2.4C vs 3000+ SHOWDOWN

[stelleg151]

Im in the same situation as you are, and the two candidates for me are the Intel 2.4C and the AMD 64 3000+. They are reasonable close in price, the 3000+ being a little more expensive. Generally the new 64's smoke the P4's in gaming, and lots of other stuff as well.

Ive checked out the OCing on both of them and as of now it seems that the highest you can get a 3000+ to is around the 3400+ 3500+ and maybe even 3700+ level. It was a little unclear to me how much could be done with stock cooling and voltage, but I think it was close.

The OC on the 2.4 is even more impressive, reaching to 3.3Ghz easily on stock cooling and voltage, and up to around 3.8 with hardcore cooling.

The question that im not sure about is how much difference the FSB with high bandwidth ram will make. At 3.3Ghz, the P4 is at 275 FSB ( Dont worry I will get Abit IC7-G) , where as the highest ive seen the FSB on the 3000+ is 227, and that was with upped voltage.

So after all of that consideration, the 2.4c being easier to overclock, and when OCed having a huge FSB, that matched with some DDR550 I would think would do some damage. Then theres the 64 bit 3000+, that is part of the family that dominates in gaming, and has a reasonably impressive overclockability, although I'm under the impression that more voltage and cooling alterations are needed.

So my two main questions are,
1. Should DDR 450 and 550 be used with these OCed systems to create a 1:1 ratio, or should something like a 5:4 ratio be used and why?

2. OC a 2.4C or a Athlon 64 3000+? (and yes, I am going to be using this sytem mostly for games)

 

[Appledrop]

p4! all the way! A64 i really do not like it, yuck.

 

[Shimmishim]

Originally posted by: Azzy64
p4! all the way! A64 i really do not like it, yuck.

lol... nice response... but...

 

[Shimmishim]

if 227 were the highest you saw the "fsb" on the 3000+ then that would put it's speed at 2.27 ghz...

which is only 227 mhz faster than stock speed which is nowhere close to the 3700+ speed you've claim to have seen.

i've seen lots of people have good luck with these chips and seeing people getting around the 2.4 to 2.5 ghz mark on stock air cooling....

which would be 240 to 250 HTT...

what's nice about the a64's is that they are unlocked downwards so with the 3000+ you have access to mults from 10 to 4.

in terms of performance....

what will you be mostly using the comp for?

a 3000+ overclocked to 2.4 should still be faster than a 2.4C at 3.2 to 3.3 ghz especially at games...

you have to get it out of your head that you can't compare pure clockspeeds of an amd processor to that of an intel processor because amd is more efficient per clockcycle than the intel chips....

intel chips are very bandwidth intensive while the amd processors aren't so much...

i'd say go with the A64 but then again it depends on what you'll be mostly doing

 

[carlosd]

No doubt, A64 3000+ beats P4 2.4C in EVERYTHING.

 

[Stormgiant]

Agreed.

Between THOSE TWO SPECIFIC SETUP'S I would get the AMD.

 

[imported_jdrolls]

because of the gaming i would suggest the AMD64 setup because AMD is heads and tails above intel in gaming. the overclock on the 64 3000+ won't be awesome but it would be noticeable most likely (never any promises though).

 

[Lyfer]

Originally posted by: carlosd
No doubt, A64 3000+ beats P4 2.4C in EVERYTHING.

Agreed, these days there is NO comparison other than maybe enconding. The value the $165 A64 3000+ gives you is absolutely unbelievable.

 

[stelleg151]

Yeah thanks all, I will be gaming, so I am for sure getting the 3000+

 

[Acanthus]

But uh isnt the 3.0c like $25 more than the 2.4C??

and we didnt even mention M0 chips

A "crippled gallatin" can do 3.5ghz on stock voltage, many of the new ones hitting as high as 3.7-3.9 at 1.6v.

 

[Markfw]

Give it up. The 3000+ will OC also, and still beat the 3.0c at 3.5 when OC'ed at games.......

 

[CraigRT]

A64... by a landslide I'd say.. I wouldn't even consider the P4.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
Give it up. The 3000+ will OC also, and still beat the 3.0c at 3.5 when OC'ed at games.......

Give it up?

Im just trying to make a fair comparison.

a 2.4 - 3000+ comparison is a little strange when the 3.0C is only $25 more... and closer in price to the 3000+ than the 2.4.

And last i heard the 3000+s dont oc that well...

2.4ghz which is a 3500+ish rating.

Which means its not going to be that much faster, and will depend on the task.

 

[carlosd]

Ok $25 more and you get the A64 3200+. Still faster than the 3.0C and 3.2C overclocked. Just forget about P4s.

 

[Acanthus]

Athlon 64 3200+ $208

Athlon 64 3000+ $175

Intel pentium 4 2.8C $179

Intel Pentium 4 3.0C $199

Intel Pentium 4 2.4C $146

So the 3000+ and 2.8C would make the most sense for a price/perf comparison.

 

[imported_jdrolls]

from what i see here Intel and AMD chips compare price wise with AMD hauling in a 200+ PR rating bonus so AMD would be the chip of choice in my opinion.

 

[cirthix]

amd, no questions asked, read any gaming review. p4s with ht are a little better at dc fromt hwat i hear, but definitely get the amd, plus, you'll have a 64 bit comp for the future

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: Azzy64
p4! all the way! A64 i really do not like it, yuck.

you officially are replacing Peteroy in my sig. thanks!

 

[iwantanewcomputer]

Originally posted by: nick1985

Originally posted by: Azzy64
p4! all the way! A64 i really do not like it, yuck.

you officially are replacing Peteroy in my sig. thanks!

lol nick, i think you found a well deserving quote.

 

[pakotlar]

My stance on p4 vs. a64 is that unless you can find a p4 that oc to 3.8 + for gaming stick with AMD. If your main concern is not gaming, a p4 would be the better. That's not to say that a p4 isn't a great choice for gaming, but it is not as fast as a64's. My next upgrade will be a pci-e a64. Howeve, I can almost guarantee that you won't see the diff between a 3.6ghz p4 and an fx-53 in modern games.

The diff between 60fps and 70 fps or even 80 fps, to the unaided eye, is not great. Unless you find that your p4 is limiting your games to a degree where you are consistently in low fps territory, I wouldn't upgrade. When a game is CPU bound, you will find that your fps ceiling is not so high. However, almost assuredly, your min fps will not vary greatly between marginally faster and slower cpus. So while you may not bench as high, with a top end p4, you should be all set.

Also remember that as resolution scales up, you are less likely to encounter situations where the p4 is significantly behind the a64.

This is not to say that if you are upgrading today that you shouldn't go with AMD. They offer a better value that p4's (once you factor out the OC).

As far as doom3 is concerned AMD may not be the best route. Check out xbitlabs latest work on CPU performance in doom3.

Finally, if anyone is interested, I score 59 fps at 1600* 1200 in doom 3. Sorry for the OT, had to brag


edit: The higher fsb on an overclocked intel part is fairly significant. I don't remember the exact figures, but with my fsb at 258 (1032) my p4 outpaced a 3.4ghz p4c ~5-10% more than the clock difference would suggest.

 

[Acanthus]

Im also moving to A64+Nforce 4 in the future, but that doesnt mean Intel is a bad option.

 

[stelleg151]

Ok, first of all, Im getting a 3000+ for 150, so to me the 2.4 to 3000+ is reasonable. Second of all, value is considered in this comparison, so is it worth the slight amount of money more, third of all, a 3000+ at 2.4 or 2.5 will surely outperform a 2.4@ 3.4c in gaming, and thats what I care about most performance wise. Verdict: although it is satisfying getting a 2.4 to 3.4, the gaming performance of a 3000+ at 3500+-3700+ level is definately stronger.

 

[KJ]

i think you can find a OEM 3.0C or 3.2C for under $200, and i have seen many benchmarks of p4 and amd. for gaming, you can't beat amd.

KJ

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: stelleg151
Ok, first of all, Im getting a 3000+ for 150, so to me the 2.4 to 3000+ is reasonable. Second of all, value is considered in this comparison, so is it worth the slight amount of money more, third of all, a 3000+ at 2.4 or 2.5 will surely outperform a 2.4@ 3.4c in gaming, and thats what I care about most performance wise. Verdict: although it is satisfying getting a 2.4 to 3.4, the gaming performance of a 3000+ at 3500+-3700+ level is definately stronger.

Right but again you are seeing what you want to see... a 3700+ rating overclock is about as much of a miracle as a 3.8ghz Northwood...

You can get a 3.0C for 150 too if you go used... so your "value" statement is strange to me.

AMD is available used but intel isnt?

For gaming AMD is the better option, but, again, intel isnt a bad option.

 

[carlosd]

Originally posted by: Acanthus
Athlon 64 3200+ $208

Athlon 64 3000+ $175

Intel pentium 4 2.8C $179

Intel Pentium 4 3.0C $199

Intel Pentium 4 2.4C $146

So the 3000+ and 2.8C would make the most sense for a price/perf comparison.

Actually you can find a boxed A64 3000+ for around US$160 and a P4C for US$155. look in pricewatch