which would you buy? AMD or Intel??

[ShmooDude]

Originally posted by: n7
VIA C3? processor

:thumbsup:

 

[GuitarDaddy]

Originally posted by: lepper boy
I think i'm leaning more and more to the 3200+ venice chip..

But I am currenly sitting here looking at the venice and the winchester chips..

Which really don't seem to be much if any difference between the two. I did see that the winchester ( Ithink it's the 3500+) comes with a 1 mb of L2 cache.. and is rated at a 2.2 ghz, Would the speed increase over the 3200+ warrent the extra cost??

thanks.
dave

The Winchester doesn't have 1mb L2, it has 512k just like the Venice. The only difference between Venice and Winchester is the Venice has an improved memory controller that can run 4 sticks of ram at DDR400 2T instead of DDR333 2T, and the Venice seems to overclock slightly better. The 3500+ will be a little faster than the 3200+ at stock speeds, but they overclock to about the same speeds, so if overclocking save your money and get the 3200+

 

[lepper boy]

ah, okay thanks for that tid bit of info.. one of them chips I thought I saw with a 1 mb l2 .. woulc htat be noticiably faster??


and I'm pretty sure my overclocking days are behind me..

d

 

[Sixtyfour]

*must read entire post*

 

[suklee]

Originally posted by: lepper boy
ah, okay thanks for that tid bit of info.. one of them chips I thought I saw with a 1 mb l2 .. woulc htat be noticiably faster??


and I'm pretty sure my overclocking days are behind me..

d

Just go with the Venice... 3000+ or 3200+, best bang for buck. I went with the 3000+ two weeks ago and have it clocked @2.5GHz, 1.44volts. if you really have money to burn, then go for the 1MB L2 processor (San Diego core)

 

[imported_Frallan]

The 3700+ is the Single Core of choice now...

 

[kb3edk]

I got an X2 4400+ a few weeks ago and have been very impressed... performance has been better than I expected and I've OC'ed it up beyond 4800+ speeds (2.42 GHz to be specific) without any difficulty... even at that speed it still runs cooler than the stock Winchester 3200+ I had been using. I can't wait until the 3800+ X2s are widely available... I do distributed computing for TeAm Anandtech and I can see these processors as rapidly becoming the stuff of legend.

As for Intel, well I haven't bought anything from them in years but my curiosity may get the best of me if/when Pentium M (Yonah, Merom, etc.) hits the desktop. Until then I'm staying away.

 

[lepper boy]

I have noticed on some of the 3200, 3500 ect.. it says, 1 ghz FSB.. others say integrated into chip..... so which one gives you the better performance?
d

 

[lepper boy]

anyone up for answering my last question?

thnkx.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Bona Fide
You came to the wrong place if you want an unbiased opinion.

Single-core Solution : AMD hands-down. No bias or anything, they are the best bang for the buck. Make sure you get a Socket 939 mobo and a Venice Core CPU.

Dual-core Solution : Depends on your price range. Intel is at the lower end of the price market, making them appealing to people who want dual-core but don't want to spend crazy amounts of money. AMD is at the other end, and their dual-cores are quite powerful, and equally expensive.

That was a pretty good answer until you consider cost of ownership.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/cpu/athlon64-x2-3800/cons.png

PentiumD 820 uses 66 more watts.

I pay 14 cents per Kwh

PentiumD 820 would cost me 66W * 24hr * 30days * 12 months = 570KWh/year 570 * 14 cents is $80 a year xtra easily paying for the 3800+ premium in it's first year alone!!!

Not to mention PentiumD "costs" he'll have to suffer like louder fan required to dissipate all that heat, slower than a three years old 2.6C in single threads, expensive motherboards and DDR2 ram.


No intel is'nt on the "lower end of the price market" as you say when all things are considered..X2 3800 is price wise and will beat it like a red headed step child performance wise.

 

[Hacp]

WTF did Intel discontinue the 2.4C and not introduce a prescott version for the 2.4C?

Also, If intel prices their 6xx line a little lower, like around the 140-150 dollar range for 3.0 GHZ, then the AMD price/performance advantage would go away. It is INTEL's choice not to price their processors lower, not AMD's. Intel currently has a monopoly, and doesn't care that its products are too expensive because the consumers will buy Intel just for INTEL INSIDE.

 

[Hacp]

Ow ya, Woody, just to answer your question. Back in the 2.4+GHZ Northwood days, Anandtech clearly showed who the winner was. Overclocking wise and performance wise, the Intel chips matched and beat the AMD chips. AMD def was killed when the 800MHZ FSB chips came out. But, AMD's chips were still cheaper and delivered on performance/price.

 

[Brian23]

Originally posted by: lepper boy
I have noticed on some of the 3200, 3500 ect.. it says, 1 ghz FSB.. others say integrated into chip..... so which one gives you the better performance?
d

Don't worry about FSB, it doesn't really exist on an Athlon 64. The number they give is the Hyper Transport speed. They're all the same. The reason some say the FSB is integrated is because of the memory controller being on the CPU.

All you need to know is that they're the same reguardless of what the ad says about the FSB.

 

[Furen]

Just ignore the FSB specs that stores give. A64s dont have a frontside bus in the traditional sense, and the hypertransport speed does not affect performance at all (except on multiprocessor systems).

 

[lepper boy]

are the x2 3800 out on the market someplace? I can't seem to find it at newegg or mwave.. or anyplace else. thinking that might be the one for me.. and I guess if I Can't find that one I'll go for a venice 3800..

d

 

[Hard Ball]

Originally posted by: lepper boy
are the x2 3800 out on the market someplace? I can't seem to find it at newegg or mwave.. or anyplace else. thinking that might be the one for me.. and I guess if I Can't find that one I'll go for a venice 3800..

d

They could be found at:
www.monarchcomputer.com