nforce2 or springdale/canterwood?

[muhan]

I dont know if this has been answered somewhere, but which platform would be faster assuming roughly comparable processors? I take it the Intel platform is more expensive but they both feature dual channel DDR memory and 400 mhz FSB's, so why would you pay more for the Intel system?

OK, let me clarify my question. I'm looking to build a midrange system mostly for gaming (not first person shooter type of games tho) and web development. I'd like something in the 2-2.5 Ghz range or equivalent with 1 gig ram and and a mid range video card. No overclocking, don't want a celeron.

The choices I've narrowed it down to are nforce2 system with like a 2200+ CPU or springdale with like an intel 2.2 Ghz. It seems to me from a quick rundown at newegg.com of abit boards and processors that the Intel combo would run at quite a premium? Is the 800Mhz FSB worth the extra money? I haven't seen any online reviews or direct comparisons between the 2 platforms.

Any insight appreciated, TIA.

 

[Fallengod]

Originally posted by: muhan
I dont know if this has been answered somewhere, but which platform would be faster assuming roughly comparable processors? I take it the Intel platform is more expensive but they both feature dual channel DDR memory and 400 mhz FSB's, so why would you pay more for the Intel system?

Intel is not more expensive. Why do people still think that is a valid arguement over amd. Amd's top CPU is even MORE expensive than Intels.....Intel is about same prices as AMD and have been for awhile. Intel is also faster and stays cooler...Pretty easy decision if you ask me. IS7($100), 2x256-> 512mb 3200 HyperX($110)/3500 DDR HyperX($149), Intel 2.4C $140(which can overclock to over 3GHZ). That is a pretty cheap/fast rigg at around$400. If you read any reviews, you will see the new 800 fsb cpu's blow amd away even more than they used to.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: modempower

Originally posted by: muhan
I dont know if this has been answered somewhere, but which platform would be faster assuming roughly comparable processors? I take it the Intel platform is more expensive but they both feature dual channel DDR memory and 400 mhz FSB's, so why would you pay more for the Intel system?

Intel is not more expensive. Why do people still think that is a valid arguement over amd. Amd's top CPU is even MORE expensive than Intels.....Intel is about same prices as AMD and have been for awhile. Intel is also faster and stays cooler...Pretty easy decision if you ask me. IS7($100), 2x256-> 512mb 3200 HyperX($110)/3500 DDR HyperX($149), Intel 2.4C $140(which can overclock to over 3GHZ). That is a pretty cheap/fast rigg at around$400. If you read any reviews, you will see the new 800 fsb cpu's blow amd away even more than they used to.

why are you just comparing the fastest cpu? even so, the intel 3.2 is $700 @ newegg and the 3200+ is 447. that being said most people dont go for the fastest cpu. compare the mid ranged cpus: the 2400+ is $78 and the 2.4C is about $173. it is quite obvious that intel is more expensive than amd. as for the performance, you will prolly benefit w/ 800 mhz FSB so the only question would be is it worth the extra money for YOU

 

[Fallengod]

why are you just comparing the fastest cpu? even so, the intel 3.2 is $700 @ newegg and the 3200+ is 447. that being said most people dont go for the fastest cpu. compare the mid ranged cpus: the 2400+ is $78 and the 2.4C is about $173. it is quite obvious that intel is more expensive than amd. as for the performance, you will prolly benefit w/ 800 mhz FSB so the only question would be is it worth the extra money for YOU

Ok but a 2400 doesnt perform near a 2.4C, hence the price difference....Also, I wasnt comparing the 3.2, that just came out and isnt even really available yet, prices are always sky high when a new product gets released and that price is just bizzare. I meant the 3ghz compared to their 3200. Anyways, in benchmarks, you can see for yourself, even the 2.4C outperformed the AMD 3000 and even the 3200 in a few in almost all application benchs(encoding, rendering, covertions etc, ..maybe not games though. Still when a $150 cpu outperforms a $400 cpu in desktop, applications and rendering/encoding should say something. Im not trying to get into a intel.vs.amd flame or anything by any means, I use AMD cpus also, and do my own benchmarks along with reading websites benchmarks, and I just see the facts speaking for themselves. Dont get me wrong, amd is a good cpu, its just, intel is a better use of money. Intels even overclock so easily to 3ghz+ and stay much more cooled, along with having better instruction sets and hyper threading etc...seems to be pretty easy decision to me. I guess if someone had to scrape pennies to buy a new rigg, maybe amd is slightly cheaper/better deal. I still dont see how though. If you can afford at least $150 for a cpu, should probably find a new Hobby. But $400-$450 for a top intel rigg, seems pretty good deal to me. I dont see how you can get much more cheaper than that.


Example#2
Example#3 Encoding(NON 800FSB Intels)
Example#4 quake3
Example#5 mp3 encoding
Example#6 Winrar
Example#7 Memory bench

Those are just the quick urls I pulled.

 

[Corporate Thug]

i too use intel CPU's. i understand that the 2.4C outperforms the 2400+ but the 2400+ is the amd counterpart. if we want to go into overclocking, a $50 1700+ can overclock to a 2.2ghz+ and KILL a 2.4, 2.6, and maybe even 2.8. that is unbeatable value for $50

 

[Fallengod]

Originally posted by: shady06
i too use intel CPU's. i understand that the 2.4C outperforms the 2400+ but the 2400+ is the amd counterpart. if we want to go into overclocking, a $50 1700+ can overclock to a 2.2ghz+ and KILL a 2.4, 2.6, and maybe even 2.8. that is unbeatable value for $50

Yes, maybe true for $50. But you also have to then calculate how incredibly hot AMD cpu's get even at stock, so you would need significant cooling to keep it stable and working at that speed. And, no a 2.2ghz overclock would not beat a 2.6C or 2.8C heh, trust me, but yes that is a good value for $50, but add on another $20-$30 for cooling and thats back up at $80 or so. Intels use stock cooling and can oc, so you have to factor that in also.

 

[ponyo]

I use $7 Speeze 80mm heatsink to cool my $41 1700+ Tbred B. Running it at 2200 mhz and 40 C idle. At 26.5 dBA it isn't too loud. About similar to 80mm case fans.

AMD is value king.

 

[Corporate Thug]

yeah, the speeze is a very popular choice.
modem power, i just ran sandra CPU arthmetic benchmark and unfortunately my version doesnt have the 800mhz fsb for the reference chips but here are the numbers against the 3.06 533 FSB. note: i used the 1700+ @ 2200 Mhz, NOT 2300 as it appears in my sig:

Current CPU: Dhrystone Alu 8245 Mips
Whetsone FPU 3328 MFLOPS

Referebce CPU: Dhrystone Alu 8164 Mips
Whetsone FPU 1717/4009 MFLOPS

 

[Fallengod]

Originally posted by: Naustica
I use $7 Speeze 80mm heatsink to cool my $41 1700+ Tbred B. Running it at 2200 mhz and 40 C idle. At 26.5 dBA it isn't too loud. About similar to 80mm case fans.

AMD is value king.

Still though, what does that prove. It doesnt prove its the value king, it proves its a good value. You can buy cheap intels for that also that oc to about the same...I could argue the same for intel, but whatever. I guess it comes down to what you need out of your computer. I do Maya, photoshop, director, alot of dvd authoring and mpeg2-4 encoding and somewhat gaming so ill take the faster cpu with better instruction set and memory bandwidth any day over amd. Amd is a good value though I suppose, except for a few of their higher cpus.


Didnt know there were good enough amd fans for ocing that are $7 though. Ill have to see some reviews on that.

 

[ponyo]

I doubt you're going to hit 2.2 ghz and get the same performance with $41 Intel chip. Maybe $141 chip.

As for Speeze heatsink you can check out the reviews at Newegg.

http://secure.newegg.com/app/CustratingReview.asp?item=35-150-010

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: modempower

Originally posted by: Naustica
I use $7 Speeze 80mm heatsink to cool my $41 1700+ Tbred B. Running it at 2200 mhz and 40 C idle. At 26.5 dBA it isn't too loud. About similar to 80mm case fans.

AMD is value king.

Still though, what does that prove. It doesnt prove its the value king, it proves its a good value. You can buy cheap intels for that also that oc to about the same...I could argue the same for intel, but whatever. I guess it comes down to what you need out of your computer. I do Maya, photoshop, director, alot of dvd authoring and mpeg2-4 encoding and somewhat gaming so ill take the faster cpu with better instruction set and memory bandwidth any day over amd. Amd is a good value though I suppose, except for a few of their higher cpus.


Didnt know there were good enough amd fans for ocing that are $7 though. Ill have to see some reviews on that.

i think all he is trying to say/prove it that a slk800 or other $30+ HSF are not esential for OCing

 

[4x4expy]

Originally posted by: Naustica
I use $7 Speeze 80mm heatsink to cool my $41 1700+ Tbred B. Running it at 2200 mhz and 40 C idle. At 26.5 dBA it isn't too loud. About similar to 80mm case fans.

AMD is value king.

36c idle, 41-42c full load here with 1700+ @ 2406mhz with tame voltage and an SLK900. It runs and benches quicker than my p4 (b) at 3ghz did. But I this is primarily a surfing/gaming rig.

 

[wicktron]

Media encoding is ALL P4. Gaming is mixed. Office is XP.
Hyperthreading is the wild card. As is price. Which do you want? Really great feature? Or low price.

I say flip a coin, you won't be disappointed in either setup.

 

[Corporate Thug]

yeah, both manufacteres have their place in the industry and offer mutual competition that allows for more competitive prices on both sides

 

[JSSheridan]

There is another aspect that I would consider, that being useful product life. If you wanted to get a 2.4C with a quality Springdale MB today, then you could pop in an 800MHz FSB Prescott this time next year for an easy upgrade. With the nForce2, Socket A has reached it's end with the Barton core, and you would need to get a new MB along with a new AMD CPU next year. For that reason, I would lean toward the Springdale MB's right now. Peace.

 

[4x4expy]

Originally posted by: wixt0r
Media encoding is ALL P4. Gaming is mixed. Office is XP.
Hyperthreading is the wild card. As is price. Which do you want? Really great feature? Or low price.

I say flip a coin, you won't be disappointed in either setup.

I agree. It really is silly that someones ? for advice usually end up in flaming between AMD and Intel owners, or even AMD and AMD owners, etc... With todays cpu's/mb's, there should rarely be disappointment in upgrades.

 

[JetBlack69]

Originally posted by: JSSheridan
There is another aspect that I would consider, that being useful product life. If you wanted to get a 2.4C with a quality Springdale MB today, then you could pop in an 800MHz FSB Prescott this time next year for an easy upgrade. With the nForce2, Socket A has reached it's end with the Barton core, and you would need to get a new MB along with a new AMD CPU next year. For that reason, I would lean toward the Springdale MB's right now. Peace.

Yep, I would get an Intel setup for the the upgrade path of a Prescott.

 

[Tom]

I think there are two excellent choices for overclockers..

the extreme low budget Athlon system, based on the $50-75 cpu, which is fast enough for most purposes today,

or for $150 more, an overclocked P4C system that is potentially the fastest system available.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: modempower

Originally posted by: shady06
i too use intel CPU's. i understand that the 2.4C outperforms the 2400+ but the 2400+ is the amd counterpart. if we want to go into overclocking, a $50 1700+ can overclock to a 2.2ghz+ and KILL a 2.4, 2.6, and maybe even 2.8. that is unbeatable value for $50

Yes, maybe true for $50. But you also have to then calculate how incredibly hot AMD cpu's get even at stock, so you would need significant cooling to keep it stable and working at that speed. And, no a 2.2ghz overclock would not beat a 2.6C or 2.8C heh, trust me, but yes that is a good value for $50, but add on another $20-$30 for cooling and thats back up at $80 or so. Intels use stock cooling and can oc, so you have to factor that in also.

one last note, i've been looking at gaming benchmarks and the 3200+ is able to beat the 2.8C in most all the benchies and the is able to beat the 3.0C in most benchies as well. keeping in mind that the barton core offers little to none advantage in gaming, i think it is safe to say that a 2.3ghz 1700+ @ 200 mhz fsb can easily beat a 2.6C or a 2.8C for gaming purposes. looking at the firing squad review, it can prolly beat the 3.0C half the time as well

 

[Fallengod]

Well seeing as how you are speaking for reading benchmarks from some site and ive tested myself..Read the reviews here on anandtech, they show otherwise. Firing squad must of done some messed up benchmarks.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: modempower
Well seeing as how you are speaking for reading benchmarks from some site and ive tested myself..Read the reviews here on anandtech, they show otherwise. Firing squad must of done some messed up benchmarks.

i'm not saying your benchies are wrong or anything but firingsquad is a very reliable source. what benchies did u run in particular?

 

[Tom]

Why are you comparing an overclocked 1700+ to a not overclocked P4 ? To make a fair comparison amongst overclocks and costs you should compare it to a 2.4c overclocked to 3.3gig at 275fsb.

Then decide if the scalding performance is worth $150. For some it is, for some the AMD is plenty fast enough. But let's be fair about the comparison.

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Why are you comparing an overclocked 1700+ to a not overclocked P4 ? To make a fair comparison amongst overclocks and costs you should compare it to a 2.4c overclocked to 3.3gig at 275fsb.

Then decide if the scalding performance is worth $150. For some it is, for some the AMD is plenty fast enough. But let's be fair about the comparison.

I've been recommending the same overclocking setup to friends for several months now. Guess which system I'm recommending:

AMD Setup

Epox 8RDA+:$83
AXP 1700+ at 2.2GHz 400MHz FSB: $50
Any decent copper HSF: $10

total = $143

Intel Setup

ABIT IS7-E: $99
P4 2.4C at 3.3GHz 1100MHz FSB: $174
HSF Included

total = $273

So it all comes down to this; is an extra $130 worth it for the apps you run? Most of my friends are into gaming, office related tasks, streaming media, etc. The Intel setup listed above would have a slight edge in gaming, yes, but it would never be noticeable in real world performance usage with a mid-range or high-end video card, so it's pointless to base a purchasing decision on the P4C's gaming "edge". Same goes for the Athlon XP's office "edge". Since these things are not noticeable in the real world, and knowing that Socket A and Socket 478 boards are of (more or less) identical maturity level (i.e. reliability/stability) based on my own testing/common knowledge, it all comes down to price.

 

[JimMc]

it all comes down to price.

:Q

It all comes down to how fast it runs Seti.... A 2.4C chip and an 865, tough to beat.

 

[Corporate Thug]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
Why are you comparing an overclocked 1700+ to a not overclocked P4 ? To make a fair comparison amongst overclocks and costs you should compare it to a 2.4c overclocked to 3.3gig at 275fsb.

Then decide if the scalding performance is worth $150. For some it is, for some the AMD is plenty fast enough. But let's be fair about the comparison.

because the 1700+ is a $50 chip. its just as fair to compare an OCed 1700+ to a 2.4C not oced as it is to compare a $50 chip to a $160 chip (i guessing that how much 2.4C's are????)