Which one is better? AMD 2ghz w/512MB or P4 2.4 w/256MB?

[Ionizer86]

I heard that 2100+ and below have a soft limit so you can't go above multiplier 12.5. If that's so, you'd either need really good ram along with the 12.5 mult to get a high clock or you could get a 2200+ and run it at even higher mults.

In any case, the 2500+ is a better choice since it has double the L2 cache and lots of headroom for overclocks.

 

[sak]

I would think always a PC with more ram is better. but i might be wrong in a few cases..

 

[txxxx]

The 533mhz fsb chip doesnt have HT , so a similar AMD could spank it for less money.

 

[RanDum72]

The 533mhz fsb chip doesnt have HT , so a similar AMD could spank it for less money.

It doesn't need HT to run faster than an AMD 2000+. Even a 2.4ghz P4 at 400fsb runs neck in neck with a 2400+ AMD (I have both but I compared them with the AMD using dual channel DDR266 and the P4 was using PC800 RDRAM), why do you think they called the AMD 2400+ in the first place?

But for the price, I'll up the CPU a bit and get a 2500+ Barton. Probably the best value in CPU's today. The 2500+'s FSB would also match the PC2700 memory.

 

[JBT]

go for the AMD

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: Budman

Originally posted by: Tbirdkid
Here is my input... the intel will be more expensive. The amd will probably be equal to the 2.4 unless you are going to use RDRAM. Then intel spanks it. To explain it... rdr will just flat whoop ddr. Not to mention paired with an intel chip that NEEDS memory bandwidth to perform. Honestly i would get the amd and save a few bux. Just dont buy a retail one if you can but oem and go to svc and get a cooler. Believe me you will never regret it.

I say amd.

Where have you been? you living under a rock somewhere?

Rdram is old & Dual channel DDR DOES spank it.

Definitely not in my WinZip/UT compression benchie, Budman. The record-holding system is a P4 2.53GHz with PC1066 RDRAM at 1m 30s. So far, the best result a DCDDR Intel rig has shown is 2m 30s, although no one's given me a 3.2C i875P result yet.

 

[Budman]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: Budman

Originally posted by: Tbirdkid
Here is my input... the intel will be more expensive. The amd will probably be equal to the 2.4 unless you are going to use RDRAM. Then intel spanks it. To explain it... rdr will just flat whoop ddr. Not to mention paired with an intel chip that NEEDS memory bandwidth to perform. Honestly i would get the amd and save a few bux. Just dont buy a retail one if you can but oem and go to svc and get a cooler. Believe me you will never regret it.

I say amd.

Where have you been? you living under a rock somewhere?

Rdram is old & Dual channel DDR DOES spank it.

Definitely not in my WinZip/UT compression benchie, Budman. The record-holding system is a P4 2.53GHz with PC1066 RDRAM at 1m 30s. So far, the best result a DCDDR Intel rig has shown is 2m 30s, although no one's given me a 3.2C i875P result yet.

What purpose would doing that serve?

Who I got this new game it's rocks !! you zip up a cd ! wow Wicked !!!

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: Budman

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: Budman

Originally posted by: Tbirdkid
Here is my input... the intel will be more expensive. The amd will probably be equal to the 2.4 unless you are going to use RDRAM. Then intel spanks it. To explain it... rdr will just flat whoop ddr. Not to mention paired with an intel chip that NEEDS memory bandwidth to perform. Honestly i would get the amd and save a few bux. Just dont buy a retail one if you can but oem and go to svc and get a cooler. Believe me you will never regret it.

I say amd.

Where have you been? you living under a rock somewhere?

Rdram is old & Dual channel DDR DOES spank it.

Definitely not in my WinZip/UT compression benchie, Budman. The record-holding system is a P4 2.53GHz with PC1066 RDRAM at 1m 30s. So far, the best result a DCDDR Intel rig has shown is 2m 30s, although no one's given me a 3.2C i875P result yet.

What purpose would doing that serve?

Who I got this new game it's rocks !! you zip up a cd ! wow Wicked !!!

The point is that RDRAM holds its own quite well against the marvelous DCDDR in at least some disciplines, Budman. But to answer your question, I use the UT Disc 1 CD as a standard item because many people own one, and therefore many people can run my benchmark for themselves.

Personally, at work I frequently WinZip stuff in the 500MB-900MB range, so the compression capabilites of CPUs and platforms interest me. On Friday I WinZipped a ~2.5GB .bkf file...

 

[Bovinicus]

My vote definitely goes for the AMD system with more RAM. 512MB is the minimum I will recommend to anyone these days. In fact, I would suggest 756MB-1GB if cost isn't prohibitive (I'm just speaking hypothetically, I understand that you are on a budget).

 

[Budman]

Originally posted by: mechBgon
Personally, at work I frequently WinZip stuff in the 500MB-900MB range, so the compression capabilites of CPUs and platforms interest me. On Friday I WinZipped a ~2.5GB .bkf file...

I use Winrar myself, size ranges from 800 to 4.5gigs.

I have not used winzip for years now,have you tried Winrar?

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: Budman

Originally posted by: mechBgon
Personally, at work I frequently WinZip stuff in the 500MB-900MB range, so the compression capabilites of CPUs and platforms interest me. On Friday I WinZipped a ~2.5GB .bkf file...

I use Winrar myself, size ranges from 800 to 4.5gigs.

I have not used winzip for years now,have you tried Winrar?

Not recently, no. I bought two WinZip licenses and it's been working fine for me. The new WZ 9.0 Beta has some interesting features including fancy encryption and support for crazy-large files... what's WinRAR's claims to fame these days?

 

[Budman]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: Budman

Originally posted by: mechBgon
Personally, at work I frequently WinZip stuff in the 500MB-900MB range, so the compression capabilites of CPUs and platforms interest me. On Friday I WinZipped a ~2.5GB .bkf file...

I use Winrar myself, size ranges from 800 to 4.5gigs.

I have not used winzip for years now,have you tried Winrar?

Not recently, no. I bought two WinZip licenses and it's been working fine for me. The new WZ 9.0 Beta has some interesting features including fancy encryption and support for crazy-large files... what's WinRAR's claims to fame these days?

easy to chop up the archives in 15 meg of 50 meg chuncks for distribution among others.

 

[mechBgon]

Originally posted by: Budman

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: Budman

Originally posted by: mechBgon
Personally, at work I frequently WinZip stuff in the 500MB-900MB range, so the compression capabilites of CPUs and platforms interest me. On Friday I WinZipped a ~2.5GB .bkf file...

I use Winrar myself, size ranges from 800 to 4.5gigs.

I have not used winzip for years now,have you tried Winrar?

Not recently, no. I bought two WinZip licenses and it's been working fine for me. The new WZ 9.0 Beta has some interesting features including fancy encryption and support for crazy-large files... what's WinRAR's claims to fame these days?

easy to chop up the archives in 15 meg of 50 meg chuncks for distribution among others.

That could be useful! I'll give it a try

 

[Budman]

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: Budman

Originally posted by: mechBgon

Originally posted by: Budman

Originally posted by: mechBgon
Personally, at work I frequently WinZip stuff in the 500MB-900MB range, so the compression capabilites of CPUs and platforms interest me. On Friday I WinZipped a ~2.5GB .bkf file...

I use Winrar myself, size ranges from 800 to 4.5gigs.

I have not used winzip for years now,have you tried Winrar?

Not recently, no. I bought two WinZip licenses and it's been working fine for me. The new WZ 9.0 Beta has some interesting features including fancy encryption and support for crazy-large files... what's WinRAR's claims to fame these days?

easy to chop up the archives in 15 meg of 50 meg chuncks for distribution among others.

That could be useful! I'll give it a try

Winrar is a bit slower but compresses to a smaller file & if you have a big file that needs breaking up into 650 meg chunks for cdr backup it can do that too on the fly.


sorry rajkanneganti about hijacking your thread I will continue this in PM with mechBgo.

 

[slicksilver]

That's okay Budman, I've already got my answer.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Markfw900
Somebodys math must be off, becuse you can get a 2500 Barton with MB ($146 on up) for the price of the cheapest 2.4 ( b core at $157), and that with 512 meg will KILL any 2.4 P4 with 256 meg. Actual dollar figures please ? more details please ?

Or you could get an XP2400 ($76) and have $81 left over for the memory which will buy 512 meg all by itself vs the P4 and no memory for the P4 at $157.

The intel box will always be more expensive for the same performance. (at least since into to t-bird)
When you OC things get complicated.

 

[slicksilver]

btw, guys isn't the PC2700 going waste since I'm gonna use the 2000+? I'm not too sure if this processor can run at 333fsb....Only the bartons can do that righhht?

 

[een]

only the bartons + some newer athlons (such as the new 2600+, although it's not barton, cause barton = 333/400 fsb and 512 l2 cache), the reason why you should get pc 2700 is so that it allows you a bit of a headroom when overclocking your fsb...

The same reason people get a barton with a 333mhz fsb and getting a pc3200 memory, so that it allows them to increase their fsb... hope that helps...

 

[ShawnD1]

Get the AMD. Although the AMD is slower, the cost is much much less. The money you save is better spent on fixing other bottlenecks in system speed such as more ram, faster video card, faster/bigger hard drive.

If this machine is for games, the AMD with 512mb ram will destroy the 2.4ghz P4 with 256mb ram. Last time I checked, BF1942 took over 300mb of ram itself. JK2 takes about 200. If you play games, you absolutely NEED lots of ram.