Print

[dman7]

I am thinking about upgradeing my computer and can't decide between a:

1). Pentium 4 2.4 GHZ with Northwood core, Hyperthreading, and a 800Mhz FSB
        or
2). Athlon 64 3000+ (2 Ghz and the FSB integretated into the chip) which is in the similar price.

 I'm not a gamer on the PC, I want speeds for applications and I want to be able to multitask with the least lag. Which processor would be better for this?

Thanks,
-Dman

This post has been edited by dman7: Dec 25 2004, 08:29 AM

[Altima NEO]

AMD is better for gaming, where as Intel chips have proven to work better with processor intensive tasks as video and audio editing.

If youre simply running office software and such, you really wont notice much of a difference no matter what you choose.

In the end, if you want the best load times, I would recommend using a RAID 0 setup up. Its what Im using on this machine, and Im telling you, its awesome to be able to install windows in 15 minutes.

[67thRaptorBull]

QUOTE(Altima NEO @ Dec 25 2004, 04:09 AM)

AMD is better for gaming, where as Intel chips have proven to work better with processor intensive tasks as video and audio editing.

If youre simply running office software and such, you really wont notice much of a difference no matter what you choose.

In the end, if you want the best load times, I would recommend using a RAID 0 setup up. Its what Im using on this machine, and Im telling you, its awesome to be able to install windows in 15 minutes.

yea, get either one, personally, i like AMD because they just feel like a better company to me (and the 3200 im using right now kicks ass in Far Cry)


but Altima, i hate to flame or anything, but installing windows has very little to do with the hdd as it does with a cd rom drive (the hdd can only store at the pace of a cd rom, and a cd rom is alot slower then a hdd)

with RAID 0. you cant judge its time by installing something off cd, you need to download a program (like sisoft) to do something like that

[EvilWays]

QUOTE(67thRaptorBull @ Dec 26 2004, 06:05 AM)

yea, get either one, personally, i like AMD because they just feel like a better company to me (and the 3200 im using right now kicks ass in Far Cry)
but Altima, i hate to flame or anything, but installing windows has very little to do with the hdd as it does with a cd rom drive (the hdd can only store at the pace of a cd rom, and a cd rom is alot slower then a hdd)

with RAID 0. you cant judge its time by installing something off cd, you need to download a program (like sisoft) to do something like that

Not to mention that with RAID 0, if one of the HDDs fail in the array, you're fucked as the whole array then needs to be rebuilt and you are S.O.L. until you do since you are then sitting with a worthless system in the meantime. RAID 0+1 is your friend in this case, though I prefer RAID 5 myself.

[jimmy_hendrix]

I think if ***Hendrix*** waz still alive, he would say AMD

[nemt]

Gaming is more dependent on your video card and Intels run much cooler than AMDs.

[enderandrew]

For a while AMD had heat issues.  I don't think that holds true today so much.

Intel would be better for applications however.

And installing Windows does depend on HDD speed to an extent.

[67thRaptorBull]

QUOTE(nemt @ Dec 26 2004, 11:30 AM)

Gaming is more dependent on your video card and Intels run much cooler than AMDs.

yea, but it helps to have the right processor


ive just come to like AMD since the last 3 computers i had were intel and they all sucked, but now the one i just built is heavenly  

[cromat44]

amds are better for gaming (unless you buy a crappy one)

intels are better for applications...


It's fact and can be proven by benchmarks (but im too lazy to look for em)

[SniperKilla]

(IMG:http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/doom3cpu_08020430812/3452.png)

enough said

look at the gap the 64 3000+ has over the 2.4.. its not even marginal.. its massive..

expect that to roll over to applications as well.. and once 64 bit apps come out.. intel who?

3000+ is going in my new pc

This post has been edited by SniperKilla: Dec 28 2004, 05:06 AM

[enderandrew]

I'm guessing the 2.4C means a 2.4 Celeron.  Those are slanted benchmarks.  Either way, AMDs win the gaming benchmarks, and Intel wins on most applications.  If this PC is for applications, than Intel is the way to go.

[67thRaptorBull]

QUOTE(SniperKilla @ Dec 27 2004, 11:04 PM)

(IMG:http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/doom3cpu_08020430812/3452.png)

enough said

look at the gap the 64 3000+ has over the 2.4.. its not even marginal.. its massive..

expect that to roll over to applications as well.. and once 64 bit apps come out.. intel who?

3000+ is going in my new pc

thanks  

[thepissedoffman]

QUOTE(enderandrew @ Dec 28 2004, 02:27 AM)

I'm guessing the 2.4C means a 2.4 Celeron.

You guessed wrong. The C P4's are Northwood core chips.

[thepissedoffman]

QUOTE(nemt @ Dec 26 2004, 11:30 AM)

Gaming is more dependent on your video card and Intels run much cooler than AMDs.

Read up on the Prescott core chips ( the latest P4's ). You will find that the Prescott P4's run hotter than the latest Athlon 64's.

This post has been edited by thepissedoffman: Dec 28 2004, 08:37 PM

[el_diablo]

ive got a amd athlon64 3500+ and im very happy with it (i was going to get a 3200+ but they were out of them)
only runs at 35 degress celcius.

but i have 4 fans in my case   two 80mm intakes one 80mm exhast and one 120mm exhast