A64 vs P4 3.2

[fishmonger12]

maybe im wrong, but he's saying pci-e does not have a noticeable difference at the moment over 8x AGP. The alternative was supposed to be understood.

i've owned p4 and amd. they are both good processors. i cant really comment, because i havent owned two of the same speed. I do know my 3500+ newcastle runs pretty damn well, and does better than i could ask of it on any game im interested in playing. I also know all my friends with similar p4 based rigs do much poorer on multimedia benchmarks and game performance. you really can't go wrong with either processor. my 2 cents.

 

[Thermalrock]

i know he meant pci-e isnt faster than agp. but agp boards dont come with pcie 1x slots so getting a pcie is not useless even now or at least very soonw hen pcie sound- hdtv- scsi-,... cards hit the stores. a board can be faster even when the video card already had enough bandwidth cuz alot of other stuff did not.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Thermalrock
yea anyway the athlons better in most cases. keep your crap about ppl saying this being fanboys to yourself. id say 99.5% of the ppl who say the athlon is better say that because the athlon is the better cpu in their opinion. they do not say that because they are built by amd. amd has no nicely shaped boobs it flashes in the movies and doesnt have sexy legs in a video clip mtv runs. theres no reason to have positive feelings about a company if their product isnt superior in some way (assuming you do not work for that company, dont own it,...). yes i buy athlons. because amd makes em? no. need proof? i also buy centrino notebooks and those dont run mobile amd cpus and are more expensive than amd based notebooks. pretty much everyone i know does this too.
buying a product that you believe is the better deal does not make you a fanboy and sharing your opinions with other ppl doesnt either. now had you just said you think the P4 is as good or even better, whatever. that would be you sharing your opinion. however your 'omfg stupid fanboys' is a rather emotional reaction to someone not sharing your opinion, kinda as if your 'p4 3.2c' were your girl friend someone insulted and you feel the urge to stick up for her.

i disagree. while i'm sure there are many who have that honest opinion, it's been my exp here that there are also many here that throw a fit any time you bring up something that doesn't put amd in the best "light"... quite "fanboyish" as a matter of fact, and of course they're also the most vocal, which if nothing else makes it seem like there are more than there really are

 

[Thermalrock]

well maybe some 13 year olds whos daddies just bought em an athlon and they know they wont be able to get another comp for a while identify a lil too much with the cpu their running and get too emotional. id definitely say most ppl who buy or recommend an athlon do so cuz its the better choice. i do not believe the p4 is a bad choice, just not as good. i believe its the better choice at least in most cases and if i didnt i wouldnt keep buying em. i had pentiums i had a p2 i had a p3s i would have gotten a p4 1.8 if the tbird 1.4 wouldnt have outperformed it. had i bought a comp slightly pre a64 i would have gotten a northwood and not an xp. im buying another amd chip whenever they are able to ship me an nf4.
now if intel gets the pentium m fit for desktops and it does as well as i think it will the reviews will be there to spread the word and everyones gonna go out and buy one of em. im pretty sure the same guys who read enough on comps to know that they should get an a64 over an p4 right now are the same that would have gotten a northwood pre a64 and will buy intel again as soon as they come up with a solution that performs better (pentium m gogo~~~) than its amd counter part (unless the price difference is too high, hell some ppl caugh fx owners caugh dont even care about that and will just get the best anyway).

 

[CaiNaM]

for most people there is more to a computer than getting 90fps in doom3 @ 1024 vs 83fps

there are certainly valid circumstances where an a64 may be better, as there are where intel is. they both have their strenghts and weaknesses, and overall from having both i'd say the a64 has more strenghts than intel, but the 'weight' or relevance applied to those strengths and weaknesses would depend largely on how one uses his/her pc; what one person deems unimportant another may deem crucial.

either route taken (intel or amd) really shouldn't be seen as a "bad" route; they're both very capable. it comes down to price, avail., and what's more important to the individual user. while in most cases i'd give amd the edge, the intel is by no means a "sub standard" choice, and in some cases, it can even be the more preferrable choice.

 

[sbuckler]

Originally posted by: stelleg151
I am going to have to disagree with some comparisons of the 3500+, 3200+ and 3000+, because most people at HardOCP and XtremeSystems have been able to get their 3000+ and 3200+ winchesters to at least 2500, usually 2600, on air. The only thing that really varies is how much voltage they give the chip, but none have had to give anything more than 1.65 volts, as far as I can tell. What really will limit your overclockability is your understanding of all the factors that will limit your OC, your mobo, and your chip, but I do not believe that and of the winchesters coming how now are unable to reach 2500mhz. And btw anyone who thinks that value pc3200 will limit your CPU OC you shouldnt be listening to.

Don't always believe the clocks others achieve, because for every person who gets a great o/c, there are 9 others who don't, you obviously don't hear so much about them because they don't shout about it so much on the web. Also a fair number of the o/c you read in sigs are not stable, or at voltages that are too high for normal use. Many actually run at a significantly lower clock for stability, and a long cpu life.

 

[Thermalrock]

i think some kids lie about their ocs too.

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Thermalrock
i think some kids lie about their ocs too.

Thats what I have to believe based on my "poor" OC on my winchester (2235). It runs up to 2350 or even 2400 if I want to pump the voltage up to 1.7, but then it runs very hot, and is not totally stable. Now I am at 1.5v 2235, and am stable at 62c under load.

 

[CaiNaM]

mine 1800mhz/3000+ is completely stable @ 2400mhz (9x270. 3x HTT, 1:1 mem) stock voltage - a very decent oc imo. to me, upping voltage to get another 100mhz is really not worth it. i certainly have no reason to inflate my oc as i've been quite outspoken about amd's poor multitasking compared to my P4.. but hey, give credit where credit is due, while ocing is definately YMMV, my winchester is a good overclocking chip (as was my newcastle).

system is also liquid cooled, tho when not pushing voltages to the extreme i'm not sure how much difference that makes. the main reason i use that is not only does it run cool, it's QUIET