I wouldn't exactly call these equivalent, since ones a 64bit processor and the others only 32.$395 Athlon 64 3400
$394 - Pentium 4 3.2GHz 800
Only a slight difference
I wouldn't exactly call these equivalent, since ones a 64bit processor and the others only 32.$395 Athlon 64 3400
$394 - Pentium 4 3.2GHz 800
Only a slight difference
Now, for those of us who aren't idiots:
From www.pricewatch.com:
COMPARABLE (32-bit) processors:
AMD XP 3200 (aka equivalent 3.2 GHz power): $240
Intel PIV 3.2 GHz: $394
As any sensible human can see, that's a difference of $154. Granted, my estimate was somewhat high... but holy $$$$. I'm not going to pay an extra $150 for the same bang... even if I have to buy a better fan than the retail version (only for OCing), I'm still ahead of the game.
OHHHHHH... look at that! My point is un-mooted! (or un-"mute"ed as you so intelligently pointed out)
And now I ask you to join ZerOrDie in the corner STFUing.
Last edited by ober; 01-20-2004 at 05:43 PM.
Well not really, an XP 3200 doesn't really run at 3.2GHz, more at about 2.2GHz (Or close to)... but yes your right, $240 for a 3200XP is an awesome deal when compared to the intel processor.Originally posted by ober5861
AMD XP 3200 (aka equivalent 3.2 GHz power): $240
Intel PIV 3.2 GHz: $394
Personally if I had the money, I'd get the athlon64 before touching that pentium 4.
Last edited by nickname_changed; 01-20-2004 at 05:54 PM.
You fail to mention that although the AMD runs at a lower clock speed, it is more efficient with its clock cycles so that a 2.2 ghz performs similarly to a 3.2 ghz P4.Originally posted by stovellp
Well not really, an XP 3200 doesn't really run at 3.2GHz, more at about 2.2GHz (Or close to)... but yes your right, $240 for a 3200XP is an awesome deal when compared to the intel processor.
Why do people hold so much loyalty to a brand name. Why no just buy what works better for your and laugh at those you feal spent 200 bucks more then you. if intel came out with a Low cost Efficent processor that did beat intel and cost the same , would you get it? or would you stick too your brand name, just beacause?
I'm on neither side but just a curiosty about why people act this way
Heh, both of my boxes run intels. I was just making a point.
Thats the best thing in this thread, it warrents quoting.Originally posted by Govtcheez
> PM a mod and they would glady remove this crudfest.
Sorry vasanth, I'm going to let this sit here, since ZerOrDie has so graciously taken this chance to remind us what a moron he is.
Umm... actually, I think I did mention that. That whole... (aka... equivalent) bit I put in there...yeah. That's why AMD switched to that naming convention. Intel had to ramp their clock speed up to make up for their pipe length which is at least twice that of AMD's.Originally posted by golfinguy4
You fail to mention that although the AMD runs at a lower clock speed, it is more efficient with its clock cycles so that a 2.2 ghz performs similarly to a 3.2 ghz P4.
Yet they still beat out AMD in performance/price ratios, what with a 2.4C at 160 dollars being pretty much guaranteed to overclock to 3.4-3.6 ghrz, while bartons are lucky to get 150-300 mhrz OC. the best thing AMD had going for it was its 1700+ tbred b, which for 50 dollars and w/ certain steppings, was able to approach 2.3 ghrz.Umm... actually, I think I did mention that. That whole... (aka... equivalent) bit I put in there...yeah. That's why AMD switched to that naming convention. Intel had to ramp their clock speed up to make up for their pipe length which is at least twice that of AMD's.
I personally own several AMD boxes, and several Intel boxes, and while I like both, there is a reason why I use Intel in my performance needed apps(photoshop,lightwave,games,etc.).
Bad move on their part, as one of the reasons people bought them alot was looking at the reviews stating a 1.4 ghrz amd beating a 2.2 ghrz p4, then they came along with that PR garbage, and so its comparing a 2200+ to a 2200mhrz p4 and there isnt a difference, so they lost their "edge".That's why AMD switched to that naming convention.
Last edited by EvBladeRunnervE; 01-21-2004 at 07:44 AM.
How many people do you know that OC? A handful? I doubt if it's that many. And I never said anything about OCing. I'm talking about average usage. And if you want to continue on that point, how many OCers are looking for an extra GHz??? I'm sure there are your NFS (if I may steal the term) freaks out there, but what do you need that kind of processing power for right now?Originally posted by EvBladeRunnervE
Yet they still beat out AMD in performance/price ratios, what with a 2.4C at 160 dollars being pretty much guaranteed to overclock to 3.4-3.6 ghrz, while bartons are lucky to get 150-300 mhrz OC. the best thing AMD had going for it was its 1700+ tbred b, which for 50 dollars and w/ certain steppings, was able to approach 2.3 ghrz.
As I said earlier in the thread... both processors are not optomized for the same thing.
I personally own several AMD boxes, and several Intel boxes, and while I like both, there is a reason why I use Intel in my performance needed apps(photoshop,lightwave,games,etc.).
You know that. I know that. The average user doesn't. When Joe Blow walks into a store and buys a processor... he's looking for similar numbers and then a better price. He doesn't care that one performs just as good with fewer cycles.
Bad move on their part, as one of the reasons people bought them alot was looking at the reviews stating a 1.4 ghrz amd beating a 2.2 ghrz p4, then they came along with that PR garbage, and so its comparing a 2200+ to a 2200mhrz p4 and there isnt a difference, so they lost their "edge".
What happened to students being poor? Buy the cheaper stuff, AMD is still really good, and it's obviously arguable which is actually faster/more stable/better to overclock/etc
I've had a 1.4GHz athlon for like, what, two years now, and it still does justice as far as I'm concerned.
it's called HL2, Doom3, SETI, and F@H.I'm sure there are your NFS (if I may steal the term) freaks out there, but what do you need that kind of processing power for right now?
I got news for ya pal... most people are going to be upgrading entire systems to play those games.
i went to SGI over the summer, and their processors don't even run faster than 700MHz, but they have some of the largest super computing systems in the world. I mention this, because SETI probably has a similar setup, and strive for maximum stability, not raw per processor speed.
im talking about SETI @ home, which is SETIs attempt to leech machine cycles off of people. and one SETI workbench takes 2 hours to complete even with top of the run computers, the reason SETI doesnt use the brand new computers is one stability like you said(but hell,NASA still uses 80386s for "stability"), and another because they have very poor funding..SETI probably has a similar setup, and strive for maximum stability, not raw per processor speed.
