Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Hardware and Software => Topic started by: Meatwad on July 17, 2004, 08:21:33 PM
-
What would be better for AH2, running an AMD athalon 2600 XP or a P4 2.6 ghz?
-
Both will do the job just fine. AMD would be the cheaper choice I think.
It's more important to have a great video card and plenty of RAM.
-
video and ram shouldnt be a problem. Athalon 2600 Xp equals to about 2.1 ghz, while the P4 is actually 2.6 ghz. seems to me that the P4 should outdo the athalon by a long shot. Thats what makes it hard to choose which one I wish to purchase.
-
Apples & oranges.
Start with tomshardware.com & do some research.
AMD's were kicking the crap out of faster intell systems where it counted.
-
Aples and Oranges..
The Athlon is faster than the intel at same frequenzy, thats why athlon markings shows a "compare" value.
So XP 2600 is only slightly slower than P4 2,6 GHz, like a P4 running on 2,5GHz maybe. But it runs at less frequenzy.
More important is that you get a Motherboard and plenty of fast RAM.
ciao schutt
-
Originally posted by Meatwad
video and ram shouldnt be a problem. Athalon 2600 Xp equals to about 2.1 ghz, while the P4 is actually 2.6 ghz. seems to me that the P4 should outdo the athalon by a long shot. Thats what makes it hard to choose which one I wish to purchase.
what is an athalon?
and so what about the ghz it doesnt mean ANYTHING in modern pcs, Intel devalued it for marketing purpuses and you seem to have fallen for it.
put it this way, my A64 2ghz totaly out classes a P4 3.2ghz. But little tommy going to pcworld will ask mummy and daddy for the p4 because its numbers (including the price) is bigger....
between the athlon 2600 xp and the p4 2600 i would say the p4 was slightly faster maybe? depends what core, is it a barton class XP or a tbred class XP?
-
This will help clear things up
http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=99359&referrerid=4291 (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=99359&referrerid=4291)
-
Speaking only for myself here, but:
Intel and AMD chips perform about the same, but Intel has consistently been more reliable for me in day-to-day use. All of my Intel PC's worked great for years; I never had an AMD box that wasn't a constant source of trouble. Intel in paticular seems more tolerant of temp changes and seems to tolerate higher room temps.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
Speaking only for myself here, but:
Intel and AMD chips perform about the same, but Intel has consistently been more reliable for me in day-to-day use. All of my Intel PC's worked great for years; I never had an AMD box that wasn't a constant source of trouble. Intel in paticular seems more tolerant of temp changes and seems to tolerate higher room temps.
J_A_B
yes, but... (theres always a but right?)
its kinda the other way around right now
you got the cool and fast Athlon 64 or the burning hot, unstable and slow (ok ok average) Intel Prescott.......hmm
-
Originally posted by Overlag
between the athlon 2600 xp and the p4 2600 i would say the p4 was slightly faster maybe? depends what core, is it a barton class XP or a tbred class XP?
A Tbred core will outperform a Barton core in a process intensive game like AH2, and either one will blow a p4 out of the water.
-
Originally posted by zmeg
A Tbred core will outperform a Barton core in a process intensive game like AH2, and either one will blow a p4 out of the water.
depends
right about the time of the P4 2400/2600/2800 Intel made 800mhz FSB with dual channel DDR and HT. Once that happened the performance lead changed back to them imo. You'd need to get a 2800 Barton to beat a 2600 P4 with a 800fsb and dual channel DDR But then with the price difference you can get the next model XP...... Sure XP's beat the 533fsb model P4s easy but not the 800mhz HT models.
Tbreds have less cache, but more mhz so yes, some games might be better on a tbred, but overall the barton would be a better buy.
-
It's mostly a bunch of hype. Who cares as long as todays games run on it. My P3 1gig was running everything pretty good, even got 25-60 fps in AH2 with it.
I bought a P4 2.8 Prescott (runs constant 35-38 celcius with stock cooler) and it runs everything great (Halo, Thief 3, NASCAR), getting 35-72 now in AH2, any more would just be a waste of money.
Maybe in a few years there might be games that need more power but that's the way it goes. Any computer is only good for a few years anyway imho.
-
the way it works is that Pentiums are built for clock speed, while AMDs are built for power.
Whats really amazing is that the equivelant to a 2.2Ghz P4 chip is an AMD 1.67Ghz chip. In my experiences, AMDs run cleaner, Pentiums are better to brag about, but if you want the raw performance and dont care about bragging rights, AMD is always the way to go.
I would say the AMD 2600 is faster than the P4 2.6. Much faster.
While it would run at a lower speed, it would run better and its been proven in every single test. AMD whips Pentium for gaming performance.
-
Originally posted by Jasta
I would say the AMD 2600 is faster than the P4 2.6. Much faster.
i am a AMD fan, i have a A64 3200, XP2500, XP2100 and a XP1800 running at home, my last Intel rig was a P3 500, but i just cannot agree with you that a AMD 2600 is faster than a P4 2.6 with 800mhz fsb, HT etc etc. AMD lost the lead right around the XP2500, and didnt regain it till the A64's came out. Even AMD know this, because the A64 3200 is 10% faster than the XP 3200 yet they are the same rating? :confused: Why? because the XP3200 shouldnt have had a 3200 rating, it should have had a 3000 rating etc etc........
-
The hertz speeds of CPUs is like (quite literary) the RPM of the CPU. And just like with engines, RPM is not equal to HP. The P4 got more revs, but the XP got a bigger displacement.
-
I have both XP Bartons and P4Cs in DIY computers and can say with certainty that a XP 2800+ is slower (comparing CPU scores on benchmarks like Aquamark3 and 3Dmark2003) than a P4C 2.8. This is true across the board comparing XPs to P4Cs. AMD wins handily when comparing the A64s to P4Cs or P4Es.
-
Check my sig, you can guess what I recommend :)
Plus comparing 2600XP and a P4 2.6, you forgot about price.
For the cost of P4 2.6 533Mhz you can get an 3200XP (400fsb) and still have change left over. Now try comparing the performance!
Or a P4 2.6 800 costs the same as an Athlon 64 2800, AMD still wins!.
So yup you can compare straight clockspeed/rating or more reastically compare the cost of a P4 vs Athlon and see how much more you get with an AMD.
An example would be the top end P4 3.4 800 2Mb EE (Emergency Edition) CPU against top end Athlon 64 FX 53. Not only is the FX53 approx $230 CHEAPER, in ALL gaming benchamrks it totally annihalates the P4.
My advice Meatwad is take whatever money you were thinking of getting a P4 with and get the same/slightly less priced Athlon, be it a 3200XP (400FSB) or a Athlon 64 2800.
P.S. after poo-pooing the Athlon 64 when it was 1st launched, Intel are now going to release their own (inferior by all I've read) 32/64 bit CPU.
-
In regard to the cost of the processor, for a truly equivalent comparison of cost you have to put a P4 2.8C up against a XP 3200+. The 3200+ runs $187 vs the P4 $182.
Motherboards:
For the XP: A7N8X-E Deluxe $94
For the P4: P4P800-E Deluxe $ 114
So yes, the AMD wins on cost but not by much.
I'll have to look into the A64 performance some more.
I'm comparing what I've got rather than the originally requested 2.6 vs 2600+ but the comparison should scale.
-
Check pricewatch, your AMD price is way to high.
Got the AMD 3200 (400fsb) for 124 (cheapest listed), closest P4 is 2.53GHz Prescott $129 (cheapest listed).
-
I run an older 266 mhz fsb asus with amd XP2600 chip, 1 meg of 266 mhz ram and a ATI 9800pro vcard and ah2 runs well with settings on the performance side of the sliders.