Author Topic: Athlon 64 and there Intel equivalent. (Read 557 times)

Kev367th · « **on:** December 07, 2004, 10:37:45 AM »

As it seems more people are getting Athlon 64's, if this trend continues any chance that at sometime in the future it could be ported over to 64 bit?

ALF · « **Reply #1 on:** December 07, 2004, 05:47:37 PM »

To answer the thread header....there is no Intel equvivalent...thats why gamers all get Athlons. Intel is still better at video encoding, but that lead is slimming down to obscurety. Right now, theres no compelling reason for 95% of computer users to go intel. I use many programs that run slightly faster on Intel, but they are programs that render or encode while Im AFK meanin I have to wait 23 instead of 19 minutes for something to render or encode...no skin off my nose....and the games run much faster than the Intel similarly priced counterpart.

Your body seems to be missing a subject:

Quote

As it seems more people are getting Athlon 64's, if this trend continues any chance that at sometime in the future it could be ported over to 64 bit

Ill assume you mean porting over AH2....and Im sure its possible...but thats years away in all likelyhood....you get an AMD64 cause its fast as crap at 32 bit.....64 bit wont be mainstream until current processors are paperweights.

Fruda · « **Reply #2 on:** December 07, 2004, 06:41:21 PM »

Actually, my P4 3.4 w/HT is a lot, and I do mean a lot faster than my A64 3200+. It's not just the 200+ mhz... It's the architecture.

However, I'm sure that the A64 FX's are a tad faster than what I have.

Kev367th · « **Reply #3 on:** December 07, 2004, 08:20:01 PM »

ALF - My bad explantion, by equivalent I mean Intels EM64T slated for release next year.
Of course by then Intel falls further behind because AMD are releasing their 'dual core' cpu's next year also.

Fruda - The FX line are more than tad faster, they are generally regarded as THE cpu to have for gaming.
Best P4/AMD comparisons should be done using price as a baseline. Eg the equavalent priced AMD for the cost of the P4. Then you realise for the same price you get a much better AMD processor.

whels · « **Reply #4 on:** December 07, 2004, 08:34:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Kev367th
ALF - My bad explantion, by equivalent I mean Intels EM64T slated for release next year.
Of course by then Intel falls further behind because AMD are releasing their 'dual core' cpu's next year also.

Fruda - The FX line are more than tad faster, they are generally regarded as THE cpu to have for gaming.
Best P4/AMD comparisons should be done using price as a baseline. Eg the equavalent priced AMD for the cost of the P4. Then you realise for the same price you get a much better AMD processor.

right, Intel still cannot compete vs AMD
Ghz vs GHz. if u put = speed cpus from each maker
vs each other Intel loses. Intel needs 1 to 1.5 more ghz
to be on par with a AMD.

Fruda · « **Reply #5 on:** December 08, 2004, 01:52:09 AM »

Yeah, I just looked at some benches on SharkyExtreme, and I must say that I agree with you.

However, this P4 3.4 that I just got is a whole lot faster than my A64 3200+ rig. Yes, it has new components, but it was the CPU power that got me. It's a lot faster than the 3200+ in my other PC, and it's not just the 200mhz boost.

Kaz · « **Reply #6 on:** December 08, 2004, 06:01:24 AM »

Something may be up with that, not saying you're wrong but I suspect there's some underlying reason why your new system is faster than the slightly older one.

whels · « **Reply #7 on:** December 08, 2004, 08:19:29 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Fruda
Yeah, I just looked at some benches on SharkyExtreme, and I must say that I agree with you.

However, this P4 3.4 that I just got is a whole lot faster than my A64 3200+ rig. Yes, it has new components, but it was the CPU power that got me. It's a lot faster than the 3200+ in my other PC, and it's not just the 200mhz boost.

well a P4 3.4ghz is = to a amd 3200 in rating but not mhz.
a AMD 3200 is only 2.2 ghz. did u use the same video card
and same amount ram.

the 2 comps should game about the same, given the rest
of system was the same.

Fruda · « **Reply #8 on:** December 09, 2004, 02:33:13 AM »

The CPU score is much higher on this PC than on my A64 machine.

If I were to put the same components on a different PC with this CPU (given that I also get an old mobo to support the older components as well as the P4), then it'd be a tad faster.

It has plenty to do with the cache size on this new CPU --- It's 1mb. I'm pretty sure my A64 3200+ is 512k.

Schutt · « **Reply #9 on:** December 09, 2004, 05:51:17 AM »

How do you compare AMD64 and intel P4 3.4 ?

A generic cpu score doesnt say much about the ah2 performance, i would love to see the diffrence these two processors have in ah2.
Anyway you can leak out more details on the performance comparison you make?
I had the impression amd64 3200 and P4 3.2 with up to date ram and equal graphic board would delvier about the same performance for AH2. Is P4 noticeable better?

Other than that i would like to know if anyone has an idea about a ah2 benchmark that gives you compareable results, i have usually jumping framerates from 20 to 75 and it is not possible to get compareable results that i know of.

Usually when in a furball with lots of frames, close to ground with an airfield on fire and smoke it goes lowest... but how can i achieve the same situation of this kind over and over?

Kev367th · « **Reply #10 on:** December 09, 2004, 06:05:58 AM »

Not sure about an AH2 benchmark.
But if you look at any benchmarks for gaming the top 4 or 5 CPUs are all one form of AMD64s, with the FX series taking the top 2 slots.
Check http://www.sharkyextreme.com/hardware/cpu/article.php/3261_3424131__7
The only Intel processor that gets a look in is the P4 3.4EE ($840), the top is the AMD FX55 ($820).
Bear in mind none of these benmarks use native 64 bit for the AMD processors.
My $265 dollar AMD 3500 beats the $820 P4 in most gaming tests.