amd64 3500 or intel p4 3.4

[compfreak]

im stuck in this war between intel p4 3.4 ghz or amd64 3500 which should i buy i mostly use my pc for gaming but i want a allrounder plz help

 

[93glouden]

amd, so much better for games but intel are better for multi tasking

its kinda wot u want it for, u say gaming and all round performance, get an amd.

 

[4W4K3]

I'd go with the AMD as well, just because if you get the 3.4GHz and want 64bit OS when it comes out, you will have to sell the machine and get ANOTHER one. I think the AMD will be the better performer all around and is more "future proof" lol.

 

[Praetor]

Lets not forget the lesser-known EMT64 'sides its arguable that an Intel setup is far more futureproof... more more indepth support for PCIe (not to mention the nForce5) and DDR2 ... *drools over Kingston 866MHz DDR2*)

 

[4W4K3]

Lets not forget the lesser-known EMT64 'sides its arguable that an Intel setup is far more futureproof... more more indepth support for PCIe (not to mention the nForce5) and DDR2 ... *drools over Kingston 866MHz DDR2*)

i personally haven't been convinced of DDR2 as being that much better than DDR. The latencies are complete crap due to high MHz, and even though they don't really mean jack on newer systems i'd rather not run 4-4-4-8. but yah...just my opinion

 

[Cromewell]

the latencies are starting to drop on DDR2, not to mention at those speeds latency is like the decorative icing on the cake

 

[Praetor]

LOL @ Cromewell you and I both know we'll see people saying 4-4-4-8 for 866MHz ram is gonna be crap timings hehe

 

[4W4K3]

LOL @ Cromewell you and I both know we'll see people saying 4-4-4-8 for 866MHz ram is gonna be crap timings hehe

for someone who can't even run 500MHz RAM 4-4-4-8 IS crappy timings, but if i had a PC capable of running 866MHz RAM i'd see your point

 

[Praetor]

for someone who can't even run 500MHz RAM 4-4-4-8 IS crappy timings, but if i had a PC capable of running 866MHz RAM i'd see your point

Except with DDR2, 500MHz is piddly simple and 3-3-3-8 is more than possible (if you mean DDR, DDR500 is quite doable with aggressive timings)

I didnt mean you specifically by that comment but in general

 

[schmeggin]

Something to consider in the p4 550 vs AMD 64 3500+: will your motherboard scale up to dual core (next lot of CPUs)?

Intel says that the 915/925 chipset will not support dual core CPUs as they need to add some more arbitration logic between multiple CPU cores: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20050128032121.html

AMD is confident that their 939 platform will support dual core (http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/cpu/display/20050128024937.html), although they have also announced a new motherboard jump to socket M2.

Intel has always been my choice based on the apps that I run (using compression and multitasking) - but the AMD architecture will scale to dual core without many changes, so buying a socket 939 may allow a reasonable upgrade to dual core and give a couple more years' value.

Personally, I think AMD 64 3500+ with something like an nForce4 SLI board will be a great setup for most apps and should allow you to get a dual core processer when the are released in 2006.

 

[Cromewell]

they need to add some more arbitration logic between multiple CPU cores

that logic is in the CPU core not the northbridge. but it is still likely that it will only be supported on the 945/55 which would explain why Intel is supposedly planning on launching dual core cpus and the 945/55s at the same time

 

[4W4K3]

Except with DDR2, 500MHz is piddly simple and 3-3-3-8 is more than possible (if you mean DDR, DDR500 is quite doable with aggressive timings)

lol i meant my computer specifically, i've seen 660MHz on DDR lol (crazy Gskill stuff). Can't wait till i get my new PSU, so i can get past 466MHz...maybe 500MHz? i hope...