Which CPU brand do you choose?

[schmeggin]

Problem with P4 Presscots is they run so hot. It gets to 40degreesC where I am and with the heat from the CPU and Southbridge, this is pretty close to the recommended limit.

AMD have a better design to get the same performance at lower clock speeds. I think having the memory-CPU link being more effective is part of how they achieve this.

P4 and AMD cost exactly the same in Australia.

 

[Praetor]

Anyway future processors will run at 128bits

True but thats not a very useful statement

Even more, so get the 64 bits and imrpove your 32bit programs

Got any documented proof of this? Even AMD isnt that bold to outright say that.

Problem with P4 Presscots is they run so hot

You should qualify that as P4E-Socket478s. The P4E-Socket775s run nice and cool

 

[schmeggin]

You should qualify that as P4E-Socket478s. The P4E-Socket775s run nice and cool

This mob think that the P4 775 3.6 can get pretty hot.
http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041114/index.html
The 3.8 has some features to keep it cool while idling though.

 

[Cromewell]

temp of P4Es in the 478 package vs temp of P4Es in the 775 at equal clockspeed = 775 running very cool

 

[Blade]

for my part, i like my P4...for the sheer fact that it doesnt run at 60 degrees as aposed to my athlon 2600+

 

[Praetor]

Youve not run a first generation prescott have ya?

 

[ecomp401]

The New Athlon 64-FX55 is Really fast, however i havnt seen a comparison for the 3.8Ghz P4 Prescott, and in laptops the AMD Athlon 64 LP is awsome, as you can see in an acer ferrari 3200 and 3400.

 

[mgoldb2]

The New Athlon 64-FX55 is Really fast, however i havnt seen a comparison for the 3.8Ghz P4 Prescott, and in laptops the AMD Athlon 64 LP is awsome, as you can see in an acer ferrari 3200 and 3400.

comparison of 3.8 p4 can be seen here

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20041115/pentium4_570-11.html

p4-570 stands for the new 3.8 p4.

 

[danny_e]

p4 sucks!!!

 

[Cromewell]

p4 sucks!!!

Way to bring rational discussion into this.
All those benchmarks on THG show is that sheer clock speed isn't the big performance boost people think it is. This and the heat issue of running a prescott at 4.0GHz is why Intel cancelled the chip. Yet you see the "sucky p4" posting the best video encoding times and best rendering time in 3dsmax. Not to mention the top score in 3dmark05 CPU benchmarks and the P4EEs do better than the FX55 in the graphics portion of 3dmark05

 

[ZER0X]

p4 sucks!!!

Give a descriptive reason why?

 

[Bobo]

p4 sucks!!!

Someone finally hit the nail on the head!!!

How fast is the AMD Athlon64 FX?

 

[Praetor]

p4 sucks!!!

Hmmmm... 10 years old .... 11 years old .... 12? :rollseyes:

Way to bring rational discussion into this.

12 year old ... rational-discussion .... nah realistically you and I know this is just a case of karol-syndrome

All those benchmarks on THG show is that sheer clock speed isn't the big performance boost people think it is. This and the heat issue of running a prescott at 4.0GHz is why Intel cancelled the chip. Yet you see the "sucky p4" posting the best video encoding times and best rendering time in 3dsmax. Not to mention the top score in 3dmark05 CPU benchmarks and the P4EEs do better than the FX55 in the graphics portion of 3dmark05

Indeedy ... I onder if anything will change when the A64 'E" and 'F' procs come out SSE3 or if 3dMark really is designed for a superscalar proc.....

Give a descriptive reason why?

Short of a copy-paste ... that's not gonna happen.

Someone finally hit the nail on the head!!!
How fast is the AMD Athlon64 FX?

1. Well we know you're not 12 at least (btw just because ur account is reactivated doesnt mean you can go on like before )
2. Again ... why does the P4 "suck"

 

[Bobo]

2. Again ... why does the P4 "suck"

Unefficient clocks

How come AMD doesn't do anything faster than 2.4GHz? bc the FX is better than the p4 3.8? Or is it?

I would say definitely it is....duh

But I don't understand how something that is only 2.4Ghz can be better than something that is 3.8GHz

Like I said, inefficiency

 

[Praetor]

Unefficient clocks

1. "Inefficient"
2. Care to elaborate? (or can?)
3. Inefficient clocks means nothing when you've got a zillion clocks to play with. Its the same dealy with GDDR3 -- the clocks there are inefficient but you dont see people running around complaing about GDDR3.
4. If it's so inefficient than why hasnt AMD, with its "super efficient chips" and on-die ultra low latency memory controllers userped the P4 in the multimedia/production section?

How come AMD doesn't do anything faster than 2.4GHz? bc the FX is better than the p4 3.8? Or is it?

1. They do. Helps the credibility if you do the reasearch beforehand (and also avoids the fanboy image)
2. Do you know the FX is better than the 3.8 or are you just reading what THG says and taking it for gospel?

I would say definitely it is....duh

Opinions are one thing and thats fine but fanboysim, that's another

But I don't understand how something that is only 2.4Ghz can be better than something that is 3.8GHz

1. It doesnt destroy the P4 hands down
2. You ever ride a bike? Think about gears
3. No.... no you dont. That was apparent.

But seriously, have a thought about my comment about the P4s owning the multimedia/production arena -- not to mention the architecture is far more scalable as well as the GDDR3 comment.

Like I said, inefficiency

Well not quite 'inefficiency'

 

[Cromewell]

Unefficient clocks

why are they inefficeint? They have completely different architectures. And if you want efficeincy why not get a RISC?

 

[4W4K3]

why are they inefficeint? They have completely different architectures. And if you want efficeincy why not get a RISC?

well comparing it to AMD's architecture it is alot less efficient, and that's why it gets a negative image from people who only look at it in that perspective. But then look at the benefits...its better with video editing and mulit-media apps, and it will generally run alot cooler than the AMD. So it's just a matter of what you need and what you can afford.

it's kinda like comparing a street racer to a SUV. The street car is faster and smaller (AMD/less clocks/more efficient). The SUV is alot larger and slower in speed, but the engine is designed for a different purpose (Intel/more clocks/less efficient). So the street car is of course the better buy yes? NO! If you live in the mountains, the streetcar will do horrible (Workuse/video editing). And if you are a racer, the SUV will not cut it(Gamer). I think that makes sense...lol.

 

[Praetor]

well comparing it to AMD's architecture it is alot less efficient

Yes but the same could be said about the Athlon64s being horribly inefficient compared to the Pentium3.

it's kinda like comparing a street racer to a SUV. The street car is faster and smaller (AMD/less clocks/more efficient). The SUV is alot larger and slower in speed, but the engine is designed for a different purpose (Intel/more clocks/less efficient). So the street car is of course the better buy yes? NO! If you live in the mountains, the streetcar will do horrible (Workuse/video editing). And if you are a racer, the SUV will not cut it(Gamer). I think that makes sense...lol

A superb analagy

 

[Cromewell]

So the street car is of course the better buy yes? NO! If you live in the mountains, the streetcar will do horrible (Workuse/video editing). And if you are a racer, the SUV will not cut it(Gamer).

what if I put a turbo charged engine w/NO2 injectors in my SUV?
I actually know the differences between the 2 and the so called efficeincies/inefficeincies of the architecture and was just being difficult but that is a good way to put it. And at least there is no fanboyism there, you realize the strengths and weaknesses of the 2 and admit it, none of this 'intel is crap' and 'amd is crap' crap

 

[Bobo]

OK, I don't know totally what I'm talking about, but the Intel is inefficient for what I do. I never bothered to look at it from a different point of view, bc I never used a cpu for multimedia...etc

So for multimedia, maybe Intel is better....but I don't care about that.

I'm just a kid, I'm learning as fast as I can.

What AMD CPU is faster than 2.4GHz? One site I saw said that the Athlon64 3500 was 2.65GHz, but another said it was 2.4GHz.