Jump to content
Ghost Recon.net Forums

"P4 versus AMD 64" thread again


Recommended Posts

Which to get, that is the question.

P4 is 32-bit. AMD 64 is 64-bit. However, the numbers on the end of the AMD processors don't reflect it's power....Pentium4 3.2 runs at 3.2 (3200). AMD Athlon 3200 does not run at 3.2 (3200) [AFAIK, it runs at something like 2.16].

But I'm still confused....64-bit is twice as fast as 32-bit. So AMD 64 3200 runs twice as fast as a Pentium4 3.2? But I thought the AMD Athlon runs at 2.16 - does the AMD 64 run twice as fast as that (4.32)?

Bah, I dunno, I'm confused. Help me here. I need to know though, as I'll be getting me new rig soon....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would get a an AMD 64 given the choice... it's more future proof. And no, it doesn't run twice as fast. Go out and look for reviews. There are countless reviews out there that benchmark the two against each other.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't use the GHz as a guide. P4s have some "design flaws" so they pump up the speed to compensate, so AMD made their rating system so people could properly compare them. If you can afford definitely get the A64. 32bit chips won't be used much in a few years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
- .:Nightmare:.,May 13 2004, 22:42 ] But I'm still confused....64-bit is twice as fast as 32-bit. So AMD 64 3200 runs twice as fast as a Pentium4 3.2?

64-bit will definitely be faster than 32-bit, but not necessarily "twice at fast".

The reason you will not see a difference in running programs on a AMD64 vs P4 right now is that there are next to no mainstream 64-bit operating system/applications/games.

Once Windows for 64-bit extensions comes out (maybe at the end of the year) and hardware venders put out 64-bit drivers, we get 64-bit programs and games (like the next-gen Unreal), then you will see the difference.

Even though I tend to lean towards building Intel systems, I can say without hesitation that the AMD64 is more future-proof now. It runs current 32-bit programs great, and will run 64-bit in the future. :thumbsup:

AMD64 platforms have other advantages like HyperTransport, and on-CPU memory controller etc. Intel is currently playing catch up. :whistle:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Once Windows for 64-bit extensions comes out (maybe at the end of the year) and hardware venders put out 64-bit drivers, we get 64-bit programs and games (like the next-gen Unreal), then you will see the difference.

There's always the Microsoft XP 64bit free trialware up for grabs.

It's a beta (at best) but it's at least a first step. Some application issues so far, but it's a native 64bit version of XP.

Frankly, typical gains on the Athlon64 over the similar clocked P4's/AthlonXP's is about 30%. Good rates, but nothing compared to what's coming.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll stick with the AMD 64 then. I don't know many people that got the AMD 64 (infact, I don't know any). Maybe I'll be one of the first to get and AMD 64, I dunno.

Mobo for me new rig is Microstar K8T800 NEO by default. That one any good?

Man, I'm lovin' this new rig....so much free software with it....MS Works 7, MS Combat Flight Sim 2, Cyberlink Power DVD, Pinnacle Instant CD/DVD. I'm guessing some games will be bundled with the XFX GeForce FX 5900 (128MB DDR Ram) that I getting too.

"this model is unbeatable."

That's what they say about the rig I buying (it says it on their website).

Link to post
Share on other sites
- .:Nightmare:.,May 14 2004, 00:39 ] Man, I'm lovin' this new rig....so much free software with it....MS Works 7, MS Combat Flight Sim 2, Cyberlink Power DVD, Pinnacle Instant CD/DVD. I'm guessing some games will be bundled with the XFX GeForce FX 5900 (128MB DDR Ram) that I getting too.

That paragraph implies that you are. ;)

Good look with the new rig. I cant wait to upgrade mine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO AMD VS Intel = More debates and benchmarks. Most reported benchmarks show that the AMD 3200 64bit vs Intel 3.2 have pros and cons. Gaming software is running faster frames per second on AMD unless Intel Extreme Edition which is way over priced. Intel wins in Adobe photoshop and mpegs. The benchmarks prove one thing that neither can state that they are the fastest processor. Marketing schemes have pitted users into believe one over the other. IMHO a home user can't go wrong with either unless they have a stop watch by computer for every software calculation. RID the comparison of who is fastest because the human being will surpass wildest expections. I believe the consumer shouldn't buy into either but just make sure the companies put out a good product that satisyfy our needs rather than our ego's. Going to get out my stop watch because I use photoshop and I play games neither are more importanted than the other. I simply want what I pay for to run smoothly and fast. I believe Intel and AMD are capable of doing that without a hitch.

http://www6.tomshardware.com/cpu/20040106/...64_3400-35.html

as of January.

http://www.anandtech.com/cpu/showdoc.html?i=2056

last paragraph has a true message.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Errr..

irc, you'll only get advantage of a 64bit processor if you run software that is 64bit supported. Otherwise the processor just functions as a 32 processor with the same speed.

But a 32bit CPU can't run 64bit programs. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...