Hanabal

Hey Im choosing a new computer, and im stuck on a new CPU.

i can get a p4 2800 800MhzFSB for the same price as an AMD64 3000+,

I want your opinion on what i should get,

is there any hidden prices with either.

I will have basic winxp on which ever one i get and i will be primarily gaming with a little usage of office etc.

I want to get a quiet cool one as my current comp is hot and i dont like it.

Thanks for your help,
Hanabal

__________________
I am Hanabal, Phear my elephants

arch13

Or you could just get a Barton core 3200+ for half the price of those and have plenty of power with an AMD based 333mhz FSB system.
(i'll also note that using mhz or FSB numbers to compare intel and amd has become foolish as they are currently using different chip architecture which makes comparison much more difficult.)
The common system is that an AMD Barton core 3200+ is equal to a P4 800FSB 3.2Ghz.

__________________
Seen on an employer evaluation:

"The wheel is turning but the hamsters dead"
____________________________
Is arch13 really a porn diety ? find out after the film at 11.
-Nanofever

Hanabal

hmm, but my current cpu is an older AMD (1400) and its really hot and as i cant afford good cooling, really loud. so im nervous about getting AMD again, i know ill get more power for my money but i want a quiet, cold system as well

Also i heard HT tech is really good, what are your opinions.

__________________
I am Hanabal, Phear my elephants

arch13

Well my XP 2700 runs at 115F, is that cold enough?

__________________
Seen on an employer evaluation:

"The wheel is turning but the hamsters dead"
____________________________
Is arch13 really a porn diety ? find out after the film at 11.
-Nanofever

Wyodiver33

My Barton 2500+ runs just fine at 2264 MHz, which is faster than a 3200+. Temp never gets above 46C with stock cooling and several case fans. Idle is usually around 38C. I really like AMD CPU's. The last Intel I had was a 700 MHz P3. I've been all AMD since then. I'm sure that the new P4's rock, but they are also more expensive. My next chip will be an Athlon 64 something.

__________________
I like stuff.

splck

The last Intel I owned was a P2. I've had AMD since and I can't complain. I'll buy an AMD again when it's time to upgrade.

__________________
nice line eh?

firebirdta

I run my P4 2.6c at 3250 (250 MHz FSB prime95 stable) and it runs incredibly fast; I hear that the 2.4c/2.8c (M0 stepping) give really good overclocks, as well. Just make sure you get some quality RAM and a motherboard that will allow you to overclock and the P4 should give you everything you want and more.

__________________
"Even if you prove me wrong, I'm not going to believe you." - A. McGill

tehblaed

If you're worried about cooling and noise, I would suggest getting a large-finned heatsink, if your case has enough room. I'm talking about a Zalman - http://zalman.co.kr/english/product/cnps7000a-cu.htm

Thing is massive. Quiet as a calm breeze on the open wyoming plains....

Hanabal

i looked at a zalman once, i dont know, i just feel that although the AMD has more raw power, THe P4 has the edge in tech, ie HT and burn protection.

Please correct me if im wrong.

__________________
I am Hanabal, Phear my elephants

Dragonlich

Hanabal, I think you're wrong.

...about the burn protection anyway; AFAIK the AMDs will shut down just like the P4 does these days.

Generally speaking, the older AMDs (pre-AMD64) have a "false" performance rating. For example, the 3000+ is comparable with a 2700 mhz P4 (if it existed). The AMD64s are more accurate with their speed rating.

The only real reason to buy a P4 would be movie editing; AMDs have a bad reputation for unstability with at least some of the associated programs. Other than this, it's a simple cost/performance issue - get the speed you need for the lowest price.

Lasereth

First off, when AMD started their market technique of labelling the CPUs with model names, HT technology didn't exist. Some people think that even now the AMD CPU model name refers to the equivalent of an Intel P4 without HT technology.

The model names do fluctuate as you say, but I don't think it's quite as severe. An Athlon XP 2500+ is definitely the equivalent of a 2.5 GHz P4, and an Athlon XP 1900+ is DEFINTELY the equivalent of a 1.9 GHz P4. Pentium 4's simply failed in comparison to the Athlon XP CPUs from the 1GHz-2GHz range. The model names worked very well in that speed range.

I'd put an Athlon XP 3000+ Barton at about 2.8 C Core P4. Maybe 2.9 if they made one. The Athlon 64's do match up really well, however. I think there was simply a small gap from about 2.4 GHz to 3.0 GHz that AMD over-estimated a bit. Not by much, however, and in some cases they were right. It simply depends on whether the compared P4 has HT, and whether the compared Athlon is a Barton. Generally speaking, the model names are a very good comparison to their performance compared to Pentium 4's.

-Lasereth

__________________
"A Darwinian attacks his theory, seeking to find flaws. An ID believer defends his theory, seeking to conceal flaws." -Roger Ebert

Silverbrain

HT actually slows a computer down!! Go Intel =)

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=13344


Exactly right

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9475

If you cannot afford a decent cooling system, then you cannot afford a nice AMD 64 system with good components so id say stick back with the Athlon XP for now, buy some nice fans and in a couple years upgrade to the 64bit. IMO

Personally im waiting until this spring until AMD releases the 939pin mobo's and cpu's allowing (as of now) further upgradeability time down the road.

__________________
Over Thinking, Over Analyzing
Seperates the Body from the Mind - MJK

Bivens

Both the Intel P4 2.4c and the Barton 2500+ are great overclocking chips. The 2500+ can hit 3200+ speeds on air cooling alone and remain quite stable. If you want the 2.4c, get them now because production is waning due to its great OCing.

Dragonlich

Actually, no. It CAN slow down a computer in very specific circumstances. In general, computers get a small speed boost, which can become huge (again) in specifc instances.

I've seen the difference with my own eyes, on two systems, with the only difference being the HT being on or off. Opening a huge powerpoint presentation and showing the slides took ages on the computer without HT, and was finished within seconds on the computer with HT. Yes, this is one of those specific instances where it works *very* well.

Silverbrain

I mispoke, and do agree. HT is a nice step towards multiple cores on one chip, so long as they dont have to fight each other for precious cache :0

__________________
Over Thinking, Over Analyzing
Seperates the Body from the Mind - MJK

VF19

I would personally get a AMD 64-bit, just because when Windows Longhorn comes out you can use it. But, in those two years (I think its two years) until it comes out, alot may happen in the CPU market (such as 939 pin sockets)

nanofever

Or you could get a Barton core 2500+, which overclock like a champ, and turn it into a 3200+. The chip is the same in both the 2500 and 3200, and I have read a lot of good overclocking sites suggest this is the way to go.

__________________
I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect.

Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum:
"Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

poof

<i>Or you could just get a Barton core 3200+ for half the price of those and have plenty of power with an AMD based 333mhz FSB system.</i>.
The 3200 runs at 400mhz, not 333, and would be a great choice over a P4 running at 800.
I would not get carried away with the Athlon64. Look at your software expenses (I cannot call it an investment). Do you really need a processor that can run 64 even though it can do 32 and all your software is maybe 32?
The AMD processors are cheap, reliable, and easy to play with if you wish to do so.
I have a 3000Barton, and a 3200Barton and have no complaints at all with them.
My good friend and I have an ongoing banter about the Pentium vs Athlon. He loves his 533fsb P4, yet going to the 800mhz fsb is just too expensive for a hobby. I sold him an old SOYO Dragon Ultra running a 2800Barton for his wife.
He is flexible, you should be also. SAve some money, get an AMD 32 bit, the money you save will help pay for some nice ddr ram.

Hanabal

hmm, well im pretty much convinced, but one other thing, i was just wondering, cause the store has a 533MhzFSB 2.8p4 Northwood or a 800Mhz 2.8p4 non northwood, now which is better.

I dont think ill get either, but just wondering which would be better

__________________
I am Hanabal, Phear my elephants

poof

<i>I dont think ill get either, but just wondering which would be better</i>, uhh, may not get either, but which is best? Did you not read the AMD threads?
Get what you want, enjoy what you get. The same goes for marriage. Except, you can walk away from a bad 'puter choice without paying for something for too long!
Good luck with whatever you choose {subliminal AMD /subliminal}

Dragonlich

The 533Mhz processor is slower. Thanks to HT, the 800 Mhz FSB, the dual-channel memory, the newer P4 2.6c with HT is about as fast as the older P4 2.8b. And no, that 6 and 8 is not a typo.
(c=800 mhz, HT, b=533 mhz, non-HT, by the way)

Therefore... it depends on the price difference of a good mobo (with the intel 865 chipset), and the 2.6c; or an older mobo (with 845 chipset) and the 2.8b.

bermuDa

if you really want a 64 bit processor, the Athlon 64 is probably your best bet... but it is awfully expensive. You can get a Barton and it'd be plenty fast, and with the extra money you can get a decent cooling solution like a Thermalright SLK-900A and a 92mm fan, and still have TONS of money left over.

added: I have a barton 2599, the aforementioned heatsink and a decent 92mm fan. My CPU temp ranges from 20C to 33C. I've never seen it break 40.

__________________
I am the very model of a moderator gentleman.

mystix

wait for windows 64 for amd to come out before u get ur 64 bit processor, but that could take a while...

Dragonlich

Well, if you want top performance at this moment, you could try the 3200+ AMD64, if only because (at least in my store) it's *cheaper* than the 3200 Mhz P4. If you simply want *a* computer, it's another story, of course, 'cause neither is really that good value-for-money. A mid-range processor might be a better option.

...or you could wait another year for the BTX motherboards to come out, with their fancy new PCI-express slots, and totally different layout, power supply and cases. Or not.

Hanabal

hehe thanks for all your help. Ill look around and maybe get back to you once ive ordered

__________________
I am Hanabal, Phear my elephants

Silverbrain

Microsoft is stalling, waiting for Intel to get their 64 bit chip out so they can release Windows for 64-bit instead of CPU specific versions im guessing, and with no info from Intel this wait could be a long one...

__________________
Over Thinking, Over Analyzing
Seperates the Body from the Mind - MJK