1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

What processor for system build?

Discussion in 'AMD Overclocking' started by MS, Jul 28, 2004.

  1. MS

    MS Guest

    Hi,

    Having done a bit of research, looked at what my supplier (who will do the
    actual system build) have available, and decided on my price range, I've
    narrowed down my choice of CPUs to the following 5:

    AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Barton OEM (400Mhz FSB) (£90.16)
    AMD Athlon64 3000 64bit 754Pin CPU (£126.02)
    Intel Pentium 4 Northwood 2.8C Ghz 800Mhz (£108.32)
    Intel Pentium 4 2.8E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£114.40)
    Intel Pentium 4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£130.43)

    I have very little idea what the various merits are, the motherboard will
    be chosen when the chip has been decided on and I'll be buying 1 GB
    memory, along with a 200-250GB hard disk. I may do some mild CPU
    overclocking. The OS will be XP Pro. The most processor 'intensive tasks'
    will involve using video software.

    It's tempting to assume the most expensive CPUs are the best but this is
    not always true. Of my choices the 2 most expensive are almost the same price:

    AMD Athlon64 3000 64bit 754Pin CPU (£126.02)
    Intel Pentium 4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£130.43)

    Which is better? What dis/ad-vantages would I get from the 64bit AMD
    Athalon, and will my choice in motherboard be limited cos of its 64bit
    architecture (and would compatible motherboards be very expensive?)?

    Any help making this tricky decision would be most appreciated.

    Thanks and regards,

    MS
    MS, Jul 28, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. MS

    patrick Guest

    MS wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > Having done a bit of research, looked at what my supplier (who will do
    > the actual system build) have available, and decided on my price range,
    > I've narrowed down my choice of CPUs to the following 5:
    >
    > AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Barton OEM (400Mhz FSB) (£90.16)
    > AMD Athlon64 3000 64bit 754Pin CPU (£126.02)
    > Intel Pentium 4 Northwood 2.8C Ghz 800Mhz (£108.32)
    > Intel Pentium 4 2.8E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£114.40)
    > Intel Pentium 4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£130.43)
    >
    > I have very little idea what the various merits are, the motherboard
    > will be chosen when the chip has been decided on and I'll be buying 1 GB
    > memory, along with a 200-250GB hard disk. I may do some mild CPU
    > overclocking. The OS will be XP Pro. The most processor 'intensive
    > tasks' will involve using video software.
    >
    > It's tempting to assume the most expensive CPUs are the best but this is
    > not always true. Of my choices the 2 most expensive are almost the same
    > price:
    >
    > AMD Athlon64 3000 64bit 754Pin CPU (£126.02)
    > Intel Pentium 4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£130.43)
    >
    > Which is better? What dis/ad-vantages would I get from the 64bit AMD
    > Athalon, and will my choice in motherboard be limited cos of its 64bit
    > architecture (and would compatible motherboards be very expensive?)?
    >
    > Any help making this tricky decision would be most appreciated.
    >
    > Thanks and regards,
    >
    > MS

    Gaming? AMD might be best.
    Graphics? AMD is the choice.

    Database Mgmt? Server? Perhaps the P4.

    I run 2 systems with XP, one with ME, and another 25 with GNU/Linux.
    9 of my systems are dual Pentium II/III. One is a Celeron 1.1Ghz
    Compaq. The rest are AMD up to the AMD 2000+. I don't see any
    difference in ymy file serving, other than that the GNU/Linux systems
    are definitely best for network services, mail, filesharing!

    The 64 bit processors can run the 32bit OSes? What software is
    available? Yes, it permits access to 16Gb of RAM. I have yet to use
    more than 512Mb! 32bit processors can access up to 4 GB of RAM.

    I don't see any immediate urgency for home users to switch over to 64bit
    processors. I am still waiting for the applications.

    BUT, when I do get a 64bit system, it will use the mature GNU/Linux
    64bit OS!
    patrick, Jul 28, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. MS

    Dave C. Guest

    >
    > AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Barton OEM (400Mhz FSB) (£90.16)
    > AMD Athlon64 3000 64bit 754Pin CPU (£126.02)
    > Intel Pentium 4 Northwood 2.8C Ghz 800Mhz (£108.32)
    > Intel Pentium 4 2.8E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£114.40)
    > Intel Pentium 4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£130.43)
    >
    > I have very little idea what the various merits are, the motherboard will
    > be chosen when the chip has been decided on and I'll be buying 1 GB
    > memory, along with a 200-250GB hard disk. I may do some mild CPU
    > overclocking. The OS will be XP Pro. The most processor 'intensive tasks'
    > will involve using video software.


    OK, you can rule out the Athlon XP (somewhat under-powered for video
    software, compared to the others) and the Athlon64 (mainboards are much more
    expensive for very little performance gain at the 3000 level). ANY of the
    three P4 processors you listed would work GREAT!!! I'm a huge AMD fan and
    normally try to steer away from Intel, but for what you want to do, the
    three P4 processors will offer you overall best bang-for-buck AT THE MOMENT
    when cost of motherboard is factored into the equation. You should look at
    the amount of cache on each of the three P4 processors, and choose one with
    1M of level 2 cache, if possible. Please don't overclock your processor.
    You won't notice a significant difference in performance, and you will
    shorten the expected lifespan of your entire system. If you need a faster
    system, buy it. -Dave
    Dave C., Jul 28, 2004
    #3
  4. MS

    Hamman Guest

    "MS" <matthews@mailsnare.---nojunktakeout---.net> wrote in message
    news:4107BBE3.1020407@mailsnare.---nojunktakeout---.net...
    > Hi,
    >
    > Having done a bit of research, looked at what my supplier (who will do the
    > actual system build) have available, and decided on my price range, I've
    > narrowed down my choice of CPUs to the following 5:
    >
    > AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Barton OEM (400Mhz FSB) (£90.16)
    > AMD Athlon64 3000 64bit 754Pin CPU (£126.02)
    > Intel Pentium 4 Northwood 2.8C Ghz 800Mhz (£108.32)
    > Intel Pentium 4 2.8E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£114.40)
    > Intel Pentium 4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£130.43)
    >
    > I have very little idea what the various merits are, the motherboard will
    > be chosen when the chip has been decided on and I'll be buying 1 GB
    > memory, along with a 200-250GB hard disk. I may do some mild CPU
    > overclocking. The OS will be XP Pro. The most processor 'intensive tasks'
    > will involve using video software.
    >
    > It's tempting to assume the most expensive CPUs are the best but this is
    > not always true. Of my choices the 2 most expensive are almost the same

    price:
    >
    > AMD Athlon64 3000 64bit 754Pin CPU (£126.02)
    > Intel Pentium 4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£130.43)
    >
    > Which is better? What dis/ad-vantages would I get from the 64bit AMD
    > Athalon, and will my choice in motherboard be limited cos of its 64bit
    > architecture (and would compatible motherboards be very expensive?)?
    >
    > Any help making this tricky decision would be most appreciated.
    >
    > Thanks and regards,
    >
    > MS


    Well i would rule out the two P4E cores straight away, too many heat
    problems from what i've heard.

    The A64 platform is changing to the socket 939 (?) soon, so you could wait
    for the first of those.

    So that basically leaves us between the P4C 2.8 and the AthXP. If the system
    is for anything other than media encoding (video editing etc) or heavy
    database work (servers, SQL etc) then get the P4C; otherwise i would go for
    the AthXP 3200+.

    If you do get an AthXP, go for the nForce2 chipset (ultra if you can afford
    it) and match it with a good quality PC3200 or higher ram. Something.

    Something to note is that the mobile 2500+'s are clocking way above the
    3200+ mark, and cost a fair bit less. Have a look on www.overclockers.co.uk
    for mobile chips.

    hamman
    Hamman, Jul 28, 2004
    #4
  5. MS

    MS Guest

    patrick wrote:
    > MS wrote:
    >
    >> Hi,
    >>
    >> Having done a bit of research, looked at what my supplier (who will do
    >> the actual system build) have available, and decided on my price
    >> range, I've narrowed down my choice of CPUs to the following 5:
    >>
    >> AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Barton OEM (400Mhz FSB) (£90.16)
    >> AMD Athlon64 3000 64bit 754Pin CPU (£126.02)
    >> Intel Pentium 4 Northwood 2.8C Ghz 800Mhz (£108.32)
    >> Intel Pentium 4 2.8E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£114.40)
    >> Intel Pentium 4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£130.43)
    >>
    >> I have very little idea what the various merits are, the motherboard
    >> will be chosen when the chip has been decided on and I'll be buying 1
    >> GB memory, along with a 200-250GB hard disk. I may do some mild CPU
    >> overclocking. The OS will be XP Pro. The most processor 'intensive
    >> tasks' will involve using video software.
    >>
    >> It's tempting to assume the most expensive CPUs are the best but this
    >> is not always true. Of my choices the 2 most expensive are almost the
    >> same price:
    >>
    >> AMD Athlon64 3000 64bit 754Pin CPU (£126.02)
    >> Intel Pentium 4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£130.43)
    >>
    >> Which is better? What dis/ad-vantages would I get from the 64bit AMD
    >> Athalon, and will my choice in motherboard be limited cos of its 64bit
    >> architecture (and would compatible motherboards be very expensive?)?
    >>
    >> Any help making this tricky decision would be most appreciated.
    >>
    >> Thanks and regards,
    >>
    >> MS

    >
    > Gaming? AMD might be best.
    > Graphics? AMD is the choice.
    >
    > Database Mgmt? Server? Perhaps the P4.
    >
    > I run 2 systems with XP, one with ME, and another 25 with GNU/Linux.
    > 9 of my systems are dual Pentium II/III. One is a Celeron 1.1Ghz
    > Compaq. The rest are AMD up to the AMD 2000+. I don't see any
    > difference in ymy file serving, other than that the GNU/Linux systems
    > are definitely best for network services, mail, filesharing!
    >
    > The 64 bit processors can run the 32bit OSes? What software is
    > available? Yes, it permits access to 16Gb of RAM. I have yet to use
    > more than 512Mb! 32bit processors can access up to 4 GB of RAM.
    >
    > I don't see any immediate urgency for home users to switch over to 64bit
    > processors. I am still waiting for the applications.
    >
    > BUT, when I do get a 64bit system, it will use the mature GNU/Linux
    > 64bit OS!


    Thanks Patrick. --I'm a little confused as to which AMD is best for
    graphics (you wrote "Graphics? AMD is the choice") and when you say
    graphics does this include video manipulation, conversion, and editing?
    You imply the AMD 64 bit won't run with a 32 bit OS (I will be running XP
    Pro, which is a 32 bit OS), so I can forget the 64bit AMD CPU. Does this
    mean you think the AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Barton would be best for me -- it
    is the cheapest on my list at £90 -- will it outperform the Intel Pentium
    4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor which at £130.43 is almost 50percent
    more expensive?

    Cheers,

    MS
    MS, Jul 28, 2004
    #5
  6. MS

    FSAA Guest

    "MS" <matthews@mailsnare.---nojunktakeout---.net> wrote in message
    news:4107BBE3.1020407@mailsnare.---nojunktakeout---.net...
    > Hi,
    >
    > Having done a bit of research, looked at what my supplier (who will do the
    > actual system build) have available, and decided on my price range, I've
    > narrowed down my choice of CPUs to the following 5:
    >
    > AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Barton OEM (400Mhz FSB) (£90.16)
    > AMD Athlon64 3000 64bit 754Pin CPU (£126.02)
    > Intel Pentium 4 Northwood 2.8C Ghz 800Mhz (£108.32)
    > Intel Pentium 4 2.8E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£114.40)
    > Intel Pentium 4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£130.43)
    >
    > I have very little idea what the various merits are, the motherboard will
    > be chosen when the chip has been decided on and I'll be buying 1 GB
    > memory, along with a 200-250GB hard disk. I may do some mild CPU
    > overclocking. The OS will be XP Pro. The most processor 'intensive tasks'
    > will involve using video software.
    >
    > It's tempting to assume the most expensive CPUs are the best but this is
    > not always true. Of my choices the 2 most expensive are almost the same

    price:
    >
    > AMD Athlon64 3000 64bit 754Pin CPU (£126.02)
    > Intel Pentium 4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£130.43)
    >
    > Which is better? What dis/ad-vantages would I get from the 64bit AMD
    > Athalon, and will my choice in motherboard be limited cos of its 64bit
    > architecture (and would compatible motherboards be very expensive?)?
    >
    > Any help making this tricky decision would be most appreciated.
    >
    > Thanks and regards,
    >
    > MS


    I don't think it is a good time to buy a new system (New memory DDR2, AGP to
    PCI express change, Socket T problems, Prescott mini thermal meltdown etc
    etc)

    But if you are doing video encoding, you can throw the Athlon XP out of the
    consideration (too slow), I would go with a Pentium 4C (Northwood) rather
    than a Prescott (P4e) (P4c runs cooler, but they are end of line product),
    will you be getting the Prescott in Socket T format? I will try to avoid
    those for a while until the dust settle.

    The A64 sounds OK, I think they are still slower in Video encoding than the
    P4 but they are still way faster than the Athlon XPs. But again you have to
    choose from 2 different sockets again. And they don't support PCI express
    yet.

    The mobos are not expensive, but it decides what type of RAM, gfx cards etc
    etc you can use. At this stage if I am forced to get a new system I would go
    with the soon to arrived Socket 939 Athlon 64 systems
    I personally would wait a few months until the Socket 939 or Socket T get
    mature enough first. At this point in time we are in the middle of
    discarding the old platforms (Athlon XP, Pentium 4c Northwood) while the new
    platforms are problematic

    FSAA
    FSAA, Jul 28, 2004
    #6
  7. MS

    FSAA Guest

    "MS" <matthews@mailsnare.---nojunktakeout---.net> wrote in message
    news:G6QNc.10122$...
    > patrick wrote:
    > > MS wrote:
    > >
    > >> Hi,
    > >>
    > >> Having done a bit of research, looked at what my supplier (who will do
    > >> the actual system build) have available, and decided on my price
    > >> range, I've narrowed down my choice of CPUs to the following 5:
    > >>
    > >> AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Barton OEM (400Mhz FSB) (£90.16)
    > >> AMD Athlon64 3000 64bit 754Pin CPU (£126.02)
    > >> Intel Pentium 4 Northwood 2.8C Ghz 800Mhz (£108.32)
    > >> Intel Pentium 4 2.8E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£114.40)
    > >> Intel Pentium 4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£130.43)
    > >>
    > >> I have very little idea what the various merits are, the motherboard
    > >> will be chosen when the chip has been decided on and I'll be buying 1
    > >> GB memory, along with a 200-250GB hard disk. I may do some mild CPU
    > >> overclocking. The OS will be XP Pro. The most processor 'intensive
    > >> tasks' will involve using video software.
    > >>
    > >> It's tempting to assume the most expensive CPUs are the best but this
    > >> is not always true. Of my choices the 2 most expensive are almost the
    > >> same price:
    > >>
    > >> AMD Athlon64 3000 64bit 754Pin CPU (£126.02)
    > >> Intel Pentium 4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£130.43)
    > >>
    > >> Which is better? What dis/ad-vantages would I get from the 64bit AMD
    > >> Athalon, and will my choice in motherboard be limited cos of its 64bit
    > >> architecture (and would compatible motherboards be very expensive?)?
    > >>
    > >> Any help making this tricky decision would be most appreciated.
    > >>
    > >> Thanks and regards,
    > >>
    > >> MS

    > >
    > > Gaming? AMD might be best.
    > > Graphics? AMD is the choice.
    > >
    > > Database Mgmt? Server? Perhaps the P4.
    > >
    > > I run 2 systems with XP, one with ME, and another 25 with GNU/Linux.
    > > 9 of my systems are dual Pentium II/III. One is a Celeron 1.1Ghz
    > > Compaq. The rest are AMD up to the AMD 2000+. I don't see any
    > > difference in ymy file serving, other than that the GNU/Linux systems
    > > are definitely best for network services, mail, filesharing!
    > >
    > > The 64 bit processors can run the 32bit OSes? What software is
    > > available? Yes, it permits access to 16Gb of RAM. I have yet to use
    > > more than 512Mb! 32bit processors can access up to 4 GB of RAM.
    > >
    > > I don't see any immediate urgency for home users to switch over to 64bit
    > > processors. I am still waiting for the applications.
    > >
    > > BUT, when I do get a 64bit system, it will use the mature GNU/Linux
    > > 64bit OS!

    >
    > Thanks Patrick. --I'm a little confused as to which AMD is best for
    > graphics (you wrote "Graphics? AMD is the choice") and when you say
    > graphics does this include video manipulation, conversion, and editing?
    > You imply the AMD 64 bit won't run with a 32 bit OS (I will be running XP
    > Pro, which is a 32 bit OS), so I can forget the 64bit AMD CPU. Does this
    > mean you think the AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Barton would be best for me -- it
    > is the cheapest on my list at £90 -- will it outperform the Intel Pentium
    > 4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor which at £130.43 is almost 50percent
    > more expensive?
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > MS


    The Athlon XP 3200 won't outrun the P4e 3.0 in video editing (in fact a lot
    slower)

    I think what he was saying is it is not a good time to buy yet, (see my
    other post), so if your current system can serve you for a few more months,
    then hang on to it first
    FSAA, Jul 28, 2004
    #7
  8. MS

    JK Guest

    patrick wrote:

    > MS wrote:
    > > Hi,
    > >
    > > Having done a bit of research, looked at what my supplier (who will do
    > > the actual system build) have available, and decided on my price range,
    > > I've narrowed down my choice of CPUs to the following 5:
    > >
    > > AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Barton OEM (400Mhz FSB) (£90.16)
    > > AMD Athlon64 3000 64bit 754Pin CPU (£126.02)
    > > Intel Pentium 4 Northwood 2.8C Ghz 800Mhz (£108.32)
    > > Intel Pentium 4 2.8E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£114.40)
    > > Intel Pentium 4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£130.43)
    > >
    > > I have very little idea what the various merits are, the motherboard
    > > will be chosen when the chip has been decided on and I'll be buying 1 GB
    > > memory, along with a 200-250GB hard disk. I may do some mild CPU
    > > overclocking. The OS will be XP Pro. The most processor 'intensive
    > > tasks' will involve using video software.
    > >
    > > It's tempting to assume the most expensive CPUs are the best but this is
    > > not always true. Of my choices the 2 most expensive are almost the same
    > > price:
    > >
    > > AMD Athlon64 3000 64bit 754Pin CPU (£126.02)
    > > Intel Pentium 4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£130.43)
    > >
    > > Which is better? What dis/ad-vantages would I get from the 64bit AMD
    > > Athalon, and will my choice in motherboard be limited cos of its 64bit
    > > architecture (and would compatible motherboards be very expensive?)?
    > >
    > > Any help making this tricky decision would be most appreciated.
    > >
    > > Thanks and regards,
    > >
    > > MS

    > Gaming? AMD might be best.
    > Graphics? AMD is the choice.
    >
    > Database Mgmt? Server? Perhaps the P4.
    >
    > I run 2 systems with XP, one with ME, and another 25 with GNU/Linux.
    > 9 of my systems are dual Pentium II/III. One is a Celeron 1.1Ghz
    > Compaq. The rest are AMD up to the AMD 2000+. I don't see any
    > difference in ymy file serving, other than that the GNU/Linux systems
    > are definitely best for network services, mail, filesharing!
    >
    > The 64 bit processors can run the 32bit OSes? What software is
    > available? Yes, it permits access to 16Gb of RAM. I have yet to use
    > more than 512Mb! 32bit processors can access up to 4 GB of RAM.
    >
    > I don't see any immediate urgency for home users to switch over to 64bit
    > processors.


    The Athlon 64 has SSE2 and an on chip memory controller. For those
    reasons, plus a few other improvements on the already great performing
    Athlon XP, the Athlon 64 is superb even with a 32 bit OS and 32 bit
    applications!

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=1

    > I am still waiting for the applications.
    >
    > BUT, when I do get a 64bit system, it will use the mature GNU/Linux
    > 64bit OS!
    JK, Jul 28, 2004
    #8
  9. MS

    MS Guest

    Now I am confused!

    2 'informative' responses from Dave C and Hamman apparently saying the
    exact opposite of each other.

    Dave C says to rule out the Athlon XP for video software and to go for one
    of the P4 CPUs preferably one with 1M of L2 cache, which this one has
    'Intel Pentium 4 2.8E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor' (the 3.0E Ghz version
    of this processor also has 1ML2 but is OEM not retail boxed so doesn't
    come with all the usual extras, heatsinks, etc, accordingly I'm ruling it
    out, unless someone tells me a good reason not to).

    Hamman says to rule out the P4E cores (the 2 Dave suggests) straight away
    as they have 'too many heat problems from what i've heard'. He suggests
    the P4C if NOT doing media encoding, etc. (which I will be doing a lot of)
    and if doing this then to go for the AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Barton preferably
    with a nForce2 chipset on the motherboard and with PC3200 or higher ram.
    BUT the Athlon XP is the CPU that Dave C rules out immediately for video
    editing!

    Both guys sound like they know what they're talking about but they are
    saying the exact opposite of each other!!

    !!!HELP!!!. ;-)

    Thanks,

    MS
    MS, Jul 28, 2004
    #9
  10. MS

    Dave C. Guest

    ">
    > Dave C says to rule out the Athlon XP for video software and to go for one
    > of the P4 CPUs preferably one with 1M of L2 cache, which this one has
    > 'Intel Pentium 4 2.8E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor' (the 3.0E Ghz version
    > of this processor also has 1ML2 but is OEM not retail boxed so doesn't
    > come with all the usual extras, heatsinks, etc, accordingly I'm ruling it
    > out, unless someone tells me a good reason not to).
    >
    > Hamman says to rule out the P4E cores (the 2 Dave suggests) straight away
    > as they have 'too many heat problems from what i've heard'. He suggests
    > the P4C if NOT doing media encoding, etc. (which I will be doing a lot of)
    > and if doing this then to go for the AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Barton preferably
    > with a nForce2 chipset on the motherboard and with PC3200 or higher ram.
    > BUT the Athlon XP is the CPU that Dave C rules out immediately for video
    > editing!
    >


    The P4 is slightly faster for video editing. Other than that, the two
    companies (amd/intel) are virtually tied, as far as performance at same
    speed/performance rating goes. That doesn't mean you can't do video editing
    with AMD. But as I posted before, the Athlon XP is a little slow compared
    to the others and the mainboards for the Athlon 64s are too expensive to
    justify for the minor increase in performance over the P4 processors. (at
    the moment, at least)

    It is TRUE that the P4 Prescotts processors are harder to cool, but that is
    not a problem. Just buy the OEM processor and put a good aftermarket cooler
    (preferably all copper) on it. This doesn't even have to be expensive. I
    put a Prescott processor (OEM) in an SFF case with an all-copper HSF that I
    paid about ten bucks for (Speeze brand, from Newegg). It stays between
    39-43C under load in a case that is NOT well ventilated. So heat doesn't
    HAVE to be a problem with the Prescott. Just get the right cooler for it.

    For what you want to do, any of the five processors you originally listed
    would work. But if you are looking for the best bang-for-buck right NOW, a
    P4 with 1M cache is IT, because the motherboards for it are cheap. But then
    again, if you can afford an athlon64 mainboard, that is a good choice also.
    So it's a tough decision, and I'm not surprised you are getting conflicting
    answers. -Dave
    Dave C., Jul 28, 2004
    #10
  11. MS

    Dave C. Guest

    >
    > The Athlon 64 has SSE2 and an on chip memory controller. For those
    > reasons, plus a few other improvements on the already great performing
    > Athlon XP, the Athlon 64 is superb even with a 32 bit OS and 32 bit
    > applications!
    >


    Agreed. But have you priced the mainboards for those puppies? I have.
    It's a little faster than P4, but you need to pay about twice as much for
    the mainboard. Not worth it, IMHO. Not at the moment, anyway. -Dave
    Dave C., Jul 28, 2004
    #11
  12. MS

    JK Guest

    Motherboards for an Athlon 64 are a bit more than for an Athlon XP.
    If you check www.pricewatch.com, you can find a number of
    Athlon 64 3000+ combos with cpu, motherboard and heatsink
    for around $275 or so.

    "Dave C." wrote:

    > >
    > > The Athlon 64 has SSE2 and an on chip memory controller. For those
    > > reasons, plus a few other improvements on the already great performing
    > > Athlon XP, the Athlon 64 is superb even with a 32 bit OS and 32 bit
    > > applications!
    > >

    >
    > Agreed. But have you priced the mainboards for those puppies? I have.
    > It's a little faster than P4, but you need to pay about twice as much for
    > the mainboard. Not worth it, IMHO. Not at the moment, anyway. -Dave
    JK, Jul 28, 2004
    #12
  13. MS

    JK Guest

    "Dave C." wrote:

    > >
    > > AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Barton OEM (400Mhz FSB) (£90.16)
    > > AMD Athlon64 3000 64bit 754Pin CPU (£126.02)
    > > Intel Pentium 4 Northwood 2.8C Ghz 800Mhz (£108.32)
    > > Intel Pentium 4 2.8E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£114.40)
    > > Intel Pentium 4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£130.43)
    > >
    > > I have very little idea what the various merits are, the motherboard will
    > > be chosen when the chip has been decided on and I'll be buying 1 GB
    > > memory, along with a 200-250GB hard disk. I may do some mild CPU
    > > overclocking. The OS will be XP Pro. The most processor 'intensive tasks'
    > > will involve using video software.

    >
    > OK, you can rule out the Athlon XP (somewhat under-powered for video
    > software, compared to the others) and the Athlon64 (mainboards are much more
    > expensive for very little performance gain at the 3000 level).


    The motherboards are only a bit more than those for an Athlon XP. Check
    www.pricewatch.com. I noticed good Athlon 64 3000+ motherboard combos
    with cpu, motherboard, and heatsink for around $275 or so.

    > ANY of the
    > three P4 processors you listed would work GREAT!!! I'm a huge AMD fan and
    > normally try to steer away from Intel, but for what you want to do, the
    > three P4 processors will offer you overall best bang-for-buck AT THE MOMENT
    > when cost of motherboard is factored into the equation. You should look at
    > the amount of cache on each of the three P4 processors, and choose one with
    > 1M of level 2 cache, if possible. Please don't overclock your processor.
    > You won't notice a significant difference in performance, and you will
    > shorten the expected lifespan of your entire system. If you need a faster
    > system, buy it. -Dave
    JK, Jul 28, 2004
    #13
  14. MS

    JK Guest

    That leaves the Athlon 64!

    MS wrote:

    > Now I am confused!
    >
    > 2 'informative' responses from Dave C and Hamman apparently saying the
    > exact opposite of each other.
    >
    > Dave C says to rule out the Athlon XP for video software and to go for one
    > of the P4 CPUs preferably one with 1M of L2 cache, which this one has
    > 'Intel Pentium 4 2.8E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor' (the 3.0E Ghz version
    > of this processor also has 1ML2 but is OEM not retail boxed so doesn't
    > come with all the usual extras, heatsinks, etc, accordingly I'm ruling it
    > out, unless someone tells me a good reason not to).
    >
    > Hamman says to rule out the P4E cores (the 2 Dave suggests) straight away
    > as they have 'too many heat problems from what i've heard'. He suggests
    > the P4C if NOT doing media encoding, etc. (which I will be doing a lot of)
    > and if doing this then to go for the AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Barton preferably
    > with a nForce2 chipset on the motherboard and with PC3200 or higher ram.
    > BUT the Athlon XP is the CPU that Dave C rules out immediately for video
    > editing!
    >
    > Both guys sound like they know what they're talking about but they are
    > saying the exact opposite of each other!!
    >
    > !!!HELP!!!. ;-)
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > MS
    JK, Jul 28, 2004
    #14
  15. MS

    JK Guest

    The Athlon 64 is great with a 32 bit OS and 32 bit software.
    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2065&p=1

    patrick wrote:

    > MS wrote:
    > > Hi,
    > >
    > > Having done a bit of research, looked at what my supplier (who will do
    > > the actual system build) have available, and decided on my price range,
    > > I've narrowed down my choice of CPUs to the following 5:
    > >
    > > AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Barton OEM (400Mhz FSB) (£90.16)
    > > AMD Athlon64 3000 64bit 754Pin CPU (£126.02)
    > > Intel Pentium 4 Northwood 2.8C Ghz 800Mhz (£108.32)
    > > Intel Pentium 4 2.8E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£114.40)
    > > Intel Pentium 4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£130.43)
    > >
    > > I have very little idea what the various merits are, the motherboard
    > > will be chosen when the chip has been decided on and I'll be buying 1 GB
    > > memory, along with a 200-250GB hard disk. I may do some mild CPU
    > > overclocking. The OS will be XP Pro. The most processor 'intensive
    > > tasks' will involve using video software.
    > >
    > > It's tempting to assume the most expensive CPUs are the best but this is
    > > not always true. Of my choices the 2 most expensive are almost the same
    > > price:
    > >
    > > AMD Athlon64 3000 64bit 754Pin CPU (£126.02)
    > > Intel Pentium 4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£130.43)
    > >
    > > Which is better? What dis/ad-vantages would I get from the 64bit AMD
    > > Athalon, and will my choice in motherboard be limited cos of its 64bit
    > > architecture (and would compatible motherboards be very expensive?)?
    > >
    > > Any help making this tricky decision would be most appreciated.
    > >
    > > Thanks and regards,
    > >
    > > MS

    > Gaming? AMD might be best.
    > Graphics? AMD is the choice.
    >
    > Database Mgmt? Server? Perhaps the P4.
    >
    > I run 2 systems with XP, one with ME, and another 25 with GNU/Linux.
    > 9 of my systems are dual Pentium II/III. One is a Celeron 1.1Ghz
    > Compaq. The rest are AMD up to the AMD 2000+. I don't see any
    > difference in ymy file serving, other than that the GNU/Linux systems
    > are definitely best for network services, mail, filesharing!
    >
    > The 64 bit processors can run the 32bit OSes? What software is
    > available? Yes, it permits access to 16Gb of RAM. I have yet to use
    > more than 512Mb! 32bit processors can access up to 4 GB of RAM.
    >
    > I don't see any immediate urgency for home users to switch over to 64bit
    > processors. I am still waiting for the applications.
    >
    > BUT, when I do get a 64bit system, it will use the mature GNU/Linux
    > 64bit OS!
    JK, Jul 28, 2004
    #15
  16. MS

    Ben Pope Guest

    MS wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > Having done a bit of research, looked at what my supplier (who will do the
    > actual system build) have available, and decided on my price range, I've
    > narrowed down my choice of CPUs to the following 5:
    >
    > AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Barton OEM (400Mhz FSB) (£90.16)
    > AMD Athlon64 3000 64bit 754Pin CPU (£126.02)
    > Intel Pentium 4 Northwood 2.8C Ghz 800Mhz (£108.32)
    > Intel Pentium 4 2.8E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£114.40)
    > Intel Pentium 4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£130.43)
    >
    > I have very little idea what the various merits are, the motherboard will
    > be chosen when the chip has been decided on and I'll be buying 1 GB
    > memory, along with a 200-250GB hard disk. I may do some mild CPU
    > overclocking. The OS will be XP Pro. The most processor 'intensive tasks'
    > will involve using video software.


    Wow, well the "help" so far probably left you more confused than you
    started!

    Well assuming you can afford either of the most expensive 2 CPUs, I'll talk
    about those, as they are the best.

    http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=1956&p=16

    Thats the first page of a fairly rounded review which should include the
    important processors.

    I'd get the AMD64 - it's much better than the XP.

    However, you'll probably find that the P4 is a tad faster when encoding
    video. Generally chucking video around whilst you are sitting in front of
    it, you'll probably find them pretty close. I doubt you sit in front of the
    computer when encoding, so it won't make much difference (a few percent).

    Now, given the heat production of the P4 over the AMD (which is more than
    significant) I would go with the AMD. It should be generally about the same
    as the P4, beating in a few tasks, trailing it in a few others, including
    encoding.

    Of course, the AMD on nForce3 platform is much easier to overclock than the
    P4 due almost entirely to the heat situation, this shows that AMD core is in
    its infancy and has more headroom, whilst the P4 core is stretched to it's
    limit already.

    It seems that the socket situation is somewhat unstable right now, the 754
    is on it's way out, to be replaced by 939, but right now they're too
    expensive. The P4 socket is moving over to the questionable LGA-775 socket,
    a cost cutting move by Intel that, in my opinion, is not in the interest of
    consumers. (it's not a cost-cut for us, merely a cost-shift).

    939 on nForce3 250 is my favourite choice right now, when ignoring price!
    CPU (AMD Athlon 64 3500) is £250, mobo (Gigabyte GA-K8NSNXP) is £135
    including the VAT.

    If you were me, you'd get the Athlon 64 3000+ on nForce3 250 and be a very
    happy bunny!

    Oh, well, whichever CPU you go with, your choice of motherboard is limited!
    The nForce3 250 platform is in my opinion the best, that limits you even
    further, but there are certainly some good ones.

    Running a 32 OS and software on a 64bit AMD system is generally as
    compatible and faster than 32bit on 32bit (clock for clock).

    Ben
    --
    A7N8X FAQ: www.ben.pope.name/a7n8x_faq.html
    Questions by email will likely be ignored, please use the newsgroups.
    I'm not just a number. To many, I'm known as a String...
    Ben Pope, Jul 28, 2004
    #16
  17. MS

    Hamman Guest

    "MS" <matthews@mailsnare.---nojunktakeout---.net> wrote in message
    news:VPQNc.10153$3%...
    > Now I am confused!
    >
    > 2 'informative' responses from Dave C and Hamman apparently saying the
    > exact opposite of each other.
    >
    > Dave C says to rule out the Athlon XP for video software and to go for one
    > of the P4 CPUs preferably one with 1M of L2 cache, which this one has
    > 'Intel Pentium 4 2.8E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor' (the 3.0E Ghz version
    > of this processor also has 1ML2 but is OEM not retail boxed so doesn't
    > come with all the usual extras, heatsinks, etc, accordingly I'm ruling it
    > out, unless someone tells me a good reason not to).
    >
    > Hamman says to rule out the P4E cores (the 2 Dave suggests) straight away
    > as they have 'too many heat problems from what i've heard'. He suggests
    > the P4C if NOT doing media encoding, etc. (which I will be doing a lot of)
    > and if doing this then to go for the AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Barton preferably
    > with a nForce2 chipset on the motherboard and with PC3200 or higher ram.
    > BUT the Athlon XP is the CPU that Dave C rules out immediately for video
    > editing!
    >
    > Both guys sound like they know what they're talking about but they are
    > saying the exact opposite of each other!!
    >
    > !!!HELP!!!. ;-)
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > MS


    I think you read my post wrong... or i didnt make it clear.

    P4C = Video editing / encoding + database work
    AthXP = Gaming / General Desktop stuff

    hamman
    Hamman, Jul 28, 2004
    #17
  18. MS

    ~ Q ~ Guest

    Hamman - typed:
    > "MS" <matthews@mailsnare.---nojunktakeout---.net> wrote in message
    > news:VPQNc.10153$3%...
    >
    > I think you read my post wrong... or i didnt make it clear.
    >
    > P4C = Video editing / encoding + database work
    > AthXP = Gaming / General Desktop stuff
    >
    > hamman


    It was a typo :)

    "So that basically leaves us between the P4C 2.8 and the AthXP. If the
    system
    is for anything other than media encoding (video editing etc) or heavy
    database work (servers, SQL etc) then get the P4C; otherwise i would go
    for
    the AthXP 3200+."

    I've used both Intel & AMD & will choose either next time, according to
    which I consider better at the time of purchase. The problem with Intel
    is AMD is nearly always cheaper & unless one needs the fastest video
    editing, I doubt if AMD's performance in this respect is worse below the
    top-end models (price for price)which is the range most people will be
    looking at.

    Another problem for Intel is that they've stated that the P4 is more or
    less finished but AMD is just beginning with their S939. It does sound
    like Intel will be 1st to market with a dual core CPU but not for a
    while yet. At least Intel are getting some fairly serious competition -
    at the moment anyhow. I do wonder if Intel could just drop their prices
    enough to really hurt AMD once & for all - they might need to convince
    their shareholders though!

    Isn't it ironic that Intel (& HP) spent so much on R&D developing the
    Itanium - to be pipped to the post in the desktop market by their rival
    who also have a presence in the server market?
    --
    The map is not the territory
    ~ Q ~, Jul 28, 2004
    #18
  19. MS

    ~misfit~ Guest

    MS wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > Having done a bit of research, looked at what my supplier (who will
    > do the actual system build) have available, and decided on my price
    > range, I've narrowed down my choice of CPUs to the following 5:
    >
    > AMD Athlon XP 3200+ Barton OEM (400Mhz FSB) (£90.16)
    > AMD Athlon64 3000 64bit 754Pin CPU (£126.02)
    > Intel Pentium 4 Northwood 2.8C Ghz 800Mhz (£108.32)
    > Intel Pentium 4 2.8E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£114.40)
    > Intel Pentium 4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£130.43)
    >
    > I have very little idea what the various merits are, the motherboard
    > will
    > be chosen when the chip has been decided on and I'll be buying 1 GB
    > memory, along with a 200-250GB hard disk. I may do some mild CPU
    > overclocking. The OS will be XP Pro. The most processor 'intensive
    > tasks' will involve using video software.
    >
    > It's tempting to assume the most expensive CPUs are the best but this
    > is
    > not always true. Of my choices the 2 most expensive are almost the
    > same price:
    >
    > AMD Athlon64 3000 64bit 754Pin CPU (£126.02)
    > Intel Pentium 4 3.0E Ghz 800Mhz Prescott Processor (£130.43)
    >
    > Which is better? What dis/ad-vantages would I get from the 64bit AMD
    > Athalon, and will my choice in motherboard be limited cos of its 64bit
    > architecture (and would compatible motherboards be very expensive?)?
    >
    > Any help making this tricky decision would be most appreciated.
    >
    > Thanks and regards,


    Athlon 64.
    --
    ~misfit~
    ~misfit~, Jul 29, 2004
    #19
  20. MS

    ~misfit~ Guest

    Dave C. wrote:

    > Please don't overclock your
    > processor. You won't notice a significant difference in performance,
    > and you will shorten the expected lifespan of your entire system. If
    > you need a faster system, buy it. -Dave


    LOL. I have an XP1800+ (Original clock 1.53Ghz) that I am running at 2.1Ghz
    (200 x 10.5). Do I notice a significant difference in performance? Hell
    yes!! It performs and benchmarks like an XP2800+. Will it shorten the
    expected lifespan of my 'entire system'? Not before it's *waaay* obsolete,
    if then. I've just 'de-commisioned' a Celeron 600 that has been running at
    900Mhz for over four years because I wanted the case/PSU for another
    machine. It ran flawlessly the whole time, as did all the peripherals.

    If you know what you're doing then there is nothing wrong with overclocking
    with very little, if any, risk involved.
    --
    ~misfit~
    ~misfit~, Jul 29, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Serge Goyette
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    368
    Colon Terminus
    Jan 20, 2005
  2. Leo Chen
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    415
  3. MS

    What processor for system build?

    MS, Jul 28, 2004, in forum: Overclocking
    Replies:
    22
    Views:
    445
    johny
    Jul 30, 2004
  4. saro
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    313
    FreeRTOS.org
    Nov 29, 2007
  5. Don McKenzie

    How hard is to build a processor?

    Don McKenzie, Feb 25, 2010, in forum: Embedded
    Replies:
    49
    Views:
    866
    Jasen Betts
    Mar 10, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page