Which is better, A7N8X/Athlon XP 3000+ or P4C800/P4 3.0 ???

[Paul Hardin]

I've been a diehard AMD fan for years now, but looking at the latest
benchmarks it looks like the P4 is the clear winner over the Athlon XP
(specifically the P4 3.0GHz 800MHz vs the Athlon XP 3000+ 400FSB).
Intel is still more $ (though not the premium Intel used to be), but
for the performance it may be worth it.

I've been thinking of getting the A7N8X-E Delux with XP 3000+, but now
I'm thinking I should get the P4C800 with a P4 3.0GHz.

What do you think??

Paul

 

[Ben Pope]

I've been a diehard AMD fan for years now, but looking at the latest
benchmarks it looks like the P4 is the clear winner over the Athlon XP
(specifically the P4 3.0GHz 800MHz vs the Athlon XP 3000+ 400FSB).
Intel is still more $ (though not the premium Intel used to be), but
for the performance it may be worth it.

I've been thinking of getting the A7N8X-E Delux with XP 3000+, but now
I'm thinking I should get the P4C800 with a P4 3.0GHz.

What do you think??

I think it depends on what you wish to do with your PC.

AMD usually beats Intel on price/performance. AMD usually matches Intel
(roughly, it depends on the balance between memory/computation in the
application) based in the PR rating vs clock, except in Video processing
where Intel is significantly better. It surprises me that you say the P4C
3.0 is a clear winner over the XP 3000+.

So based on price/performance, I'd go AMD unless you're primarily doing lots
of video work.

Ben

 

[Phhoey!]

I think it depends on what you wish to do with your PC.

AMD usually beats Intel on price/performance. AMD usually matches Intel
(roughly, it depends on the balance between memory/computation in the
application) based in the PR rating vs clock, except in Video processing
where Intel is significantly better. It surprises me that you say the P4C
3.0 is a clear winner over the XP 3000+.

So based on price/performance, I'd go AMD unless you're primarily doing lots
of video work.

Ben

That's interesting, Ben. Video editing, etc., is exactly what I want
to use it for.

My comment about Intel being the clear winner was based purely on
performance using the benchmarks on tomshardware.com. Every category I
looked at shows the P4C 3.0 ahead of the XP 3000+. The typical case
seems to be about 30% faster. Comparing prices, the P4 has about a 35%
price premium (in real terms, only about $65). Since I'm looking for
performance, that premium doesn't look too bad.

Paul

 

[BoB]

I wouldn't buy/build either one, both platforms are near their
end of market design life.
Neither processor offers bang for the buck cost benefit ratio.
When you step back to the cpu "sweet spots", the cost difference
starts to be significant.
The P4 2.6/800 is $171, the barton 2600(slightly overrated) is $99.
the non-barton 2700 is $113.
The AMD64 platform is the way to go. It's cleaned the Xenon's plate.
It will take a few more months to make inroads into the workstation
class desktops, but the server/developer benchs show it's clear
superiority.
Given your original choice I would go with the intel platform.

 

[Ben Pope]

That's interesting, Ben. Video editing, etc., is exactly what I want
to use it for.

In that case I would almost certainly recommend you the Intel.

Ben

 

[Bill]

I've been a diehard AMD fan for years now, but looking at the latest
benchmarks it looks like the P4 is the clear winner over the Athlon XP
(specifically the P4 3.0GHz 800MHz vs the Athlon XP 3000+ 400FSB).
Intel is still more $ (though not the premium Intel used to be), but
for the performance it may be worth it.

I've been thinking of getting the A7N8X-E Delux with XP 3000+, but now
I'm thinking I should get the P4C800 with a P4 3.0GHz.

What do you think??

Paul

Ain't worth the ~$125.00 difference to me.

Bill

 

[Bill]

That's interesting, Ben. Video editing, etc., is exactly what I want
to use it for.

My comment about Intel being the clear winner was based purely on
performance using the benchmarks on tomshardware.com. Every category I
looked at shows the P4C 3.0 ahead of the XP 3000+. The typical case
seems to be about 30% faster. Comparing prices, the P4 has about a 35%
price premium (in real terms, only about $65). Since I'm looking for
performance, that premium doesn't look too bad.

Paul

What price premium are you paying on the motherboard?

Bill

 

[Bitsbucket]

Pickup a copy of Maximum PC, they have just run a Price/Performance
comparison of the high end chips. Basically they are comparing the AMD64 to
the "new" Intel P4 Extreme to the latest Power PC chip. They give the Intel
the SQUEAK by lead, (and I mean squeak as in 2 to 3 points in several
categories. example in UT2003 intel has 334 fps and the AMD has 332 fps)
however they also stated that you must remember that the software,
(benchmark and otherwise is 32 bit code.....including the OS),
They had a copy of XP that was 64 bit, but didn't run it for fear of skewing
the results.
Intel wins by insignificant margins, also, Intel is racking/squeezing the
last out of a chip that is for all practical purposes dead, and also this
model (P4EE) will NEVER hit the market in any significant numbers. (quote:
Though we are receiving P4EE machines for review, Intel hasn't yet priced
the chip, and as of press time it was not being sold in individual units
online. That said, Intel doesn't intend to sell 25 million P4EEs. It simply
needs to reach any enthusiast who would otherwise buy AMD's FX-51) If I were
building a new computer from scratch I would go with the AMD 64 FX-51 on an
Asus SK8N.
It's the beginning of a line of CPUs not the trailing edge of a dead line.
Just my 2 cents worth, I like AMD and have always used their chips, bang for
the buck they have always been better to me.......but that is just an
opinion, and everyone is entitled to their own......
Bitsbucket

 

[Mark A. Smith]

Is the AMD 64 beating the latest P4 in Video processing?

Also, to the original poster, many of us are getting 3000+ results running a
Barton 2500+. That brings the CPU/MOBO cost combo to about $210.

I have notices the slower video processing using my A7n8x with a Barton
2500+. Doing MPEG compression using the MainConcept encoder, I was only
getting between 9and 10 frames per second, my buddy with a cheap P4 system
gets about 15 fps, that is a big difference. My system is OCd to 10.5 x 200.

Ciao,

Mark

 

[Bitsbucket]

I believe in vid proc. the Intel was faster, however all the code is
optimized for Intel.
I too have a Barton 2500+ running at 200 MHz FSB for a effective result of
3200+. but I do think that when there is some code optimized for 64 bit
computing, the new AMD64 will shine, as far as scores go with normal 32 bit
software, here are some scores:
(AMD = AMD FX-51)
Mathematica
AMD...........572 sec
P4EE............639 sec
G5................997 sec

Seti@home
AMD..........106 min
P4EE..........111 min
G5...............173 min

UT2003
AMD..........332 fp/s
P4EE..........334 fp/s
G5..............80 fp/s

Jedi Outcast
AMD..........130 fp/s
P4EE...........133 fp/s
G5..................72 fp/s

Photoshop 7.0.1 All Filters
AMD.........269 sec
P4EE..........266 sec
G5..............330 sec

Quicktime 6.3 export to MOV
AMD..........803 sec
P4EE...........744 sec
G5................706 sec

Compressor "Fast" vs. Procoder "High-Speed"
AMD..........225 sec
P4EE..........225 sec
G5..............263 sec

Compressor "High-Quality" vs. Procoder 1.5 "Mastering"
AMD.............1105 sec
P4EE..............1190 sec
G5..................724 sec

Indesign 2.0 Export to PDF
AMD...............47 sec
P4EE...............46 sec
G5...................61 sec

Hope this helps, I don't have a clue about what some of these progs do....
Bitsbucket

 

[Mark A. Smith]

I also have the dubious honor of being a Mac head.

Why is the G5 being thrashed so soundly?