Athlon 64 vs Pentium 4

[man]

This has probably been talked about before here...

I'm building a new system...the goal is to avoid building a new system
for the longest possible time. It's come down to getting an AMD Athlon
64 3200+ with 1MB cache, or a Pentium 4 (Prescott) 3.0 GHZ with 1MB
cache.

In my research I've found that a prescott will beat the Athlon in most
benches. The prescott also seems attractive because it can be
overclocked to 4 GHZ (!).

But is the future of operating systems 64-bit? Or is it going to be
years before windows will be 64 bit in the mainstream?

So in other words, is 64-bit silly, and should I just go for the
speed?

 

[JK]

This has probably been talked about before here...

I'm building a new system...the goal is to avoid building a new system
for the longest possible time. It's come down to getting an AMD Athlon
64 3200+ with 1MB cache, or a Pentium 4 (Prescott) 3.0 GHZ with 1MB
cache.

In my research I've found that a prescott will beat the Athlon in most
benches.

That is not true. The Athlon 64 3200+ will beat the P4 3ghz Prescott
in most benchmarks.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=1

The prescott also seems attractive because it can be
overclocked to 4 GHZ (!).

Overclocking is not recommended if you want a stable system. Overclocking
also tends to reduce the life of the processor, and might require expensive
water cooling to overclock by large margin.

But is the future of operating systems 64-bit?
Yes.

Or is it going to be
years before windows will be 64 bit in the mainstream?

Years? It will probably be released in early to mid 2005.
64 bit Linux is available now.

So in other words, is 64-bit silly, and should I just go for the
speed?

The Athlon 64 has the speed in both 32 bit and 64 bit.

 

[kony]

Overclocking is not recommended if you want a stable system.

Nonsense
There are instable o'c systems but instable non-o'c systems too.

If someone is ignorant of how to o'c, then of course they
shouldn't... same goes for driving a car but it's not an argument
against someone else driving a car.

Overclocking
also tends to reduce the life of the processor, and might require expensive
water cooling to overclock by large margin.

Lifespan is almost always still far longer than useful lifespan
of system. There would be many Celeron 300 o'c to 450 still
runnning if they weren't too slow today... in fact they may still
be running o'c after system is given away.

Water cooling might be needed for highest o'c on a P4, but even
then, the performance to price ratio is fair for a P4. AMD just
has a much more attractive alternative right now.

Years? It will probably be released in early to mid 2005.
64 bit Linux is available now.

Sadly we don't need operating system performance, a 400MHz
Celeron system is enough to run just the WinXP GUI. Applications
are still years away for most of us, or at least those not
willling to fork over thousands of $$$$ all at once.

The Athlon 64 has the speed in both 32 bit and 64 bit.

64bit is really just a distraction, there is rarely any point to
buy towards future performance... let tomorrow take care of
itself. What Athlon does well today is in the brute-processing
and memory control department.

 

[Monster]

but would you want a first gen 64bit system? First gens are usually
expensive and bad when you look back and compare them to the 2nd or 3rd
generations.

 

[JK]

Nonsense
There are instable o'c systems but instable non-o'c systems too.

If someone is ignorant of how to o'c, then of course they
shouldn't... same goes for driving a car but it's not an argument
against someone else driving a car.

It is an argument for not driving a car above the speed limit. Keeping
with the specs. adds to safety and avoids problems. There are
speed limits for a reason, and processors have rated speeds
for a reason. As you go further outside the specifications, you
increase the risk for problems.

 

[JK]

The first generation Athlon 64 chips were out in early '03.

 

[Dave C.]

That is not true. The Athlon 64 3200+ will beat the P4 3ghz Prescott
in most benchmarks.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=1

Don't listen to this guy. He spouts a few benchmarks and ignores all the
contradicting benchmarks. Plus he seems very determined to bash Intel for
some odd reason. The truth is, those two processors are pretty well
matched, performance wise. You won't need 64 bit hardware for a few years
yet. Either processor would work great, but don't believe anyone who tells
you that the Athlon 64 will beat the P4 in most benchmarks. That's like
taking (car A tops out at 210 MPH on most tracks while car B can only do 205
on most of them, but will do 230 on some of them) and interpreting that as
(car A is faster on most tracks). It is a gross exaggeration. Anyone with
half a brain will be happy with either of them. -Dave

 

[kony]

It is an argument for not driving a car above the speed limit. Keeping
with the specs. adds to safety and avoids problems. There are
speed limits for a reason, and processors have rated speeds
for a reason. As you go further outside the specifications, you
increase the risk for problems.

Almost everyone DOES drive above speed limit, at least on THIS
planet. It may increase risk for problems IF the specifics of
the o'c aren't considered, how they effect system. "Safety" is
random nonsense, life is inherantly unsafe and there's nothing
particular to overclocked CPU that's unsafe, if done correctly.


In other words, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with
overclocking, rather that someone should known what they're doing
if they start making *any* kind of hardware configuration
changes.

 

[Stephen Gordon]

Hi,

I had a look at those benchmarks and it seems as soon as you put the
resolution up the Athlon 64s drop nearly 20fps while the Intel ones seem
to drop a much smaller amount.

This seems to indicate that the Athlon 64s don't perform very well when
you put them under any real pressure.

-Steve

 

[JK]

Hi,

I had a look at those benchmarks and it seems as soon as you put the
resolution up the Athlon 64s drop nearly 20fps while the Intel ones seem
to drop a much smaller amount.

This seems to indicate that the Athlon 64s don't perform very well when
you put them under any real pressure.

Your interpretation is wrong. The large drop for the Athlon 64 when the
resolution is raised means that the video card is the bottleneck,
and is holding back the cpu from achieving its potential. For
the cpus where there is a small change, it means the cpu is the
bottleneck, and is holding back the video card.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=1

 

[Stephen Gordon]

Your interpretation is wrong. The large drop for the Athlon 64 when the
resolution is raised means that the video card is the bottleneck,
and is holding back the cpu from achieving its potential. For
the cpus where there is a small change, it means the cpu is the
bottleneck, and is holding back the video card.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=1

If there is no graphics card available that can keep pace with the CPU
then what is the point of wasting all that money.

-Steve

 

[JK]

If there is no graphics card available that can keep pace with the CPU
then what is the point of wasting all that money.

The point is to have the video card do all it is capable of.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2149&p=8

 

[Fitz]

I'm running the AMD64 3200 and am quite pleased with it. The system performs
well and is stable. It is somewhat "future proofed", in that it is capable
of running the 64 bit OS (though I chose not to install the Beta version).
Most major hardware manufactures have 64 bit drivers available now. Prices
have already dropped considerably on the 754 pin 64's.

The 64's do seem to be very demanding of RAM, and quite a lot of the stuff
that is out there doesn't do well even though the manufacturer's rating says
otherwise. If you go with the AMD, get high quality RAM, and a lot of it-
the 64 will make use of it ( 1 GB Mushkin Level 1 PC3500, and I've seen the
system using over 850 MB's).

I'm an AMD fan, but between the two processors your comparing, your not
going to "see" any performance difference...you can't blink fast enough. For
the 8 bucks difference in price (M-Wave), pick the one you want- you won't
be disappointed in either.

Fitz

 

[Dave C.]

I'm an AMD fan, but between the two processors your comparing, your not
going to "see" any performance difference...you can't blink fast enough. For
the 8 bucks difference in price (M-Wave), pick the one you want- you won't
be disappointed in either.

Fitz

Finally a voice of reason. -Dave

 

[CBFalconer]

It is an argument for not driving a car above the speed limit.
Keeping with the specs. adds to safety and avoids problems.
There are speed limits for a reason, and processors have rated
speeds for a reason. As you go further outside the
specifications, you increase the risk for problems.

It is also desirable to not o'c because it gives you someone to
yell at when things don't work. It also produces that extra
margin of safety that protects your data.

 

[noone]

For crying out loud Kony get a life. JK just mention the points to the
user. Those are the facts. If you still want to over clock you CPU by all
mean do it.

Of course there are system that are unstable without over clock but that the
exception not the norm.
You can certainly drive you cpu until it crash and burn, it's your money.
The fact that overclock will reduce CPU life remains. Whether that life is
within the next upgrade is not the point. Info were given so that
individual can make decision. No one said don't do it.

Just because you muck around with the damm PC does not mean you know
everything about it. Get a life.

 

[kony]

For crying out loud Kony get a life. JK just mention the points to the
user. Those are the facts. If you still want to over clock you CPU by all
mean do it.

Not the facts, more of his biased marketing spiel towards
consumers sending AMD a boatload of cash for their high-end part
at the moment. Perhaps you have not witnessed or realized his
promotion of AMD, and only AMD, hundreds of times if not more
only considering the "Jeffrey Karp" handle alone?

JK ~ Jeffrey Karp

http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Jeffrey+Karp+buy+AMD

Of course there are system that are unstable without over clock but that the
exception not the norm.
You can certainly drive you cpu until it crash and burn, it's your money.
The fact that overclock will reduce CPU life remains. Whether that life is
within the next upgrade is not the point. Info were given so that
individual can make decision. No one said don't do it.

It certainly IS the point. When system is retired before CPU
dies, who cares when it would've died? To put things in
perspective, those Celeron 300 I menitoned previously are already
8 years old, and still run fine... how many years do you expect
to get from them? Since CPU lifespan reduction is known, like
other variables it can be considered when overclocking, which was
the point all along, that overclocking when you are aware of the
impact is not an unsafe thing.... according to theory that CPU
will die, also it would die anyway eventually. Likewise it would
die sooner if using low-end OEM heatsink instead of better 'sink
that keeps it cooler, yet OEM still chooses cheaper heatsink.

Just because you muck around with the damm PC does not mean you know
everything about it. Get a life.

Do you always try to stoop so low when you don't have an
argument? I doubt anyone would take you seriously if that is the
case.

Perhaps it's just ego, that you personally aren't good at
overclocking and instead of just accepting it or becoming more
educated, you prefer to assume it MUST be problematic? It is a
choice, not a mandate to do so... your choices need not be same
as anyone elses but get over yourself if you feel everyone should
make same choice as you.

 

[kony]

It is also desirable to not o'c because it gives you someone to
yell at when things don't work. It also produces that extra
margin of safety that protects your data.

You're right that a non-o'c system can provide more of a margin,
and yet typical user is not aggressively testing stability of
their non-o'c system so they have no idea if data is protected.
You also witness lack of support for ECC memory for the same
reason, that a user will assume something without testing it.
Going the opposite way, a system could have even larger margin
for error if it were underclocked, yet we see none underclocked
for this reason.

With any o'c, testing is mandatory. Risk must be assessed,
system qualified for it's intended purpose.

 

[noone]

Well, to tell you the truth. I am a computer engineer and mainly deal with
asic. These memory timing is just greek to me. All my computers never OC.
Never seem to needed being the peripheral is the bottle neck. LOL. If life
were just as simple as turn up the clock and you get great result ........

Read all the bench marks if you like but the result are always subjective.
beside the CPU the platform are never the same motherboard etc. So being
so inform and astute as you are how can you slam a person when they trying
to express their opinion.

So what if he pro AMD do you not have a mind to reject it? Info were
given to you to process who to say that you have to accept it. What make
you think that you are right and that he is wrong or vice versa?

 

[Moderately Confused]

That is not true. The Athlon 64 3200+ will beat the P4 3ghz Prescott
in most benchmarks.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=1

Stop comparing apples to oranges. You can't compare a 64 bit processor to a
32 bit processor. It's like comparing the gas mileage in an electric hybrid
car and a regular combustion engine. When Intel comes out with their own 64
bit processor, than you can start with the whole benchmark thing.

MC