Print

[xbox_freak!!]

i dont know about u but im gonna be buying a p4 2.8C with hyperthreading along with 512mb of ram soon.......

[SKoT]

I have read many reviews of both, and for overclocking i would defiantely go with the AMD, but if ur not, go with the P4, but the AMD 64 is quite a bit better than the P4 3.2HT EE even

[hotboy041582]

I had pentinum computers, and sold all of them for amd's.  There faster and better in my opinion.  Go amd.

[i.stole.this.name]

IMO dont get anything over amd 2800+.

my second computer, which is running a 2500+ has a stock heatsink and was overclocked to 3200+ at an increase of 3 centigrade, meanwhile the 2500+ or even the 2800+ is LOADS cheaper

[i.stole.this.name]

QUOTE (SKoT @ Dec 12 2003, 01:38 AM)

I have read many reviews of both, and for overclocking i would defiantely go with the AMD, but if ur not, go with the P4, but the AMD 64 is quite a bit better than the P4 3.2HT EE even

3.2H/T EE is a joke, people are unaware that quantispeed architecture slaughters H/T and that EE is simply the addition of ten pins and 700 bux simply for a 3% increase in performance....

reminds me of the time some idiot was bragging about his way overclocked 2500+ and threatened to smoke this guy with dual optie 64's... now THAT is a price difference for a reason... the guy was burned down with his house and way overclocked pc

[Lil' J]

OK GRiFFBALL if your right i'm going with the p4 3ghz.

[pedro]

Dont buy the p4 just because it has a higher clock speed.  The amd may only run at 2. ghz but from reviews and other technical documents I have read it runs faster.  Clock speed isnt everything man

[SKoT]

QUOTE (i.stole.this.name @ Dec 13 2003, 11:39 AM)

QUOTE (SKoT @ Dec 12 2003, 01:38 AM) I have read many reviews of both, and for overclocking i would defiantely go with the AMD, but if ur not, go with the P4, but the AMD 64 is quite a bit better than the P4 3.2HT EE even 3.2H/T EE is a joke, people are unaware that quantispeed architecture slaughters H/T and that EE is simply the addition of ten pins and 700 bux simply for a 3% increase in performance.... reminds me of the time some idiot was bragging about his way overclocked 2500+ and threatened to smoke this guy with dual optie 64's... now THAT is a price difference for a reason... the guy was burned down with his house and way overclocked pc

yup thats wut i meant

[i.stole.this.name]

QUOTE (GRiFFBALL @ Dec 14 2003, 10:33 PM)

if you go amd i wouldnt bother with the 3200+ as it is only 100mhz faster than a 2400+.  i would get a barton core 2500+ or more but the 3200+is not much faster.  most people buy them because it is a bigger number and then they can brag, saying they got a 3.2 ghz pc. - not true as 2400+runs at 2.0 ghz and 3200+run at 2.1ghz.

I do believe you have no clue what ur talking about

the 2400+ runs on a Thouroughbred Core that is an entirely different architecture to Barton (2500, 2800, 3000, 3200)

firstly there is LESS on die cache making comparing their speeds like comparing apples and oranges; an Athlon 64 DT 2800+ runs at about 1600MHz, does that mean that a Barton 2800+ at 2083MHz Beats it? nope, you just cant compare different cores.

and while we're hovering on the topic the 3200+ is at 2201MHz, not 2100.

i guess what im trying to say is if you want a 3200+ u can just go for a 2500+ and o/c even using a stock heatsink, as i said previously

[i.stole.this.name]

[frozen lake]

QUOTE (i.stole.this.name @ Dec 16 2003, 01:23 PM)

lol yeah, but i hope u dont see me as one of these stubborn morons that just try to prove others wrong i was simply pointing out a mistake without trying to make it personal

sir yes sir

lol jk