AMD Athlon 64 (and Pentium)

[jab3]

Hello everyone,

I was wondering what you all thought about AMD Athlon 64 (probably just a
3000+). I am in the process of upgrading my motherboard/processor and am
considering this combo (with ABit AV8 Pro). One of my friends is trying to
talk me out of the AMD; he's a Pentium man and doesn't think the AMD is
reliable or trustworthy. He says he has friends that have had problems
with it. Does anyone have experience with it? Is it reliable? Also, will
it cause any problems with software/hardware I currently have? I use Linux
but I also use Windows XP Pro (because I'm a World of Warcraft fanatic) and
I've got a basic nVidia 5500 FX w/ onboard 256mb memory. (The main RAM is
512mb, soon to be DDR400 1Gb)

If anyone has any input on that mess, I would greatly appreciate it. I've
been browsing things on the web most of the day and haven't found too much
to sway me away from the AMD; just thought I would ask the experts here
first.


Thanks again,
jab3

 

[Paul Murphy]

Hello everyone,

I was wondering what you all thought about AMD Athlon 64 (probably just a
3000+). I am in the process of upgrading my motherboard/processor and am
considering this combo (with ABit AV8 Pro). One of my friends is trying
to
talk me out of the AMD; he's a Pentium man and doesn't think the AMD is
reliable or trustworthy. He says he has friends that have had problems
with it. Does anyone have experience with it? Is it reliable? Also,
will
it cause any problems with software/hardware I currently have? I use
Linux
but I also use Windows XP Pro (because I'm a World of Warcraft fanatic)
and
I've got a basic nVidia 5500 FX w/ onboard 256mb memory. (The main RAM is
512mb, soon to be DDR400 1Gb)

If anyone has any input on that mess, I would greatly appreciate it. I've
been browsing things on the web most of the day and haven't found too much
to sway me away from the AMD; just thought I would ask the experts here
first.


Thanks again,
jab3

Not saying I'm an expert but I've been using a couple of AMD CPUs (Athlon
MPs) in my home machine for over 3 years now and I've yet to find any
compatibility or reliability issues associated with it. I too was a
dedicated Intel fan before I moved over to AMD but there's no looking back
now (I still have a couple of older Pentium 3 machines as well). Remember it
was Intel who came up with the Pentium 90 maths bug - I've yet to hear of a
biggie like that from AMD.

I think that there's allot of scaremongering against AMD because
comparatively they've not been around as long as Intel and some people don't
like taking risks with "new" things. Between the P4 desktop CPU/Heater unit
and AMD Athlon 64 of similar ratings the Athlon is faster and you'll have
the option of upgrading to a 64 bit OS down the track (with all that
entails). You'll also get more "bang for the buck" with a sweet-spot AMD CPU
(not sure about the lowly 3000+ though). The biggest thing that puts me off
the fastest Pentium 4 CPUs is the phenomenal amount of heat they dissipate
(which is wasted energy/electricity), the high end AMD CPUs have lower total
maximum power consumption (even though they're faster in most cases) and
they have something called Cool'n'Quiet which means they can throttle down
speed to suit working loads, reducing power consumption and heat production.

Paul

 

[Dave Zass]

If anyone has any input on that mess, I would greatly appreciate it. I've

been browsing things on the web most of the day and haven't found too much
to sway me away from the AMD; just thought I would ask the experts here
first.

Your friend is full of crap.

The only difference the typical user will notice is less money in their
pocket if they are using a P4. The AMD 64 is a fine CPU.

 

[Derek Baker]

Your friend is full of crap.

The only difference the typical user will notice is less money in their
pocket if they are using a P4. The AMD 64 is a fine CPU.

Couldn't have put it better my self.

 

[General Schvantzkoph]

Hello everyone,

I was wondering what you all thought about AMD Athlon 64 (probably just a
3000+). I am in the process of upgrading my motherboard/processor and am
considering this combo (with ABit AV8 Pro). One of my friends is trying to
talk me out of the AMD; he's a Pentium man and doesn't think the AMD is
reliable or trustworthy. He says he has friends that have had problems
with it. Does anyone have experience with it? Is it reliable? Also, will
it cause any problems with software/hardware I currently have? I use Linux
but I also use Windows XP Pro (because I'm a World of Warcraft fanatic) and
I've got a basic nVidia 5500 FX w/ onboard 256mb memory. (The main RAM is
512mb, soon to be DDR400 1Gb)

If anyone has any input on that mess, I would greatly appreciate it. I've
been browsing things on the web most of the day and haven't found too much
to sway me away from the AMD; just thought I would ask the experts here
first.


Thanks again,
jab3

The Athlon 64s are much better processors then the P4s. They are faster
and considerably less power hungry. I have two A64 systems, a 3400+ laptop
and a 3800+ desktop, both running Fedora Core 3. They are completely
stable. My recommendation is that you get a 3400+ system (make sure that
you get the 1M cache version, it makes a huge difference, my 3400+ is
twice as fast as my 3800+ on Verilog simulations even though it has only
one memory bus instead of two and a slower clock, the 3800+ has only a
1/2M cache and that cripples it). The 3400+ is a 754 pin part so make sure
that you get motherboard that uses the 754 pin socket).

 

[Don Burnette]

Hello everyone,

I was wondering what you all thought about AMD Athlon 64 (probably
just a 3000+). I am in the process of upgrading my
motherboard/processor and am considering this combo (with ABit AV8
Pro). One of my friends is trying to talk me out of the AMD; he's a
Pentium man and doesn't think the AMD is reliable or trustworthy. He
says he has friends that have had problems with it. Does anyone have
experience with it? Is it reliable? Also, will it cause any
problems with software/hardware I currently have? I use Linux but I
also use Windows XP Pro (because I'm a World of Warcraft fanatic) and
I've got a basic nVidia 5500 FX w/ onboard 256mb memory. (The main
RAM is 512mb, soon to be DDR400 1Gb)

If anyone has any input on that mess, I would greatly appreciate it.
I've been browsing things on the web most of the day and haven't
found too much to sway me away from the AMD; just thought I would ask
the experts here first.


Thanks again,
jab3

I have been an AMD user for some time now, the last Intel I had was the
Celeron 366. To me, AMD offers the best bang for the buck, and every system
I have built with AMD has been very stable.

I am currently running the Athlon 64 3500+ Winchester core, on an MSI K8N
Neo2 Platinum Nforce3 socket 939 mb. I have it overclocked to 2.55 ghz, and
it is running solid as a rock. Runs Prime95 overnight with no errors.
Also, I dual boot with Windows XP Pro64 , and it runs well on it also...

It would take a pretty large blunder by AMD to get me out of their camp.

 

[jab3]

Hello everyone,

I was wondering what you all thought about AMD Athlon 64 (probably just a
3000+). I am in the process of upgrading my motherboard/processor and am
considering this combo (with ABit AV8 Pro). One of my friends is trying
to talk me out of the AMD; he's a Pentium man and doesn't think the AMD is
reliable or trustworthy. He says he has friends that have had problems
with it. Does anyone have experience with it? Is it reliable? Also,
will
it cause any problems with software/hardware I currently have? I use
Linux but I also use Windows XP Pro (because I'm a World of Warcraft
fanatic) and
I've got a basic nVidia 5500 FX w/ onboard 256mb memory. (The main RAM is
512mb, soon to be DDR400 1Gb)

If anyone has any input on that mess, I would greatly appreciate it. I've
been browsing things on the web most of the day and haven't found too much
to sway me away from the AMD; just thought I would ask the experts here
first.


Thanks again,
jab3

Thanks everyone for your answers. I feel better about the AMD now. Of
course I thought it would be fine before, just wanted some extra support.
Now I'll just figure out which processor I can afford to buy. But I'm
looking forward to it either way.



-jab3

 

[kony]

The Athlon 64s are much better processors then the P4s. They are faster
and considerably less power hungry. I have two A64 systems, a 3400+ laptop
and a 3800+ desktop, both running Fedora Core 3. They are completely
stable. My recommendation is that you get a 3400+ system (make sure that
you get the 1M cache version, it makes a huge difference, my 3400+ is
twice as fast as my 3800+ on Verilog simulations even though it has only
one memory bus instead of two and a slower clock, the 3800+ has only a
1/2M cache and that cripples it). The 3400+ is a 754 pin part so make sure
that you get motherboard that uses the 754 pin socket).

Well the 1MB cache is going to be a huge difference on apps
that need it, but many don't. "Usually" (as-in, most common
apps on a PC) moving from 256K to 512K is less than 10%
difference, even less from 512K to 1MB.

 

[kony]

Hello everyone,

I was wondering what you all thought about AMD Athlon 64 (probably just a
3000+). I am in the process of upgrading my motherboard/processor and am
considering this combo (with ABit AV8 Pro). One of my friends is trying to
talk me out of the AMD; he's a Pentium man and doesn't think the AMD is
reliable or trustworthy. He says he has friends that have had problems
with it. Does anyone have experience with it? Is it reliable? Also, will
it cause any problems with software/hardware I currently have? I use Linux
but I also use Windows XP Pro (because I'm a World of Warcraft fanatic) and
I've got a basic nVidia 5500 FX w/ onboard 256mb memory. (The main RAM is
512mb, soon to be DDR400 1Gb)

If anyone has any input on that mess, I would greatly appreciate it. I've
been browsing things on the web most of the day and haven't found too much
to sway me away from the AMD; just thought I would ask the experts here
first.


Thanks again,
jab3

Issues of reliability typically hinge around whether corners
were cut on motherboard, power supply, etc, NOT which CPU is
in the system. Since AMD has lower-end chips with higher
performance than Intel's (lower-end) the lowest-end budget
self-built systems are often AMD, and hence often more
problematic because of the other parts selections.

 

[jab3]

Issues of reliability typically hinge around whether corners
were cut on motherboard, power supply, etc, NOT which CPU is
in the system. Since AMD has lower-end chips with higher
performance than Intel's (lower-end) the lowest-end budget
self-built systems are often AMD, and hence often more
problematic because of the other parts selections.

That makes sense. Hopefully I didn't skimp too much on the other parts. I
bought the ABit AV8 Pro motherboard w/ VIA K8T800 chipset and I've got a
Thermaltake 420W psu, but I may have to upgrade that. What do you think?
Is 450W too little? And is the motherboard poor?


Thanks,
jab3

 

[kony]

That makes sense. Hopefully I didn't skimp too much on the other parts. I
bought the ABit AV8 Pro motherboard w/ VIA K8T800 chipset and I've got a
Thermaltake 420W psu, but I may have to upgrade that. What do you think?
Is 450W too little? And is the motherboard poor?

Abit boards are usually pretty good, can't speak for that
one in particular but the odds are in your favor.

Thermaltake PSU are a good value, upper median quality.
Some are designed to have more 5V/3V amperage than 12V so
are better suited for older systems, though I'd imagine
they've updated/modernized some models too... i just haven't
had any of them to scrutinize, the newest models that is.

420W in a name-brand is sufficient for any typical system.
Overclocking and very high-end video card configurations
might require more careful selection based on amperage per
rail capabilities, and if the Thermaltake is older design
with only 18A on 12V rail, it is conceivable for it to be a
limit but you'd need a fairly loaded system to cause it...
though "loaded" is relative, one of the highest speed P4 is
quite a load on 12V these days, but you went AMD so you have
a little more breathing room. The PSU is sufficient enough
capacity and quality that I"d take a try-it-and-see approach
rather than planning replacement at this point.

 

[Fitz]

Abit has a good reputation and I have built 2 systems using their boards
with no problems (though I personally would have gone with the NVidia
chipset).

The PSU you have appears to be ThermalTake's "Standard" power supply.
Adequate for the job, but not top of the line. There are no SATA power
connectors (which doesn't mean you can't run SATA drives), and the wires
aren't sleeved. The really important part- clean, efficient power is
adequate, but....it's nice to have dual +12V rails with the AMD64,
especially if you are going to run a power hungry video card. I have a first
generation AMD64 (754 pin) motherboard with a 3200+ processor and an ATI
9800 PRO video card. My Antec 430W power supply runs the system fine.

Fitz

 

[Duddits]

That makes sense. Hopefully I didn't skimp too much on the other parts. I
bought the ABit AV8 Pro motherboard w/ VIA K8T800 chipset and I've got a
Thermaltake 420W psu, but I may have to upgrade that. What do you think?
Is 450W too little? And is the motherboard poor?


Thanks,
jab3

I have an Athlon 64 3000 (OC'd a bit ;-)), MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum, 512mb
Geil Golden Dragon 3500, Radeon 9550 256mb, NEC DVD Burner, floppy, case
w/4 fans/lightingFX and a Thermaltake 420 watt PSU. All is well. The PSU
has super long leads so make sure you have plenty of wire ties.

regards

Dud

--

Salmon Day:

A Day in which you spend the entire day swimming upstream
only to get screwed and die in the end.

 

[jab3]

Abit boards are usually pretty good, can't speak for that
one in particular but the odds are in your favor.

Thermaltake PSU are a good value, upper median quality.
Some are designed to have more 5V/3V amperage than 12V so
are better suited for older systems, though I'd imagine
they've updated/modernized some models too... i just haven't
had any of them to scrutinize, the newest models that is.

420W in a name-brand is sufficient for any typical system.
Overclocking and very high-end video card configurations
might require more careful selection based on amperage per
rail capabilities, and if the Thermaltake is older design
with only 18A on 12V rail, it is conceivable for it to be a
limit but you'd need a fairly loaded system to cause it...
though "loaded" is relative, one of the highest speed P4 is
quite a load on 12V these days, but you went AMD so you have
a little more breathing room. The PSU is sufficient enough
capacity and quality that I"d take a try-it-and-see approach
rather than planning replacement at this point.

Well that makes me feel a little better. I think the ThermalTake is
semi-new; it's the Purepower 420W. Though it does only have 18A on the 12V
rail. I've got a decently loaded system; Sony DVD-burner; Creative
DVD-ROM; Soundblaster (older); 2 Maxtor hard drives (40G, 160G); and an
nVidia FX 5500-256MB. I do play World of Warcraft more than I should
(that's a recent thing), but that's the only game I play. Also, the new
case I bought (ThermalTake Soprano) has 3 fans in it, 2 are 6" I believe.
Will that cause a large increase in load on the PSU?

Thanks,
jab3

 

[jab3]

Abit has a good reputation and I have built 2 systems using their boards
with no problems (though I personally would have gone with the NVidia
chipset).

The PSU you have appears to be ThermalTake's "Standard" power supply.
Adequate for the job, but not top of the line. There are no SATA power
connectors (which doesn't mean you can't run SATA drives), and the wires
aren't sleeved. The really important part- clean, efficient power is
adequate, but....it's nice to have dual +12V rails with the AMD64,
especially if you are going to run a power hungry video card. I have a
first generation AMD64 (754 pin) motherboard with a 3200+ processor and an
ATI 9800 PRO video card. My Antec 430W power supply runs the system fine.

Fitz

I've got the ThermalTake Purepower and it does have SATA power connectors.
I don't think I have a really power-hungry graphics card (since there is no
power connector for it) - it's an nVidia FX 5500-256MB. I ended up getting
the AMD64 3200+, 939 pin. Do you think the PSU can handle that setup?
(I've also got 2 optical drives, 2 hard drives, soundcard - slightly more
details in message to Kony)


Thanks,
jab3

 

[jab3]

I have an Athlon 64 3000 (OC'd a bit ;-)), MSI K8N Neo2 Platinum, 512mb
Geil Golden Dragon 3500, Radeon 9550 256mb, NEC DVD Burner, floppy, case
w/4 fans/lightingFX and a Thermaltake 420 watt PSU. All is well. The PSU
has super long leads so make sure you have plenty of wire ties.

regards

Dud

Cool. I have a semi-similar setup. Hopefully the ThermalTake will run like
a charm.


-jab3

 

[kony]

Well that makes me feel a little better. I think the ThermalTake is
semi-new; it's the Purepower 420W. Though it does only have 18A on the 12V
rail. I've got a decently loaded system; Sony DVD-burner; Creative
DVD-ROM; Soundblaster (older); 2 Maxtor hard drives (40G, 160G); and an
nVidia FX 5500-256MB. I do play World of Warcraft more than I should
(that's a recent thing), but that's the only game I play. Also, the new
case I bought (ThermalTake Soprano) has 3 fans in it, 2 are 6" I believe.
Will that cause a large increase in load on the PSU?

Thanks,
jab3

No, besides the moment they're spinning up the fans and
drives you have aren't a very significant load relative to
CPU, motherboard, then video card. I'd expect your PSU to
do fine.

 

[Fitz]

Do you think the PSU can handle that setup? <

I've never used a Themaltake PSU. I've read that AMD64's like 20A on the 12V
rail. My Antec 430 W is rated at 26A (The 9800 Pro video card does have
it's own 12V plugin). Since I've never used that particular PSU, and I
haven't used any supplies with that small an amp rating on an AMD64 (or
recent Athlon XP builds), I'll bow out and say I'm not qualified to give you
a definitive answer.

Fitz

 

[kony]

I've never used a Themaltake PSU. I've read that AMD64's like 20A on the 12V
rail. My Antec 430 W is rated at 26A (The 9800 Pro video card does have
it's own 12V plugin). Since I've never used that particular PSU, and I
haven't used any supplies with that small an amp rating on an AMD64 (or
recent Athlon XP builds), I'll bow out and say I'm not qualified to give you
a definitive answer.

As always we can look at the thermal design power of the CPU
and other components and get a sum. Supposing CPU design
power is 70W, that's 5.8A of 12V power, plus maybe 93%
efficiency of the onboard regulation circuit so 6.3A

Typical drive consumes a little less than 500mA of 12V while
running, maybe 1.5A at spin-up. CDROM is similar and fans
might as well be ignored. A system with video card not
using 12V power at all could run fine from a _good_ 12A @
12V PSU, one rated for sustained output at actual operating
temp, that has reserve, peak power sufficient to spin up
drives particularly at POST, when system turns on.

It's becoming harder and harder to merely look at amperage
figures to determine fitness of a PSU for any particular
use, even moreso when factors not-so-often-mentioned can
make a difference.

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

As always we can look at the thermal design power of the CPU
and other components and get a sum. Supposing CPU design
power is 70W, that's 5.8A of 12V power, plus maybe 93%
efficiency of the onboard regulation circuit so 6.3A

I think you are greatly overestimating the efficiency of the
onboard conversion. Just allowing for the 0.7 v. drop of the
rectifiers into 3.3 v. show 21% losses, for a max efficiency of
79%. And that is only forward drop, with no switching losses. If
the diodes are schottky, with an 0.3v drop, the max efficiency is
still no better than 90% and the reverse and transformer/inductor
losses still have to be accounted for, also the input switcher
losses.