Don't worry, I'm not going to start yet another one of these debates. I just have a few quick questions, that I'm hoping you can answer. I'm new to all this, so please go easy on me :O The thing is, I have a Pentium 4 3GHz processor on my desktop computer, but when I start my real estate studies next year, I need to sell this and buy a laptop. The choice is between a Pentium 4 515 2,93 GHz and an AMD Athlon 64 3200+, and what I want to know, is basically which one to choose? I know this has to with something about 64/32 bits, and that AMD name their processors after their respective performance, but all I want is to know if the 3200+ processor are as good as the 3GHz processor from Intel, even though the AMD processor run at far less GHz. Whatever, I'm not gonna elaborate any further as I'm what you guys would call a "n00b", so please just help me out
Yes, AMD processors perform much better than P4s even at a 1GHz+ descrepancy. Also, AMD64s use much less power and put off less heat than P4s, so they make very good mobile CPUs.
*agrees with Anti-Trend*, you will also be able to upgrade to a 64 bit OS if you choose the AMD & all new AMD's have "cool n quiet" tech which reduced power useage by upto 70% when you rcomputer is doing nothing [when you computer is idle]. AMD is the recomended choice in 99.9% of situations
Yeah go for AMD, they beat Intel at pretty much everything, although Intel does win in video encoding situations. AMD's basically do more work per cycle which is why they can be 'faster' than Intel with less clockspeed. :good:
Actually, it was the case in the past that P4's were better for video/audio encoding than AMD CPUs. Now however, Intel more often ties or loses by a small margin to newer AMD CPUs which cost less. That means I personally no longer recommend Intel CPUs for any reason.
Hehe, yeah - "Intel how the tables have turned!" *mwa ha ha ha* (evil laugh) Damn...I have an Intel CPU, but in my defense it was 2 years ago...when I was a n00b, and since then I haven't upgraded...:O
Well, before I stray off topic I will make a worthwhile statement. I would definately go with the AMD, but I have a suggestion. If you are not going to be doing any gaming on your laptop I would recommend getting something like an Averatec which is very small and VERY light. You can guess by the name that the performance is average but they are very, very portable. I would say this is your best bet for school work. But then the off-topic bit. As I said, at this point the AMD wins in anything, but this is most definately about to change. I see Intel making a large comeback in 2006. I think by 2007 Intel and AMD will be about equal. Intel has somepromising stuff and from what I've seen AMD doesn't have much of anything. But still, for the time being, go AMD.
Or VIA CPUs are extremely low heat and perform pretty well; great for laptops. Besides, gaming on a laptop is like towing with a motorcycle -- just because you can do it given enough cash and determination doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Well, the only gaming I'll be doing is Football Manager, and I guess you can play that on any computer. Although sufficient memory is probably a good thing. It's just that, seeing as I have a 3GHz CPU now, I don't want to go back to a 2GHz (or even less). But I've decided to go for the HP Pavilion with AMD Athlon 64 3200+ now. Anyways, thank you for your time
Intel quit working on workstation CPUs so they could focus on Mobile technology. They own the low-power cpu segment.
The Pentium M is a good CPU (see how I'm not saying Centrino), low power for its performance. But its strength only holds out for expensive laptops, and they're being recycled for the newer Yonah chips. I don't think Intel will be on equal terms with AMD for a long time in terms of having a CPU that beats AMDs offering on every level. They have their strengths, but their future offerings aren't that impressive. Yonah is good, but again thats mobility in mind. They have high end server CPUs but they're outclassed in performance per watt by the Opterons (which are being developed further by the way). Also Socket AM2 is on its way, for further developments. For the enthusiast and gaming market, AMD have it. The only thing they don't have a good grasp on is the mobile market. Some of you may not remember, but one time Waffles actually bought a P4 Prescott. *geeky laugh*
lol, i would cry and then cheer myslef up with a hammer, or some VERY EXTREME overlocking to finish off that cpu of yours
Well, hammering it or burning it would be a dumbass move. If I wanted to get rid of it I would sell it on ebay and get something more gratifying that bits of silicon and pins in my eyes. But anyways, that is my other computer, this one is a 3500+ (this is the one in my "My Computer"). But a computer with an Intel 3.2, 512 MB of RAM and an X300 SE is still worth keeping around, even if right now I only use it as a foot rest while doing homework. I would hook it up but both my monitors are connected to this, unless you count the monitor I have that was connected to a P1 rig.
Now, now don't cry. Nothing wrong with your pressy.... Is it an 800Mhz FSB one? with 1MB L2 cach? Is it? Then it is a fine CPU you've got there son. Now dry your tears and go clean-up your room! And stop letting those AMD bullies push you around... pffffff, kids!
Definately don't hammer it. You never know when you're heating system will break, if it does then just oc it by 10% and leave it somewhere low to heat the house.
now THAT is pwnage! (have a :simpson: Addis) but yeah, Just sit your computer by one of the radiators in your house, the heat will will spread through the house via the water pipes..... im guessing you should be able to keep every room at a cosy 25*C (77*F) in the winter months
I guess also the Chipset plays an important role for the performance of the processor, isn't it? But how exactly the Chipset enhaces this?
