intel user wants help to choose amd processor

E

ellover009

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jul 17, 2005
Messages
1,908
I'm not too common with anthlon processors, I have done some research. I wanna go pci express and strap a 7800gtx, from either xfx or bfg. Right now I am using a 2.8 P4 800mhz bus with HT. My question is wich amd would do best to keep up with a 7800gtx and give me some speed improvement.
anthlon 64 4000+ high end or
anthlon 64-x2 4400+ mid end
I have excluded the FX line since they show no advantage unless you overclock.
I have always loved intel but amd is offering me now 64bit processing, and lower power consuption. I have also heard that intel sli is weak.
 
get the x2.... you wont regret switching from intel. i was an intel fan for a long while and missed the multi-tasking abilities after switching to amd64. i wish i had a x2....
 
definitely get the X2, you'll miss the HyperThreading from the P4 on a regular A64 if you multitask
 
Going from a 2.8GHz P4 to a 4400+ is more than SOME speed improvement. The 4400+ is WAY faster in pretty much everything, and it may be more than you need to spend. I really think a 3500+ or 3700+ would do fine.
 
I was thinking the 4000 or 4400 x-2 because they would bottleneck less a 7800gtx or new ati coming soon. I am still in process of figuring this out. then is either asus mobo or fatal1ty, and i think asus is better.
 
YourPaceOrMine said:
get the x2.... you wont regret switching from intel. i was an intel fan for a long while and missed the multi-tasking abilities after switching to amd64. i wish i had a x2....
Click to expand...
of course, a 2.8ghz P4 with HT will probably not be as fast in multitasking, HT, or not, as a [email protected]. Somehow I doubt you'd miss the HT influence, maybe if you'd have had a 3.6-4+ P4, but otherwise I'd seriously evaluate whether or not you need a SMP system before buying one. Hell, even with a high clock HT, I'd look into a purchase a little deeper than "Well, it's the only way I'll ever get decent multitasking performance from AMD". Sure HT is nice, but I doubt it's the be all end all, unless of course, you do some serious use of multiple heavy applications, in which case "multithreading" might be a better word to use, some people might get confused and think you need a X2 to surf the net and play winamp.
 
I went from a 3ghz P4 to an Athlon 3500+ and was definately missing the HT, the system just runs chunkier. Then I got a X2 4400+. Now I don't think I could go back to a P4. It blows away my 3ghz P4 in single threaded applications, and while multitasking; it makes hyperthreading look like a complete joke.

The X2 is also a lot more future proof. Games, drivers, everything are being developed to take advantage of dual core systems. So your CPU will keep up with your 7800gtx with current singlethreaded games, and with the next couple generations of video cards and multithreaded games. Not to mention that Nvidia is going to be releasing multitheaded GPU drivers in the next few months. They should boost the performance of your 7800gtx even higher.
 
I honestly think that by the time we see real use of multithreading by gaming programmers we'll have all upgraded our processors. Future proofing by buying a $500 chip is a little foolish when a simple 939 board serves the exact same function, the ability to buy into a X2 (or own one) if they are useful in games.

Sure they're a decent chip, but if I went out and bought a dual CPU AXP setup 1 year ago in anticipation of multithreaded games, would anyone have called it future proofing? How about a dual CPU opteron setup bought today? I think the X2 has taken on some entirely different reasons for purchase on here than multi CPU, which is a little strange considering they are the same exact thing, just in different packages with different prices. Surely if the SMP setup fits my needs today, the future proofing against games is just gravy, but not a good reason to buy. You'll always be better off waiting until the software demands the hardware, as you won't find a ton of gaming situations demanding current gen top of the line hardware, or even utilizing it (insert 7800GTX amazing eyecandy must have arguement here). Given the quick product cycles, and our even quicker system cycles, I think the entire notion of "future proofing" by dropping $500+ on a chip is a little odd, especially when it honestly comes down to it, by the time games are multithreaded, they'll be a much bigger and much badder X2 out, and none of us will really want the old one.

Of course, for those of you who bought this for gaming, and will still own an old X2 (vs. DDR2, or better OC's) as a primary system when a true multithreaded game comes out (besides a flightsim), I salute you.

I guess I'll really have to try hyperthreading out as well, because the dumpy old barton I'm posting from still "feels" fast as hell when it comes to the basics, surfing, music, background apps, downloads, im, burning, etc. Though, maybe I'm not as refined a computer user, or I don't confuse multitasking with heavy multithreading.

/X2&HT rant :D
 
YourPaceOrMine said:
get the x2.... you wont regret switching from intel. i was an intel fan for a long while and missed the multi-tasking abilities after switching to amd64. i wish i had a x2....
Click to expand...

That's why I went dual Opteron. I too missed the multi-tasking capabilities, but the game performance was outstanding. Then the deal came up for tech tour Opterons. I have the best of both worlds now.
 
mikelz85 said:
I honestly think that by the time we see real use of multithreading by gaming programmers we'll have all upgraded our processors. Future proofing by buying a $500 chip is a little foolish when a simple 939 board serves the exact same function, the ability to buy into a X2 (or own one) if they are useful in games.

Sure they're a decent chip, but if I went out and bought a dual CPU AXP setup 1 year ago in anticipation of multithreaded games, would anyone have called it future proofing? How about a dual CPU opteron setup bought today? I think the X2 has taken on some entirely different reasons for purchase on here than multi CPU, which is a little strange considering they are the same exact thing, just in different packages with different prices. Surely if the SMP setup fits my needs today, the future proofing against games is just gravy, but not a good reason to buy. You'll always be better off waiting until the software demands the hardware, as you won't find a ton of gaming situations demanding current gen top of the line hardware, or even utilizing it (insert 7800GTX amazing eyecandy must have arguement here). Given the quick product cycles, and our even quicker system cycles, I think the entire notion of "future proofing" by dropping $500+ on a chip is a little odd, especially when it honestly comes down to it, by the time games are multithreaded, they'll be a much bigger and much badder X2 out, and none of us will really want the old one.

/X2&HT rant :D
Click to expand...


Mulithreaded games outside of flight sims are coming out very soon. Age of Empires III is coming out in October and is designed to make use of dual core processors. And think if it this way. Many of the games released on PC also come out for consoles. Since both the PS3 and Xbox 360 have multiple CPUs game developers are going to have to make their games multithreaded to make the best use out of consoles. So do you think that they will remove this in the PC version? Right now there isn't any significant improvement, but in 2 months we will start to see it, and in 6 months I bet most new games will take advantage of it.

You can't live your live waiting for the next great thing, or you will always be waiting. He want to upgrade now and want to know what to get. So right now X2 is your best bet for a CPU that will hold up great and perform well until you are ready for your next upgrade, and by then everything will be on the M2 socket and he'll have to upgrade is mobo and ram anyway.
 
another very good question:

Are you overclocking or not? If not, why?

Just because, the single thread performance on games of the X2 isn't going to be as good as a cheaper faster clocked venice.

However, overclocking would open up far more options, I feel even if you aren't overclocking, the 3800+ would be the X2 to get, and for a non-X2 OC, the 3200+/3500+ is good as well.
 
I don't wanna overclock because I am not common at all with anthlons. Besides that you will see so much minimal performance gain that will make you think do you really need it, and this will also void ur warantee. These are not cheap processors. If I get them ill run em stock for a while when it becomes necessary I will overclock. Used to be nice when intel used to have normal #s like 2.8 or 3.0 a,b,or c a meant 200mhz bus. b 400 b 800mhz . New ones I undestand less. At least with AMD is 3800+ 4000+ ect
 
I'm getting the idea the amd processors aren't really that fast, and It is mandatory to Overclock from they way u guys talk
 
ellover009 said:
I'm getting the idea the amd processors aren't really that fast, and It is mandatory to Overclock from they way u guys talk
Click to expand...
Oh really? This should put your AMD is slow idea to rest. ;)

In all seriousness, we overclock because this is [H]ard|Forum, not asket|Weaving. Hehehe
 
I was a Intel user for years and years and thought the same thing, but now I'm a AMD supporter 100%, thier CPUs transfer imformation so much faster than a Intel at even a higher end model.

AMD ownz Intel
 
ellover009 said:
how come intel still have a lotta users?
Click to expand...
sounds like one of two things:

A. You are completely clueless, and probably shouldn't make a purchase until you understand more about the competing lines of processors.

B. Asking flaimbait questions trying to provoke an answer.

I'm guessing A.

If you want to know more about why intel has more users, maybe you should take a look at the recent class action lawsuit, and the general history of the computing industry period. They have more because they have more, and it perpetuates itself when you own that degree of market share. Not to knock intel, just stating facts of business/econ.

AMD processors aren't very expensive #1. Neither is intels line.

The X2s are pretty expensive, but still, not a ton.

Overclocking doesn't, and cannot kill a processor unless you do something insanely stupid.

You certainly don't have to OC, but given that the OC's in the 400-800mhz range are pretty much a gift on these processors, most consider it foolish to pay for something you could have had for free, and for free without hassels over heat, stability, crazy vcores, etc.

If anything is mandatory to OC, it's a P4. Without the huge clock boosts above 4-5ghz they really can't compete with a much slower clocked AMD processor.

Of course, don't even get someone started over the differences in their dual core products.

Also, do you even know what 64 bit computing offers you?

WinXP 64 is a half rate OS, that doesn't have very much software support from other companies, effectively neutralizing it as a viable option for a primary OS.

Also, one can easily discern that AMD processors are not the only one's with 64 bit instructions.
 
The deal is I used to know bout intel processors until they changed configurations, before 3.2 p4 code A for 200mhz bus, B for 400mhz bus and C 800mhz bus, Now its pentium 4 552, 558 ect. AMD does little to help 64 4600 x-2 is clocked at 2.2 mhz but it does not tell truth bout performance. 2.2 sounds puny, but its not intel small engine light body can go faster, amd truck engine slower can hawl a lot more at once. Irony consumer ends up bending over. But I know enough to know amd is more power efficient. problem AMD version of Intels Hyper Threading is dam expensive.
 
ellover009 said:
But I know enough to know amd is more power efficient. problem AMD version of Intels Hyper Threading is dam expensive.
Click to expand...
Well, last I checked, AMD doesn't have a hyperthreading version. And they never have. If you mean the X2, well that is a dual core, and even those don't have hypertheading. Fortunately, what the pricetag gets a person is something far superior than hyperthreading can ever offer and superior even to an intel dual core, to boot. :D It's not so expensive when you compare the lowest X2 vs a top of the line intel dual core EE only to find that the cheapest $400 AMD part will trounce the best $1000+ intel part in almost everything. When comparing an AMD X2 to an intel dual core in the same performance class, AMD is way cheaper and a far more efficient cpu.
 
Deja, Intel Pentium D's in general are cheaper than X2s. However apart from that he is right.

X2 are better proccesors in almost EVERYthing. from the entery $300-$400 3800+ to the top of the line, cutting edge (dual FX-53) 4800+ (Which is in the $900 - $1001 range), X2 are the better performance buy. The Dual core wars are now a low price vs. high performance contest.

You should note that even at their high price range X2 are selling FAST. Some sites seem to carry stock for a few days only, before they need to re-stock. 4800+ and 4400+ in particular. It's crazy, people seem to prefer performance to low costs. :)
 
slyven said:
Deja, Intel Pentium D's in general are cheaper than X2s. However apart from that he is right.

X2 are better proccesors in almost EVERYthing. from the entery $300-$400 3800+ to the top of the line, cutting edge (dual FX-53) 4800+ (Which is in the $900 - $1001 range), X2 are the better performance buy. The Dual core wars are now a low price vs. high performance contest.

You should note that even at their high price range X2 are selling FAST. Some sites seem to carry stock for a few days only, before they need to re-stock. 4800+ and 4400+ in particular. It's crazy.
Click to expand...
And the reason why they are cheaper? Because it's not fair to compare prices between a Pentium D and an X2. They are in different performance categories.

Pentium D = low price for the performance it gives.
AMD X2 = higher priced because it would take a 4+ GHz Pentium D to keep up with them. :p
 
AMDs are pretty cheap if you get the one you should. OCing WILL give a big difference. You can buy a 3000+ and OC it to FX-57 (stock) levels easily. That's why OCing is good.

I would get a 3500+ if you aren't comfortable with heavy OCing. They are only like $220 on Newegg.

For the reasons people have said, don't get a X2. Waste of money and by the time they are needed there will be something new. Get a 3500+ and a PPU for christmas and you'll be doing WAY better in AOE3 than someone with a X2 4400+ for the same money or less.
 
Russ said:
AMDs are pretty cheap if you get the one you should. OCing WILL give a big difference. You can buy a 3000+ and OC it to FX-57 (stock) levels easily. That's why OCing is good.

I would get a 3500+ if you aren't comfortable with heavy OCing. They are only like $220 on Newegg.
Click to expand...

True he could get the cheaper alts. but some peeps just aren't comfortable with OCing. I would get a 4800 over a 4400 if I could easily afford it (for example, i came into money I would not use for anything else.) and STILL not overclock that. However, there was an articaly recently on firing sqaud which dealth with this issue. It put the proc componenet into a whole new perspective for me. Buying a 3500+ isn't such a bad idea.

Russ said:
For the reasons people have said, don't get a X2. Waste of money and by the time they are needed there will be something new. Get a 3500+ and a PPU for christmas and you'll be doing WAY better in AOE3 than someone with a X2 4400+ for the same money or less.
Click to expand...

You know not what you speak. Dual Cores are needed(more or less) NOW. They just aren't needed in games now. I don't multi much, but I would get a 4800+ over a 4000+ becuase the collective benifit is pretty good. And true when multi core become a big thing (again, in games) betters procs will be out, but if you got a 4800 you would prolly be in a better position than the guy who got an FX-57 when the times comes and you notice you can't afford a new proc, then and there. In the mean time, you stil have a beautiful proc.

Meh, i was sold on Dual cores when nVidia threw its support for it with future driver updates. The bottom line is, apart form high cost, there is not much to lose with the X2 line.In contrast there is more to gain, if games go SMT earlier than predicted (Unreal 3.0 engine is the only SMT engine for now, but more could come.)
 
people OC the 3800+ to 4800+ speeds w/ stock cooling.

Im not saying a 4000+ is a good buy. I'd get an X2 over a 4000+, but I'd get a 3500+ over both b/c you really dont need the extra power. a 3500+ is NOT that much of a bottleneck.

And the X2 series is DEFINITELY a better buy than ANY FX core, unless you are super phase change cooling or something.
 
If cost is not an issue, Dual core is definitely the way to go. In fact why not get a Tyan K8QW with the 4-cpu expansion board and go 8-way dual core (16 cores total with 16-channel DDR) :D Of course at $1200/chip for Opteron 865 (equivalent in performance of the <$400 A64 X2 3800+) they are fairly expensive. The extra price comes into play due to server-grade chip, registered/ECC memory controller, and additional hypertransport busses (Opteron 800 series has 3 hypertransports, instead of 1 like A64)

Realistically, if you are doing heavy multitasking, getting a lower-end X2 for now will probably be a good investment. Otherwise, get a lower-mid single core and OC it. I've never been a fan of buying top-of-the-line components because if you spend less now you can buy a better one when the new ones come out. Especially if you can OC or unlock features. I just recently bought a A64 3000+ Venice and it seems to be able to do at least up to 2.4GHz (600MHz OC) though my RAM is holding it back. It does that OC without even giving it a single voltage increase! Not bad for less than $140.
 
I done all my math, dual core is way to go, only prob so far is that since its 2 processors u need more ram if u don't wanna lag too much. Its a lotta $$ for ram, u need at least 1gb to run it, 2 to run it well
 
2GB would easily be enough, and that's whats recommended for gaming these days anyway. Its not a dual Opteron setup, where each CPU has its own memory controller, and its own ram. An X2 has two cores with a shared memory controller.
 
Pyromaneyakk said:
If cost is not an issue, Dual core is definitely the way to go. In fact why not get a Tyan K8QW with the 4-cpu expansion board and go 8-way dual core (16 cores total with 16-channel DDR) :D Of course at $1200/chip for Opteron 865 (equivalent in performance of the <$400 A64 X2 3800+) they are fairly expensive. The extra price comes into play due to server-grade chip, registered/ECC memory controller, and additional hypertransport busses (Opteron 800 series has 3 hypertransports, instead of 1 like A64)

Realistically, if you are doing heavy multitasking, getting a lower-end X2 for now will probably be a good investment. Otherwise, get a lower-mid single core and OC it. I've never been a fan of buying top-of-the-line components because if you spend less now you can buy a better one when the new ones come out. Especially if you can OC or unlock features. I just recently bought a A64 3000+ Venice and it seems to be able to do at least up to 2.4GHz (600MHz OC) though my RAM is holding it back. It does that OC without even giving it a single voltage increase! Not bad for less than $140.
Click to expand...

It's Off Topic, but how does RAM hold back a CPU OC on the A64? Dividers are your friend.


Further, I don't really see how the X2 doesn't beat out the Intel DC in "everything".

On the RAM size issue. I haven't personally heard of anyone being anymore crippled by only running 1gb of memory on a X2 compared to a single core chip.

However, most feel that for a game such as BF2 (especially with large player games) 2gb of memory is a must.
 
aldy402 said:
EnderW said:
definitely get the X2, you'll miss the HyperThreading from the P4 on a regular A64 if you multitask
Click to expand...

qft very well said
Click to expand...

This has been discussed before, but imho A64s are fast enough for most people without hyperthreading or dual core for anything out right now. I have a 3000+ at stock right now and i can minimize my games and listen to music, chat on aim, and surf the web just fine.
 
ellover009 said:
I'm getting the idea the amd processors aren't really that fast, and It is mandatory to Overclock from they way u guys talk
Click to expand...


No we suggest it because unlike intel our venice core uses very little power and runs cool and can overclock like the best in history...well close
 
Russ said:
This has been discussed before, but imho A64s are fast enough for most people without hyperthreading or dual core for anything out right now. I have a 3000+ at stock right now and i can minimize my games and listen to music, chat on aim, and surf the web just fine.
Click to expand...


I do that with my 3200+ barton...
 
ray4389 said:
I do that with my 3200+ barton...
Click to expand...
I've tried making this point about multitasking many times. HT/SMP makes a large difference in heavy multitasking/multithreading environments, but this doesn't represent a large percentage of use for many users.
 
My friend and I just built new systems.

He went form a 3.2 Intel HT to an AMD 64 X2 2.4 Ghz system. He runs a high end game and visual basic and C++ at teh same time programming software because he programs for the game. He said the difference is night and day. Intel gets blown out of the water.

I however, not knowing much about dual core processors bought the FX57 running at 2.8 Ghz.

If you multitask, get eh X2. Like you say, teh difference in games is no more than 5-10% in FPS between teh X2 2.4 and teh FX57. what was AMD thinking? Who is going to buy teh FX57 now, or the 59 when they can have nearly the same performance in games, plus AWESOME multitask ability:

I ran a test last night. I started RAR compressing a 4 GB file adn tehn started HAlf Life 2--can you say 3 FPS? My friend did the same thing, and said over the phone he was smooth as silk in HL2.

So there you have it. I wasted 1100 dollar when I could ahve had better all around performance for 300 less.
 
I hear all this talk about dual cores and Intel’s HT and how great it is. Well, I haven't tried a dual core so I can't comment on that. I can, however comment on HT. My dev box at work is a P4 2.8 with HT. My dev box at home is the first system in my sig which is an AMD s939 system.

I do exactly the same things at home that I do at my day job, that being web development. This usually consists of Enterprise Manager running, Query Analyzer open, Visual Studio 2003 running, PhotoShop open and a number of browsers open, including IE and Firefox. I'm constantly switching back and forth between each application/program. The web services that I'm working on are usually enterprise level sites, which mean I'm constantly working on HUGE projects with HUGE databases.

Now I don't want this to come across as a flame, but I have not seen any difference with HT or without HT on my P4 2.8 system at work. The system is constantly hanging and everything lags. This is really frustrating and to be quite honest, I'm a little disappointed in the performance of this P4.

Now my home computer is obviously overclocked, so it's not fair to really compare the two like I am, but even with my s939 at stock speeds, I do not notice the lag or hanging on my AMD system when doing and working on the exact same projects.

Of course we can chalk this up to user experience, or to user preference or even that maybe the apps are not written to take advantage of HT (which is probably the case). But my main point is that the P4 just hasn't impressed me. It hasn't impressed me with or without HT on compared to my AMD system at stock speeds.

Anyway, just my two cents..not like it matters after the computers are turned off....they will perform exactly the same at that point!
 
Russ said:
AMDs are pretty cheap if you get the one you should. OCing WILL give a big difference. You can buy a 3000+ and OC it to FX-57 (stock) levels easily. That's why OCing is good.

I would get a 3500+ if you aren't comfortable with heavy OCing. They are only like $220 on Newegg.

For the reasons people have said, don't get a X2. Waste of money and by the time they are needed there will be something new. Get a 3500+ and a PPU for christmas and you'll be doing WAY better in AOE3 than someone with a X2 4400+ for the same money or less.
Click to expand...

Not if you run anything else besides one application at a time. Try compressing an RAR file and playing WoW at the same time. You get like 3FPS. Try it. Create a 1 GB file and tell Win RAR to start jackhammering away at it. THen try opening your game and playing it witih a single core. See you in about late January when everything finally opens and you're getting like 3FPS. Now in the real world, you could, for instance, create a 3 GB image file, if you are into that, for some game you are zipping up or program or whatever, and play WoW while it zips it up. I say a 1 GB file or more because even wtih nothing running my FX57 takes about 15+ minutes per GB. You also could burn DVDs while playing games, but not smoothly with the single cores.

So, if you want to do things like that, and you don't mind waiting hours while other apps run, get the single cores. Now I've done some tests recently with my FX57. I ran a large image through a radial blur at 100% and Best Quality. Here are my finds:
1) With a browser opened and Winamp opend but idle, along with my other applications, like virus and spyware, firewall, etc, I can do it in like 64 seconds.
2) With the same set up, but with WinAmp playing music, it takes 149 seconds.
3) My friend has the exact same MB that I do with an X2 2.4 running and has the same software running as I do above. I should have his report tomorrow. There are some reports on the web now of 35 seconds for the X2.

For me the analogy of the FX57 compared to the 2.4Ghz X2 is like a 44 Magnum revolver wtih 6 shots before reloading, whereas the X2 is two 9mm auto pistols both going off in an alternating fasion with an endless supply of ammo. The X2 just hammers man. The should have called it the AMD X2 FU!CKING INSANITY 64, and screw all the people they piss off. If you want to run a single app, use the 44 mag, but if you want to run more than one app or you are using a Dual Core capable program, like Adobe Photoshop CS2, use the dual 9MMs. Plus if I am not mistaken, I think the X2 2.4 Ghz is running two FX 53 processors in it but with the smaller die size which means they run really cool. You realize that the FX 53 is not that much "slower" than the FX57?

Last, if you want to overclock because that gets you off running and posting your WinMark 3D score, then you WILL have to go with the single core because they OC much better. I think even in the AMD specifications for the FX57 they state that the "max" clock speed fo the FX57 is 3.7Ghz!!!!! Yes, it's true. Check WinMark 3D website (Futuremark) and those people have clocked the FX57s to 3.7Ghz !! If you can cool it and have stable RAM to over clock that high, I also hear it's stable. That's pretty crazy. I mean I could probably do that image blur in like 30 seconds at 3.7 Ghz. But, some X2s out of the box are that fast without twisting them up.

For me, if I had to choose the FX57 or the 2.4 Ghz X2, no contest. In fact, I just put my system togther like a week ago and I'm going to pay the 15% restocking fee and trade it back to my supplier for the 2.4 X2. One thing will stop me: If the new 64 bit OS allows the FX 57 to multitask better, then I'll keep it.

Hope I didn't piss anyone off. I'm just shooting from the hip here from my experience with both the X2 and my FX57 in the last week.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top