# AMD Athlon 64 vs Pentium 4???



## Hillian (Apr 12, 2004)

I'm not sure if this is located in the right area,so i do apologize if it's wrong. To start off I have a simple but yet complex question: which is better,the AMD athlon 64 or the pentium 4? Simple question huh? Ok i guess not because i've searched web wide to find this answer, every place giving me the same answer: it all depends on what the pc is gunna be used for. So with that in mind i say: an all around mix: gaming,net use,downloading files,multimedia uses,etc. Everyone says go with the amd athlon 64 for gaming and p4 for all casual use. Then again some people reccommend the intel pentium-d. I want this pc to last me a good 3+ years. Also my budget is only roughly $1500. This pc will be used during my college years. And also, does PCI Express beat out AGP cards? Basically whast the advantages of having an PCI Express pc. Should i also consider a pc with SLI? One last thing: p4 reaches up to like 3.x ghz and a amd athlon 64 only runs equivalent to a 2.x ghz..why?. With all that in mind what should i consider heavily upon when building my pc I trust the insight of people on here and appreciate all help.

After letting me know what i should go with, AMD Athlon 64 or Pentium 4, please suggest the pin(939,734,etc.). Thanks again!


----------



## Arcadion (Sep 2, 2004)

I know, why don't you check previous threads in the hardware forum and see what people have said the other one thousand times this question has been asked?


----------



## Hillian (Apr 12, 2004)

I've searched 16 pages of past hardware issues and serached using the search feature and i cant find much on the issue...if ya kow where it all is could ya maybe post the headings or w/e for me. PLEASE and THANK YOU!


----------



## Alex Ethridge (Apr 10, 2000)

Everyone has wide and varied opinions on a subject like this, It is sort of like asking which is better, Ford or Chevrolet. I don't know what kind of search you did; but, from what you wrote, I don't think you used this forum's *Search* feature above.

Click on *Search> Advance Search* and detail your search to fit your needs. I found several threads on the first page of my results by using "*Pentium Athlon*" and limiting my search to the Hardware forum only. You can also do an even more restrictive search if you limit your search *Keyword* to *Search Titles Only*.

My opinion: AMD is and always has been the better bang for the buck. McDonald's sells more hamburgers but they don't have the best hamburger; they have the best marketing system. Same with Intel.


----------



## brite750 (Mar 16, 2002)

Hillian said:


> I'm not sure if this is located in the right area,so i do apologize if it's wrong. To start off I have a simple but yet complex question: which is better,the AMD athlon 64 or the pentium 4? Simple question huh? Ok i guess not because i've searched web wide to find this answer, every place giving me the same answer: it all depends on what the pc is gunna be used for. So with that in mind i say: an all around mix: gaming,net use,downloading files,multimedia uses,etc. Everyone says go with the amd athlon 64 for gaming and p4 for all casual use. Then again some people reccommend the intel pentium-d. I want this pc to last me a good 3+ years. Also my budget is only roughly $1500. This pc will be used during my college years. And also, does PCI Express beat out AGP cards? Basically whast the advantages of having an PCI Express pc. Should i also consider a pc with SLI? One last thing: p4 reaches up to like 3.x ghz and a amd athlon 64 only runs equivalent to a 2.x ghz..why?. With all that in mind what should i consider heavily upon when building my pc I trust the insight of people on here and appreciate all help.
> 
> After letting me know what i should go with, AMD Athlon 64 or Pentium 4, please suggest the pin(939,734,etc.). Thanks again!


AMD is basically better, Ive been using AMD products since 95 for my home pcz, and have had similar Intel pcz at work, in all cases, my home pcz either matched or bettered the performance of my work pcz at about a 2/3rd of the price, there was never any issues with either cpu, both are quality products. Right now AMD chips are the fastest especially in multitasking applications. The reason why AMDs can run at less clock cycles and still match or exceed Intel is the magic of chip architecture, the simple answer is that AMD does twice the work of an Intel cpu for any given clock cycle, thats why you will see Intel fsb 800 and AMD fsb 400, the simple answer is if you see a Athlon 64 3500+, it is the same as a Intel 3.5 ghz, and beleive me they have been benchmarked to death to prove that concept. Gamers liked AMD for two basic things, they could be overclocked, and price, as an example my cpu Barton 2500+ could be oc'd to a 3200+ with a simple fsb change from 333 to 400, so you got a very fast cpu for very little $$$$, of course when you oc you have to watch your heat issues that arise, thats just physics, running them stock was no problem, this is where the myth about heat issues came from, is people oc'ing them, not any problem on AMD quality, etc.


----------



## Mulderator (Feb 20, 1999)

brite750 said:


> AMD is basically better, Ive been using AMD products since 95 for my home pcz, and have had similar Intel pcz at work, in all cases, my home pcz either matched or bettered the performance of my work pcz at about a 2/3rd of the price, there was never any issues with either cpu, both are quality products. *Right now AMD chips are the fastest especially in multitasking applications.* The reason why AMDs can run at less clock cycles and still match or exceed Intel is the magic of chip architecture, the simple answer is that AMD does twice the work of an Intel cpu for any given clock cycle, thats why you will see Intel fsb 800 and AMD fsb 400, the simple answer is if you see a Athlon 64 3500+, it is the same as a Intel 3.5 ghz, and beleive me they have been benchmarked to death to prove that concept. Gamers liked AMD for two basic things, they could be overclocked, and price, as an example my cpu Barton 2500+ could be oc'd to a 3200+ with a simple fsb change from 333 to 400, so you got a very fast cpu for very little $$$$, of course when you oc you have to watch your heat issues that arise, thats just physics, running them stock was no problem, this is where the myth about heat issues came from, is people oc'ing them, not any problem on AMD quality, etc.


The problem is you are talking oranges and apples unless you separate single and dual cores. The Pentium 4 D (dual core) is going to be faster at Multi-tasking than Athlon 64 3500+ and it is much cheaper than comparable dual core Athlons on the market right now. The user has answered his/her own question, really. If you want it for gaming, go with the Athlon, if you want to do video editing, go with the Pentium D dual core (I'm doing the latter because I want it for video editing). Right now, for the price, the best all around processor you can get IMO is a Pentium 4 dual core (you can get a 3.0 ghz for about $300). Also keep in mind that in the future games are going to be designed to take advantage of the dual core so 3 years from now, a dual core processor is going to be better for gaming than a single. If it were me, I'd go with a dual core. If price doesn't matter, than you can consider Athlon, but if you want to save significant dollars, you'd do with Pentium D. Consider the following, which is pretty much consistent with everything I've read :



> A very interesting set of comparisons. *The D's are so inexpensive and if only we could invent some software at Ignition that would exploit dual core, now that would be cool*
> 
> Because Intel is only shipping lower clocked dual core CPUs, Intel's chip prices are much lower - not to mention that Intel's manufacturing abilities far exceed those of AMD. Percentage-wise, the Pentium D 3.2 commands a high premium for that second core, but the prices are overall quite reasonable. *The fastest Pentium D is still cheaper than the slowest Athlon 64 X2 4200+, and the slowest Pentium D is ridiculously cheap compared to AMD's dual core offerings.*
> 
> AMD's answer to Intel's aggressive pricing is two-fold. Eventually, all of AMD's CPUs will be dual core, and thus, prices will be driven back down to single core levels. But for now, AMD feels confident enough that their single core CPUs are fast enough to compete with Intel's low clocked Pentium Ds. We put that exact thinking to the test in Part II of our Intel dual core preview and concluded that it really depends on what type of a user you are. *If you tend to multitask a lot or run a lot of multithreaded applications, then a slower Intel dual core is what you need; otherwise, a faster single core AMD is your best bet. *


As for PCI Express, everything is going to go that way just like we went to PCI from whatever the first slots were--I forget now.  So I'd say go with Express.


----------



## Couriant (Mar 26, 2002)

ISA Mulder


----------



## brite750 (Mar 16, 2002)

Mulder said:


> The problem is you are talking oranges and apples unless you separate single and dual cores. The Pentium 4 D (dual core) is going to be faster at Multi-tasking than Athlon 64 3500+ and it is much cheaper than comparable dual core Athlons on the market right now. The user has answered his/her own question, really. If you want it for gaming, go with the Athlon, if you want to do video editing, go with the Pentium D dual core (I'm doing the latter because I want it for video editing). Right now, for the price, the best all around processor you can get IMO is a Pentium 4 dual core (you can get a 3.0 ghz for about $300). Also keep in mind that in the future games are going to be designed to take advantage of the dual core so 3 years from now, a dual core processor is going to be better for gaming than a single. If it were me, I'd go with a dual core. If price doesn't matter, than you can consider Athlon, but if you want to save significant dollars, you'd do with Pentium D. Consider the following, which is pretty much consistent with everything I've read :
> 
> As for PCI Express, everything is going to go that way just like we went to PCI from whatever the first slots were--I forget now.  So I'd say go with Express.


Didnt even want to broach the dual processor issue, because of the price, poster's budget of $1500 is right on the border line, not knowing if this includes monitor, speakers, etc. If poster stuck with a $500 cpu level you might make it, but yes it might be something to consider. One note about the dual Intel is you will need a special mobo for it, where as the AMD X2 is a 939-pin and will work in most moboz with that socket. Keep in mind that many applications can not make use of the multi threading of dual processors however you can set it up in the TM such that you can run one program off of one cpu while the other does another task, which may matter to you.


----------



## Tapeuup (Apr 6, 2005)

Which is better Case or Buck! neither is better! AMD or Intel same outcome unless you ask the manufacturer. Buy what you want, you will be safe either way. I have both & blindfolded, I can't tell the difference, If your going to spend "money" go with dual-core.


----------



## brite750 (Mar 16, 2002)

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9584_22-5322290.html
http://www.tomshardware.com/cpu/20050714/

doing a google AMD vs Intel comes up with many articles, most seem to say AMD is king for the moment, with an increase in market share you have to think people are voting with their pocket books.


----------



## Tacocaster (Jul 10, 2003)

Hillian, excuse Arcadion, he's one of our more blunt posters here on the forums, but he's very informative. Anyways, go back in the hardware pages for about 10 pages or so. I know I've seen this post a couple times in the past two weeks, so those should be here. Also, the rig in my signature was running me around 1700 with an overpriced monitor. I would go with an AMD, like the above had said, AMDs are generally a better product.


----------



## Mulderator (Feb 20, 1999)

brite750 said:


> Didnt even want to broach the dual processor issue, because of the price, poster's budget of $1500 is right on the border line, not knowing if this includes monitor, speakers, etc. If poster stuck with a $500 cpu level you might make it, but yes it might be something to consider. One note about the dual Intel is you will need a special mobo for it, where as the AMD X2 is a 939-pin and will work in most moboz with that socket. Keep in mind that many applications can not make use of the multi threading of dual processors however you can set it up in the TM such that you can run one program off of one cpu while the other does another task, which may matter to you.


Well, I personally agree with you that Athlon is a better processor in general and if money were no object, I'd get me a $3,000 AMD Opteron with dual cores!  But at the moment, only the Pentium-Ds are reasonably priced and will fit in the user's budget. He either has to go with a single core Athlon or a dual core Pentium with that budget. Now you are correct that most programs don't take advantage of the dual core and therefore, Athlon's single would likely outperform the dual--especially in gaming. But I think in three years everything will be made to take advantage of dual core, so if it were me I'd go with the dual core, whether its Athlon or Pentium (but again, Athlon is way too expensive right now). Another option is to get an Athlon single now and upgrade to a dual core Athlon in a few years when the price comes way down. But as one user said above, you really can't go wrong with either of those processors (Athlon single core or Pentium D dual core) and the only real reason to choose between the two would be gaming (go with Athlon) or video editing (go with dual core).

Finally, what I've found is I end up simply making a new machine (like I'm doing now) rather than upgrading because the hard drives, the processors, the motherboards the video cards all change so dramatically that it you have to get all those new. So then its better to just use the old computer as a spare or give it to someone.


----------



## Mulderator (Feb 20, 1999)

Tidus4Yuna said:


> ISA Mulder


Thats it!!!


----------



## Mulderator (Feb 20, 1999)

brite750 said:


> One note about the dual Intel is you will need a special mobo for it,


That's true, but in two years, that MOBO will be standard and they'll be some new one on the market he'll have to buy!


----------



## Tapeuup (Apr 6, 2005)

Mulder said:


> but in two years, that MOBO will be standard


yeah, like quad-core.


----------



## brite750 (Mar 16, 2002)

[


Mulder said:


> (but again, Athlon is way too expensive right now). Another option is to get an Athlon single now and upgrade to a dual core Athlon in a few years when the price comes way down. But as one user said above, you really can't go wrong with either of those processors (Athlon single core or Pentium D dual core) and the only real reason to choose between the two would be gaming (go with Athlon) or video editing (go with dual core).


I think the lowest price AMD is like $550 right now, and the cheapest Intel like $250ish, but how much are the moboz? I know AMD will come down to compete with Intel thats for sure, I like your idea of going A64 now and 64-X2 latter with one mobo, when the dualies come down.


----------



## Hillian (Apr 12, 2004)

Thanks everyone i tihnk im gunna go with a (939-pin) AMD ATHLON64 3500+ CPU w/ HyperTransport Technology and the mobo ill use is the (Sckt939)GigaByte GA-K8NXP-SLI nForce4 SLI Chipset Dual PCIE MB w/Gb-LAN,USB2.0,IEEE-1394,&7.1Audio

do you think it'd be a good combo to use?

I also like the sli feature cuz im looking to put in two NVIDIA Geforce 6600 256MB 16X PCI EXPRESS VIDEO CARD(i know 6600 isnt best...but for the money it's good card)


I'm also putting a minimum of 1024 MB (512MBx2) PC3200 400MHz Dual Channel DDR MEMORY


for sound im not going all out: Creative Labs SB LIVE 24.bit 7.1


and my 2 hdd:Seagate 120GB 7200RPM Serial ATA 150 8MB Cache


----------



## MahaGamer (Jul 29, 2005)

about half a year ago, i recieved a AMD Athalon 3200+. i put it in my computer and saw dramatic results, considering i had a Intel celeron 2000. i would agree that AMD is better and if you want a new cpu AMD is the way to go... even tho it is a little pricy


----------



## brite750 (Mar 16, 2002)

Hillian said:


> Thanks everyone i tihnk im gunna go with a (939-pin) AMD ATHLON64 3500+ CPU w/ HyperTransport Technology and the mobo ill use is the (Sckt939)GigaByte GA-K8NXP-SLI nForce4 SLI Chipset Dual PCIE MB w/Gb-LAN,USB2.0,IEEE-1394,&7.1Audio
> 
> do you think it'd be a good combo to use?
> 
> ...


Sounds good, make sure you get a decent case and power supply


----------



## MahaGamer (Jul 29, 2005)

... and you would want at least 2 cooling fans!

those AMD chips are mighty hot!!!!!!


----------



## Hillian (Apr 12, 2004)

cpu cooling fans or case fans?and the power supply is a 500 watt alienware one


----------



## Trebuchet (Apr 5, 2005)

go with a 4000+ instead of the 3500+, the 4000+ costs just a bit more and equals the FX-53 in performance.


----------



## brite750 (Mar 16, 2002)

MahaGamer said:


> ... and you would want at least 2 cooling fans!
> 
> those AMD chips are mighty hot!!!!!!


AMD A64 typically use much less wattage than P4's because of lower clock cycles, so I do not totally believe this, wattage = heat.


----------



## chain_metal (Jul 22, 2005)

DRUGS ARE BAD


----------



## Hillian (Apr 12, 2004)

ok well thank you evveryone for your help!


----------



## MahaGamer (Jul 29, 2005)

well i usually run at 36-40*c while idle and at 42-45 while gaming


----------



## inuyasha320 (Jul 8, 2005)

to make it somple, for all you want to do, go with AMD you will happy you did.


----------

