Intel Pentium 6xx or AMD Athlon 64 skt 939 Winchester?

[connchri]

Hi All

Currently I have a 3200 Barton (well, 2500 oc'ed) and have decided to upgrade the whole lot of my PC. As in sell it off and build a new one from scratch.

The Question is, would I be better of getting the Winchester core 3000+ and try to overclock it to 250MHz FSB (1GHz HTB), or go for one of the new 6xx series P4's.

Please try not to be biased on this.

From what I gather, the only advantages from AMD's offering is about 10-15% faster gaming and lower heat production.

However, the new 64bit P4's (aka 6xx series) still have faster video encoding, and current benchmarks tend to show that they have a 10-15% speed advantage over similarly priced A64's in a 64bit enviroment (WinXP 64). Hyperthreading also shows a great increase in performance when doing two CPU intensive task's at the same time (about 60%). It also lso has DDR2 and SSE3 support.

The P4 offering will be about £50 more expensive, however. Which would be the better offering, the P4 or the A64?

I would also like to know, how many people have managed succesfully to get the FSB of the 3000+ Winchesters to 250MHz?

I admit, I am an AMD fan due to the "Bang for Buck", however, the 630 P4 is reasonably priced at about £130, and runs at 3.2GHz (could be 3GHz, can't quite remember) and gaming is not an essential issue. Intel has, in my opinion, catched up and probably just slightly surpassed AMD from a technological point of view.

I would greatly appriciate any help on this topic, but please be as open minded and non-biased as possible. I would like real world uses in mind here. Also, I'll be buying the cheapest varient of the choosen CPU.

Thanks for the help.

 

[mighty_chick]

get ready for the rush of AMD supporters who are blinded by the athlon64 processors and arent even gunna check out the 6xx series. your in for a shitstorm hope you got your umbrella. i dont know anything aboutt eh new 6xx series so ima going to keep my nose outta this

 

[jack22]

Ok, take this guy to guy. I, as you may have noticed, have an intel. I am still going to tell you to get AMD. You get more for your money which means you can go with a better chip. Second, intel does not lead in tests, hate to tell you. Third, AMD is a 64-bit proccessor and intel is only 'capable' if 64-bit 'processing'. Also, if you go with AMD, you can go SLI IF YOU WANT. AMD wins in everything but a small portion of video editing..very small. Intel is not a better multi-tasker, they are equal. Also, heat is a big issue. I saw it seemed like you brushed it off. If you get an Intel, you will have to buy a aftermarket HSF. With AMD, you can use the stock HSF and get better temps then a Intel guy with a aftermarket HSF. t also oepns the door for OC with a stock HSF.

So i hope you take this to be true as i have an Intel, yet are telling you to go AMD.

 

[connchri]

LOL!, Well. I suppose I'm just an open minded AMD fan.

Oh, another thing. Although the extra 1536KB of L2 cache on the P4 is probably regarded as a bit usless, I want to add that the PC I'm going to build hopefully will last at least two years. Perhaps by then, applications will favour the extra cache, especially as 64bit programs are few and far between as of right now.

I think Intel has actually just cut the mustard, but I need to seriously think about this, as it's my first intel system ever. (well, apart from second hand celerons, hardly something I should let give me an impression of Intel)

 

[connchri]

The Multi-tasking benchmark I am refering to is between two systems, almost identical exept the type of memory (DDR2 vs DDR), CPU and M/B. (A64 4000+ and P4 660)

The benchmark (real life) was when mp3 encoding and Half Life 2 were running simultaneaously. The Intel CPU did, infact and to my dissapointment, walk all over the Athlon. If memory serves, the intel had a FPS avarage of about 30FPS, while the Athlon was at a mear 10FPS.

Any other advantages from both CPUs were between 10-15% and victories was pretty much spread equally between both CPU's.

I also don't care too much about gaming. I am a casual gamer, and my low student income will not allow me to use SLI. I'll get a PCI-E GF6600GT. I find it a bit pointless getting anything more. I can just imagine what Radeon 9800XT and GF9950Ultra users feel right now as the GF6600GT is only £130-£160, and trounces both these cards, yet still no games running at normal resolutions and realistic AA and AF can tax the older cards to make them useless. I think it would be wiser upgrading on a year or two basis with midrange cards that also support the lastest standards once my card has proved itself usless for the job.

The fact that the AMD CPU is 64bit and the Intel 6xx series is only 64 supporting I find a bit confusing. I know there is only one difference between Intels 64bit instruction set and AMD's, and thats the way they address memory (Intel don't actually follow the exact x86_64 handbook here), but that only puts a limit on the ammount of memory addressable. I'll not be installing hugh amounts - 1GB is my target. At the end of the day, as long as it runs 64bit code and is future proof for the next couple of years, I'll be happy. Hence why SSE3 and hyperthreading (also 2MB L2 cache - see my last post regarding this) appeals to me.

Anyhow, I'm recieving you loud and clear as the lower heat and achievable overclockabilty does appeal to me.

Try to remember that I have to keep in mind of tomorrows larger and 64bit applications. I'm strugging to think of anything else to make me want to go for AMD. small speed differences are not important to me.

Is there any features of either CPU that I haven't taken into consideration yet?

Cheers for the feedback, remember the pole aswell at the top of the page. Thanks.

 

[jack22]

Well the 4000+ is 599 and the 660 is 630...so you could save some money. A 6600GT is great for games might i add. It is also up to you for what you want to do.

What exactly will you be doing on your computer? List the most intensive and th least intensive.

 

[connchri]

Probably the most intensive would be DVD encoding and a few games but won't be used the majority of the time (well, games depend on how bored I get, but by no means do I run out and buy the lastest games. StarCraft still keeps me happy for hours) .

The least - mostly rightups, web browsing, TV (it's gonna be running MCE2005) and music playback.

It's the future proofing I'm mostly bothered about. I tend to think that the low end of the most recent technological series of products provides a far better "bang for buck" than going for the latest and fastest of the same series of the same products as far as future proofing is concerned. Therefore I'll either be going for the Intel P4 630 (600, 610 or 620 if they exist) or the Athlon 3000+ Winchester core.

Once taking into account the different CPU's, M/B and memory, the price difference is about £50. I have some of the less imporant components already (Keyboard, mouse, DVD writer e.t.c.)

 

[jack22]

I say go with AMD sinceyou dont have a lot fo money and and you get the most out of it. Also it is a pure 64-bit processor so yoyu wont have to upgrade for years tocome.

 

[connchri]

Ok, but from a technological and overclocking point of view, what do these different CPU's offer. Please include things technical like the aformentioned cache sizes and instruction supports that I am not aware of. These are the things that will count most in future, not small speed differences, hence the GF6600GT, rather than ATI's offerings that can be modded.

I don't mind the £50 difference, It's the fact I can't afford £500 CPU's when they only supply 25% speed increases.

I probably will go the AMD route, but that'll leave ignorant of Intel systems.

i'm just pricing component right now.

Thanks for your feed back, it's greatly appriciated.

 

[jack22]

For OC, AMD is better when using fan cooling which i assum you will be doing. If you were to use a sub-sero cooler like a 'chiller'(see OCforums.com) tehn a intel is gbetter.

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/DevelopWithAMD/0,,30_2252_2353,00.html

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/DevelopWithAMD/0,,30_2252_893,00.html

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Processors/ProductInformation/0,,30_118_9485_9487^10272,00.html

http://www.amd.com/us-en/Weblets/0,,7832_11104_11105,00.html

Some useful likes about AMD^^

http://www.intel.com/technology/64bitextensions/index.htm

http://www.intel.com/products/processor/pentium4/index.htm

Useful links to Intel^^