Pentium 4 3.06 -vs- AMD Athlon XP 3000+

[Taurus]

the most multitasking i do is burning a cd, installing a program, and looking at a website at the same time... and i think anything above 1ghz would handle that just fine. but that's just me.

and ever since computer's hit about 500mhz, office applications have ran plenty fast enough. the only reason i need 1.4ghz and higher (waiting for new mobo on it's way) is gaming. the computer game industry is what has pushed cpu speeds to where they're at now.

so, amd for me, please.

 

[Sazar]

see... amd and intel and mac (ibm init?) are all going their different routes...

they have the option of less work per clock cycle or more work per clock cycle... and in real world apps it does not matter...

I think @ this moment in time you have 2 sets of processors that are very well balanced when it comes to productivity... the top end cpu's are really similiar overall and in MANY tasks are too close to tell apart...

to each their own... really

 

[Friend of Bill]

One of each would be fine with me.

 

[Krux]

Originally posted by taurus
the most multitasking i do is burning a cd, installing a program, and looking at a website at the same time... and i think anything above 1ghz would handle that just fine. but that's just me.

and ever since computer's hit about 500mhz, office applications have ran plenty fast enough. the only reason i need 1.4ghz and higher (waiting for new mobo on it's way) is gaming. the computer game industry is what has pushed cpu speeds to where they're at now.

so, amd for me, please.

gaming didn't push cpu's to where they are now, look at console xbox has what? a 700mhz cpu and the ps2 with 500 and the dreamcast with 300 or something like that? and its pushing way more polys then any computer games are. its about optimization and computer games just don't have it. and yes I know a FEW games can but u need insane amounts of speed and power to push games like that smoothly.

 

[Geffy]

Personally I dont think I need that speed (not yet anyways)

But until Intel start lowering their prices in comparison to AMD then I will get AMD

 

[Sazar]

Originally posted by Krux
gaming didn't push cpu's to where they are now, look at console xbox has what? a 700mhz cpu and the ps2 with 500 and the dreamcast with 300 or something like that? and its pushing way more polys then any computer games are. its about optimization and computer games just don't have it. and yes I know a FEW games can but u need insane amounts of speed and power to push games like that smoothly.

you cannot compare a console with a pc in terms of raw gaming powerr...

overall the pc is much more powerful... but the fact that game developers know exactly what the console can do makes it that much easier for them to code... they do not have to take into account the various resolutions et al that one can play on a pc v/s a single setup for a console... hence consoles APPEAR smoother...

but believe me when I tell you... play anythin @ max res with a top of the line card (say all LOD high and max 1600x1200 res on) and you will smack the pants of most console games...

 

[Un4gIvEn1]

Yeah... comparing consoles to PCs... two totally different worlds.

You could gather 100 people and gather the specs from their systems and I guarantee that not one of them will be the exact same. PC games have to take into account the many different hardware configurations. Also, PCs have standards... These standards stand in the way when it comes to optimizing PC gaming. Consoles are made to ONLY play games. Consoles are "reinventions" of PCs to run games only. They are optimized for graphics and AI and everything else that is required.

As far as the original argument... Which chip would I want? I would go AMD. My reasons? Intel jacks up their prices (Dollar for dollar, AMD is a better choice) Do you think that Intel would be where they are if AMD didn't exist? AMD pushes Intel and vise-versa. (Only if MS had some to push them... ) Games don't drive the CPU industry, competition does. I went with the K6-2 chips because of price, Athlons are what made me a true AMD fan. Until Intel blows my mind, I will stick with AMD. Not to say that Intel doesn't make a good chip, just that I have found my "comfort zone" and it will take a lot to ge me out of it.

I would love to see VIA (Cyrix) back in the mix. Could you imagine what 3 competators would do for the industry? I know half of you are probably rolling your eyes to that one.

To each his/her own...

 

[Kush]

hehe

Originally posted by NetRyder
Apple is also a strong proponent of the idea that clock speeds don't matter (somewhat like AMD) ... the "Megahertz Myth" is what Apple calls it.

I believe amd also calls it that too

 

[Kush]

Originally posted by Krux
gaming didn't push cpu's to where they are now, look at console xbox has what? a 700mhz cpu and the ps2 with 500 and the dreamcast with 300 or something like that? and its pushing way more polys then any computer games are. its about optimization and computer games just don't have it. and yes I know a FEW games can but u need insane amounts of speed and power to push games like that smoothly.

as many have replyed that is true u cant compare a pc and a console thats just stupid. first of all, for a pc there is many operatiing systems which are different when installed on every computer, i defentally know that its basically impossibe to have the same files with all same on different pc's also a pc u get to run what you want.

where as a console has specific commands and only has one job to run a game, therefore it doesnt need fast processors. also as many have said the hardware is all the same in consoles which they know the games will work with all (eg) Ps2's in the world cuz they made it to work on a ps2, where as on a pc they make it to run on the standards (eg) direct x 8 or 9 which some systems simply dont do from all the different hardware and software installed.

 

[BonyTony]

Which Cpu would i like to own ?....Well either of them to be honest (come on a 3gig chip i wish) i swapped from Intel~Amd then back to Intel again the only reason being it was most suitable at the time...when the 3 gig chips come down a little more whichever Brand offers a good balance of power and stabilty with a good motherboard to match i buy,and that is the only reason.

Who cares about a few hundred points in 3d mark betwen chips if i want more fps i will buy a newer and better Video card when i feel like it....the current top cards can run any game maxed out on the resolution i require.

All i care about is that Intel has the competition snapping at its heels which keeps both parties on their toes !.

I hope Amd do not go the way Cryix went as i would not like Intel to have a monopoly on Cpu`s.

 

[Krux]

that wasn't my point people I wasn't even trying to compare them I was just saying that gaming didn't push cpu's to where they are since most gamers are console gamers and are running on specs from about 2 1/2 3 years ago that look better then pc games. xbox doesn't need a 3ghz cpu to push really nice looking games yet a computer does was my point

 

[Goatman]

well... to tell you the truth, most PC games going back 2 yrs have a higher poly count, and better textures, than Xbox's newest games. Xbox cheats, they don't use Polys, they use Bump Mapping.

 

[Taurus]

Originally posted by Krux
that wasn't my point people I wasn't even trying to compare them I was just saying that gaming didn't push cpu's to where they are since most gamers are console gamers and are running on specs from about 2 1/2 3 years ago that look better then pc games. xbox doesn't need a 3ghz cpu to push really nice looking games yet a computer does was my point

i'm just saying that the 3ghz chip wouldn't currently exist if pc gaming didn't exist. that's all.

 

[Sazar]

Originally posted by Goatman
well... to tell you the truth, most PC games going back 2 yrs have a higher poly count, and better textures, than Xbox's newest games. Xbox cheats, they don't use Polys, they use Bump Mapping.

basically for goatman and krux...

you cannot compare the performance on a console with that of a pc... for reasons stated previously in the thread..

also the xbox does push polygons... but the gpu it has running is for all intents and purposes a gf3... therefore a dx8 compatible gpu... bump-mapping is part of the dx7 standard...

xbox actually seems to be using AA and/or FSAA to give smoother visuals/less jaggies... and since programmers know exactly what they are programming for... it makes their job easier...

now... IF intel had chosen to go the route amd and ibm/apple are taking.. they would also be around the 2-2.5 ghz mark rather than 3-3.2 they are at right now... the only reason intel pushes higher clock speeds is because of the path they have taken i.e more clocks/less work per clock...

overall the work done does not exceed that of amd's processors or ibm/apple's cpu's either... but it does have far higher mhz...

 

[mbunny]

You also have to remember that an XBox is purely built from the ground up as gaming console. They are not going to optimise the chip for office software now are they.

The other thing to note, your TV screen has a paltry resolution of 800x600.

A GeForce2 GTS could render Halo decently at that screen res =P

Newayz,

I have a Radeon 9700 Pro because it was free (yes... i'm going to say no when someone buys it for you as a present)

And i have a 2100+ because that too was free. FYI i had a Athlon T-Bird 1.4ghz prior to this.

I didn't need the 2100+ but it was a welcome addition to my PC =)

Btw, for your point about video editting. How many of these benches test video editting?

They all test MIPS and Office. I don't see them DivXing a movie and timing it.

 

[NetRyder]

Originally posted by mbunny
I have a Radeon 9700 Pro because it was free (yes... i'm going to say no when someone buys it for you as a present)

And i have a 2100+ because that too was free.

You are one very lucky man

 

[mbunny]

Hey... u can't pick your relatives... luckily i got some great ones hahahaha

i only had to splurge on a A7V8X (which i now regret... i want the A7N8X now).

 

[Geffy]

Originally posted by mbunny
Hey... u can't pick your relatives... luckily i got some great ones hahahaha

i only had to splurge on a A7V8X (which i now regret... i want the A7N8X now).

the n8x is a nice mobo

 

[Taurus]

Originally posted by mbunny
The other thing to note, your TV screen has a paltry resolution of 800x600.

even worse... 640x480. all standard tv's display at 480i (480 lines vertically, interlaced). not to mention consoles only need to display at 50fps. some games do half that.

 

[mbunny]

HAHAHA

forgot about you poor people using NTSC =P

I'm using PAL. 800x600 with PAL. 640x480 for NTSC with a dodgy interlacing system.