouse · Sep 4, 2004

Reef i get the same blank screen too.. with the hammer logo....

Are the differences between these two chips so small that it dosent really mater? or is there a vast difference in one area or the other?

Reefsmoka · Sep 4, 2004

Overall i would say there pretty darn equall to be honest. It would be hard to choose from the benchmarks, they only have a few seconds doing applications or frames per second in games between them! It really would be down to personally preferance, there both mighty fine chips.

I did get a little animated at the start of the post (soz there flops

) though, becuase i thought the Intel would slaughter the AMD chip. But AMD proved me wrong!

floppybootstomp · Sep 4, 2004

reef: respec, imo, you have integrity, tbh, I wasn't sure meself

If you want to link from another site and the usual methods don't work, right click anywhere on that site, click 'properties' and the full url address will be there to see, copy and paste.

If you already done that, then sorry for trying to teach me mother to suck eggs, as the saying goes

psd99 · Sep 4, 2004

just get a Dual motherboard and in one end put the AMD Athlon 64 3400 and in the other end put in the Intel® Pentium 4 3.4GHz HT!!! everyones happy!

problem solved? Really wish one day that Intel and AMD joined forces, just like eastenders and coronation street could!

imagine zoe from eastenders in the rovers return.................. smacked it!
now imgaine the combined power of AMD and Intel..... IMPRESSIVE! they probably have no competition at all. the biggest question what do you name the combined company?!!!!

Reefsmoka · Sep 4, 2004

Well heres the whole link: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040106/index.html

If that still doesnt work, open up toms hardware (www.tomshardware.com) and in the serch archives box, type 3400 vs 3.2 and it will come up with a list, you pick the one that looks right.

I just copied the pictures URL's and pasted them, its worked 100% so far (well, until today -_-). They all still work for me, dunno why that is.

You'll see the benchmarks are pretty close. And see how hard it would be to choose. But remember its a 3.2Ghz P4 vs the 3400+ 64, not a 3.4Ghz P4 vs 3400+ 64 (because he didnt have a 3.4 vs 3400).

Spooky Mouse · Sep 4, 2004

Reefsmoka said:
Well heres the whole link: http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040106/index.html

If that still doesnt work, open up toms hardware (www.tomshardware.com) and in the serch archives box, type 3400 vs 3.2 and it will come up with a list, you pick the one that looks right.

Reef this now works....

.. Well im off to bed... but before i go im going to have a little gander at this website... looks very interesting stuff....

Nite Nite..

All The Best

what cpu?	3	Mar 29, 2005
AMD vs. Intel @ Tiger	4	Jun 30, 2005
Dell or Compaq ?????	4	Mar 22, 2005
confused about graphic cards 'help''	11	Sep 16, 2008
amd vs intel better or worse	7	Sep 8, 2005
Which is better: 3.4Ghz Pentium 4 or Intel Duo Centrino 1.83GHz?	7	Oct 21, 2006
Pentium or AMD why?	20	Dec 7, 2003
Intel® Pentium® 4 Processor with HT Technology Extreme Edition. When will we see them??????????????	2	Jan 25, 2004

AMD Athlon 64 3400 vs Intel® Pentium 4 3.4GHz HT

steveb_1987

Reefsmoka

Cookie Monster

floppybootstomp

sugar 'n spikes

muckshifter

I'm not weird, I'm a limited edition.

Reefsmoka

Cookie Monster

floppybootstomp

sugar 'n spikes

Reefsmoka

Cookie Monster

floppybootstomp

sugar 'n spikes

Attachments

Reefsmoka

Cookie Monster

floppybootstomp

sugar 'n spikes

Reefsmoka

Cookie Monster

floppybootstomp

sugar 'n spikes

Spooky Mouse

Reefsmoka

Cookie Monster

floppybootstomp

sugar 'n spikes

psd99

Reefsmoka

Cookie Monster

Spooky Mouse

Ask a Question

Similar Threads